Since the OP contrasts his public relations skills, I assume the question in the OP is simply whether Tyson is considered a particularly bright scientist, and the answer to that seems to be no.
Almost everyone and their dogs on this board claims to have a genius-level IQ, so let’s not trot out “but it’s super duper rare!” now that it doesn’t serve your needs.
To really answer that question we’d need more posts from people who have a background in astrophysics. The question hasn’t really been answered so far. The OP could be answered in a few different ways, and so far people have mostly argued about whether you need to be a genius to get a doctorate in astrophysics. I will say that Tyson’s Wikipedia entry is mostly filled with information about his work as a museum director and TV presenter rather than his contributions to scientific research. But I think that brings up a related question: “So what?” Assume for a minute that he’s not the most distinguished astrophysicist in the world. Does that mean he shouldn’t be on TV or something? This kind of scientific purism crops up from time to time when science-based shows get discussed and it seems to me that these complaints are almost always brought by non-scientists. From what I’ve seen, people who work in the sciences understand that making these concepts fun and accessible is also important. The most brilliant astrophysicist in the world isn’t necessarily the best TV host, and little would be accomplished by putting a bad presenter on TV just because he has the best possible resume.
These two claims are not mutually exclusive even if they are both true.
Even if the guy hasn’t published a lick, in astrophysics or anywhere else, that doesn’t mean he isn’t a genius. I’m sure most of the Dopers who fart around here bragging about teh giftedness and 180 IQs haven’t been published either.
We don’t have any evidence of NDT’s genius. We do know that he’s got a great TV personality and he’s very charming. We can also guess that he’s a smart guy–smarter than most. I don’t know what we gain by trying to classify him and his abilities beyond that.
We really need a word that’s stronger than “genius”. NdGT is certainly well above average intelligence, and it’s quite plausible that his IQ is above whatever the threshold for “genius” is taken to be. He is not, however, in the same category as Nobel prize winners.
Which is fine. Sagan wasn’t in that category, either. But both Tyson and Sagan are very good popularizers of science, which is a job which requires some amount of smarts, but also very good people skills.
Carl Sagan was awesome and everything but he’s been sainted by virtue of dying. Let’s be honest; his was one of the most mocked voices of his era, considering how limited his viewership was. His voice was kind of funny, really, and his manner of delivery sounds quite a lot like Bill Nye The Science Guy if Bill took a Valium. There’s nothing WRONG with his voice but it’s an odd, not at all regal voice. Tyson’s voice is more impressive, really. He doesn’t have the weird little verbal habits Sagan did.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, if this “Cosmos” lasts, will be regarded in exactly the same way 30 years from now by children who watch him now as you regard Sagan today. He’ll be the voice who first delivered stunning, mind-blowing truths to them, and so that voice will be what they associate with the staggering and wonderful concepts “Cosmos” delivers. It’s not the voice, it’s the incredible message that voice is delivering.
He’s a large ham.
Maybe I’m back-lashing against his popularity, but:
To be honest it’s very difficult to find what exactly NdGT has contributed to his field. If you do a search on arXiv for his name, the result is hardly impressive and despite his massive profile it’s even harder getting hard information on his actual scientific work elsewhere.
As a communicator he does nothing for me, he seems filled with a bloated sense of pathos.
is NDT smarter then Einstein?
Calm down. FFS…
I have no idea of how he is seen as an astrophysicist. He has certainly taken a job with more PR and less original research. And remember Sagan got denied tenure at Harvard.
I don’t think he is in the exceptionally gifted category, since he is way too normal. But I think he does qualify as a genius - in the intelligence, not accomplishment definition. Look at how he out thinks Colbert - and that is not easy.
Accomplishments in astrophysics are not that important for him. Look at Isaac Asimov. Definitely a genius - in Mensa and everything. But he never did that much in biochemistry. If that was the only way you evaluated Asimov he’d be mediocre at best.
“He is currently the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the Rose Center for Earth and Space and a research associate in the department of astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History.”
That-- that sounds pretty impressive to me. I don’t think you get those posts unless you have some brains.
I don’t care if he’s a genius. He’s someone who is passionate about something I also feel is important. He’s inspiring. That makes me like him.
Yes. Being a “genius” is not THAT exceptional. It IS high, but it’s not THAT high. Quite a few geniuses post here.
Which is, of course, why they should have gotten Morgan Freeman to do it, but he’s already doing “Through the Wormhole” I guess. Scientific acumen doesn’t always translate into charisma and passion, which I think Sagan had in spades and Freeman can do simply by ordering Chinese carry-out.
I had a dog that was as smart as a monkey, but my current dogs are as dumb as chimps. Shit, even I am WAY smrterer than them.
A Sagan quote about intellegence, from a Smithsonian article about the opening of the Sagan archives at the Library of Congress:
The general public is under the impression that Neil Degrasse Tyson is one of the greatest minds of our generation and possibly of all time. But the general public would be very wrong. He is a science popularize who has never accomplished anything noteworthy in scientific research. He does have a PhD in astrophysics, but that’s where his Astrophysics credentials stop. He has never produced any distinguished research.
NDT is not a practicing astrophysicist. He spends all his time as a science popularizer.
Being a director of an agency involves zero actual scientific research. It’s just a bureaucratic position