Nine-year-old Oliver Cahill, who has battled rare brain cancer for over half his life, recently met Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson thanks to the Make-a-Wish Foundation.
Chuck is in on it, he’s fine. He knows and plays into it. But he’s definitely not dumb. He can follow along with what Neil says just fine, even advanced topics that I can’t follow as someone very interested in science. I know he can because he rephrases what Neil says in his own words and Neil would go “Exactly!” or something to that effect.
The comic relief act is just that, an act, for comic relief, and it’s funny because it’s working in a meta type way.
Besides, it’s that (rather annoying in my eyes) setup of the “outsider” who pretends to know nothing and the expert, where the “outsider” does this sort of interview and injects questions on behalf of the audience. Never liked that format because the questions tend to be super basic and obvious more often than not and feel orchestrated at times, but that’s what the podcast does. Many true crime podcasts do this as well.
It lets the host have somebody they are clearly “smarter” than to gain the trust of the audience. It doesn’t even serve the purpose of the audience insert like in a movie, because explaining things doesn’t require that if you aren’t trying to get immersed in the rules of a fictional world.
Carl Sagan didn’t need someone to pretend to be a fool to explain things.
Carl Sagan didn’t need someone to pretend to be a fool to explain things.
That he did not. But I imagine it would take more of a predisposition to the subject to view Carl’s stuff, than Neil. Neil is taking the science to everyone. And in order to do that, you have to have a bit of arrogance (look at why Trump is so popular) and a bit of pizzazz. It’s gotta cater to a lot more people.
Neil is taking the science to everyone. And in order to do that, you have to have a bit of arrogance (look at why Trump is so popular) and a bit of pizzazz.
Doesn’t contribute to the conversation becsuse we were just talking about Sagan who did not need to be arrogant to bring science to everyone. Nor did you need to bring Trump into this thread when he has no relevance in any way to the conversation.
Well holy shit, excuse me for being tangential. I shall excuse myself from this narrow conversation to which you may bring no simile. I don’t wish to communicate with you again due to fear of breaching the subject. Thank you.
Everyone will listen to what they want. In its defense, this format might be pushed by outside forces, I don’t really know. And in my very personal opinion, I think Neil and Chuck banter a lot and have a lot of fun and joke around with each other and laugh together. So for me, personally, I imagine that they respect each other for what and who they are and that they are having a great time doing this thing together. That’s what makes it enjoyable for me. Not because of the science facts, specifically. Though that’s a big bonus.
Chuck is in on it, he’s fine. He knows and plays into it. But he’s definitely not dumb. He can follow along with what Neil says just fine, even advanced topics that I can’t follow as someone very interested in science. I know he can because he rephrases what Neil says in his own words and Neil would go “Exactly!” or something to that effect.
The comic relief act is just that, an act, for comic relief, and it’s funny because it’s working in a meta type way.
Besides, it’s that (rather annoying in my eyes) setup of the “outsider” who pretends to know nothing and the expert, where the “outsider” does this sort of interview and injects questions on behalf of the audience. Never liked that format because the questions tend to be super basic and obvious more often than not and feel orchestrated at times, but that’s what the podcast does. Many true crime podcasts do this as well.
It lets the host have somebody they are clearly “smarter” than to gain the trust of the audience. It doesn’t even serve the purpose of the audience insert like in a movie, because explaining things doesn’t require that if you aren’t trying to get immersed in the rules of a fictional world.
Carl Sagan didn’t need someone to pretend to be a fool to explain things.
That he did not. But I imagine it would take more of a predisposition to the subject to view Carl’s stuff, than Neil. Neil is taking the science to everyone. And in order to do that, you have to have a bit of arrogance (look at why Trump is so popular) and a bit of pizzazz. It’s gotta cater to a lot more people.
Sagan took the science to everyone just fine.
Okay. Btw did you down vote my comment as you made this comment? Just curious.
Your statement:
Doesn’t contribute to the conversation becsuse we were just talking about Sagan who did not need to be arrogant to bring science to everyone. Nor did you need to bring Trump into this thread when he has no relevance in any way to the conversation.
Well holy shit, excuse me for being tangential. I shall excuse myself from this narrow conversation to which you may bring no simile. I don’t wish to communicate with you again due to fear of breaching the subject. Thank you.
🙄
Don’t ask questions if you don’t want to hear the answer.
Everyone will listen to what they want. In its defense, this format might be pushed by outside forces, I don’t really know. And in my very personal opinion, I think Neil and Chuck banter a lot and have a lot of fun and joke around with each other and laugh together. So for me, personally, I imagine that they respect each other for what and who they are and that they are having a great time doing this thing together. That’s what makes it enjoyable for me. Not because of the science facts, specifically. Though that’s a big bonus.
This is exactly why I don’t like Star Talk and absolutely enjoy watching PBS Spacetime.
Good. I like Chuck, lol
He’s very personable 🥰 Seems like a real chum!