I think Daniel Dennet put it best with this quote "There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination."
Just like many philosophers are not well versed in the physical sciences, many physical scientists never opened one book to appreciate the value of philosophy in all its complexities.
@@AliReza-cx7wg The worse and most diffused superstition of our age is this blind positivism and unconditional faith in science, which is promoted by any of the modern day prophet-scientists who claim that philosophy is dead, only to start babbling about absolute theories of everything which, by their own nature, will never be able to get any kind of empirical verification. Such ignorance could be cured, if only they cared to pick up an useless and non-influential essay such as the critique of pure reason, and read it.
@@gabrielevadilonga7025 If science is falsifiable and rectifiable through experimental observations, philosophy is as blur and too general that it is hardly possible to find two philosophers to reach a consensus. Something that is this much ambiguous among even the philosopher's community is good for what need of human?. Philosophy is dead because it couldn't give any clear answer to human being's questions. If in one day all philosophers pass away nothing special will happen to our society but it will be expensive if scientists stop working. Covid19 is not finishing without scientists endeavor
@@AliReza-cx7wg I love the extreme overconfidence of atheists who believe in radical scientism, completely oblivious of how many things they believe that weren't proven, or are unprovable by science.
Dawkins also making a mere demonstration of thinking he knows by actually being ignorant, exactly what Socrate was explaining at his trial. Pretty funny
@@rafaeljc12 Not directly, but the presocratics were some of the first people to attempt to explain the environment scientifically. Anaxagoras posited the theory of everything being a mixture of everything else, but I would argue that Thales theories of an ancestral connection to water resembles evolution a bit more. I believe another presocratic, maybe Anaximenes or Anaximander, posited that humans evolved from fish which evolved from mud (from what I can remember).
@@BlitzOfTheReich thats not evolution that's hogwash. Philosophers don't get us anywhere in modern science, that's why we need space telescopes and particle accelerators. you cant discover Quantum mechanics in an armchair, we need equipment and experimentation
@@mikebrigandi_ where do you think the Scientific method came from? Who do you think advanced mathematics (Leibniz, Descartes, Frege). Hell, even Penrose dabbles a lot in philosophy. The only people who shit on philosophy are scientists who have achieved very little in their lives.
its funny in the end where he talks about the philosophers that he respects. by his definition there doesnt seem to be a distinction then with a philosopher and a scientist. So what is he arguing about? Also they are engaging in metaphilosophy so theres that.
Saying that philosophy is dead because some of the metaphysical beliefs in old philosophy are proven to be wrong is quiet the same as saying that science is unreliable because a lot of the old science thought to be facts are now different. Philosophy varies according to each society and era ... We have to take all human discoveries into account including scientific facts when trying to understand ourselves, morals, societies and beliefs. In my opinion... During the current circumstances of our world right now like Consumism, Political manipulation, wars, extrimist ideologies and aimlessness among young men... WE NEED PHILOSOPHY MORE THAN EVER.
No need for philosophy which is based on nothing except thought. Ideas like ‘is reality real’ serves no purpose given it’s an unfalsifiable claim. Does objective reality exist? Well since we can’t experience reality outside of our minds and we know not how to do so and given the consistency of reality we have no reason to assume an alternate reality exists outside our minds perception
@@DhukuAC Philosophy is more than just a thought; it is a field of study that explores fundamental questions about the nature of knowledge, existence, reality, morality, and various other aspects of human experience. While philosophy certainly involves thinking and contemplation, it goes beyond mere thoughts or subjective opinions. It is funny how you said that we don't need philosophy and then proceeded to make a philosophical argument about the nature of reality.
@Dhuku1881 unfalsifiable claims are still important in how we understand the world. Unfalsifiable assumptions and presuppositions underly everything we do. One can engage in philosophy to examine those. It is essentially a question of PoV: seeing something in one light emphasises different qualities than viewing from another point of view. Either of these PoV's might be entirely unverifiable, but they can have significant effects on how we view and interact with the world around us. Important fields in philosophy right now are philosophy of mind and perhaps unsurprisingly environmental ethics (and other environmental topics). Either field can contain ideas that are not verifiable, but those ideas might change the way we think or how we see and thus treat the environment. For example: do we just want to save the environment to prevent ecological desaster that affects us, or do we want to protect the environment because it has intrinsic (ethical) value in itself?
Nothing, it is Anaxagoras but the idea is vague yet he discusses some primordial stuff like "nous" and "seeds" that is present in the Universe and developed in a dynamic view of natural history. You can call it evolution but there's no natural selection. Natural selection cannot be synthesized without first formal scientific inquiry
@@mikebrigandi_ Who told you so? Your physics teacher? Or did you learn philosophy from lawrence 'doofus' krauss' "universe from my a.... oh, pardon, nothing" book?
There was a time philosophy was literally science, actually philosophy goes with everything. Just because science allows you to manipulate your environment. Doesnt mean you have the philosophy to share its value among a society. Philosophy allows you to retell your life lessons, observations, and meanings as life passes by. Important questions tackled everyday, and it doesn't end. Science manipulates its environment to create toys, that's very understandable yet an appropriate challenge. But philosophy has more of a case by case basis. I think it can save humanities sanity in a materialistic world. Just by that fact it organizes important questions.
True. Even if metaphysics has kinda taken the backseat, other types of philosophy are thriving to this day due to the questions we keep asking over and over again.
@@cr3atur321 but reality is not materialistic as both maths(which is much older than western philosophy, much much older) and physics help to answer these questions. who discovered dark energy? dark matter? pure mathematics? btw maths is more than 4000 years old and western philosophy is 2500 years old.
@@cr3atur321 i can bet ur anus most physicist dont believe in a physical reality like you think they do. That was back in the 18th century but not at the beginning of the 19th century which came huge breakthroughs. Only cause the media portrays them to be materialist does not mean they are
What about the ethics of science? About the concept of truth, and if its possible to achieve it? Anti philosophy scientists are often materialists... Which is a philosophical theory. A heavily ontological one.
@@absurdist5938 I can discover things through a made up one. Its like a photograph. I can discover new landscapes, but I made the camera, the lenses that see that landscape
@@batcanal1 I didn't want to hear the poetry.. I just said it.. Gravity is not a lense.. Sun projecting light is not a picture.. May be u are referring to hypothesis or models.. But calling it made up is nonsense.. We make it to eliminate.. To better truth than now.. Understand it.. Science is discovered..and never compare it to philosophy...philosophy is a tool made by human reason.. It neither shows truth nor it gives knowledge.. It can be based on false premises, valid by not sound arguments.. It need observation, now Science to know what to be accepted .. The outer body of so called knowledge in philosophy is limited in many ways ..
Barring the fact that there have been a vast number of successful philosophers. Those who find status and wealth paramounts within their existence are still looking at the shadows on the wall and telling everyone they are real. If you are unsure of what I mean by that, read some Plato.
Your professor must not have been an astrophysicist if he said that, for Tyson is not a great astrophysicist. He's merely a science popularizer who has a doctorate in astrophysics. He has not published in years.
@@divyebhagwani460 still doesnt mean he is not good at it, he was the head of the planetarium something something lol, You just dont get promoted if you are not good at it.
The_Bellend sure, but that’s more of testament to his science popularizing skills. In my opinion, to be called a great, let alone brilliant, astrophysicist, one needs to make an equivalent contribution to their field. And he hasn’t done that. This is not to speak against popularizers. Compare him with Hawking or Cox, who have actually made significant contributions to their fields.
“I’m disappointed because there’s a lot of brain power there that would have contributed mightily.” That’s one of the most pompous things I’ve heard Tyson say, as if science has some intrinsic value far superior to philosophy.
At least they aren't spending 6 days a week writing a paper on the electromagnetism of napkins in order to get 3 citations only to get debunked 5 weeks later. 99% of science is so unbelievable detached from anyone's life that it's useless. Not to mention how scientist wake up every day and see themselves as some bastions of objective observable reality only to write a 40,000 word paper on quantum field theory.
Yetter How do you know your God is true? I can’t exactly prove that God *isn’t real,* but it doesn’t seem like you could convince me if there is a living God and which God that would be. Unless I am being arrogant?
And deGrasse did point that out, to be fair. Perhaps he could have stated that those disciplines are very important to be working on, not just that "there is plenty for the philosopher to do".
And since espistemology is the philosophical study of human knowledge, science no matter how complex, and actually even more so the most complex it gets, actually all the time falls back into philosophy.
that doesn't make it right. in the Muslim world, everything is dependent upon what some pedophile said in the bronze age. Politics, ethics, and epistemology are a thing because western culture values them not because they have objectively been proven as correct. You can debate about politics but you can't debate that 2+2 ≠ 4 or that nuclear fission is not real
@@DavidFlores-rg4xu philosophy is parasitic discipline, when a human even pretends or think something it becomes philosophy. "philosophy" is meaningless and dead
So embarrassing to see two figures regularly paraded as heroes of contemporary science showing themselves to be so ignorant of the function and contribution of philosophy.
@@Lobsterwithinternet Dr Tyson said "armchair philosophy is useless" as if that's all philosophy is. Has he ever read Karl Popper? His work is far from "armchair". Have they read David Deutsch? A quantum physicist that wrote two books on epistemology. The reality is that these guys have no idea what they're talking about.
@@trex116 So is falsificationism science? Nope! What about the idea that scientific theories require experimental tests, is that a scientific theory? Nope! What about induction? No again! Good god, do you know anything?
@@TheFortressMaximus That's not true. I studied the presocratics. They genuinely had very very interesting ideas on evolution, but they just weren't the correct ones. They did think that humans had some ancestral connexion to other animals that evolved based on the environment. It just wasn't as specific or rigid as natural selection.
@@TheFortressMaximus again I would disagree. It’s like saying Democritus had no conception of the atom. Of course they aren’t exact but there are parallels.
Science is by far the best way to find out things about the physical world, but what the scientific method does NOT do is tell you what to study, it only tells you how. The way that humans decide which study to do is decided entirely by their thought base and their cultural background, which falls back on their philosophy. Philosophy is the way we decide what goal to settle for. In other words, physics without philosophy is a (agreeably very powerful) battleship without any captain. The captain cannot do anything without his battleship, but the battleship does not have a purpose without his captain. Either need the other to function, so I really don't think it makes sense to say that one is better than the other. That would be the wrong way of viewing it, in my mind.
Yet science depends heavily on Philosophy... (This doesnt take any merit away from science, it just goes to show how broad and important philosophy is... )
"creation ... started out from the minerals and progressed, in an ingenious, gradual manner, to plants and animals. The last stage of minerals is connected with the first stage of plants, such as herbs and seedless plants. The last stage of plants, such as palms and vines, is connected with the first stage of animals, such as snails and shellfish ... the last stage of each group is fully prepared to become the first stage of the next group." Ibn khaldun in al-Muqaddimah year 1377
@@zeddpower662 that is evolution though. its a start. not all thought starts at the answer. it starts at a journey. and people carry it as far as they can
take a note. Socrates was a wise man because he said he knows nothing. You know nothing of philosophy yet you still speak of it as if it were your own studies.
@TheLaughingMan0603 Actually, as I understand, etymologically "idiot" comes from a Greek word that meant someone out for their own interests and not considerate of good for other people. In a "financial system" that promotes the accumulation of personal gain as a life goal (sort of like a religion we live in, really), the meaning of the word probably had to change to someone "dumb", or something (dumb by the definition of the people with wealth, obviously). So, just mentioning it, etymologically one could make an argument that capitalism's "useful idiots" (materialists or "practical people") are the historical definition of the word idiot.
someone was something, and someone being something didnt contribute to the progression of human kind, someone being something is obsolete, someone is obsolete, something is not
This whole conversation is metaphilosophy, the philosophy of philosophy. The arrogance and the audacity of the materialists to suggest that science is more valuable than philosophy . How do you determine what is more valuable? Ah right, through philosophy. What is science based on? Ah right, empiricism, which is a branch of epistemology, which is a branch of philosophy. Get of your high horse, you don't even know what your profession is based on.
The scientific method is philosophy, a PH.d is literally a doctorate of philosophy. Without philosophy science couldn't exist. Without philosophy scientists cant reasonably deny any people who say that gems heal people. How can these people be so ignorant? Without philosophy science is pointless.
Title is misleading. The deGrasse Tyson response to "is philosophy dead?" isn't yes. His response was stating that it isn't making contributions in advancement, within the physical world of science. He never said it isn't contributing to anything.
"has science made philosophy obsolete?" good question, now lets have a debate about it and layout our differing opinions about the issues in hopes of coming to an answer. hmm, sounds like we're doing philosophy after all
I think the way a scientist and a philosopher approaches a topic or question is very different. A scientist tries to understand and explain everything that exists in our world From a physical or mechanical standpoint. This requires keen Observation, asking questions, coming up with different theories and then testing out these different theories until a sufficient explanation is reached based on the results. That’s not how philosophy works. Philosophy tries to understand how the world works in abstract terms. Reading or studying philosophy material almost feels like listening to a person talk while they’re high. They explain things in the most complicated way and take forever to get to the damn point. In life we should seek to make things simple, not overcomplicate it with confusing wording. Philosophy material is meant to make you think just for the sake of practicing thinking. Scientists, on the other hand, are not interested in thinking just for the sake of thinking. They PROACTIVELY seek answers and then attempt to explain their results or findings in the most concise manner.
Philosophy can be the beginning of the scientific action that whould result in some concrete conclusion, or in more questions, and then the process repeats and repeats. Or not... it can be only the act of thinking about everything without the will to know the answer.
I will never hold philosophy in anywhere near the same regard as science for the simple reason that philosophy has no methodology in place to test its findings.
Since when Philosophy test it's finding? Philosophy consults to Science since Science emerged from Philosophy. They are no stranger at all. When a Philosopher tests their findings they are also called scientists. Simple as that.
How could they possibly have the answer to this question lol? I mean it’s kinda fun to hear what they have to say, but really it’s a question for a philosopher
I dont like philosophy, I deem it to be as my fellow greek, the poet Kavafy, once said "traitorous", but obsolete? Its quite certain these people dont understand what philosophy is. Philosophy cannot be rendered obsolete. That would be impossible.
Quantum mechanics falls too far from what you can deduce from your armchair for those two to be related? Where does Neil Degrasse Tyson think the mathematics he uses to describe quantum phenomena came from? I just deduced from my armchair that there is an infinite amount of prime numbers and I am more certain of it than I am of the expanding universe.
I think Tyson's criticism can only be applied to purely rationalist epistemologies. Philosophers since Locke, Berkeley and Hume are in almost complete agreement about the importance of empirical truths not deduced by reasoning.
Let's talk about metaphysics - Abigail Thorn made a great analogy: 'If the sciences are about describing a car and all its parts and how they function with each others, metaphysics is about the question 'why are there cars?''. Philosophy is about studying the ways the human mind is interacting with its surroundings, not on a scientific level but on the basis of thought itself. Yeah, you can explain why and how people are thinking biologically and physically, but that is not the point.
Thats more like an attempt of making philosophy fit into a materialistic worldview with its main religion being science. Its as if philosophy or metaphysics needed an aproval from science to exist or justify its existence. Which is absurd.
"The philosopher is a would-be scientist without a laboratory" - FFS, this man doesn't even understand what questions philosophy is concerned with. For a smart guy, he really says a lot of very dumb things about the nature of science.
Saying that no philosophers contribute to science except those who have scientific training, and then saying that there is no difference because "they are scientists, not philosophers" is SUCH a copout. Ah, but when scientists with no philosophical training whatsoever, people like Hawking, Krauss, and Tyson, make sweeping unjustified generalizations about the role of philosophy in science, they expect to do so with a free pass. The hypocrisy is inherent. Apparently Tyson hasn't read Carnap, Putnam, Earman, Malament, Kuhn, Stein, or Butterfield. Especially in the philosophy of physics the boundary between science and philosophy is particularly blurry. But the fact still stands that philosophers tend to focus on, in my opinion, much more fascinating problems than mainstream theoretical physicists.
Philosophy will never be science in the way that science is. You can't peer review an opinion in the way that you can mathematics. Opinions change, Gravity will always hold you down.
Thanks! I'm looking for opinions on the following, quite unusual statement+question pair: (T1) "The number of questions one can ask about the world is astronomical. How can {a piece of software} contain all those questions?"
Of course not.Philosophy cannot be made redundant because it tells us about the limits of our understanding.That's why scientists nowdays hate philosophy.Philosophy especially epistemology tells us about where the limits of understanding lay and we may not like it
A good point I think. I think one general trend we see is almost a modern conflation of Philosophy and what we term the Natural Sciences, even those that are attempting to demonstrate the worth of Philosophy are trying to do so on the back foot and on the presumption that Philosophy is somehow subordinate or lesser than the Natural Sciences, and in trying to measure it up in this way it ultimately fails. I think to conflate Philosophy with a particular practice such as the Natural Sciences and subjugate it within a particular sphere of representation of the world, is in fact not to do Philosophy. Philosophy must in some manner, consciously stand outside of all spheres of representation, lest it becomes entangled, in order that it can see clearly. Scientists, as human beings, "desire to know" as Aristotle put it, just as much as the next person, and those not well versed and trained in the discipline and art of Thinking, may well not realise or be aware to what extent they are making incredible assumptions. For example, to just engage in "mathematics" and to presume it as self-evident truth in regards to the Nature of reality, is a presupposition. Aristotle left the Academy because of certain Pythagoreans and Neo-Platonists asserting number as the fundamental Arche, or fundamental reality, which of course is not evidenced anywhere other than our own self-positing.
The love of truth and wisdom will always be, and it is seperate from any system or science ..no authority encroaches on philosophy's existence , nor can it be controlled.. its an individual choice.
All any one need reference if they want to show that Tyson is being a bit flippant and speaking past his breadth of knowledge is The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn
The whole field of 'logic' itself is part of philosophy. Mathematics and all the natural sciences are happy to use 'logic' in their systems, how couldn't they. But strip 'logic' from all context and voila, you aren't doing science anymore but you are doing philosophy. I don't think these men are ignorant, but they clearly don't see a use in going one level deeper in their understanding or reality.
@@centralprocessingunit4988 correct me if I'm wrong, but logic was born as a science (from Aristotle), and was considered an auxilliary science along with math up untill August Comte's positivism
@@TheLaughingOut tell me you're a braindead philosophy bro without telling me. Science no longer relies on intuition, it depends on empirical data about reality, not imagination
They both have a point but at the same time, physics which is based on mathematical equations, is ultimately based on philosophy of logic because it is dependent on mathematics, AND, all scientific knowledge is ultimately based on epistemological foundations of what how knowledge can be derived and what constitutes “knowing” something.
Science may have a philosophical foundation, but philosophy is extremely limited in what it can do. that's why in modern science we dont use philosophy, we use space telescopes and particle accelerators to progress forward Philosophy is no longer needed in scientific advancement
@@mikebrigandi_ Again, philosophy and mathematics are the base of physics. Without mathematical theories to go on (brought by certain philosophical principles), you wouldn't have those things.
@@mikebrigandi_ again, I think you are misunderstanding what it actually is. I will give an example with Godel's incompleteness theorem. Godel was a logician who along with Frege was a prominent philosopher of mathematics. Even Einstein admired him. His theorem damaged mathematical formalism, which has implications for AI as it set that we could not prove everything in mathematics. As I am not a mathematician, that is a rudimentary understanding of it all. Yes, physicists are important, but the experimental physics that you ramble on about would not exist without theoretical concepts many of which are rooted in philosophy. Even Bertrand Russell was an avid philosopher.
@@mikebrigandi_ you still need an ontological framework and a theory of knowledge, among other things, to construct a scientific theory. And you should probably consider the ethics. The philosophy is necessary used to make the observations, but it is necessary to do just about anything with those observations. And like scientific theories, ontologies, epistomologies, theories of ethics, etc change according to the values of society of perhaps even if they are falsified somehow. So yes, philosophy influences science (as science influences philosophy) and needs to be considered continuously.
Philosophy is what expands the imagination of what could be physically and neurologically possible. Science is there to examine it. The sad thing about that is that the person who proves it always takes the credit over the person who came up with the idea. Even if science proves philosophical theories completely wrong, it was the rules that these philosophical theories established that drove scientists to prove wrong.
Philosophy is not 'dead' in the same way Ancient History isn't 'dead'. It should be respected, however, from its historical perspective. Modern schools of thoughts came from philosophy and religion (psychology, sociology, science, economics, etc). However much of its teachings are obsolete and do not serve a practical purpose save for one to fathom the meaning of their own existence. Let it be seen as such, rather than some useful tool that we can equate with our modern cosmological understanding of the universe we live in.
Exept modern science is ulsess since we are stuck with Einstein theory without Scientific breakthrough Plus there isn't use of physics other than look "smart" well with exeption in design computer
"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 fall 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 scientist, were rendered essentially obsolete." Neil deGrasse Tyson, 'Has Science Made Philosophy Obsolete?'
Yes but not because of physics itself but maths aswell. mathematicians actually came with the word philosophy. And philosophy is no longer needed in this field. Maths is not material and nor is physics.
Without philosophy we'd end up as slaves to financial institute, as mindless passive consumerist ... We'd end up being lead by those that might not have the best intentions for us. We might be lead into wars for eronious reasons but lead to think it's justified.. you could make war seem glorious if attached to fear. You might not notice without philosophy that you are buying into an ideology that benefits the few but not the many and think it's normal... They don't teach philosophy in class and for good reason . . Philosophy teaches you how to think not what to think ... I nevermind what people think only what they know
@@trex116 science and math also known as natural philosophy and of course if you study hard and long enough you may achieve a PhD.(doctor of philosophy) highest university degree you can achieve and we won't mention Pythagoras
Dr pelvic thrust Science and math don’t teach you how to think. They are ways to look at the world and understand what is happening. That is all. Science and math are tools.
pseudo questions that cant be answered and it has been like that since its inception, that is why philosophy is rubbish. its just a bunch of people asking meaningless question that will never have an answer to. it hasnt discovered anything, anyone can ask question
Philosophy is basically meta-logic and logic. science it's just a method. A method where you apply that logic to the real world. Science is just a fucking branch of philosophy. my fucking god. how can't people understand this basic concept.
@@deepstariaenigmatica2601 what is the best way to get closer to the truth? is my method a logical one? does correlation imply causation? working with these questions, then getting your data, and getting to a logical and well sound answer. To then begin again with different answer. you use questions and reasoning to get to a conclusion. I think that as philosophy. then there are the people that only think philosophy is just ethics and morals (also important) but it is not just that. it is much more in my opinion
Philosophers are definitely what you call a scientist but unfortunately, it is too diverse and furthermore complicated especially given how the world simplifies it. Basically in their own opinion, they only respect philosophers who are eager to learn science.
@@zeddpower662 what????? The scientific method is deponds upon philosophical assumptions. Science and philosophy has never parted. Even your comment was a philosophy, a very bad one.
A great analogy to explain the difference between science and philosophy; If there's a teapot with water boiling in it, scientifically you can explain what happens when water boils, but science can't tell you why is there water boiling in the teapot.
@@centralprocessingunit4988 how are they scientific? Science can tell you water boiled because it was heated up, but can it tell you what the purpose behind the boiling of water was?
How can you think without knowledge? Philosophy is the science of thinking! Got logic? Education is greater than Opinions and Beliefs combined. I call it Quantum logic. E>(O+B) =Quantum logic
The Moment you ask a question, you are a Scientist. Every human is a Scientist. But If we Know one Thing Philosophers can do , Its asking alot of questions.
Philosophy includes pretty much everything we think about . Science uses philosophy . Even ethics which is vital for humans is a branch of philosophy . Even when we ask has science replaced philosophy we are using philosophy .
>Have science render philosophy obsolete? For you muppets out there, this questioning itself is philosophy, so no, science have not render philosophy useless.
This makes no sense. The physics of the 20s wouldn't have happened without the influence of philosophers. Heisenberg was influenced by Berkeley and Kant. Bohr and Einstein were influenced by Ernst Mach. Not only were they influenced, but the revolutions in physics were intimately tied to these influences. Neil needs to read up on the history of quantum mechanics and special relativity.
@@astondias810 the problem is in assuming the scientist can always just do another empirical observation and it will explain the previous experiment when in reality this cannot really be done to get to the actual nature of substance or reality it will always come down to the mind comprehending the implications of the empirical data. Scientific method is limited in probing the fundamental nature of reality. He is actually so ignorant of philosophy he is unaware of his own metaphysical assumption that is material representationalism. I ask you, can a scientist ever observe or SEE consciousness?
@@pestislupus The words "science" and "reality" are not interchangeable. Our understanding of reality changes precisely because the of the changes in the scientific paradigms we use to understand this reality. You don't need to be a philosopher of science to get this point, there is an influential body of scholarship in current evolutionary theory which demonstrates that human beings are physically constrained from interfacing with some unmediated reality "out there" (which you seem to be calling science, for some reason).
@@astondias810 I like that summation of consciousness, but I think science and philosophy are 2 sides of a whole, to say "science" is the be all and end all and philosophy is obsolete is a bit near sighted. To be snappy about it, Philosophy asks questions science can answer, science is a tool to whatever philosophy is. Its easy to dismiss philosophy because a lot of it seems to be narcissistic old guys with beards pontificating, yet the tools built with science seem to lend themselves to philosophic output..
The notion of selfish gene geared towards its interest is philosophical or scientific? If scientific then what's the science of being selfish? Does science provides any normative perspectives about being selfish? Do dogs and cats ever engage in any conversations about ideas of selfishness or generosity as such?
I always feel puzzled when people who, like me, value science and who, like me, get a good kick out of any joke referencing the Flying Spaghetti Monster, say that philosophy is useless. Do they seriously think that they’re engaging in a form of science when they use these jokes to undermine religious arguments? To be fair, much of contemporary so-called philosophy really does deserve to be written off as wannabe science (just ask the philosopher Daniel Dennett), but it would be a great mistake to allow this to jaundice us against authentic philosophy.
It’s not that philosophy is useless. I mean, some of it is, but not all of it. The biggest issue is, Philosophy principles just aren’t articulated in a way that is straight forward and easy to understand for most people. The way people speak and learn today is different than how people spoke and learned things over a century ago. It’s like reading the Bible. The language is written in OLD English. So it’s difficult for a person who speaks NEW English to understand. In order to understand it, you damn near have to learn a different language even though it’s written in “English”. People also have different learning styles. For me, I like things to be explained in a very CONCISE manner. The more unnecessary words someone bombards me with, the more MENTAL WORK I have to do to filter out all the unnecessary information they just unloaded on me. I find it annoying and mentally exhausting. Not only that, It creates unnecessary confusion and leaves the door open for misinterpretation. So I end up having to ask more and more questions just to understand the intent or main purpose behind what they said. Had they explained it in an easy to understand manner, I most likely wouldn’t have had to ask any follow up questions. Some people just like making shit in life sound more complicated than it needs to be. People who prefer to have things explained in a more scientific approach just want to get straight to the point.
Einstein thought epistemology and philosophy were valuable tools for science. Einstein made some contributions. I wouldn't even call Dawkins and Tyson scientists.
@@kurtgodel6075 Tyson gets so much stuff wrong. Not only bad math and science but also false history. It's infuriating and demoralizing so many still regard him as credible.
2:13 LoL wait until Historians show up. Wait until the future appear and everyone sees that "This guy playing a chess game could make the best move right now and winned the game on this turn. He could have thought about it from the depths of an armchair, he was able probably to think about it turns before! Yet he didn't win the game and now he is on troubles.. I don't understand that, it seems to be a strange thing... a thing of a noob at thinking outside the box
I think Daniel Dennet put it best with this quote
"There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination."
Excellent quote. Thanks for sharing.
Just like many philosophers are not well versed in the physical sciences, many physical scientists never opened one book to appreciate the value of philosophy in all its complexities.
Your obsessive gloryfication of this useless debate could be successfully explained with both philosophy and science.
To testify the absurdity of a superstition you do not need to read the books that promote that superstition
@@AliReza-cx7wg The worse and most diffused superstition of our age is this blind positivism and unconditional faith in science, which is promoted by any of the modern day prophet-scientists who claim that philosophy is dead, only to start babbling about absolute theories of everything which, by their own nature, will never be able to get any kind of empirical verification.
Such ignorance could be cured, if only they cared to pick up an useless and non-influential essay such as the critique of pure reason, and read it.
@@gabrielevadilonga7025
If science is falsifiable and rectifiable through experimental observations, philosophy is as blur and too general that it is hardly possible to find two philosophers to reach a consensus. Something that is this much ambiguous among even the philosopher's community is good for what need of human?. Philosophy is dead because it couldn't give any clear answer to human being's questions. If in one day all philosophers pass away nothing special will happen to our society but it will be expensive if scientists stop working. Covid19 is not finishing without scientists endeavor
@@AliReza-cx7wg I love the extreme overconfidence of atheists who believe in radical scientism, completely oblivious of how many things they believe that weren't proven, or are unprovable by science.
2:32 man this is 100% on point. I studied the presocratics. Some of the most underappreciated individuals.
Dawkins also making a mere demonstration of thinking he knows by actually being ignorant, exactly what Socrate was explaining at his trial. Pretty funny
What did anaxagoras say about evolution? I don't get it
@@rafaeljc12 Not directly, but the presocratics were some of the first people to attempt to explain the environment scientifically. Anaxagoras posited the theory of everything being a mixture of everything else, but I would argue that Thales theories of an ancestral connection to water resembles evolution a bit more. I believe another presocratic, maybe Anaximenes or Anaximander, posited that humans evolved from fish which evolved from mud (from what I can remember).
@@BlitzOfTheReich thats not evolution that's hogwash. Philosophers don't get us anywhere in modern science, that's why we need space telescopes and particle accelerators. you cant discover Quantum mechanics in an armchair, we need equipment and experimentation
@@mikebrigandi_ where do you think the Scientific method came from? Who do you think advanced mathematics (Leibniz, Descartes, Frege). Hell, even Penrose dabbles a lot in philosophy. The only people who shit on philosophy are scientists who have achieved very little in their lives.
Damn, Dawkings doesn't know his pre-socratics
Add it to the list, eh!
I literally shouted “yes they did!” when I heard him say that…
He’s a clown. Both of them are.
@@kurtgodel6075 if they are clowns then what about us?.... maggots??🤣
What did anaxagoras say about evolution? I don't get it
its funny in the end where he talks about the philosophers that he respects. by his definition there doesnt seem to be a distinction then with a philosopher and a scientist. So what is he arguing about? Also they are engaging in metaphilosophy so theres that.
yup. they are contradictory.
Scientists replaced modern philosophy by saying philosophy is science.
And first religion
Saying that philosophy is dead because some of the metaphysical beliefs in old philosophy are proven to be wrong is quiet the same as saying that science is unreliable because a lot of the old science thought to be facts are now different.
Philosophy varies according to each society and era ... We have to take all human discoveries into account including scientific facts when trying to understand ourselves, morals, societies and beliefs.
In my opinion... During the current circumstances of our world right now like Consumism, Political manipulation, wars, extrimist ideologies and aimlessness among young men... WE NEED PHILOSOPHY MORE THAN EVER.
No need for philosophy which is based on nothing except thought.
Ideas like ‘is reality real’ serves no purpose given it’s an unfalsifiable claim.
Does objective reality exist? Well since we can’t experience reality outside of our minds and we know not how to do so and given the consistency of reality we have no reason to assume an alternate reality exists outside our minds perception
@@DhukuAC
Philosophy is more than just a thought; it is a field of study that explores fundamental questions about the nature of knowledge, existence, reality, morality, and various other aspects of human experience. While philosophy certainly involves thinking and contemplation, it goes beyond mere thoughts or subjective opinions.
It is funny how you said that we don't need philosophy and then proceeded to make a philosophical argument about the nature of reality.
@@thinker3324 again…nonetheless most philosophy is useless especially in this day and age…
@Dhuku1881 unfalsifiable claims are still important in how we understand the world. Unfalsifiable assumptions and presuppositions underly everything we do. One can engage in philosophy to examine those. It is essentially a question of PoV: seeing something in one light emphasises different qualities than viewing from another point of view. Either of these PoV's might be entirely unverifiable, but they can have significant effects on how we view and interact with the world around us.
Important fields in philosophy right now are philosophy of mind and perhaps unsurprisingly environmental ethics (and other environmental topics). Either field can contain ideas that are not verifiable, but those ideas might change the way we think or how we see and thus treat the environment. For example: do we just want to save the environment to prevent ecological desaster that affects us, or do we want to protect the environment because it has intrinsic (ethical) value in itself?
@@gijsbrans2338 modern neo enlightenment philosophy truly is cringe.
And pointless.
"philosopher is a would be scientist without a lab"
He clearly never read a philosophy book. Like, never.
P
He has a masters in philosophy.
He is to philosophy what a featherless chicken is to a human
tell me the name of a modern philosopher who has backed up his/her claims.
samuel ghebreselassie Khun,carnap,Chomsky,Popper,Dewey,Russel and Einstein
Title: *Two Person Talking about things they don't Understand*
Even before Anaxagoras, evolution had been discussed by Anaximander
What did a aximander say about evolution?
@@rafaeljc12 nothing, Anaxagoras did not even think of biological evolution.
Nothing, it is Anaxagoras but the idea is vague yet he discusses some primordial stuff like "nous" and "seeds" that is present in the Universe and developed in a dynamic view of natural history. You can call it evolution but there's no natural selection. Natural selection cannot be synthesized without first formal scientific inquiry
@@mikebrigandi_ Who told you so? Your physics teacher? Or did you learn philosophy from lawrence 'doofus' krauss' "universe from my a.... oh, pardon, nothing" book?
Using philosophy to argue why philosophy was made obsolete by science. Brilliant!
This is the shallowest discussion of the utility of philosophy I’ve ever heard. He doesn’t have the foggiest idea of what the discipline is about.
There was a time philosophy was literally science, actually philosophy goes with everything. Just because science allows you to manipulate your environment. Doesnt mean you have the philosophy to share its value among a society. Philosophy allows you to retell your life lessons, observations, and meanings as life passes by. Important questions tackled everyday, and it doesn't end. Science manipulates its environment to create toys, that's very understandable yet an appropriate challenge. But philosophy has more of a case by case basis. I think it can save humanities sanity in a materialistic world. Just by that fact it organizes important questions.
Yeah without philosophy we would be nowhere. Logic wouldn't exist, scientists would have no way of proving anything.
TheLaughingMan0603 how would I figure it out? It’s kinda hard to trial an error not eating.
True. Even if metaphysics has kinda taken the backseat, other types of philosophy are thriving to this day due to the questions we keep asking over and over again.
@@cr3atur321 but reality is not materialistic as both maths(which is much older than western philosophy, much much older) and physics help to answer these questions. who discovered dark energy? dark matter? pure mathematics? btw maths is more than 4000 years old and western philosophy is 2500 years old.
@@cr3atur321 i can bet ur anus most physicist dont believe in a physical reality like you think they do. That was back in the 18th century but not at the beginning of the 19th century which came huge breakthroughs. Only cause the media portrays them to be materialist does not mean they are
What about the ethics of science? About the concept of truth, and if its possible to achieve it? Anti philosophy scientists are often materialists... Which is a philosophical theory. A heavily ontological one.
those are made up things lol
@@deepstariaenigmatica2601 so is science...
@@batcanal1 what so is science.. Science is not made up it's discovered
@@absurdist5938 I can discover things through a made up one. Its like a photograph. I can discover new landscapes, but I made the camera, the lenses that see that landscape
@@batcanal1 I didn't want to hear the poetry.. I just said it.. Gravity is not a lense.. Sun projecting light is not a picture.. May be u are referring to hypothesis or models.. But calling it made up is nonsense.. We make it to eliminate.. To better truth than now.. Understand it.. Science is discovered..and never compare it to philosophy...philosophy is a tool made by human reason.. It neither shows truth nor it gives knowledge.. It can be based on false premises, valid by not sound arguments.. It need observation, now Science to know what to be accepted ..
The outer body of so called knowledge in philosophy is limited in many ways ..
I think my professor said it best when he met him at a talk once:
"You are a brilliant astrophysicist but terrible at philosophy, leave that to us."
Such are the words of the ignorant
Barring the fact that there have been a vast number of successful philosophers. Those who find status and wealth paramounts within their existence are still looking at the shadows on the wall and telling everyone they are real. If you are unsure of what I mean by that, read some Plato.
Your professor must not have been an astrophysicist if he said that, for Tyson is not a great astrophysicist. He's merely a science popularizer who has a doctorate in astrophysics. He has not published in years.
@@divyebhagwani460 still doesnt mean he is not good at it, he was the head of the planetarium something something lol, You just dont get promoted if you are not good at it.
The_Bellend sure, but that’s more of testament to his science popularizing skills. In my opinion, to be called a great, let alone brilliant, astrophysicist, one needs to make an equivalent contribution to their field. And he hasn’t done that. This is not to speak against popularizers. Compare him with Hawking or Cox, who have actually made significant contributions to their fields.
“I’m disappointed because there’s a lot of brain power there that would have contributed mightily.” That’s one of the most pompous things I’ve heard Tyson say, as if science has some intrinsic value far superior to philosophy.
Tyson has always been an egotist
Philosophy prevents the authorities hold on us through social control.
you wouldn't know bc you're a philosophitard, babbling about your personal convictions, spewing vainglorious deep thoughts
He is obviously referring to a mighty contribution to science and not in general.
@@geraldarmstrong5646especially for a popularizer
Lmao at all the unemployed philosophy majors in the comment section
At least they aren't spending 6 days a week writing a paper on the electromagnetism of napkins in order to get 3 citations only to get debunked 5 weeks later. 99% of science is so unbelievable detached from anyone's life that it's useless. Not to mention how scientist wake up every day and see themselves as some bastions of objective observable reality only to write a 40,000 word paper on quantum field theory.
As if physicists and astronomers were swimming in jobs
@@torresgonzalezdaniel3393 NASA
@@troohhippy5929 A single space agency with limited funding after the Cold War, thats like saying that Oxford will give tons of jobs to philoshopers
@@troohhippy5929 A single space agency with limited funding after the Cold War, thats like saying that Oxford will give tons of jobs to philoshopers
Every single word they have used to claim that philosophy is dead, require philosophical foundations in order to possess any meaning or substance.
It start looking like religion...
That’s my problem with scientism
God is dead, but has been replaced by science.
@@captainstrangiato961 You've clearly never met the living God then
Yetter How do you know your God is true? I can’t exactly prove that God *isn’t real,* but it doesn’t seem like you could convince me if there is a living God and which God that would be. Unless I am being arrogant?
@@Yetter living God? You mean Morgan Freeman?
So much still dependant upon Philosophy. Politics, ethics, epistemology etc.
And deGrasse did point that out, to be fair. Perhaps he could have stated that those disciplines are very important to be working on, not just that "there is plenty for the philosopher to do".
And since espistemology is the philosophical study of human knowledge, science no matter how complex, and actually even more so the most complex it gets, actually all the time falls back into philosophy.
that doesn't make it right. in the Muslim world, everything is dependent upon what some pedophile said in the bronze age. Politics, ethics, and epistemology are a thing because western culture values them not because they have objectively been proven as correct.
You can debate about politics but you can't debate that 2+2 ≠ 4 or that nuclear fission is not real
@@DavidFlores-rg4xu philosophy is parasitic discipline, when a human even pretends or think something it becomes philosophy. "philosophy" is meaningless and dead
So embarrassing to see two figures regularly paraded as heroes of contemporary science showing themselves to be so ignorant of the function and contribution of philosophy.
Not that so much as acknowledging the limits and fallacies of philosophy and smacking down the smug cunts who use it to masturbate to themselves.
@@Lobsterwithinternet Dr Tyson said "armchair philosophy is useless" as if that's all philosophy is. Has he ever read Karl Popper? His work is far from "armchair". Have they read David Deutsch? A quantum physicist that wrote two books on epistemology. The reality is that these guys have no idea what they're talking about.
@@trex116 What? David Deutsch is not an idiot. He pioneered the very first quantum algorithm. Clearly you don't know what you're talking about either.
@@trex116 Right. So the methods the scientists use? And the explanations why they work? Thats not philosophy? Oh thats right, it is.
@@trex116 So is falsificationism science? Nope! What about the idea that scientific theories require experimental tests, is that a scientific theory? Nope! What about induction? No again! Good god, do you know anything?
"Check anaxagorus"
I'm gonna check. Why's he so cool?
It's a stretch to say he thought of "evolution". What the philosopher is doing isn't much different than people who read Nostradamus.
@@TheFortressMaximus That's not true. I studied the presocratics. They genuinely had very very interesting ideas on evolution, but they just weren't the correct ones. They did think that humans had some ancestral connexion to other animals that evolved based on the environment. It just wasn't as specific or rigid as natural selection.
@@BlitzOfTheReich Right, exactly what I said. He had a vague idea that sounds "evolution-y" but clearly is not evolution.
@@TheFortressMaximus again I would disagree. It’s like saying Democritus had no conception of the atom. Of course they aren’t exact but there are parallels.
Science is by far the best way to find out things about the physical world, but what the scientific method does NOT do is tell you what to study, it only tells you how. The way that humans decide which study to do is decided entirely by their thought base and their cultural background, which falls back on their philosophy. Philosophy is the way we decide what goal to settle for.
In other words, physics without philosophy is a (agreeably very powerful) battleship without any captain. The captain cannot do anything without his battleship, but the battleship does not have a purpose without his captain. Either need the other to function, so I really don't think it makes sense to say that one is better than the other. That would be the wrong way of viewing it, in my mind.
People who study philosophy are fuming at the comments made by Niel and Richard 😅
what because they incorrect
2:10 We're just gonna ignore Schopenhauer right here
Or Epicurus.
Who the f wants to talk about some depressed mofo
Philosophy and science are two different things that do different jobs.
Yet science depends heavily on Philosophy...
(This doesnt take any merit away from science, it just goes to show how broad and important philosophy is... )
science depends on philosophical assumptions.
You literally cannot have the scientific experiment without philosophy
"creation ... started out from the minerals and progressed, in an ingenious, gradual manner, to plants and animals. The last stage of minerals is connected with the first stage of plants, such as herbs and seedless plants. The last stage of plants, such as palms and vines, is connected with the first stage of animals, such as snails and shellfish ... the last stage of each group is fully prepared to become the first stage of the next group." Ibn khaldun in al-Muqaddimah year 1377
i am sure he built his thoughts based on works that preceded him
That is not natural selection
@@zeddpower662 that is evolution though. its a start. not all thought starts at the answer. it starts at a journey. and people carry it as far as they can
@@zeddpower662 “the last stage of each group is fully prepared to be the first stage of the next group” sounds like natural selection to me.
@@exitenter2481 evolution in what sense ? evolutionary biology ?
take a note. Socrates was a wise man because he said he knows nothing. You know nothing of philosophy yet you still speak of it as if it were your own studies.
Socrates wouldn't even know how to change a lightbulb
@@sissyphussartre2907 probably becuase there werent any back then
@@sissyphussartre2907 Bruh get rekt.
Awesome.
@@sissyphussartre2907 likewise we would not know how to handle a UFO since I still haven't ridden one! If that is your logic
Being smart doesn't mean you're not an idiot, apparently.
Being an idiot means you're an idiot.
@@gunjchowwiwat8357 Don't you mean "means" 😂😂😂
@@peromiestiloesunico Sure! and i fix it.
Being smart also means having shit counterarguments and insulting people.
@TheLaughingMan0603 Actually, as I understand, etymologically "idiot" comes from a Greek word that meant someone out for their own interests and not considerate of good for other people. In a "financial system" that promotes the accumulation of personal gain as a life goal (sort of like a religion we live in, really), the meaning of the word probably had to change to someone "dumb", or something (dumb by the definition of the people with wealth, obviously).
So, just mentioning it, etymologically one could make an argument that capitalism's "useful idiots" (materialists or "practical people") are the historical definition of the word idiot.
First of all I want to like this video since it brought up a discussion, secondly I am reminded that even the greatest thinkers have some flaws.
"Some" is an understatement
But he’s not a great thinker. He’s a bad sophist at best.
Einstein was a Spinozist. End of debate.
What's that
@doom. Awesome
@@shashankjamdagni4817 Someone who agrees with Spinoza.
someone was something, and someone being something didnt contribute to the progression of human kind, someone being something is obsolete, someone is obsolete, something is not
@@aname4141 I completely agree with this philosophical statement.
Tyson should read Einstein's comments on epistemology.
link pls?
@@prometheus_ads I could be wrong, but I believe this is what they were referring to.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/einstein-philscience/
@@littlecousin5630 well differential calculus isn't really that hard tbh
He also has a degree in Philosophy
@@user-nb3mq3cg8k Are you talking about Tyson? Tyson doesn't have a degree in philosophy.
This whole conversation is metaphilosophy, the philosophy of philosophy. The arrogance and the audacity of the materialists to suggest that science is more valuable than philosophy . How do you determine what is more valuable? Ah right, through philosophy. What is science based on? Ah right, empiricism, which is a branch of epistemology, which is a branch of philosophy. Get of your high horse, you don't even know what your profession is based on.
"philosophy is word play bro" actual mindset of these people
The scientific method is philosophy, a PH.d is literally a doctorate of philosophy. Without philosophy science couldn't exist. Without philosophy scientists cant reasonably deny any people who say that gems heal people. How can these people be so ignorant? Without philosophy science is pointless.
how ?
@@sunkid02 how what?
@@lymmy9609 you said without philosophy science is pointless.......how ?
@@sunkid02 because the basis of science relies on philosophy. The scientific method (which is the foundation of science) is philosophy.
@@lymmy9609 how is it philosophy ?
Title is misleading. The deGrasse Tyson response to "is philosophy dead?" isn't yes. His response was stating that it isn't making contributions in advancement, within the physical world of science. He never said it isn't contributing to anything.
What about epistemology ?
"has science made philosophy obsolete?" good question, now lets have a debate about it and layout our differing opinions about the issues in hopes of coming to an answer. hmm, sounds like we're doing philosophy after all
Well.. By wondering about the topic.. They are all basically "philosophizing". So whoever says philosophy can be ever dead, needs to think again.
I think the way a scientist and a philosopher approaches a topic or question is very different. A scientist tries to understand and explain everything that exists in our world From a physical or mechanical standpoint. This requires keen Observation, asking questions, coming up with different theories and then testing out these different theories until a sufficient explanation is reached based on the results.
That’s not how philosophy works. Philosophy tries to understand how the world works in abstract terms. Reading or studying philosophy material almost feels like listening to a person talk while they’re high. They explain things in the most complicated way and take forever to get to the damn point. In life we should seek to make things simple, not overcomplicate it with confusing wording. Philosophy material is meant to make you think just for the sake of practicing thinking.
Scientists, on the other hand, are not interested in thinking just for the sake of thinking. They PROACTIVELY seek answers and then attempt to explain their results or findings in the most concise manner.
I like the way he uses shitty philosophy to explain philosophy too. Lmao
For those who wants to hire a philosopher has come yo the right place, for some reason they are all stacked up in here.
Right , philosophy is all about asking opinions that can not be disproved or proved
Philosophy can be the beginning of the scientific action that whould result in some concrete conclusion, or in more questions, and then the process repeats and repeats. Or not... it can be only the act of thinking about everything without the will to know the answer.
I will never hold philosophy in anywhere near the same regard as science for the simple reason that philosophy has no methodology in place to test its findings.
Since when Philosophy test it's finding? Philosophy consults to Science since Science emerged from Philosophy. They are no stranger at all. When a Philosopher tests their findings they are also called scientists. Simple as that.
How could they possibly have the answer to this question lol? I mean it’s kinda fun to hear what they have to say, but really it’s a question for a philosopher
I dont like philosophy, I deem it to be as my fellow greek, the poet Kavafy, once said "traitorous", but obsolete? Its quite certain these people dont understand what philosophy is. Philosophy cannot be rendered obsolete. That would be impossible.
Thank you
Philosophy literally adheres to modern Science. How is Philosophy obsolete 😂
Quantum mechanics falls too far from what you can deduce from your armchair for those two to be related? Where does Neil Degrasse Tyson think the mathematics he uses to describe quantum phenomena came from? I just deduced from my armchair that there is an infinite amount of prime numbers and I am more certain of it than I am of the expanding universe.
math is timeless, where something came from is obsolete
I think Tyson's criticism can only be applied to purely rationalist epistemologies. Philosophers since Locke, Berkeley and Hume are in almost complete agreement about the importance of empirical truths not deduced by reasoning.
@@zeddpower662 then tell me WHY math exists and HOW it can be (as in existing), please.
Let's talk about metaphysics - Abigail Thorn made a great analogy: 'If the sciences are about describing a car and all its parts and how they function with each others, metaphysics is about the question 'why are there cars?''.
Philosophy is about studying the ways the human mind is interacting with its surroundings, not on a scientific level but on the basis of thought itself. Yeah, you can explain why and how people are thinking biologically and physically, but that is not the point.
obviously people have cars to travel quicker then walking
@Matthew Sophia its obvious why. where are a million reasons why,.
Thats more like an attempt of making philosophy fit into a materialistic worldview with its main religion being science.
Its as if philosophy or metaphysics needed an aproval from science to exist or justify its existence. Which is absurd.
@@MrMatmulan metaphysics is non-existent, therefore an approval is inconsequential
Based on what limited view?
Wich perfectly describe science
"The philosopher is a would-be scientist without a laboratory" - FFS, this man doesn't even understand what questions philosophy is concerned with. For a smart guy, he really says a lot of very dumb things about the nature of science.
Saying that no philosophers contribute to science except those who have scientific training, and then saying that there is no difference because "they are scientists, not philosophers" is SUCH a copout. Ah, but when scientists with no philosophical training whatsoever, people like Hawking, Krauss, and Tyson, make sweeping unjustified generalizations about the role of philosophy in science, they expect to do so with a free pass. The hypocrisy is inherent.
Apparently Tyson hasn't read Carnap, Putnam, Earman, Malament, Kuhn, Stein, or Butterfield. Especially in the philosophy of physics the boundary between science and philosophy is particularly blurry. But the fact still stands that philosophers tend to focus on, in my opinion, much more fascinating problems than mainstream theoretical physicists.
Philosophy will never be science in the way that science is. You can't peer review an opinion in the way that you can mathematics. Opinions change, Gravity will always hold you down.
That’s an assumption you make. You don’t know that the future will be like the past through the scientific method. Lol
@@itoldyouso6622 neither can you know the future with philosophy.
Thanks! I'm looking for opinions on the following, quite unusual statement+question pair:
(T1) "The number of questions one can ask about the world is astronomical. How can {a piece of software} contain all those questions?"
Sounds like what materialists would say
Of course not.Philosophy cannot be made redundant because it tells us about the limits of our understanding.That's why scientists nowdays hate philosophy.Philosophy especially epistemology tells us about where the limits of understanding lay and we may not like it
A good point I think. I think one general trend we see is almost a modern conflation of Philosophy and what we term the Natural Sciences, even those that are attempting to demonstrate the worth of Philosophy are trying to do so on the back foot and on the presumption that Philosophy is somehow subordinate or lesser than the Natural Sciences, and in trying to measure it up in this way it ultimately fails. I think to conflate Philosophy with a particular practice such as the Natural Sciences and subjugate it within a particular sphere of representation of the world, is in fact not to do Philosophy. Philosophy must in some manner, consciously stand outside of all spheres of representation, lest it becomes entangled, in order that it can see clearly. Scientists, as human beings, "desire to know" as Aristotle put it, just as much as the next person, and those not well versed and trained in the discipline and art of Thinking, may well not realise or be aware to what extent they are making incredible assumptions. For example, to just engage in "mathematics" and to presume it as self-evident truth in regards to the Nature of reality, is a presupposition. Aristotle left the Academy because of certain Pythagoreans and Neo-Platonists asserting number as the fundamental Arche, or fundamental reality, which of course is not evidenced anywhere other than our own self-positing.
"Science is the only way to the Truth"
Reply "Did Science tell you that?"
The correct answer to this video title is Absolutely Yes.
The love of truth and wisdom will always be, and it is seperate from any system or science ..no authority encroaches on philosophy's existence , nor can it be controlled.. its an individual choice.
you mean incessant pondering and baseless speculating, reasoning to defeat the purpose of reasoning?
As long there is life, there will be philosophy.
I think bacterias don't do philosophy....
@@kelvyndidaskalos547 What an undervalued answer
@@kelvyndidaskalos547 they don't have consciousness just like u
All any one need reference if they want to show that Tyson is being a bit flippant and speaking past his breadth of knowledge is The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn
Agreed with Tyson
The whole field of 'logic' itself is part of philosophy. Mathematics and all the natural sciences are happy to use 'logic' in their systems, how couldn't they. But strip 'logic' from all context and voila, you aren't doing science anymore but you are doing philosophy. I don't think these men are ignorant, but they clearly don't see a use in going one level deeper in their understanding or reality.
logic is part of mathematics.
not philosophy.
@@centralprocessingunit4988 wrong 😊 quote wikipedia: Philosophy of logic is the area of philosophy devoted to examining the scope and nature of logic.
@@enricodemeo
logic is a mathematical field.
@@centralprocessingunit4988 correct me if I'm wrong, but logic was born as a science (from Aristotle), and was considered an auxilliary science along with math up untill August Comte's positivism
No mathematical field use logic but logic came from philosophy
I wonder if Tyson has revised his views on philosophy after this. Did people take him up on his offer and correct his misunderstanding?
he is still correct, we dont use philosophy in science anymore, its literally a waste of time
@@mikebrigandi_ Tell me you don't know what philosophy is without telling me
@@TheLaughingOut tell me you're a braindead philosophy bro without telling me. Science no longer relies on intuition, it depends on empirical data about reality, not imagination
@@mikebrigandi_ that's a yikes
@@mikebrigandi_ cool how do you write your scientific theories? What do you base your knowledge of them on? How do you argue for them in your papers?
They both have a point but at the same time, physics which is based on mathematical equations, is ultimately based on philosophy of logic because it is dependent on mathematics, AND, all scientific knowledge is ultimately based on epistemological foundations of what how knowledge can be derived and what constitutes “knowing” something.
Science may have a philosophical foundation, but philosophy is extremely limited in what it can do. that's why in modern science we dont use philosophy, we use space telescopes and particle accelerators to progress forward Philosophy is no longer needed in scientific advancement
@@mikebrigandi_ Again, philosophy and mathematics are the base of physics. Without mathematical theories to go on (brought by certain philosophical principles), you wouldn't have those things.
@@BlitzOfTheReich of course it may be a footing for science, but not the driving factor for discoveries.
@@mikebrigandi_ again, I think you are misunderstanding what it actually is. I will give an example with Godel's incompleteness theorem. Godel was a logician who along with Frege was a prominent philosopher of mathematics. Even Einstein admired him. His theorem damaged mathematical formalism, which has implications for AI as it set that we could not prove everything in mathematics. As I am not a mathematician, that is a rudimentary understanding of it all. Yes, physicists are important, but the experimental physics that you ramble on about would not exist without theoretical concepts many of which are rooted in philosophy. Even Bertrand Russell was an avid philosopher.
@@mikebrigandi_ you still need an ontological framework and a theory of knowledge, among other things, to construct a scientific theory. And you should probably consider the ethics. The philosophy is necessary used to make the observations, but it is necessary to do just about anything with those observations. And like scientific theories, ontologies, epistomologies, theories of ethics, etc change according to the values of society of perhaps even if they are falsified somehow. So yes, philosophy influences science (as science influences philosophy) and needs to be considered continuously.
Philosophy is what expands the imagination of what could be physically and neurologically possible. Science is there to examine it. The sad thing about that is that the person who proves it always takes the credit over the person who came up with the idea. Even if science proves philosophical theories completely wrong, it was the rules that these philosophical theories established that drove scientists to prove wrong.
FQXI conferences devoted to answering questions pertaining to quantum mechanics are filled with physicists AND philosophers of physics
Philosophy is not 'dead' in the same way Ancient History isn't 'dead'. It should be respected, however, from its historical perspective. Modern schools of thoughts came from philosophy and religion (psychology, sociology, science, economics, etc). However much of its teachings are obsolete and do not serve a practical purpose save for one to fathom the meaning of their own existence. Let it be seen as such, rather than some useful tool that we can equate with our modern cosmological understanding of the universe we live in.
Exept modern science is ulsess since we are stuck with Einstein theory without
Scientific breakthrough
Plus there isn't use of physics other than look "smart" well with exeption in design computer
Being knowledgeable and intelligent does not make you wise. One must humble and study thyself first to become wise.
"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 fall 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 scientist, were rendered essentially obsolete." Neil deGrasse Tyson, 'Has Science Made Philosophy Obsolete?'
Yes but not because of physics itself but maths aswell. mathematicians actually came with the word philosophy. And philosophy is no longer needed in this field. Maths is not material and nor is physics.
@@doni654321 Mathematicians routinely engage in philosophy
Jesus Christ, I really want to believe that these guys never opened up a philosophy book, because if they did, it's pretty embarrassing lol
*cringe* thanks for posting
Without philosophy we'd end up as slaves to financial institute, as mindless passive consumerist ... We'd end up being lead by those that might not have the best intentions for us. We might be lead into wars for eronious reasons but lead to think it's justified.. you could make war seem glorious if attached to fear. You might not notice without philosophy that you are buying into an ideology that benefits the few but not the many and think it's normal... They don't teach philosophy in class and for good reason . . Philosophy teaches you how to think not what to think ...
I nevermind what people think only what they know
Beautiful!
@@trex116 science and math also known as natural philosophy and of course if you study hard and long enough you may achieve a PhD.(doctor of philosophy) highest university degree you can achieve and we won't mention Pythagoras
Dr pelvic thrust
Science and math don’t teach you how to think. They are ways to look at the world and understand what is happening. That is all. Science and math are tools.
No, people will do that naturally regardless if philosophy exists or not.
Bradley Perry Wrong. Science teaches you how to think about the world.
Philosophy have questions, not answers. Physics shows the part but not the whole.
pseudo questions that cant be answered and it has been like that since its inception, that is why philosophy is rubbish. its just a bunch of people asking meaningless question that will never have an answer to.
it hasnt discovered anything, anyone can ask question
Philosophy is basically meta-logic and logic. science it's just a method. A method where you apply that logic to the real world. Science is just a fucking branch of philosophy. my fucking god. how can't people understand this basic concept.
All science is gay son of philosophy
@@rukakoaye5368 what questions has philosophy answered?
@@deepstariaenigmatica2601 what is the best way to get closer to the truth? is my method a logical one? does correlation imply causation? working with these questions, then getting your data, and getting to a logical and well sound answer. To then begin again with different answer.
you use questions and reasoning to get to a conclusion. I think that as philosophy. then there are the people that only think philosophy is just ethics and morals (also important) but it is not just that. it is much more in my opinion
Philosophy is the greatest pursuit and science mankind will ever have. It spurs all else.
Philosophers are definitely what you call a scientist but unfortunately, it is too diverse and furthermore complicated especially given how the world simplifies it. Basically in their own opinion, they only respect philosophers who are eager to learn science.
Philosophy is dead, and will merge with biochemistry and physics in the coming years.
Philosophy is shit.
@@zeddpower662 what?????
The scientific method is deponds upon philosophical assumptions. Science and philosophy has never parted.
Even your comment was a philosophy, a very bad one.
A great analogy to explain the difference between science and philosophy; If there's a teapot with water boiling in it, scientifically you can explain what happens when water boils, but science can't tell you why is there water boiling in the teapot.
both of those questions are scientific.
@@centralprocessingunit4988 how are they scientific? Science can tell you water boiled because it was heated up, but can it tell you what the purpose behind the boiling of water was?
@@silvo9460
what is that supposed to mean?
if its an acceptable question about reality, then science can solve it.
@@silvo9460 it has no purpose. it just acts through physics
@@centralprocessingunit4988 answering WHY is not in the domain of science.
Spoiler: no
How can you think without knowledge?
Philosophy is the science of thinking!
Got logic?
Education is greater than Opinions and Beliefs combined.
I call it Quantum logic.
E>(O+B) =Quantum logic
The Moment you ask a question, you are a Scientist. Every human is a Scientist. But If we Know one Thing Philosophers can do , Its asking alot of questions.
Philosophy includes pretty much everything we think about . Science uses philosophy . Even ethics which is vital for humans is a branch of philosophy . Even when we ask has science replaced philosophy we are using philosophy .
>Have science render philosophy obsolete?
For you muppets out there, this questioning itself is philosophy, so no, science have not render philosophy useless.
@Marcelo Ojeda It's called a self-defeating proposition.
Einstein advocated for philosophy of science.
He did
"Check Anaxagoras!". Just nailed it and showed dawkie's total ignorance.
neil nailed it ;-)
Dawkins dodged the question.
This makes no sense. The physics of the 20s wouldn't have happened without the influence of philosophers. Heisenberg was influenced by Berkeley and Kant. Bohr and Einstein were influenced by Ernst Mach. Not only were they influenced, but the revolutions in physics were intimately tied to these influences.
Neil needs to read up on the history of quantum mechanics and special relativity.
@@astondias810 the problem is in assuming the scientist can always just do another empirical observation and it will explain the previous experiment when in reality this cannot really be done to get to the actual nature of substance or reality it will always come down to the mind comprehending the implications of the empirical data. Scientific method is limited in probing the fundamental nature of reality. He is actually so ignorant of philosophy he is unaware of his own metaphysical assumption that is material representationalism.
I ask you, can a scientist ever observe or SEE consciousness?
@@astondias810 "Science stays the same". Yikes.
@@thomsonchakramakkil4329 science doesn’t change. Our understanding of it does, lol
@@pestislupus The words "science" and "reality" are not interchangeable. Our understanding of reality changes precisely because the of the changes in the scientific paradigms we use to understand this reality. You don't need to be a philosopher of science to get this point, there is an influential body of scholarship in current evolutionary theory which demonstrates that human beings are physically constrained from interfacing with some unmediated reality "out there" (which you seem to be calling science, for some reason).
@@astondias810 I like that summation of consciousness, but I think science and philosophy are 2 sides of a whole, to say "science" is the be all and end all and philosophy is obsolete is a bit near sighted. To be snappy about it, Philosophy asks questions science can answer, science is a tool to whatever philosophy is. Its easy to dismiss philosophy because a lot of it seems to be narcissistic old guys with beards pontificating, yet the tools built with science seem to lend themselves to philosophic output..
IQ without EQ can be disastrous.
Diderot thought of evolution about a century before Darwin. Dawkins doesn't know what he is talking about.
The notion of selfish gene geared towards its interest is philosophical or scientific? If scientific then what's the science of being selfish? Does science provides any normative perspectives about being selfish? Do dogs and cats ever engage in any conversations about ideas of selfishness or generosity as such?
Why are people bitching? What he said is ABSOLUTELY true, and doesn't put down philosophy as a whole. Are philosophers so weak and easily offended?
Yes, they are.
@gotajerb "why are people bitching", "Are philosophers so weak and easily offended?" I am not a philosopher.
If they majored in something like philosophy then yeah, they are pretty weak and easily offended
I always feel puzzled when people who, like me, value science and who, like me, get a good kick out of any joke referencing the Flying Spaghetti Monster, say that philosophy is useless. Do they seriously think that they’re engaging in a form of science when they use these jokes to undermine religious arguments? To be fair, much of contemporary so-called philosophy really does deserve to be written off as wannabe science (just ask the philosopher Daniel Dennett), but it would be a great mistake to allow this to jaundice us against authentic philosophy.
It’s not that philosophy is useless. I mean, some of it is, but not all of it. The biggest issue is, Philosophy principles just aren’t articulated in a way that is straight forward and easy to understand for most people. The way people speak and learn today is different than how people spoke and learned things over a century ago. It’s like reading the Bible. The language is written in OLD English. So it’s difficult for a person who speaks NEW English to understand. In order to understand it, you damn near have to learn a different language even though it’s written in “English”.
People also have different learning styles. For me, I like things to be explained in a very CONCISE manner. The more unnecessary words someone bombards me with, the more MENTAL WORK I have to do to filter out all the unnecessary information they just unloaded on me. I find it annoying and mentally exhausting. Not only that, It creates unnecessary confusion and leaves the door open for misinterpretation. So I end up having to ask more and more questions just to understand the intent or main purpose behind what they said. Had they explained it in an easy to understand manner, I most likely wouldn’t have had to ask any follow up questions. Some people just like making shit in life sound more complicated than it needs to be.
People who prefer to have things explained in a more scientific approach just want to get straight to the point.
Poorly articulated
lol the dislikes
Science is just mathematics and philosophy….
Dawkins being wrong and uninformed about philosophy, what's new?
A.G.I Will be man's last invention
So much ignorance even in two brilliant minds. Humanity.
the role philosophy plays is as a gate guard and lookout for logical inconsistencies
Einstein thought epistemology and philosophy were valuable tools for science. Einstein made some contributions. I wouldn't even call Dawkins and Tyson scientists.
They are televised pseudo scientists pandering pop-science and scientism for the masses.
@@kurtgodel6075 Tyson gets so much stuff wrong. Not only bad math and science but also false history. It's infuriating and demoralizing so many still regard him as credible.
Cope harder
@@SergyMilitaryRankings Your emperor has no clothes 🤣
Good thing it isn't up to you, random internet guy.
"muh scientism"
jesus christ this is how these people think like
Hoy! Philosophy is the mother of all sciences
It is
2:13 LoL wait until Historians show up.
Wait until the future appear and everyone sees that "This guy playing a chess game could make the best move right now and winned the game on this turn. He could have thought about it from the depths of an armchair, he was able probably to think about it turns before! Yet he didn't win the game and now he is on troubles.. I don't understand that, it seems to be a strange thing... a thing of a noob at thinking outside the box
What is philosophy
like dawkins but he s very wrong about this.many many philosophers thought about this.anaximenes ,denis diderot or holbach .