>>you mean because he was working in a patent office? that
>was
>>only because he was not initially offered a teaching
>position
>>so he needed a job to support himself. however he also
>>completed his PhD during this time shortly before publishing
>>his paper on special relativity, so no, he was not
>commenting
>>'outside his discipline.'
>
>The same type of distinctions apply here with the people
>listed.

No, it does not.



> Do you agree with the objection in the first place?
>Ie That a Sam Harris book about religion can be dismissed
>because he has a formal education in neuroscience?

I agree that rob's statement is factually correct and that yours is not.



> If you're
>not subscribing to that claim than I don't know why we're
>addressing it.

because you made a factually incorrect statement in support of your argument, that is what I was addressing.



>>>They are intellectuals. And none of them
>>>are 'fake' in a 'INFOwars' media type of way.
>>
>>Joe Rogan is an intellectual?
>
>Sure. What's special about the designation of 'intellectual'
>that discludes Joe Rogan? I don't know anything about
>UFC...but his political and sociological and pyschological
>interviews with professors and authors and journalists are
>great.

I just remember him as the goofy dude from News Radio and know of his involvement in the UFC scene so it just seemed funny to me, but ok.


Tavis Smiley is an intellectual too. So is Charlie
>Rose. That's questionable in your eyes?

Tavis? please.