his show was on 15 years ago.
A PhD, or at a pinch a Masters, should be the minimum you need to call yourself an expert in anything, let alone something as general as science.
Hence why I said a qualification should be required. Unless...you guys don't give out PhDs for "one day review sessionCredentials aren't needed to be an expert. You just need a deep and thorough understanding of the subject. That is not something you can achieve in a one day review session.
I really liked when Michio Kaku would go on the Screen Savers. It's nice to see he's still doing public appearances. Neil Degrasse Tyson is also popular and he's pretty interesting too.Michio Kaku has completely become the new talking head for science. He is genius, but he is also able to take the complex theories of other people, throw his futurism thoughts at that, and spit out a denatured, less volatile, far more approachable product for the masses to consume on some random night.
Dr. K is so awesome. Any topic he has covered, he has done a fairly damn good job making it extremely easy to understand without a scientific degree.
Granted, some of the theories are constantly challenged by others, and sometimes those people can explain it to laymen quite easily too. "Better" theories, but explained in a less showy way.
I don't know either. Yes, he may have an engineering degree but that doesn't make him an "expert" on any particular subject.
Credentials aren't needed to be an expert. You just need a deep and thorough understanding of the subject. That is not something you can achieve in a one day review session.
It's not like he's wrong.You would be better off keeping quiet than opening your mouth and proving what a fool you are!!
It's not like he's wrong.
If you look at any of the resident 'experts' that the news channels keep you'll find that they all have some background in the area they represent but none of them are an 'expert' on most of the topics they report on. The person reporting on health news may be a doctor but that doesn't mean he's familiar with every single new procedure out there. The person that covers international politics may have a background in that field but they won't be up to speed on every single thing going on around the globe.
Just because he's better than all the other pseudoscientific idiots out there, doesn't mean he automatically qualifies as an expert. I understand the idea that standards need to be lowered to start with to encourage more people like him onto networks and stuff, but calling him an expert is disrespectful and shameful to all the other, proper experts in their respective fields who have studied their particular discipline for 20+ years.
Just because he's better than all the other pseudoscientific idiots out there, doesn't mean he automatically qualifies as an expert. I understand the idea that standards need to be lowered to start with to encourage more people like him onto networks and stuff, but calling him an expert is disrespectful and shameful to all the other, proper experts in their respective fields who have studied their particular discipline for 20+ years.
Just because he's better than all the other pseudoscientific idiots out there, doesn't mean he automatically qualifies as an expert. I understand the idea that standards need to be lowered to start with to encourage more people like him onto networks and stuff, but calling him an expert is disrespectful and shameful to all the other, proper experts in their respective fields who have studied their particular discipline for 20+ years.
You don't have to be understandable to be an expert. And you'll find that usually resorting to technical language is an attempt to convey the concept quickly and accurately. Sure, you can discuss an advanced concept in layman's terms quickly, but it usually comes at the expense of accuracy; you need to use analogies, simplifications, and omissions to make it accessible, all of which takes it further and further from the actual concept.So your definition of expert is some crusty old phd that probably is as interesting as watching paint dry and as understandable as a japanese game show.
Don't get me wrong, I think having a science correspondent who actually has such a degree a good thing, it's just that I'm uneasy with calling him an expert. Just like I know a little bit about a lot of sciences, enough to understand generally what people are talking about, but I wouldn't call myself an expert.I have two family members that were present at a commencement speech Bill Nye gave at RPI, a well respected engineering school in upstate NY. One has two bachelor's degrees from MIT and a graduate degree from their business school. The other recieved his doctorate in nuclear chemistry from UC Berkley, his thesis advisor was Nobel Laureate Glen Seaborg, the namesake for the element Seaborgium. Both my family members thought it was great that RPI chose to give him an honorary phd for his contributions to science education. Neither of them saw the honorary phd as an insult to all the work they did to get their advanced degrees. They both think he had been doing a great job getting information about science out to the public and I think they would feel the same way about him doing it on the news.
You don't have to be understandable to be an expert. And you'll find that usually resorting to technical language is an attempt to convey the concept quickly and accurately. Sure, you can discuss an advanced concept in layman's terms quickly, but it usually comes at the expense of accuracy; you need to use analogies, simplifications, and omissions to make it accessible, all of which takes it further and further from the actual concept.
Don't get me wrong, I think having a science correspondent who actually has such a degree a good thing, it's just that I'm uneasy with calling him an expert. Just like I know a little bit about a lot of sciences, enough to understand generally what people are talking about, but I wouldn't call myself an expert.