I know this really wasn't the platform for Simon to defend or assert his views but he certainly does a poor job of it. It seems the interviewer was soft-balling questions simply because he won in court. Blindly trusting scientists because they're perceived experts, have advanced degrees or are in agreement in large numbers has historically been an unreliable way to judge whether or not something is in fact true.
I do agree that the "media" and "common sense" assumptions give more legitimacy to seemingly crazy ideas or counter-ideas. But simply dismissing all opposing viewpoints because they don't fit your scientific model is insane.
I think Simon needs a little more years under his belt (wisdom) and maybe another PhD in history to make him aware of this historically painful fact.
Also, he's a great example of why average people dislike academics. Just being smarter is not enough to convince people. You actually need to listen to them, and learn to communicate with them in order for them to trust you. And isn't that what Simon wants?
I do agree that the "media" and "common sense" assumptions give more legitimacy to seemingly crazy ideas or counter-ideas. But simply dismissing all opposing viewpoints because they don't fit your scientific model is insane.
I think Simon needs a little more years under his belt (wisdom) and maybe another PhD in history to make him aware of this historically painful fact.
Also, he's a great example of why average people dislike academics. Just being smarter is not enough to convince people. You actually need to listen to them, and learn to communicate with them in order for them to trust you. And isn't that what Simon wants?