Rho_Cassiopeiae

Hi Dr. Krauss.

From my perspective, there are several public educators promoting reason and science who seem to have different approaches (style and ethos of communication) towards discussing religion in public, despite having a common thread among them -- their lack of belief in religion. Here I'm talking about Neil deGrasse Tyson, Steven Pinker, Richard Dawkins, Yourself, Sean Caroll, Phil Plait, etc.

My question is: Who do you think has the "best" approach among all of these academics, excluding yourself? What aspects of some of these approaches are you not terribly fond of and what aspects do you greatly admire? What would you like to see more of and what would you like to see less of? Do you see the different approaches as conflicting or complementary? Or a little bit of both?

In your best judgement, what can the average person do to make the most positive contribution to science literacy within their community?

And what career path would you recommend to someone who wants to increase science literacy by as much as possible within their community and their culture at large?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

(Actor-observer bias)

Which scientific concept do you think is the most misunderstood by atheists, anti-theists, freethinkers, skeptics, etc.?

What subject areas with tangential relevance to your career do you wish you were more knowledgeable about but don't have the time to study?