Can anyone find any peer-reviewed, scientific papers that Dr Tyson has published in a major scientific journal? I'm not seeing any on Google Scholar. However, I get over 12,000 hits for Garry Nolan. I see one book listed for Tyson and that's it. Chat yielded much the same result.
Given that Dr Tyson often comments on the subject of UFOs/UAP while claiming to represent the position of science, it would be nice to know what science he has actually done. This came to my attention when Garry Nolan mentioned that Tyson doesn't really do science.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Neil-Tyson
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Neil+D.+Tyson&hl=en&as_sdt=0,44
69 Publications? Nice.
Edit: the 69 publications aren't 69 scientific papers, they appear to mostly be science education blurbs from articles & books he wrote.
Most of his “publications” are meant for the lay person, not the scientific community.
With a 10 second search I found...
"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 1996.
"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.
Probably more and a bunch of co-author on others, plus his books.
OP wasn't motivated to search for more than 10 seconds.
It would have been devastating to his post.
That guy was really motivated to spite-Google @op like just leave out the 10 second bit
He's mostly a science communicator. He'll point you to the papers that he has read and that he references and he's quick to name the names of real researchers. Very few Scientists/researchers would want to be public speakers.
Garry Nolan offers a lot of ideas with no real data behind them. So while Neil is referencing the findings of science as a whole, Garry is out here pushing his own ideas and not giving two shits that the vast majority of his peers disagree with him.
Garry Nolan is a bit of a maverick, and some people love a Maverick even if they are wrong and their claims are weak.
Scientists talk about statistical significance or the results of true experiments. Science communicators talk about "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
Extraordinary claims absolutely do require extraordinary proof though.
That's absolutely not true. Scientists set up experiments and test hypothesis. There is no bias. Try cracking open a methodology book.
It is. I can lead you to the scientific method but I can’t make you understand it.
Hasn't this question been asked recently? Or has it been posted to multiple forums?
Nolan is an immunologist, and yet he larps as an expert in any number of UFO-related fields outside of his wheelhouse. I don’t see how his number of publications is directly relevant to his expertise or lack thereof outside of immunology. And science isn’t a Mortal Kombat tournament in which two fight and one wins and moves on.
He literally missed every basic astrophysics question on Celebrity Jeopardy. It didn't make any sense given that he claims to be an astrophysicist.
To be fair, ‘simple questions’ can be difficult for experts because they understand all the nuances and there can be six ways to Sunday to answer them.
Not supporting or defending NDT. I was playing Disney themed jack trivia with friends, we did guys vs girls. 2 of the girls are Disney fanatics and can go into deep details about lore. The guys actually won because we didn't overthink/overanalyze the questions.
i can't stand that fuckin asswipe.
He's not that kind of scientist. Bill Nye hasn't published much either. He's definitely more focused on his education and work at the planetarium
Bill Nye does not have a PhD but does have a Bachelor of Science in mechanical engineering from Cornell University. Like Tyson, he's primarily a science educator and communicator.
Excuse me sir….
Bill has almost as many as ndt and he’s not even in the same field. Bill yes name is on all of the light sail publications
Bill Nye is an engineer. That does not mean he's not a good science educator, I'm just pointing out this isn't a fair comparison.
Edit: lol, freaking really? Down voted for pointing out he's an engineer and not a PhD scientist? This sub is so stupid sometimes. It's not weird or unusual for an engineer not to publish anything. 😂
Hello Observer_042! As per Rule 5, please ensure that you leave a comment on this submission summarizing why you think the link is relevant to the subreddit.
Your submission has been temporarily removed so a moderator can review it for approval. Please note that if you do not leave a comment, your submission may be removed.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
he's an entertainer, he's not really a practicing scientist and hasn't really ever been
He wrote a few sensible papers, but he found his niche (like Brian Cox) trying to explain abstract concepts to dummies...we need guys like that to keep the sciences feeling accessible when kids are picking subjects at school...
Too bad he makes false statements and doesn't bother learning the facts.
It appears the OP is spamming the related subs with this attempt to discredit.
Seems to be backfiring nicely.
Not many. He’s published fewer than the average grad student right out of grad school because he never continued to be a researcher and instead became a science entertainer. Yet, he will use his celebrity to trash lifelong academic who have spent their careers furthering research. Drives me batty.
Nothing I would read
[deleted]
I don't go on TV and pretend to be the fount of science.
Garry Nolan is the one who brought this up. I got 12,500 hits for him for published papers. He also claims 50 very high-tech patents. So, who is more qualified to speak as a scientist, Nolan or Tyson?
Lol yikes. Your filter needs cleaning
If you ask the scientific community, specifically astronomy, the answer is overwhelmingly Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Overwhelmingly. And he's not out here pretending, he's being a communicator. You are such a tacky person.
Well actually Neil is a joke when it comes to scientific research. See this discussion of him on the physics subreddit:
https://np.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/7p6ddh/ndt_on_zeno_effect_and_uncertainty_principle/
I'm with cantgetno197 -- Neil's brief and underwhelming career in research does not justify calling Neil and astrophysicist.
And he sucks as a communicator. The man has zero standards for rigor and accuracy. The man's pop science is riddled with glaring errors and outright falsehoods.
Nolan has had an actual career in research. I don't agree with him. I don't think our solar system has been visited by aliens. However it is accurate to see Tyson's body of research is not remotely comparable to Nolan's.