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….
Rebecca Bright, isn’t!
Bahaaaaaa, way to funny ! I agree with Mr Rowe, where’s the proof ? We humans barely know what’s in our own small part of the Milky Way and we’re still trying to figure it out. Afterall, we’ve just gone passed poor little Pluto..
Yes Rebecca is a bully. A poster child for the Progressive Supremacist who’s impressed with her own superiority. Mike’s words bounced off her rigid mind like a super ball off concrete.
She’s proud of her membership in the mob of thugs.
She knows best and is willing to be a champion fascist to help purge demons like Mike from any positions of expression.
From the article, Mike Rowe: ” 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.”
Mike did an episode called “Are Black Holes Real”, and after viewing this episode about Venus this morning on the Science Channel, “Earth: Venus Evil Twin”, I think Mike Rowe should do an episode titled “Is CAGW Real”.
https://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows/how-the-universe-works/full-episodes/earth-venuss-evil-twin
The clueless scientists in this episode attribute the high heat on Venus to excess CO2, and claim Earth is headed in the same direction. I assume that’s Mike Rowe narrating this program. Of course, it’s the scientists making all the CAGW claims, not Rowe, but I wonder how he feels doing a program that is spreading unconfirmed CAGW propaganda. Would love to hear him comment on that.
Mike Rowe is not the narrator of this show. Try Erik Dellums. Just need to hit the info button on your remote.
I’ve been quite sceptical on black holes for a long time, where the Hawking radiation?
However does the recent Gravity Wave discovery (I run BOINC Einstein@Home) point more towards their existence?
Classical physics explains most of everyday phenomena nicely. It breaks down at very high speeds and/or energies. The General Relativity explains three subtle observed phenomena nicely – the gravitational lensing of light, the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and the gravitational redshift (yes, it has been confirmed in a tabletop experiment). Many orders of magnitude from everyday phenomena it also predicts gravitational waves and singularities known as black holes. A very expensive, highly sensitive experimental apparatus called LIGO was built and observed phenomena consistent with gravitational waves originating from a merger of black holes. It is an indirect observation for sure, but it is at least a partial confirmation of the extremes of the theory.
Hawking radiation has not yet been observed, it is an extremely weak effect.
Excellent articulate response! If only narrow minded leftists could understand the rationale, and logic of plain speaking people like Mike. Leftist can only call names with NO PROOF!
Let’s just hope one of those Black Holes doesn’t come wandering by our solar system.
‘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.’
So, Rebecca ‘Not-so’ Bright proves Rowe’s point – after giving her the courtesy of a response, she demonstrates how she protects her knee-jerk, insulated ignorance.
Note that she didn’t contest one point.
Just found a quote of Cicero’s view of the Earth.
“—hands on a doctrine which may have helped for, centuries, to discourage geographical exploration.”
The earth is of course spherical
It is divided into five zones
Between the two habitable and temperate zones a ‘torrid zone’
The torrid zone is uninhabitable because of the heat.
The people of the Antipodes ( opposite foot) can never meet the people of the northern temperate zone.
(This appears to have been believed until the 16th Century. see George Best 1578.A True Discourse)
Therefore Cicero handed it on,. and so we deduce that the spherical shape of the earth had been assumed before his time and that after his time was believed by scholars.
The flat earth may have been believed by tribes without scholarship but not by western scholars. Did the Chinese also believe in a spherical earth or were speculations deemed unprofitable?
Flat earth societies still exist I suppose in North America .
I’ve heard old ladies who were feminists in the 60’s say that they are now considered to be “far right”, so I wouldn’t read into this too much If I were Mr. Rowe.
He’s a standup guy who gives some spotlight time to people who typically have under appreciated jobs. For that reason he can do almost no wrong in my books.
Rebecca Bright
Another dumb Snowflake melts…
All we need is Tesla.
You may not have a Universe if the mind is not put into it.
Well stated
Ignorance based arrogance
A few points from a long list discussed at Facebook de facto CHEM:
3) Unfortunately, those most capable of understanding and working with the random are perceived as dangerous because they tend to ask questions which open the way for new and unwanted possibilities.
4) Demonizing the random is a fiction of the dominant political order.
5) Those suggesting alternative ways of thinking about the situation are demonized as elitists, socialists, and anti-Americans.
6) “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly”. Reference: Einstein letter to Morris Raphael Cohen. 1940.
JBVigo, PhD
TRUMP and PRUITT get the SCIENCE RIGHT – NATURAL CYCLES DRIVE CLIMATE CHANGE.
Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2003+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
and an earlier accessible blog version at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
Here is the abstract for convenience :
“ABSTRACT
This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.””