HOOVERING UP THAT SCIENCE STUFF

Margeret Hoover is at it again, with her debased version of Bill Buckley's old Firing Line show. This time her guest was Neal deGrasse Tyson.  Tyson is the latest in a line of bores lecturing the rest of us in the name of science as though he is qualified to speak on matters far beyond his specialty.  Unlike Bill Nye, he is an actual scientist so there is that at least.  He was an early acolyte of the Canadien Marxist science popularizer Carl Sagan thus establishing a pedigree of sorts.

Tyson doesn't actually teach science so much as harangue humanity at large for clinging to religious or philosophical or other points of view that he himself doesn't like.  He is on record as rejecting philosophy out of hand and he is a ferocious enemy of religion, particularly Christianity.  Thus Tyson is right out of central casting for the role of Science Savant.  He is a minority creature of the establishment preaching against the remnants of an older order. 

The hoards of self-important ninnies who keep PBS alive need to think of themselves as a cognitive elite.  They need their prejudices confirmed about what they know without going to the trouble of submitting to the discipline of finding out truths on their own.  This is why PBS and NPR are so crammed with generalists and explainers spoon-feeding bogus "consensus" science, sociological and economic "Facts," to all the government workers, school teachers, and other drones dependant on public media for their self-respect. 

Tyson flatters his viewers' self-regard by making snide attacks on flat-earthers, Bible believers and of course climate change deniers. Precisely how these beliefs harm our civilization or undermine material progress is left unsaid.  He seems to assume that as long as any percentage of the public holds unorthodox views, these views will corrupt the decisionmaking of national leaders.  History is not Tyson's strength. Since when has general ignorance deterred the powerful from pressing ahead with discovery?  Did general illiteracy silence the Rennaisance?   

It's noteworthy that Tyson "....never advises political leaders," and never debates anyone.  If he did, he would be on record, hence linked with a course of action that might fail.  If he debated, he might lose.

It's telling that for all his verbiage about scientific results, he never seems to address the one thing absolutely necessary for a public understanding of those results, Logic.  Why is this? As a science popularizer, one would think that the application of logical reasoning to evaluate the torrent of scientific information would be a passion of his.  Perhaps he considers logic, as a branch of Philosophy out of bounds?

Let's be honest, Tyson and Nye and Sagan before them are in the business of making the aging Baby Boomers feel good about matters they don't really understand.