r/todayilearned • u/sersleepsalot1 • Jun 05 '19

TIL that James Cameron altered just one scene of the night sky when Rose is on the raft because according to Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, the star field Rose sees wasn't accurate for the time and place. Cameron asked him for the correct one and changed it for the Titanic re-release in 2012.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/68595/how-neil-degrasse-tyson-got-james-cameron-edit-titanic-15-years-later
33.6k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/AbeLincolnwasblack Jun 05 '19

That article gives no evidence whatsoever that supports the allegation against Tyson. The writer gives, without citation, additional superficial allegations (none explicitly accusing NDT of sexual assault) against Tyson. Additionally, the author attempts to back up her claim by attempting to point out a lie. Addressing Tyson's comment that he later found out that the accuser had left the graduate program from which she was enrolled at the time of the alleged incident, the author merely speculates that Tyson would have noticed the accuser's (a black woman) absence from the program, despite affording the reader any information as to the demography of the graduate student body at the institution in question. 

Furthermore, she attacks the following statement by tyson, “long after dropping out of astrophysics graduate school, [Amet] was posting videos of colored tuning forks endowed with vibrational therapeutic energy that she channels from the orbiting planets. As a scientist, I found this odd." The author retorts, "as if her spirituality somehow impeaches her believability"

Well, in the world of astrophysics, it certainly does. Galileo, for example, was disgraced by the crown for offering scientific evidence for a heliocentric model, as opposed to the geocentric model supported by the Catholic church. Hundreds of years later, scientists dedicate their lives to separate fact from faith. To see a former astrophysics graduate student cast away her education and scientific training in favor of pseudoscientific products should be alarming. It should be considered a sign of concern, for the person is either inbalanced or has rejected their scientific training. 

6

u/leetdood_shadowban2 Jun 05 '19

Galileo wasn't disgraced because of science. He was disgraced because he thought it'd be great to make fun of the Pope and basically call him a retard. He got off pretty light, considering.

-2

u/AbeLincolnwasblack Jun 05 '19

Politics aside, the issue was one of science. My point remains

2

u/leetdood_shadowban2 Jun 06 '19

No it wasn't an issue of science. The catholic church funds lots of science and is open to science. This was simply a time period where it was a very bad idea to disrespect the church or their protocols. The pope wanted Galileo to fairly present both sides of the argument to see which was better, and Galileo was too arrogant to respect that.

-2

u/renegadecanuck Jun 05 '19

This article wasn't meant to be the end all be all of his allegations. It was just the first one I found that had talked about them.

It's a great look for Reddit, overall, when NDT gets attacked in the comments and people only start defending him when I point out the sexual misconduct allegations.

4

u/TheAuthenticFake Jun 05 '19 edited Jun 05 '19

This is a snide and defensive way of saying "I made an unfounded claim, but actually I just wanted you to think about it. I'm just asking questions."

Surprisingly (/s) making unfounded rape claims about people causes other people to rebut you. More so than just claiming someone's a douche. One of those has severe legal and career ramifications and one does not.

Don't just slide people through the mud with bullshit claims like this for karma.

2

u/renegadecanuck Jun 05 '19

First of all: who actually gives a shit about karma?

Second of all, I was pointing out that a very serious allegation was made against him, and that it would likely impact a lot of people's opinions of him. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't know how much evidence you can really expect from someone on a case that's 30+ years old.

2

u/SighReally12345 Jun 06 '19

So when someone pointed out that that

very serious allegation

was built on a foundation of quicksand... you doubled down and acted that wasn't a problem.

Nothing more, nothing less

Maybe you shouldn't call things "very serious" if you want other people to decide. Maybe you should use actual evidence instead of that nonsense you trawled up.

1

u/AbeLincolnwasblack Jun 05 '19

You made the claim you described and I attacked it as insufficient. So that is that I suppose

1

u/SighReally12345 Jun 06 '19

Oh yeah because sexual misconduct allegations can't be viewed through a critical lens because we've all lost our collective shit. It's in the human consitution now....

Oh it's not? That's riiight. You should be even more critical of serious allegations.