Adam K's Reviews > Starry Messenger: Cosmic Perspectives on Civilization

2 stars, maybe 2.5 stars

I fully appreciate the importance of science educators and communicators. Their job is challenging in many ways. However, Neil deGrasse Tyson seems like the kind of guy who would show up at your grandmother's funeral and say (in a soothing, ethereal tone), "Did you know that in this season and climate, your grandmother's body would fully decompose in approximately four weeks time? Even with the embalming process briefly slowing decomposition, her enzymes and bacteria are already beginning the process of breaking down her body. It's all part of the cycle of life."

Scientifically accurate? Sure. The best audience or timing? Probably not.

In this book, Tyson assembles a multitude of scientific facts into chapters that deal with contentious issues in contemporary society--everything from vegetarianism to the divided political landscape in the United States. His main argument can be distilled down into, "Science is good. Rational thinking is good. Scientists are great, and everyone should try to be more like them. We're all more alike than we are different." I don't necessarily disagree with any of those points in particular, but his arguments for them can come off as cherry-picked or incomplete. I find it a little disconcerting that Tyson vehemently argues in the defense of nuance while ignoring certain areas of nuance in his own examples. His argument that the search for objective truth should be paramount might be noble in sentiment, and we certainly can do better as a society, but in some of his examples it may not be practicable (as unfortunate as that may be) and his criticisms lose steam when presented in this manner. This is a book of good points hampered by flawed examples.

Even some of his factoids are housed in unnecessary fiction that really does not drive his point home hard. For example, he says that male reindeer shed their antlers in November, therefore Santa's reindeer are actually female and have been mis-gendered for countless years. Except, they're fictional reindeer. They can fly, so can't it be said that they magically keep their antlers? I understand that he's merely attempting to make the science "fun," but I also believe that basing your factual statements on something fictional undermines the fact itself. I can understand this being effective for very young audiences, but it seems like this book is not targeted towards them (considering the profanity).

Tyson does this sort of thing a lot. He shoehorns facts into places just because he can. I imagine he's the kind of guy at parties who constantly tries to show off all of his fun facts. "I see you're drinking wine. Did you know that the red color comes from the anthocyan pigments present in the skin of the grapes? Your shoes are made of leather. Did you know that traditional leather tanning methods took around 30 days to complete? Modern methods of mineral tanning are much faster and can complete this process within 1-2 days."

The book itself is okay. There are a lot of interesting facts in here. Tyson certainly can be a good storyteller and many of the ones presented here are told in a compelling way. There were some parts that stood out to me as being both eloquent and even-handed in presentation and analysis, such as his section about confederate statues and what they represent. However, I feel like he runs into issues when attempting to relate things back to a wider perspective and uses them as a raised eyebrow at society. And again, I agree with Tyson's opinions and thoughts more often than not. I just feel like his approach is flawed and even mildly condescending. His thought experiments are effective, if a bit juvenile, and I find it difficult to determine who this book is really for. The fence sitters who aren't sure if science is important or not but have also not given science much thought? I think he's at his best when he's just telling stories of science and not trying to jam it into a broader, more philosophical point or attempting to "fix" a societal flaw.

Tyson's main argument, that a "cosmic perspective" is essential in helping us overcome our logical shortcomings and help us move into a better society, is a valid one. I just find this book to be a bit too boring, simplistic, and dotted with Tyson's mild tone deafness. In many ways, it's almost like a collection of his Twitter posts re-organized and bridged together. For a much better (if slightly outdated) argument for why science and science education is important, I recommend Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan.