Cheers for all the feedback, especially Grakelin. I should probably address what you've all said so here goes:
Prediction? I didn't mean it to be about you, it's more of an answer to your thesis question.
Why is it that the sciences and the arts are viewed so differently in the public eye?
Because people in art careers though science majors were too boring to get and because the general public doesn't read academic journals.
Ack, apologies for the misunderstanding. That strikes me as a pretty specific and unusual scenario you picked out to explain the entire phenomena though.
That means you don't want to use "in my opinion." That's how you convey ideas better, by removing the "my thoughts" part and asserting your idea. 
I suppose but I couldn't help but feel a bit pushy even without that phrase as both Grakelin and Microline seemed to have picked up on, I'll keep it in mind regardless.
You might want to post credentials on you blog showing why you're an expert on things like sociology and African geopolitics.
If you had posted your Africa post, I would have read it, been briefly angry, then decided it wasn't worth my time. Every statement you make needs to be sourced if you want to be taken seriously as an intellectual.
I can't confess to being an expert but take interest in the subject for example I read the
Nigeran Daily Times; look up Elnathan John, he's one of my favourite columnists. Some of the things I checked out immediately prior to writing the article include
this,
this,
this and
this. Granted they aren't in-depth sources but neither was my post in-depth.
To be honest OP, I think your argument is rambling, in-cohesive, and overly simplistic. You don't analyse how our views of different professions might be affected by media exposure or cultural history (the idea of "scientist" as a dedicated profession really only came about in the last two centuries).
I've only just begun writing in this context so I'm sure I'll be able to improve. Other than that I had only meant to introduce an observation, if people prefer it I can attempt to write longer more in-depth posts.
You should probably address your title and how it relates to your argument.
Another two people pointed this out on another site where I posted this, I'll make sure to rectify it in new posts.
Also, while "whilst" is still a perfectly corpulent word, it has fallen out of the English vernacular in favour of the synonym "while".
Eh, true enough however the term is easily understandable. In future I may substitute the word “while” in if I find I'm overusing the other.
You need to work on your punctuation. You use commas where commas don't go, and leave them out where they would help, for example. It would improve the grammar and make the flow seem a little less rambling.
Like the above, I think punctuation is the number one issue.
Point taken, in future I'll proof-read for grammar before publishing. I'd disagree that it's my biggest problem, just one of them.
Thinking of the arts as "quaint" is a sort of trap that I think a lot of young aspiring intellectuals fall into. The average layman does not actually care about CERN, nor do they actually understand what Stephen Hawking or Albert Einstein are all about. We as a society only understand Bill Gates and Steve Jobs insofar as we know they are major entrepreneurs in the computer field, but most of us don't know why, or how what they're doing makes a difference.
Conversely, as you must realize given the free market libertarian nature you reveal on this blog (help Ethiopians by buying food from there indeed!), everybody is more than willing to shell out money for media and culture.
I reckon you probably underestimate the average man or woman, I can't speak for other eduction systems though in England everyone is taught Newtonian and relativistic mechanics. In addition those who pick a technical subject at college learn about quantum mechanics, string theory, the standard model, ect. That said there is validity in that many don't pay a great amount of attention to scientific developments which likely extends to why we see work in the quaternary sector as uncreative.
I hadn't meant to degrade the value of artistic work though was painfully aware I was doing so during my writing hence what I was saying in the latter half of the second paragraph, I was trying to rectify my words though clearly hadn't done so effectively enough.
Beyond that, however, I need to point out the inconsistency in your own argument, which, while not really managing to grasp at many key points, does seem to indicate that you believe hard science equates to creativity. It may be possible that creative ideas are helping to solve many of the questions science is trying to answer, but it's not why any of the four people you mentioned became as influential as they did.
Let's look at Steve Jobs. There's not much about Apple's technology which is actually making us get excited. In fact, it was all done before. However, Apple products have beloved user interfaces, and this is what makes them so popular to the masses. If it was a matter of raw technology, then we would have all begged our parents to buy an Apple II just like the ones at school. The attractive and easy-to-use design of Apple products can be attributed more to whatever artistic sensibilities the R&D department has as it can to their technical savvy.
As I see things each time a new scientific discovery is made a new type of paintbrush is found, then every time a new technology is brought about a new method of painting with those brushes and every time a new product comes onto the market a new piece of art has been created with those tools. In reference to Apple I mentioned remixing ideas to make better ones was also a creative pursuit,
here's one of the lecture's I watched before coming to that conclusion which is well worth watching. Your second point comes around to what I was attempting to convey again; the separation of art, design, technology and science shouldn't be as profound as it is.
Look also at Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein. Both are rightly considered geniuses in their field, but we will note that both are excellent writers. They succeed where many others fail: Communicating their ideas through metaphor and composition to people who probably have not received higher education in advanced physics. If Hawking was unable to give such impressive lectures or write such enthralling essays, we wouldn't actually care what he had to say about black holes. Similarly, if Einstein was the kind of guy who said "everything that happens is a direct cause of some other thing that happened, so it's probably not random, in my humble opinion", instead of "God doesn't play dice", I would argue that the ordinary citizen would have little to no notion that quantum physics is even a thing.
What I'm saying is that household names are built on dramatics and prose, not on mere craftsmanship. Remember, Dennis Ritchie passed from this world with barely a whisper, while Steve Jobs generated millions of dollars in revenue just by dropping dead. This wasn't because they had faced off in a programming duel and chosen a victor. An even better example would be to think of your favourite movie, the one where the actors were the absolute best, and then, without looking it up, recall the name of the guy who wrote the script.
That's a great point and one I hadn't considered at all, I accept everything you've had to say in the above quote and it overrules my statement about household names though thankfully not the core point I was trying to convey.
On the subject of the blog itself, I don't actually see anything that makes it special. Everybody has an opinion about things like philosophy, or people who live in socio-economic classes other than their own. Most often, we are wrong. This is why not everybody has a popular blog with many hits per day. What I think Microlonian suffers from is an inability to tell me anything I don't already know. Why not elaborate on the jellybean article? It's the least abrasive and (perhaps coincidentally) the most interesting post.
I already mentioned I'm new to writing though one of the primary reasons for me starting the blog is so I can improve my verbal reasoning as my recent aptitude test revealed that was by far my weakest area (40th percentile). I'm a good learner and am positive my proficiency will increase quickly so I expect I'll continue to approach whichever subjects catch my interest.
Your post about Africa is a bit too heavy to be based on personal opinion, and is only going to fan a flame war.
Point taken, I'll try to be more aware of that in the future.
Again,
thank you all for reading my work and taking the time to give your invaluable feedback, there's a bunch of new pointers there for me to take into account that will doubtlessly improve the quality of my writing. Sorry I took a while to reply.
Author
Topic: Aristotle's Fallacy (Read 2172 times)