Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President... • Hacker News Board

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#21

Post by dredmorbius » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 12:56 AM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #14

maratd wrote: post #4

> As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they might choose the right leaders in the first place. This reeks of extreme arrogance. A type very common in academia. The presumption that the masses are ignorant, while you, anointed and blessed, are simply brilliant. No. If you get off your high-horse and actually talk…

We have politicians who think all geologists are lying about the age of the earth and actually believe in a sort of divine manifest destiny. There comes a point where merely learning to resolve our differences is (although necessary) not sufficient. Some things (such as, for example, Democracy imho) require a baseline education and scientific literacy. You put crap into a democracy, you are going to get crap out. The…

There's a question to my mind as to how much of the posturing on evolution, anthropogenic global warming, resource depletion, age of the earth, etc., is based on true belief and how much is tactical stupidity. I could go either way on that. Many people are highly self-delusional.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#22

Post by jlgreco » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 12:59 AM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #21

jlgreco wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have politicians who think all geologists are lying about the age of the earth and actually believe in a sort of divine manifest destiny. There comes a point where merely learning to resolve our differences is (although necessary) not sufficient. Some things (such as, for example, Democracy imho) require a baseline education and scientific literacy. You put crap into a democracy, you are going to get crap out. The…

There's a question to my mind as to how much of the posturing on evolution, anthropogenic global warming, resource depletion, age of the earth, etc., is based on true belief and how much is tactical stupidity. I could go either way on that. Many people are highly self-delusional.

True. Some of these politicians may be "playing dumb" for political reasons.

Though really that just makes it a question of if the politicians and their constituents are in need of a better education, or just their constituents.

Whichever is the case, I think an increased emphasis on science education is important.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#23

Post by saraid216 » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 1:03 AM UTC

hooande wrote: post #16

maratd wrote: post #4

> As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they might choose the right leaders in the first place. This reeks of extreme arrogance. A type very common in academia. The presumption that the masses are ignorant, while you, anointed and blessed, are simply brilliant. No. If you get off your high-horse and actually talk…

At the risk of being labelled as negative, I'm going to disagree. The majority of people just don't care. They don't care about politics, about science, about reason or about anything outside of their day to day lives and relationships. That's how it's supposed to be. As it turns out, the average person isn't brilliant, anointed or blessed (this is due to the meaning of the word "average"). Saying that everyone is "b…

> If NDT is showing any arrogance, it's in thinking that he has the ability to raise the level of public discourse. He's really smart, but apparently not smart enough to realize that no amount of education can change the basics of human nature. You can teach people how to think, but you can't make them like it.

I don't disagree with you here, per se, but I think a lot can be done with education. Maybe not "change the basics of human nature", but we can probably get them to enjoy thinking and we can probably raise the level of public discourse by a significant degree.

I'm not saying it would be easy or quick, but I think that it's possible. Indeed, it seems to me to be the arc of history, to paraphrase a bit, even if it is irritatingly long.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#24

Post by plaguuuuuu » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 1:05 AM UTC

maratd wrote: post #4

> As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they might choose the right leaders in the first place. This reeks of extreme arrogance. A type very common in academia. The presumption that the masses are ignorant, while you, anointed and blessed, are simply brilliant. No. If you get off your high-horse and actually talk…

>The presumption that the masses are ignorant

People are mind-bogglingly ignorant, and it is demonstrably so. I don't know how one could even claim otherwise.

>If you get off your high-horse and actually talk to them, you'll find that they are just as brilliant as you, in their own ways.

These ways obviously don't lend themselves to scientific literacy, knowledge of international politics or human rights, or rational appraisal of facts. Maybe an individual has an amazing ability to console those in distress - that's GREAT, but it doesn't grant them immunity from criticism for ignorance of important worldly issues.

Frankly your attitude is typical of American "everyone is special" bullshit. In other cultures if you're uneducated you are looked down upon. While it's probably deeply unsettling to sensibilities that promote understanding and tolerating differences in individuals' capacities to contribute to society (which I do support), perhaps that outlook has some merit after all.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#25

Post by jeffool » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 1:05 AM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #21

jlgreco wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have politicians who think all geologists are lying about the age of the earth and actually believe in a sort of divine manifest destiny. There comes a point where merely learning to resolve our differences is (although necessary) not sufficient. Some things (such as, for example, Democracy imho) require a baseline education and scientific literacy. You put crap into a democracy, you are going to get crap out. The…

There's a question to my mind as to how much of the posturing on evolution, anthropogenic global warming, resource depletion, age of the earth, etc., is based on true belief and how much is tactical stupidity. I could go either way on that. Many people are highly self-delusional.

I would agree, if we were just talking self-identified phone surveys or something. But we're talking about people saying their children shouldn't learn about those things. I can't imagine purposefully making your children grow up thinking something is so wrong, you are an immoral person to consider it, unless they genuinely believed it as well.

So to call it tactical stupidity is messed up on a scale I'm not prepared to level at such a large number of my fellow citizens (as an American), or anyone really. I'd rather think someone willfully ignorant than that willfully mean.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#26

Post by pjscott » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 1:13 AM UTC

shawn-butler wrote: post #13

jacquesm wrote: post #12

Is there some obstacle that stops him from running?

His ego.

Damn it, think about this for a moment. Is there no other plausible reason why he might not want to run for president? The immense effort and expense of running a campaign, for example? Or the blow to his reputation from being seen as a joke candidate with no chance of winning? Or simply the fact that he has other stuff to do?

Cynicism may feel good, but if it's causing you to jump to uncharitable conclusions while ignoring other likely explanations, then it's a problem.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#27

Post by D_Alex » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 1:24 AM UTC

tomrod wrote: post #9

I'd vote for him, if only to increase basic research stock and funding. I'm not sure his social and foreign policies would be apt, however, given his academic veneer he takes to the written-about issue.

I'd vote for him too. I am sure his social and foreign policies would turn out fine. I don't think it is even hard to come up with a decent social and foreign policy: observe that there is a wide range of such policies among "successful countries". USA is laissez-faire, Denmark is half-socialist, Switzerland is neutral etc. As long as you are not deliberately trying to be a tool, you'll probably do okay.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#28

Post by liber8 » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 1:27 AM UTC

I find it amusing that almost every OP in this thread has cited the same quote as proof of NDT's arrogance, and then every response debates whether NDT is arrogant or voters stupid. All of this misses the actual ignorance of NDT's letter. The last half of that sentence is key:

As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they might choose the right leaders in the first place.

NDT falls into the same trap as nearly everyone since the framers of the constitution. You're never going to elect the right leaders. They don't exist. The reason our government was set up the way it was, and not the way it exists now, was precisely because the greatest group of political scientists to ever congregate in one place and time realized that people are inherently flawed, weak, and susceptible to the intoxicating effects of power. Because you'll never have the "right leaders", you must structure the system to prevent abuse by the inevitable "wrong leaders" that will be elected.

NDT, like so many others, misses this point completely, even though nearly the entire letter pays lip service to the idea that the leaders are not the problem to focus on. While he's right, the solution won't appear even if he "enlightened the electorate" to Tysonian heights.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#29

Post by rblion » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 1:30 AM UTC

hooande wrote: post #16

maratd wrote: post #4

> As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they might choose the right leaders in the first place. This reeks of extreme arrogance. A type very common in academia. The presumption that the masses are ignorant, while you, anointed and blessed, are simply brilliant. No. If you get off your high-horse and actually talk…

At the risk of being labelled as negative, I'm going to disagree. The majority of people just don't care. They don't care about politics, about science, about reason or about anything outside of their day to day lives and relationships. That's how it's supposed to be. As it turns out, the average person isn't brilliant, anointed or blessed (this is due to the meaning of the word "average"). Saying that everyone is "b…

I agree.

The problem isn't lack of access to information or the motivation to exercise your freedoms, it is the rampant apathy of the masses.

I do not believe I am better than anyone or that I care more for the welfare of the world, but I just try to learn and contribute as much as I can.

I am saddened by the fact that most people do not realize how long it took for life to emerge and how much longer for liberty to be considered a birthright.

We really need a perspective shift on our planet if real change is going to happen from within the populace. It is also discouraging that most people put the burden on the shoulders of a few to lead and fix the world and get angry when they find out they have little or no say in the direction of society. It's a double-edged sword.

There is definitely a selection bias on HN, exactly why this is one of my top five news sources. I strive to get a 360-degree perspective on the happenings of the world.

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson: If I Were President...

#30

Post by zem » Tue, Nov 06, 2012, 1:30 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #12

Is there some obstacle that stops him from running?

it's not the job he wants to do, or feels he'd be most effective doing. from the article:

> As a scientist and educator, my goal, then, is not to become President and lead a dysfunctional electorate, but to enlighten the electorate so they might choose the right leaders in the first place.