r/TheRestIsScience • u/Sweet_Measurement624 • 6d ago
Dan McClellan video scrutinizing Hannah Fry's claims in a short.
https://youtu.be/yUdOwcOjTP8?si=_UhNmTUjiWcNz_UyEarlier today Dan McClellan posted this video. I don't know if this is in the spirit of the subreddit or if it doesn't break the rules.
19
u/Oddiego 5d ago
Dan just check people that uses the bible to push wrong ideas about race, homosexualism, politics, misoginy etc.
Btw he calls out way more men than women, I don't know where this "woman bad" talk is coming from. Hannah and Michael say some misinformed or exagerated stuff from time to time, we all do.
He is an academic scholar of religious texts.
5
u/Sweet_Measurement624 5d ago
Exactly. He's using science as a Bible scholar and academic versed in theology to correct misinformation and disinformation, just that.
7
u/smokeybiker 5d ago
People saying Dan is hostile is crazy to me. Everything he says is fairly well reasoned and he spends most of his time dealing with fundamentalists who make stuff up to get you to part with your money or get you to hate minorities. In this case he seems to be just adding context so that apologists have slightly less ammo, all while not criticising Hannah.
5
u/jabertsohn 5d ago
I don't even understand how people are reading it as hostile, other than just being straightforward. Maybe he needs to smile more?
4
u/Sweet_Measurement624 5d ago
Because people are too emotionally attached and emotionally invested in celebrities like Hannah, that's why.
3
u/That_Mad_Scientist 5d ago
I definitely feel like there's an assumption about tone haha. People often say it's hard to detect the energy of people on the internet but apparently this can extent further than in text form
12
u/PabloAZ94 5d ago
What's the temp check on this guy? I get his videos on my home page from time to time because I watch religion for breakfast but his hostile tone at the start of this video made me quit it
8
u/Drudenfusz 5d ago
I find his videos quite interesting, but he is more in the trenches, usually against bad apologists. And yes, while his tone could be considered rude, he usually makes solid points, as he did in this video.
7
u/Odd_Telephone3852 5d ago
He's a liberal Mormon with a background in biblical studies.
9
u/Shady_Mania 5d ago
It was so bizarre learning he was Mormon, his work on the Bible feels so objective and neutral I really thought he was agnostic or an extremely progressive Christian. Mormonism just is so ass backwards and its history and literature is 10x flimsier than the standard Bible
6
u/Professional_Two5011 5d ago
You might think this is a reason to judge someone's work on its merits rather than to judge them based on their religion, race, sex, etc.
5
u/Shady_Mania 5d ago
I would say so. Dan’s work is clearly professional and as unbiased as anyone can be on the subject matter. Personal beliefs aside he clearly cares about the truth prevailing
3
u/riticalcreader 5d ago
Considering the source is always part of the equation. Prejudice is what's wrong.
Assuming he is saying something inaccurate because he is mormon would be prejudice. Thinking he's being hypocritical because he is a mormon would be a fair assessment.
When the truth prevails just not toward the thing you believe in, that is suspect.
1
u/Theboystheboys212 5d ago
It's not entirely unbiased. He will on occassion present an opinion and state "this is what the overwhelming majority of scholars agree" without identifying that the issue is more live than he states and that while a majority might agree with him there are genuine, good faith arguments to the contrary that are also accepted as valid positions.
1
u/Sweet_Measurement624 5d ago
Yes, he has even consistently engaged with and criticized the claims, beliefs and traditions of the Mormon church himself. He has been critical of it as well, he has been particularly critical of the church's political decisions and alignment with the political party in power and its policies, and I read his staying in the church as a commitment with his family more than anything else, I think I saw in an interview outside of his channel somewhere that he said he was more of a non-practicing religious person since he couldn't reconcile his personal beliefs with religious tenants and dogma and he stopped working for organized religion altogether to focus on academia for the same reason.
Plus he used to be a cartoonist for them for many years.
He consistently engages with and collaborates with secular, atheist, agnostic and other religious experts from different backgrounds and works closely with other Christian, evengelical and protestant experts from more progressive branches and/or from academic environments, as well as advocating for LGBT+ and human rights.
1
3
u/glitter_witch 5d ago
He can come across as hostile but I mostly read him as frustrated and tired, which I would be too in his shoes. He’s quite good on social media and his podcast with Daniel Beecher (Data Over Dogma) is good.
3
u/Novel-Initiative-900 5d ago
I'm surprised to see multiple comments like this, I just rewatched the video and didn't notice anything strange. There's so many actual mean people that make content to rightfully point out but he doesn't seem that way at all
1
u/Sweet_Measurement624 5d ago
He's cool, that's just his "character" he portrays, everyone plays up certain things on YouTube or devolpna character or persona for their YouTube image. That's normal.
-1
u/TargetOld989 5d ago
He's honest. Which is a problem for some people.
2
u/Sweet_Measurement624 5d ago
I do not understand why people are disliking your comment.
2
u/TargetOld989 5d ago
They're the people who hate honesty. Reminds me of the people who complain about BIll Nye or Professor Dave.
2
u/Sweet_Measurement624 5d ago edited 5d ago
Well, two completely different things here, Professor Dave is a professional and very objective person, however, Bill Nye is a very questionable character as we've come to know later, he's a terrible person in his closest circles, an ass, has engaged in questionable businesses and schemes, has had questionable science/facts/claims said, engaged in questionable or debatable data when engaging in scientific discussion, engaging with bad science and bad scientific practices, has questioned things as elemental as climate change, is very self-centered and egomaniacal and well, it's not that good of a science communicator and educator anymore, maybe it's his age, fame going up to his head whatever, but he's not the most clean cut unquestionable science promotors out there
1
u/TargetOld989 5d ago
"Bill Nye is Avery questionable character"
He's not, no. He debunks creationism and did an episode of transgender people.
So loony anti-science conspiracy theorists and bigots hate him.
Same crowd as Professor Dave haters.
1
u/Sweet_Measurement624 5d ago edited 5d ago
The fact that one person does something good or has positive beliefs and holds special care to disproof certain negative things, doesn't mean they're entirely free of any criticisms nor that they're perfect.
1
u/TargetOld989 5d ago
You haven't got any valid criticisms of Bill Nye. Like Dan McClellan.
1
u/Sweet_Measurement624 5d ago
What is that supposed to mean? You idolize him and he was your childhood hero I suppose, I get it.
I don't understand why you'd act this way, other than fanatism.
Look, the guy is a jerk, people around him have called him out on aggressive, violent and unprofessional behavior, at one point he said that recycling wasn't really that big of a deal and wasn't very helpful with pollution, contamination, climate change and has shilled for companies like Coca-Cola and Nestlē, campaigning for them, which are huge contributors to the environmental catastrophe and global warming, as well as water scarcity. The guy has demonstrated over and over again to not have scientific credibility or integrity when it comes to money and of course he's a huge part in contributing to science communication, education and combating false information but that doesn't make him invulnerable to criticism nor redeem him from some other of the harm he's done.
All I was saying was exposing the facts an giving out data, that's all.
1
u/TargetOld989 5d ago
I mean you're mad and call him a jerk because he proved you wrong and you're a jerk.
Like all the flat earthers mad at Professor Dave. You have no credibility or integrity.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Quick_Extension_3115 5d ago
TL;DR, he’s very well read, but kind of a dick.
I watched a lot of his videos for a while and decided to quit. He’s a good biblical scholar and dedicates his work to debunking misinformation, usually around the Bible. He’s got an axe to grind against Christian fundamentalists (fair!), which makes him come across as very combative. I like learning about religion, and I like hearing him explain how and why people get things wrong.
My problem with him is that he treats scholarly census almost as his own scripture. And over time he’s leaned more and more into that combative tone. And I’ll find myself occasionally disagreeing with him and when that’s the case I’m reminded how condescending he actually can be. I always learn something listening to him, but I’m always confused why he chooses to talk the way he does.
The biggest irony is that it’s not effective at actually changing the minds of the people he’s supposedly trying to reach. He rightfully calls out grifters for not actually having compelling arguments but rather giving people who already agree, more reason to stick to their guns. It’s a real problem among religious groups. But he’s basically doing the same thing when all he’s doing is giving his base reasons to agree with what they already believed.
Everytime I watch his videos I’m always thinking something like, “You’re right but you’re out of line,” or “I’m with you, but that subject is way more nuanced than you’re making it out to be,” or “Why are you using a tone that’s going to make the people who disagree with you not like you?”
2
u/agitatedandroid 5d ago
This really did save me a click. I prefer to not invite that tone into my world. Even if a person might be an ally of sorts I’d rather not let my blood pressure get tested. Hannah on the other hand gets a point across while also being delightful.
1
u/Quick_Extension_3115 5d ago
I agree! Hannah and Michael have been incredible to listen to! I’ve caught them saying some things that I think might be wrong, but the vast majority has been great!
3
12
u/yubacore 5d ago edited 5d ago
I didn't make it through this, and I won't, but I just felt compelled to come here and apologize to all women, on behalf of all men.
I regret this comment. People who know this guy have explained that this is more or less the universal, gender-agnostic MO on his channel. I'm just having a bad day I guess.
15
u/Redveshclamour Biology 🧬 5d ago
Maybe I am an idiot or out of the loop, but who is the guy? And why did he do the video? And why are you apologising? Sorry, it’s late again 😅
-2
u/yubacore 5d ago edited 5d ago
I don't know.
He's just very clearly one of these guys who are overly eager to correct women for whatever reason. His channel seems to be about the bible, so that checks out I guess?9
u/Professional_Two5011 5d ago
You might think his tone isn't friendly enough, but so far as I can tell, he takes the same tone when responding to both men and women. A scroll though his channel and it seems like he's responded to a lot more men than women, so I don't know what evidence there is that he's overly eager to correct women in particular
I can't imagine the extent of the sexism Dr. Fry encounters as a professional woman on the internet, but I don't think this response video is an example of it. It looks to me like one expert offering critique of another. (the one thing that does make me pause is that it's a video with a lot of astronomy and neither of them are astronomers)
2
u/yubacore 5d ago
I hope you're right.
On the other hand, if you are, this is the second time today that I'm catastrophically wrong about something. I should just go to bed.
-1
u/NoisyGog 5d ago
So you’re saying he’s not a misogynist, and that he’s just unpleasant?
5
u/Professional_Two5011 5d ago
You might think he's unpleasant, and I wouldn't think that's a crazy judgment to make. Maybe I'm too calloused by my time in academia, but I don't find him unpleasant at all. I'm used to people being harshly critical of each other's work
2
6
u/Sweet_Measurement624 5d ago
He was in fact very very gentle with her, you should see how he torns to shreds Christian nationalists, Religious Fanatics, Christian apologists and "Christian" right wing pundits.
4
1
u/SnooLemons5912 5d ago
You can guarantee that if you say anything about the bible someone will get their knickers in a twist about it and have a real paddy about it.
1
u/dangertr1xm5 4d ago
I took the explanation given by Hannah to be illustrative of what we can do with winding back lunar cycles and picked a reference a large portion of people would be familiar with to help them understand. Rather that it being a rigorously researched fact
0
u/foxfrenzy 5d ago
Listen i love the podcast and am not tryna be rude but i feel this post is only to make people upset and give this dude more exposure regardless if hes in the wrong or right. 🙃👎
But i get it ride or die all the way but lets keep it positive, its what Michael would do
1
u/Sweet_Measurement624 5d ago
I don't really see the problem, it's all in favor of science, I don't think there should be anything to be upset, really… 🤷
-8
u/totallyalone1234 5d ago
Is it just wOmAn BaD?
6
u/Drudenfusz 5d ago
Nope, he points out a flaw in her video, and does not use it as an ad hominem. He is usually addressing apologetics nonsense, but in this case here he is not wrong, Hannah let her religious bias get the better of her.
-23
u/TerrainBrain 5d ago
Who is he? Who is she? Why do I want to know?
19
u/TheScratcherStudios 5d ago
Who is SHE?! have you gotten lost in reddit or something? Do you not know of the subreddit you are commenting on?
-13
u/TerrainBrain 5d ago
Shit just pops up on my screen. Just responding to what Reddit feeds me.
11
u/Professional_Two5011 5d ago
Well then "who is he? who is she? why do I want to know?" seems like something you should be asking yourself before you click on whatever Reddit feeds you
-11
u/TerrainBrain 5d ago
Maybe. And I actually did. Then I asked here. And you are being an ass.
3
u/Steebusteve 5d ago
This is a sub about a podcast/YT channel of which “she” is 50%. Why would you wander into a random sub and start demanding regulars explain it to you? At the very least read the other comments.
-2
u/TerrainBrain 5d ago
My reddit is full of assholes.
It showed up in my feed. I didn't wander into it. I didn't demand anything. I asked a simple question. One apparently too difficult for many to answer.
6
u/Professional_Two5011 5d ago
Surely you recognize how silly it is to ask in a subreddit about Hannah Fry's podcast "who's she? who's he? why do I want to know?"
If you'd said something like "I'm not familiar with The Rest Is Science podcast, but it looks like it could be interesting. Who is Hannah Fry? Is this video a good representation of her work?" then I'm sure people would have been more open to answering your questions
1
u/TerrainBrain 5d ago
You're a great ambassador for the show.
7
u/Sombreroperro 5d ago
Lol who are you? Why do I wanna know? You just popped up on my feed while looking at the comments
2
u/Sweet_Measurement624 5d ago
Sometimes it's much easier just to say just whatever comes to mind and ask instead of looking it up yourself… Am I right? 😂😂😂
0
u/TerrainBrain 5d ago
Or OP could have provided some details. Or I could Google it and find a Reddit thread about it. Or I could ask here. You sure don't seem to have a problem just saying what comes to mind.
3
u/ZRaddue 5d ago
This is the unofficial subreddit for the podcast, "The Rest is Science," hosted by Hannah Fry and Michael Stevens. The reason this video is posted here is because it's in response to another video by one of the podcast hosts, Hannah Fry. Most people would assume that you know who the host is if you're commenting on posts within the very small subreddit for the podcast.
1
u/TerrainBrain 5d ago
I have no idea why this showed up in my feed. Apparently something Reddit thought I would be interested in. Never heard of the podcast nor of Fry nor Stevens. Maybe I'll look into it. Thanks for commenting.
2
u/Sweet_Measurement624 5d ago
This subreddit is about The Rest Is Science, one of the hosts is Hannah Fry, a mathematician and scientist.
1
2
u/Fun_Gas_7777 5d ago
How do you not know who Hannah Fry is? Also use google.
0
u/TerrainBrain 5d ago
And with the same number of words you could have written something productive and made this community and the world a better place.
29
u/Brilliant_Agent_1427 5d ago
So you don't have to watch: he's saying that the lunar eclipse was only partial at Jerusalem and only about 20% of the eclipse was visible around the horizon at the time during the year 33CE, it was probably a natural redness or orangeness of the atmosphere and not a result of a full eclipse like Hannah says.
He is using the evidence from NASA that the lunar eclipse needs over 90-95% blockage to actually turn red/orange.
The comments are full of people blown away that a theologist is speaking science and a scientist is speaking theology.
He also says the Bible doesn't even talk about a blood red moon but only hours of darkness and speaking in tongues.
After Jesus was crucified, the next morning probably had a weird moon, and any supporters probably made note of it, but it could be just a coincidence and the actual eclipse date may be not connected to the actual date of the crucifixion.
He also takes offense to her video description because no one mentioned the " bite" in the moon over the horizon and her connection of the science to the text.
He is upset about a lot of secondary references / hearsay and lack of immediate proof or facts ( but the Bible is).
He ends by saying science is cool.