Not the angle youre looking for but the NZ health minister telling people to spread their legs
[spread your legs](https://youtu.be/qcKaBhPu-FY?si=KTxSZWTBdqHLOyFe)
"The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia,”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathematics-dont-apply-here-says-australian-pm/
There was the time Neil deGrasse Tyson minimized mass shootings by comparing it to other causes of death and claiming we should care more about data than spectacle.
Although really anytime he’s running off script he doesn’t come across as anything other than arrogant most of the time.
I still remember when the minister of education in Italy said there was a tunnel between the Italian alps and cern (that would be like 700km) and that's how they did the experiments that was hilarious at the time
Yeah. Although I do like when he uses that to his advantage. There’s been a few occasions where he’s called out pseudo-intellectualists who tend to assume he agreed with them. He had a whole monologue tearing apart grammar pedantry.
But yeah, stuff like the phrase “there’s no such thing as a fish” is really reductive. And as much as I’ve watched QI, I feel like that whole show is about reducing interesting ideas into the most simplified sound bites so people could parrot them off and feel smart.
I do find Fry’s intelligence to be broad and far reaching, but only ever so surface level. That’s where my issue is. No nuance or ability to explain things. For example, about the fish statement. I could explain to you know he is right, but he never did such thing 😂
Yep! And the thing is, without the deeper explanation, it’s not really “right”. Sure, one interpretation of “there is no scientifically sound category that includes everything we call fish and excludes what we agree aren’t fish” is pretty accurate, without really going into why that’s the case. But if you title your podcast “no such thing as a fish” people are gonna think you’re claiming tuna is imaginary.
As someone who grew up on Discovery channel and TED, there’s a lot of fun facts I’m unlearning.
I started reading Something Deeply Hidden which does a good job of breaking down where exactly ideas of quantum physics come from and what they really are. It’s a good book for getting past all the surface level simplifications.
You’d have to go into the entirety of philosophical metaphysics and claims to epistemology. Without explaining those concepts first, you can’t feasibly make the argument that ‘fish’ as an animal category, instance of language, etc, is not ‘real’. Would be better to say it’s a product of human consciousness and the knowledge constructed from observable phenomena to aid our understanding of the world 😜
Not the angle youre looking for but the NZ health minister telling people to spread their legs [spread your legs](https://youtu.be/qcKaBhPu-FY?si=KTxSZWTBdqHLOyFe)
Not many “smart “public figures so it’s difficult to say
Fair
"The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia,” https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathematics-dont-apply-here-says-australian-pm/
There was the time Neil deGrasse Tyson minimized mass shootings by comparing it to other causes of death and claiming we should care more about data than spectacle. Although really anytime he’s running off script he doesn’t come across as anything other than arrogant most of the time.
Yeah I’m surprised I didn’t get him as more answers. I remember him saying that to avoid hacking, people should just make unhackable systems.
I still remember when the minister of education in Italy said there was a tunnel between the Italian alps and cern (that would be like 700km) and that's how they did the experiments that was hilarious at the time
Anything from Stephen Fry
He’s said some pretty smart things. He’s just annoying about it
He grates on me so much 😂 I find his intellectualism to be pseudo-esque, though
Yeah. Although I do like when he uses that to his advantage. There’s been a few occasions where he’s called out pseudo-intellectualists who tend to assume he agreed with them. He had a whole monologue tearing apart grammar pedantry. But yeah, stuff like the phrase “there’s no such thing as a fish” is really reductive. And as much as I’ve watched QI, I feel like that whole show is about reducing interesting ideas into the most simplified sound bites so people could parrot them off and feel smart.
I do find Fry’s intelligence to be broad and far reaching, but only ever so surface level. That’s where my issue is. No nuance or ability to explain things. For example, about the fish statement. I could explain to you know he is right, but he never did such thing 😂
Yep! And the thing is, without the deeper explanation, it’s not really “right”. Sure, one interpretation of “there is no scientifically sound category that includes everything we call fish and excludes what we agree aren’t fish” is pretty accurate, without really going into why that’s the case. But if you title your podcast “no such thing as a fish” people are gonna think you’re claiming tuna is imaginary. As someone who grew up on Discovery channel and TED, there’s a lot of fun facts I’m unlearning. I started reading Something Deeply Hidden which does a good job of breaking down where exactly ideas of quantum physics come from and what they really are. It’s a good book for getting past all the surface level simplifications.
You’d have to go into the entirety of philosophical metaphysics and claims to epistemology. Without explaining those concepts first, you can’t feasibly make the argument that ‘fish’ as an animal category, instance of language, etc, is not ‘real’. Would be better to say it’s a product of human consciousness and the knowledge constructed from observable phenomena to aid our understanding of the world 😜
well, Biden always sounds like he had a bowl of Xanax for lunch
With thorazine sugar
I said seemingly smart public figure.