Neil DeGrasse Tyson vs. philosophy

[sorindafabico]

This reminds me the Newton's Flaming Laser Sword.

 

[MattBaker]

The answer turned out to be quite simple, really: 42

You're missing the unit, you get zero points there which gives you a D+ instead of a C-, sorry.

 

[Melvin]

Philosophy, politics, religion....


Shouldn't this be relegated to The Basement where opposing opinions can be silenced?



Because, let's face it, this type of topic is heavily driven by "opinion".

 

[kamaz]

Shouldn't this be relegated to The Basement

Ask and ye shall receive, my response.

 

[Andy44]

More hornets stirred up by NDT's position:

http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-the-value-of-philosophy/

 

[Codz]

“Up until early 20th century philosophers had material contributions to make to the physical sciences. Pretty much after quantum mechanics, remember the philosopher is the would be scientist but without a laboratory, right? And so what happens is, the 1920s come in, we learn about the expanding universe in the same decade as we learn about quantum physics, each of which falls so far out of what you can deduce from your armchair that the whole community of philosophers that previously had added materially to the thinking of the physical scientists was rendered essentially obsolete, and that point, and I have yet to see a contribution — this will get me in trouble with all manner of philosophers — but call me later and correct me if you think I’ve missed somebody here. But, philosophy has basically parted ways from the frontier of the physical sciences, when there was a day when they were one and the same. Isaac Newton was a natural philosopher, the word physicist didn’t even exist in any important way back then. So, I’m disappointed because there is a lot of brainpower there, that might have otherwise contributed mightily, but today simply does not. It’s not that there can’t be other philosophical subjects, there is religious philosophy, and ethical philosophy, and political philosophy, plenty of stuff for the philosophers to do, but the frontier of the physical sciences does not appear to be among them.”

This is a much more reasonable position on the subject than what was initially drummed up during the tidal wave of offended philosophers. He isn't dismissing the field entirely, in all aspects, but rather saying it has limited use in modern, tangible science. I tend to agree with this. While philosophy is certainly an important subject, in its own right, it has become increasingly separated from "material science".

 

[RGClark]

NDT's stance on philosophy has apparently hit a nerve with this fellow, who calls NDT a "Philistine":
http://theweek.com/article/index/261042/why-neil-degrasse-tyson-is-a-philistine
From the article:

Actually this is a pretty common view among experimental or observational physicists, not so much among theoretical physicists.

Bob Clark