4 ms·

Why Neil deGrasse Tyson is a philistine

9 points by DLay 12y ago

bitJericho 12y ago
Is the author a philosopher or something? Science is about testing and getting at the truth. Philosophy has historically been sitting your butt down and thinking about stuff. Yawn. http://www.whoislog.info/profile/damon-linker.html http://www.whoislog.info/profile/damon-linker.html
threatofrain 12y ago
Actually I do must question what progress philosophy has made. Is there a bedrock of philosophical knowledge upon which we can rely and do interesting things?
- bartonfink 12y ago
  Logic.
- belovedeagle 12y ago
  I dunno, a little thing called science was introduced to the world by philosophers. I'm sure it's not relevant though—no way philosophy could produce something relevant. /s
  - threatofrain 12y ago
    Try attacking the problem head on. Science most definitely does not stand on the theory of philosophy (if so, which theory does all of science depend upon?), and neither would it have disappeared from across cultures simply because the west forgot to introduce science itself to the rest of the world. The fact that science arose independently across cultures tells us that it does not rest on any rigorous philosophical theory. But who gets to space flight without some theory of gravity and motion? It's because space flight does depend on a tall body of theory. Science is simply a community and inter-generational task of causal modeling via evidence. It cannot be denied simply because the west forgot to tell the rest of the world of philosophy. Science was invented by no philosophical theory. Humongous western development may have been spurred by the worldview of western philosophers, but science does not need such roots. This is not the same as Newton laying down the groundwork for a physics. Now that is a pillar of theory that a community builds around. That's no sarcasm by the way, but rather it is awe and respect for a theory that can act as a pillar or bedrock of continual community growth and stable theoretical illumination for hundreds of years. Have philosophers finally built any pillar by which they may create tall structures? Or is everything they make made of sand, and thus their buildings are only waist high after thousands of years across cultures? At most, science only needs 1% of philosophy in order to have some self-perspective. But let's not go too deep in, because we know that pillars of sand cannot build any cross-cultural theory beyond waist-high structures.

9 points by DLay 12y ago

Is the author a philosopher or something? Science is about testing and getting at the truth. Philosophy has historically been sitting your butt down and thinking about stuff. Yawn. http://www.whoislog.info/profile/damon-linker.html http://www.whoislog.info/profile/damon-linker.html

threatofrain 12y ago

Actually I do must question what progress philosophy has made. Is there a bedrock of philosophical knowledge upon which we can rely and do interesting things?

bartonfink 12y ago
Logic.
belovedeagle 12y ago
I dunno, a little thing called science was introduced to the world by philosophers. I'm sure it's not relevant though—no way philosophy could produce something relevant. /s
- threatofrain 12y ago
  Try attacking the problem head on. Science most definitely does not stand on the theory of philosophy (if so, which theory does all of science depend upon?), and neither would it have disappeared from across cultures simply because the west forgot to introduce science itself to the rest of the world. The fact that science arose independently across cultures tells us that it does not rest on any rigorous philosophical theory. But who gets to space flight without some theory of gravity and motion? It's because space flight does depend on a tall body of theory. Science is simply a community and inter-generational task of causal modeling via evidence. It cannot be denied simply because the west forgot to tell the rest of the world of philosophy. Science was invented by no philosophical theory. Humongous western development may have been spurred by the worldview of western philosophers, but science does not need such roots. This is not the same as Newton laying down the groundwork for a physics. Now that is a pillar of theory that a community builds around. That's no sarcasm by the way, but rather it is awe and respect for a theory that can act as a pillar or bedrock of continual community growth and stable theoretical illumination for hundreds of years. Have philosophers finally built any pillar by which they may create tall structures? Or is everything they make made of sand, and thus their buildings are only waist high after thousands of years across cultures? At most, science only needs 1% of philosophy in order to have some self-perspective. But let's not go too deep in, because we know that pillars of sand cannot build any cross-cultural theory beyond waist-high structures.