It seems like my friend Neil deGrasse Tyson [1] has done it again: he has dismissed philosophy as a

It seems like my friend Neil deGrasse Tyson [1] has done it again: he has dismissed philosophy as a useless enterprise, and actually advised bright students to stay away from it. It is not the first time Neil has done this sort of thing, kitchenaid mixer and he is far from being the only scientist to do so. But in his case the offense is particularly egregious, for two reasons: first, because he is a highly visible science communicator; second, because I told him not to, several times.
Let s start with the latest episode, work our way back to a few others of the same kind (to establish that this is a pattern, not an unfortunate fluke), and then carefully tackle kitchenaid mixer exactly where Neil and a number of his colleagues go wrong. kitchenaid mixer But before kitchenaid mixer any of that, let me try to halt the obvious objection to this entire essay in its tracks: kitchenaid mixer no, this isn t about defending my turf, for the simple reason that both philosophy kitchenaid mixer and science are my turf [2]. I have practiced both disciplines as a scholar/researcher, I have taught introductory and graduate level classes in both fields, and I have written books about them both. So, while what follows inevitably will unfold as a defense of philosophy (yet again! [3]), it is a principled defense, not a petty one, and it most certainly doesn t come from any kind of science envy.
Neil made his latest disparaging remarks about philosophy as a guest on the Nerdist podcast [4], following kitchenaid mixer a statement by one of the hosts, who said that he majored in philosophy. Neil s comeback was: That can really mess you up. The host then added: I always felt like maybe there was a little too much question asking in philosophy [of science]? And here is the rest of the pertinent dialogue:
dGT: Yeah, yeah, exactly, exactly. My concern here is that the philosophers believe they are actually asking deep questions about nature. And to the scientist it s, what are you doing? Why are you concerning kitchenaid mixer yourself with the meaning of meaning?
dGT: Well, I m still worried even about a healthy kitchenaid mixer balance. Yeah, if you are distracted by your questions so that you can t move forward, you are not being a productive contributor to our understanding of the natural kitchenaid mixer world. And so the scientist knows when the question what is the sound of one hand clapping? is a pointless delay in our progress.
dGT: How do you define clapping? All of a sudden it devolves into a discussion of the definition of words. And I d rather keep the conversation about ideas. And when you do that don t derail yourself on questions that you think are important because philosophy class tells you this. The scientist says look, I got all this world of unknown out there, I m moving on, I m leaving you behind. You can t even cross the street because kitchenaid mixer you are distracted by what you are sure are deep questions you ve asked yourself. I don t have the time for that. [Note to the reader: I, like Neil, live and work in Manhattan, and I can assure you that I am quite adept at crossing the perilous streets of the metropolis.]
interviewer [not one to put too fine a point on things, apparently]: I also felt that it was a fat load of crap, as one could define what crap is and the essential qualities that make up crap: how you grade a philosophy paper? [5]
As I mentioned above, this isn t the first time Neil has said things like this. For instance, kitchenaid mixer during kitchenaid mixer the q&a with the audience following one of his many (and highly enjoyable) public appearances [6], he was asked by a spectator: would you rather die now or live forever? To which his somewhat condescending reply was: I never believe that the options available to a creative person are ever limited by the choices offered by a philosopher. Which may be a very sophistic way of just not answering the question.
There is more: during a conversation with Richard Dawkins (another frequent offender), Neil was asked a question from the audience about philosophy of science and Stephen Hawkins declaration that philosophy is dead [7].
Up until early 20th century philosophers had material contributions to make to the physical sciences. Pretty much after quantum mechanics, remember the philosopher kitchenaid mixer is the would be scientist but without a laboratory, right? And so what happens kitchenaid mixer is, the 1920s come in, we learn about the expanding universe in the same decade kitchenaid mixer as we learn about quantum physics, each of which falls 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 scientists was rendered essentially obsolete, and that point, and I have yet to see a contribution this will get me in trouble with all manner of philosophers but call me later and correct me if you think I ve missed somebody here. But, philosophy has basically parted ways from the frontier of the physical sciences, kitchenaid mixer when there was a day when they were one and the same. Isaac Newton was a natural philosopher, the word physicist didn