Backreaction responded to Lawrence Krauss' essay which argued that celebrity scientists such as Einstein, Feynman, Sagan, and Tyson are generally good for science and the society because they motivate young people, help to fight scientific nonsense, promote scientific literacy, and improve decision making.
Sabine Hossenfelder says that the celebrity status is just very weakly correlated with one's being a great scientist, she instinctively avoids fandoms, those celebrities do influence what scientists discuss and study, but she believes that they don't hurt, after all. In her perspective, the most serious related problem is that the vast majority of quality science gets unnoticed by the public; I agree with this comment. And she promotes science blogs as windows into the real science. Well, my reactions to this comment are mixed.
Before I write a few remarks about the general science pop star issue, allow me to reply to Hossenfelder's revelation that she never liked Feynman's writing. Well, while I have never been a worshiper, I always did like Feynman's writing. A few months after the Velvet Revolution, I borrowed (the Czech translation of) "Surely You're Joking, Mr Feynman" from a friend of mine.
I couldn't resist reading it during the German language class (which replaced Russian for a year). When my teacher saw it, she confiscated the book. It was a problem because the copy wasn't even mine. So I was following her and when she sat next to the principal in the school canteen to have a lunch, and after she left to bring some tea, I asked the principal whether I could simply take the book, because I was allowed, blah blah blah, I pretended that I understood his answer as "Yes", thanked him, and took the book back.
She was a bit upset when she came to the classroom but she forgave me the fair unstealing of the book, thanks to my pretty eyes. ;-)
But back to Feynman's writing. The popular book was a lot of fun and meant a huge compensation for the very serious texts by Einstein that I was spending lots of time with at home up to that moment. More generally, I like (and almost certainly share) various idiosyncrasies of Feynman's writing. His native tongue was really "basic English" which I prefer over "English". And when he explains something, he always thinks about the context and when he says that something works in this way or another way, he also implicitly or explicitly says that it doesn't work in this different way, or yet another way – he sees all the relevant silly mistakes related to the issue that people like to do.
Many other thinkers and explainers avoid this "dichotomy" or they even think that it is not important, or it should be omitted because it is creating controversies and they're no good. But you will almost certainly agree that I am a canonical living example of the attitude I have attributed to Feynman. Every meaningful proposition not only sufficiently clearly says what is right; it also comprehensibly enough says (with some examples that must exist) what is not right. This is needed for balanced logic.
But back to the celebrities.
I weakly agree that celebrities considered to be scientists may
- become role models that attract young people to science (although I think that this point is highly overrated – kids who are naturally inclined to become scientists instinctively avoid cults of personality)
- help to collect the funding (this point is overrated as well because the would-be courageous "science pop stars" who actually love to preach against significant funding for science have become a new norm)
- often help to improve the opinions spread among the laymen (except that the "science celebrities" often believe wrong things about questions they are passionate about, so they sometimes push the ball in the wrong direction)
So I have mentioned that the "positive roles" attributed to the science pop stars don't depend on their research quality or, more generally, on their knowledge of and relationship to the cutting-edge science. While this fact makes it possible for many people – including mediocre men such as Neil deGrasse Tyson – to play these roles, it also leads to a general problem.
The problem is that these "pop stars" usually don't correctly convey the status of the ongoing research – and they don't even make their listeners understand what it means to do research and how it should be done or evaluated etc.
Last September, I wrote about a particular bad trend that Tyson is bringing with him (and Sagan was doing the same, to one extent or another): smug condescension. These people seem to convey the point that you don't have to be terribly careful or to study the scientific questions accurately. What's more important is that you declare yourself a member of the "hip new church" that uses the word "science" all the time and you use this membership in the church to dismiss others.
But that's very bad because the increased correctness and accuracy of the propositions isn't guaranteed by the word "science". Instead, it is a consequence of the clever and sometimes highly constraining (and often boring) principles and habits that we sometimes call the "scientific method". But the essence is the scientific method itself rather than the obsession with the words "scientific method". To increase his chances of finding the truth by the scientific method, one has to walk the walk and not just talk the talk!
That criticism may look like some particular "defect" of Neil deGrasse Tyson but this defect is shared by so many – almost all – of the "science pop stars" that we may view it as a universal structural problem. At the end, most of these people use all the fancy words such as "science" all the time but they actually teach their fans to evaluate the quality and validity of statements, theories, and scientists by a similar method that is used by average soccer fans. A repetition of some holy words, some personality cult to spice them, and spitting on those who are not in "our team". Sorry but whether you use the word "science" often or not, this is not the scientific attitude.
If the cult of personality is sold as "love for science", it's bad, especially if the worshiped personality is as mediocre as Neil deGrasse Tyson. I think that if I write it in this way, everyone understand what's wrong with these attitudes. But it's not just the cult of personality that is the problem. The not fully adequate "science pop stars" are spreading lots of other attitudes, opinions, and methods that are not scientific even though they associate those attitudes with science.
One obvious subset are inadequate opinions about important questions of the contemporary research. When it comes to high-energy particle physics, Neil deGrasse Tyson is just another crank who loves to say all the populist nonsense about string theory's being just mathematics, who loves to mock what is most valuable not only in string theory but in the theoretical physics of the last 40 years in general. These are no details. If you hold – and spread – opinions about the last 40 years in theoretical physics that are completely wrong, cheap, stupid, and copying the average bumpkins, you simply can't do a good job in bringing people closer to what the top scientists consider to be the current scientific image of the Universe: you are not close to it yourself.
I could mention some other wrong opinions – outside high-energy theoretical physics – that are often brutally distorted by the science celebrities.
Incidentally, it may be a good moment to say that I have always thought that Brian Greene was an example of an honest "science pop star" who successfully avoided self-glorification and cheap answers sold as "super serious science" with the help of the enhanced fame. Even though he has done highly significant contribution to physics himself, he remained modest and a speaker of all the smart folks in the "community". In recent years, he wrote some silly things about the foundations of quantum mechanics (and a few other topics), but even these imperfections may be blamed on his desire to convey the opinions of a research community. The problem is that the silly things he was recently saying about the foundations of quantum mechanics also correspond to the opinions of a "research community", the set of the chronic "interpreters" of quantum mechanics, and Brian's being wrong may be interpreted as his extrapolation of imperfections of real-world scientists rather than his own addition of nonsense.
But the problems don't end with the promotion of particular wrong opinions about individual scientific questions. There are also general misconceptions about the methodology. Well-known self-styled representatives of the scientific community often love to promote "consensus science" – and what is worse, they don't even mean the consensus among the top experts. They largely mean the consensus within their fan clubs and churches of scientism (or scientology). That's too bad because this ultimately leads the people to think that they should repeat what the majority says if they want to be more scientific. But that's exactly how they can never become more scientific. It took some effort for Galileo to construct the impersonal method that led to more solid opinions than what the masses of the believers could achieve; and than what the highest church officials and scholars could do, too.
Another widespread problem is that the "science pop stars" teach wrong lessons when it comes to the uncertainty. Some of them love to present science as "completely settled". Everything is completely clear and everyone who doubts that the rock-solid final answers to all questions are already available is incompetent, they teach. The other group knows that the first group is distorting reality so they are teaching everything as completely uncertain. Science is in the permanent fuzz where every insight may be reverted tomorrow.
Well, none of these groups is right. In science, we have different degrees of certainty about different questions. The probability that a proposition is right may be – according to the scientific evidence – equal to 0.0000001% or 0.001% or 0.1% or 10% or 50% or 90% or 99.9% or 99.999% or 99.9999999%, not to mention other possible numbers. I only wrote one number between 10% and 90%, namely 50%, because it doesn't make much sense to divide this part of the interval much more accurately. When your "certainty" about a scientific proposition (which is one of a type) is smaller than 90%, it is no "certainty" at all. For most purposes in science, 80% "certainty" is the same thing as 50% "maximal uncertainty".
Sufficiently well-established results begin at 95% or, which is better, 99.7% or 99.9999%. (The three numbers are also known as the 2-sigma, 3-sigma, and 5-sigma level.) But science can achieve certainties that have dozens of "nines", too. To start to think about our knowledge scientifically, one must first of all learn that there exist different levels of "confidence" or "certainty" and when we are offered any proposition, we should have a rough idea what the level of certainty is. And a priori, it may be extremely close to 0%, very close to 0%, close to 50%, very close to 100%, or extremely close to 100% etc. And whether a statement is right or certain often depends on details of the proposition – we must be very careful what we're exactly saying or asking.
Most importantly, there is no "religious" or "universal" method to guess whether a proposition is right or not, and whether it's really certain or somewhat uncertain, that would avoid the hard work. You always need some hard work – some real technical arguments or evidence – to decide about these questions. I am afraid that almost all the science celebrities are offering easier solutions and shortcuts and they actually help the public to think less scientifically than many ordinary people would think without them! Why are they doing so? Because almost everyone who is famous (a scientist or someone else) is partly famous for the hope and easy solutions (Winston Churchill must be quoted as a nice exception because instead of some "Yes, we can" shortcuts, he offered "blood, toil, tears, and sweat" to the Britons; that's pretty much what every science popularizer should offer but the number of Churchills among these folks is too low).
And how do real scientists react to the science pop stars?
Really good scientists are truly ignoring this stuff – and they try to be very systematic and proud about their being systematic in overlooking all this popular stuff. Someone may be well-known or a celebrity. According to a good scientist, and I really have some top-cited HEP physicists in mind when I am writing this sentence, it neither helps nor hurts. A scientist is ideally "blind" to all these things.
Of course that the typical assumption is that someone who likes to show himself or herself on TV is suspicious and probably not necessarily up to his research job. But there have been so many counterexamples that people are already very careful and they realize that even someone who is very well-known to the public may be extremely good if not ingenious.
Almost 25 years ago, I learned my lesson, too. A (girl)friend of my mother was reading Hawking's Brief History of Time which I hadn't seen at that time yet. I didn't think (and I don't think) too much about her relationship to science so of course that my assumption was that the book had to be pulp and the author (whom I didn't know well at that time) had to be a kitschy bubble created by the media. (Yes, I think that I haven't dramatically changed in certain respects during the last 25 years.)
It took me some time to understand that Hawking was (and, to a lesser extent, is) the "real deal" – one of the most powerful minds who have ever worked on the quantum/gravity interface. Yes, I think that it was a coincidence that the woman was reading a book from a genuine big scientist – but such things may happen, too.
Physicists and mathematicians have learned a lot about their brilliant colleagues who are very good actors, musicians, and those who have made billions in hedge funds (Jim Simons) or who ran for the U.S. presidency as representatives of the Natural Party and ancient Indian meditation cults (greetings to John Hagelin), among other things. Those combinations are possible, physicists realize. But someone's being a very good researcher is a different characteristic than his being famous or his being rich or his being well-positioned in a church or many other things from the world of the laymen.
Even though physicists do try to be completely "blind" to these earthly virtues (such as money, fame, and indeed, influence over churches as well LOL), I do agree with Sabine Hossenfelder that someone's (or some paper's) being mentioned in the mass media make him (or it) more widely discussed and studied, even among the scientists who claim to be "completely unaffected" (although the expected sign of the relationship may be both positive or negative). At least, I am intensely aware of this influence on myself as well as many "fame blind" physicists I have known for many years.
As you can see, I think that the influence of the "science pop stars" on the scientific research and the status of science within the society is a mixed bag – with lots of of positive, negative, and nearly perfectly canceled and therefore vanishing (and vastly overestimated) influences.