3 ms·

I'm sorry but that discredits his wide history as a modern intellectual. He did philosophy and linguistics from the start. Like it's fine to not agree with him

I'm sorry but that discredits his wide history as a modern intellectual. He did philosophy and linguistics from the start. Like it's fine to not agree with him, but he often offers a great introduction to topics like war and labor organizing for folks. His pop science is at least based on real science and his own reasoning. And who would you suggest instead? If you say anyone before the 1960s but filtered through the likes of Jordan Peterson or Steven Pinker I'm going to have a hernia. THEY are pop science crap.

hef19898 3y ago
Personally, I have a peoblem with all those "intelectuals". Most of the time they were never top of the crop in their field to begin with, and then switched over to general intellectualism using top notch rethoric skills. Peterson is living, or already fell off, the extreme end of this spectrum. People like Chomsky occupy places on the same spectrum so. And spare me philosophers.
- boppinz 3y ago
  Laymen need people who can synthesize the works of academics/researchers. If someone like Chomsky wasn't talking about "faciness" and the ethics of ChatGPT, would anyone really bring that up? In an academic setting or otherwise. This again also discredits his work as an academic for coining and bringing to light topics like CFGs. Or in another similar vein: Bill Nye helps to distill scientific concepts for children (and adults too). There is something to be said for him helping to engage some students more in science, AND for whatever interpretation and analysis of Creationism vs. Evolution he did at that debate with Ken Ham, for the lay people. To a degree, it doesn't matter if he got every one of his points 100% logically sound, it can be a springboard that hopefully gives theists some food for thought on why Evolution is the best we empirically have and that the Bible isn't a primary source for citing. So I again ask who you would rather speak to me about these topics, or am I supposed to just dig through thousands of scholarly articles and hope the ones I discuss and cite have the "correct" opinion and rhetorical skils?
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Bill Nye condenses scietific facts, true. And he does that very well. What he does not is selling his own ideas on everything. ChatGPT, well, everybody brings those issues up. But who really cares about "faciness"? Also, evolution is as much a fact as gravity. Pretending there needs to be a discussion being had, especially one not between biologists and other experts, just gives credit to opinions that don't deserve it. But since there are people denying gravity, well...

hef19898 3y ago

Personally, I have a peoblem with all those "intelectuals". Most of the time they were never top of the crop in their field to begin with, and then switched over to general intellectualism using top notch rethoric skills. Peterson is living, or already fell off, the extreme end of this spectrum. People like Chomsky occupy places on the same spectrum so. And spare me philosophers.

boppinz 3y ago
Laymen need people who can synthesize the works of academics/researchers. If someone like Chomsky wasn't talking about "faciness" and the ethics of ChatGPT, would anyone really bring that up? In an academic setting or otherwise. This again also discredits his work as an academic for coining and bringing to light topics like CFGs. Or in another similar vein: Bill Nye helps to distill scientific concepts for children (and adults too). There is something to be said for him helping to engage some students more in science, AND for whatever interpretation and analysis of Creationism vs. Evolution he did at that debate with Ken Ham, for the lay people. To a degree, it doesn't matter if he got every one of his points 100% logically sound, it can be a springboard that hopefully gives theists some food for thought on why Evolution is the best we empirically have and that the Bible isn't a primary source for citing. So I again ask who you would rather speak to me about these topics, or am I supposed to just dig through thousands of scholarly articles and hope the ones I discuss and cite have the "correct" opinion and rhetorical skils?
- hef19898 3y ago
  Bill Nye condenses scietific facts, true. And he does that very well. What he does not is selling his own ideas on everything. ChatGPT, well, everybody brings those issues up. But who really cares about "faciness"? Also, evolution is as much a fact as gravity. Pretending there needs to be a discussion being had, especially one not between biologists and other experts, just gives credit to opinions that don't deserve it. But since there are people denying gravity, well...