In February 2012, Tyson released his tenth book, containing every thought he has ever had on the past, present, and future of space exploration: Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier. Tyson is also arguably the G.O.A.T when it comes to reducing complex scientific or mathematical issues to terms that "lay" individuals can understand. But I question his assertion that scientific principals can be easily applied to research in psychology, sociology or anthropology, thus making obvious what should be the "rational" decisions in these areas. Often, empirical studies in these fields can only go so far without confirmation bias and other systemic problems creeping in. Es un ensayo en el que toca temas como belleza, racismo, homofobia, poder, cuerpo, mente, etc. y da una mirada más científica del tema en cuestión y, además, su propia opinión. Pensé que me daría más ciencia, más explicaciones o cosas por el estilo, pero no fue así. Lo que más hizo fue usar experimentos mentales para probar sus puntos, lo que estuvo bien aunque me hubiese gustado más. My favorite part of Starry Messenger: Cosmic Perspectives on Civilization was the section about intelligent life in the universe, and why we think we'd ever be able to communicate with them. It all starts right here at home.

As I was reading this, I didn't expect to learn anything new, but that wasn't really the point. Even the title hints at its true purpose: to inspire awe. And just for fun, because he’s accumulated enough gravitas that he can, Dr. Tyson with his approach to find common grounds and reason and to build bridges may just have pissed off every group we can think of:There is a chapter on vegans/vegetarians which I loved and realize much of it was tongue-in-cheek. However, I want to point out though that some of us vegans do worry about the plant life we kill and consume, wondering if one day we will learn that plants have consciousness and the ability to feel pain. That worries me a lot, perhaps more than it should.

The world in 1930 would be unrecognizable to people transported from the year 1900; the world in 1960 would be unrecognizable to people transported from the year 1930; and so on. And it's impossible to know what the world will be like in 2050. Objective truths of science are not founded in belief systems. They are not established by the authority of leaders or the power of persuasion, nor are they learned from repetition, or gleaned from magical thinking.”First off, I won’t this in a goodreads giveaway. Thank you Henry Holt & Co. and Penguin Random House. The real problem arises when the sense of superiority applies not to an individual....but to an entire demographic. This can lead to war, genocide, and other atrocities. Tyson notes that fields of study like mathematics and physical sciences resist human bias, so are less susceptible to feelings of superiority. Tyson admits the researchers themselves can be racist, sexist, misanthropes. However, the scientists' prejudices won't be in textbooks, because published results MUST be reproducible to be considered valid. For five seasons, beginning in the fall of 2006, Tyson appeared as the on-camera host of PBS NOVA’s spinoff program NOVA ScienceNOW, which is an accessible look at the frontier of all the science that shapes the understanding of our place in the universe. Here's an example I'm familiar with: Are there health benefits to having pets in your home? Hard one to measure given confounds too extensive to list here, on top of which the researcher typically loves companion animals, as do the pet-owner participants in the study. It's easier to approach the question differently by evaluating the effects of interactions with pets under controlled circumstances (visits to residential facilities, e.g.) but even so, such studies are challenging to replicate while keeping all variables identical. So the theoretical question "Should pets be allowed in all shared residences such as apartment buildings because sharing a home with them bestows health benefits?" could not be answered on a rational basis. We really can't come up with a universal answer to that one. So I'm proud of this addition to the portfolio. And I thank those of you in the Goodreads Universe who expressed early interesting in this work.

I'm not sure where to categorize this version of Neil deGrasse Tyson - a Zealous Scientist or an Evangelical Rationalist, or both.For instance, I thought I had enough information on vegetarianism or racism in theory but as it turns out Vegetarians are also "cannibals" and democrats were historically more "racist"...etc. The first telescopes appeared in the Netherlands in 1608 when Middelburg spectacle-maker Hans Lippershey tried to obtain a patent on one. [5] By 1609 Galileo had heard about it and built his own improved version. He probably was not the first person to aim the new invention at the night sky [6] but his was the first systematic (and published) study of celestial bodies using one. [7] One of Galileo's first telescopes had 8x to 10x linear magnification and was made out of lenses that he had ground himself. [8] This was increased to 20x linear magnification in the improved telescope he used to make the observations in Sidereus Nuncius. [9] [3] Content [ edit ] Galileo's sketches of the Moon from Sidereus Nuncius. Book has some dramatic insights, but mostly pedestrian observations. His forays into political science do not make it past middle school level lessons. He has a strange vendetta against the varied rationale of vegetarian/vegan lifestyles. This leads to some tortured logic of his own and pretty poor analogies in efforts to skewer these folks. So with this book, named after Galileo Galilei's groundbreaking text (later retracted after he was tortured by the Catholic Church), Tyson is trying to build bridges. The problem? The people who need to read this are unlikely to buy it or even only know of its existence. In Galilei's time, publications were much rarer and the groundbreaking theory of Earth not being the center of all creation was making waves. Nowadays? This might drown on shelves with other books. And even if not, people will rather burn than read the text.

Scientists may be the exclusive discoverers of what is objectively true in the universe. Objective truths apply to all people, places, and things, as well as all animals, vegetables, and minerals….they are true even when you don’t believe in them.” Galileo's drawings of an imperfect Moon directly contradicted Ptolemy's and Aristotle's cosmological descriptions of perfect and unchanging heavenly bodies made of quintessence (the fifth element in ancient and medieval philosophy of which the celestial bodies are composed). For example, in the chapters on race and gender, the author points to our desire to categorize -- into very coarse and imprecise categories -- as being at the heart of many of the challenges around bias we face today. This, combined with our tendency to think short term and locally means that we open do consider long range and broader impacts in our calls to action and our policy decisions. Tyson does this sort of thing a lot. He shoehorns facts into places just because he can. I imagine he's the kind of guy at parties who constantly tries to show off all of his fun facts. "I see you're drinking wine. Did you know that the red color comes from the anthocyan pigments present in the skin of the grapes? Your shoes are made of leather. Did you know that traditional leather tanning methods took around 30 days to complete? Modern methods of mineral tanning are much faster and can complete this process within 1-2 days."

By 1626 knowledge of the telescope had spread to China when German Jesuit and astronomer Johann Adam Schall von Bell published Yuan jing shuo, (Explanation of the Telescope) in Chinese and Latin.