Smarter than Thou: Neil deGrasse Tyson and America’s nerd problem

The National Review ^ | July 30, 2014 | Charles C. W. Cooke

[Vision Thing]

“You can only be considered a super-intelligent liberal if you agree to stifle any intellectual rigor in the formation of your worldview and accept the platter of provided opinions without question.”

And when we counter attack this by telling them they are closed minded and intolerant, they’d either have no clue what we’re talking about or wallow in denial.

[betty boop]

One part insecure hipsterism, one part unwarranted condescension, the two defining characteristics of self-professed nerds are (a) the belief that one can discover all of the secrets of human experience through differential equations and (b) the unlovely tendency to presume themselves to be smarter than everybody else in the world….

Ironically enough, what Tyson and his acolytes have ended up doing is blurring the lines between politics, scholarship, and culture — thereby damaging all three…. Politics pretending to be science … is current, and it is chic….

Perhaps the greatest trick the Left ever managed to play was to successfully sell the ancient and ubiquitous ideas of collectivism, lightly checked political power, and a permanent technocratic class as being “new,” and the radical notions of individual liberty, limited government, and distributed power as being “reactionary.” A century ago, Woodrow Wilson complained that the checks and balances instituted by the Founders were outdated because they had been contrived before the telephone was invented.

Thank you so very much, 2ndDivisionVet, for posting this article by Charles C. W. Cooke. I read it last week in NR’s print edition, and thought it splendid.

Some thoughts, FWTW:

It ought to be completely obvious to all reasonable persons that not every human problem can be solved by differential equations, let alone the scientific method. (Which nowadays is still mainly on the Newtonian model, despite the revolutionary breakthroughs of General Relativity and Quantum physics, regarding which exactly nothing in Newtonian mechanics, based as it is on presuppositions of causal locality and direct observation, can comprehend or deal with.)

As a student of history, what impresses me most is how little the universal questions regarding human nature and experience change over the millennia. The Neo-Darwinist account of “the evolution of species” neither anticipates, nor can answer, the following type of universally persistent human problems:

… [I]t is evident that the primarily nonsensory modes of experience address dimensions of human experience superior in rank and worth to those sensory perception does: experiences of the good, beautiful, and just, of love, friendship, and truth, or all human virtue and vice, and of divine reality…. Experience of “things” is modeled on the subject–object dichotomy of perception in which the consciousness intends the object of cognition. But such a model of experience and knowing is ultimately insufficient to explain the operations of consciousness with respect to the nonphenomenal reality that men approach in moral, aesthetic, and religious experiences. [Which happen to have phenomenal consequences, or effects.] Inasmuch as such nonsensory experiences are constitutive of what is distinctive about human existence itself — and of what is most precious to mankind — a purported science of man unable to take account of them is egregiously defective. — Ellis Sandoz

It should be obvious that the “nonphemonenal reality that men approach in moral, aesthetic, and religious experiences” is entirely beyond the reach of methodological science — whose reach extends only to phenomenal reality. What immediately comes to mind: (1) We have seven millennia [at least] of recorded human history that attest to the FACT that historical human beings, cross-culturally, that is to say universally, have ALWAYS been preoccupied by such questions. They happen to be the core questions of universal human experience/existence, in all cultures, at all times. [C.S. Lewis, in The Abolition of Man, referred to this more-or-less permanent configuration of human interest and experience as the Tao.] (2) It should also be clear that such understandings of human nature and the human condition cannot be reduced to the methods of scientific investigation, which depend on direct observation of objects selected/intended by a subjective consciousness. [See: the observer problem in quantum physics.] (3) WRT selective consciousness, Einstein remarked that, although the “inertial frames” of observers inevitably differ, ALL inertial frames are ultimately subject to the universal laws of physics.

Which leads to the core question: Is there such a thing as “human nature?” Or are the Darwinists right, that nothing in biological nature is fixed, but all is in a process of random, purposeless change. Yet that purposeless change is usually supposed to be “progressive” change; that is to say, Nature, and the Natural Selection “she” imposes — though it operates by purely random means — is always wise enough to see to it that things are always just getting “better.” Therefore, man does not have a given nature (let alone a divinely-endowed one), but is always just a “work-in-progress,” leading to — WHAT???

At this point I ask about this perplexing “WHAT”: Does it lead to devolution of the human to the level of beasts? Or to machines? Or to — perhaps — self-divinization?

The Tysons of this world are very coy in answering such questions: It’s beyond the scope of science, don’t you know….

But that doesn’t mean such questions go away. If you want them to go away, you have to kill, not only God, but all of human history first. (For the reason that human history is always and quite characteristically full of questions relating to man's relationship with the Divine.)

So the strategy of the “science-y types” — who Charles Cooke points out probably could not tell you the temperature at which water boils — somehow become ersatz “experts” in science because they believe what such folks as Neil deGrasse Tyson, or Richard Dawkins, or Richard Lewontin, et al., are spewing as “experts” in the scientific field. Such ignoramuses can just join up with the “nerd herd” and be just as fashionable and “hip” in their own way as Jay Z and Beyonce are in theirs….

And dontcha know, but “fashion” seems to be everything these days. Truth be damned if it gets in the way of “fashionable” points of view.

And that is the key insight that lies at the very heart of Left Progressivism: Finally, it is a cataclysmic revulsion against human nature and experience (history both personal and social).

Must close, but not before noting two additional things: (1) I am definitely a "reactionary." (2) There's nothing "new" about Left Progressivism. Models of this sort of thing date back at least to 500 B.C. — that's what's actually OLD. That model's been tried repeatedly in human history, and it has never worked.

Which brings me to Einstein's definition of insanity: To keep repeating what has been (unsuccessfully) done before on numerous occasions, expecting a new and different outcome from "the same old same old," THIS time....

Thanks again for posting this great article, 2ndDivisionVet.

[hosepipe]

True... most humans can’t seem to be able or willing even to get out of the box...

And if accidentally they peer out of the box... are afraid to come out..
the box is much too comfortable and “cozy”... and “safe”...

[betty boop]

Neil is a good dude, but he does support anthropogenic global warming bullshit for some reason.

If he did otherwise, his professional career would be over. That's the miserable point: How corrupt "peer-reviewed science" has become. And obtaining money — research grants, etc. — is the compulsive cause.

[Billthedrill]

One of the more brilliant faculty members I've ever encountered derails these conversations with this: "Television? You watch television?" Never saw a hipster deflate so fast.

All this shows is that certain science followers are not immune from the seductions of the Cult of Celebrity, just as popular singers, actors, athletes, authors, and pretty much everyone else sucked into the maw of popular culture. Serious people have more serious things to worry about.

[hosepipe]

Science has become political.. and has political officers..
Ideology enforcers... Concept hitmen.. Mental figment Goons..

"Witch burners" with nicer sounding titles..

[betty boop]

Science has become political.. and has political officers.. Ideology enforcers... Concept hitmen.. Mental figment Goons..

Oh, I have no doubt that is true. The treatment a friend of mine received at The Journal of Theoretical Biology has removed all doubt. Among other things, the main "juror" evaluating my friend's submission was a "hired gun," a non-acedemic popular science writer who specializes in the promulgation of neo-Darwinst doctrine (arguably, as does this journal itself). On his recommendation, the submission was denied. [I actually got to read the rejection letter, which struck me as inane: The sender admitted he hadn't even read the work. Sigh....]

As if that were not bad enough, when my friend's rejected paper was eventually published elsewhere, this juror followed him. The format in which the paper appeared allowed for follow-up "dialogue" in order to accommodate dissent. So the "juror" appeared, to show that my friend's ideas were incompatible with the findings of current, state-of-the-art science. [The paper in question was about a mathematical issue, assessing the algorithmic complexity of biological systems. I don't know why such a question should be regarded as irrelevant to biological questions, straight out of the gate....]

An actual dialogue between the two of them ensued, and made the pages of the final book.

In the end, I thought my friend whupped the other guy. Much to my gratification....

HUGS dear 'pipe!

[hosepipe]

The political scene(in america) these days shows there are two poles of logic.. that “facts” are filtered thru..

The so-called conservative one and the so-called liberal one..
Been proved beyond doubt “liberals” could care less about facts..

Only ones that remotely care about facts are conservatives..
Conservatives arguing with liberals on some “fact” is merely a diversion.. they cannot win..

Many scientists are “liberals”.. therefore arguing with them is a gambit by them looking for advantage..
Conservatives can never “WIN” with them..

Sooo... my logic suggests a discussion on POLITICS is ALWAYS a prerequisite to a scientific discussion..
What are "THEY" politically first, scientifically second..

ELSE; the conservative IS A MORON!... set to fail.. out foxed..
"A man, MUST, know his limitations"- Dirty Harry..

[hosepipe]

[betty boop]

A man, MUST, know his limitations" — Dirty Harry

Qualification of this statement: Only a sane man is capable of recognizing that he has limitations.

This qualification would definitely put our "sitting president" beyond the pale of sanity....

And NOBODY seems to know what to do about it.

[hosepipe]

True... the stalemate is palpable... you can feel it, see it, even read it..

America is in a Stalemate but won’t STOP playing the game..
The whole country NEEDs TO BE.. (( Slapped ))...

Their HYPNOTIZED... bewitched.. the “GAME” is over..
A NEW game needs to be started..

[x]

First and foremost, then, “nerd” has become a political designation...

First and foremost? No, I'd say it's more of a class thing. If went to certain posh colleges and are under a certain age you might identify yourself as a nerd. It happens that most of the people who go to those colleges are liberal, but you can find conservatives who cultivate the same image: Tucker Carlson, Byron York (to judge by the bowties), any number of NR writers. Maybe even ueber-nerd George Will, if he wants to be trendy. Dinesh may not self-identify as a nerd, but he'd qualify too. I get the point, though, that it's mostly liberals who are pushing phony political nerdism and that MSNBC has taken it to a whole new level.

It is no accident that the president has felt it necessary to inject himself into the game: That’s where the cool kids are.

Well, kind of. But there's a lot of irony an confusion involved with just who the "cool kids" are. Are Washington nerds cool kids pretending to be uncool or uncool kids pretending to be cool? And outside of Washington and Ivy League circles elsewhere is anybody really fooled by any of this Washington nerdism?

[2ndDivisionVet]

[BHunt429]

I wouldn’t call myself an Obama supporter, I’m just not as violently repelled by him as some, so I went ahead and kept watching the first episode of Cosmos and the whole first season.

You should give it a chance. I honestly believe Neil Tyson would have let Bush or Reagan do an intro to the show had it aired during their presidencies.