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.