Neil deGrasse Tyson is a guy who loves to pontificate on topics outside of his field of expertise. And he comes packaged with a preponderance of logical fallacies to make his pointless points. Sadly, his brand of arrogance is not uncommon among intelligent and successful people. The altitude from the pedestal begins to reduce the amount of oxygen available to the brain.
Tyson speaks with authority, but he seems unable to move out of his limited worldview to entertain possibilities that he has not thought of himself. That's hubris. I used to like the guy when he spoke on issues having to do with astrophysics, but then he became an expert on all other sorts of things.
From your article: Tyson: “And so the scientist knows when the question, “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” is a pointless delay in our progress…” The reason why a scientist knows this is because the scientist is unable to think freely. He knows what he knows and there is no room for anything other than what he knows.
And then he says, “…All of a sudden it devolves into a discussion of the definition of words. And I’d rather keep the conversation about ideas…” It’s apparently difficult for Tyson to understand that words ARE ideas. Words are metaphors (ideas) for things that are not words. I think he doesn’t like philosophy because it’s not what he does. It’s a narcissistic approach.
I am not a philosopher by any means, but it seems utterly important that ideas are batted around and words are clearly defined, even if it causes a delay in getting to the point. This is because we are animals who are supposed to think deeply and consider the angles and repercussions of our words, ideas, and deeds. When we don’t, we can see what occurs, even at the hands of brilliant scientists, including the guys who created The Bomb, weapons of mass destruction, Zyklon B, oil refineries, modern farming methods that destroyed the earth, and cheese in a can.
Scientists do not tend to think holistically in favor of reductionist thinking. Look what happened to theoretical physicist David Bohm for figuring out that there is an “implicate order” to life — he was derided and marginalized by his contemporaries. Nicola Tesla is another example.
Along with other great stuff in your article is the idea that philosophy will never gain mass appeal. Of course it won’t. How could it? The masses are made up of people who are deluded, distracted, uncaring, greedy, and drowning in group think. They generally surrender thinking to the loudest, cleverest, most aggressive, and most manipulative “leaders” society has to offer. This is why we continue to suffer with so many problems that we can’t seem to correct. Most people, it seems, don’t want to do the studying and thinking; they just want to cheat off the smart guy, even if the smart guy is an arrogant reductionist scientist.
