Celebrity academics are a joke and their fans are the most insufferable idiots on the planet

Ya know what's just as annoying? Undergrads on Veeky Forums thinking they're hot shit. Worse still are the high school drop outs that, again, think they're hot shit, normally for reasons revolving around being "an independent free thinking, who didn't swallow all those text book lies".

Eh, I'm inclined to disagree, Einstein actually contributed a lot to physics, Tyson didn't, sagon did some good work, but nothing really special. The whole Einstein is by far the greatest physicist stuff is a meme and so are a bunch of his quotes, but he himself is not a meme scientist, though we may have differing opinions on what a meme scientist is.
Not really, I'm not saying it's not annoying, however celebrity scientists have way more influential than any of us and can change public perception of what science is, in this case imo to the detriment of science. It is this that makes them worse than just arrogant undergrads

This image isn't a very good representation of scientists opinion of philosophy, not that you can gauge an entire group of people in to one black or white opinion on a complex topic.
The post modern movement of the late 20th century turned philosophy into a joke hence the 21st century science celebrities shitting on it, the meaning of the word has changed over time and its been given entirely new connotations.

And these celebrity scientists have earned in part their talk shows, time on the news and token appearances in media they don't just hand out PHDs in physics. Your free to swap the channel when Startalk starts you know, god knows I always do.

>in this case imo to the detriment of science.
Could you elaborate on this, most of these public figures yarn about climate change a lot I don't see them pushing out incorrect information though. The only meme scientist I like is Sagan partly because of nostalgic reasons.

Well, if you asked people what scientists they know they'd either say Einstein or someone like Tyson, Bill Nye, and maybe Sagan, and this means their perception of science is most likely heavily influenced by these people, given that people like Bill Nye and Tyson are still alive they might actually have a greater effect, this leads to things like them spewing nonsense about topics they have no business discussing as fact like how concepts concerning gender are science, when in reality there is very little known about it, gender has to do with the brain and frankly we know dick all about it, so talking about things as if it settled science isn't helping the conversation surrounding it, it is in fact damaging it as it solidifies a very flawed model of human sexuality/gender in the public's mind. Furthermore it attaches personalities that have their own ideological frameworks to science (i.e. pushes a view that this is what a scientist should be like rather than what it is a scientist does), many would then conflate their ideologies and science together as if one necessarily supports the other with many people mentioning things like "science is political because people doing science have political leanings" which is ridiculous, the whole point of doing science is to find out about the natural world, not pushing an agenda. You will also have people (outside the scientific establishment) ascribing a culture to science, making it "fashionable" and "trendy", assigning auxiliary conditions that science must meet like supporting social justice and helping humanity (or how they view science help humanity) and if some piece of scientific knowledge goes against such a narrative it must obviously be false.

I'm not saying you shouldn't strive to help humanity if you desire what I'm saying is science and scientists have no obligation to such things, but people like Bill and Tyson and various groups who also claims to represent science in a similar manner push these sorts of mentalities. A recent example was the march for science, sure there were people legitimately concerned about the future of science however others were there to push their agendas and claim to be on the same side when they are not. My overall point is that a scientist can have whatever opinions and viewpoints they want and that this should be divorced from the science that they do and people like Tyson and Bill push the opposite, that there are certain views that scientists must have and goals that science must achieve, that science is "cool" and straightforward when in reality it's brutal and very messy with infighting and constant rewrites, that many concepts are "settled" when we've barely scratched the surface. There's actually a good deal more that I could talk about but I think this gets across a few of the reasons why I think the way they go about educating the public is bad, Bill used to have the right idea by just focusing on the science and nothing more but now he's injecting his own viewpoints and passing it off as science.

>The post modern movement of the late 20th century turned philosophy into a joke hence the 21st century science celebrities shitting on it, the meaning of the word has changed over time and its been given entirely new connotations.

That's just continental philosophy though. Analytic philosophy never fell for the meme and has always remained scientifically informed

Ikr there is this guy in my class who keeps talking about black holes and shit, and I seriously had to explain him what a fuction is.
He always flashes his "a brief history of time" around and tries to impress qt who are fucking stupid.

What about dudes like Feynman, who were accomplished scientists and thought philosophy was for dum-dums

He thought religion was for dummy dumbys but anyhow even though he made massive contributions to science and was forsure a genius,but he was a Jew unfortunately

That Dawkins quote isn't against philosophy.

...

That's true I've got friends doing CS degrees and looking into AI who are doing hard philosophy the real shit, necessary for understanding logic based systems.

There's hard philosophy the real shit that I think only edgy atheist debaters know about from their vast knowledge of fallacies and there's the bullshit that most laymen are aware of, the wishy washy crap that contemporary philosophy unfortunately gets its reputation from. There's a vast difference from metaphysics and logic based philosophy.

>but he was a Jew unfortunately
This is Veeky Forums son, not /pol/.

He also happens to be the only one on the right who's actually done good science work

I agree. It's literally "philosophy is good, but not the autism of getting lost in your own philosophical systems and constructs".

Nothing new about this.

Talk about Tyson or Bill Nye and normies get all wet.

Talk about ma boy Mochizuki or Erdos and normies don't have a fucking clue.

academics are a joke

Bill Nye's quote just shows that he's sceptical of non-realism.

It's ok kiddo I don't hate Jews but the sooner you except the Feynman favorite scientists were cis white males the sooner you come to the grips of the euro pill

Bill Nye doesn't even have a Master degree, why the fuck is he on this list? Dolph Lundgren is more of an scientist than Nye is.