Neil deGrasse Tyson's bullshit is worth criticizing because he popularizes a rhetoric which he can promote factually, objectively wrong things from a faulty basis. This pattern has been weaponized in online rhetoric.
-
-
Decided and excludes whom tho? Guess that’s what I’m not understanding.
-
Women. Humanities scholars. Lots of people working in fields not nearly as privileged as STEM.
-
I see. I don’t exactly keep up with everything he’s says or has ever said but I’m surprised by this take.
-
I can provide an example. He has repeatedly claimed science has made philosophy obsolete, called the discipline "useless." Then he will tweet things that boil down to how our problems are the result of no one studying philosophy.
-
A scientist asserting he or she has no philosophical stance is like a fish asserting there is no such thing as "water" or Zuckerberg asserting Facebook's intentions are good.
-
Interesting comparison with Z and Facebook.
. Dunno...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Still no luck from all the “likes” (back up attack with example).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.