A weird thing about our age is that all the public intellectuals are now gone.
I'm talking about the kinds of person who is not just learned and respected their field, some who has a long academic career, but also a mass media celebrity
Stephen Hawkin is dead. Carl Sagan is dead. Marshall McLuhan is dead.
I don't think anyone has acquired a such a position.
Where in an age where such persons would draw a lot of fire in the culture wars. No prominent climate scientist wants to stick their neck out.
We live in an age where half the population disrepects higher education, and every one of them thinks they have read on the internet makes themselves the greater authority.
Bill Nye seems to have found a niche as the 'science guy,' but he is more of a performance artist, comedian and actor who does his presentation on important topics in science. He's not a scientist. He gladly draws fire.

E. Hughes I do recommend watching that podcast. Some great conversations taking place, it doesn't feel like interviews. I can definitely see how you felt that intellectualism is dying. There is an anti-intellectual movement in this country, with some people who feel a lot of these people and subjects are elitist.
Roy Scarbrough I will look for it on my audio stream. as I prefer to listen.
I was going to say the Noam Chompsky deserved the fame and attention of a public intellectual. He is the Albert Einstein of linguistics, and could have done much with that, but he was marginalized because of his criticisms of Israel and the criticism of excesses of corporate capitalism and corporate media.
E. Hughes I wasn't aware that Noam was outcast, as he was really popular, especially with young people. But I hear he is 96 and is very sick with health issues so he hasn't been on the scene in a long time. I wrote a little about Noam in my book Reality Unbound. One of his former students at MIT challenged some of his teachings. Chomsky said that language and intelligence is deeply intertwined. Specifically, "‘If there is a severe deficit of language, there will be severe deficit of thought," is one his famous quotes.
I agree with this, and some of what Chomsky believed supports what I wrote in Reality Unbound about language, consciousness, and intelligence. I read his former student's research, which was new at the time (June 2024). The abstract and research stated that "Language is only used for Communication." She claimed that parts of the brain that processes language that should be activated when engaged in complex tasks, were not active (which directly contradicted Chomsky), and so she arrived at the conclusion that people could think and solve problems without words and therefore, language is not necessary for intelligence or thought. I felt she was challenging Chomsky to build a name for herself and that the research was disingenuous since, the regions she pointed to that were inactive is the DMN network, which automatically shut downs when engaged in complex external activity. The DMN network plays a role in language processing. So if they tested people who were engaged in complex activity and those regions were not active, it's because the DMN network is only active when at rest and the body is not engaged in complex activity. She did not mention the DMN network once in her research. However, I recently saw a video in which she discussed the DMN network, claiming that the DMN network is for "speech" rather than language (contradicting a ton of preexisting research), but I think her analysis is self-motivated. All other research points to DMN network being important to language processing. as well as speech. So I think it's about debunking Chomsky. I digress.
Roy Scarbrough I agree with Chomsky. I don't he has been doing well lately.
E. Hughes Me too. He has try advanced in age. It's a shame that life can be so brief.