Any thoughts on Neil deGrasse Tyson's #Rationalia tweet? lol

[6packofun]

He tweeted yesterday, I think, this:

 

"Earth needs a virtual country: #Rationalia, with a one-line Constitution: All policy shall be based on the weight of evidence."

 

Lots of interesting responses from all over the web, science community included.  What does he mean by "virtual country"?

[Ravin]

I think he's a little too caught up in his own paradigms.

 

My lawyer brain responds to his science brain with: what are your criteria for admissibility of evidence?

[Bluegoat]

I think he's a little too caught up in his own paradigms.

 

My lawyer brain responds to his science brain with: what are your criteria for admissibility of evidence?

 

Yeah, I'd have put it in different words, but that is what I was thinking too. 

 

Based on things he's said before, I suspect he means it to be based on what would be admissable in the sciences.  I don't get the impression he's well versed in epistemology.

 

 

Also - I am not convinced constitutions are all they've cracked up to be.

[El...]

I'm too dumb to critique it. I like it. I often wish I lived somewhere where decisions were evidence based. 

Yeah, that!

[Katy]

I just figured it was wordplay on that NPR show, Invisibilia.  Also, he reminds me of a science teacher I had as a kid.  Absent-minded professor type without much common sense.  I wouldn't put him in politics, for the same reason the fictional Temperance Brennen from Bones would be terrible in politics.  No understanding of certain aspects of life such as finesse.

 

It also feels a little late for him to have that adolescent fantasy of buying his own island and starting his own country, filled only with people he likes.

[Onceuponatime]

I don't think he was seriously espousing the actual establishment of such a country. It was probably the result of frustration with particular irrationalities, coming out in what he thought was a non-aggressive way. He tries to be a nice guy and not go on the direct attack. Sometimes he does seem like just a big kid with a big brain. Unfortunately for him, he has become something of a celebrity, which makes everything he says have disproportionate significance to the general public. Famous people should hire someone to review their tweets before they send them out into the stratosphere.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Onceuponatime

[Jane in NC]

I just figured it was wordplay on that NPR show, Invisibilia. Also, he reminds me of a science teacher I had as a kid. Absent-minded professor type without much common sense. I wouldn't put him in politics, for the same reason the fictional Temperance Brennen from Bones would be terrible in politics. No understanding of certain aspects of life such as finesse.

 

It also feels a little late for him to have that adolescent fantasy of buying his own island and starting his own country, filled only with people he likes.

I recently saw a bumper sticker: Tyson/Nye 2016.

[raptor_dad]

I think Ravin, I, and NdT agree more than we think... evidence is the least of the issues.

 

I think he's a little too caught up in his own paradigms.

 

My lawyer brain responds to his science brain with: what are your criteria for admissibility of evidence?

 

OK so lets do a thought experiment.... I'll allow any evidentiary standard short of fraud; Likewise the judge can make any ruling short of fraud. All I want is the ability to set the rules. Does anyone doubt I'll get my way???

 

This is the whole problem with technocratic government, whether lawyers in Brussels or NdT's nerd utopia. Technocrats can only enforce the status quo. Framing the questions is the whole point of politics. Is a higher GDP worth a greater income inequality or is a lower but more even standard of living more worthwhile? Is a more rapid pace of scientific progress(with the concomitant risk) better than the "precautionary principle"?  These aren't scientific questions... That's the easy part.... before we get into issues of "freedom" vs economic well being, 

 

Climate change or brexit or whatever may muddle the issue...and drive the desire for technocratic govt... but I think that assumes a consensus of goals and opinions that may not actually exist.