(06-01-2016 08:03 PM)Max Power Wrote:  The "scientific community" hasn't shunned him. His support of BDS predictably led to a political backlash, which has nothing to do with his scholarship.

His political positioning puts him in the company of Carlin, and Einstein, and Chomsky, and the large majority of scientists and people holding advanced degrees generally.

Allow me to add some perspective, admittedly anecdotal.

During the 1990s I served on the Board of Trustees of a college. There were numerous social events where the faculty was encouraged to meet the Board. As I result, I had an opportunity to talk casually with a number of PhDs. By and large, these folks were capable of droning on for hours about their specialty but beyond that, were relatively incapable of carrying on small talk about any other subject. Yes they all expressed liberal views but beyond the "because it is the right thing to do" they could not defend any position.

On the other hand, while I was in graduate business school, I met with a group of people who were as intelligent, if not more so, than the PhDs. Not only were they capable of dealing with subjects beyond the course work but most were articulate and, yes, quite conservative.

Many of my classmates went on to have outstanding business careers and some in government. (Probably the two that had the most significant government positions weren't in America. One became Finance Minister in Nelson Mandela's government and another became Israel's Chief of Staff of their Air Force.)

My point is that scientists and others with advanced degrees may be liberal but they also might be socially inept. But maybe their opinions still count.

(06-05-2016 05:32 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 08:03 PM)Max Power Wrote:  The "scientific community" hasn't shunned him. His support of BDS predictably led to a political backlash, which has nothing to do with his scholarship.

His political positioning puts him in the company of Carlin, and Einstein, and Chomsky, and the large majority of scientists and people holding advanced degrees generally.

Allow me to add some perspective, admittedly anecdotal.

During the 1990s I served on the Board of Trustees of a college. There were numerous social events where the faculty was encouraged to meet the Board. As I result, I had an opportunity to talk casually with a number of PhDs. By and large, these folks were capable of droning on for hours about their specialty but beyond that, were relatively incapable of carrying on small talk about any other subject. Yes they all expressed liberal views but beyond the "because it is the right thing to do" they could not defend any position.

On the other hand, while I was in graduate business school, I met with a group of people who were as intelligent, if not more so, than the PhDs. Not only were they capable of dealing with subjects beyond the course work but most were articulate and, yes, quite conservative.

Many of my classmates went on to have outstanding business careers and some in government. (Probably the two that had the most significant government positions weren't in America. One became Finance Minister in Nelson Mandela's government and another became Israel's Chief of Staff of their Air Force.)

My point is that scientists and others with advanced degrees may be liberal but they also might be socially inept. But maybe their opinions still count.

I agree 100% but they're the ones that are making the big bucks in their respective fields. I suppose those things that they can't do they just pay someone else to do them. For instance, I'm a genius too but I never do any plumbing, I work plumbing like Dagwood. I'm kidding okay the genius part is true. LOL

(06-05-2016 05:32 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(06-01-2016 08:03 PM)Max Power Wrote:  The "scientific community" hasn't shunned him. His support of BDS predictably led to a political backlash, which has nothing to do with his scholarship.

His political positioning puts him in the company of Carlin, and Einstein, and Chomsky, and the large majority of scientists and people holding advanced degrees generally.

Allow me to add some perspective, admittedly anecdotal.

During the 1990s I served on the Board of Trustees of a college. There were numerous social events where the faculty was encouraged to meet the Board. As I result, I had an opportunity to talk casually with a number of PhDs. By and large, these folks were capable of droning on for hours about their specialty but beyond that, were relatively incapable of carrying on small talk about any other subject. Yes they all expressed liberal views but beyond the "because it is the right thing to do" they could not defend any position.

On the other hand, while I was in graduate business school, I met with a group of people who were as intelligent, if not more so, than the PhDs. Not only were they capable of dealing with subjects beyond the course work but most were articulate and, yes, quite conservative.

Many of my classmates went on to have outstanding business careers and some in government. (Probably the two that had the most significant government positions weren't in America. One became Finance Minister in Nelson Mandela's government and another became Israel's Chief of Staff of their Air Force.)

My point is that scientists and others with advanced degrees may be liberal but they also might be socially inept. But maybe their opinions still count.

depends on the layout as she will most certainly evolve moving forward....I'm in the camp that science and money will overwhelm and destroy each other moving forward....but that's many moons away....

we are only a speck as many thousands of years in development are yielding to the dissolve.....that won't last....human behavior from the beginning has demonstrated that....

the scientists are only camping out now in caves protected by money.....and believe me, that's why the majority are truly scared of the atheists and pretentious christians in power...

welcome to the future before it happens....today mattes not in that realm.....unless the blind are willing to get up off their arse and the gubberment goes backwards to move forward in synergy.....

what so many do not understand is the escalation of greed vs building laterally vs vertically as the puppies continued to be pumped out....

take a wild guess which one wins.....hint: if not science, serfdom coupled with hand to hand comes back into play is my best guess...darwin and h.g. got the 'wells' right in my book....

one has to understand the end game before they write the rules....and we continue to hang onto outdated control mechanized versions whilst adapting with silly global/state/local addendum(s) that are only gearing more to the socialist side of the equation (whilst knowing it's fail all day relative to the masses)

/rant smoking in green crack land....leafly.com if you want to see what that's all about....call my bs what you choose....I'm almost finished trying on this board....