This week, the actor Terrence Howard and astrophysicist Neal deGrasse Tyson are in a clash that defies the boundaries of rap battles. Last month, Howard, a guest on the popular Spotify podcast "The Joe Rogan Experience," shared his life journey and his unwavering love for science and theoretical studies. To my surprise and the internet's surprise, he also disclosed that he had previously shared some of his theories with Neil deGrasse Tyson. The scientist and the sources he had referenced dismissed him, setting the stage for a heated intellectual confrontation.
Although I don't think this interview was intended as a diss track, many perceived it as such, leading Neil deGrasse Tyson to respond publicly. In a recent episode of his podcast "StarTalk Radio Show," Tyson discussed the 36-page paper that Terrence Howard had sent him and his reasons for critiquing it.
He then used his platform to explain the norms of academic research and the peer review process, emphasizing its congenial nature rather than a means to dismiss others' work. This response to Howard highlights the crucial role of the public in engaging with intellectuals and the responsibility of academics in this interaction.
Like most events in 2024, I would never have expected to see an intellectual debate between Terrance Howard and Neal deGrasse Tyson play out on the interwebs, but here we are. Therefore, I wanted to delve deeper into the significance of this content, what it says about the difference between research and writing, and how the era of anti-intellectualism plays out within social media platforms and podcasts.
The Public and the Pandemic: Remembering The Joe Rogan Podcast in the Era of Misinformation
Before discussing Neil deGrasse Tyson's response to Terrence Howard, I think it is important to discuss "The Joe Rogan Experience" and what it means that Howard chose this platform to discuss his theories. For those who don't know, Joe Rogan is a well-known comedian who has made a name for himself because of the success of his stand-up and his extensive network of friends in the industry. Although "The Joe Rogan Experience" is known as a comedy podcast that has existed for over a decade online, in recent years, the podcast has become synonymous with conspiracy theorists and misinformation.
In 2020, "The Joe Rogan Experience" moved to the Spotify platform, becoming one of the platform's most popular podcasts with millions of listeners. However, during the early days of the pandemic, Joe Rogan faced criticism for featuring guests who spread misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines. These concerns led to medical professionals petitioning against the podcast, claiming it threatened public health. In protest, academic podcasters like Brene Brown participated in boycotts against Rogan's show on Spotify.
In response to the criticism, Spotify set up an advisory board and added content warnings to its podcasts instead of taking direct punitive action against Joe Rogan's podcast. Despite the criticism, "The Joe Rogan Experience" has continued, with Rogan signing lucrative multi-million dollar deals with Spotify, although the podcast is no longer exclusive to the platform. While many still tune in for comedy, there are just as many who want Rogan's interviews to provide a platform for controversial opinions and beliefs.
Therefore, I wasn't surprised that Terrence Howard was on the podcast. The actor has become known for expressing unconventional views on science and holistic health. In listening to the interview, Howard was a good guest for Joe Rogan's podcast because Rogan does an excellent job of listening and asking questions from the perspective of someone who wants to learn. In this sense, Rogan's interview style treats all his guests as experts, allowing them to express their thoughts and opinions.
Although listening with little pushback works well for a comedy podcast, it's different from the usual approach in academic discourse. In academic discussions, there is typically a lot of pushback and questions that challenge one's beliefs rather than nodding along.
When Howard talks about Neil deGrasse Tyson on the podcast, he mentions that the scientist responded to his theories with "vitriol" and criticized well-known inventors like Nikola Tesla. However, Tyson's response suggests that there needs to be more understanding about what it means to research and respond in different contexts.
A Time for Peer-Review: Why Research is More than Writing
The style of discourse on Tyson's podcast, "StarTalk Radio," is quite different from "The Joe Rogan Experience." This difference is similar to the contrast between conducting research and writing. Many see research as a solitary undertaking where researchers develop hypotheses and gather materials and literature to support their conclusions. However, academic research involves thorough diligence and extensive testing. When conducting research, the output is not simply an expression of an individual's opinions or standpoint but a culmination of years of study, testing, and peer and colleague reviews.
Research has specific disciplinary standards, which dictate how to complete the study and the methods used to build arguments. Conversely, writing is often a solitary process that allows individuals to express their thoughts and perspectives freely. In our digital era, one can easily share their writing with others by self-publishing or using various writing platforms like the one we are on. These technologies have removed many traditional barriers to getting work out into the world.
As a result, publishing research requires a community of peers and professionals to provide constructive criticism, while publishing writing only needs a platform to present one's work.
On "StarTalk Radio," Neal deGrasse Tyson tried to explain the difference between research and writing to Terrence Howard. Tyson responded to Howard's claim that he disrespected his writing and the theories of several inventors and scientists cited in his writing by saying his critique was rooted in care and investment in academic rigor. Instead of just reading the writing, Tyson engaged with Howard's work as if it were research and provided the same feedback he would give to a peer or colleague. This approach goes beyond simply listening to your thoughts and telling you they sound good or exciting.
However, as someone who has had research and writing go through the peer review process and institutional review boards, I understood where Neal deGrasse Tyson came from and why Terrence Howard was upset about it. Even though Tyson says he can go out for drinks with his colleagues after disagreeing with their work, the history of academic critique often involves pettiness and personal vendettas. Dissertations can become cleverly disguised diss tracks, and it is a common joke in academia that there's always one reviewer who is so harsh that you can't help but take it personally (even if they don't know it's you).
Tyson's critique could be harsh, especially for someone like Terrence Howard, who is not used to peer review standards in the entertainment world. When I read others' academic writing, I ask if they want feedback on their writing or research. If it's about the writing, I focus more on line editing and how it sounds. If it's about research, I hold it to a higher standard of peer review. Therefore, Tyson's thoughts were not surprising and could be seen as helpful if Howard was serious about his work but harmful if he only wanted a pat on the back for completing a writing project.
On Bearing The Burden of Public Intellectualism
In light of the discussions around these podcasts, I've been thinking more about the burden of being a Black public intellectual. As someone with a career outside of entertainment, Neal deGrasse Tyson didn't have to share his perspectives with Terrence Howard. Still, he wanted to support someone with similar interests. Even before "The Joe Rogan Experience," Tyson's initial critique of Howard's paper and his thoughtful response to being called out in a podcast interview reflect his commitment to public intellectualism and the burden that often comes with that role.
In academia, there's a common perception of researchers and professors as disconnected from the public. However, within the Black intellectual tradition, there has been a strong emphasis on public intellectualism. Over ten years ago, I wrote a blog post titled "The New Public Intellectual: Utilizing Social Media at Black Thought 2.0" to explore the legacy of scholars from W.E.B. Dubois to Marc Lamont Hill, who dedicate their time to serving their communities through scholarly work, activism, or both. While scholar-activism can take various forms, I'm particularly interested in academics who contribute to public intellectualism by translating academic research for the general public.
Despite the care that often goes into this public service, intellectual engagement usually faces heavy criticism from the people it aims to help. The increasing cost of college education and the rise of pundits and influencers has led to a prevailing attitude of anti-intellectualism. This attitude suggests that experts hold no more knowledge than anyone else. I've noticed many people promoting that anyone can learn anything by reading books and attending "YouTube University." This view often equates expertise with elitism and dismisses it as controlling thought and silencing the general public, which has become more prevalent since the beginning of the pandemic.
However, sharing knowledge from a place of expertise rarely aims for or achieves this outcome. Terrence Howard's interview on "The Joe Rogan Experience" and Neal deGrasse Tyson's response are perfect examples of the distinction between learning knowledge and possessing expertise. While many assume that higher education focuses solely on gathering information, much of the benefit of pursuing further education lies in assessing the reliability of primary sources and learning how to evaluate the quality of research through due diligence and conscious critique.
Listening to Terrence Howard and many other armchair experts online, I often notice how common it is for them to state their opinions or ideas as new or revolutionary simply because they may not have a well-rounded knowledge of multiple disciplines, schools of thought, primary sources, or even the chronological critique of scientific theories. When learning information online from outside an intellectual community, it is also much easier to fall into rabbit holes of misinformation and echo chambers that reflect your beliefs without critique.
But, instead of acknowledging that they might be wrong about their beliefs or susceptible to conspiracy theories, there is pushback against experts and intellectuals. This is not to say that experts know everything and that we should listen to them without critique, but we should acknowledge that most academics and experts exist in institutions or communities that give them access to more rigorous critique and constant pushback about their research and ideas. So, when they share what they have learned, it does not just come from their personal opinion.
The development of intellectual community is also why I enjoy listening to podcasts like "Armchair Expert." The show features people who are experts in various fields and can engage in meaningful discussions based on years of experience as researchers, scientists, and academics. While the podcast has had some problems, it demonstrates how to balance listening with critique and creates a community of open-minded listeners eager to expand their knowledge. If you're interested in in-depth discussions of intellectual thought rather than lengthy interviews, give it a listen to cleanse yourself of the current podcast beef!
