Tyson, WTF?
Author: PhillyChief
So today The Exterminator sent out a link to us in the herd to an op-ed piece by Neil DeGrasse Tyson in the NYT. In case you don’t know, Neil is the Director of the Hayden Planetarium, host of Nova and rather charismatic and outspoken proponent on advancing science education and perhaps more importantly, instilling an appreciation and love of science and it’s inspirational awe. Knowing all that, this piece completely amazes me since it, in my opinion, completely undermines the public opinion of at least scientists and perhaps, by extension, science itself.
I have to say, this is pretty embarrassing for him. Seriously. He’s playing into that age old stereotype of the absent-minded professor, brilliant at what he does while inept at anything else. The blatant disregard for the variables of “the human condition” – bitterness of say a Clinton supporter skewing the poll results he’s working from, the unpredictability of what may happen between now and November to influence public opinion, and of course the complete lack of polling data from when there are JUST TWO OPTIONS – further bolster that ugly stereotype and the animosity towards scientists and intellectuals in general. Cold, calculating, and completely out of touch with humanity. Fucking great! Nice job there, Neil. To the comments…
Stick to astrophysics. it’s a long time until November.
— David Scott, Bethesda, MD…the math is only as good as our understanding of the underlying processes. Physicists may have a pretty good understanding of atoms, but they sure don’t understand people any better than anyone else.
— ZLN, ChicagoWhat I think you are missing is that both Obama and Clinton are included in the polls. When it is only McCain and Obama and people understand the true differences I believe they will choose Obama.
— MI Voter, East Lansing MIWhile Dr. DeGrasse Tyson is a very intelligent man and a commentator i enjoy reading and watching on television, his analysis here overlooks many important variables, not the least of which is that no matter how the poll questions are structured, the polling is still being done in the midst of a three-person, not a two-person race.
— David T., ChicagoWhat this complex mathematical calculations say about the delegate selection system is that the system is not based in astrophysics.
— MF, China…astronomy and the heavens are ruled by the laws of physics and mechanics; elections are not. Elections are ruled by chance events (9/11), emotions, hatreds, biases, prejudices and misinformation.
— GenotheGreat, Pictou, Nova ScotiaI don’t remember the former races having their supporters stating inanely that if their candidate didn’t win, they would vote for the other party out of spite. Most call that cutting off your nose to spite your face.
— Joe, Seabrook, SCDewey beats Truman.
— ray1, usa
This failure to grasp the human condition with its intangibles is certainly what the anti-science crowd always point to, which the religious take to another level by equating that to spirituality and souls and all that crap. This just feeds those ridiculous arguments of “there are limits to our senses…” which allow for faith in various woo, from religion to psychics, to seem justified. Limits to science, limits to what can be known through math and logic, limits of scientists to look into the heart, blah blah blah. Awful. Once again, nice work there, jackass.
Then of course let’s not forget the OTHER ugly opinion in this country, that those damn scientists have an agenda. What is it? Well that varies depending on which group you talk to but what all these haters of science and “elitist” intellectuals agree on is that agenda is evil and they’re sneaky in their ways to make it come about because, you know, they’re smart. You see this in the comments, too…
Mr. Tyson has taken a statistical model and spun its results in order to shill for his candidate.
— Chris, based in EstoniaWhew! Double talk worthy of the shameless Clintons!
— Leeza Coleman, ManhattanThis piece is intellectually dishonest, and therefore quite disappointing, particularly so because I “used” to like and respect Mr. Tyson.
— Richard, BrooklynIf this methodology truly produces such compelling results, why not offer some more concrete examples of how it would have worked in prior elections? Why publish this incredibly biased piece (Obama “can’t” win??) days after Obama clinched the nomination? Why not even mention shortcomings with this methodology/theory?
This is a shameful piece, incredibly biased, clearly erroneous, shamefully timed.
— Susan, Greenville, SCYou know what, I can probably come up with another system of prediction that will make Kermit the Frog the most likely candidate too.
— Jon, IL
And remember, these are commentators at the NYT! Imagine how this would play on a more mainstream site, where those so-called “low info” voters lurk. Yeah, I’m sure those comments would be priceless. But you know, even if this was just an opinion piece and not something cloaked in so-called statistical analysis, it still would be a failure and play to these conspiracy theory idiots because science and scientists should not be appearing to side with one politician, one political group, one political ideology over another. Science is supposed to be apolitical. How can you foster a love of science in those red states if you give it the appearance of being political? This was a bad, bad play by Tyson.
Atheist Spot
Well, Philly, you’ve set up a strawman by misinterpreting what Tyson wrote.
First of all, in the very first paragraph, he qualifies his conclusion by saying that the findings apply if the election were held today. He reiterates that later in the article.
He also says: This analysis does not predict what will happen in November. But it describes the present better than any other known method does. (The boldface is mine.)
I think he was mainly writing about a little-used statistical model, which appears to have an ironical result: (1) If the election were held today, Clinton would beat McCain, but McCain would beat Obama, and (2) Democrats have selected Obama regardless.
You may be right that his secret agenda was to proselytize — too late — for Clinton. But I think he was really writing about a few ramifications of analyzing scientific data.
First of all, there are many different ways to analyze that data and some ways are probably better than others. Hence his championing of the Gott-Colley method.
Second, at least one method of analyzing polls shows a marked difference between the way the candidates would fare — if the general election were held today — against McCain. This conflicts with the general belief that both Democrats (again, at the present time, only) are essentially even against McCain.
Third, people don’t always choose to follow their own best interests.
So in other words it’s one of those, “I’m not saying this is what will happen, but…” or “I’m not saying the Democrats have the wrong nominee, but…”? I’m sorry, but that comes off like one of those Fox News tricks where they just stick question marks on the ends of statements so they don’t get in trouble – ‘Obama, in league with Satan?’ Actually, in classic Fox News style, he states at the end:
“And what does it say of the Democratic delegate selection system when its winner would lose the presidency if an election were held today, yet its loser would win it?”
WTF?! Was that necessary for presenting and investigating a new way of interpreting poll data? Come on! If so, he really is an absent minded professor for not realizing what that statement implies on his part and furthermore, for not realizing that it’s a fucking mistake to get involved in a political discussion when you’re the face of popular science (well, maybe 2nd behind Bill Nye). Run, don’t walk away from that shit. You can’t taint science with being political. Why not give more credibility to the teach both sides bullshit?
I think you’re being surprisingly pollyEvo here.
Science will always be political as long as there are people who are unhappy with its effects. So that’s crap. You don’t think that most respectable scientists in the United States should be campaigining against the anti-science Republicans?
Look, I’m not saying that his article had no hidden agenda; it may well have had. But I’m not convinced that it did.
Taken on its face, it was a scientist’s remarking on an ironic fact. And, even though I’m overjoyed that Clinton will likely not be the nominee, I do think the statistical result is ironic.
That being said, I don’t necessarily agree with Tyson’s implied conclusion: namely, that Clinton, at this point, would be the stronger candidate. I think there are any number of factors that are not taken into account by the Galt-Colley model.
On the other hand, the article does point up something that every anti-McCain-er — probably the entire Herd and most of our readers — has to take into account: Democrats should not make the mistake of assuming that it’s a slam-dunk for Obama to beat McCain. The Democrats will have a tough fight in this election. They should take nothing for granted.
That’s a good lesson for those Pollyanna types who are already picturing the guy’s inauguration.
Taken on it’s face, the US invaded Iraq to get those WMDs.
Taken on it’s face, Trinity church dispensed all the funds they received from the Federal government charitably and without proselytizing.
Taken on it’s face, Fox News adds those question marks simply to explore possibilities.
The only “ironic fact” I see is seeing such a strong cynic and skeptic so willing to take this crap on it’s face. That’s comical. Furthermore, the “ironic fact” of Tyson’s piece ignores a lot of factors, which makes that “fact” thing pretty dubious.
Perhaps this new way of examining polls is a good one and if so, probably could become interesting say after the Conventions, but it’s silly now. There’s no sensible reason to bring it up now nor a sensible reason to bring it up in the way he did. Perhaps, if he REALLY was presenting this as a way we should be examining polls in the future, he could have tested the method against several past election seasons and their polling results. You know, apply a little scientific method, test the hypothesis and all that. On it’s face, a gaffe is a gaffe, but when it comes at a particular time, in a particular way, from a particularly bright guy, a gaffe looks quite different. I shouldn’t need to say that to YOU of all people.
As for suggesting I’m one of those thinking Obama will win in a landslide, you have me confused with that other guy.
It’s all about evidence.
Taken on it’s face, the US invaded Iraq to get those WMDs.
Nope: No evidence. In fact, the evidence contradicted that claim.
Taken on it’s face, Trinity church dispensed all the funds they received from the Federal government charitably and without proselytizing.
Nope: No evidence.
Taken on it’s face, Fox News adds those question marks simply to explore possibilities.
Nope: No evidence.
Bad analogies. Tyson provided evidence for his position, which, I’ll remind you, applied only to a specific point in time. You may not accept the evidence he supplied, but I do — until it’s refuted.
And, hey, I’m sorry if you thought I was implying that you were one of those happy-face Obama-landslide guys. I wasn’t. I said “those Pollyanna types.” If I’d meant you, I would have come right out and said it. You know that, so don’t be coy. In fact, I was referring, in part, to that other guy you linked to.
Thank you Ex for proving my point that taking things on it’s face is unwise. For instance, we took the WMDs excuse on its face and look how that turned out. In fact, there was so-called evidence given to support the notion of WMDs, but there was plenty of evidence and factors ignored by the administration when presenting their case, much like here with Tyson.
The problem isn’t so much with what he chose as evidence as much as what he chose to ignore, like the factors in play at the time when those polls were taken like Clinton supporter’s shenanigans when answering to give more credibility to Hillary’s tiresome argument that she has a better chance of winning against McCain, not to mention the most obvious factor of simply having three candidates to choose from influencing people’s answers. At best, that’s just gross ignorance of the human factors involved in polling results and at worst, willful omission of factors that undermine the “fact” he’s trying to present with the statistical analysis.
If the data system that Tyson is referring to were to show McCain as the winner 3 days prior to the election, then there would be reason for concern. To use ANY system to project a winner in June, with all of the undefinable contingencies that will come into play at various points in the process between now and Nov – is just plain dumb. And I love Tyson.