Greatest Intellectual/Writer Alive Today?

[Lorizael]

Oh, and the answer to the OP is obviously Gene Ray.

[Hauldren Collider]

Oh, and the answer to the OP is obviously Gene Ray.

[Hauldren Collider]

Jon, do you realize that as a mod you're able to delete your double-posts?

I'll go with Richard Dawkins. Jürgen Habermas was my first choice, but he didn't appear on the Wikipidia list of intellectuals which may indicate either that he's been thoroughly discredited or that nobody has hear of him.

What makes Richard Dawkins great? As far as I can tell the biggest thing he has on his resume is engaging in debates about religion, which is sort of like beating cripples at kickboxing.

[kentonio]

Aside from his religious books, Dawkins has written some wonderful books on evolution that have explained it to many millions of people. He's probably done more for the cause of explaining science to the common man than anyone else alive.

[Hauldren Collider]

He's probably done more for the cause of explaining science to the common man than anyone else alive.

How can you say that?

Bill Nye the Science Guy

[loinburger]

What makes Richard Dawkins great? As far as I can tell the biggest thing he has on his resume is engaging in debates about religion, which is sort of like beating cripples at kickboxing.

Dawkins is similar to Chomsky: Dawkins's contributions to genetics are as important as Chomsky's contributions to linguistics, but most people only associate them with religion and politics.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Dawkins is similar to Chomsky: Dawkins's contributions to genetics are as important as Chomsky's contributions to linguistics, but most people only associate them with theology and politics.

Similar, also, to Krugman. His academic economic work is quite impressive, but most people associate him with his political advocacy - where he is slightly loony.

[Lorizael]

And me, too. My data entry work is nearly error-free, but my philosophical views are in need of some QC.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hrm? I might not agree with you on some things, but I wouldn't say your opinions are crazy.

[Lorizael]

Another way in which you're wrong.

[kentonio]

How can you say that?

Bill Nye would be an American thing, no? I'd never heard of him until I heard about him here a while back.

[regexcellent]

Bill Nye is a former aeronautical engineer for Boeing who now does educational videos for children.

[Hauldren Collider]

Similar, also, to Krugman. His academic economic work is quite impressive, but most people associate him with his political advocacy - where he is slightly loony.

The difference is that Paul Krugman's field is actually relevant to his politics, unlike Chomsky.

Anyone who can say "anarcho-syndicalist" with a straight face is automatically not worth listening to.

[Jaguar]

Similar, also, to Krugman. His academic economic work is quite impressive, but most people associate him with his political advocacy - where he is slightly loony.

The thing about Paul Krugman is a publication bias of sorts. His economic views, on the whole, are fairly mainstream center or center-left for an economist. There are plenty of times where - if you pressed him - he would be forced to criticize US politics from the right. But he deliberately ignores those subject matters.

For example, take a recent blog post of his on Simpson-Bowles. (He doesn't like it.)

So, a public service reminder: Simpson-Bowles is terrible. It mucks around with taxes, but is obsessed with lowering marginal rates despite a complete absence of evidence that this is important.

What I object to, here, is not what it includes, but rather, what it excludes. Krugman doesn't talk about what Bowles-Simpson does to lower those marginal rates; it eliminates a variety of tax deductions that complicate the tax code - the biggest of which is the mortgage interest deduction. The consensus of economists on the mortgage interest deduction is very clear. It rewards people for borrowing large sums of money, and comparatively punishes people who rent their living space instead, and most economists (about 85%+) think this is a bad idea. I'm pretty sure Paul Krugman is with the 85%.

Krugman doesn't want to lie, and he doesn't want to admit Simpson-Bowles has an idea he likes, so instead he just ignores this very substantial part of the Simpson-Bowles proposal. It wouldn't be a big deal if he did this on occasion. Everyone does. But Paul Krugman does it so frequently that you can't really get a coherent, complete economic vision from him anymore.

[Hauldren Collider]

He also has it in his head that Republicans are evil plutocrats who want to stick it to poor people and Democrats are the champions of all that is righteous.

As a result, he opposes any sort of union reform because they are on his team.