I just finished reading this book by Neil Degrass Tyson which is described on his website as “…Tyson invites us to go behind the scenes of his public fame by unveiling his candid correspondence with people across the globe who have sought him out in search of answers. In this hand-picked collection of 101 letters, Tyson draws upon cosmic perspectives to address a vast array of questions about science, faith, philosophy, life, and of course, Pluto.”
It was fantastic.
Prior to hearing NGT on the DOAC podcast recently, I never really liked him. I have seen him as a guest on many TV shows over the years and always found him to come across as pompous, self-promoting and a bit too much of a performer for my liking. This podcast episode was different. I don’t know if the difference was due to the interviewer, Tyson or me. Regardless, I found the podcast episode so intriguing and thought-provoking that I wanted to learn more of his ideas. I decided to read some of his books.
He replied to letters from fans, critics, children, parents, scientists, religious believers, skeptics, geeks and peers. I found his tone to be respectful of others’ beliefs while also being firm in his commitment to evidence based reasoning, experimentation and scientific inquiry.
One of my biggest take-aways is that people who believe in religion, conspiracy theories, superstitions, traditions often retroactively cherry pick data to “prove” their religion, guru, god, or theory predicted some event that later occurred. They ignore any counter evidence, numerous failed predictions and the flawed methodology of knowing your desired endpoint and then only selecting for the data that leads to your predetermined endpoint. (Read the book. His real life examples are much clearer than my explanation here.)
I refer to this as predicting the past.
Tyson’s recommended method for proving the existence of God, a theory about predictions, creation vs. evolution and the 1000s of other questions we ponder boils down to the following:
- Create a hypothesis.
- Look at the evidence.
- Test the evidence and measure the results.
- Run more tests in which the tester/participant are neutral/unbiased and possibly unaware of the hypothesis altogether.
- Follow the evidence.
Although he’s an Astrophysicist and not a Behavioral Psychologist, many of his answers address human nature, behavior, beliefs and emotions because these all impact what we believe to be true.
I loved his no nonsense approach to science, life, beliefs and death. He got me to question some of my own deeply held beliefs too. I’m sure some of them will not stand up to the scrutiny of the scientific method. Some of overly simplistic. Others, biased. Others are based on my own unacknowledged superstitions.
He made me think.
It’s what I consider one of my highest compliments.
I plan to read more of his books.