As you’ve no doubt heard, astrophysicist and television personality Neil Tyson has gotten himself in a bit of hot water lately for falsely attributing quotes to President George W. Bush on matters having little or nothing to do with his field of study. He sort of… kind of… issued one of those non-apology apologies recently, but the episode has now become part of the lore. It’s been one of those stories which has changed Tyson’s public perception, but there’s no way to say if it will negatively affect his career.

Taylor Dinerman has a really interesting story on the subject which doesn’t so much focus on Tyson as an earlier analog, C.P. Snow. Snow was an acclaimed British scientist in the 50s and 60s who found himself in a similar situation.

The theme of Snow’s soon-to-be-famous lecture was the unbridgeable divide between the England’s literary intellectuals and her scientists. What began as a plea for mutual recognition devolved rapidly into a call to demote the humanities in general and literature in particular. The humanities should no longer dominate British higher education, Snow held; science should be enthroned in their place. In the aftermath of the panic that hit much of the West when the Soviets launched the first Earth-orbiting satellite, Sputnik, Snow’s paean to science was not unreasonable. Moreover, it was clear by the Fifties that the British Empire had passed its prime. But “The Two Cultures” was much more than a simple plea for educational reform. Snow called into question the whole of Britain’s traditional culture and educational system. He urged scientifically trained men (at the time, women hardly counted) who had “the future in their bones” to take the lead in fashioning Britain’s new role.

This is a great historical piece which I highly recommend. It also provides a lot of food for thought. I’ll start off by stating something similar to the opening paragraph of Dinerman’s piece… I’ve been a fan of Tyson’s for a while. I’ve seen him on any number of Science Channel or TLC shows dealing with the cosmos and he’s a lively presenter. I read his book Death by Black Hole, which was very interesting. I also enjoy debating some of the theories he puts forth with friends and relatives, mostly to disagree with him on subjects where I have absolutely no formal education, but find the theories unlikely to the layman. (I still don’t buy that whole dark matter thing, and frankly I don’t believe that these guys even know exactly how gravity works. Hey… don’t knock my hobbies.)

That’s why it makes me rather sad to see him veering off into matters of politics and public policy. I was already well aware of his liberal leanings when venturing into subjects not involving a telescope. I’ve listened to several podcasts that he’s done with Chris Hardwick (you can listen to one example here) and while he’s always an enjoyable member of any panel, during an in-depth interview which ranges into casual areas, his liberal philosophies show up fairly quickly. (Anybody looking for more of this material on Tyson should really consider going through the three Nerdist podcasts he did, because there’s plenty of material there.)

I try to be one of those people who can segregate the ideology of actors, musicians, and even scientists from their primary work. If I refused to watch any movies starring people with hefty liberal biases I’d probably never walk into a theater again unless Clint Eastwood does another movie. The same goes for music. If they’re not beating me over the head with it, I try to sit back, relax and enjoy the show. And in the future, the odds are that I’ll do the same with Tyson. At least as long as he sticks to outer space.