Can Science and Philosophy Coexist, or (Moved from P&CE)

Status
Not open for further replies.

William Haskins

poet
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
29,097
Reaction score
8,846
Age
58
Website
www.poisonpen.net
Why Neil deGrasse Tyson is a philistine

The popular television host says he has no time for deep, philosophical questions. That's a horrible message to send to young scientists.

Neil deGrasse Tyson may be a gifted popularizer of science, but when it comes to humanistic learning more generally, he is a philistine. Some of us suspected this on the basis of the historically and theologically inept portrayal of Giordano Bruno in the opening episode of Tyson's reboot of Carl Sagan's Cosmos.

But now it's been definitively demonstrated by a recent interview in which Tyson sweepingly dismisses the entire history of philosophy. Actually, he doesn't just dismiss it. He goes much further — to argue that undergraduates should actively avoid studying philosophy at all. Because, apparently, asking too many questions "can really mess you up."

Yes, he really did say that. Go ahead, listen for yourself, beginning at 20:19 — and behold the spectacle of an otherwise intelligent man and gifted teacher sounding every bit as anti-intellectual as a corporate middle manager or used-car salesman. He proudly proclaims his irritation with "asking deep questions" that lead to a "pointless delay in your progress" in tackling "this whole big world of unknowns out there." When a scientist encounters someone inclined to think philosophically, his response should be to say, "I'm moving on, I'm leaving you behind, and you can't even cross the street because you're distracted by deep questions you've asked of yourself. I don't have time for that."
Read more: https://theweek.com/article/index/261042/why-neil-degrasse-tyson-is-a-philistine#ixzz317ypHT8m
 

kaitie

With great power comes
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
10,992
Reaction score
2,525
I have to admit, the one thing about Cosmos that really bothers me is that it seems that there is a very blatant "religion is wrong and you shouldn't believe in God message. I'm a Christian who believes in evolution and the big bang and I have no problem reconciling those two. I know there are many people who do and who see religion and science as opponents, but personally, I'm not one of them, and a lot of people I know are similar to me--people who believe in both.

I love watching science shows and documentaries, but it bothers me to no end the way Cosmos interprets this particular path. I'd have no problem if they said science can't answer questions about religion and left it at that, but instead they continuously say that religion is wrong. I don't even mind specifically stating the reason the 4000 year old Earth idea is wrong, but to essentially say "God didn't create anything" is something that bothers me. It's not just Cosmos, it's a Tyson thing. I normally love the guy, but in this particular regard, it's something I disagree with.

I think it's one thing to say science can't answer questions of philosophy, but another to say that it disproves religion or that philosophy isn't necessary because of science. Science doesn't answer to morality, for instance. Things like ways to run the government might be able to be based in science, but the ideas of how to put those scientific ideas together are still a philosophy. Hell, just finding meaning in life is a worthwhile venture, IMO.

I dislike the idea of dismissing philosophy because it takes too long or a person shouldn't ask questions. It's dismissive of the importance, and not really all that different in my mind from a person being told by a religious teacher that they shouldn't ask questions because it will upset God (something else that bothers me--luckily my religious educators encouraged question asking). And then there's the fact that asking questions is what fuels scientific discovery in the first place.

I don't know. I feel like his take is that scientific questions are worthwhile, but other types are a waste of time. Just my two cents on the situation.
 

Celia Cyanide

Joker Groupie
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 1, 2005
Messages
15,479
Reaction score
2,295
Location
probably watching DARK KNIGHT
I love watching science shows and documentaries, but it bothers me to no end the way Cosmos interprets this particular path. I'd have no problem if they said science can't answer questions about religion and left it at that, but instead they continuously say that religion is wrong. I don't even mind specifically stating the reason the 4000 year old Earth idea is wrong, but to essentially say "God didn't create anything" is something that bothers me. It's not just Cosmos, it's a Tyson thing. I normally love the guy, but in this particular regard, it's something I disagree with.

It's something that annoys me when anyone does it, really. Just because you haven't seen proof of something doesn't make you a fool to believe it. If you continue believing it despite proof to the contrary, that's irrational. But accepting something without proof because it makes sense to you? I'm not religious, but I don't see anything wrong with that.

Some people don't want to ask philosophical questions, but others would be bored if they didn't.
 

Lyv

I meant to do that.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
4,958
Reaction score
1,934
Location
Outside Boston
I'm listening. Context is giving me a somewhat different take than the author of the OP, but I'll finish it out. Has anyone listened to it all?
 

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
It's something that annoys me when anyone does it, really. Just because you haven't seen proof of something doesn't make you a fool to believe it. If you continue believing it despite proof to the contrary, that's irrational. But accepting something without proof because it makes sense to you? I'm not religious, but I don't see anything wrong with that.

Some people don't want to ask philosophical questions, but others would be bored if they didn't.

Just as not every person with faith is anti-science, not every scientist is anti-religion.

But those that are, they are as much dogmatists as the anti-science religious nuts. I think they are caught up in the exact same literalist interpretation of religious doctrine as the religious nuts are.

And that makes both types of people nuts.
 

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
Some people don't want to ask philosophical questions, but others would be bored if they didn't.

One of the hidden ironies of threads like this that oppose monolithic cultural objects like Science, Religion and Philosophy, as seen by a popularizing TV show is that fairly paradoxical formulations such as "Science is right, Religion is wrong" make a certain amount of horrible sense. One might not like the horror, but, sadly, there it is.

On that note, I would like to add, if I may, that in the allegorical field of explaining science to scientists, History of Science showed that Philosophy of Science is wrong and History of Science is Right.
 

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
20,569
Reaction score
4,814
Location
youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
Website
www.ifoundaknife.com
I'm with Lyv on the context thing. I listened to the podcast several days ago. Mr. Linker, the author of The Week article is making some selective links for himself. It's an opinion piece. He's entitled to his.
 

Williebee

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
20,569
Reaction score
4,814
Location
youtu.be/QRruBVFXjnY
Website
www.ifoundaknife.com
Just as not every person with faith is anti-science, not every scientist is anti-religion.

But those that are, they are as much dogmatists as the anti-science religious nuts. I think they are caught up in the exact same literalist interpretation of religious doctrine as the religious nuts are.

And that makes both types of people nuts.

No, it really doesn't. It's a generic accusation. And that bit of blanketry is rude and disrespectful to some fellow members.


btw, is "blanketry" a word? Can it be?
 

Perks

delicate #!&@*#! flower
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
18,981
Reaction score
6,933
Location
At some altitude
Website
www.jamie-mason.com
I think if you're Neil deGrasse Tyson, you're acutely aware of how little time you have on planet Earth. I think he feels that more than many. Tyson is a "how" guy and a "what" guy, not a "why" guy. "Why" would just take up too much of his time.

I can appreciate that.

It doesn't worry me that those organically inclined to the why of things will be yanked off their purpose. I wouldn't ask Neil deGrasse Tyson to tamp down any of his fire for what he loves and what he hopes to accomplish in his lifetime. I wouldn't want to dilute his drive by any amount.

We have lots and lots and lots of philosophers, from the armchair type, a dime for dozens, all the way to the well-funded big thinkers of our day. But we have far too few Neil deGrasse Tysons.
 
Last edited:

Devil Ledbetter

Come on you stranger, you legend,
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
9,767
Reaction score
3,936
Location
you martyr and shine.
I respect him for stating what he thinks based on his scientific background without pandering to faith systems with agnostic blandishments like "we can't prove there is no God." Science says what science says. If what science says makes you uncomfortable because of your belief or faith, your belief or faith is at least as much to blame as science.

When you actually grasp scientific evolutionary theory (and don't just think means "randomness" or "coincidence" or fall back into the logical fallacy of personal incredulity e.g. "We're soooo complex, though! I just can't believe God wasn't involved!") then you also understand that no part of scientific evolutionary theory requires the intervention of an intelligent deity. There is no part of the scientific theory of evolutionary that goes "And then a miracle occurred" or "And then God stepped in and ...."

The only part of evolution that "requires" a deity is the part where believers want to accept evolution without questioning the pourquoi stories of their faith. And that's okay for them, but it doesn't scientifically mean a deity caused evolution, dreamed it up or set it in motion. And no scientist should have to pretend that it does to make believers "comfortable."

There are plenty of highly intelligent people who hold religious beliefs and accept science. That's wonderful. They seem to understand that their comfort in balancing science and belief is their own responsibility.
 
Last edited:

Cyia

Rewriting My Destiny
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
18,615
Reaction score
4,029
Location
Brillig in the slithy toves...
Preferring "how" over "why" is nothing new. "How" is mechanical. "Why" is dangerous. (There's a quote from Fahrenheit 451 I'd love to add here, but I can't remember it.)

The "how" will generally have a set of constant answers. Those answers can change as more information is incorporated, or as procedures become more efficient, but it's a set pattern that can be replicated, and it exists within defined parameters.

"Why" questions are more abstract. They have no boundaries and no parameters. They expand without limit.

"How" deals in constants. "Why" deals in variables.
 

Don

All Living is Local
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 28, 2008
Messages
24,567
Reaction score
4,007
Location
Agorism FTW!
Somebody should tell Neil there are philosophies based in logic, although they generally get short shrift from "real" philosophers.
 

Perks

delicate #!&@*#! flower
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
18,981
Reaction score
6,933
Location
At some altitude
Website
www.jamie-mason.com
I should like to take this opportunity to say that I almost need a hall pass for Neil deGrasse Tyson. My husband is aware. He forgives me.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
We have lots and lots and lots of philosophers, from the armchair type, a dime for dozens, all the way to the well-funded big thinkers of our day.
True.

But we have far too few Neil deGrasse Tysons.

Oh, I don't know. Tyson is no armchair "how" guy, but just as armchair philosophers are "a dime for dozens," so are the armchair types of Tyson's sort. In fact, there are many, many more of them imo. Because most people not only don't want to know "why," most people lack the ability to look beyond the surface, beyond their daily existence.

That said, I enjoy the crap out of Tyson's presentations. Because there's plenty of room for "how" and "why" imo.
 

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
Somebody should tell Neil there are philosophies based in logic, although they generally get short shrift from "real" philosophers.

Really? This is interesting "news." Can you give any "examples" of what you are "talking" about?
 

Perks

delicate #!&@*#! flower
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
18,981
Reaction score
6,933
Location
At some altitude
Website
www.jamie-mason.com
Oh, I don't know. Tyson is no armchair "how" guy, but just as armchair philosophers are "a dime for dozens," so are the armchair types of Tyson's sort. In fact, there are many, many more of them imo. Because most people not only don't want to know "why," most people lack the ability to look beyond the surface, beyond their daily existence.

That said, I enjoy the crap out of Tyson's presentations. Because there's plenty of room for "how" and "why" imo.

I'm still right, you person. The reason Neil deGrasse Tyson is such a rarity is that he combines a very impressive brain with an ease of communication that makes instruction feel like a privilege. He's a genius and a rockstar and your best friend all at once.

That's special.

I did a book event in Charlotte right after Neil deGrasse Tyson. The employees were still electrified by his talk. It had to be held in a big local auditorium. The bookstore, while more than adequate for the likes of me, would have been bursting its walls for his audience.

He came on stage at 7pm. First thing, he sits down and starts taking off his shoes and socks. He tells everyone to get comfortable because they wouldn't be done until he'd taken every last question.

By midnight, all those still left in their seats had their questions all edged out with answers and Neil deGrasse Tyson took everyone who wasn't sleepy on a walking tour of downtown Charlotte, heads turned up to the night sky, still learning-- and drinking with Neil deGrasse Tyson as he punctuated the trek with stops in a few bars until 4am.
 

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
No, it really doesn't. It's a generic accusation. And that bit of blanketry is rude and disrespectful to some fellow members.


btw, is "blanketry" a word? Can it be?

I can live with the word. :)

But I stand by what I said. I don't see any blanketing in stating that some scientists who are anti-religion are nuts.

Athiesm isn't anti religion. I'm not speaking about lack or absence of faith. And since no one else is speaking of that either, I don't see how anyone would think I am.

If "stupid" and "willfully ignorant" aren't disrespectful or rude in other contexts, then this isn't either.

And I didn't report it because I agree that it isn't.
 

robeiae

Touch and go
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
46,262
Reaction score
9,912
Location
on the Seven Bridges Road
Website
thepondsofhappenstance.com
I'm still right, you person. The reason Neil deGrasse Tyson is such a rarity is that he combines a very impressive brain with an ease of communication that makes instruction feel like a privilege. He's a genius and a rockstar and your best friend all at once.

That's special.
Sure. But it's no more special--imo--than the serious non-armchair philosopher who can do the same, from Socrates to Wittgenstein to Foucault. :)
 

Lyv

I meant to do that.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
4,958
Reaction score
1,934
Location
Outside Boston
Somebody should tell Neil there are philosophies based in logic, although they generally get short shrift from "real" philosophers.

I don't mean this snarkily, but are you making that suggestion because of the excerpt from the opinion piece quoted in the OP or the actual words of Neil de Grasse Tyson? Those, imo, are two very different things.
 

Shadow_Ferret

Court Jester
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
23,708
Reaction score
10,657
Location
In a world of my own making
Website
shadowferret.wordpress.com
Does Tyson WRITE "Cosmos" or is he just the host?

And I admit I haven't listened to the link yet, but what I find strange is that in my mind, science and philosophy are pretty much after the same thing, to answer the questions we have about the mysteries of life and the universe. Both seek to expand our knowledge. Neither simply accepts what is known, but challenges that knowledge. Many of the great philosophers were scientists, and many great scientists were philosophers.

Maybe he meant religion, which to me has always stood at odds against those other two.
 

Perks

delicate #!&@*#! flower
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
18,981
Reaction score
6,933
Location
At some altitude
Website
www.jamie-mason.com
Sure. But it's no more special--imo--than the serious non-armchair philosopher who can do the same, from Socrates to Wittgenstein to Foucault. :)

I think there are more philosophers who can comfortably take the stage than scientists. And by comfort, I'm actually meaning the audience's comfort, not the guy more than willing to explain and expound and heat up the room with the air of his very impressive willingness to go on and on.

Too many philosophers and scientists should probably stick to writing memos.
 

JimmyB27

Hoopy frood
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
925
Age
42
Location
In the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable e
Website
destinydeceived.wordpress.com
Just as not every person with faith is anti-science, not every scientist is anti-religion.

But those that are, they are as much dogmatists as the anti-science religious nuts. I think they are caught up in the exact same literalist interpretation of religious doctrine as the religious nuts are.

And that makes both types of people nuts.

I find it confusing how one can be of a particular faith without being a literalist. If you're going to follow the bible, or the Koran, or whatever, then you should follow it, no? Or, if not, how do you know which bits you can skip and which bits you can't?
 

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Messages
14,205
Reaction score
884
Location
Edmonton, Canada
I find it confusing how one can be of a particular faith without being a literalist. If you're going to follow the bible, or the Koran, or whatever, then you should follow it, no? Or, if not, how do you know which bits you can skip and which bits you can't?

That only works if you are a Protestant. A Catholic can live by the book without having to actually read the book.
 

robjvargas

Rob J. Vargas
Banned
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
6,543
Reaction score
511
I find it confusing how one can be of a particular faith without being a literalist. If you're going to follow the bible, or the Koran, or whatever, then you should follow it, no? Or, if not, how do you know which bits you can skip and which bits you can't?

Wrong question, IMO.

Why must one "be of a particular faith"? What if I believe the Bible gives its lessons as a series of parables, rather than as a strict telling of history?

Do I no longer count as having faith?
 

JimmyB27

Hoopy frood
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
925
Age
42
Location
In the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable e
Website
destinydeceived.wordpress.com
Wrong question, IMO.

Why must one "be of a particular faith"? What if I believe the Bible gives its lessons as a series of parables, rather than as a strict telling of history?

Do I no longer count as having faith?

If you tell me you have faith, then you do. Clearly, my comment is not targeted at someone like you, but rather the sort of person who claims that the bible is the inerrant word of God and teh gays are going to hell, but they rather like shellfish thank you very much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.