This is great. Mike Rowe, of “Dirty Jobs” does a weekly podcast/Facebook posting called “How I Heard It”. His “Off the Wall” segments are always enlightening, because, Rowe dishes out some of his characteristic common sense by answering a question or comment from a fan, or in some cases, someone who isn’t a fan at all. I get some of those same kinds of emails he does.
In his latest “Off the Wall” Facebook posting, Rowe replied to a comment made by a woman named “Rebecca Bright”. Bright says she is a fan of the show “How the Universe Works,” which Rowe does the voice over work for, but suggested Rowe to get fired from narrating the show because, according to her, he’s apparently one of those “science deniers” that we often hear about from the left. Although the show was about black holes and galaxies, Mike even managed to work in global warming as an example of why she’s wrong. Here’s the complaint and the response from his Facebook page:
Rebecca Bright writes…
“I love the show How the Universe Works, but I’m lost on how the producers and the Science Channel can allow anti-education, science doubting, ultra-right wing conservative Mike Rowe to narrate the show. There are countless scientists that should be hired for that, or actors, if you must, that believe in education and science that would sound great narrating the show, example: Morgan Freeman. Cancel this fools contract and get any of your scientists so often on the show to narrate it.”
—-
Well hi there, Rebecca. How’s it going?
First of all, I’m glad you like the show. “How the Universe Works” is a terrific documentary series that I’ve had the pleasure of narrating for the last six seasons. I thought this week’s premiere was especially good. It was called, “Are Black Holes Real?” If you didn’t see it, spoiler alert….no one knows!!!
It’s true. The existence of Black Holes has never been proven. Some cosmologists are now convinced they don’t exist at all, and the race to prove their actuality has become pretty intense. Why? Because so much of what we think we know about the cosmos depends upon them. In other words, the most popular explanations as to how the universe actually works, are based upon the existence of a thing that no one has been able to prove.
As I’m sure you know, it’s OK to make assumptions based on theories. In fact, it’s critical to progress. But it’s easy these days to confuse theory with fact. Thanks to countless movies and television shows that feature Black Holes as a plot device, and many documentaries that bring them to life with gorgeous CGI effects and dramatic music, a lot of people are under the assumption that Black Holes are every bit as real as the Sun and the Moon. Well, maybe they are, and maybe they aren’t. We just don’t know. That’s why I enjoyed this week’s show so much. It acknowledged the reasons we should question the existence of something that many assume to be “settled science.” It invited us to doubt.
Oftentimes, on programs like these, I’m asked to re-record a passage that’s suddenly rendered inaccurate by the advent of new information. Sometimes, over the course of just a few days. That’s how fast the information changes. Last year for instance, on an episode called “Galaxies,” the original script – carefully vetted by the best minds in physics – claimed there were approximately one hundred billion galaxies in the known universe. A hundred billion! (Not a typo.) I couldn’t believe it when I read it. I mean, the Milky Way alone has something like 400 billion stars! Andromeda has a trillion! How many stars must there be in a universe, with a hundred billion galaxies? Mind-boggling, right?
Well, a few weeks later, the best minds in physics came together again, and determined that the total number of galaxies in the universe was NOT in fact, a hundred billion. They were off. Not by a few thousand, or a few million, or few billion, or even a few hundred billion. The were off by two trillion. That’s right…TWO TRILLION!! http://bit.ly/2jB0Nq7 But here’s the point, Rebecca – when I narrate this program, it doesn’t matter if I’m correct or incorrect – I always sound the same. And guess what? So do the experts.
When I wrote about this discrepancy, people became upset. They thought I was making fun of science. They thought I was suggesting that because physicists were off by one trillion, nine hundred billion galaxies, all science was suddenly suspect, and no claims could be trusted. In general, people like you accused me of “doubting science.” Which is a curious accusation, since science without doubt isn’t science at all.
This is an important point. If I said I was skeptical that a supernatural being put us here on Earth, you’d be justified in calling me a “doubter of religion.” But if I said I was skeptical that manmade global warming was going to melt the icecaps, that doesn’t make me a “doubter of science.” Once upon a time, the best minds in science told us the Sun revolved around the Earth. They also told us the Earth was flat, and that a really bad fever could be cured by blood-letting. Happily, those beliefs were questioned by skeptical minds, and we moved forward. Science is a wonderful thing, and a critical thing. But without doubt, science doesn’t advance. Without skepticism, we have no reason to challenge the status quo. Anyway, enough pontificating. Let’s consider for a moment, your very best efforts to have me fired.
You’ve called me an “ultra-right wing conservative,” who is both “anti-education,” and “science-doubting.” Interestingly, you offer no proof. Odd, for a lover of science. So I challenge you to do so now. Please provide some evidence that I am in fact the person you’ve described. And by evidence, I don’t mean a sentence taken out of context, or a meme that appeared in your newsfeed, or a photo of me standing next to a politician or a talk-show host you don’t like. I mean actual proof of what you claim I am.
Also, please bear in mind that questioning the cost of a college degree does not make me “anti-education.” Questioning the existence of dark-matter does not make me a “dark-matter denier.” And questioning the wisdom of a universal $15 minimum wage doesn’t make me an “ultra-right wing conservative.” As for Morgan Freeman, I agree. He’s a terrific narrator, and a worthy replacement. But remember, Morgan played God on the big screen. Twice. Moreover, he has publicly claimed to be a “believer.” (gasp!) Should this disqualify him from narrating a series that contradicts the Bible at every turn? If not, why not?
Anyway, Rebecca, my beef with your post comes down to this – if you go to my boss and ask her to fire me because you can’t stand the sound of my voice, I get it. Narrators with unpleasant voices should probably look for other work anyway, and if enough people share your view, no hard feelings – I’ll make room for Morgan. But if you’re trying to get me fired simply because you don’t like my worldview, well then, I’m going to fight back. Partly because I like my job, and partly because you’re wrong about your assumptions, but mostly because your tactics typify a toxic blend of laziness and group-think that are all too common today – a hot mess of hashtags and intolerance that deepen the chasm currently dividing our country.
Re-read your own post, and think about your actual position. You’ve publicly asked a network to fire the narrator of a hit show because you might not share his personal beliefs. Don’t you think that’s kind of…extraordinary? Not only are you unwilling to engage with someone you disagree with – you can’t even enjoy a show you claim to love if you suspect the narrator might not share your view of the world! Do you know how insular that makes you sound? How fragile?
I just visited your page, and read your own description of you. It was revealing. It says, “I stand my ground. I fear no one & nothing. I have & will fight for what’s right.”
Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t think the ground you’re standing on is worth defending. If you truly fear “no one & nothing,” it’s not because you’re brave; it’s because you’re unwilling to expose yourself to ideas that frighten you. And while I can see that you like to fight for what you think is “right” (in this case, getting people fired that you disagree with,) one could easily say the same thing about any other misguided, garden-variety bully.
In other words, Rebecca, I don’t think you give a damn about science. If I’m wrong, prove it. Take a step back and be skeptical about your own assumptions. Take a moment to doubt your own words, and ask yourself – as any good scientist would – if you’ve got your head up a black hole.
Having said all that, I think you’re gonna love next week’s episode. It’s called Multiple Stars! Check it out, Tuesdays at 10pm, on Science.
Best,
Mike
UPDATE!
Rebecca Bright responds, so does Mike Rowe:
Rebecca Bright You have FAR too much time on your hand to worry about a person who’s NOT your fan’s opinion or write a novel at them. Lol go get one of those “dirty jobs” you think we all should work to take up your time and tire your prideful self out.
Mike in his usual style, gets the last word brilliantly:
Mike Rowe Well, I’ve re-read your response twice, and can’t seem to find any additional proof. Look – you’re under no obligation to reply – obviously. Neither am I . But this is your comment. You’re an author, right? You write for a living, yes? No pressure, but come on, Becky. You’re talking to five million people right now. Most writers would kill for a chance to say something meaningful to an audience that size. Dig deep. Be brave. Say something persuasive, but do it quick. My plane lands in twenty….
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’ve been saying they weren’t real for twenty years and I get called stupid for it, but now that astrophysicists are looking into it I’ll get told to shut up because I don’t have a degree or some other retarded thing.
Light doesn’t work that way.
I watched the Black Hole episode. Awesome but maybe skipped over the more detailed physics material I was looking for. Still awesome however.
But one of the scientists commenting in the show said something very profound related to this topic. We should quote this ever now and again.
“As a scientist, I would rather have questions that I cannot answer, rather than answers I cannot question”.
How many SJW’s like “Rebecca Bright” are part of the #metoo movement, intent on destroying people they may not care for, by accusation and trial by media?
He used one word that may have gone right over her head: INSULAR. If she looks it up she may be even more upset! Ooooo…looking forward to see if this was the take down or if Rebecca speaks again and let’s herself be known a fool.
Oh she opened her mouth. It was the trainwreck you’d expect:
To which he replied:
As best I can tell, she didn’t return.
I find it interesting how she assumes that since Mr. Rowe has dared to openly contradict her, that it is Mr. Rowe who is suffering from an excess of pride.
And BOOM goes the Dynamite!
For those who are not familiar with that phrase:
https://youtu.be/W45DRy7M1no
Dog
Fantastic video. I’m guessing adult beverages were involved. No single human on the planet could be that incompetent (well, I mean, other than a politician).
Well and far left ideologues like our fair young lady who pocked a hornets nest and got stung by a thousand words.
An excellent reply by Mike Rowe!
Mike Rowe is a classy guy. The world “needs” many, many more Mike Rowes.
Mike Rowe for president… Better than Oprah nominee…ha.
Yes, he has a lot of experience in doing “dirty jobs”.
It is kind of funny, in my immediate group of engineers, we are all conservatives. I guess we don’t do real work because rebecca says that we don’t do science.
Wonderful
An unfamiliar yet bracing experience, listening to a voice that is thoroughly reasonable, sane, and sensible, not just for a sentence or two but for paragraph after paragraph. I tend to avoid anything connected with pop science, assuming it’s likely to be leftist propaganda, so thanks for the tip! (But it’s “The Way I Heard It” not “How I Heard It”.)
Here’s another tip: nothing wrong with “How I heard it”. Now go put your pedantic self into a time-out. We’ll let you know when you have anything else to say.
Rebecca represents, sadly, most Americans who comment daily and confidently about things they know nothing about. It’s why very intelligent people say incredibly stupids things; because their political bias trumps their logic.
Mind you these days all she has to do to get him fired is accuse him of touching her inappropriately many years ago.
Excellent post Mr. Rowe! Hear, hear!
There’s only one thing in Mr. Rowe’s excellent putdown of Ms. Bright that is less than brilliant (I want to write “Bright”. but I can’t for obvious reasons). That is his statement “…..it’s easy these days to confuse theory with fact.” I suspect that the word that he intended, instead of “theory”, is “hypothesis”, since a theory has already been proved and may be regarded as fact. (Misuse of “theory” is a very common error.)
“I suspect that the word that he intended, instead of “theory”, is “hypothesis”, since a theory has already been proved and may be regarded as fact”
I would agree with this so long as you mean that “a theory has already been tentatively proved and may be regarded as a conditional fact until a better theory comes along” i.e. Newton’s Gravity being updated and largely replaced by Eisenstein’s theory of Gravity.
Ian L. McQueen
Sorry to bust your hypothesis, but a theory can never be “proven”.
sorry, but it’s a law of logic that if it is impossible to prove, it can not be true.
this is the root of your disorder. you insist that nothing can be true – and assert that your statement is true – and you can’t even spot the self contradiction because impaired by inferior cognitive tools. crippled.
I’ve done “Dirty Jobs”. Wastewater Treatment. (Cleaning up what you flush so the people downstream can drink it.) Water Treatment. (Cleaning up what was missed and what waste and undesirable things “nature” might have added before you drink it.)
This was a gentile and wonderful response to one who has not “cleaned up” the waste she has allowed to entrench itself in her mind.
I did a little bit of waste treatment while I was in the army. We used diesel fuel. 🙂
Never knew Mr Rowe’s political stripe. Never knew his views on “science”. Never knew what was scripted or what was “Mike”.
Regardless.
One hell of a voice over man. Maybe the best of the “new crop” of talent.
As it turns out, a decent writer and thinker as well.
Still don’t care about his political stripes.
Right up there with James Earl Jones and Morgan Freeman. I think they’ve some acting chops that I have not seen in Mike Rowe.
I really don’t care about Mr. Jones or Mr. Freeman’s political stripes either.
Do I have to actually know what is going on in their head to admire their work?
One has to believe their script writers and the folks that vet the scripts have some integrity. When it comes to the cosmos, is there in the science of the cosmos any reason to not believe what is put forward. Not to say there is all milk and honey in the scientific and academic fields; Sides are taken, and vigorously defended, but mostly those disagreements do not rise to the level of religion.
Just because one branch of science has become politically and ideologically entangled does not mean we should not believe in science.
“I really don’t care about Mr. Jones or Mr. Freeman’s political stripes either.”
I do. I don’t think Mike Rowe would host the moral degenerate Bill Clinton on his tv show, but Morgan Freeman will, and Morgan will ask this low-life to give us advice on how to live and how to think about things.
TA, these are not Mike Rowe’s shows. In some series (Dirty Jobs) he is an on-camera personality, and others, just voice over. I don’t think Mr. Rowe has aspirations to be a newsman. As I noted above, I do not know where the script stops and Mr. Rowe begins. The same thing can be said about Mr. Jones and Mr. Freeman positions.
As far as “hosting” Bill Clinton, I’ll say it again: They are not HIS shows. He is an employee. The producer and powers that be direct him in what to do, and whom to talk to. Even on “Dirty Jobs”.
“Know thine enemy”. In that light, it would be fascinating to dig into Mr. Clinton’s mind. Maybe we could even get a legal definition of “is”. And what better subject for “Dirty Jobs” than doing Mr. Clinton’s late night dirty job in the Oval Office.
Seriously, if one cannot talk with the opposition because we believe them to be the devil incarnate or worse, there is no hope for living in this world. Be a prepper now.
Welcome to climate potshots. It’s a dirty job.
Has Rebecca responded?
Yup. It’s priceless – go to Mike’s FaceBook home page…bring popcorn.
Maybe Rebecca is a paid troll for the green brown shirts out there.
After you see Rebecca’s written response to Mike (on his FaceBook page), and seeing she claims to write for a living, you wouldn’t want to pay this lady for anything having to do with the written word.
Awesome reply! Well done Mr. Rowe. Enjoyed watching your shows and even I have done some of those dirty jobs too. Maybe Ms/Miss Bright could learn a thing or two.
Judging from his response to Ms. “Bright,” it is obvious that Rowe is a highly intelligent guy who understands science exactly as it is supposed to be understood. Which leads me to wonder if one of the keys to getting the CAGW narrative to die out would simply be to get the American public and the mainstream media to understand science like Rowe and as most of us in the WUWT community do.
Once it is understood that attacking the skeptics and questioners of CAGW is akin to attacking science itself, it is just one more step to realizing that CAGW has morphed into a theological and political doctrine more than anything else. Theological and political doctrines are viewed as infallible by their believers, and thus they are not allowed to be questioned. And so it is with CAGW in the minds of the believers. IMHO, Michael Mann (and others of his ilk) can scarcely be blocking his detractors on Twitter for any other reason or reasons.
The CAGW theological doctrine is largely built on the scientific illiteracy of the American people and the MSM. Correcting this needs to be basis (or one of the bases) for its demise.
Kudos aplenty to Mike Rowe!
“And while I can see that you like to fight for what you think is “right” (in this case, getting people fired that you disagree with,) one could easily say the same thing about any other misguided, garden-variety bully.”
Good point. What is a bully but someone who tries to hurt others physically or financially just because they look or act differently. Rebecca Bright wants to take away Mike’s lunch money (job) just because she doesn’t like the way he thinks. She feels justified because he is different from her. Don’t all bullies feel the same way? (Don’t climate bullies want to punish anyone who refuses to march in lock step with their views on climate change?)
There’s every chance Mike Rowe’s contract will not be renewed.
The LEFT will be furious.
Their pursuit of heretics is relentless.
That was a wonderful piece. Thank you for posting it Anthony.