Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Scientism(wmbriggs.com)
wmbriggs.com
Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Scientism
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=12340
15 comments
The argument the author makes that all truths are equal and therefore science is no "truer" that anything else is a straw-man. It's valid from the definition of the word, but misses the point. Science is "truer" than other things, because in reality we don't know the truth. Science "truths" are more likely to be true than many other things because they have stronger supporting evidence. For example gravity is better supported by the evidence than the existence and deeds of an historical figure.
Scientific truths are also "truer" than other truths because of their predictive value. If you understand gravity, you can assume that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. Even if you fail to make the required sacrifice to the sun god, the sun will still rise tomorrow.
>Yes, his statement is over-reaching and generalized, but the message is still meaningful.
Yes, this is true, and it is tough to be subtle and nuanced on twitter.
If I remember correctly, this tweet came out the week an episode of Cosmos explored the Scientific Method. Remember, Tyson is only talking about science. He's not necessarily taking a shot at history or art or economics...
When we live in an age when parents are failing to vaccinate their kids because an actress who hasn't even been popular in a few decades tells them not to, someone really needs to push the Overton window in the other direction a bit.
Yes, this is true, and it is tough to be subtle and nuanced on twitter.
If I remember correctly, this tweet came out the week an episode of Cosmos explored the Scientific Method. Remember, Tyson is only talking about science. He's not necessarily taking a shot at history or art or economics...
When we live in an age when parents are failing to vaccinate their kids because an actress who hasn't even been popular in a few decades tells them not to, someone really needs to push the Overton window in the other direction a bit.
If you'd like to confirm this, spend five minutes reading the comments section on any mainstream-media article about climate change.
It used to be that the divide was between people who think that science and religion are incompatible and people who think that they are compatible.
Now, I'm beginning to see a surge in people who are just as dismissive about the value of philosophy in general as they are about religion.
My hope is that most of them simply misperceive what philosophy actually is, and dismiss their straw-man version of philosophy, rather than truly understand what philosophy is and dismiss it anyway.
Now, I'm beginning to see a surge in people who are just as dismissive about the value of philosophy in general as they are about religion.
My hope is that most of them simply misperceive what philosophy actually is, and dismiss their straw-man version of philosophy, rather than truly understand what philosophy is and dismiss it anyway.
If you actually study philosophy you come away with a deeper understanding of language and either nialism or science. The basic choice is to accept the is no way to seperate truth from illusion/random chance or accept that while the world might be an illusion it seems consistent so understanding reality or the illusion of such has value.
Which is all well and good but hardly much progress considering 2000 years ago people said the same thing.
PS: Actually building a human level AI solves none of the philosophical questions about consciousness which should say something.
Which is all well and good but hardly much progress considering 2000 years ago people said the same thing.
PS: Actually building a human level AI solves none of the philosophical questions about consciousness which should say something.
Pfft, what is philosophy? The natural sciences had almost completely robbed it of its intellectual validity by the mid-19th century, and this advance continues to this day. All that's really left to philosophers is vague discussion about morals and politics, and even these subjects are not safe from the scientific method.
I gave up on the subject (after a long obsession with it, and a couple years of study at university) after reading David Hume's crystal clear presentation of the problem of induction. What a devastating attack on philosophy as a whole! What can you depend on without absolute certainty? It looks a lot like Bayesian priors, and a lot like science.
I gave up on the subject (after a long obsession with it, and a couple years of study at university) after reading David Hume's crystal clear presentation of the problem of induction. What a devastating attack on philosophy as a whole! What can you depend on without absolute certainty? It looks a lot like Bayesian priors, and a lot like science.
> The good thing about Science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.
There is a sort of anti-religion and anti-pseudoscience zeitgeist in American society, and scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins make up the figureheads of this movement. The perception is that the rationalist scientific project is under attack by people who try to sell scientifically false statements. Off the top of my head I can name climate change deniers, anti-vaccination activists and creationists as members of a perceived cabal of enemies of scientific progress.
It can be debated whether or not such a cabal really exists or whether its perception is a result of the recent expansion of the reach of ideas and messages made possible by the internet and social networking: perhaps people with wildly differing views are suddenly in contact with one another and are surprised by the variety of opinion out there.
This tweet is not meant to be a philosophically consistent statement concerning the merits of science, but rather a sort of "preaching to the choir" message meant to rally the base against this perceived enemy.
There is a sort of anti-religion and anti-pseudoscience zeitgeist in American society, and scientists like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins make up the figureheads of this movement. The perception is that the rationalist scientific project is under attack by people who try to sell scientifically false statements. Off the top of my head I can name climate change deniers, anti-vaccination activists and creationists as members of a perceived cabal of enemies of scientific progress.
It can be debated whether or not such a cabal really exists or whether its perception is a result of the recent expansion of the reach of ideas and messages made possible by the internet and social networking: perhaps people with wildly differing views are suddenly in contact with one another and are surprised by the variety of opinion out there.
This tweet is not meant to be a philosophically consistent statement concerning the merits of science, but rather a sort of "preaching to the choir" message meant to rally the base against this perceived enemy.
I think the kernel of legitimate concern here is that we partisans of an enlightenment world view must be careful not to stoop to the level of the ancient worldviews we compete with.
Too many people "believe in" science the same exact way that others believe in superstition. They accept the results because of authority, without ever internalizing the process.
Schools are complicit in this problem. Learning that the earth goes around the sun without studying the evidence for how we know that is deeply misguided. Yet we quiz kids on the findings, not on whether they can explain and defend the findings.
There are plenty of people walking around who know what's on the periodic table, without having the slightest ability to explain where it came from or why we know it's true. It might as well be holy scripture.
Too many people "believe in" science the same exact way that others believe in superstition. They accept the results because of authority, without ever internalizing the process.
Schools are complicit in this problem. Learning that the earth goes around the sun without studying the evidence for how we know that is deeply misguided. Yet we quiz kids on the findings, not on whether they can explain and defend the findings.
There are plenty of people walking around who know what's on the periodic table, without having the slightest ability to explain where it came from or why we know it's true. It might as well be holy scripture.
Science can't be known to be true because of solipsism. Empiricists and scientists can say "yes, but let's assume reality exists" and that is fine, but the best argument against solipsism I've ever heard was by Russell who essentially said that it is boring.
Fine. But don't go around thinking that the big bang creating the universe is true in an absolute sense. You have no proof that there even is a universe, and realistically, even if I assume that reality exists, I'm still left with the simulation argument, which makes it even more likely that we're just sims in a complex economics experiment.
edit: Now excuse me while I go on a nice bike ride :)
Fine. But don't go around thinking that the big bang creating the universe is true in an absolute sense. You have no proof that there even is a universe, and realistically, even if I assume that reality exists, I'm still left with the simulation argument, which makes it even more likely that we're just sims in a complex economics experiment.
edit: Now excuse me while I go on a nice bike ride :)
In this statement, Tyson is referring to science as an objective reality. Science in human terms, as he often admits, has flaws that need to be explored and solved. However, in this quote, I understood him to be describing the pursuit of the objective truth, which is the primary mission of science in the first place. Scientists believe in an objective reality that can be described by thorough investigation and experimentation. Over the long-term, human science asymptotically approaches the truth, and to that truth, Tyson's statement refers.
So you're claiming that the quote should really be "The good thing about objective reality is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it"?
Science has two unique properties:
• It eventually converges on the correct answer, no matter the starting point.
• It is universal, and not subject to the biases of the scientists (once the correct answer is found).
Any two intelligent rational species will eventually converge on the same scientific answer, no matter how far separated they are by space or genetics or history. The same can not be said of philosophy, art, or any of the other fields mentioned by the author (except history, which is just applied science when done right).
• It eventually converges on the correct answer, no matter the starting point.
• It is universal, and not subject to the biases of the scientists (once the correct answer is found).
Any two intelligent rational species will eventually converge on the same scientific answer, no matter how far separated they are by space or genetics or history. The same can not be said of philosophy, art, or any of the other fields mentioned by the author (except history, which is just applied science when done right).
His phrasing might be improved, but whether or not you believe that water will freeze at a certain temperature has no affect on subsequent tests. Not trying to troll, but isn't that unique to science?
No, it's not unique to science.
For instance, with history, whether or not you believe that John F. Kennedy was assassinated doesn't change the fact that he either was (for which the evidence is overwhelming) or wasn't (if, by some amazing chance, the YouTube conspiracy videos are true).
But you bring up a point worth expanding upon. You mention testing. With history, and many other subjects, we can't directly evaluate things in the way that we test things with science. That is to say, we can't go back in time and take a snapshot of a historical moment and say, "There! That did actually happen!"
Some people have (mistakenly, in my mind) concluded that because we can't test a philosophical conjecture the way we can test a scientific conjecture, it's therefore not worth spending time pursuing philosophical truth. I think they just get so hung up on the scientific method that they try to apply it to things that are totally outside its domain.
For instance, with history, whether or not you believe that John F. Kennedy was assassinated doesn't change the fact that he either was (for which the evidence is overwhelming) or wasn't (if, by some amazing chance, the YouTube conspiracy videos are true).
But you bring up a point worth expanding upon. You mention testing. With history, and many other subjects, we can't directly evaluate things in the way that we test things with science. That is to say, we can't go back in time and take a snapshot of a historical moment and say, "There! That did actually happen!"
Some people have (mistakenly, in my mind) concluded that because we can't test a philosophical conjecture the way we can test a scientific conjecture, it's therefore not worth spending time pursuing philosophical truth. I think they just get so hung up on the scientific method that they try to apply it to things that are totally outside its domain.
...for which the _evidence_ is overwhelming...
Do you think that Tyson is using the word "science" in contrast to other disciplines that respect the notions of fact, observation, and evidence?
I figured he was using it in contrast to competing epistemologies that do not, like faith.
Do you think that Tyson is using the word "science" in contrast to other disciplines that respect the notions of fact, observation, and evidence?
I figured he was using it in contrast to competing epistemologies that do not, like faith.
>Some people have (mistakenly, in my mind) concluded that because we can't test a philosophical conjecture the way we can test a scientific conjecture, it's therefore not worth spending time pursuing philosophical truth. I think they just get so hung up on the scientific method that they try to apply it to things that are totally outside its domain.
I appreciate this sentiment and attitude. I am perturbed by those that tout the scientific method as a catch-all epistemological tool that solves all problems of human thought. As you said, there are many things that sit squarely outside of the realm of scientific observation, and they are just as valid as science as attempts to better understand our universe.
I appreciate this sentiment and attitude. I am perturbed by those that tout the scientific method as a catch-all epistemological tool that solves all problems of human thought. As you said, there are many things that sit squarely outside of the realm of scientific observation, and they are just as valid as science as attempts to better understand our universe.
That is not accurate enough though. The statement as you made it is not accurate in that it is entirely possible to put water below 0°C and still have it maintain a stable liquid. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph8xusY3GTM
And that is exactly the problem with Tyson's statement. It is not accurate enough to be in itself a fact and invites blind belief where questioning should happen.
And that is exactly the problem with Tyson's statement. It is not accurate enough to be in itself a fact and invites blind belief where questioning should happen.
The nice thing about the calculated predictions of propositions that have been carefully tested using a wide variety of real world measurements, is that they tend to provide accurate figures with well defined areas of uncertainty, whether you believe in them or not.
This post was killed by user flags.
What a strange blog post. Contrarian for the sake of being so.
Matt's first sentence sets the tone: he clearly harbors disdain for Tyson's "followers". I will admit that the recent aggression in the "science is truer than religion and any other study" argument is becoming obnoxious, and many who take it up aren't as enlightened as the company they attempt to put themselves in. That doesn't mean you can argue that scientific fact is not true. That is a faulty position to take.
This post reads like an argument over one's favorite music. "Lady GaGa sucks, because I'm into prog rock!"
Matt's first sentence sets the tone: he clearly harbors disdain for Tyson's "followers". I will admit that the recent aggression in the "science is truer than religion and any other study" argument is becoming obnoxious, and many who take it up aren't as enlightened as the company they attempt to put themselves in. That doesn't mean you can argue that scientific fact is not true. That is a faulty position to take.
This post reads like an argument over one's favorite music. "Lady GaGa sucks, because I'm into prog rock!"
Science does not hold any less grey than does Philosophy. It is every generation's folly to believe that our facts are the facts.
Indeed, one of the better aspects of scientific thinking is that everything should be held up to some degree of doubt and not accepted as The Final Truth for All Time.
The scientific method offers a best attempt to establish a truth at a given time for some given body of knowledge, but knowledge and understand can change.
The scientific method offers a best attempt to establish a truth at a given time for some given body of knowledge, but knowledge and understand can change.
Agreed, when the evidence is overwhelming we can operate as such while always remembering that our knowledge and understanding may be limited or flawed.
Having NdGT doing the work he is doing is far better than not because it gives us more opportunity to think.
Having NdGT doing the work he is doing is far better than not because it gives us more opportunity to think.
The greatest thing about science doesn't have anything to do with truth. Science constantly improves your quality of life, sometimes even for free, and you never even have to ask, show gratitude, or return the favor.
I think maybe NdGT was trying to distill that down to a sound bite, but didn't quite hit the mark.
I think maybe NdGT was trying to distill that down to a sound bite, but didn't quite hit the mark.
I conceive of science as being a methodology or a process. Can a process be "true"? Depends on what you mean by "true." I say no, and that Tyson's quoted statement is incoherent, also for the reasons in the article.
> Don't miss the forest for the trees.
And I agree with what phren0logy is saying, too.
> Don't miss the forest for the trees.
And I agree with what phren0logy is saying, too.
Troll bait. Missing the point.
Don't miss the forest for the trees. Widespread scientific illiteracy has many people feeling that decades of scientific research resulting in consensus establishes only an opinion that is just as valid as the opinion of any uninformed person who cares to speak up in dissent.
Yes, his statement is over-reaching and generalized, but the message is still meaningful.
Here's an article that gives some more detail about this phenomenon: http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/