Off the Wall
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
mean people..
I really really like
Mike.
You should be ashamed. By and large (and I will admit that after a while, the bile simply became too deep to continue reading), Almost. Every. Single. One. of you behaved atrociously toward this person. Sure, we all love Mike Rowe. But..he's more than capable of defending himself, as he already showed in his post, so why are we being so out and out cruel in our behavior toward this person?
And the majority of responses directed toward Rebecca Bright show that there are an awful lot of people here who REALLY need to be looking in the mirror at themselves. Hard. Because had I posted something like some of those responses, I'd want to just go crawl in a hole until science proved that I'd managed to disappear.
Speaking or thinking in a manner we feel demonstrates idiocy or inadequacy should NOT mean that they become a target for every belittling statement, every nasty meme, every insult we can think of.
Were those statements directed toward me, I am not at all certain that I could survive intact--and thus, you should be ashamed, because I'm pretty tough when it comes to that. There's a name for that behavior, by the way--it's called CYBERBULLYING.
There were a few, a very few, posters who managed to reply to her in a reasonable and courteous fashion, and to you folks, I tip my hat.
Especially to Mike Rowe, but we knew that.
For everyone else that thinks that Mike Rowe is not the right person to narrate a science show because of his political beliefs doesn't quite get how the entertainment industry works. The lines that he reads are not his thoughts. He reads from a script that the show gives him. So if it's wrong don't blame him, you can only blame the writers of the show who are most likely scientists of some sort. And they probably did not care what his political beliefs were when they hired him to do this. He was most likely hired because he has a good voice to do narration with a deep tone that most producers look for in the radio industry. To dislike somebody just because of their political beliefs is very small minded thinking. Just because you don't agree with somebody does not make them a bad person. It also does not make you a better person. We all want the same thing, however many of us want to take a different path to get to that destination. Both Conservatives and Liberals are not perfect which means Mike Rowe is not perfect, it also means that you're not perfect either, actually nobody is perfect. So get off of that high horse you are on and stop pointing fingers, it does that suit you or anyone else for that matter. To make a statement that my way is the only right way is socialist thinking. One of the things that makes this country is so great is not only our diversity as people but our diverse opinions as well. If we can find a way to compromise instead of hating each other then we can do great things as a country.
I'm just sorry your brilliant response will fall on deaf ears
She wouldn't comprehend much anyway
But you were as eloquent as always
“How can SC allow anti-education,
Science is involved in everything in Rebecca’s house but doesn’t recognize it, how does the water flush in Rebecca’s toilet and refill without electricity, osmosis? It’s physics and a plumber could explain the process. How does the structural supports in Rebecca’s house stand in Hurricane force winds? A carpenter could tell her. How does the microwave cook food in seconds? A appliance repair man could explain the process. How does Rebecca’s driveway remain level after parking several tonnage of weighted vehicles on it? It’s the scientific calculation of the “base” Stone under the pavement for the tonnage and area.
We take for granted all the science around us, and there is a ton of knowledge that goes into the trades that the origin came from science and or engineering. Just saying.
PS. I don't think I've ever seen a person with that many tabs open at one time....Lol.
As a science educator and a lover of everything that Mike Rowe does and says, Rebecca kinda bristled my feathers. I was ready to go up against her for your name until I read your response. Now I just sit back and nod! Nicely done Mike. I could not have put her in her place as well as you did!
