5 ms·

This is not correct. This attitude was nurtured by science's most successful public mouthpieces. Stephen Hawking and Neal Degrasse Tyson have been running aroun

This is not correct. This attitude was nurtured by science's most successful public mouthpieces. Stephen Hawking and Neal Degrasse Tyson have been running around for decades telling everyone that the humanities are worthless. Young students, unfortunately, listened to them on this subject. A real tragedy, I think. Carl Sagan would have been a much better steward for science today, as he had a very healthy respect for the relationship between science and humanities and the latter's value for understanding our world. This dangerous rift goes back even further. See C.P. Snow's lecture "The Two Cultures".(1) EDIT: Not sure how this slipped my mind, but Sean Carroll is exactly the kind of representative of the syncretic relationship between sciences and humanities that ought to be the default, rather than the exception. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures

kbenson 3y ago
Has NDT been saying that? I wouldn't know, since I mostly consume him as small segments of larger appearances, but it seems half the time he's conversing with someone he's spouting philosophy as he sees it, so it would be surprising to me that he denigrates it.
- ryanklee 3y ago
  1. Tyson dismissed the intellectual value of philosophy in a podcast, which led to criticism from those within the discipline[1]. 2. He has been quoted saying, "What they teach in the humanities is not 'skepticism' or 'critical thinking.' It's mental masturbation disguised as critical thinking"[5]. 3. Tyson warned that philosophy "can really mess you up" and has implied that philosophy does not progress in the way science does[5]. 4. His attitude towards philosophy has been characterized as science-defeating by some, as it dismisses the role of philosophy in addressing moral and aesthetic questions that science cannot answer[6]. 5. Tyson's comments have sparked discussions and defenses of the humanities and philosophy, with critics arguing that his views are overly simplistic and do not represent the true value and diversity of philosophical inquiry[1][4][5][6]. [1] Neil DeGrasse Tyson is Wrong about Philosophy https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2014/05/13/neil-degrasse-tyson-is-wrong-about-philosophy/ https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2014/05/13/neil-degrasse-tyso... [2] An Open Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/2521di/an_open_letter_to_neil_degrasse_tyson/?rdt=56588 https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/2521di/an_open_... [3] Neil deGrasse Tyson and the Value of Philosophy https://www.huffpost.com/entry/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-the-value-of-philosophy_b_5330216 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-the-v... [4] Why Does Neil deGrasse Tyson Hate Philosophy? https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2014/05/22/why_does_neil_degrasse_tyson_hate_philosophy.html https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2014/05/22/why_doe... [5] Please Save Me from Neil DeGrasse Tyson https://humanitiescenter.byu.edu/please-save-me-from-neil-degrasse-tyson/ https://humanitiescenter.byu.edu/please-save-me-from-neil-de... [6] Neil deGrasse Tyson and the value of philosophy - 3 Quarks Daily https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2014/05/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-the-value-of-philosophy.html https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2014/05/neil-degrasse-... [7] Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Scientism and the Scapegoating of Philosophy http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.com/2014/05/neil-degrasse-tysons-scientism-and.html http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.com/2014/05/neil-deg... [8] Maybe Neil DeGrasse Tyson Should Embrace The Humanities More https://terribleminds.com/ramble/2018/03/06/maybe-neil-degrasse-tyson-should-embrace-the-humanities-more/ https://terribleminds.com/ramble/2018/03/06/maybe-neil-degra... [9] Neil deGrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins on how philosophy has ... https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/2554xu/neil_degrasse_tyson_and_richard_dawkins_on_how/ https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/2554xu/neil_deg... [10] 225 thoughts on “Physicists Should Stop Saying Silly Things about Philosophy” https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/23/physicists-should-stop-saying-silly-things-about-philosophy/ https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/23/physici... [11] Neil deGrasse Tyson is wrong to dismiss all of philosophy, but he may have a point on some of it https://selfawarepatterns.com/2014/05/14/more-thoughts-on-neil-degrasse-tysons-attitude-toward-philosophy/ https://selfawarepatterns.com/2014/05/14/more-thoughts-on-ne... [12] Neil deGrasse Tyson and Philosophy: The Voice and Never-Was of Science Insults the Foundation of All Intellectual Thought https://milliern.com/2014/05/31/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-philosophy-the-voice-and-never-was-of-science-insults-the-foundation-of-all-intellectual-thought/ https://milliern.com/2014/05/31/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-phil...
  - notjoemama 3y ago
    Back to the concept rather than an individual, isn't part of the problem that STEM fields feed back into actionable ways, but perhaps philosophy doesn't? For example, if a new exo-planet were found to have a certain chemical make up that our current understanding didn't agree with, that would go back to theoretical physics and mathematics, where they might discover a way to better describe the discovery. That then becomes a new model that allows us to recognize a new pattern of solar system formation, etc etc. There's a practical application to STEM work. In what way is there a practical application in philosophy? Is it isolated to educating people on broader more complex thought?
    - scarecrowbob 3y ago
      So, when your boss is asking you to design a better way of hiding the waste products from your industrial projects that you know could hurt folks-- that's a good place where having some ethical principles might help. Without those principles, people are often left with "I am just doing my job" and "this is what any person would do, right"? Whereas a lot of us won't do certain things because, say, if everybody did them they'd be self contradictory (Kant) or when we look at the overall utility of dumping toxic waste into a river we might it has some larger negative consequences for society (Mill).
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      I think this is the point. You are discrediting Philosophy, but that is where science and math came from. You don't go back and say "man Plato was such a waste, lets toss out western civilization". The point is someone has to start somewhere, and frequently philosophy is the field that tackled open ended questions. Once the questions get 'solved', it gets spun off into another branch of science. Philosophy is the startup of science, the leading edge. Once it become a 'common' ordinary science, it gets re-named, re-packaged as 'the accepted way'. It is happening a lot right now, because so many STEM people building AI are suddenly arm-chair philosophers coming up with 'new' questions, that are really 'old'. So the whole field is re-discovering philosophy.
      - deleted 3y ago
hackinthebochs 3y ago
>Stephen Hawking and Neal Degrasse Tyson have been running around for decades telling everyone that the humanities are worthless. Young students, unfortunately, listened to them on this subject. A real tragedy, I think. Neither of them has said anything like this. Hawking's "philosophy (metaphysics) is dead" is a narrow point about the relevance of philosophy to basic theorizing about nature. NDT said something along the lines of he doesn't have time for questions like "what is the meaning of meaning". Neither can be reasonably construed as denigrating humanities. There have been a lot of folks on the other side who have put words into the mouths of these two for the sake of self-promotion. It's created a very warped perspective on what Hawkings and NDT actually believe.
- ryanklee 3y ago
  This is not correct. See my comment with numerous citations.
  - hackinthebochs 3y ago
    I looked at it. Randomly opened a couple of links, none of which really support the idea of NDT thinking humanities are worthless. All I see are a lot of overinterpreting and misrepresentations for the sake of using popular guys as a jumping-off point for one's own defensive screed. If you have a specific citation that you feel best represents the case against NDT or Hawking, I'm happy to consider it.
    - ryanklee 3y ago
      Sure. Please tell me how I can possibly read this interview in any other way than NDT doesn't see the value in philosophy: https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-the-value-of-philosophy/ https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/neil-degrasse... As far as I can tell, he doesn't say one charitable thing, and more, his attitude comes off as smug and arrogant.
      - hackinthebochs 3y ago
chr1 3y ago
Richard Feynman also did not see value in philosophy, and he was right. The submitted article is a good illustration why. There are two hypotheses: one is that consciousness is essentially a computation, the other that it is an unknowable stuff. Philosophers spend time talking how one or the other hypothesis "feels right" to them. Scientists try to see what results can be obtained through computation. Now we got to the point where we have automaton talking. Still very very far from understanding how brain works, but an interesting discovery on the way to it. Meanwhile, what philosophers have to say is still as uninteresting and irrelevant as it was in 1879...
- spookybones 3y ago
  You’re talking about metaphysics. Epistemology will be one of the most important issues with AI. And let’s not ignore ethics. You seem to speak as someone who hasn’t read any philosophy. Einstein, Bohr, Oppenheimer, and plenty of other physicists would disagree with your sentiment.
  - chr1 3y ago
    I am saying that so far progress in metaphysics came not from philosophers but from physicists, who actually do experiments or math calculations. Similarly progress in understanding AI will come from people who actually build and experiment with AI, or with brains. As for ethics, i don't see how is it relevant.
- bmitc 3y ago
  > Richard Feynman also did not see value in philosophy, and he was right. Do you realize that physics requires the adoption of a philosophy? Physics addresses problems that are effectively easy. Physicists have tools, such as mathematics, at their disposal and can make wildly simplifying assumptions. Philosophers are often trying to address what the questions even are and then try to develop new tools to both explore the questions and their answers. Physics is downstream of philosophy.
  - chr1 3y ago

kbenson 3y ago

Has NDT been saying that? I wouldn't know, since I mostly consume him as small segments of larger appearances, but it seems half the time he's conversing with someone he's spouting philosophy as he sees it, so it would be surprising to me that he denigrates it.

ryanklee 3y ago
1. Tyson dismissed the intellectual value of philosophy in a podcast, which led to criticism from those within the discipline[1]. 2. He has been quoted saying, "What they teach in the humanities is not 'skepticism' or 'critical thinking.' It's mental masturbation disguised as critical thinking"[5]. 3. Tyson warned that philosophy "can really mess you up" and has implied that philosophy does not progress in the way science does[5]. 4. His attitude towards philosophy has been characterized as science-defeating by some, as it dismisses the role of philosophy in addressing moral and aesthetic questions that science cannot answer[6]. 5. Tyson's comments have sparked discussions and defenses of the humanities and philosophy, with critics arguing that his views are overly simplistic and do not represent the true value and diversity of philosophical inquiry[1][4][5][6]. [1] Neil DeGrasse Tyson is Wrong about Philosophy https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2014/05/13/neil-degrasse-tyson-is-wrong-about-philosophy/ https://benjaminstudebaker.com/2014/05/13/neil-degrasse-tyso... [2] An Open Letter to Neil deGrasse Tyson https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/2521di/an_open_letter_to_neil_degrasse_tyson/?rdt=56588 https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/2521di/an_open_... [3] Neil deGrasse Tyson and the Value of Philosophy https://www.huffpost.com/entry/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-the-value-of-philosophy_b_5330216 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-the-v... [4] Why Does Neil deGrasse Tyson Hate Philosophy? https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2014/05/22/why_does_neil_degrasse_tyson_hate_philosophy.html https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2014/05/22/why_doe... [5] Please Save Me from Neil DeGrasse Tyson https://humanitiescenter.byu.edu/please-save-me-from-neil-degrasse-tyson/ https://humanitiescenter.byu.edu/please-save-me-from-neil-de... [6] Neil deGrasse Tyson and the value of philosophy - 3 Quarks Daily https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2014/05/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-the-value-of-philosophy.html https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2014/05/neil-degrasse-... [7] Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Scientism and the Scapegoating of Philosophy http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.com/2014/05/neil-degrasse-tysons-scientism-and.html http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.com/2014/05/neil-deg... [8] Maybe Neil DeGrasse Tyson Should Embrace The Humanities More https://terribleminds.com/ramble/2018/03/06/maybe-neil-degrasse-tyson-should-embrace-the-humanities-more/ https://terribleminds.com/ramble/2018/03/06/maybe-neil-degra... [9] Neil deGrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins on how philosophy has ... https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/2554xu/neil_degrasse_tyson_and_richard_dawkins_on_how/ https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/2554xu/neil_deg... [10] 225 thoughts on “Physicists Should Stop Saying Silly Things about Philosophy” https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/23/physicists-should-stop-saying-silly-things-about-philosophy/ https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/06/23/physici... [11] Neil deGrasse Tyson is wrong to dismiss all of philosophy, but he may have a point on some of it https://selfawarepatterns.com/2014/05/14/more-thoughts-on-neil-degrasse-tysons-attitude-toward-philosophy/ https://selfawarepatterns.com/2014/05/14/more-thoughts-on-ne... [12] Neil deGrasse Tyson and Philosophy: The Voice and Never-Was of Science Insults the Foundation of All Intellectual Thought https://milliern.com/2014/05/31/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-philosophy-the-voice-and-never-was-of-science-insults-the-foundation-of-all-intellectual-thought/ https://milliern.com/2014/05/31/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-phil...
- notjoemama 3y ago
  Back to the concept rather than an individual, isn't part of the problem that STEM fields feed back into actionable ways, but perhaps philosophy doesn't? For example, if a new exo-planet were found to have a certain chemical make up that our current understanding didn't agree with, that would go back to theoretical physics and mathematics, where they might discover a way to better describe the discovery. That then becomes a new model that allows us to recognize a new pattern of solar system formation, etc etc. There's a practical application to STEM work. In what way is there a practical application in philosophy? Is it isolated to educating people on broader more complex thought?
  - scarecrowbob 3y ago
    So, when your boss is asking you to design a better way of hiding the waste products from your industrial projects that you know could hurt folks-- that's a good place where having some ethical principles might help. Without those principles, people are often left with "I am just doing my job" and "this is what any person would do, right"? Whereas a lot of us won't do certain things because, say, if everybody did them they'd be self contradictory (Kant) or when we look at the overall utility of dumping toxic waste into a river we might it has some larger negative consequences for society (Mill).
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    I think this is the point. You are discrediting Philosophy, but that is where science and math came from. You don't go back and say "man Plato was such a waste, lets toss out western civilization". The point is someone has to start somewhere, and frequently philosophy is the field that tackled open ended questions. Once the questions get 'solved', it gets spun off into another branch of science. Philosophy is the startup of science, the leading edge. Once it become a 'common' ordinary science, it gets re-named, re-packaged as 'the accepted way'. It is happening a lot right now, because so many STEM people building AI are suddenly arm-chair philosophers coming up with 'new' questions, that are really 'old'. So the whole field is re-discovering philosophy.
    - deleted 3y ago

hackinthebochs 3y ago

>Stephen Hawking and Neal Degrasse Tyson have been running around for decades telling everyone that the humanities are worthless. Young students, unfortunately, listened to them on this subject. A real tragedy, I think. Neither of them has said anything like this. Hawking's "philosophy (metaphysics) is dead" is a narrow point about the relevance of philosophy to basic theorizing about nature. NDT said something along the lines of he doesn't have time for questions like "what is the meaning of meaning". Neither can be reasonably construed as denigrating humanities. There have been a lot of folks on the other side who have put words into the mouths of these two for the sake of self-promotion. It's created a very warped perspective on what Hawkings and NDT actually believe.

ryanklee 3y ago
This is not correct. See my comment with numerous citations.
- hackinthebochs 3y ago
  I looked at it. Randomly opened a couple of links, none of which really support the idea of NDT thinking humanities are worthless. All I see are a lot of overinterpreting and misrepresentations for the sake of using popular guys as a jumping-off point for one's own defensive screed. If you have a specific citation that you feel best represents the case against NDT or Hawking, I'm happy to consider it.
  - ryanklee 3y ago
    Sure. Please tell me how I can possibly read this interview in any other way than NDT doesn't see the value in philosophy: https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-the-value-of-philosophy/ https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/neil-degrasse... As far as I can tell, he doesn't say one charitable thing, and more, his attitude comes off as smug and arrogant.
    - hackinthebochs 3y ago

chr1 3y ago

Richard Feynman also did not see value in philosophy, and he was right. The submitted article is a good illustration why. There are two hypotheses: one is that consciousness is essentially a computation, the other that it is an unknowable stuff. Philosophers spend time talking how one or the other hypothesis "feels right" to them. Scientists try to see what results can be obtained through computation. Now we got to the point where we have automaton talking. Still very very far from understanding how brain works, but an interesting discovery on the way to it. Meanwhile, what philosophers have to say is still as uninteresting and irrelevant as it was in 1879...

spookybones 3y ago
You’re talking about metaphysics. Epistemology will be one of the most important issues with AI. And let’s not ignore ethics. You seem to speak as someone who hasn’t read any philosophy. Einstein, Bohr, Oppenheimer, and plenty of other physicists would disagree with your sentiment.
- chr1 3y ago
  I am saying that so far progress in metaphysics came not from philosophers but from physicists, who actually do experiments or math calculations. Similarly progress in understanding AI will come from people who actually build and experiment with AI, or with brains. As for ethics, i don't see how is it relevant.
bmitc 3y ago
> Richard Feynman also did not see value in philosophy, and he was right. Do you realize that physics requires the adoption of a philosophy? Physics addresses problems that are effectively easy. Physicists have tools, such as mathematics, at their disposal and can make wildly simplifying assumptions. Philosophers are often trying to address what the questions even are and then try to develop new tools to both explore the questions and their answers. Physics is downstream of philosophy.
- chr1 3y ago