I try to find value in everyone, but I cannot see much in him. So he's a science communicator, right? Problem is, he seems to just communicate elementary chemistry, biology, etc. and not the more complicated concepts that high schoolers and adults actually need help with. He professes to care about science, but if that is true then he wouldn't just be talking about creationism, flat-earth, and climate change all the time; he would be educating people on a much broader spectrum of concepts. He also mocks people for being skeptics, as he does with climate change a lot, even though skepticism is a core value of the scientific method. That's one problem, the other is that he allows the media to prop him up as some kind of expert when he has not shown to be one, on any topic. He's just featured in a lot of YouTube videos and talks, talking about science in America, answering people's questions, etc. even though he's not more than a random guy on most topics. Now people are putting their trust in him to answer some complex ethical/philosophical issues (such as abortion, science & morality, etc.) when his only merit is teaching science to children and helping design a thing for a plane and a Mars rover. This sways people toward a sort of argument from authority; people don't have a need to analyze his arguments because they think he's an expert, and nobody wants to argue with an expert. My point is, are his actions detrimental to scientific progress?