Sometimes, Tyson is a complete berk. Sorry, but it's true. Calling philosophy useless is shooting oneself in the intellectual foot.
Originally shared by albanatita da
Tyson knocks out philosophy
Neil deGrasse Tyson is the champion of science, a role that he perfectly plays, a role really useful because most scientists are not willing to play it for the public.
Yet, I am a big suprised by his attack against philosophy. I just don't see the point; more generally I don't see the point of the schism between science and philosophy: they are so different and so complementary. Scientists find philosophy inefficient and useless and philosophers find science deeply limited in its objectives. Fine. But I see in this conflict only an academic war in order to get budgets and recognition. Otherwise, we have a brian which is able to develop different types of thinking: it would be a pity to limit its operation to one mode or the other. We can have a strong rational thinking sustained by organized experiments. But we are able to think in losse words with more freedom, in a more suited way for interactions and communications with the other members of our species.
I would be interested in your point of view. Do you believe that we have to narrow our thinking to aplly a pure scientific method (and in this case, which one?) or is it acceptable to have a more general thoughts, even if they are less "efficient".
http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-the-value-of-philosophy/
When philosophy is grounded in fact or reality, it's generally seen as very useful. In my mind there is absolutely no reason that scientists should knock philosophy since it plays such a huge role in the dream weaving necessary for innovation. Unfortunately, in much of history, science's dreamers were called crazy before they were called geniuses. In the public eye, that's largely still true. It's really difficult to do science outreach and appeal to the general public if you've been labeled a metaphysical nutjob. I believe that the reason for this lies in a misunderstanding that a good philosopher must believe that he or she is absolutely correct in the philosophical assertions made. On the other hand, skepticism is a major component of science, and thus there is created a wide dissonance between the two. If you can abandon this construct that people have to think they're right about what they say all the time, philosophy becomes much easier to swallow as a scientist. Unfortunately, this is no easy task for most.
ReplyDeleteAs for Tyson, this doesn't excuse him. If he has a dark side, it's this, but I understand why his position might feel necessary to him. It would be to anyone to anyone in his position just to maintain credibility. I just hope one day we can embrace philosophy as the methodologies to solving the problems which science discovers.
Sometimes? He's the poster boy for science influenced by politics.
ReplyDeleteWell... I don't know if I'd go that far, but I'd be perfectly happy to invert the statement :
ReplyDelete"Sometimes, Tyson isn't a complete berk."
Philosophy, in the field of Science, is pretty much useless. Its also pretty useless as a job field. Is it useless to learn? No, anything that helps you think outside of any given "box" is worth learning about and to do.
ReplyDeleteRobert Miller Philosophy isn't useless in science. Interpretation of data to support one theory or another is very much a philosophical issue, which is fundamental part of all science. So is the ethics of research. Let alone quantum mechanics with its mind-bending ideas of wave-particle duality and the many-worlds interpretation.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Rhys Taylor there. I think that any scientist worth their oats is also philosopher. You'll never make progress if you don't question the status quo, wander down every possible avenue, and ask yourself "what if". In life matters, "what ifs" are not good, but they're great in the realms of science and philosophy.
ReplyDeleteThe more I think about it, the angrier this makes me. Trying to do science without questioning why you interpret data in one way or another (does the data really support this argument, or am I biased ?) is basically not doing science at all. Go home, Neil, you're drunk. Or, more likely, trying to please the audience with bold dramatic assertions, as usual. Taking cheap shots at philosophy students is best left to other students, not outreach professionals.
ReplyDelete(David Lazarus certain philosophers became quite famous for espousing the virtues of self-examination, and I'd say that asking "what if" questions can be very important in more general matters too - unless it becomes all-consuming)
Well said. Tyson is, unfortunately, a really bad advert for astronomy - he's an entertainer posing as an intellectual and generally being offensive to everyone.
ReplyDeleteRevealed - the real reason Tyson hates philosophy students:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theguardian.com/education/abby-and-libby-blog/2014/may/20/which-university-students-are-having-the-most-sex
Philosophy ranks 2, physics 39. How depressing. If anyone wants me I'll be in a bar, philosophising.
ReplyDelete....
which, in the real world, means at home, watching Dr Who.