Scientists in the US are running for office to combat science-denial

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

DeGrasse Tyson's smarmy "well, actually" style of pretending to be a "nerd" to appease mainstream illiterates has never been particularly entertaining. The assumption he's made quite explicit that human society and public policy alike can be boiled down to non-value utilitarian judgments I believe was already touched on by Horkheimer after World War II.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I like the sentiment behind this, but (and this is a big but) but it looks like this initiative will fall prey to the vices of STEM, namely a tendency to pursue scientism while being ignorant of non-STEM subjects (I'm looking at you Neil DeGrasse Tyson).

Good scientists are often well learned about the humanities. As a rule (because first-class science is multi-national) they are likely to have the ability to deal with ethnic and cultural diversity. What they might be poor at is relating to the mass low culture, not that relating to mass low culture makes one better.

Is this based on some mass survey of scientists, distinguishing them both by level of urbane sophistication and by how "good" they are to produce a strong correlation? A guy who works his ass off in a labor sixty hours a week to bust out of a a doctoral program in record time has little room to feel pressure to learn French or read Dostoevsky. Moreover, a number of "good scientists" may themselves come from the lower echelons of (even white) society.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I like the sentiment behind this, but (and this is a big but) but it looks like this initiative will fall prey to the vices of STEM, namely a tendency to pursue scientism while being ignorant of non-STEM subjects (I'm looking at you Neil DeGrasse Tyson).

Good scientists are often well learned about the humanities. As a rule (because first-class science is multi-national) they are likely to have the ability to deal with ethnic and cultural diversity. What they might be poor at is relating to the mass low culture, not that relating to mass low culture makes one better.

Is this based on some mass survey of scientists, distinguishing them both by level of urbane sophistication and by how "good" they are to produce a strong correlation? A guy who works his ass off in a labor sixty hours a week to bust out of a a doctoral program in record time has little room to feel pressure to learn French or read Dostoevsky. Moreover, a number of "good scientists" may themselves come from the lower echelons of (even white) society.

Research scientists are typically drawn from the upper part of the working class. For what science demands in learning and self-discipline, it pays rather poorly. One can make money far easier as a salesperson on commission and far more in medicine. The pay is reliable, and there are not the layoffs as there are in semi-skilled labor, but the rewards are small for what one puts in.

Scientists are generally good at expressing themselves. That goes with science, as scientists must often write grant requests and make reports. Unless they have horrible voices, they can be good speakers if they apply themselves. They are the best people to contradict myth and folly.   

What are you saying?