Why Neil DeGrasse Tyson Should Stick To Science

[JimL]

This thread is so full of irony.

And the point that pixie, jiml and tassman are attempting to use philosophy to prove that only science can prove anything is true is completely lost on them.

Explain how philosophy has proven anything about the nature of the world Sparko.

[Cornell]

I don't see a question in the quote, do you? Btw Cornell, and its nice to meet you, but science is just the opposite of, "just winging it and hoping for the best." You seem to be suggesting that your brain is useless. So what do you use to discover truth?

Whoa whoa, don't try and put the burden on me as you didn't answer anything. What exactly is the secret ingredient that advises us 'You're right!!!!'

Secondly, how does 'just winging it and hoping for the best' correlate to 'my brain is useless'???? I don't see how your reasoning follows, so I must press this further.

My original question immediately goes into more of a matter of pragmatic means vs. a correspondence means with respect to finding truth.

In regards to what question he was asking, let's look at what he said

"You were the one who made that claim that science can PROVE the truth. But if it is subject to revision in the future, then it is not proof of anything. It could be a close approximation of the truth, or it could be pretty far off the mark. And there is no real way to know that."

He is asking you to validate the claim onto why one should ignore what is refereed to as 'The Pessimistic Induction' and I think he is right, and I believe it is a good argument for scientific anti-realism. This is simply because we never know when the buck stops here, with respect to KNOWING when we have an absolute fact of scientific knowledge that ends our search.

Karl Popper goes over this when he says "... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. What we usually call ‘scientific knowledge’ is, as a rule, not knowledge in this sense, but rather information regarding the various competing hypotheses and they in which they stood up to various tests; it is, using the language of Plato and Aristotle, information concerning the latest, and the best tested, scientific opinion. This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."

- Sir Karl Popper, ‘The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 1: The Spell of Plato’ pg 229


Now to answer what I use to discover truth, it's a combination of reason and experience, as I'm a moderate rationalist. So when I see circles and squares, it's clear and distinct to me that it's impossible for a circle square to exist. As far as science goes, I have no idea when I reach the endzone and come out saying 'this is how it REALLY is' in the sense of an absolute truth that corresponds to reality.

[JimL]

Whoa whoa, don't try and put the burden on me as you didn't answer anything. What exactly is the secret ingredient that advises us 'You're right!!!!'

Secondly, how does 'just winging it and hoping for the best' correlate to 'my brain is useless'???? I don't see how your reasoning follows, so I must press this further.

My original question immediately goes into more of a matter of pragmatic means vs. a correspondence means with respect to finding truth.

In regards to what question he was asking, let's look at what he said

"You were the one who made that claim that science can PROVE the truth. But if it is subject to revision in the future, then it is not proof of anything. It could be a close approximation of the truth, or it could be pretty far off the mark. And there is no real way to know that."

He is asking you to validate the claim onto why one should ignore what is refereed to as 'The Pessimistic Induction' and I think he is right, and I believe it is a good argument for scientific anti-realism. This is simply because we never know when the buck stops here, with respect to KNOWING when we have an absolute fact of scientific knowledge that ends our search.

Karl Popper goes over this when he says "... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. What we usually call ‘scientific knowledge’ is, as a rule, not knowledge in this sense, but rather information regarding the various competing hypotheses and they in which they stood up to various tests; it is, using the language of Plato and Aristotle, information concerning the latest, and the best tested, scientific opinion. This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."

- Sir Karl Popper, ‘The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 1: The Spell of Plato’ pg 229


Now to answer what I use to discover truth, it's a combination of reason and experience, as I'm a moderate rationalist. So when I see circles and squares, it's clear and distinct to me that it's impossible for a circle square to exist. As far as science goes, I have no idea when I reach the endzone and come out saying 'this is how it REALLY is' in the sense of an absolute truth that corresponds to reality.

So, is it a proven fact that the earth is round an revolves around the sun and that the moon revolves around the earth? Would you say that these were proven by science, or are you not quite sure about that?

[Apologiaphoenix]

[Cornell]

So, is it a proven fact that the earth is round an revolves around the sun and that the moon revolves around the earth? Would you say that these were proven by science, or are you not quite sure about that?

If you mean fact as in absolute certainty then no, this has not been proven, simply because we as humans don't know if 100,000 years down the road new evidence will show us something otherwise.

Once again, even Einstein weighs in

"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven."

- Albert Einstein, "Science and Religion" in The Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion”


So science doesn't even prove anything, it just goes with 'what works'

proof is for mathematics and logical deduction, science doesn't deal with 'proof'


Secondly even with current understandings of science, science shows that the Earth isn't even round (or at least it isn't perfectly round) as it's a sphere, if one wants to get technical it's an oblate spheroid.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-is-not-round/

Lastly I don't need science to tell me that no square circles exists, I can know this by knowing what the definitions mean.

philosophy matters

[Cornell]

Yes, and I'm still waiting for science to tell me what my favorite color is.....Can any of those who hold to scientism fill me in here?

[JimL]

If you mean fact as in absolute certainty then no, this has not been proven, simply because we as humans don't know if 100,000 years down the road new evidence will show us something otherwise.

Who said anything about 100,000 yrs down the road? Its an absolute certain scientifically proven fact right now is it not?

[Tassman]

Oh really! Please explain how, in your view, philosophy is capable of generating new factual truths about nature. An infantile emoticon is not an answer.

without philosophy you would not be able to draw any conclusions or inferences from your observational data in the first place.

I've already made that point. Yes, philosophy is a very useful tool in this regard and science already incorporates it in its toolbox, But philosophy is based upon logical reasoning, not empirical methodology and is thereby restricted to ensuring logical consistency, guarding against errors of inference and redefining and reformulating the existing factual knowledge of the day; it is unable to generate new factual knowledge of its own. For this we depend upon science.

What I find completely ironic is that you are using philosophy to argue against philosophy. I see absolutely no observational or empirical data presented by you that this is the case. Please provide some or admit you are wrong.

I'm not "arguing against philosophy". It's very useful. Noting its limitations is not arguing against it. And language is not the same thing as philosophy; you appear to equate the two.

My goodness, between you and JimL, I think a squirrel has more reasoning skills. The statement was not about if JimL was human or not. It was about whether something can be one thing and not that thing at the same time. It can't.

You could replace JimL and Human with anything you want and it would still be true.

If Tassman is an idiot, then he is not a non-idiot
If a piece of wood is blue, then it is not non-blue
If your dog has teeth, then your dog doesn't have no teeth.

Get it? It is a true statement. "If something is A, it cannot be non-A at the same time, in the same manner." <---- please prove me wrong if you disagree. And don't use philosophy or logic, provide scientific evidence.

Indeed! But you miss the point that you are not establishing any new facts or new truths as such - merely engaging in an exercise in logical consistency, i.e. a deductive argument based upon a given premise. Important as far as it goes but no big deal! It is science that establishes the facts upon which to build a logical premise in the first place. Logic on its own cannot.

This thread is so full of irony.

And the point that pixie, jiml and tassman are attempting to use philosophy to prove that only science can prove anything is true is completely lost on them.

You are attempting to claim that ALL communication with words is philosophy. For you “the cat sat on the mat” is a philosophical statement right? Interesting! So how do you differentiate “language” from “philosophy”?

[Sparko]

For all intents and purposes, science proves many things to be true. Unless the world is a simulation of some sort, which was Sparko's argument, then science has proven many of the laws that govern it. Neither philosophy or logic has ever done that.

You just keep repeating the same thing despite having been shown to be wrong on all counts. Science can't PROVE anything. Philosophy and logic (math) can.

idjut.

[Sparko]

Explain how philosophy has proven anything about the nature of the world Sparko.

I like how you are trying to sneak in "nature" all of a sudden.

Move those goal posts!

AP has already shown you the answer to that.

Again, you simply repeat yourself when you have already been shown to be wrong. Do you think that somehow everyone will just forget the previous posts and say "oh wow. JimL is right!"?

Reading your arguments, which are philisophical in nature show that your ignorance has no bounds. You prove that every time you post, claiming that only science can prove anything true, while trying to convince people of the truth of that claim using philosophy instead of science. That tells us about your nature. You are part of this world. Therefore you yourself, have used philosophy to prove something about this world.

Congratulations!

[robertb]

Oh really! Please explain how, in your view, philosophy is capable of generating new factual truths about nature. An infantile emoticon is not an answer.



I've already made that point. Yes, philosophy is a very useful tool in this regard and science already incorporates it in its toolbox, But philosophy is based upon logical reasoning, not empirical methodology and is thereby restricted to ensuring logical consistency, guarding against errors of inference and redefining and reformulating the existing factual knowledge of the day; it is unable to generate new factual knowledge of its own. For this we depend upon science.



I'm not "arguing against philosophy". It's very useful. Noting its limitations is not arguing against it. And language is not the same thing as philosophy; you appear to equate the two.



Indeed! But you miss the point that you are not establishing any new facts or new truths as such - merely engaging in an exercise in logical consistency, i.e. a deductive argument based upon a given premise. Important as far as it goes but no big deal! It is science that establishes the facts upon which to build a logical premise in the first place. Logic on its own cannot.


You are attempting to claim that ALL communication with words is philosophy. For you “the cat sat on the mat” is a philosophical statement right? Interesting! So how do you differentiate “language” from “philosophy”?

How about all philosophy is communicating with words. Sometimes I think that language must be necessarily prior to philosophy.

[JimL]

You just keep repeating the same thing despite having been shown to be wrong on all counts. Science can't PROVE anything. Philosophy and logic (math) can.

idjut.

You should try harder to not be so arrogant Sparko, it makes you look the fool calling others idiots particularly when you make such ignorant statements such as: "Science can't prove anything, but philosophy and logic can."
Science has proven many hypothesis to be facts, and i will name them if you like. So, please name one hypothesis that philosophy has proven to be a fact.

[Apologiaphoenix]

You should try harder to not be so arrogant Sparko, it makes you look the fool calling others idiots particularly when you make such ignorant statements such as: "Science can't prove anything, but philosophy and logic can."
Science has proven many hypothesis to be facts, and i will name them if you like. So, please name one hypothesis that philosophy has proven to be a fact.

square circles cannot exist.

[JimL]

square circles cannot exist.

You are quite the philosopher AP. I'm not sure that even Aristotle himself could have thought that proof through.

[Apologiaphoenix]

You are quite the philosopher AP. I'm not sure that even Aristotle himself could have thought that proof through.

Yet that kind of proof is absolutely essential. Contradictions can't be true. Science doesn't tell you that. Philosophy does. Your mind can really access reality. Science doesn't tell you that. Philosophy does.