MSGID: 4:920/1.1 637d781a
TZUTC: -0500
CHRS: CP437

This is a post that Mike Rowe made a few years back, and I thought it might be
appreciated here 

_-----

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
--- AfterShock/Android 1.6.8
 * Origin: FireCat Mobile (4:920/1.1)
SEEN-BY: 1/21 3/1 15/0 80/1 90/1 92/0 1 103/705 105/81 106/201 114/705
SEEN-BY: 123/120 124/5016 129/305 153/757 7715 203/0 218/700 840 220/70
SEEN-BY: 221/0 1 6 226/17 30 229/110 111 112 113 114 317 426 428 470
SEEN-BY: 229/664 700 240/1120 5832 250/5 8 267/800 280/464 282/1038
SEEN-BY: 292/8125 298/25 301/1 113 812 305/3 310/31 317/3 320/219
SEEN-BY: 322/757 341/66 234 396/45 423/120 460/58 633/280 712/848
SEEN-BY: 770/1 100 340 772/220 230 920/0 1 69 2320/105 5058/104
PATH: 920/1 92/1 301/1 280/464 310/31 770/1 317/3 229/426