Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
I haven't exactly followed the internet cult of Neil deGrasse Tyson, but if this tweet is any indicator, then the guy isn't quite the super genius others portray him to be:

I don't know why they call it social science. It's simple: eliminate the rich. There, I've solved the biggest problems in social science. Try doing some real science sometime.
He doesn't even try to sugarcoat his sentiments! He doesn't say "tax the rich" or "force the rich to pay their fair share." He outright says "eliminate the rich." (And I can only assume by guillotine!)

If this guy were truly the genius his followers claim he is, then he could have easily spotted the glaring flaw in his logic: if you "eliminate" the  richest people (the richest one percent, I assume), that just make the next people down the rich. You haven't eliminated the rich. You've only changed who the rich is.

The only way to eliminate "the rich" is to reduce humanity to one person. As long as you have more than one person, and someone else has more wealth than the other, you will always have someone who is rich.

This is why I can never take wealth redistribution seriously, whether it cloaks itself as communism, socialism, or welfarism: it's completely utopian! You cannot realistically solve the world's problems by attacking the rich and trying to make everyone equal. You will always fail. It would be ideal if everyone had equal wealth. That sounds nice on paper. But it only works on paper. It can never work in practice because it ignores human nature. You cannot attempt to help human beings while ignoring human nature.

Ignoring nature in any form is anti-science, which in turn makes Mr. Tyson ironically anti-science, despite being the scientist he is.
Add a Comment:
 
:icontaranko:
Taranko Featured By Owner Feb 18, 2015
You, obviously completely miss the meaning of this. He means not to eliminate the individuals, but being far more wealthy than anyone else.
Reply
:iconthat90sguy:
That90sGuy Featured By Owner Sep 24, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
Neil deGrasse Tyson is one of the men I look up to. I consider him to be an intelligent man(who's very existence proves intelligent design, otherwise Dr. Tyson would not exist, because evolution cannot make a man that badass). Ultimately, I wish to shake his hand.

But he is as much a social scientist as I am an astrophysicist! And I want to be one myself because of him!
Reply
:iconthat90sguy:
That90sGuy Featured By Owner Sep 24, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
The fuck? How'd this get down here?
Reply
:iconmulliganator:
mulliganator Featured By Owner Jul 20, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Many of the issues in social science stem from inequalities in "class"-- divided into wealth, power, and prestige. You can gain the other two easily with wealth. People with wealth have total power over 1) What society is taught in school, media, and elsewhere 2) What people believe as a result of that (including the mindset that supports their oppression) and 3) means of production in the US and elsewhere.

If wealth is redistributed so that it cannot be exchanged for power, no one should have the power to push society into a mindset that perpetuates our biggest issues in society-- the exact issues sociologists study.
Reply
:icontaradash50:
Taradash50 Featured By Owner Apr 5, 2015
That is a fantasy. Wealth is redistributed to government, not poor people. It fuels Statism, which is more powerful than "Class." Capitalism is the only system that has moved people out of poverty. Tyson is foolish.
Reply
:iconmulliganator:
mulliganator Featured By Owner Jul 20, 2014  Hobbyist Digital Artist
"if you "eliminate" the  richest people (the richest one percent, I assume), that just make the next people down the rich" 
He didn't mean literally eliminate them. He meant eliminating the richness from them and the system that profits them more than any human could ever need. If you redistribute resources and wealth in a relatively equal way, there will be those who have more money, but "rich" would have much less meaning and would not compare to the rich today.

To say that "handing down" the money would make other rich people would require that the money be distributed to a small amount of people. But if you support a greater population with the money, the wealth would be too "diluted" to make any one person rich. It would simply increase the quality of life for those oppressed by capitalism.
Reply
:icontaradash50:
Taradash50 Featured By Owner Apr 5, 2015
It isn't "handed down." The more government is grown, the more government employees there are. They get paid first, non-competitively no less, and the first priority of government is to expand government which it can do in the vicious cycle. 
Reply
:icontaradash50:
Taradash50 Featured By Owner Apr 5, 2015
No one is oppressed by capitalism. Capitalism has freed more people than any other system. Consider child labor for example. Capitalism never eliminated child labor laws. Those were already non-existent in the examples usually cited. And if you think that child labor isn't abused under non capitalist systems you are sorely mistaken. Marx was wrong as well. Monarchy and Aristocracy created class structures, not capitalists.
Reply
:iconthe-laughing-rabbit:
The-Laughing-Rabbit Featured By Owner Sep 7, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
The date says June 31st. there is no June 31st.
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2013
"If you "eliminate" the  richest people (the richest one percent, I assume), that just make the next people down the rich. You haven't eliminated the rich. You've only changed who the rich is."

I'm constantly explaining this to social democrats!!
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Sep 6, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Really? Because it seems like a sentiment you would easily agree with.
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner Sep 6, 2013
Not at all. Far be it from me to support populist cries of "get rid of the richest". I oppose the concept of wealth/poverty. If you remove the richest under capitalism, the next richest people will simply become the richest: The form of inequality is still identical. This is why fundamental inequalities cannot be removed in a capitalist framework ie by social democrats.
Reply
:iconmaurisaeth:
Maurisaeth Featured By Owner Sep 1, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Tyson's quote that "science is true, whether you believe in it or not" is nauseating. I'd much rather think of science as a method of inquiry rather than a worldview in and of itself.
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2013
If noone believed in science, in what sense would it be true? It just becomes a meaningless dogma to say so! Belief is the primary component in truth!
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Sep 1, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
And that's exactly what it is. Science is nothing more that a social construct. A viable construct, but a construct nonetheless.
Reply
:iconmaurisaeth:
Maurisaeth Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
When people say "science flies you to the moon. religion flies you into buildings", a good way to respond is "religion gives us 'you shall not murder'. Science gave us atomic weapons."
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
LOL! I have to remember that one. :D
Reply
:iconmaurisaeth:
Maurisaeth Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Yeah. :)

I know you don't like Vox Day but in his book The Irrational Atheist, there is an inventive and thought-provoking chapter called "The Case Against Science", where he makes this exact point (i.e. because science has given us weapons that can destroy all life on earth, any benefits it has given us previously have fallen away).
Reply
:iconcowboyrodent:
CowboyRodent Featured By Owner Aug 31, 2013
It seems that tweet doesn't exist, and i googled it it seems no one else except you talked about it, 1st did you get conned by someone?
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Sep 1, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I found this on the Bogosity Forums. It could very well be a forgery, I admit.
Reply
:iconcowboyrodent:
CowboyRodent Featured By Owner Sep 1, 2013
Yeah, I think you've been had man. If he actually said that they're would be conservative blogs fuming over it, i think you need to post a retraction.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Sep 1, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Probably.
Reply
:iconwingdiamond:
WingDiamond Featured By Owner Aug 30, 2013
:sing: Eat da Rich ... Eat The Rich!
Don'cha Know, Life's A Bitch!
Eat da Rich ... Eat da Rich
Outa da Palace, Into tha Ditch!
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Sep 1, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
And this is what happens when you do eat the rich: www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6…
Reply
:iconcowboyrodent:
CowboyRodent Featured By Owner Aug 30, 2013
Brilliant in astrophysics at least.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Aug 30, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Not so brilliant in social sciences.
Reply
:iconvolk-oseba:
Volk-oseba Featured By Owner Aug 30, 2013
Tyson is great when he's in his element... unfortunately, astrophysics does not make you good at economics.  Then again, not all social sciences are as developed as economics; if he was talking about Sociology, then he has a point.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Aug 30, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Smart in one field, dumb as a rock in another.
Reply
:iconvolk-oseba:
Volk-oseba Featured By Owner Aug 30, 2013
And it says it's from June 31st...
Reply
:iconvolk-oseba:
Volk-oseba Featured By Owner Aug 30, 2013
Looks like he didn't post this on twitter... too many characters.
Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Aug 30, 2013
Neil Degrasse Tyson is a brilliant scientist. I think he knows what he's talking about- if he disses the social sciences, then he probably knows better than you do. Where, I wonder, is your degree in astrophysics?

Furthermore, there's probably a lot more to this than this statement. Twitter is a horrible place to argue anything, due to the short amount of characters available to you. And yeah, you assume it's by guilloutine, because that's what your bias tells you. Tyson has never in the past been an advocate of violence, so I can only assume your assumption is unfounded. 

And finally, you can be brilliant and at the same time hold very silly ideas. Some scientists believe in god, despite having all the information in the world. Some people are very bright, yet believe in all sorts of hokum. My own father was a PhD in physics, and he believe in dowsing. 
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2013
I respect you man but that is a shockingly crass appeal to irrelevant authority.
Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2013
I sometimes speak before I think, especially when I get agitated about stupid statements. It's a flaw.
Reply
:icondefying-t:
Defying-T Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2013
"Neil Degrasse Tyson is a brilliant scientist. I think he knows what he's talking about"

"Where, I wonder, is your degree in astrophysics?"

"And yeah, you assume it's by guilloutine, because that's what your bias tells you. Tyson has never in the past been an advocate of violence, so I can only assume your assumption is unfounded."

My gosh are you for real? There's so much stupidity and hypocrisy in what you've just said I can't give you any credibility whatsoever, and I hope for the sake of my faith in mankind I don't even have to point out what's blatantly wrong with everything you've just said.
Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2013
What, that blamethe1st made an idiotic assumption about a man greater than him by far, and I took objection to that? 
Reply
:icondefying-t:
Defying-T Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2013
Blame made no "idiotic assumption". He only called Tyson out on his BS.

In fact, you did. You're assuming that because Tyson is a great scientist, that he must be right, even though he makes an idiotic assumption himself, by making an asinine statement about sociology.

Tyson is a great physicist, but no greater a sociologist or politician than I. Regardless of "who" said "kill the rich", it's an asinine statement.
Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2013
There was really no BS to call out based only on that tweet. BT accused Tyson of encouraging genocide of the rich, completely missing the obvious sarcasm. 

Because he's a great scientist, he probably knows what he is talking about. That is what I'm saying. If Tyson says social sciences aren't good science, then I'll listen, because he's a scientist extraordinaire and I am not. It's not absolute, but until I hear a counterargument- funny that, none so far- I'll go on Tyson's knowledge. 

Sarcasm, ever heard of that? 'Sides, he didn't even say "kill the rich". The exact word was "eliminate", and a wealthy elite could be eliminated simply by taking their money from them. Not that I think he was actually saying "let's eliminate the rich", because he wasn't.
Reply
:icondefying-t:
Defying-T Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2013
If Tyson was being sarcastic, why are you then taking him seriously in the next sentence, and saying that what he says is probably true, because he's an esteemed scientist?

And Tyson is an expert in physics. He is not known for his expertise on social science.

As far as I'm concerned, social sciences are GOOD. They are fundamentally helpful, useful to understanding how society, politics, and the psychology of human affairs works. Trusting Tyson's arrogant, "sarcastic", and downright unwarranted dismissal of social science, just because "he's a great scientist" is irrational and requires a lack of freethought. I don't listen to what every "expert" says, especially when they arrogantly write off a subject they don't even excel in.
Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2013
Because the point of his tweet was that social science isn't science? 

I daresay he knows what constitutes science and what doesn't.

He wasn't saying social sciences are bad, as far as I know. Only that they're not scientific. 
And I don't accept this out of hand either. I think it's plausible since Tyson is accomplished, intelligent etc, but I'm not absolutely set that he's right.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Aug 30, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
He may be smart in astrophysics, but in social science, he's clearly  a dunce.
Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Aug 31, 2013
Look, I know what it's like to have Asperger's and not being able to tell the difference between seriousness and sarcasm, but this was obviously snark. The point of the tweet isn't "kill the rich", it's "social science=not science", that's plain to see.

And isn't it you who always nags about how our priorities are all wrong and that's why we can't care about small issues likw feminism, racism, secularism etc because Obama and the libtards are coming to take all your rights away, Orwellian style- and yet the moment somebody says something on twitter that you think is stupid, you latch onto it immediately. So I urge you- be consistent. Either focus only on liberty, or admit that we can care about smaller issues.

Oh, and I do think Tyson knows better than you or I whether the social sciences are proper science or not.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Sep 1, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist

Perhaps it was. But these days, it's hard to tell.

 

The fact that people treat this man like a God, even when he says stupid things like this, may not be top priority, but it does strike a chord for me.

 

Whatever.

Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2013
Maybe it is, but it feels downright stupid to say "I can only assume he wants to kill the rich" when it's Neil Tyson. If it had been some radical with a history of violence, sure, but this is not the case even a little.

Neil Tyson isn't being treated like a god. He's famous because he's a good scientist and a charismatic person- which, if you ask me, if a much better reason to be famous than many other celebrities today. He promotes science and good thinking, and that strikes a chord with a lot of people. Mind you, he was a student of Carl Sagan, and he's more or less carrying that same torch now. He's somebody that the secular community looks up to, as well as people in general who just like science. We need more role models like those. 
So, we can care about smaller issues? Yes or no? 


Reply
:iconredmond17:
Redmond17 Featured By Owner Aug 30, 2013
"Neil Degrasse Tyson is a brilliant scientist. I think he knows what he's talking about"

The appeal to authority is so blatant that I'm inclined to believe that you're just arguing for the sake of being contrary.


"Where, I wonder, is your degree in astrophysics?"

Where, I wonder, is Neil's degree in any of the social sciences?
Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Aug 30, 2013
Yet it's still reasonable to think that he, learned as he is, has a reason for saying what he does. And making assumptions before we know the full context is just... dumb.

I think it's reasonable to assume he knows more about the social sciences than you or I.
Reply
:iconredmond17:
Redmond17 Featured By Owner Aug 30, 2013
I actually earned a BA in an economics-related field, and continue to study economics (casually) to this day. So no, I don't think it's reasonable to assume he knows more about social sciences than me based solely on his degree astrophysics, just as I wouldn't assume he knows more about brain surgery than a medical undergrad.
Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Aug 31, 2013
He's a scientist, and a very successful one at that. If he's saying that social sciences are not proper science per se, then I'm prepared to believe him. Not absolutely or out of hand; I'm open to arguments, but he's more learned than myself or most people on this planet. It's not that social sciences are worthless, or bogus, just that in his opinion, it's not actually science.
Reply
:iconredmond17:
Redmond17 Featured By Owner Aug 31, 2013
And that's why your appeal to authority is fallacious.
Reply
:iconredmond17:
Redmond17 Featured By Owner Aug 31, 2013
You're holding him as an authority on Item B based on his work in Item A. Still the same basic fallacy.
Reply
:icongreatkingrat88:
Greatkingrat88 Featured By Owner Aug 31, 2013
Do elaborate.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×

:iconblamethe1st: More from BlameThe1st





Details

Submitted on
August 29, 2013
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
3,727
Favourites
7 (who?)
Comments
100
×