Memes aside. Are Neil, Nye and Dawkins good "smart people"/intellectuals?

>Neil, Nye
interested solely in their careers as entertainers, not particularly talented otherwise

>Dawkins
good background in some areas, has a tendency to blame human nature on religion

>Bill Nye isn’t smart

>Nye began his career as a mechanical engineer for Boeing Corporation in Seattle, where he invented a hydraulic resonance suppressor tube used on 747 airplanes

Literally the most accomplished of the 3.

>mechanical engineer
>qualified in medicine, climate change, and gender studies
It's not that he's smart, it's that since millennials grew up watching a show he was in they think he's an expert in S C I E N C E!

For once, I actually agree with you faggot.

nye is a cuck
BSM is a hack
dawkins is autistic

I'm in the same boat since I have absolutely no idea wtf op is on about.

Neil and Dawkins are, when they stay in their field.

Good thing that has fuck all to do with what OP asked about, otherwise you'd have a point. Now you're just acting like a tool.

Yes. he has actually done something. Like coining meme

I say say without a doubt they are smarter than 90% of the population simply given their education background.

So chances are 9/10 these people you post are more accomplished and smarter/intellectual than you.

Neat image, but doesn't say much. You can say Donald Trump isn't very rich when you compare him to Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. It doesn't say much whether Donald Trump is rich or not, just that he's NOT AS rich as Gates/Buffet.

For everyday people, for the people posting these memes, 9/10 chances you're a brainlet.

w8 so his ideas about gender are in contradiction to gender studies? I thought he cucked on that topic

They're all to some degree smart.
Tyson is a physicist but he's lazy and cam't contend on a grand scale with his peers so he opts to make his money popularizing science.
Dawkins is a pioneer in his field but his advocated philosophy on atheism is absolute trash and should not be treated as representative. His entire argument against gods existence can literally be copy pasted and applied to himself, to chairs, to the universe etc. If you go by his logic you basically can disprove everything.

Bill Nye has an engineering degree that he got back before school went to shit. So that merits some form if recognition.
He is by no means a great scientist ir philosopher though.

They all have years of experience in their respective fields too. Not blanket degrees.

>Tyson is a physicist but he's lazy and cam't contend on a grand scale with his peers so he opts to make his money popularizing science.
There's nothing wrong with making money popularizing science. Not saying you implied it, just throwing it out there.

only Dawkins is really a true scientist

I'd say so, it's just that that talk about shit that they have no idea about as if they were some kind of authorities so they end up saying retarded and incorrect things about history/philosophy/religion.

Was trying to be brief.
In a sense, there is depending on how you look at it.

This x10000

You could be great at science and terrible at common sense/philosophy like those guys are.

obligatory

Dawkins is a brilliant scientist who has made legitimate contributions to his field, DeGrasse is mediocre scientist and thinker with virtually zero contributions, and Bill Nye isn't a scientist or an intellectual, he's just an actor. So I'd say Dawkins qualifies as an intellectual, when he's talking about his field, but the other two are just entertainers.

Isn't Nye just an engineer?

Pretty much this. All of them are qualified and intelligent in their own fields, but they just happen to have a problem with foot in mouth syndrome for outside of those fields.

Like actually hear Tyson talk about space, the man clearly knows his stuff. The difference between him and Brian May (who is also an astrophysicist, though his expertise is in space dust particles) is that Tyson is famous for being "the black science man", while May is famous for being the guitarist for Queen.

Neil quite clearly has no idea what he's doing and he doesn't belong

This but unironically

>without relgion we wouldn't have muslims killing jew :^)

Not him but I often think about the last interview Sagan gave before he died, and he talks about how we made so many leaps in science and technology, but we never properly educated society to understand said science and technology, and that knowledge can be lost over the years. Did you know that the scientists in charge of the nuclear tests of the 50s STILL know far more about building a proper nuclear weapon than young nuclear physicists now? It's why most of our good nukes are from the 70s.

They suffer the negative of all popular thinkers: their ideas aren't deep. And that's because if they were, they wouldn't be popular, and that's basically how they get all their money, so it's hardly changing.

For example, you can't expect the same depth comparing Nietzsche and Dawkings when they talk about God. Nietzsche imo has way more insight on it but his ideas are very very hard to fully grasp, while Dawkings can be understood by any regular fedora tipper redditor.

Conclusion: they are certainly above the general public intelectually, but the ladder of ideas goes much much higher than these folks

Kek what a retard

Also, just to clarify, I'm talking about their critiques on society and religion (for which they're most famous for), not scientific contributions n'all

I'm familiar with black science man and bill nye the gender guy doing stupid shit, but what has Dawkins done?

>Pop sci

What does this mean? Is this just "science that regular people care about so I'm gonna be smug and contrarian and say it's not real science for no logical reason besides my crippling autism"?

It's just a term for science made more accessible for the general public, it's not a negative term you sensitive little retard. There's even a magazine called popsci.

How deep does everything need to be user?

>it's not a negative term
yes it is

>nu uh
ok

It's largely used as a perjorative user. Don't pretend it isn't.

Dawkins actually wrote good books before he went crazy with atheist crusades. Tyson and Nye are just hacks that contributed absolutely fuckall to the advancement of science.

When googling it I get
>the magazine
>wiki
>facebook group
>a youtube channel
>book category on google books
>university link where they discuss making science accessible to the public
>a British site for popular science
>Amazon magazine category
Maybe among Veeky Forums autists it's a negative term but in general usage I don't see it.

Dawkins literally gave us the word meme, we would be nothing without him.

Deep enough to satisfy me ;)

They suffer from "Old Physicist's Disorder", where they try to apply their knowledge to other fields and fuck up horribly.

It's the same as pophistory. Complex information is condensed into a size/format that anyone can understand and enjoy. The reason it gets a bad rap is because it rips out most of the nuance of the topic presented while making the person who consumes it think they have an in depth knowledge. This is part of the reason why we have the 10% brain power meme and the Soviet human wave attack meme.

...

But Columbus was Italian

Gee, it's almost like Italy didn't even exist during the Age Of Discovery or something

BSM is probably aware of that, but I wonder what exactly he was trying to tell us...

That the Spanish invested less in cathedrals than the Italians?
That a patchwork of infighting city-states were unable to achieve the same as an emerging nation?
That the Italians were more religious than the Spanish?

Isabella discovered the americas AND still had time for the inquisition. How can italians even compete?
>How dis make u feel pasta boy

No

Nietsche being further up
his own ass doesn't necessarly mean his ideas have more insight

He's probably arguing that America should tax churches to fund NASA or something.

>while May is famous for being the guitarist for Queen.
And trying to save the badgers
youtube.com/watch?v=_I9gNIqrEqQ

>what has Dawkins done
Patron Saint of the Fedora

Public intellectuals, so no. Read scholarly journals.

Invented the word meme.

it's used pejoratively by people who look down on pop sci, and not by people who don't
the term itself doesn't have an opinion

his children will not inherit his particular genes indefinitely.
They will get perhaps 40% of Dolph if we are lucky, and the rest will be his wife and his/her various ancestor's genes (unexpressed genes that they both carry).
In short, we would need a pure Sweden.

lol give me source on pic related, all three of the fedora'd avengers meeting.

Technically yes.

It's a matter of if you agree with their opinions or not.