Joe Rogan's biggest whoppers?

If you watch some Neil Tyson interviews you kind of realise he has no idea What he's talking about, he just mumbles and stumbles over some sciencey sounding words and says that's as simply as he can explains it

I have also suspected this is the truth. I wish I knew enough about astrophysics to know if he is a real physicist with significant publications. I think he's a physicist like Anthony Bourdain is a chef. Sure, they have the training and maybe they did it long ago, but these days they are just carefully cultivated entertainment personas.
 
“Scientist” has a definition and distinction understood to mean a specific thing in language. Tyson, as a PhD in Astrophysics, fits that definition soundly. It doesn’t matter what you consider him to be, you are wrong. Trying to change the definition of words to suit you doesn’t work.

He is an ex-scientist. a scientist is actively engaged in scientific research and publishing.

now days he is more of Public Relations Ambassador for scientific thought but he often comes off as smug or arrogant.

he is a smart, educated man who has become enabled by his own hubris.
 
"Cain Velasquez has world-class muay thai"
As a big muaythai fans this hurts. Do you think Joe understands what world class muaythai is? It shouldn't even be called world class. It should be called Thailand class. Most MMA fans cant even name the 5 current top fighters in muaythai at the highest of levels.
 
Any of the Ronda Rousey stuff really.

"Once ever in human history"

"A mythical creature"

"She could destroy Floyd Mayweather"

"Should could beat 50% of male UFC bantamweights, maybe more if her chin holds up"

"She looked like a World champion kickboxer" (after winning a windmilling battle with Bethe Correia)

"She could go into any sport she wanted and dominate - she could go into surfing and be the best ever surfer"

I'm sure there are plenty more I've forgotten about.
 
He is an ex-scientist. a scientist is actively engaged in scientific research and publishing.
Again, you’re changing the definition of the word to suit your aims.

Go read the definition. It’s easy.
 
Again, you’re changing the definition of the word to suit your aims.

Go read the definition. It’s easy.

"A scientist is a person engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge that describes and predicts the natural world. In a more restricted sense, a scientist may refer to an individual who uses the scientific method. "

Isaac Newton (1687, 1713, 1726). "[4] Rules for the study of natural philosophy", Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Third edition. The General Scholium containing the 4 rules follows Book 3, The System of the World. Reprinted on pages 794-796 of I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman's 1999 translation, University of California Press ISBN 0-520-08817-4, 974 pages.

he no longer acquires knowledge he distributes it.
 
Technology to fake? You mean filming video, broadcasting it, and putting text in the newspapers?

And keeping thousands of people quiet? Or simply misleading them into believing theyre contributing to something that isnt really happening?

Now im not saying they didnt land on the moon, i have no fuckin idea, but to say its easier to send 3 guys through space, land on the moon and drive around in a fucking moon car in 1969, and most importantly fly them all the way back, than to decieve company workers to believe theyre working on something that isnt real ( and there have been numerous social experiments wich did just that without any problem )... Certainly seems like a stupid thing to say.
You seem not to understand that the special effects for faking moon gravity, and even the unique lighting on the moon, didn’t really exist back then. There are all sorts of things that really couldn’t have been faked then.

And at absolute minimum, many dozens of people would’ve been involved. In a monumental, global lie. The notion that they could keep quiet is fucking insane. Sheer guilt would be immense - not to mention the immense self-interest of exposing the greatest fraud in all history. You’d become famous instantly, and well rewarded. Anybody in power would be mad to even think they could keep this a secret.

So nope. Tyson is *correct*. And your are not. Your understanding of the difficulty of faking the landing, versus the difficulty of going to the moon, is immensely flawed.
 
As someone who finds the conspiracy entertaining. It isn't anti-science based. It is based on the theory of making sure they beat the Russian space team by any means necessary.
Yes which helps the argument that we actually went there. The Russians would have called us on our shit so fast had we faked it.
 
If you watch some Neil Tyson interviews you kind of realise he has no idea What he's talking about, he just mumbles and stumbles over some sciencey sounding words and says that's as simply as he can explains it

<Oku02>

I dont consider him a scientist. He is a science popularizer. A charismatic TV persona with a science degree.

If he was a credible scientist whos popularity came from his research, im sure his best argument wouldnt be "but faking it would be 10 times harder than doing it".

<Oku02>

I have also suspected this is the truth. I wish I knew enough about astrophysics to know if he is a real physicist with significant publications. I think he's a physicist like Anthony Bourdain is a chef. Sure, they have the training and maybe they did it long ago, but these days they are just carefully cultivated entertainment personas.

<Oku02>

Come on guys, the answers are a google away

You can do this


BA in Physics (Harvard University) 1980
Master's Degree in Astronomy (University of Texas) 1983
Master's Degree in Astrophysics (Columbia University) 1989
Doctorate in Astrophysics (Columbia University) 1991
Post-Doctoral Research Associate (Princeton University) from 1991 to 1994
Appointed Director of Hayden Planetarium, 1996

Publications:
Merlin's Tour of the Universe (1989, 1998)
Universe Down to Earth (1994)
Just Visiting This Planet (1998)
One Universe: At Home in the Cosmos (2000)
Cosmic Horizons: Astronomy at the Cutting Edge (2000)

City of Stars: A New Yorker's Guide to the Cosmos
(2002)
My Favorite Universe (a 12-part lecture series) (2003)
Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution (2004)
The Sky Is Not the Limit: Adventures of an Urban Astrophysicist (2004)
Death By Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries (2007)
The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America's Favorite Planet (2009)
Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier (2012)
Welcome To The Universe: An Astrophysical Tour (2016)
Astrophysics For People In A Hurry (2017)

Research Publications:

"UVBY Photometry of Blue Stragglers in NGC 7789". Astronomical Journal (1985)
"Bursting Dwarf Galaxies: Implications for Luminosity Function, Space Density, and Cosmological Mass Density". Astrophysical Journal (1988)
"On the possibility of Gas-Rich Dwarf Galaxies in the Lyman-alpha Forest". Astrophysical Journal (1988)
"Radial Velocity Distribution and Line Strengths of 33 Carbon Stars in the Galactic Bulge". Astrophysical Journal (1991)
"An Exposure Guide for Taking Twilight Flatfields with Large Format CCDs". Astronomical Journal (1993)
"On the Possibility of a Major Impact on Uranus in the Past Century". Astronomy & Astrophysics (1993)
"The Expanding Photosphere Method Applied to SN1992am at cz = 14600 km/s". Astronomical Journal (1994)
"The Type Ia Supernova 1989B in NGC3627 (M66)". Astronomical Journal (1994)
"BVRI Light Curves For 29 Type Ia Supernovae". Astronomical Journal (1996)
"Optical light curves of the Type IA supernovae SN 1990N and 1991T". Astronomical Journal (1998)

"The Cosmic Evolution Survey (COSMOS): Overview". Astrophysical Journal Supplement (2007)
"COSMOS: Hubble Space Telescope Observations". Astrophysical Journal Supplement (2007)
"The Faint-End Slopes of Galaxy Luminosity Functions in the COSMOS Field". Astrophysical Journal (2008)


Considering his last two publications were 2016 and 2017 and he hasn't stepped down from Director of Hayden Planetarium, I'd say you're looking at a fairly active scientist and researcher in their field
 
"On the Possibility of a Major Impact on Uranus in the Past Century". Astronomy & Astrophysics (1993)

Neil even had time to make a joke about your mom in 1993
 
I love Rogan. Very intelligent guy and his podcast is great.

But everything he said about Ronda Rousey up to the Holm fight was nauseating garbage. Based on everything else I've seen from him I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was just being a company man.
 
tumblr_o0x4anfUf11ry1rm7o1_500.gif
 
Everytime he called himself a comedian

His standup is horrible. tbh I find him much more funny when just cracks jokes off the cuff on his podcast...though he doesn't set the bar very high with his standup
 
As recently as a couple weeks ago on his MMA podcast #2 with Schaub he was legitimately shocked to hear Cain wasn't ranked #1 HW contender.
 
Back
Top