/lit/ - Literature

>>7349009
can you imagine going through life both autistic and black?

>>7349015
lel
Honestly though, why is this guy even popular at all? Have you seen that ridiculous lecture he gave where he compared GMO to natural selection as being essentially the same thing? This guy is either seriously dumb or pretending

>>7349032
>DUDE SCIENCE LMAO

>>7349032
Are you implying GMO is bad?

>>7349032

Smoke DeGrasse Highson is a fucking anti-intellectual. He does nothing but proselytize for science.

>>7349062
took me a long time to read that word and i still dunno what it means
fuckin english majors

>>7349032
GMO is natural selection. We are the pressure. We are not unnatural. Natural is a fake, nebulous umbrella term that does a better job pepping up shitty opinionated arguments than it does actually defining what it is set to.

>>7349009
Reddit-tier justifications. No wonder he's part of the pantheon of demiurges pseudointellectuals worship.

>>7349067
>breeding dogs into genetic perdition
>same thing as environmental selective pressures that raise evolutionary fitness

>>7349009
>Neil Degrasse Tyson if he was White
Tbqh he and Stephen King are patron saints of Autistic, fedora tipping normies.

>>7349076
Natural selection fucks up animals all the time with extinctions and dead-end evolutions like fucking pandas not wanting sex.

>>7349009

So when fedoras like him read through the Bible, and encounter all those wonderful, sublime stores, and depending on the edition, some of the most beautiful prose in the English language, all that goes through their heads is, "it’s easier to be told by others what to think and believe than it is to think for yourself."

>>7349087
Those are environmental pressures preferring animals with better fitness. Those animals will die off.

>>7349087
Pandas in captivity having no sex drive has nothing to do with sexual selection, but more with zoo conditions

In fact, wild pandas have an "intensive sex drive" http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150310-the-truth-about-giant-pandas

Yeah it's pretty much STEM student: the list. The only exception is Paine, who is probably only listed because of Christopher Hitchens. The reasons he gives are also horrible.

Don't get me wrong, I know the dude is a physicist and so on, but isn't it sad to think that he's a revered public intellectual and this is the best he has to offer?

>>7349088
Do you really think he has even read the Bible?

>>7349076
Ants breed and use aphids as livestock. Is that somehow exempt from natural selection if the pressure is the result of a beneficial relationship between animals, rather than a predatory one?

>>7349096
People shouldn't talk about things they don't know that well. They just come off as idiots.

Problem is these pop-sci idols feel it is their duty to guide the unwashed laity and so they must make such erroneous declarations.

>>7349088
I'm convinced all of these fedora tippers have never actually read the bible, but only those websites that present certain verses (almost exclusively from the old testament) out of context and use it as justification for their ignorance.

>>7349032
>you fell for the 'natural vs unnatural' spook

Tyson is a fedora but you picked one of the worst points to call him out on

>>7349067
>GMO is natural selection.
How can you be this retarded?
>an animal that has just recently visited the Moon taking fish DNA and inserting it in a tomato is the same thing as a long-term process that has been happening for hundreds of millions of years where organisms slowly evolve by themselves and adapt to their surroundings or go extinct

>>7349118
It's not natural vs unnatural. It's natural vs. artificial.

One is meticulously crafted by humans at every stage and recorded. The other forms through its presence in the general ambiance.

Are you going to say an experiment is the same as an observation?

>>7349061
Wherever did I imply that?

>>7349125
>recently
Reminder that the date of the first airplane flight was closer to Apollo 11 than today.

>>7349157
Kek

>>7349157
That's not true.1903 is farther from 1969 than 2015.

>>7349167
Yeah but Moore's law says a year doubles in time every 18 months so I'm right.

>>7349172
That has to do with computers.

>>7349157
This is incorrect. Apollo 11 was 46 years ago. From 1969 the first powered flight was 64 years in the past. Try again in 2034.

>>7349157
Cleopatra's era was closer to Apollo 11 than the building of the pyramids.

>>7349067
>Natural is a fake nebulous umbrella term
omg wow you have TOTally grasped the sociology of nature !! that's all there is to it yes
>GMO is natural selection. We are the pressure
Yup that is correct human intervention on the genetic level on individuals and contained populations is exaCTLY the same as gradual change over millions years in interbreeding groups in an ecosystem

>>7349106
>Ants breed and use aphids as livestock
Nice anthropomorphisation , idiot. were you informed about animals by cartoons ? is that what you think the social construction of nature is ? Also they don't breed them, the aphids just lay eggs. Also how does your "livestock" story pertain to the dog metaphor given that ants do not breed aphids deliberately into malformed unhealthy genetic types for no purpose of consuming their flesh or product? How is that similar? Are you really going to say that the thrill dog breeders get out of grouping dogs into incest clans is directly comparable to the maintenance of a food source?
>>7349087
>Natural selection fucks up animals all the time
OK so 1 natural selection is not an active agent like a human scientists and your whole retarded post depends upon this dumb personification of it.
>extinctions and dead-end evolutions
maybe that is a "fuck-up" for the animal but its not the responsibility or fault of "natural selection", its just the mechanism by which it happens.
>like fucking pandas not wanting sex
As other anon said this is the fault of zoo conditions

>>7349009

He's a populist so I'm not surprised he'd say something as ignorant as this. If the Bible taught you to think for yourself then we wouldn't need the Bible today to teach us to think for ourselves. At the end of the day it is a culturally important book and has some books that are high in literary merit but the old slag of "burr burr read the Bible so you know what NOT to believe" is merely just this generation rebelling against the morals of the former. Give it ten or fifteen years and we will see Christian Science (REAL acience) pop up.

Fuck. Why are people so opposed to having a spiritual origin story?

>Gulliver's Travels

I don't believe hes even read the wikipedia pages of these works.

>>7349009
With the exception of the art of war all of his suggestions are good though.

His reasonings are euphorically idiotic but otherwise they're all fine...

>>7349178
Holy fuck actual autist spotted

>>7349195
>Give it ten or fifteen years and we will see Christian Science (REAL acience) pop up

>>7349077
> Autistic
> Normie

Choose 1.

>>7349263
I am an actual autist. :3

>>7349195
>Christian Science
>Real science

Pick one.

The political or religious denomination of those who work in any field of science have no bear on their findings. And even if it did, I think that the fact that 90%+ of scientists being atheist would be convincing that "real science" is secular.

>Why are people so opposed to having a spiritual origin story

Because its completely counter-intuitive to the scientific method. There have been at least a dozen different philosophical take-downs of theistic origins and they're all fine. The only rebuttals that you ever receive are shit-tier sophistry from Aquinas that people still peddle today, or even Pascal's fucking wager.

A theistic origin can't be disproven outright but for fucks sake there's no reason to genuinely believe that it is necessary, all natural phenomenon (that i can think of) have been explained with current models.

I have nothing against religious people, I respect them a great deal, but I faith is CALLED faith for a reason. If you think all your beliefs are empirically proven or factual it ceases to be faith really.

After typing out his list, he added this:

"If you read all of the above works you will glean profound insight into most of what has driven the history of the western world."

I cringed hard at this.

The thing is, all of the one-liner explanations he gives for the books he lists, are social realities that the human individual should already "glean" by simply...being human in a social world, undergoing situations.

For example:

For The Age of Reason by Paine, he states "to learn how the power of rational thought is the primary source of freedom in the world". You don't need to read a book to come to this conclusion. Or for the reason one should read Newton..."to learn that the universe is a knowable place". Ahh, that so, Tyson? That's what I'll learn reading Newton's Principia? This goes for rest of the list besides, perhaps, Darwin.

Point being, you don't need to read a book to "learn" fundamental principles that come with one's unfolding relationship with Earth, people, the universe, animals even.These are all perspectives gained via experience. Not reading. Reading enhances. It just all reminded me of that scene in Good Will Hunting, when Robin Williams' character says "I can't learn anything from you I can't read in some fucking book".

Not to put down reading. At all. Whatsoever. But I think the list is far more revealing of Tyson, his identity and how he wants to be perceived than it is of an "intelligent" person's taste.

>>7349327
>all natural phenomena have been explained with current models
lol what the fuck

>>7349009
richard dawkings or sam harris would've said exactly the same.

science is the new religion.

>>7349015
>>7349032
>>7349054
>>7349062
>>7349069
>>7349077
>>7349195

>confirmed for not having read the Bible.

I first read the Bible while getting prepared for my Confirmation when I was a kid.. It's a fantastic piece of literature but nothing opens your eyes to the various inconsistencies in Christian theology than giving the Bible at least one full reading.

If nothing else, you get a good idea of how the whole thing was stitched together across the ages and you can make an informed decision about your faith after that.

His other recommendations are okay, except for the "Art of War". That one makes me cringe a bit.

>>7349550
>His other recommendations are okay, except for the "Art of War". That one makes me cringe a bit.

Why?

>>7349009
what a pleb selection of books.

>>7349550
His book recommendations were fine, though I wouldn't say they're all "must-reads". The issue is his justifications which reek of fedora.

>>7349556
>“to learn that the act of killing fellow humans can be raised to an art.”

Just because something can be done with finesse and skill doesn't make it art. We don't consider sports to be art, even though athletes are sometimes described as using "artistic" levels of technique and execution.

It can utilize creativity yes... but we do not call an artistic killer an artist, we call them a psychopath.

Besides, if we lower the concept of art to be any form of problem solving (even complex military problems), then pretty much everyday activities fall under the art umbrella.

God damn it, if he had said something like "oh, you should read the Bible so you can understand how it has had an enormous influence on culture, society, and art even if you don't believe in it" then that would be fine. But no, he has to say literally the most fedora'd thing: "read it so you can laugh at the sheeple lol!"

>>7349568
The art of war doesnt mention killing people anywhere as I remember.

>>7349550
The problem is he is very negative. The Bible has a variety of morals. Some are a product of their time and some can be transferred to the present. He chose to pay attention to the former instead of the later.

Newton "to know that the universe is a knowable place" wtf is he talking about did he forget about quantum mechanics literally Newtonian physics is wrong in every way but it's a relatively accurate model and that's it

>>7349562
I'm very unclear why /lit/ is so butthurt right now. The one liners are all pretty much topical (with the possibility of Art of War since I haven't read that) summaries of the effects these books have had.

>>7349573

>Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.

>If a secret piece of news is divulged by a spy before the time is ripe, he must be put to death together with the man to whom the secret was told.

>Now in order to kill the enemy, our men must be roused to anger; that there may be advantage from defeating the enemy, they must have their rewards.

Aside from the whole "running an army" aspect of things, killing remains an objective, even if the book discourages doing so unnecessarily.

>>7349579

I suppose, but if we're going to be measuring the book by that standard Aesop may have made a better contribution to the canon.

>>7349593

Moi aussi, anon. Although it is nice to see posts about books.

>>7349600
If he chose Aesop then he wouldn't seem "edgy" though. He needed to mock a religion to seem cool.

>>7349009
>that list
oh wow

>>7349600
is that all the gore we have from the art of war?. The coran has more blood.

The art of war is about tactics and strategy, not about killing people. DeGreasse can't even read.

>>7349587
the simplicity of Newtonian mechanics and its accuracy for 99.99999% of all observable phenomena is pretty impressive in its simplicity even if technically you are right

>>7349614

I stand by my original justification in:
>>7349550

Tyson's justification can also be read as recognizing that the effort made to critically examine the Bible is more difficult than passively receiving your religion from others, which is true.

The mockery read into his words comes from the posters here and I suspect you would have been just as mad if he excluded the Bible entirely.

>>7349629

I won't get more examples for you, please fish out your own copy and read it.

And yes, tactics and strategy for winning wars, an activity that generally revolves around killing people regardless of how you choose to abstract it.

>>7349636
I wouldn't mind if he didn't include it. In fact, I would prefer it. I get that people pay attention to the wrong stuff but not all people do. I feel he just included it with that reasoning to show people how enlightened and above Christianity he is.

>>7349651

Fair enough.

I do agree that were it not for various small skirmishes with organized religion that endeared him to younger demographic of atheists, Tyson would not be as popular as he is now. However I don't feel he typically goes chasing after the topic, in the manner of a Dawkins or Hitchens.

Given the long interwoven relationship between religion and astronomy, I think he assumes a relatively neutral stance.

This video is a good example:
>https://youtu.be/wZhOm6N4-I0

Here he explains why he considers himself agnostic:
>https://youtu.be/fnHY1cC9a4A?t=1m15s

>>7349636
I think you can also interpret his statement from the opposite position. "Told by others" meaning atheists (or anti-theists) and "to think for yourself" being an introduction to the Christian faith.

>>7349630
I agree and I'm not mocking Newton's achievements, it's just that him listing Newton as a reason for us to know that the Universe is knowable is ??

>>7349710
yeah okay you're right it does get stupider the more I think about it

I find it incredible how, despite mentioning "critical thinking" and "reason" in almost every sentence, intellectuals of the new atheist movements never really seem to venture beyond the boundaries of common sense.

I mean, there's absolutely nothing about this list that is up to the task traditionally assigned to intellectuals, which is precisely the list's expressed objective: the formation of intelligent people.

They're all well-known classics that, judging by his reasoning, are all there because common sense can be read into them. No current author touching themes that may have challenged him intellectually in recent years, because he probably avoids those and the debates they're part of. No controversial thinkers. He has nothing to offer when it comes to pushing you out of the path of prevailing values and changing your worldview.

>>7349780
>No controversial thinkers.

Like who, for example?

>>7349009
He has a good point though, people say all sorts of shit about the Bible that is just flat out wrong when you read it yourself.

It's basically Martin Luther's argument again. Give him props for actually suggesting that people read the Bible instead of dismissing it as a book of outdated fairy tales

>>7349856
What the fuck? His whole reason for reading it is that he thinks it's a book of outdated fairytales.

I would just as soon let physicists critique the Bible as I would let priests teach me mechanics.

>>7349863
Yeah, but instead of believing people who tell you what the Bible is about you should go and read it yourself.

>>7349876
Would you fucks lay off My Nigga, Copernicus? Hasn't he suffered enough?

>>7349077
"Slowly presses pause on Neil YouTube channel; put down signed copy of The Gunslinger; nod and tip fedora; press submit; continue eating old Doritos Crunch Tacos with third hand."

i'd rather read and beat off to a porn mag than read any of that

>>7349096
You do realise STEM students on average have a 17.5 higher IQ and earn $34,000 per year more than liberal arts students right?

>>7350028
that doesn't entail that the best in the field of liberal arts are stupider than the best in the field of science. it also doesn't entail that the best in the field of science have better opinions on the subjects of liberal arts. finally, it doesn't entail that the physicist is even right in his criticism, since IQ tests don't explicitly examine the factuality of people's opinions

>>7350028
>IQ AND salary invoked unironically

hello ideology, old friend

>>7349009
Idk it's pretty much what you'd expect out of someone who likes STEM.

>>7350048
mathematical reasoning ability is general purpose

if a STEM major wanted to write literature they could easily surpass your years of effort after studying for only a few months
>>7350044
your god pynchon was a stem major
suck it kid

>>7350079
After graduating from high school in 1953 at the age of 16, Pynchon studied engineering physics at Cornell University, but left at the end of his second year to serve in the U.S. Navy. In 1957, he returned to Cornell to pursue a degree in English.

>>7350087
exactly faget, an engineering drop out achieved more critical success than 99% of people who were career writers from the get go

>>7350091

>>7350096
Oh yes, the ol' black and white bate pics, the last resort for the fallen

what a nice way to show off your english degree

>>7349076
Neither of those are genetic modification
GMO works directly on the genetic level, without any breeding required

>>7350101

>>7350105
>mouth shut
>doesn't realize that a 29K jpeg contains more information than a few dozen ascii

kek, typical libart fag

>>7350110
I have a whole folder of these.

>>7350113
The fact that you saved tons of other people's OC because you can't defend yourself speaks volumes more about your intellect than anything you've posted so far.

>>7350117
wew lad sounding pretty insecure now

fuck it im too lazy to type

here have some of your own medicine

[spi have a whole folder blah blah

>>7350125
goddamnit you win

im too drunk for this shit

>>7349061
Yes, it's horrible.

>>7349780
He isn't an intellectual.

Is he related to Mike Tyson???

>>7349076
Not the same as genetic modification, but dogs seem to be well adapted to their environment.

>>7349780
>never really seem to venture beyond the boundaries of common sense.

What? They never get to the point of common sense, they rely solely on their "scientific" authority.

>>7350203
>scare quoting scientific instead of authority
Poor form.

>>7349009
The whole set-up is fucking fedora tier.
>A Reddit.com user posed the question to Neil deGrasse Tyson: “Which books should be read by every single intelligent person on the planet?”
This implies:
>I am intelligent
>These books shouldn't be read by people who aren't intelligent
>I am better than these people who are undeserving of reading these books

>“to learn that it’s easier to be told by others what to think and believe than it is to think for yourself.”
>says the guy telling you what to read and think whilst you're reading it
>7.) The Art of War by Sun Tsu (eBook – Audio Book) – “to learn that the act of killing fellow humans can be raised to an art.”
t o p k e k
Why is pop science so shit? I'll laugh so hard if we get a little cult of ''canon readers'' ''scientists'' out there being smug as fuck about them having read Smith, lecturing their families on economics.

>>7349076
We control the environment. We have adapted them to suit us. All GMO does is cut out the middle man a bit

>>7349195
>Give it ten or fifteen years and we will see Christian Science (REAL acience) pop up

Cringed hard

>>7350241
This desu

umm excuse me but those books are all by white guys except one chinese and one italian, shouldnt there be at least five jewish authors and an african-american for it to be fair?

>>7350577
oh wait the bible is buy a bunch of jewish guys, nevermind

>>7350577
oh wait the bible is by some jewish guys, say wait a minute, there is one woman or transgender author on that list! mister tyson needs to check his filthy cismale privilege

>>7350241
>I am intelligent
>These books shouldn't be read by people who aren't intelligent
>I am better than these people who are undeserving of reading these books

It doesn't imply any of that except for the first point.

>>7349568
The word "art" in the title of the "art" of war doesn't mean what it seems you (and NDT) think it does. Art, as used in the title, means skillfulness, or a body of knowledge dealing with practical or productive means and ends. It's related to the term "artisan". The more literal title of the book is "Master Sun's Military Rules".

What seems especially silly of NDT is apparent lack of recognition of how the word "art" is being used, and (as already noted) his take that it's an art of killing, suggesting that he's maybe at best skimmed the work really quickly once or twice, and really just wanted to make a stupid polemic on the basis of the title.

>>7351038
>The word "art" in the title of the "art" of war doesn't mean what it seems you (and NDT) think it does.
>you

I was arguing against Tyson's reasoning and cited examples where "art" was used to refer to skillful activities.

I should clarify though that I'm not bait image anon, aside from this post: >>7349645

This whole thread seems to be founded on wild misconceptions about Mr. Tyson's agenda and I question whether such blatant misrepresentation of another person's opinions in order to gin up controversy belongs here at all.

>>7350577
>italians aren't white
que?

>>7351156
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3yon2GyoiM
Granted, Dennis Hopper is talking about Sicilians specifically, but it makes me laugh and is relevant.

>>7351125
>I was arguing against Tyson's reasoning and cited examples where "art" was used to refer to skillful activities.

I saw that, but it seemed as if you were reducing it to meaning more akin to how art can refer to something like the "fine arts," like music, painting, sculpture, etc. I'm saying that the use of the term in the title is an older use that would have a much wider umbrella open with respect to what's an art and what's not; shoemaking, fishing, and boxing are all arts in the older sense of the term. Creativity and gracefulness don't have to come into it at all.

>>7349009
You don't have to read The Bible for that you edgy nigger. Just turn on the news.

>>7351216

I think there is some creativity and gracefulness to all the things you mentioned and your last two examples remind me of Hemingway. In colloquial speech, I do not usually hear those things described as art even while I hear "artisanal" misused almost daily.

Tyson specifically talks about "raising" killing to an art via Sun Tzu's book and maybe you're right in that it is something of a manual for something that requires technique and skill. If that is the case, I concede.

I think I may have reacted in a kneejerk way to the way he phrased it, much in the way I've admonished some of the other posters in this thread for doing. Good on you for pointing it out.

>>7349009
The Bible is important but the scientific books he suggests are dated. If you want to actually learn something about evolutionary biology just get a textbook. If you want to learn about physics don't waste your time trying to read Newton's original works. Just read Goldstein or L&L. On the literary side, there are many more interesting works than the ones he suggests.

>>7351686
> In colloquial speech, I do not usually hear those things described as art even while I hear "artisanal"
That's true; the use of the term has certainly narrowed, easily leading to misunderstandings on occasion.

(I recall in a philosophy seminar on Aristotle's Ethics people taking his use of the term "art," a translation of the Greek word "techne," meaning technical skill or craft-oriented know-how or body of knowledge related to "knowing how to do something," as art in the modern sense; not even quite wrong, but so limited as to misunderstand that author.)

>Tyson specifically talks about "raising" killing to an art via Sun Tzu's book and maybe you're right in that it is something of a manual for something that requires technique and skill
Truth be told, I had to look up what the actual Chinese title was to see why it was translated "The Art of War." Probably just an, if you will, artful turn of phrase on the part of some translator, but the older use seems fitting, even if it's not a literal translation. I'm sure Tyson's comment was a glib bit of filler so he could have something to say about the book, once he'd decided to offer some measure of explanation for why he made his choices.

>I think I may have reacted in a kneejerk way to the way he phrased it, much in the way I've admonished some of the other posters in this thread for doing. Good on you for pointing it out.
Cheers, but also cheers to a polite and civil back-and-forth. Don't necessarily see that all that often here.

Jesus, he sounds so negative there. The points he wants you to learn aren't very uplifting.

>>7349710
thats the only one on that list that was not cringey. newton created the first mathematical, unified explanation for all physical phenomena. he created the idea of a mathematically knowable universe. this is a common idea...

>>7349876
the problem with that statement (which theology types often use) is that mechanics is a empirical-results-oriented science rooted in an idea of objective truth, where the performance of the physicist is measurable, whereas theology is basically a historical consensus. you have really have no basis for claiming a physicist can't critique the bible

>>7352099
>theology is basically a historical consensus

You're mistaken. Do you think philosophy is "basically a historically consensus" as well?

>you have really have no basis for claiming a physicist can't critique the bible

He didn't say that physicists can't critique the Bible. His point that physicists doing biblical critics would be doing so as laymen. If we seriously want to learn about biblical criticism, we would consult the relevant experts, ie biblical scholars.

>>7352176
>Do you think philosophy is "basically a historically consensus" as well?
Yes, but there's less of a pretense of consensus.

The point is we can easily measure the difference between a competent physicist and a hack-- mainly by judging predictive power. Good physics and bad physics is readily apparent to the layman. Good and bad theology basically comes down to the consensus of other theologists, i.e. horseshit.

>>7352188
>Yes, but there's less of a pretense of consensus.

I don't know what you mean here. You're going to have to be more specific.

>Good physics and bad physics is readily apparent to the layman.

I don't think so; I don't see any reason a layman would be able to tell the difference between an actual physics paper and a fake paper of sciencey sounding gibberish. Indeed, it seems that many people are easily fooled by pseudoscience.

>Good and bad theology basically comes down to the consensus of other theologists

No, the academic consensus is usually how that layman is able to distinguish good and bad academics. But this is true of both theology and science.

>>7349087
Those Pandas are smart. They read World as Will and Representation

this is the PhD equivalent of buzzfeed click bate, but it's obvious from a celebrity "scientist"

the discussion we should be having is how do we as a society educate people properly

>>7349096
Who would you nominate as official celeb intellectual guy then?

>>7352739
Zizek

>there are people alive who don't understand that everything is natural

>>7352800
>there are people who confuse an experiment with an observation
>there are people who don't know how to control for confounding variables

>>7349096
I'm STEM and I think it is a kinda stupid list.

>Art of War
>to learn that the act of killing fellow humans can be raised to an art
>When the books says several times that the less deaths the better

>Adam Smith to learn about how bad capitalism is
>Not Das Kapital

Still, I would like to see you all defend yourselves in a scientific conversation.

>>7350241
No it doesn't imply anything except the first, and his credentials make a good case for it. At the very least he's much smarter than the average /lit/ "start with le greeks le DFW" memespouter.

>3.) On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin (eBook – Audio Book) – “to learn of our kinship with all other life on Earth.”
Full-title: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
>7.) The Art of War by Sun Tsu (eBook – Audio Book) – “to learn that the act of killing fellow humans can be raised to an art.”
OK has he even read these?

>>7352870
Same, I'm a STEM student and I think this guy is THE worst.

>>7353865
I wouldn't say THE worst, more like the exponent of a cocoon tendency in STEM, thinking that knowing a lot about science is enough and other knowledge areas (something that also exists in the arts to be honest) are suprefluous.

Pop-science can be useful to bring interest in science to the general public, something that it's always good, but there is a point where you dumbify the concept of science precisely by making it appear as the fountain of knowledge from which everything else has to come. IMO a good balance between brain and heart has to be found, like the original Sagan's Cosmos did.

TLDR: Please don't turn science in to a meme, pop-scientists.

>>7349009
This guys NDT's another shit. Just like the /lit/ards on this board.

>some guy is providing actual proofs and logical explanations to things
>both autistic and black LEL

good thing religion is dying

>>7350028
I'm a STEM professional and I make $180k a year but I think his list is absolute garbage. The level of discourse on /lit/, especially in some of the more technical philosophy threads far out weighs most STEM people in intellectual depth and ability. Don't mistake hard sciences as a sole indicator of IQ; there are some extremely intelligent authors out there.

>>7352870
Agreed. He's kind of embarrassing. I've seen Christians give better reasoning for their opinions. "New Atheism" really needs to go away.

>>7356057
>The level of discourse on /lit/, especially in some of the more technical philosophy threads far out weighs most STEM people in intellectual depth
Please link me to an example. I've never seen any discussion in /lit/ on which a layman could not comfortably participate, because that's precisely what most of the board is.

Lmao at his explanation for including the Art of War:

"To learn that killing people can be raised to an art."

Yeah these are really childish justifications, but to be fair, the interview may have been set up to give his answers this way.

NDT doesn't seem to read many books though, and most of the times he appears on Bill Maher's show, he finds a way to say something embarrassing.

lol he's right tho if you're looking to gain intelligent insight

>7.) The Art of War by Sun Tsu (eBook – Audio Book) – “to learn that the act of killing fellow humans can be raised to an art.”

Considering that the number one thing Sun Tsu stresses over and over again is that a dimplomatic victory is the best way to win a war. I'm guessing he never read the book.

8.) The Prince by Machiavelli (eBook – Audio Book) – “to learn that people not in power will do all they can to acquire it, and people in power will do all they can to keep it.”

Confrimed for not having read this one either

>On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin (eBook – Audio Book) – “to learn of our kinship with all other life on Earth.”

He hasn't read this one either.

Most likely he doesn't read anything but teleprompters.

>>7356718
He's knowledgeable but only in his field. He should only talk about that.

>>7349095
>tfw no horny giant panda gf to sex all day