5 ms·

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the argument behind this piece seems to essentially be "ignorance is bliss and science is bad because it takes away the mystery"?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the argument behind this piece seems to essentially be "ignorance is bliss and science is bad because it takes away the mystery"? It's hard to imagine a more anti-intellectual view than that. :P

pdkl95 11y ago
I could dig into this for being a borderline Poe's Law[1] troll, or for the hypocrisy of accusing Tyson of having a bad attitude in such an insulting manner. Many pages could be written on the inaccuracies, anti-intellectualism, and projection that fills most of the article. But... this isn't fark.com and it's not really worth the effort. In any case, Bill Nye is clearly the best at deflating Tyson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0-jKmcNr_8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0-jKmcNr_8 [1] bottom of article claims "Filed Under: ... Vague Attempts at Satire", but the comments seem non-satire anti-intellectual
wfo 11y ago
The article suggests intellectual activity extends beyond fact-collecting and saying "wow, gee whiz, isn't space incredible? And isn't it great that only dumb people believe in God? I'm so much smarter than non-sciencey god-believing peasants who don't even know what nebulae are" It is deeply intellectual, far more so than NDT in fact. In particular note where it eviscerates his attempt to stray beyond physics into history, where his analysis is laughably false. I don't know why but it's often the case that hard scientists, once they are established and respected for doing hard science, feel like they are entitled to go around pretending they can speak intelligently about any other field, no matter how little they understand it. Probably the learned contempt and disdain for the humanities that consumes and drives the culture of many of my fellow STEM folks. The article attacks the rigid inability of these people to shift their thoughts from the strict empiricist/materialist framework (facts are what the world is) as if they had read Wittgenstein's first book but forgot there was a second -- and their inability to be intellectually flexible, which is the reason why inevitably their attempts to dabble in the humanities flop hilariously.
phasnox 11y ago
Quite the opposite. It is about how the lies, dullness and superficiality of Neil deGrasse points of view are destroying scientific thinking.

pdkl95 11y ago

I could dig into this for being a borderline Poe's Law[1] troll, or for the hypocrisy of accusing Tyson of having a bad attitude in such an insulting manner. Many pages could be written on the inaccuracies, anti-intellectualism, and projection that fills most of the article. But... this isn't fark.com and it's not really worth the effort. In any case, Bill Nye is clearly the best at deflating Tyson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0-jKmcNr_8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0-jKmcNr_8 [1] bottom of article claims "Filed Under: ... Vague Attempts at Satire", but the comments seem non-satire anti-intellectual

wfo 11y ago

The article suggests intellectual activity extends beyond fact-collecting and saying "wow, gee whiz, isn't space incredible? And isn't it great that only dumb people believe in God? I'm so much smarter than non-sciencey god-believing peasants who don't even know what nebulae are" It is deeply intellectual, far more so than NDT in fact. In particular note where it eviscerates his attempt to stray beyond physics into history, where his analysis is laughably false. I don't know why but it's often the case that hard scientists, once they are established and respected for doing hard science, feel like they are entitled to go around pretending they can speak intelligently about any other field, no matter how little they understand it. Probably the learned contempt and disdain for the humanities that consumes and drives the culture of many of my fellow STEM folks. The article attacks the rigid inability of these people to shift their thoughts from the strict empiricist/materialist framework (facts are what the world is) as if they had read Wittgenstein's first book but forgot there was a second -- and their inability to be intellectually flexible, which is the reason why inevitably their attempts to dabble in the humanities flop hilariously.

phasnox 11y ago

Quite the opposite. It is about how the lies, dullness and superficiality of Neil deGrasse points of view are destroying scientific thinking.