I absolutely think this guy has filled the shoes Carl Sagan left behind

[nadinbrzezinski]

[Ed Suspicious]

1. A+

[Luminous Animal]

2. Neil deGrasse Tyson is a peach.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Yup

And I fully agree on that sentiment.

[Luminous Animal]

7. We need to keep him front and center in GD whenever possible.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Oh there is plenty more where that came from

[Luminous Animal]

10. I know. He's on my twitter feed...

Neil deGrasse Tyson ‏@neiltyson Feb 21
When I shop for fruit & melons I like to hold a grape next to a cantaloupe & think of Earth next to Jupiter. Then I eat Earth

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. I prefer the specks of sand and to think of planets

I know that is Sagan. Then solve the Drake Equation for fun. They make an app for that.

As we get more and more of a clear picture on exoplanets. I cannot wait for the day we actually find there is life beyond this rock. It will happen, and except for our pols and religious fanatics it should change our global perspective. At times I think pols are beyond help, and Fundies don't care.

[Auntie Bush]

92. Fundies are beyond help too.

Even their God couldn't help them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

93. Religious fanatics = Fundies

[tavalon]

48. He just went on my bucket list

He has a great sense of humor. So dry.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. And now he is on mine too

I did not know he had a twitter feed until now.

[shireen]

75. yes, he is!

I knew him almost 30 years ago when he was a grad student in UT Austin (i was an undergrad). He was a wonderful teacher and mentor to a lot of kids. A really good guy.

[longship]

3. Neil deGrasse Tyson spoke about that very thing earlier.

I won't pretend to be able to fill Carl Sagan's shoes, but I can fill mine. or something like that.

R&K

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Well, you know why I wrote that.

When Carl died there was a great emptiness left behind. Then Tyson came and my god, he is this generation's scientist - philosopher.

[longship]

6. I agree. Can hardly wait for next Sunday.

R&K

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. I know

It will be fun

[Skidmore]

22. Link to Tyson's commentary on Sagan's influence on him.

[life long demo]

25. This video is fantastic and amazing.

Thanks for posting it. Sagan and Tyson, two great men.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

42. Wow! I was the biggest Sagan fan growing up and began college with

a major in astro-physics (I didn't graduate ).

This video reveals a nice story I didn't know about and, though I had already thought of Tyson as a worthy inheritor of Sagan's place as cosmic philosopher, it's especially nice that Sagan himself saw the potential in Tyson and took personal interest in him as a young man. It validates my fandom of Tyson in ways as big as the ... cosmos!

[BelgianMadCow]

56. paying it forward

it could be the solution to everything.

Heart-touching, thank you. I didn't know Neil Tyson.

[Brewinblue]

69. Wonderful video clip!

Thanks for sharing Skidmore.

[Plucketeer]

117. Yeah Skidmore - Thanks!

I was nuts about pilots and astronauts as a teen. Neil's experience has to be as if John Glenn had sent a pimply-faced Michigan kid a personal invitation to come spend a day at the Cape with him!

[G_j]

12. He's great

totally engaging

[Skittles]

13. mmmmmmmmmmmmm

yes INDEED

[Fumesucker]

14. I was fairly active on an astronomy oriented forum on 9/11

It was shocking to me the number of posters there who were wanting to "Nuke Mecca" in some cases quite literally. I eventually ended up getting banned from the forum for being insufficiently supportive of all things Dubya.

I realized then how strong the lizard brain is in a lot of us.

[alittlelark]

16. The 'lizard brain' is something I have come to recognize....

It is scary....seems like weird little cues can set it off in normally kinda sane minds... at least my view of 'sane'.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

34. Yep. I had people tell me as much in literally the same breath as we "have to rescue the Iraqi......

..... people because Saddam GASSED THE KURDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


"Let's turn Iraq in to a glass parking lot!!!!!"

[lob1]

68. When they say "...because Saddam gassed the Kurds", they forget to add

"with poison gas we sold Saddam."

[Maedhros]

82. So many concerned with Saddam gassing the Kurds,

so few concerned with Suharto's atrocities in East Timor.

I have little respect for those who pick-and-choose atrocities based upon utility.

[iamthebandfanman]

88. +1

[alittlelark]

15. He has more humor and 'salt'

... he does not try to be 'acceptable'.....

He is a TRUE Scientist - not a media personna or 'geek'.

He's 'just right'...

[passiveporcupine]

17. I knew who you were referring to

before I even opened this thread.

[calimary]

114. So did I. Every time I see he's a guest on some show, I watch.

Love this guy! MAN do we need more like him. He makes science interesting, relevant, hip, and even sexy.

[Firebrand Gary]

18. It's so refreshing to see public figures speak this way.

If we can collectively get more people to understand what he is talking about, while keep people like him in the highest echelons of office, the human race just might be saved...

[Jasana]

19. I can't think of a better successor to Carl Sagen

[raven mad]

20. +++++ 200000000000 or more, if I get DU right - I'm old.

But, yeah, gimme more of this dude (coming from interior Alaska with a pipeline, a big one, in the back yard).

[madokie]

21. No doubt about that Naddy

There's no reason we have to have wars other than one wanting to control the other. For what ever reason and the reason always comes down to MONEY, riches however one wants to put it
It doesn't have to be this way

[pangaia]

81. Money and fundamentalist religion, I migh say..

[madokie]

89. I suppose you're right on that

[Chathamization]

23. I've found Tyson to say some inaccurate things.

I had to stop listening to his show after a while because I couldn't really trust it. Though that's a more general problem I've found with most pop science stuff - the need to be interesting trumps the need to be correct. But if you're not giving people correct information, what's the point?

[Bluenorthwest]

27. Some 'thing' which you can not specify, cite, refute....but you are certain you are correct

and Dr Tyson is wrong. Got it. 'Cause you are a more serious scientist than he is. Got it.

[leftyohiolib]

29. same with the creationists they also heard some inaccurate things and turned off

[Chathamization]

31. Wow. Find this guy to be inaccurate and suddenly you're a creationist who thinks they're "more of a

scientist" than he is. Useful for telling whether or not his fans are fans of science or fans of him.

[Avalux]

41. What has he said that's inaccurate? Are you an astrophysicist?

Here's the thing...you are calling Tyson a liar, without providing any supporting evidence for it. If you have a legitimate gripe I'd sure like to know about it, as I'm sure others would too.

Otherwise, all you're doing is making yourself out to be disingenuous. Of course others are going to jump all over you.

[Chathamization]

55. Missed post #33, did ya? N/T

[Avalux]

70. I replied to #33 before you posted this.

Being snarky does nothing to advance your argument and certainly doesn't answer the questions I've asked you directly, which you haven't yet answered.

[Chathamization]

77. So I guess you missed #51. And perhaps the video. N/T

[Avalux]

78. Nope, sure didn't. You misunderstood Tyson. I'm done here. n/t

[Chathamization]

80. Here's what was actually said: "Your problem is that the whole saucer spins and that's what a

fool would build."

Tyson: "Exactly, those are the stupid aliens. But if they managed to do that somehow it would be violating very well tested laws of physics."

You, in reply #43: "He never said it wasn't physically possible for a saucer to spin."

Seems pretty clear to me.

[leftyohiolib]

53. well i didnt say u were one ,only that creationists find scientists to be innacurate b/c the world

is , as eeryone knows , only 5000 years old (jk). out of curiosity since you didnt specify what is he wrong about? this isnt about pluto not being a planet is it?

[Chathamization]

54. Bill Maher's critics include creationists

Should we tell people who dislike Maher that they have this in common with creationists? Doesn't seem like a great response.

See 33 for some examples of my issues with him. I actually agree with him about Pluto, though it does get annoying when he keeps bringing it up.

[Logical]

30. Links please! nt

[Chathamization]

33. Here you go:

Not really sure what he's talking about here. You can buy rotating toy UFO's online if you want. On top of that, angular momentum can be angular momentum in motion or angular momentum in electric and magnetic fields (per Feynman, who seems to give us an example of angular momentum being conserved without rotation in the opposite direction:

&index=5&list=PL81A07A1045334137).

Another thing that bothered me was him talking about how the moon doesn't really orbit the earth (but that they orbit around a common point), and then later talking about the moon's orbit around the earth. Which isn't wrong, but it's being pedantic when he chooses to be. (I'll try to find the video of this later and post it here)

[RC]

37. Spinning flying saucers would interfere with their navigation.

Think of a very large gyroscope. Try flying that around three dimensional space. Or much worse, in the atmosphere of some planet like Earth. Imagine the effect of the gravity in the contents of said saucer if it were at, say 45° angle to the surface when it was where they wanted it to be. And if they figured out how to control gravity, they would still be the problem of crushing anything below it as it flew around, because of the mass of the flying saucer repelling the earth gravity.

It is not well understood, but the moon does not orbit the earth, but around a common point that is within the earth, because of the earth's greater mass. If the earth and the moon were to be the same mass, that common point would be half way between the earth and the moon. That is not some minor point, as that has a major impact on the tides.

"This common center of mass lies beneath the earth's surface, about 3,000 mi (4800 km) from the earth's center."
http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/science/moon-the-earth-moon-system.html

[Chathamization]

50. Except he’s not saying it’s a bad design, he’s saying it breaks the law of physics

when it doesn’t.

You can say it’s a major point that the moon does not orbit the earth. As I said before, I wouldn’t call it inaccurate, just overly pedantic. But if you want to argue that it’s a major point, when Tyson’s made the comment “The Moon's orbit around the Earth is not a perfect circle,” he’s being inaccurate about a major point.

[RC]

52. The moon's orbit around the earth is not a perfect circle either.

The Lunar Orbit

As seen from above the earth's north pole, the moon moves in a counterclockwise direction with an average orbital speed of about 0.6 mi/sec (1 km/sec). Because the lunar orbit is elliptical, the distance between the earth and the moon varies periodically as the moon revolves in its orbit. At perigee, when the moon is nearest the earth, the distance is about 227,000 mi (365,000 km); at apogee, when the moon is farthest from the earth, the distance is about 254,000 mi (409,000 km). The average distance is about 240,000 mi (385,000 km), or about 60 times the radius of the earth itself. The plane of the moon's orbit is tilted, or inclined, at an angle of about 5° with respect to the ecliptic. The line dividing the bright and dark portions of the moon is called the terminator.

http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/science/moon-the-earth-moon-system.html

[Avalux]

43. You didn't pay attention to the context of Tyson's answer.

Is it not true, based upon the laws of physics, that if there were beings in flying saucers, they would not be able to be at rest looking out the windows? Wouldn't they be spinning as well, and forced out away from the center of rotation? There's a carnival ride that demonstrates such centrifugal force beautifully, as he mentions.

He never said it wasn't physically possible for a saucer to spin. He said there is a problem with the premise of an entire rotating SHIP (on which beings would be housed).

The sun/earth/moon orbit question:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/12/does-the-moon-orbit-the-sun-or-the-earth/

Oh and one more thing - physics is NOT pop science.

[Chathamization]

51. Tyson says that the rotating ship breaks the law of physics

Watch the video. We seem to agree that you can have an entire rotation ship, or a ship with some parts rotating and some parts not. The laws of physics don’t get broken.

As for the moon, like I said in the other post – if you want to say that the moon doesn’t technically orbit the earth, feel free. But then Tyson is wrong when he talks about the moon orbiting the earth at other times. The statement is either correct or incorrect, not correct when he says it and incorrect when others say it.

Yes, physics is not pop science. That’s why people should probably spend time actually learning physics, not watching Tyson or other science entertainers. The latter is like watching the Sunday morning talk shows and thinking you’re politically active.

[Gore1FL]

72. Watched the video

I think you misunderstood his answer.

[Chathamization]

74. "Your problem is that the whole saucer spins and that's what a fool would build."

"Exactly, those are the stupid aliens. But if they managed to do that somehow it would be violating very well tested laws of physics."

Doesn't seem accurate. Also:

"If you set it into rotation, something else has to be sent rotating in the opposite direction…you learn it in the second week of physics 101 and it's called the conservation of angular momentum."

Seems misleading.

[phleshdef]

100. Interesting. So how many PhDs in astrophysics do you have?

Did you attend Harvard and Columbia as well? How many prestigious institutions have hired you to do research? How many NASA Distinguished Public Service Medals have you been awarded?

[Chathamization]

115. Clearly, a PhD vaccinates you from being able to say innaccurate things

Which is why we shouldn't question the things that come out of James Watson's mouth. Gotcha.

[phleshdef]

120. It certainly gives Tyson more credit than you.

[Chathamization]

121. Turning off your critical thinking skills as soon as you see “PhD” is a good way to quickly fill

your head with garbage. Just saying. If infotainment is leading people to do this, it’s doing more harm than good.

[phleshdef]

124. The point was, Tyson is highly credentialed and widely recognized as legit.

And you are just some anonymous whoever, on the internet, attacking someone that is likely way above your pay grade.

[Chathamization]

125. As is James Watson. N/T

[Nevernose]

99. "Science entertainer?"

Does your curriculum vitae look like his?

http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/curriculum-vitae

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

122. The similarities are endless....

NDT and I are both high school graduates.

It's like we're colleagues or something like that....

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. I have yet to hear him say anything in accurate.

I also know what was accurate even ten years ago has been supplanted by new information. When Sagan said that there were billions of planets out there, that was not entirely accurate, and was speculation. Today we know we have over 2000 exoplanets, and more coming in every day, almost it seems.

[Vashta Nerada]

113. Who would I trust more: an anonymous poster on a message board or Dr. Tyson?

Gee, I wonder.

[Chathamization]

116. Truly the heart of science: which person should I uncritically believe?

Well, at least the heart of the Science! fandom that's popular nowadays.

[Vashta Nerada]

118. Science isn't about believing.

[Chathamization]

119. Exactly. The foundation _should_ be the evidence, not trusting a particular media personality.N/T

[Adrahil]

24. Sagan was a childhood hero...

But I like Tyson even more. Smart, funny, entertaining.... I love listening to him.

[shenmue]

26. I think that's true

[deathrind]

28. It is life changing. N/T

[Tireman]

32. I like Brian Cox as well...

[pipi_k]

38. Him too!

Guys like him, Sagan, and Dr Tyson really know how to bring Science and Physics to the ordinary person and make it understandable.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. He is good too.

[raccoon]

35. I figured it was going to be him! nt

[chrisa]

36. Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Michio Kaku are awesome

[pipi_k]

39. Oh yeah...

Another one I forgot...Michio Kaku!

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. Kaku writes very clearly in his popular science books

I love his work as well, and has to my mind embraced the Star Trek view of life.

[Leith]

62. Love'em both to pieces

My favorite TV shows are on the Science Channel. I'm always happy when Doctors Tyson and/or Kaku are on.

[1awake]

40. He's the guy playing with the concepts of time I believe.

Very interesting stuff.

[Cleita]

45. I love this guy. If I weren't 74, I'd have his baby.

I've always been attracted to brainy guys. I like what he has to say about nuclear energy too.

[postatomic]

47. I've only seen him on Bill Maher

But I'm always impressed with his delivery.

[BelgianMadCow]

57. brilliant post, nadin

I try to look up at the stars and remember.

[MisterP]

59. I remember SDI all too well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens'_Advisory_Council_on_National_Space_Policy
(and Soviet SF)

[damnedifIknow]

60. The quote is so spot on

Looking at the bigger picture war and such seem to be beyond childish.

[Little_Wing]

61. NdGT is a gem amidst the garbage that is "infotainment" in the 21st century

I know that Fox Entertainment network is separate from Faux News, but I can't help feeling a certain schadenfreude-ish satisfaction in knowing that the Fox corporation will be bring Cosmos into our homes Sunday nights. Must see TV!

[rhett o rick]

63. I hear you, but once you start down that road, you'd might as well through away your TV. nm

[rhett o rick]

64. I think they are both great in their own rights. Thanks for posting Nadin.

This is a rare thread so far. No one is attacking you.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. Shh, ignored might get ideas!!!!

[rhett o rick]

66. LOL. You have a point. nm

[Brewinblue]

67. Thanks Nadin

This post has made my day.

[Phlem]

71. K&R!

I'm just loving your posts nadinbrezinkski!

Awesome, Awesome, Awesome!

-p

[Liberal_in_LA]

73. yes, i knew who u were referring to b4 clicking thread. he's become the go to sci guy

Proud to be 100th rec of this thread

[Warpy]

76. Yes he is. He's another brilliiant scientist with the common touch

and the ability to explain difficult concepts to people who have never considered that they might exist. I've been a fan for many years.

And yes, if people knew how completely insignificant they are this planet would be a much more peaceful and sane place, warfare restricted to the occasional drunken bar fight.

[Fawke Em]

79. !!!

(Just a chance to use one of my favorite gifs!)

[sad-cafe]

83. wow

thank you

[Doctor_J]

84. how does a country that gives the world this guy also produce limpballs?

I can't wait until human tumors like beck and the rest of their ilk have evolved away

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. That is an extremely good question

and science is actually starting to explain it. Fear... amygdala. I am willing to bet that Dr. Dyson is not a fearful man. Beck and Rush, they are scared shitless.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

86. But. . .but. . .but. . .he's black. Shouldn't he be stealing my TV or selling drugs?

How do we know he isn't a militant Black Panther dressing up his white hatred in science-y talk?

Massive sarcasm

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. Well... walking away from the funny and massive sarcasm

[nikto]

90. True 'dis...

Unmistakeably, what we call a cosmic perspective is distinctly liberal/progressive and not
regressive or inflexibly reactionary.

That which is sincerely "cosmic", has a natural liberal bias.

Liberal:
"Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Generous or freely-giving."

Cosmic Liberals: Carl Sagan, Tyson, Gene Roddenberry, Einstein, MLK, Chomsky, Chris Hedges,
Helen Caldicott, Arnie Gundersen, Dorothy Day, Oppenheimer, John Lennon,...?

It is a proud list. And much longer than I could ever remember.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

91. Apropos of Tyson's point, he has also said:

[winter is coming]

94. Thinking back to college...

pre-law and business-school types were into bending reality to suit their goals. Both of them were trying to sell something, whether it was a legal argument or a product. Scientists and engineers tend to be reality-based. It's hard to imagine them repeatedly lying about the budget, for example, after being presented with factual data.

[drmeow]

95. I don't know

No one can say "billion" like Sagan

[nadinbrzezinski]

96. When Cosmos re-airs there are going to be

A lot of comparisons.

[Arugula Latte]

97. If people had a cosmic perspective they wouldn't buy into these silly Earth-centric religions.

There are untold billions of galaxies, let alone planets, and yet so man members of this fairly recent primate species believe 2,000-year-old myths about magical people on this one little planet in this one little galaxy. It's utterly myopic.

[joshcryer]

98. I think he has more influence, but he's nothing like Sagan.

Tyson is operating in a different working environment, so to speak. Now don't get me wrong, I don't disagree and I think he is a modern Sagan, but Sagan was around when the commercialization of our education and scientific endeavors wasn't so damn prominent.

How often today do you see a science show that is about 25 minutes science, and 15 minutes intros / outros and 20 minutes of commercials? It's absolutely astounding how bad, utterly bad, modern "science shows" are. There is an exception with BBC's Earth Science stuff, of course, but the BBC's shows are paid for by subscribers, not by commercialism (and even their Top Gear, which is a car show, has become increasingly drab lately).

When Cosmos came out it was literally 13 straight hours of wonder. If you get rid of the fluff in Tyson's show it'll be doing amazing if it is half that. I hope I am wrong, of course, and if so, Tyson will have elevated himself even more.

[phleshdef]

104. Tyson, Cosmos co-creator and Sagan's widow have been working together for YEARS to get this going.

Following Sagan's death in 1996, his widow Ann Druyan, the co-creator of the original Cosmos series along with Steven Soter, a producer from the series, and astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, sought to create a new version of the series, aimed to appeal to as wide an audience as possible and not just to those interested in the sciences. They had struggled for years with reluctant television networks that failed to see the broad appeal of the show

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos:_A_Space-Time_Odyssey

Sagan's widow and also Seth McFarlane (yes, the Family Guy dude), who was heavily influenced by Sagan as a child, are all producers. People who really have a passion for Sagan's work are calling shots on this too. So I have confidence that they can and will do it justice.

There may be some fluff. But that's okay. The people who need to see this kind of stuff are the people that are attracted by fluff. Those of us that are scientific minded and take wide interest in the sciences don't need this in order to learn something and expand our horizons. We should view it as a sort of lubrication for the ignorant.

[joshcryer]

109. "Nova ScienceNow" was really bad though. Even with him on it.

It's literally 15 minutes of science. 10 minutes of intro-outro and 5 minutes (in most episodes) of "what if" possibilities. Then the rest is commercials. The reason it was bad was it was trying to throw too much at you. NOVA on its own is hit or miss, some episodes are really redundant, while others are fantastic.

I'm not blaming Tyson for this though, it's just the media environment he works in. If Sagan were living today he'd still have to deal with it. I honestly think he would fight back against it while Tyson (and also, related, Michio Kaku) sort of embraces it. That's OK, that's what you have to do.

The non-fluff is outside of entertainment media. The Stephen Colbert interview, one of the most ground breaking scientific related interview in modern times. StarTalk Radio, incredible podcast, as are pretty much any podcast that Tyson chooses to grace (even when he's on Joe Rogan it's classed up 100x). His lectures on The Great Courses, simply incredible. I can't think of any course that has been so educational about the universe other than Feynman's stuff (Feynman had a really remarkable way of telling the narrative of the quantum universe).

[BlueStreak]

101. It is great to have such a positive role model for kids.

[nadinbrzezinski]

102. Absolutely.

I know I was inspired by Carl. I hope my nephews are inspired by Tyson. One of my nephews, he is an astrophysicist. He was inspired by Cosmos.

[BobTheSubgenius]

103. Just my opinion - obviously - but I think Carl Sagan would have

a very tough time filling Neil deGrasse Tyson's shoes. He is a lot less pedantic than Sagan and makes his areas of expertise much more accessible for non-scientists like me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. Now that you mention that, might be generational.

I know that Sagan will not be even in people's mouths in a few years. We have a new generation of physicists doing this. Sagan stood on Asimov's shoulders in the sense that Asimov did that before Sagan. Tyson and Kaku and Greene are the current generation.

I would be amiss not to mention Brinn, though his is more like Asimov, in sci fi.

[deathrind]

106. Look up the letter he sent...

To Carl Sagan in 1976. It is pretty cool.

[CherokeeDem]

107. Thank you for this Amazing Post....

and for the great comments from all...

I am such a science geek and Carl Sagan was my hero. I do think that Neil deGrasse Tyson has filled the void left behind by Sagan. Wickedly smart, witty and personable, he is a joy to listen to. As is Michio Kaku... love them both.

[nadinbrzezinski]

108. Been working my way through

a couple of Kaku's works. I find them easy to read. Can't wait for Cosmos.

[NYC_SKP]

110. Tyson > Sagan. nt.

K/R

[Brainstormy]

111. I can't go that far

Sagan left some big shoes to fill. Tyson is a bit too focused on celebrity. But he's the best we got right now in the way of someone who is both a serious scientist and good at communicating to the general public. He's not too shabby. But he's not the poet of science that Sagan was.

[glinda]

112. kick

[Wise Child]

123. However, he seems too tall

To fit into one of his turtlenecks.

[get the red out]

126. I like him

I think he's kind of adorable too. Brainy-cutie!

[myrna minx]

127. K&R! I couldn't agree more.

[NewJeffCT]

128. He's responsible for demoting Pluto

[nadinbrzezinski]

130. So many inside nerd jokes in the Big Bang Theory.

[paulkienitz]

129. Tyson is mighty cool, but Sagan was on another level

Carl Sagan wasn't just a great popularizer and evangelist of science and the scientific worldview, as Tyson is. He was also a pioneering original thinker in fields such as SETI, where he was practically the first person to bring such inquiry to a level where it could be considered serious scholarship.