Comments on: Colbert Retorts

By: Annec

Annec — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 03:02:59 +0000

We have places for those that wish to do scientific research, but I fail to understand why one would not wish to teach others, while doing research at the same time. A research scientist is extremely unproductive. Einstein spent mostly his entire life contributing nothing, but he was a rare one, that actually made a substantial contribution. Most research done at the University level simply confirms other research, just as most books written by academia are not worth the paper that it is written on. This is not to say that these programs are not worthwhile, but don’t be a cry-baby about it.

I have some advice for motivated would be scientist, join the Army. Besides from getting food and shelter, one may study forever, but at the same time, one would have productive duties to consider at the same time. This would be sort of like a professor actually teaching a class. I can tell you true, that most graduate students could not teach 5th grade. Get it? Are they smarter than a 5th grader?

When I mention the Army, one naturally includes any such services, including The U.S. Public Health Service. I have to ask you, who runs our Nuclear Air Craft Carriers? It all begins with individuals with an equivalent of a two year degree. One should consider, that many of our U.S. Presidents arose from military schooling. Get a grip! If you wish only to get rich, become a football player.

By: David Bruggeman

David Bruggeman — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 06:43:07 +0000

Chris,

What was your “Colbert Bump”? It might be harder to measure, given the recent fire sale on paperback copies of TRWOS.

By: Tiger

Tiger — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:54:20 +0000

The first commenter here is correct to say that Colbert does not need to tie science to politics before he can begin his act of ignorance. He tends to evoke religion much more frequently. For example, the Colbert character subscribes to James Ussher’s timeline of the Earth that places its creation at 4004 BC, and he is always quite offended when a paleontologist or evolutionary biologist disputes this claim. His general skepticism about anything he cannot directly see and experience makes discussions of physics and genetics quite interesting. (I don’t want to appear like I’m just here to promote, but anyone looking for a list of scientists on Colbert might like to to check out my “website.”)

Also, from the perspective of a huge Colbert fan, thanks for the insight into the interview experience. It’s absolutely right to say that Colbert should be the funny one. The best a guest can hope for, in my opinion, is to seem well-informed on their subject, but not too serious.

By: llewelly

llewelly — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:47:44 +0000

So when will Colbert dress up as Neil deGrasse Tyson and say ‘Billions and Billions’?

By: David Bruggeman

David Bruggeman — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:03:16 +0000

Chris,

Most of Colbert’s science-related segments (and I’d throw in “Cheating Death with Dr. Stephen T. Colbert”) aren’t focused on science and politics in such an explicit way, or connected to national politicians, in the way that your appearance was. They seem more connected to an anti-intellectual theme that Colbert targets from time to time, a consumerist approach to science (mostly medicine), or to the inconvenience of facts that Colbert has railed against since Day 1 of his show.

Reflecting about it, I’m hard pressed to think of other segments involving science that were so explicitly connected to national politicians as your appearance.