2017-10-10 at 10:56 PM UTC
Or rather the position they have begun to hold in public discourse.
People like Jordan B Peterson, Sam Harris, Gad Saad, Niel Degrasse Tyson, Bill Nye, and so on.
For one thing, it's obvious that these people believe that their specialist knowledge translates into general intelligence, which is absolutely not true.
For example Gad Saad is an evolutionary psychologist (a field which itself borders on pseudoscience) and commentates on immigration issues (he is blatantly biased on the issue of Muslim immigration and barely hides it), and absolutely fails to grasp or acknowledge the difference in the situations between the refugee and immigration situation in Europe Vs in America, and refuses to address the literal logic shortfalls in his view.
Jordan Peterson is a different kind of weirdo, he unironically uses words like "kekistani" and very specifically has both acknowledged that he cannot rationally justify his religious beliefs, and yet cannot acknowledge that his religious beliefs are irrational. Additionally he's so entrenched in his ideological warfare that he has made any concession towards the left into a matter of pride, and denied it as such, even though he has acknowledged the need for things like affirmative action and gender quotas in certain capacities.
And so on.
My problem isn't with them existing, because they have a right to exist and voice their opinions (although I wish they critically evaluated their own opinions, which are obviously coloured with the bias of their agenda), but the fact that these figures have turned into new world God figures, where dummies will listen to them and take them at their word without ever critically evaluating their views. None of them are an authority on 99% of the shit they talk about. It's always disheartening when I see someone like Sean Carrol (who is an excellent science popularizer in his own right) taking on an actual philosopher in philosophical debate, get rekt and refuse to concede but instead choose to insist upon an already defeated science-jacketed philosophical refrain. It's dumb. You're a scientist. You're losing this debate. Give something up to the philosopher.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2017-10-10 at 10:58 PM UTC
pretentious faggots annoy me
.
aldra
JIDF Controlled Opposition
surprised you didn't rip on Molyneaux to be honest
2017-10-10 at 11:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra
surprised you didn't rip on Molyneaux to be honest
Stefan Molyneux is not a public intellectual, he is a mentally ill cult leader who preys on other mentally ill people. The people I listed are still intelligent, highly qualified individuals who are giants within their respective fields, and no matter how stupid some of their views (or even their fields) are, they are worthy of some consideration.
Molyneuz is a fucktard who started an internet cult and doesn't understand the basics of logic. I tried reading The Art of Argument and had an aneurysm within the first couple of pages. He doesn't deserve to be mentioned I bthe same line as the others mentioned.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2017-10-10 at 11:57 PM UTC
Obbe
Alan What?
[annoy my right-angled speediness]
Just to clear something up here - what annoys you more? The part where they are not an authority on 99% of the stuff the speak about, or the part where the public treats them like New Age gods because of it?
2017-10-11 at 12:34 PM UTC
One other thing that annoys me about how people like Stefan Molyneux and "Alt Right/Alt Right" commentators generally argue and conversate:
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2017-10-11 at 1:39 PM UTC
Sam Harris isn't that bad imo. He repeatedly goes out of his way to say that you should question him. I think that's pretty big of a person to do, especially when your income relies on being a figure of authority when you speak. It probably wouldn't fly for most people.
Bill Nye is an absolute fuckjob though. He should have never left VHS.
2017-10-11 at 1:57 PM UTC
Sam Harris has a different class of problem, where he argues from subjective first principles and cannot possibly fathom how they can be disputed.
For example, he pretty much insists upon morality being derived from "minimizing suffering", which has a neurological basis, and does away with moral relativism... No Sam, that's still moral relativism, you have simply made a shittier version of utilitarianism to mesh with your own expertise as a neurologist, and doesn't actually address the underlying questions about morality. Why of less"suffering" more morally correct? It is because it is I guess.
I have more to say about his views on religion and spirituality but that's not really the point.
2017-10-11 at 3:03 PM UTC
I agree to some point but there is no realistic alternative. Their status is questionable but their words definitely hold a lot of weight. People are wrong and biased and I think it's impossible to dedicate your life to a specialized field like those guys do and not carry it with you. It's important to keep that in mind and not just accept everything your favorite smart guy says.
I'm glad that intellectualism is becoming mainstream again, though.
2017-10-11 at 3:04 PM UTC
I just remembered that we also worship people who throw or kick balls around so fuck it.
We need those guys.
2017-10-11 at 3:20 PM UTC
-SpectraL
coward
[the spuriously bluish-lilac bushman]
Truth always has a ring of truth to it. More like a gut feeling than anything else. If you don't get that feeling, it's most likely not true. or only partially true.
2017-10-11 at 3:32 PM UTC
Collectively as a species "we" do. Way more than we worship intellectuals in fact. You may have an outside view on it you tapeworm.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
