The term “celebrity scientist”, as opposed to a famous scientist, is rarely used and almost oxymoronic. Notable scientists are often, and rightfully so, thought of as introverted, geek geniuses in a niche field, motivated internally to discover the secrets of the world, while celebrities, or at least the many that completely embody the word, can be thought of as professional narcissists that aspire to gain the approval and attention of as many people as possible. It’s pretty hard to imagine what an Issac Newton-Kanye West hybrid would be like. Despite the unfitting nature of the term, “celebrity scientist” can be used to describe Neil deGrasse Tyson, that is, only if the stigmatic connotations of the word “celebrity” can be overlooked. Tyson is very well known and famous, but unlike most celebrities, his motivation has always been pure and internal; he arrived at his celebrity status by being a driven student and researcher that’s eager to spread, and exceptional at communicating his knowledge of space and science. His motivation seems to have always been his passion for what he studies and making his learnings accessible to everyone. Because his academic background fuels his public discourse, the term “public intellectual” better describes him as it implies a better sense of his purpose and good intent than “celebrity”.
Public intellectuals belong to the “special class of academics and philosophically oriented writers who go outside their own disciplines to comment on social and political issues''(Mack). They are an important catalyst for the system of societal checks and balances necessary for the mobilization of thought and action. A public intellectual’s credibility is near unquestionable on topics related to their discipline of study which attracts a large following and leads to a lasting influence on the masses. Due to the continuous advancement of media technology, the playing field for public intellectuals is constantly changing, leaving many that are unable to adapt dissatisfied with their extent of influence. To cope with their shortcomings, they blame a mythical decline of intellectualism in America. In his Essay “The ‘Decline’ of the Public Intellectual?” Stephan Mack, an avid public intellectual and advanced writing professor at USC, debunks the myth of the decline of their influence on society in opposition to what “conventional” Public Intellectuals believe, noting:
The public intellectual function is criticism. And if intellectuals are in a better position to perform that function it’s not because they are uniquely blessed with wisdom—and it’s certainly not because they are uniquely equipped to wield social or political power. It is only because learning the processes of criticism and practicing them with some regularity are requisites for intellectual employment. It’s what we do at our day jobs(Mack).
The case of Neil deGrasse Tyson both validates and partially contradicts this statement; his process of criticism is becoming a figure that someone wouldn’t want to disagree with morally and logically, however, rather than criticize the people that oppose his ideas, he educates them in an unrhetorical manner. Unlike other well known public intellectuals with philosophical or law backgrounds, Tyson’s purpose is not to argue over subjective perspectives, but to teach and remind the public that proven science is the objective truth.
Tyson’s moral image and academic background are the foundation of his success as a public intellectual and entertainer. His life story is heartwarming, inspirational and central to his image, as he references it in many of his interviews, his TV show “The Cosmos”, and his autobiography The Sky Is Not the Limit. He was raised in the Bronx, a city boy obsessed with space and science. Before high school he used the money he made walking the dogs of families in his apartment building to buy telescopes and would stargaze every night. A driven student, he attended The Bronx High School of Science where he was able to focus his education on Astrophysics and take trips to Europe sponsored by scholarships to study ancient stone monuments that were built in alignment with the stars. He was a frequent visitor to the Hayden Planetarium, a massive science museum in New York City, which he is now the head of. While applying to colleges, he was invited to visit Cornell to see the astronomy lab by none other than his idol Carl Sagan, an astrophysics professor at Cornell and the 1980s version of a “celebrity scientist”. Carl Sagan wrote and hosted the original “The Cosmos” TV shows starting in 1980, where he’d make astronomy and astrophysics understandable to the average viewer. The inspiration and support Tyson received in his childhood fueled an impressive academic career. He studied physics at Harvard as an undergrad, then went on to receive a masters in philosophy and a PHD in astrophysics at Columbia. After years of research and lecturing at various universities, it was clear Tyson had something special. His passion for science and his ability to articulate abstract concepts was exceptional. In 2001 President Bush appointed him to a small commission to study and advise on the future of the aerospace industry, space exploration, and national security. He’s the author of various books that make advanced science graspable and interesting to readers such as Astrophysics For People In a Hurry.
By the early 2000s he became a household name in America as a very lovable figure; with a humble and pure beginning and the intention of making knowledge more accessible, it’s hard not to love this guy. Mix this with his empowering stature as a minority in his field of study and witty personality, people wanted to see more of him. Consequently, he was an excellent host of “The Cosmos” reboot starting in 2014, picking up where his inspiration Carl Sagan left off in making space and science interesting and fun. He’s adapted to the digital age in ways other public intellectuals have not through his YouTube podcast channel Startalk with nearly 2 million subscribers, his twitter with over 14 million followers. His huge social media following is a result of him understanding how to use each platform to a tee to discuss science related topics and comment on social issues. He also has a number of wholesome cameos on popular TV shows, podcasts, and cartoons such as “The Big Bang Theory”, “The Joe Rogan Experience”, “Gravity Falls”, and “Ice Age”. He’s even adapted to the age of clickbait on YouTube with comical thumbnails for his podcasts. Every time the world sees him, his image is unblemished and pure to the extent that people morally want to be on his side. By building his moral credibility and reminding the public that he’s a household name because of his academic credibility, his existence becomes rhetorical in the sense that his large following will always be on his side.
Although he is able to influence people’s opinions though credibility alone, Tyson’s greatest impact as a public intellectual doesn’t have much to do with arguing or criticizing. As someone who has practiced the scientific method his entire life, he’s lived by the principle that if something is scientifically proven it is the objective truth. In his words, “One of the most important points of science is it’s true whether you believe it or not”(Tyson). In many cases, this principle is faced with denial due to biases and the truth failing to align with what people want to believe. So while educating people on the astrophysics and astronomy he’s studied his entire life on his podcast and TV show, he’s also able to weigh in on political and cultural issues that involve people disagreeing with proven science. For example, when widespread conspiracy theories regarding the COVID-19 vaccine divided the nation, Tyson used his platforms to educate people on the proven science behind the vaccine and imply that they should have the common sense of understanding that a new vaccine for a dangerous new virus is a standard procedure. He used his podcast and social media to express his thoughts on the vaccine and the crisis that arose from people not trusting it, but his interaction was not exactly critical.
If someone feels something is true through whatever motive, it could be political, cultural, religious, economic. And they want it to be true, but you tell them it isn’t, one of the responses is they dig their heels in more deeply and double down on what isn’t true… So you have to allow them to arrive at the truth through their own pathways of thought… That’s the difference between lecturing you and communicating with you… A big part of my day is disentangling the mental roadways that lead people to thinking things that aren’t true(Tyson).
Tyson does not take the stance of the conventional public intellectual with a subjective argument that criticizes people. His intent is to understand why people don’t believe science and work around their biases to educate them and lead them away from beliefs that are detrimental to society. One could argue that Tyson has had a larger educational impact on the nation than any other individual through his time as a professor, popular TV appearances and podcast, various foundations, and being the head of one of the most renowned science museums in the country that inspires and educates visitors from around the world. He’s been the nation’s favorite science teacher for decades now, and he sometimes has to pull a group of students to the side and narrow the focus of his teaching to address them and make sure they don’t fall behind. And like any good teacher, he avoids a condescending tone and communicates his lesson rather than lecturing it.
Tyson does not fit the public intellectual qualification of having a function of criticism as outlined by Stephan Mack, however he is a perfect example of a public intellectual. Tyson is a loophole to this definition because science is the objective truth and any arguments against the truth just shouldn't exist. His goal isn’t for people to share his opinions, it is for people to put their opinions aside to believe what is real and known. He recognizes that using criticism to do this would be counterproductive, nobody wants to learn from a mean teacher. People would rather learn from an inspirational, well spoken, funny, featured on your favorite show saint that really knows his shit and takes the time to understand why people have beliefs that stand in the way of the truth. In the modern day, the subjective philosophical arguments made by philosophers cannot compete with the marketability of science when articulated well. Furthermore, objective science will need to be the focus of more public intellectuals as the world barrels into multiple climate crises; a lot of people aren’t going to want to believe the terrifying truths, so credible people will have to step up and lead people to acceptance and action.
Work Cited:
Mack, S. (2007, August 14). The "Decline" of Public Intellectuals? The New Democratic Review: The Public Intellectual Archives. Retrieved September 17, 2022, from http://www.stephenmack.com/blog/archives/the_public_intellectual/index.html
Neil Degrasse Tyson Profile. Profile - Neil deGrasse Tyson. (n.d.). Retrieved September 17, 2022, from https://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/about/profile.php
YouTube. (2020). Neil deGrasse Tyson on 'Cosmos', Carl Sagan and humanity's possible futures. YouTube. Retrieved September 17, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLrEs7k4Z-g.
Comentarios