In a brisk seventy-five minutes, Neil deGrasse Tyson wasn’t able to cover all the biggest questions about the universe, as he does in his new book Cosmic Queries, or scores of popular topics that intrigue the public, as he does in Letters to an Astrophysicist, but nevertheless he did pretty well.
In his Skeptical Inquirer Presents online conversation on May 27, watched by about 1,400 registrants and hosted by comedian Leighann Lord, the noted astrophysicist and educator was in good form. He managed to tell us why he likes the old movie The Blob, why Star Wars fails science tests, why commercial space flight disappoints him, how humor helps get his pro-science messages across, and his thoughts about the skeptical movement he is part of—and the atheist movement he is not.
Which is better? Star Wars or Star Trek? Tyson acted as though the question were a joke. “Of course, Star Trek,” he said. That show made some attempt at scientific accuracy. Star Wars is a different matter. He recalled the famous bar scene in Star Wars, with a seeming great diversity of creatures from a variety of star systems. But they all have upright bodies, faces, noses, eyes, mouths—they’re all still a lot like us. It’s a failure of imagination. “Just think of the diversity of life on Earth,” he said. “When you have that reality on this planet and you go to another planet,” he paused, “I would expect higher creativity than what we saw in Star Wars.”
The Blob was better in that sense, he suggests. It is a 1958 movie starring Steve McQueen. “The Blob is transparent; it can flow through vents; it turns red when it globs onto victims.” That’s scary, Tyson notes. “And it’s a new life form.”
Commercial passenger spaceflight: He didn’t want to bash the current fledgling attempts to take passengers into “space,” but he wanted us to have some perspective. “We are delusional—that might be harsh—but we are duped by fifty years of space access that going into space means going 200 miles above Earth’s surface. That’s the distance from New York to Washington, D.C.”
Think about it, he said. On a standard school room globe, “It’s 3/8ths of an inch.” The whole system has told us that’s space, Tyson lamented.
He doesn’t even like the operational definition of space, which refers to the height (100 kilometers, or sixty-two miles) where there are so few air molecules above you that sunlight no longer scatters to illuminate the air.
“To me, space is going somewhere,” he said. “If you want to go somewhere—Moon, Mars—I’m all aboard.” Not literally, he quickly clarified. He wouldn’t be on the first new spaceships. “I’m not a first adopter with first rockets on first missions.”
Tyson lamented that textbooks can’t really show the scale of even our nearby part of the solar system. Their page size just doesn’t allow it. “[At the scale of] a school room globe of Earth, the Moon is thirty feet away. Texts can’t show that.” On the same scale, Mars is a mile away.
Occam’s Razor: At one point, host Lord interrupted to ask if Tyson would take a question. Although at first hesitant to stop their conversation, when Lord explained it came from a fourth-grade student, he agreed: “Okay, bring him on.” It was a long scientific question giving the young man’s complicated theory that he hoped might explain dark matter. Tyson joked that the boy’s parents should “look in the basement and see what this kid is doing!”
“It’s true that dark matter is probably a particle,” he answered, but the rest of the complications in the suggested theory may not be necessary. “Multiplicity ought not be posited without necessity.” He added with a smile, “Occam, original wording.” Tyson added that he was nine, about that boy’s age, when he first visited Hayden Planetarium, which he now directs. It was this visit that led to his lifelong interest in science.
Reality or simulation? Is our world real or, as some writers suggest, are we living in a simulation? Tyson gave this question a serious answer. “All evidence of science suggests it is not an illusion—that it is real, that it doesn’t rely on consciousness to measure,” he said. “The point is to remove the shortcoming of the human sensory situation. That’s why science didn’t take off till the invention of the microscope and telescope” and all the ensuing technologies to record and analyze data. “Reality has an independent existence separate from your ability to experience it.”
Humor and pop culture: “On [my podcast] StarTalk, a fundamental element is humor,” Tyson emphasized, “because people learn more when they’re smiling. They are happy.” He noted that he spends a lot of effort working in pop culture—for instance, cameo appearances in the movie Sharknado 6 (yes!) and the hit TV series The Big Bang Theory.
“To the extent I can bring science to pop culture, that helps to bring mainstream science to the masses. … I realize the value of it. It is serving the greater good and greater cause of science literacy in society.”
UFOs—Why are they so hot today? Tyson usually prefers to let his fellow skeptics deal with UFO questions, and this time was only a little different. “This audience is fully informed on this topic,” he said. He did note that “about six billion photos” are uploaded to the internet every day, much of it high-resolution color imagery. So if alien spacecraft were really buzzing about our skies, or landing and abducting people, we should have good photos. “We have cats falling off tables; you’d think a video of an alien would be better than that.”
Skepticism and atheism: Finally, given his audience this day, Tyson found himself negotiating some slightly tricky waters. At one point, host Lord commented drily, “Well, that’s not controversial!”
It started with this question from a viewer: “Why don’t you publicly label yourself as a skeptic?”
He quickly corrected the questioner. “I do label myself a skeptic. Oh, you mean an atheist.” Tyson is one of the best-known fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, publisher of the Skeptical Inquirer, and is also a strong supporter of the overall Center for Inquiry.
He said he maintains a small distance between himself and the skeptic’s movement. “Just a little distance.” He explained, “There are so many good people in the skeptic’s movement. I don’t need to be in the middle of that. There are so many tasks they do that I don’t need to do. I can write about astrophysics.”
This stance, he said, “allows space for people to shine. I don’t need to get in their way.” And he emphasized that the slight distance he maintains is “physical, not financial. CFI has received more of my donations than any other organization ever.”
Atheism is different for him, he said. Here he maintains more distance. He says when someone asks if he’s an atheist, “I generally say no,” although he does fit the definition. “The dictionary definition of atheist describes me,” he said. “But I also use words for a living. Words are shaped by the people who use the words. Some of the most visible atheists in the world today say things and behave in ways that I never have and never will.” He said he fears that “people will think I am like them, and I am not.”
He still uses “BC” and “AD,” not secular scholars’ “BCE” and “CE.” “It’s still the same thing. It’s still anchoring it to Jesus.” He spoke with admiration how the Gregorian calendar, in replacing the Julian calendar, neatly made a series of corrections to fit the length of the astronomical year. “The Gregorian calendar was brilliantly conceived by Jesuit priests, a very smart order. The Jesuits figured that out. They contributed brilliantly. So I am not going to wipe that out.”
“Two more examples,” he offered. His favorite musical is Jesus Christ Superstar (to which Leighann Lord expressed amazement, noting, “I don’t know how many atheists would say that.”)
“Godspeed” is a common signoff in spacecraft communications, and he has used that expression himself. Someone once complained to him that an atheist wouldn’t say Godspeed. “So I am behaving in ways that other atheists don’t want me to or different from what they think I should,” he said. “Godspeed has become a mantra for everyone going into space. But it’s now just a word, a gesture that’s used.” Think about the word Goodbye, he suggested. Everyone uses it. Its origin is “God be with you,” he noted. “Yet everyone says goodbye. So I deeply respect culture and how culture affects thought. So I simply say I’m agnostic … I don’t like labels. It’s a lazy way to not have a conversation. It converts to tribalism.”
As for skepticism, he considers it important but has some concerns about effectiveness. “We have more flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers than ever before.” Lord suggested that without the skeptics movement things might be even worse, and Tyson seemed to agree, noting, “I’m not in the trenches. … I’m watching from a distance.”
“The general skeptics movement—I am a little disappointed. There’s almost a certain posture of righteousness we all carry. A sense of intellectual superiority that oozes out the pores of informed skeptics.” Is that effective? he asked. “There is a gap between talking with each other and converting others.”
He urges skeptics and also atheists to “have some sensitivity.” If you have an encounter with someone who is a flat-earther or a believer in whatever, “that might be your only chance” to persuade them to a more realistic view.
“The Skeptical Inquirer is one of my favorite magazines,” he said. He noted with pride that he has every issue back to the beginning when (for the first three issues in 1977 and 1978) it was called The Zetetic. “Why does it not have a million subscribers?”
“I invest considerable time in how people think. What receptors they have for learning. If you go 90 percent of the way to them, you might have a chance. Go figure it out. Learn it, so that you can then get access to those receptors.”
“We’re all on the same side here,” he concluded. “We all want to move into a rational world. It’s an eternal battle but a battle worth fighting.”