Here’s why Neil deGrasse Tyson is wrong
Neil deGrasse Tyson needs no introduction as a science communicator or an astrophysicist. He does a very fine job in communicating science to public, and is possibly the most popular science communicator since Carl Sagan. However, he made a few disappointing comments in a recent podcast regarding philosophy:
NdT: My concern there [philosophy] is that the philosopher believes they are actually asking deep questions about nature and to the scientist it’s: ‘What are you doing? Why are you concerning yourself with the meaning of meaning?’
Q: Well, I think a healthy balance of both is good.
NdT: Well, I am still even worried about ‘a healthy balance’ [laughs]
If you are so distracted by your questions that you cannot move forward, you are not being a productive contributor to our understanding of our natural world. The scientist knows when the question of ‘What is the sound of one hand clapping?’ is a pointless delay in your progress. Then they (philosophers) say, ‘Well, how do you define clapping?’ And then it (the conversation) devolves into a discussion of the definition of words, and I’d rather keep the conversation about ideas.
When you do that and you don’t derail yourself on questions that you think are important because philosophy class tells you this but the scientist says ‘Look I got all this world of Unknown out there. I’m moving on and I’m leaving you behind and you can’t even cross the street because you are so distracted by what you are sure are deep questions you’ve asked yourself. I don’t have the time for that.
First of all, in fairness to Neil, the host kind of nudged him in that direction with a more caricaturesque characterisation of philosophy. Even if the host was taking a jab at philosophy that’s being taught in academia, that’s a ridiculously unfair characterisation, although in fairness, he did say that partly in jest. For example, one could always take a thought experiment out of context, which makes understanding a concept easier, and make it sound silly.
And as for the whole ‘I have questions to ask’, fair play to you, Neil. But that doesn’t mean philosophical questions are worthless. Rest assured, philosophers – right from the times of Aristotle, Hume, Kant, et al – are mostly functional human beings themselves, let alone being able to cross the road.
But what followed was Tyson’s terrible philosophy bashing. ‘Why are philosophers concerned with meaning?’ Well, why is it wrong to be concerned with meaning? Perhaps you believe that life has no meaning. Perhaps you believe that there is some sort of meaning, but it’s self-constructed. These are all not silly questions to dabble in. That doesn’t mean you’re left with doing nothing. Does there have to be such a dichotomy? Reading Camus, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche et al makes one question their own beliefs about existence, purpose etc. This is not somehow mutually exclusive with fully appreciating the significance of science.
Things get worse when the host suggests that a healthy balance of both is necessary. But Tyson still seems to be worried about even that.
Then this was followed by the comment by Tyson where he seems to think debating over the meaning of words is somehow “philosophy”. Actually no, Neil, debating the meaning of words, first of all, is semantics (and I’m not undermining the importance of semantics here), and besides I do think it is always good to be clear about the definition of words before starting any discussions. To quote Voltaire, “Define your terms, you will permit me again to say, or we shall never understand one another.”
I am no professional philosopher, but rather a philosophy enthusiast who likes philosophical discussions and let me (anecdotally) assure you, nothing irks me and almost all people involved in the discussion than such trivial stuff as “what is clapping” or its equivalents. Even when it comes to academia, as critical as you might be about this; it’s a huge disservice still to characterise what philosophers do like that, professional or otherwise.
And as for the whole ‘I have questions to ask’, fair play to you, Neil. But that doesn’t mean philosophical questions are worthless. Rest assured, philosophers – right from the times of Aristotle, Hume, Kant, et al – are mostly functional human beings themselves, let alone being able to cross the road.
So why do we do philosophy?
Let’s just stick to some of the practical purposes, since Neil seems to be merely interested about that. Science itself relies on philosophical concepts like methodological naturalism, empiricism, falsification (in the context of demarcation between science and pseudoscience), and so on. And demarcation problem in philosophy of science – as in what separates science from non-science – is still a philosophical problem.
Or take ethics. No doubt Neil himself would undermine the importance of ethics. Ethics is still an important branch of philosophy, as much as it could be informed by science. Science could give you both nuclear bomb and nuclear energy; it’s through ethics we argue for nuclear energy and not nuclear bomb. It’s ethics that informs us – to quote Hume, although “it would not be irrational to prefer the death of a thousand Orientals to the pricking of the little finger”, – that it’s still an ethically wrong thing to do. Or why it’s not okay to destroy the planet for our self-interest. Skepticism, Rationalism, etc are all epistemological theories themselves.
Tangentially, another criticism people often raise is that “progress” in science and making a categorical error by comparing it to “progress” in philosophy. Just like say progress in the field of mathematics isn’t comparable to natural sciences either. Ever since modern science and philosophy got classified to separate branches of inquiry, both function well as independent branches. The important thing to keep in mind here is that the point of philosophical inquiry is not to ape scientific inquiry.
What is baffling about all this is how respectable people like Tyson or Hawking feel the need to manufacture this dichotomy, implying there is some conflict between science and philosophy where there is none. The only thing you possibly achieve by philosophy bashing is that you end up doing bad philosophy.
I am well aware that this post doesn’t address many of the already mentioned concepts in detail – and needs more nuanced discussion in depth. So what’s the point, then? Because there is a really sad trend of undermining the significance of philosophy among scientists and people in general, which is utterly misguided to say the least. From Hawking to now Tyson.
What we need is a more nuanced approach – sure, we ought to condemn the sort of pseudo philosophy – philosophy that is anti-science or anti-intellectual. Philosophy has to be informed by science. And most philosophers worth their salt would agree with this. However criticism of certain elements within certain branches of philosophy is entirely different from categorically bashing or undermining the importance of philosophy itself.
Tyson is an intellectual who has great influence in public sphere. He is someone who knows the frustration of how it feels like when science is misrepresented and distorted. Similarly, philosophers and philosophy enthusiasts don’t feel elated when a strawman of philosophy is erected and knocked down like this. There are all sorts of misconception about philosophy as it is. It’s also a disservice to all the great philosophers who have significantly contributed to both our intellectual and social progress.
What is baffling about all this is how respectable people like Tyson or Hawking feel the need to manufacture this dichotomy, implying there is some conflict between science and philosophy where there is none. The only thing you possibly achieve by philosophy bashing is that you end up doing bad philosophy.