Post your favourite 21st century intellectual

Rediculous that no one has mentioned this tremendous genius, just tremendous.

Shoking lack of respect for a man who is literally today's Aurelius, an unpresidented winner.

Anyone who disagrees is just dummer and mad about loosing.

Holy fuck he's bald

There is no way this is serious.

If this is serious, then I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Dude, inequality means inequality, math n sheet

LMFAO

Not an argument.

...

> inb4 i get called a russian super spy assassin shill
His book on the 4th political theory is breddy good

you're fucking retarded

Its obviously b8 m8,
Not even Veeky Forums is faggy enough to post this - and thats saying alot considering all of the boards featuring pedophilia apologetics.

*threads

>bros don't call me a meme even though I am unironically memeing

>varg vikernes, kanye west, elliot rodgers, neil degrasse tyson
I lost my shit
Who is middle bottom tho?

in what ways is Neil Tyson, an astrophysicist, not a fucking intellectual?

God this board needs age verification , you teenagers are so fucking contrarian you'd shoot yourself in the fucking head for the sake of being "different"

Neil Degrasse Tyson is a meme, not an astrophysicist. Astrophysicists publish renowned academic works, they don't sell pop-sci books for profit.

>liberals believe X, aren't they silly?
>t. every Sowell quote ever

Hard to take someone who panders this much to a crowd seriously.

>Astrophysicists publish renowned academic works
How young do you think this guy is? He was famous solely for his astrophysicist work long before he became a cultural icon

He happens to be someone who lvoes to fucking talk, hence why he had a radio show with his scientist buddies decades ago and became increasingly famous after that

His popularity has nothing to do with his success in his occupation, he wasn't even famous when he became director of Hayden Planetarium and president of the Int Ast Union

>Stargate: Atlantis (2008): "Brainstorm" (himself)[130]
NOVA: The Pluto Files (2010): documentary (presenter)
The Big Bang Theory (2010) "The Apology Insufficiency" (himself)
"Martha Speaks" (2012) "Eyes on the Skies" (himself)
The Inexplicable Universe: Unsolved Mysteries (2012) 6-part lecture series from the Great Courses[131]
Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey (2014) documentary (host/narrator)
Gravity Falls (2014) animated children's cartoon (Waddles the pig)[132]
Brooklyn Nine-Nine (2015) action comedy TV series (cameo)[133]
StarTalk (2015) TV series (host)
Family Guy (2016) (himself)
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) (himself)
Lazer Team (2016) comedy film (himself)
Ice Age: Collision Course (2016) animated movie (Neil deBuck)
Zoolander 2 (2016) comedy film (himself)
BoJack Horseman (2016) TV series, episode: "That's Too Much, Man!" (Planetarium narrator)
100 Things to Do Before High School (2016) TV series, episode: "Meet Your Idol Thing!" (himself)
Future-Worm! (2016) animated TV series, episode: "Long Live Captain Cakerz!" (himself)
The Jim Gaffigan Show (2016) TV series, episode: "Jim at the Museum" (himself)
Regular Show (2016) TV series, episode: "Terror Tales of The Park" (himself)

He IS a meme. HE IS POP SCI.

t. has never published a research paper in his life

Sure, I understand. But he is remarkably popular despite having never published a book that was academically renowned like A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking, for example.

>Zoolander 2 (2016) comedy film (himself)
Why

for me it's Stefan Molyneux - intelligent, libertarian and with a wicked sense of humor

Not an argument.

And also a retard who thinks socialism and communism are the same thing.

He's famous and likes to talk about science concepts, mostly relating to his field, and branching to geology, basic biology and advanced chemistry

So he's famous, so what?
Research publications[edit]
Twarog, Bruce A.; Tyson, Neil D. (1985). "UVBY Photometry of Blue Stragglers in NGC 7789". Astronomical Journal 90: 1247. doi:10.1086/113833
Tyson, Neil D.; Scalo, John M. (1988). "Bursting Dwarf Galaxies: Implications for Luminosity Function, Space Density, and Cosmological Mass Density". Astrophysical Journal 329: 618. doi:10.1086/166408
Tyson, Neil D. (1988). "On the possibility of Gas-Rich Dwarf Galaxies in the Lyman-alpha Forest". Astrophysical Journal (Letters) 329: L57. doi:10.1086/185176
Tyson, Neil D.; Rich, Michael (1991). "Radial Velocity Distribution and Line Strengths of 33 Carbon Stars in the Galactic Bulge". Astrophysical Journal 367: 547. doi:10.1086/169651
Tyson, Neil D.; Gal, Roy R. (1993). "An Exposure Guide for Taking Twilight Flatfields with Large Format CCDs". Astronomical Journal 105: 1206. doi:10.1086/116505
Tyson, Neil D.; Richmond, Michael W.; Woodhams, Michael; Ciotti, Luca (1993). "On the Possibility of a Major Impact on Uranus in the Past Century". Astronomy & Astrophysics (Research Notes) 275: 630
Schmidt, B. P., et al. (1994). "The Expanding Photosphere Method Applied to SN1992am at cz = 14600 km/s". Astronomical Journal 107: 1444
Wells, L. A. et al. (1994). "The Type Ia Supernova 1989B in NGC3627 (M66)". Astronomical Journal 108: 2233. doi:10.1086/117236
Hamuy, M. et al. (1996). "BVRI Light Curves For 29 Type Ia Supernovae". Astronomical Journal 112: 2408. doi:10.1086/118192
Lira, P. et al. (1998). "Optical light curves of the Type IA supernovae SN 1990N and 1991T". Astronomical Journal 116: 1006. doi:10.1086/300175
Scoville, N. et al. (2007). "The Cosmic Evolution Survey (COSMOS): Overview". Astrophysical Journal Supplement 172: 1. doi:10.1086/516585
Scoville, N. et al. (2007). COSMOS: Hubble Space Tele

continued

they asked every famous perosn in NYC to star in the film, itself a spoof of hollywood

Sargon of Akkad.

>Tyson's research has focused on observations in cosmology, stellar evolution, galactic astronomy, bulges, and stellar formation. He has held numerous positions at institutions including the University of Maryland, Princeton University, the American Museum of Natural History, and the Hayden Planetarium.

In 1994, Tyson joined the Hayden Planetarium as a staff scientist while he was a research affiliate in Princeton University. He became acting director of the planetarium in June 1995 and was appointed director in 1996.[33] As director, he oversaw the planetarium's $210 million reconstruction project, which was completed in 2000. Upon being asked for his thoughts on becoming director, Tyson said "when I was a kid... there were scientists and educators on the staff at the Hayden Planetarium... who invested their time and energy in my enlightenment... and I've never forgotten that. And to end up back there as its director, I feel this deep sense of duty, that I serve in the same capacity for people who come through the facility today, that others served for me".[34]

Oyyy veyyy goyimm if you're famous you're not smart, stay off the grid and don't educate people goyim ! yess goyim yesssss, fame is bad! Teaching is bad!

I wonder who could be behind

Fair enough, I accept your proposition that he has published research papers in the field of science. Now tell me exactly why he is important. What theories is he at the head of that makes him so influential in scientific understanding?

>Now tell me exactly why he is important.
What the fuck are you talking about? He was integral for establishing astronomy post 2000 with the Hubble and earth-based telescopes bringing in swathes of new information, things that were only theorized, exoplanets, black holes, were now capable of being directly observed along with dozens of other new things

What theories are in his head? What? You think science is every single scientist making up his own theories and pushing them?

Holy shit, just leave this thread

this man is complete genius. who can deny?

Well major scientific understanding concerning the theories of the exact definitions of the world are what push the earth forward.

For instance Copernicus' On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres pushed science ahead a fair deal. And Stephen Hawking's A Brief History in Time did the same.

If all Degrasse Tyson did for science is a few mechanical improvements in a telescope, and minor physical details of information concerning celestial bodies recorded, how the fuck would you say this is even close to either of the aforementioned works? Science is a philosophy as well, you know. The functioning of the universe is based on perception, as any physicist should know.

I'm not saying he didn't push science forward, but it does seem he is a pop-scientist much like Richard Dawkins.

...

No! His comb-over was so convincing too!

...

...

Any of these people.

>For instance Copernicus' On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres pushed science ahead a fair deal. And Stephen Hawking's A Brief History in Time did the same.

Are you fucking retarded?

>hard to take a guy who rebuttals his critics seriously

honestly if anyone itt had seen tyson's tweets about politics they probably wouldn't think of him so highly

How is that wrong?

I would argue the second book's influence is a bit iffy (albeit still important) but the first is a cardinal work in scientific understanding.

why do all of them look severely autistic other than Kent Hovind, the known conman?

...

Probably because they're genuine. I seriously believe Kent trolled Christianity, no man could be that stupid.

>pushed science ahead a fair deal.
What does this even mean. What's the standard unit of fair deal in comparison to?

well him and his son are selling cyanide now as a cancer cure so i wouldn't be surprised

Veeky Forums here, you don't know what you're talking about. Black Science Man has barely published anything.

No, he went on TV as a graduate student and got addicted to being on air. He then went off trying to get his next "5 mins of fame" high wherever he could.

>academically renowned
>A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking

No, just no. Books that are "academically renowned" are "Introduction to Electrodynamics" by Griffiths or "Gravitation" by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler or research monographs like "The Mathematical Theory of Communication" by Claude Shannon. No self respecting college course uses "A Brief History of Time" as a textbook nor would anyone seriously self study physics with it nor would any serious paper cite it.

Notice he went NINE years without a publication (1998-2007) and he was the 18th author on those 2007 papers so his contributions were very minor. Since he got his PhD in 1991, he has only initiated 2 new papers in 1993 and then nothing. He's the classic academic wash out.

BSM is the equivalent of a History PhD that gets a job running a museum and never writes or researches anything ever again. Is he a great and influential historian?

why is this board so infested with redditors?
FUCKING LEAVE

>were you to give jerry falwell an enema
>you could fit him in a matchbox

>implying he isn't the most intelligent 'public intellectual' on the scene in 20 years

All posts ITT are sarcastic. You all can't take a thread seriously for one minute.

>No Amazing Athiest

Ya blew it

>gauging a book's relative influence/worth by whether a college course uses it
Stop.

This.

I'm more upset about you suspecting the bait to be real, than the bait itself.

Everyone's favorite Zlovenac desu

All I see are a bunch of smug pseudo intellectual blowhards and Sargon Of Akkad

The hero we need

Imagine what kind of based motherfucker you have to be to pull of suspenders in 2016 without looking like an idiot.

Ahmed Deedat, the most manliest muslim in the 21st century.

>BSM is the equivalent of a History PhD that gets a job running a museum
And they're still intellectuals you dumb shit.

Excellent analysis, terrible conclusions. Still a very high brow author like most of the european New Right.

>>gauging a book's relative influence/worth by whether a college course uses it
>missing the point

It's not even a good layman's introduction to science like Maxwell's "Matter and Motion" or Faraday's "The Forces of Matter". Modern popsci is just crap. It's concerned more with teaching pretentious hipsters buzzwords from research papers rather than increasing the breath of one's knowledge in an outside field.

A layman or child would learn way more in the same number of pages by reading "The Manga Guide to the Universe" than "A Brief History of Time".

...

Tyson is an anti-intellectual. He is "DUDE SCIENCE LMAO" incarnate, and as has been stated, has not contributed to the scientific field in any meaningful way. He's a television personality, and an incredibly moronic one.

What if that curator went around telling everyone that goes to the cinema, concerts, reads books or engages in all other forms of entertainment or self enrichment other than going to the museum is crap for brainlets that makes you dumb. Is he still an intellectual or anti-intellectual?

> Intellectual
> British guy who smokes cigarettes and drinks too much
> Literally 0 new arguments or critiques of Christianity which haven't already been tossed aside by christian apologetics
> If he didn't have a smarmy britbog accent literally no one would have taken notice of him.

>cardinal work in scientific understanding

Copernicus made a slightly easier method for calculating orbits with epicycles. Not really that influential in later works. Kepler's laws, on the other hand, leads to the equation of Gravity once you apply calculus to it and that's still around with us today (albeit that Kepler's works are mostly numerological garbage).

>CS Majors Hate Him

...

>my favorite contemporary intellectual is...

Hey look, a Zoolander fan.

Just because he's a fan of Sam Harris doesn't mean he likes Zoolander. Or Neil Degrasse Tyson, for that matter.

>intelligent
only smart enough to seem like a genius to non-geniuses. he's a con artist
>libertarian
not really anymore. but he was only ever one of those autist-esque "the state is a social construct" libertarians
>wicked sense of human
his sense of """humor""" is reacting to his own convoluted analogies with a psychopathic chuckle

that nigger is a fucking mk-ultra illuminati. He has a reason to be where he is and believe me, it's not good.

B8

>Illuminati

Trump is like the anti-stoic
Stoics don't give a shit whether they win or lose because it's out of their hands, while Trumps thing is win at all costs

He's more of an useful idiot that the daily show made famous.

Unironically this guy, he's a great introduction into political discourse

This if just the only picture I have saved of him

Unironically agree.

is zizek an intellectual?

he's dumb but his autistic behaviour is interesting