On Monday, science advocate Neil deGrasse Tyson took to Twitter to issue another of his myriad idiotic thought vomit missives.

It said Earth needs a virtual country.

Rationalia with a one-line constitution.

All policy shall be based on the weight of evidence.

This, of course, is typical stuff from Tyson who considers himself a genius, but also tweets things like this.

He says, if Batman wants so badly to

be a bat, he might be more intriguing if, like Marvel's daredevil, he were also blind like a bat.

Bats are not blind. He also tweeted, people who are anti-Trump are actually anti-Trump supporters.

They oppose free citizens voting for the real Donald Trump.

What? But his main point in this tweet is that the same is the same as that of most bureaucratic leftists. There's an intellectual oligarchy capable of determining scientific

truth and ruling accordingly. So all you peons should bow before the great and powerful vested

Oz. Now, there are some issues on which

scientific truth can be ascertained, but those issues pretty much never have anything to do with

public policy. So we all agree the gravity exists. That doesn't determine whether we ought to build

a machine to defy gravity and shoot it to the moon, for example. More broadly, public policy should

of course be evidence-based, but we have a

problem of judgment. What evidence counts? How heavily should we weigh certain evidence against other

evidence? How do we weigh risks? What makes an astrophysicist from Colombia more capable of weighing

risk to my life than anybody else? Why shouldn't we all get to say? There is no evidence to suggest

that one big, special astrophysicist

man knows better than the aggregated knowledge of billions of people. In fact, precisely the

opposite is true. Let's take, for example, one of Neil deGrasse Tyson's favorite issues,

...