• GardenVarietyAnxiety@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    I feel bad for Chuck, his co host on his podcast. He never misses an opportunity to remind him that he’s an “outsider” that’s only there for comic relief.

    • Victor@lemmy.world
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • Norgur@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        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.

        • snooggums@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

          • Victor@lemmy.world
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            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.

              • Victor@lemmy.world
                cake
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Okay. Btw did you down vote my comment as you made this comment? Just curious.

                • snooggums@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Your statement:

                  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.

                  • Victor@lemmy.world
                    cake
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    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.

                    🙄

        • Victor@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          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.

        • NegativeInf@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          This is exactly why I don’t like Star Talk and absolutely enjoy watching PBS Spacetime.

    • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’ve never listened to the podcast but this seems so on brand for him.

      Science isn’t a religion or cult. Its a process and literally just thinking and becoming informed allows you to be a part of that process. It doesn’t need gatekeepers.

      • Kalkaline @leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        You have to be able to accept evidence when it shows itself, at least until better evidence shows itself. That’s the hardest part about science.