Neil Degrasse Tyson is the world's #1 most stupid science troll, says Breitbart editor

Wednesday, January 06, 2016 by: Daniel Barker
Tags: Neil deGrasse Tyson, celebrity scientist, leftist agenda

---

(NaturalNews) Although the term "celebrity scientist" has recent origins, individuals who could fit the description go back at least as far as Albert Einstein or even to the days of Charles Darwin and beyond, depending on how one wishes to define the concept.

Unlike those two luminaries, however, the modern version of the celebrity scientist tends to include those who have made only minor contributions (at best) to their respective fields, and are merely either self- or media-appointed mouthpieces who typically have an agenda that goes far beyond their experience or training.

The prototype of the current celebrity scientist was probably best exemplified by the late Carl Sagan, the scientist/author/philosopher whose face first became familiar to television audiences in the 1970s and who subsequently became mainstream media's "go-to" guy for all matters scientific, whether or not a given subject was within his field of expertise.

Since Sagan's heyday, we've seen a parade of others who have performed similar roles as media darlings and alleged experts on everything from black holes to climate change. The list includes people such as Bill Nye, Michio Kaku, David and Richard Attenborough, Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins and a few others who regularly appear on TV and in print, pontificating on their pet subjects and typically anything else journalists ask their opinions on.

These pop science media darlings vary in intelligence, relevance and basic integrity – some have made valid contributions in the scientific world and have managed to maintain a general sense of decorum and dignity.

Some have not...

"Scientists who are actually really stupid"

One of those with a questionable scientific background and a propensity towards spouting inanities, trivial sound bites and sometimes downright falsehoods is Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson.

In a near-slanderous – but humorous – piece, Breitbart's Milo Yiannopoulos (a controversial media figure in his own right) paints a decidedly unflattering portrait of Tyson, who has now apparently inherited the mantle as the media's current number one pop scientist.

From the article:

Tyson, whom liberals love because they are racists who can't believe a black guy could be smart enough to be a scientist and so spontaneously ejaculate and soil themselves every time they see him on TV, hasn't published anything of note for years. The advantage of being a celebrity scientist is that you don't actually have to do any science. You're exempted from the usual "publish or perish" rules.

Ouch.

That's a bit harsh, maybe, but it's true that celebrity scientists often seem to be thrust into the limelight so that they can reinforce the agendas of those in power.

Is it really a coincidence that Tyson's opinions closely echo those of the current administration?

Tyson's glib and insubstantial Twitter posts appear to substantiate the claim Yiannopoulos makes that he is "sort of media cheerleader for science instead of an actual scientist," and that many of his opinions seem designed to convince people that much of the liberal agenda is somehow backed by scientific research.

Yiannopoulos further notes:

Because he has given up on the scientific method in favour of progressive politics, Tyson has jettisoned fairness and fact in favour of slipperiness and propaganda: he is caught again and again repeating quotes that he appears to have simply made up, or which at a bare minimum are stripped of essential context or provenance.

A classic example of this is Tyson's much publicized Christmas day Tweet which read: "On this day long ago, a child was born who, by age 30, would transform the world. Happy Birthday Isaac Newton b. Dec 25, 1642."

Clever as that quote might be, and regardless of whether or not Newton was born on December 25 (Yiannopoulos says he was not), it's pretty obvious that the message is designed to project the message that science is more relevant than religion.

And whether or not you agree with that sentiment, is there really a need for celebrity scientists telling us these things in the first place? And is it in keeping with the scientific spirit to exploit one's celebrity status and scientific background to sway public opinion on matters far beyond the scope of scientific empiricism?

Source:

Breitbart.com