Neil DeGrasse Tyson is the director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History. He has a PdD in astrophysics. Although he has published research papers, the last one I could find was in 2008. These days he is known for his popular books on science, and as a science popularizer on TV, radio and online. That in itself is not a bad thing; in fact, it is a very good thing to do, assuming it’s done well.

As a famous person (at least in some circles), Tyson apparently often makes public statements regarding current events. One of his recent statements, delivered via Twitter, has been the object of criticism. Here is Tyson’s tweet:

“In the past 48hrs, the USA horrifically lost 34 people to mass shootings. On average, across any 48hrs, we also lose…

• 500 to Medical errors
• 300 to the Flu
• 250 to Suicide
• 200 to Car Accidents
• 40 to Homicide via Handgun

Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data.”

I have a PdD in atmospheric science. I am neither a working scientist nor a famous public figure. You won’t find any research published by me after my dissertation. None of the work I did for nearly 30 years was pure science, and none of it will ever be published in any open literature. Not that anyone would be interested. But I, too, have opinions about current events, although I seldom publish them on this blog. I make an exception in this case. Here is my response to Tyson’s tweet:

Tyson’s statement isn’t even nonsense. It’s basically just a list of facts followed by a non sequitur. A list of facts is meaningless in itself without a relevant conclusion. It reminds me of something I saw in graduate school. A doctoral candidate does research (hopefully original), analyzes the data and then draws a conclusion in his dissertation. Then the dissertation must be defended before a reading committee. I attended the defense of one of my fellow students. At that meeting he went through his data, and there was a lot of it. He then applied a lot of statistical analysis. And then he stopped. One of the committee members asked what his conclusion was. He had none. They told him to go back, finish his work, draw some meaningful conclusions, and then come back to defend his work.

I was surprised that his advisor had allowed him to reach that stage without doing the very thing that a dissertation is supposed to do, which is draw conclusions.

All the data in the world is meaningless without some kind of analytical conclusion. Tyson gives us “Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data”? What does that even mean? Does it mean that mass shootings are spectacle? Does it mean that we should look at lists of data rather than reports of a mass shooting? Does it mean that the deaths of 34 people from one cause is not important because more people have been killed from other causes? Is it merely an academic observation on the failings of human nature? Is it a Delphic pronouncement from on high?

He issued an apology on Facebook with some explanation for what he intended. His apology was even worse. Here it is:

“My intent was to offer objectively true information that might help shape conversations and reactions to preventable ways we die. Where I miscalculated was that I genuinely believed the Tweet would be helpful to anyone trying to save lives in America. What I learned from the range of reactions is that for many people, some information–my Tweet in particular–can be true but unhelpful, especially at a time when many people are either still in shock, or trying to heal–or both.”

This is not nonsense, but it is bullshit. I assume that his list of causes of death is accurate (it seems to be reasonably accurate, although it is not an exhaustive list of preventable deaths), but in what way does that help shape conversations and reactions? In what way could it possibly be “helpful to anyone trying to save lives in America”?

He says “for many people some information … can be true but unhelpful…”

Really? Subtle dig there, right? I guess “many people” are not smart scientists like he is. Perhaps he should not have been so subtle.

Since he can’t seem be bothered to give us any conclusions, we are left to come up with some meaning on our own. In that case, why does Tyson even bother to tweet? It adds nothing to the public debate about a serious health and policy issue. It adds nothing to the problem of suicide. It adds nothing to the problem of medical errors. It adds nothing to our understanding of causes of mass shootings, or any of the other causes of death, for that matter. It tells us nothing about what we might think or do about any of these causes of death. It adds nothing because most of those causes of death are completely unrelated, and efforts to reduce those numbers would also be completely unrelated. Trying to reduce medical errors has nothing to do with trying to reduce the incidence of mass shootings. What is the flu doing in the list? How are we supposed to relate deaths from car accidents to deaths from mass shootings? Are we supposed to tackle all of these causes of death one at a time, starting with the biggest numbers and proceeding to the smallest? Can we not work on, let’s say, two at a time? Or even three? Or maybe even all of them?

I think Tyson has fallen prey to a weakness that other scientists have. It’s the idea that because they know, understand, and can speak authoritatively about some particular subject, they must be able to speak with authority about any other subject. There are enough counter examples that a science popularizer ought to be familiar with the dangers inherent in that belief. I guess he felt like he had to say something, and it had to be sciencey. Unfortunately, it seems that even coming up with something that reaches the level of nonsense is beyond him.

My understanding is that Neil DeGrasse Tyson does not do actual scientific research any more. If this tweet is an example of how he would apply his knowledge and analytical skills to science, then it’s probably a good thing he’s no longer a scientist.