I have run into some interesting articles and blog sites over the last couple of weeks that I thought were worth a blog post or two. The first is titled Smarter than Thou by Charles C. W. Cooke over at National Review. It is about the true nature of Neil deGrasse Tyson’s pseudo-intellectualism and the role it plays in today’s über-hipster culture. This is one of my pet peeves–liberals who want who want to make arguments on the “progressive” issues of the day masquerade as “nerds” in the hope that people will think they are smart and/or have the background to opine on what they represent as scientific truths. Cooke’s article is absolutely brilliant. Here is just a taste of what he has to say on the subject of nerds, but you should read the whole article.
In this manner has a word with a formerly useful meaning been turned into a transparent humblebrag: Look at me, I’m smart. Or, more important, perhaps, Look at me and let me tell you who I am not, which is southern, politically conservative, culturally traditional, religious in some sense, patriotic, driven by principle rather than the pivot tables of Microsoft Excel, and in any way attached to the past. “Nerd” has become a calling a card — a means of conveying membership of one group and denying affiliation with another. The movement’s king, Neil deGrasse Tyson, has formal scientific training, certainly, as do the handful of others who have become celebrated by the crowd. He is a smart man who has done some important work in popularizing science. But this is not why he is useful. Instead, he is useful because he can be deployed as a cudgel and an emblem in political argument — pointed to as the sort of person who wouldn’t vote for Ted Cruz.
“Ignorance,” a popular Tyson meme holds, “is a virus. Once it starts spreading, it can only be cured by reason. For the sake of humanity, we must be that cure.” This rather unspecific message is a call to arms, aimed at those who believe wholeheartedly they are included in the elect “we.” Thus do we see unexceptional liberal-arts students lecturing other people about things they don’t understand themselves and terming the dissenters “flat-earthers.” Thus do we see people who have never in their lives read a single academic paper clinging to the mantle of “science” as might Albert Einstein. Thus do we see residents of Brooklyn who are unable to tell you at what temperature water boils rolling their eyes at Bjørn Lomborg or Roger Pielke Jr. because he disagrees with Harry Reid on climate change. Really, the only thing in these people’s lives that is peer-reviewed are their opinions. Don’t have a Reddit account? Believe in God? Skeptical about the threat of overpopulation? Who are you, Sarah Palin?
Betty Blonde #142 – 01/30/2009
Click here or on the image to see full size strip.
There is some very interesting and funny stuff in there. Unfortunately, it feels to me as a little overboard in places and more riled up than I would like… almost like he’s name-calling instead of presenting his ideas. It’s much the same reason I find myself off-put by Matt Walsh: He’s funny, intelligent, well-written but … “reactionary” — Is that the word? Like, to connect with his audience, he blows up at anything and everything. Similarly here. It feels like a blowup, a meltdown, a rant rather than a position paper.
…not that I want papers. But I would prefer a message that someone from the other side could read and understand. As is — judging by the commenting — the body shots left bruises that clouded the important message.
Ugh. Hope this made sense. I think this is an important observation, I just don’t like how “off the rails” it felt in places.
~Luke
That was a very thoughtful comment Luke. I am exactly on the same page as you with respect to Matt Walsh. The first time I saw his writing, I loved it, but then his style started getting in the way. The interesting thing is I get the same kind of push-back from my kids on Rush Limbaugh that you gave me here and on Charles Cooke. I had always thought it was a generational thing, but your Matt Walsh observation gave me pause and I think I need to reevaluate after I think about it a little.
Off the cuff though, this article did not really have the feel, to me, of Rush Limbaugh/Matt Walsh style bombast. I think maybe the way people like Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris, and Bart Ehrman are smugly dismissive of people like William Lane Craig, Stephen Meyer and William Dembski in areas of dispute where the latter are profoundly more qualified has colored my opinion. This is even more grating when wholly unqualified people who have actively avoided the work required to understand difficult and complicated topics take license to be equally as dismissive because of something the former group opined in an area outside of their expertise.
I think the comments Cooke made about Charles Murray, Paul McHugh, Bjørn Lomborg and Roger Pielke Jr. in the article perfectly capture what I am trying to say. I can handle someone that hates my worldview and has established a view of their own that they can defend. Ignorant dismissiveness is difficult to abide, especially when it is practiced by those who very well can have a significant influence or the education of my children.
Let me give it some more thought. Maybe Cooke does fit into the Limbaugh/Walsh camp, but right now it does not feel that way.
Here is another example of the same thing: New York Times Reporter: ‘Some People Are Deserving of Incivility’