PHOTO COURTESY | WIKIPEDIA
Be wary of someone who would correct a science guy on science.
The main problem that I have with certain arguments falling around political conversation right now is one simple fact. If someone doesn’t receive the information that they really wanted, they will not accept any answer from that individual, they refuse to be wrong.
This is the classic case for certain political writers and commentators. Nothing, but information that backs their argument up will do. This is something you should try not to emulate.
Take, for instance, Bill Nye talking to Tucker Carlson over climate change in a 2017 interview. Now, Nye has spent years researching and hearing scientific arguments for human-caused global warming ultimately authoring a book about it.
It is also fun to note here that at multiple times, Carlson, a major in history, tries to tell Nye — who is literally titled “the science guy” — how science works.
“People do come to every debate with preconceptions … but the essence of science is extreme skepticism.” At what point though do we encourage skepticism, even when the skeptic has no authority to be talking on this point?
Carlson isn’t an expert on climate change, far from it. He is simply a man who has a worldview that science is interfering with, so he’d, in Nye’s terms, “cherry pick” science until it fits his worldview.
What is even better about Carlson’s statement above is that Nye came back with this, “I am a member of both skeptic organizations, climate change denial is denial, the evidence is overwhelming.”
Another funny observation about Carlson and others in his position is their inability to be strictly offensive or defensive, rather choosing for something in between.
“Before the name calling begins and you try to end the conversation let’s start it … It is settled science please tells us to what degree.” Going from defensive, ouch don’t call me names, which was in response to Nye saying, “we are trying to understand why you guys aren’t getting it (man-made global warming)” to his strictly offensive tell-me-now authority in a sticking matter of a few seconds.
Almost like Carlson is the victim and the gladiator at the same time. Which is something that is impossible? It just makes him out to be a jerk. Which isn’t to say I am a jerk, but at least I listen to people.
Repeatedly Carlson talked at Nye for half a minute and refused his answers multiple times. Nothing about this is a debate really either. When you interview someone Carlson, you want to hear their side right? Not just hear your own voice?
This is a problem that many famous political commentators have and why no one should enlist their strategies. If you want to tell me about conceal and carry, something I am very unaware of, I will let you talk, because I can’t pretend I am the expert.
If you listen to someone who claims to be an expert on everything, whether it be politics, scientific fields they have only Googled, or even worse, they are experts in individual’s experiences in the world, than please be aware that you are not getting the best source.
You are instead listening to a know it all, who will not yield to anything, even if that is the truth told to them by the best authority.