My favorite part of the book was Tyson's keynote speech at the Goddard Memorial Dinner in 2005:
"One day I was reading the newspaper--a dangerous thing to do, always--and I saw a headline complaining, 'HALF OF SCHOOLS IN DISTRICT SCORED BELOW AVERAGE.' Well, that's kind of what an average is! You get about half below and half above...
I've got another example. It's often said that the state lottery is a tax on the poor, because people with low incomes spend a disproportionate amount of their money on lottery tickets. It is not a tax on the poor. It's a tax on the people who never studied mathematics." -203-4
"Some people want to put warning stickers on biology textbooks, saying that the theory of evolution is just one of many theories, take it or leave it. Now, religion long predates science; it'll be here forever. That's not the issue. The problem comes when religion enters the science classroom. There's no tradition of scientists knocking down the Sunday school door, telling preachers what to teach. Scientists don't picket churches. By and large--though it may not look this way today--science and religion have achieved peaceful coexistence for quite some time. In fact, the greatest conflicts in the world are not between religion and science; they're between religion and religion.
This is not simply an academic point. Let's go back a millennium. Between A.D. 800 and A.D. 1200 the intellectual center of the Western world was Baghdad. Why? It's leaders were open to whoever wanted to think stuff up: Jews, Christians, Muslims, doubters. Everybody was granted a seat at the debating table, maximizing the exchange of ideas. Meanwhile, the written wisdom of the world was being acquired by the libraries of Baghdad and translated into Arabic. As a result, the Arabs made advances in farming, commerce, engineering, medicine, mathematics, astronomy, navigation. Do you realize that two-thirds of all the named stars in the night sky have Arabic names? If you do something first and best, you get naming rights. The Arabs got naming rights to the stars twelve hundred years ago because they charted them better than anybody had done before. They pioneered the fledgling system of Hindu numerals in the new field of algebra, itself an Arabic word--which is how the numerals came to be called 'Arabic numerals.' 'Algorithm,' another familiar word, derives from the name of the Baghdad-based mathematician who also gave us the basics of algebra.
So what happened? Historians will say that with the sack of Baghdad by Mongols in the thirteenth century, the entire nonsectarian intellectual foundation of that enterprise collapsed, along with the libraries that supported it. But if you also track the cultural and religious forces at play, you find that the influential writings of the eleventh-century Muslim scholar and theologian Al-Ghazali shaped how Islam viewed the natural world. By declaring the manipulation of numbers to be the work of the devil, and by promoting the concept of Allah's will as the cause of all natural phenomena, Ghazali unwittingly quenched scientific endeavor in the Muslim world. And it has never recovered, even to this day. From 1901 to 2010, of the 543 Nobel Prize winners in the sciences, two were Muslim. Yet Muslims comprise nearly one-fourth of the world's population.
Today among fundamentalist Christians as well as Hassidic Jews, there is a comparable absence. When societies and cultures are permeated by nonsecular philosophies, science and technology and medicine stagnate." -205-6.
He chides people who think science is about comfort with answers: "But you can't be a scientist if you're uncomfortable with ignorance, because scientists live at the boundary between what is known and unknown in the cosmos. This is very different from the way journalists portray us. So many articles begin, 'Scientists now have to go back to the drawing board.' It's as though we're sitting in our offices, feet up on our desks--masters of the universe--and suddenly say, 'Oops, somebody discovered something!' No. We're always at the drawing board. If you're not at the drawing board, you're not making discoveries. You're not a scientist; you're something else." -183
UFOs: "Do I believe in UFOs or extraterrestrial visitors? Where shall I begin? There's a fascinating frailty of the human mind that psychologists know all about, called 'argument from ignorance.' This is how it goes. Remember what the 'U' stands for in "UFO"? . . . The 'U' stands for 'unidentified.'
But then you say, 'I don't know what it is; it must be aliens from outer space, visiting from another planet.' The issue here is that if you don't know what something is, your interpretation of it should stop immediately. You don't then say it must be X or Y or Z. That's argument from ignorance. It's common. I'm not blaming anybody; it may relate to our burning need to manufacture answers because we feel uncomfortable about being steeped in ignorance." -182. Of course, all scientific hypotheses start as "arguments from ignorance" -- you don't know why or how something is happening, so you make an educated guess, then test that guess. That is, I don't agree that we should stop interpreting stimulus immediately if we can't identify it. Unidentified lights in the sky could be lots of things, including an alien spacecraft -- it's just not the most likely hypothesis, and it's not terribly test-able.
On the government misunderstanding the metric system, and Tyson's dislike of rhetoric/spin: "A few years later, jury duty again. The judge states that the defendant is charged with possession of 1,700 milligrams of cocaine. It was found on his body, he was arrested, and he is now on trial. This time, after the Q&A is over, the judge asks us whether there are any questions we'd like to ask the court, and I say, 'Yes, Your Honor. Why did you say he was in possession of 1,700 milligrams of cocaine? That equals 1.7 grams. The 'thousand' cancels with the 'milli-' and you get 1.7 grams, which is less than the weight of a dime.' Again, I'm out on the street." -204
Early on, he dabbles with politics:
"[N]obody, especially a Republican, wants to be thought of as someone who sees NASA as a government jobs program, although that comment has been made before--not by a politician, but by a comedian. ... 'NASA is a billion dollar welfare program for really smart dorks. Where else are they going to work? They're too smart to do anything else.'" -17 (quoting Wanda Sykes)
He writes about people who think we'll naturally get to the stars without investment or effort: "A line of reasoning within the ranks of the hopeful might be: 'We invented flight when most people thought it was impossible. A mere sixty-five years later, we went to the Moon. It's high time we journeyed among the stars. People who say it isn't possible are ignoring history.'
My rebuttal is borrowed from a legal disclaimer of the investment industry: 'Past performance is not an indicator of future returns.'" -191