This is ridiculous. They're claiming that merely associating himself with the government is a tacit support of Trump's attack on science. Bill is there to promote NASA's space exploration initiative.
If you withdraw from participating in the government for the mere reason that it's connected to Trump in general, you're not gonna push any of your agendas forward.
While I’d agree with you I’d submit that a lot of the science community has odd feelings about Bill Nye so I can see how that can exacerbate people into writing things like this. Maybe they wouldn’t normally believe that and would agree with you but this circumstance changed that. Idk
A bad advocate undoes the work of a good advocate. Bill Nye doesn't really use scientific methods. His last show was a mess, because he made assertions he didn't back up.
Bill Nye has done good work on the past, but he is undoing the work he has done lately.
Perfect is the enemy of good enough. We have congressional reps who proclaim there is no global warming because it still snows (while holding up a snowball on the floor of Congress). Again, every advocate is needed, even if they make mistakes (as we all do).
I agree with you on questioning Bill Nye's credential to become such a prominent science figure. But the article is just a ridiculous hit job trying to poison the scientific community.
Yeah I was really hoping for more, this is kind of a joke. For example at one point Nye was very anti-GMOs despite the science and ignoring the science is worthy of such a headline.
He wasn’t anti GMO he was saying that transgenics needs more study which might be correct.
We can’t feed the world without GMOs but splicing genes from cuttlefish into tomatoes to make them produce a specific protein might have some consequences down the line we aren’t aware of yet.
Not exactly the anti-GMO crowd pretty much muddled the distinction between Transgenics and GMOs.
On more “scientific” forums including popular science like Star Talk Nye always explained that it was Transgenics that he had concerns about and using GMOs when talking to a crowd which already decided that GMOs only applies to cucumbers which were spliced with chicken DNA was pretty much the only way to go.
the SOTU is simply a way for a President to campaign for himself. Always has been, always will be. I give Congress and the Supreme Court a pass because of their traditional role in being there. Everyone there who is not a government employee is there out of fealty, not obligation.
How is this an appropriate attitude to have? Not attacking you, but are you saying that NO scientist or "science guys" can try and influence politics right now just because there is someone in the office who, very obviously, doesn't understand science?
Edit: I believe if you want to change behavior, you model the behavior yourself. If you shut yourself out of the discussion, then so will others. You don't tell people how to fish, you show them how to fish. You don't tell people to learn science, you show them the science.
It's more of a PR issue. It seems the large community of scientists, disagree strongly with Trump's positions on nearly everything.
Bill Nye circumvents that community completely but yet still represents an entry point of science for many(most?) laypeople.
I don't think laypeople are nuanced enough to know that a "science guy" isn't a "scientist". So it's setting back scientists a little bit from a PR perspective by having this hack be seen publicly associating with the Trump administration.
He isn't just doing business with the government, talking with policy-makers, or showing up to make sure his side is represented. He's attending a formal event as the official guest of a partisan politician. They aren't there to talk or work or negotiate. They're there to appear. And Bill Nye has offered his appearance, his own personal halo, to an enemy of science and an enemy of many decent values that scientists hold dear.
If you want to consider this part of the long game of Bill Nye using his power in Washington, fine. What does this accomplish? It tells Republicans that they can buy anything from him if they offer him TV exposure. Don't you think if he cared a little bit less about his own celebrity he could have maybe done something good with it?
Demonization is when you generalize from some bad things a person does, such as trying to defund and suppress climate research, and attribute it to the person being an essentially bad person who naturally gravitates towards evil in everything. An example of demonization would be if I said Jim Bridenstine consistently works to suppress climate science, therefore he must like human suffering, hmmm, makes you wonder if he likes rape. That's demonization. Saying he's an enemy of climate science, and also that he has incorrectly cited science as proving that gay couples don't make good parents, and that I think these are horrible things, is not demonization.
As for ad hominem, talking about Bridenstine's politics is not an irrelevant aspect of the debate, like if I said he was stupid or a bad soccer player. In fact, they're the only thing that matters. Bill Nye is attending as Jim Bridenstine's formal guest to a government event, a gesture of personal support of Bridenstine in his capacity as a government official, so what Bridenstine does in that capacity is important for interpreting the meaning of Bill Nye's attendance.
He has a purpose in wanting to be there. They have a purpose in wanting to have him there. Both purposes will get served. Generally not equally. You have to look at the combination, and decide whether you like what happens overall.
Look, for example, at the example the offer gives where he debated a creationist. His purpose was to be able to present the science to people who normally reject it. Their purpose was to raise funds for a religious project. Both happened. But most third parties agree that his helping the Ark get built made a bigger difference than his getting a opportunity to present science to people who were unwilling to listen to him.
That was my first reaction too, but I think the authors make a good case that by attending with Rep. Bridenstine, Nye tacitly displays support for a right-wing anti-science agenda. If he went as a guest of Nancy Pelosi, say, it would send a very different message.
If I have dinner with a climate denier, does that make me one too? Or does it mean I just want to enjoy dinner with someone that happens to be a climate denier?
Since this is a 'signed editorial', with an identified author other than the editors or publisher of Scientific American, it's not fully or directly 'Scientific American' that's layering on the political-tribalism. It's common for publications to include such editorials that have no relation (or are even against) the 'house opinion'.
(It's somewhat confused further by the fact authorship is credited to an activist group named "500 Women Scientists".)
What "moral consequences"? Nye's stances on relevant issues are well-documented. They're not refuted by merely sitting in a chair next to someone else.
He's not 'lending' anything to anyone, except in the reaching imagination of those obsessed with wholly-symbolic rituals of association, distancing, and shunning.
If this appearance causes some to claim Nye supports Trump's agenda – they'll quickly be refuted with all Nye's writings and performances otherwise.
If this controversy wins Nye extra media appearances, he'll there again clearly articulate his own true views for anyone who might have been confused by the childlike, pre-modern, quasi-religious doctrine that "near contaminates near with idea cooties".
It sucks, but some people try to make the best out of a shit sandwich.
I understand if that seems like an untenable view for some with regards to this administration, but the alternative is often much worse.
For the record, I support Bill Nye's decision to do what Bill Nye thinks is best, concurrently with a first round voluntary layoffs that will assuredly affect me within the DOE.
Really sad to see the Scientific American to reach such a low point. The guilt by 3rd degree association is just shamefull and on par with the tactics of the Twitter hate mob.
I'm sorry, but I don't feel the tone of the letter represents how any compromise or progress can occur. If you are completely banned from associating in any way, shape, or form with someone who espouses views different from you, because of an accusation that by so doing you are tacitly endorsing those views, puts every single person and issue at an impasse.
If you ever want to affect change, you have to talk to and interact with people you don't agree with.
There may be other issues at play here, but accusing someone of endorsing all of the viewpoints of an administration when said person has expressly disavowed those viewpoints shouldn't be ignored. Bill Nye is trying to move forward one point (promoting NASA and space exploration), and I don't think he's in a position to also move forward every other political and social issue mentioned in the letter.
We can all do better, but I don't think we do better when we attack others.
This is batshit insane. Bill Nye is a darling of leftist pop culture. He is a vociferous opponent of anything or anyone even a hair to the right of center.
Trump derangement syndrome is so extreme that simply attending the SOTU is all it takes for Scientific American to completely turn on this guy.
People really need to take a deep breath and take a step back from the ledge. This is a childish embarrassment.
If his mere attendance demonstrates approval and acceptance of climate deniers etc., then every politician in the room that campaigns against these various platforms is equally in trouble. But this article only singles out one person, who is by his own admission only there to support NASA.
" Further, from his position of privilege and public popularity, Bill Nye is acting on the scientific community’s behalf, but without our approval." He hasn't been voted into any position, he's a private citizen who may go where he pleases without seeking or needing anyone else's approval. This article is trolling and seeks only to destroy character.
Bill Nye is showing he supports the current policies by appearing at a State of the Union with Republicans.
Bill Nye is choosing to work with those in power to try to have influence in the directions they choose to go. Elon Musk often argued this was his reasoning as well.
I personally think the first opinion is very sad & results in a country that is torn apart by conflicting ideas. I disagree with the article. We need more people who are willing to work with those who they strongly disagree with. Butting heads constantly seems pointless. Agree to disagree & find some common ground where you can make improvements, even if that means you disagree on 99.9999% of things. Start with the 0.0001% and then try to leverage that into getting the other side to agree with 1% of your ideas.
There is a third option: maybe he's going there to lay his case. And even a fourth option: maybe he wants to go to learn what the administration has to say in order to prepare to challenge it.
The author's claim is certainly not the case, as the very first episode of Bill Nye Saves the World shows. By accompanying "the other side" to the dance does not mean they will. MAYBE Nye is just going to hear and is perhaps intellectually curious about the claims to those of which he has challenged before. It does not mean he tacitly agrees. It does mean that the author has inferred that through some partisan "not like me" lens. This is terrible.
"Bill Nye does not speak for us or for the members of the scientific community who have to protect not only the integrity of their research, but also their basic right to do science."
This is a great example of how ideology eats itself.
What's frustrating here is the attitude that if you agree with (or work with) someone on some particular topic, then you are necessarily endorsing that person's views on EVERY topic. In other words, you should never associate with someone unless you agree with 100% of their views.
If we brought this attitude into our personal lives, it would make our interactions with family members and colleagues impossible! I disagree with Uncle Bob about X, so therefore it doesn't matter that we have Y in common; I have to condemn him completely. One of my co-workers has a different attitude towards business aspect X than me; therefore, we can't work together on business aspect Y.
Only associating with people whose views are in complete alignment with your own is a good way to become lonely, angry, and ineffective.
It's one thing to distance yourself from someone because you don't agree with them about supply side economics and another to distance yourself from someone because they demonize certain people and cultures.
There is s guy I consider a friend who couldn't be more opposite than I am. In a lot of ways he is a stereotypical Trump #MAGA guy and I'm definitely on the other end of the spectrum. He's retired ex-military, mid western, and my family is more stereotypical one of the NPR listening "cultural elites".
But, on the issues that would make me separate myself from him - if he were always making racist statements - he's definitely not that. He is White, married to a deaf Vietnamese lady who he loves dearly. Attends a predominately Black church and would give anyone the shirt off of his back.
I think the recent Volkswagen Emissions scandal have illustrated how, in the extreme case, it's actually pretty damn important to be in tune with the so called big picture of whatever institution or entity you're operating under.
Agreed. The letter suggests the authors have a tenuous grip at best on logic. Perhaps their scientific endeavours are circumspect as well? (See what I did there, authors?)
It depends. Does does he do more good by being there, to keep the doors open and to support some NASA programs? Or does he do more harm by allowing the ultra-conservatives to say, "hey, the science guy supports us?"
This extreme rhetoric only strengthens the right. By condemning Nye for debating creationists and being a “combative white nerd”, this article reads like the Onion. Attending this event may be bad idea, but with friends like these who needs enemies? Who wants to even try and take part in public life? The moment you stand up you’ll be marked next for the pillory. Do we really wonder why liberal democracy is collapsing?
It's funny, I find that this article clearly provides the counterpoint to its own argument.
If Bill Nye truly valued his own brand more than he valued scientific progress would he not have chosen to boycott the SOTU, disassociated himself from this administration's NASA, and written his own version of this exact article?
I understand that if your agenda is creating a fair immigration process or marriage equality or improving our public education system then you might decide that boycotting this administration is the best way to push that agenda... Since this administration is clearly not serving those interests... But, if your agenda is scientific progress or increasing mankind's presence in space then boycotting this administration probably isn't the best way to push that agenda. If anything, this clearly shows that that, more than the other things, is what Bill Nye cares about...
I think this is extreme, but I completely agree with it. This makes me an extremist, but that's okay because we're talking very extreme topics, namely, climate change.
I don't want Nye to be demonized, but unfortunately if you associate with an administration that denies climate change, these are the consequences; you'll be associated with climate change denial.
The takeaway from all of this, is Bill Nye understands these consequences and made the choice to attend the SOTU.
I agree with most of what is said in the other comments here. While I also thing that the article is really pushing it, it is true that Bill likely shouldn't be attending the State of the Union. The article is still likely a bit of an overreaction
The article starts by highlighting Bill's explicit statement that his presence “should not be … seen as an acceptance of the recent attacks on science and the scientific community.”
Then it says to ignore his _explicit_ rejection of the administration's actions and just accept that his presence is an _implicit_ endorsement.
Then it goes on to assert that Bill Nye's popularity damages the scientific community's image because he is a nerdy white man. Apparently he also shouldn't hold public, civil debates with anyone either.
The whole thing reads like a hit piece to me. I haven't heard of the 500 Women Scientists organization before, but this does not leave me with a good first impression.
This is absurd. Maybe the reason Nye has decided to accompany a man whose views are so different than his own (afaik, Nye himself is not a climate denier...) is because he believes space exploration and science is more important than political associations. Putting articles out like this undermines that and imo shows that the writers are far more interested in political virtue signalling than actually promoting science and research.
84 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 197 ms ] threadIf you withdraw from participating in the government for the mere reason that it's connected to Trump in general, you're not gonna push any of your agendas forward.
Bill Nye has done good work on the past, but he is undoing the work he has done lately.
We can’t feed the world without GMOs but splicing genes from cuttlefish into tomatoes to make them produce a specific protein might have some consequences down the line we aren’t aware of yet.
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/10/why_bill_nye_c...
On more “scientific” forums including popular science like Star Talk Nye always explained that it was Transgenics that he had concerns about and using GMOs when talking to a crowd which already decided that GMOs only applies to cucumbers which were spliced with chicken DNA was pretty much the only way to go.
https://youtu.be/6tn6ohImsZ0?t=2m45s
the SOTU is simply a way for a President to campaign for himself. Always has been, always will be. I give Congress and the Supreme Court a pass because of their traditional role in being there. Everyone there who is not a government employee is there out of fealty, not obligation.
By attending the SOTU, to laypeople it makes it look like scientists agree with the president's positions on climate change.
Unfortunately, I believe this demonization of Bill Nye is appropriate.
Edit: I believe if you want to change behavior, you model the behavior yourself. If you shut yourself out of the discussion, then so will others. You don't tell people how to fish, you show them how to fish. You don't tell people to learn science, you show them the science.
Bill Nye circumvents that community completely but yet still represents an entry point of science for many(most?) laypeople.
I don't think laypeople are nuanced enough to know that a "science guy" isn't a "scientist". So it's setting back scientists a little bit from a PR perspective by having this hack be seen publicly associating with the Trump administration.
If you want to consider this part of the long game of Bill Nye using his power in Washington, fine. What does this accomplish? It tells Republicans that they can buy anything from him if they offer him TV exposure. Don't you think if he cared a little bit less about his own celebrity he could have maybe done something good with it?
Elon Musk already learned that lesson.
It's one thing if you want to be critical of their ideas, but attack the ideas, stop attacking the people.
As for ad hominem, talking about Bridenstine's politics is not an irrelevant aspect of the debate, like if I said he was stupid or a bad soccer player. In fact, they're the only thing that matters. Bill Nye is attending as Jim Bridenstine's formal guest to a government event, a gesture of personal support of Bridenstine in his capacity as a government official, so what Bridenstine does in that capacity is important for interpreting the meaning of Bill Nye's attendance.
He has a purpose in wanting to be there. They have a purpose in wanting to have him there. Both purposes will get served. Generally not equally. You have to look at the combination, and decide whether you like what happens overall.
Look, for example, at the example the offer gives where he debated a creationist. His purpose was to be able to present the science to people who normally reject it. Their purpose was to raise funds for a religious project. Both happened. But most third parties agree that his helping the Ark get built made a bigger difference than his getting a opportunity to present science to people who were unwilling to listen to him.
(It's somewhat confused further by the fact authorship is credited to an activist group named "500 Women Scientists".)
There is real impact in lending your image and accrued credibility and reputation: your social capital.
The associative mind associates; semantics are an afterthought.
Providing for the association is a act with moral consequences, intended or unwitting.
Nye should know better.
He's not 'lending' anything to anyone, except in the reaching imagination of those obsessed with wholly-symbolic rituals of association, distancing, and shunning.
If this appearance causes some to claim Nye supports Trump's agenda – they'll quickly be refuted with all Nye's writings and performances otherwise.
If this controversy wins Nye extra media appearances, he'll there again clearly articulate his own true views for anyone who might have been confused by the childlike, pre-modern, quasi-religious doctrine that "near contaminates near with idea cooties".
I understand if that seems like an untenable view for some with regards to this administration, but the alternative is often much worse.
For the record, I support Bill Nye's decision to do what Bill Nye thinks is best, concurrently with a first round voluntary layoffs that will assuredly affect me within the DOE.
If you ever want to affect change, you have to talk to and interact with people you don't agree with.
There may be other issues at play here, but accusing someone of endorsing all of the viewpoints of an administration when said person has expressly disavowed those viewpoints shouldn't be ignored. Bill Nye is trying to move forward one point (promoting NASA and space exploration), and I don't think he's in a position to also move forward every other political and social issue mentioned in the letter.
We can all do better, but I don't think we do better when we attack others.
Trump derangement syndrome is so extreme that simply attending the SOTU is all it takes for Scientific American to completely turn on this guy.
People really need to take a deep breath and take a step back from the ledge. This is a childish embarrassment.
" Further, from his position of privilege and public popularity, Bill Nye is acting on the scientific community’s behalf, but without our approval." He hasn't been voted into any position, he's a private citizen who may go where he pleases without seeking or needing anyone else's approval. This article is trolling and seeks only to destroy character.
Bill Nye is showing he supports the current policies by appearing at a State of the Union with Republicans.
Bill Nye is choosing to work with those in power to try to have influence in the directions they choose to go. Elon Musk often argued this was his reasoning as well.
I personally think the first opinion is very sad & results in a country that is torn apart by conflicting ideas. I disagree with the article. We need more people who are willing to work with those who they strongly disagree with. Butting heads constantly seems pointless. Agree to disagree & find some common ground where you can make improvements, even if that means you disagree on 99.9999% of things. Start with the 0.0001% and then try to leverage that into getting the other side to agree with 1% of your ideas.
The author's claim is certainly not the case, as the very first episode of Bill Nye Saves the World shows. By accompanying "the other side" to the dance does not mean they will. MAYBE Nye is just going to hear and is perhaps intellectually curious about the claims to those of which he has challenged before. It does not mean he tacitly agrees. It does mean that the author has inferred that through some partisan "not like me" lens. This is terrible.
"Bill Nye does not speak for us or for the members of the scientific community who have to protect not only the integrity of their research, but also their basic right to do science."
This is a great example of how ideology eats itself.
If we brought this attitude into our personal lives, it would make our interactions with family members and colleagues impossible! I disagree with Uncle Bob about X, so therefore it doesn't matter that we have Y in common; I have to condemn him completely. One of my co-workers has a different attitude towards business aspect X than me; therefore, we can't work together on business aspect Y.
Only associating with people whose views are in complete alignment with your own is a good way to become lonely, angry, and ineffective.
Ironically, it’s exactly what the current White House does.
edit: I’ve been rate limited (I have no idea why!), but I was going to reply that I didn’t think this was a good thing.
There is s guy I consider a friend who couldn't be more opposite than I am. In a lot of ways he is a stereotypical Trump #MAGA guy and I'm definitely on the other end of the spectrum. He's retired ex-military, mid western, and my family is more stereotypical one of the NPR listening "cultural elites".
But, on the issues that would make me separate myself from him - if he were always making racist statements - he's definitely not that. He is White, married to a deaf Vietnamese lady who he loves dearly. Attends a predominately Black church and would give anyone the shirt off of his back.
If Bill Nye truly valued his own brand more than he valued scientific progress would he not have chosen to boycott the SOTU, disassociated himself from this administration's NASA, and written his own version of this exact article?
I understand that if your agenda is creating a fair immigration process or marriage equality or improving our public education system then you might decide that boycotting this administration is the best way to push that agenda... Since this administration is clearly not serving those interests... But, if your agenda is scientific progress or increasing mankind's presence in space then boycotting this administration probably isn't the best way to push that agenda. If anything, this clearly shows that that, more than the other things, is what Bill Nye cares about...
I don't want Nye to be demonized, but unfortunately if you associate with an administration that denies climate change, these are the consequences; you'll be associated with climate change denial.
The takeaway from all of this, is Bill Nye understands these consequences and made the choice to attend the SOTU.
So be it.
Then it says to ignore his _explicit_ rejection of the administration's actions and just accept that his presence is an _implicit_ endorsement.
Then it goes on to assert that Bill Nye's popularity damages the scientific community's image because he is a nerdy white man. Apparently he also shouldn't hold public, civil debates with anyone either.
The whole thing reads like a hit piece to me. I haven't heard of the 500 Women Scientists organization before, but this does not leave me with a good first impression.