I don't think he's making any policy suggestions so much as he's fighting the mindset a lot of people have: the anti-intellectual stance that scientists are a bunch of ivory tower elites that have no real impact on society. Certainly, there are places where we're unnecessarily spending money in science. But that doesn't justify some anti-science rhetoric you're seeing from some.
It's a 4 paragraph blog entry meant to be funny and make you think a little bit. It's not trying to be anything more than that. "Intellectually dishonest" is an unfair charge.
Comments
I don't think he's making any policy suggestions so much as he's fighting the mindset a lot of people have: the anti-intellectual stance that scientists are a bunch of ivory tower elites that have no real impact on society. Certainly, there are places where we're unnecessarily spending money in science. But that doesn't justify some anti-science rhetoric you're seeing from some.
Yes, but he's "arguing against it" by reshaping it into a ridiculously extreme and self-evidently-false form.
It's an intellectually dishonest and particularly annoying (yet extremely common) way to argue.
It's a 4 paragraph blog entry meant to be funny and make you think a little bit. It's not trying to be anything more than that. "Intellectually dishonest" is an unfair charge.