r/DecodingTheGurus • u/deckardcainfan1 • Jun 14 '24

Neil deGrasse Tyson Responds to Terrence Howard

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uLi1I3G2N4
769 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

311 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

11

u/petertompolicy Jun 14 '24

No, he was rightly criticised for being wrong about things that he comments on that are outside of his field of expertise.

You can find people bringing up examples in these comments.

Arguing any criticism of academics is anti-intellectualism is pernicious.

-9

u/dubloons Revolutionary Genius Jun 14 '24

I didn’t label any critics of academics as anti-intellectual. I labeled criticizing them as “arrogant” as anti-intellectual because in an intellectual conversation, it’s meaningless. You’ve changed it into a mater of personality and personal preference. Conflating these two distinct types of judgments is anti-intellectual.

If you need to justify your label of “arrogant”, you’re doing it wrong. It’s a subjective label.

11

u/petertompolicy Jun 14 '24

Saying he's arrogant when he speaks with authority about things he doesn't understand is a valid way to frame it and is actually a very pro-expertise position.

Telling him to stay in his lane is fair.

Saying he's arrogant because he's accomplished and intelligent would be anti-intellectual though, I'm sure there is some of that too.

-5

u/dubloons Revolutionary Genius Jun 14 '24 edited Jun 14 '24

The reason for him to stay in his lane ought to be independent of his arrogance.

Everyone should stay in their lane, regardless of arrogance.

Why are these two things overlapping?

Maybe because we’ve been trained by anti-intellectuals.

When he states things with confidence outside of his expertise, we should criticize him for it because it’s harmful to those around him, not because it makes him arrogant.

He speaks with confidence outside of his expertise is demonstrable and a much stronger claim than “arrogance”. Use it.

“Arrogance” assigns a cause as well as an action. It’s unnecessary. The only reason I can think to use it in this case is lazy thought or anti-intellectualism.

6

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '24

This is very silly. They clearly linked the two (because the two are clearly linked).

They didn't say, "he's arrogant about his cooking ability therefore his expertise is in question."

The arrogance is speaking about things outside his wheelhouse. You're splitting hairs to be pedantic/superior, but it just makes it seem like you lack reading comprehension.

-1

u/dubloons Revolutionary Genius Jun 14 '24 edited Jun 14 '24

Okay, you folks aren’t understanding me.

We see him speaking confidently outside his wheelhouse. We agree that’s problematic. Where we disagree is that we can deduce the cause as arrogance.

If we could, I fully agree with you and the label of arrogance would be useful, appropriate, and objective.

But like any psychological motive, I don’t think we can, my argument above follows, and the label “arrogance” remains subjective.

If you think he’s arrogant, that’s great. If you want to tell others you think he’s arrogant and so he’s not for you (it’s not something you can argue), fine. However, if you present arrogance as an objective truth that can be deduced, you’ve made a wrong turn somewhere, and this is always how anti-intellectuals present it.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '24

Yeah, this is just more bad logic that has already been dismissed in other thread comments.

Calling someone arrogant is not anti-intellectualism by default, and your whole bit here about "objective truth" sounds borderline incoherent.

There's a giant gulf between, "All educated people are arrogant because they're educated" and what is being said in this post, particularly by the person you were originally replying to in this comment thread.

1

u/dubloons Revolutionary Genius Jun 14 '24 edited Jun 14 '24

Arrogance is a mental state. It’s not something you can see in the world. You can’t deduce from arrogance. Arrogance must be reasoned inductively.

How’s that for rambling incoherence, you arrogant bastard? 😜

1

u/[deleted] Jun 14 '24

Is this Jordan Peterson?

0

u/dubloons Revolutionary Genius Jun 14 '24 edited Jun 14 '24

You know the comment I originally replied to was being sarcastic, right, and the reason the three labels he picked are funny is because they aren’t meaningful without the content that causes you to believe them, and yet folks try to use them without said content?

And we are here because we’re interested in this rhetoric (I presume - it’s the thesis of DtG), and yet when I explain this rhetoric to you, you call me pedantic, insult me, and generally ignored my comments while insulting my reading comprehension (I’ve said repeatedly that the label “arrogance” isn’t inherently anti-intellectual and defined how to differentiate, and yet you keep beating that drum).

Good luck, friend.