Neil Degrasse Tyson is clearly vying for the slot but seems to make science seem more elitist, more pedantic (read literally any of his tweets) and thus appears to miss the point entirely

Tyson doesn't have the academic credentials that Hawking or someone like Richard Feynman does. The power of Hawking and Feynman is that they both were at the top of their fields, but took the time to make the foundations of their science accessible to the common man. Tyson has done great things, but he's not quite there.

I don't think Tyson needs to be there. Tyson is an educator and that's how he labels himself. He's not a researcher/theorist like Hawking and Feynman.

I thought Tyson's COSMOS was really well done but doesn't hit its stride until the 4th episode or so. I loved it almost as much as Sagan's COSMOS. The only "problem" with it was that the original was so good, and such a first of its kind, it's virtually impossible to top. I think Tyson's version was as good as it could be.

I couldn’t watch it. Too much hype. Sagan was so much more relaxing to listen too.

What about Michio Kaku? Google always shows him along side when searching for Tyson.

Kaku is not in the first rank of theorists. He knows the physics, but he's primarily a popsci figure. Hasn't produced original research in decades.

I've heard he's not very personable[0], and that's important for pop-scientists.

[0]: https://youtu.be/EnMMirZBMlc

He's already 71, so he's still a face to the same people as Hawking was.

I feel like this might have more to do with modern social media and celebrity culture, especially Twitter culture, than with Tyson himself. It's toxic. It's really hard to move in that realm with out adopting some of its sensibilities and tone.

In Tyson's defense, the new Cosmos was damn near perfect and had none of the elitism that I detected. Just a love of knowledge and history.

Tyson is intellectually underwhelming and doesn't seem to understand the limitations of his own knowledge. He's made his fame for speaking with the mannerisms of a preacher; and for remaking (in science a necessity) the Carl Sagan classic. He's already being forgotten by mainstream culture, which is not worse for it.

> He's already being forgotten by mainstream culture, which is not worse for it.

I disagree. Out of all pop-sci educators there's three that just about everyone who likes science knows: NDT, Bill Nye, and Carl Sagan.

> he doesn't seem to understand the limitations of his own knowledge

He does. When he has a decent Scientific guests on his podcast, he is very deferential but when he is alone, he is very elitist.

>Tyson is intellectually underwhelming

Only to intellectuals.

He may not have been a great researcher, but his ability to explain to the common person (impromptu) is a lot better than Hawking's. Other than Sagan, I cannot think of anyone that good. Their styles are different, but both are/were great.

A season 2 of the Cosmos reboot is under development BTW. :)

The new Cosmos had way too much animation. Hopefully season 2 is without Seth McFarlane so we can get some inspiring science without cartoons (which detracts from the inspiring quality, imo).

I think Neil Degrasse Tyson is overall net-positive, but I'm definitely not liking his style.

Elitism is overall fine as long as it doesn't get in the way or make you look like an asshole. And unfortunately, Neil Degrasse Tyson seems to be leaning towards the "asshole elite".

Still, he's a good speaker, there are tons of people who are inspired by his style. I think a kinder, gentler, less pedantic (exactly the right word) person needs to become the next "science champion".

Stephen Hawking was a good balance of inspiration, and expertise. He was "elite" without quite being pedantic or asshole-ish.

Agreed. I feel like he started off great but as he grew more famous has made it very much all about himself.

Similar issue with Bill Nye, I think, though he's definitely not on the same level.

Mr.Wizard far surpassed Nye, even back in the day. There was never any competition. Nye was always an entertainer first, science teacher second.

> Nye was always an entertainer first, science teacher second.

That's true, but I don't really see why it's a problem. As long as he's not spreading misinformation or anything, being entertaining is a skill, and he's using it towards constructive ends.

How many HN articles are published every week about how people-skills are undervalued?

I think the problem is this trait mentioned by the parent post has carried through to what Nye's been doing now, and I'll personally add that current content produced by Nye doesn't seem productive in any way, whatsoever. In fact, I think Nye has gotten to a point where he actively shuns anybody with an argument against his beliefs, regardless of whichever side is correct. He'll even push his own agenda for certain topics unnecessarily, which is pretty ridiculous.

Such as? I haven't seen him promote anything that wasn't the general consensus among scientists.

Nye acted for years on Almost Live, a comedy show. He's also got an ME degree, not an advanced science degree.

It's just hard to take him seriously as a science spokesman.

ME is an advanced science degree.

ME is short for BSME, Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering.

I honestly do not like Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Go to his twitter feed. See how very smart he is. See how he comments on everything as if he has some magical scientific insight to the banal that transcends what "the average joe" thinks about. See his ego swell when confronted with an obviously impaired Katy Perry. See his patronizing outlook on life and realize he will never measure up to the man who sincerely wanted to bring universal discoveries to the average man, who sincerely believed the average man was capable of understanding if it weren't for all the pre-requisite mathematics and it's symbolic alienness.

I think Mr. Tyson is a phony. He does not deserve, nor does he know how, to bring science to the "masses".

If your voice sounded as cool as his you would want to listen to yourself speak all the time too.

Bryan Cox is great. Young (um...not old, maybe), knows how to be real, has proper cred as a scientist.

Edit: I mean come on! Dude played keyboard in a couple bands.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_(physicist)

His enthusiasm is awesome. He loves science, and you can very easily tell just by watching him.

I work at CERN, so Brian Cox is an obvious choice as far as I'm concerned. Tangentially, Adam Steltzner (the engineer who lead the Entry Descent and Landing of Curiosity) is another one of those "used to be a rockstar" types.

Brian Cox is superb. He has the ability to explain complex things using simple language.

It doesn't have to be any one person, either.

As scientific progress becomes increasingly interdisciplinary, communication becomes increasingly valuable both within teams and with the greater public.

I would be perfectly happy seeing tens of enthusiastic and brilliant physicists stepping up to become the celebrity scientists of the upcoming generation, rather than just one or two.

Until they surface, however, the responsibility falls upon each and every one of us to stoke the fires of passion and wonder in our fellow humans.

I started watching Niel deGrasse Tyson's Cosmos reboot the other day, and the first episode is definitely worth a watch for everyone reading this thread. It was also covered in Business Insider: http://www.businessinsider.com/inspiring-story-young-neil-de...

You don't need a platform or a massive following to ignite a spark of curiosity in another person. Small acts of kindness and encouragement can last a lifetime.

Jim Al-Khalili is an awesome science communicator - his BBC documentaries are inspiring and his enthusiasm contagious. The BBC in general has much more engaging science communicators than the US does. (Of course, Feynman lectures are still wonderful, and Phillip Morrison had some documentaries in the 80s that I remember fondly.)

What the world needs now is someone in that role for climate change who can capture an interpretation of that body of science the way that Hawking and Sagan captured the public attention around the big bang and other highly complex abstract concepts in the physics of Astronomy & Cosmology.

If you had said "climate science" I would agree.

I mean, I'm a lukewarmist, not a denier, but since the 90s people have been saying "science advocacy" when they mean "advocacy for my politics". Everyone's (correctly) for Darwinism and contra modern creationism but no one seems to be in favor of IQ advocacy.

And I mean advocacy for the low IQ cohorts that are being technologied out of a social role. But hey, you would have to admit IQ exists.

I don't think you're going to get another Hawking. His story is hard to match because the guy basically shrugged off ALS and flourished for 50 years. The MC Hawking jokes are funny because they're true.

But while I think the people like Nye and Tyson are important, someone more in Hawking's mold needs to be a genuinely novel contributor. I'd put Leonard Susskind's name in the hat.

> Who will take his place? Who will be the Stephen Hawking of my children's generation?

I nominate Brian Greene from Columbia University! Rhodes Scholar, mind-bending types of work in theoretical physics, cofounder of the World Science Festival, frequent appearances on fancy-schmancy podcasts and television shows. Definitely all the makings of a science hero.

If there is not one person who will be it, then we must make our own. You don't need to inspire all people everywhere in one go, so you don't need 12 million followers to do that.

You just need to look around, and then do your best: volunteer at school or uni, post Kerbal Space Program let's plays, or use a top to explain angular momentum to a 2nd grader.

We can't rely on one or two celebrities and then sit on our hands. We take our telescope across Africa and inspire a few kids at a time, all the time.

RIP Prof. Stephen Hawking.

I am not very optimistic about another Stephen Hawking or an Einstein. How many of the best minds of our generation are attracted to Physics or Mathematics or Astronomy especially graduate level / Phds ? Some of the folks are getting into computer science but that doesnt help discoveries in cosmology.

Two words: Terry Tao.

I amateurishly evaluate Terry Tao on an order of a Poincaré. He's the actual "genius" thing concept person.

It's worth reading the popsci works of Steve Weinberg. He's older than Hawking, so not in the junuior generations. But he's still alive, a gifted expositor, and a genuinely first rate physicist. He's basically the person who assembled the Standard Model.

> It is how they inspire an entire generation to seek out knowledge, understanding and fill us all with a sense of humility, awe and wonder.

It's one of the finest things one can do. In today's climate of dystopian science fiction, we could all use some awe and wonder.

The hero’s get smaller. I remember talking to my advisor, a Macarthur fellow, and he wondered why we didn’t have any giants today.

What about Jacob Barnett? He is very young but currently doing research at Perimeter Institute.

If string theory ever catches on, Brian Greene would be the guy.