Why Neil DeGrasse Tyson Should Stick To Science

[Tassman]

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

Certainly! “Language” is necessary for all communication, but that doesn't necessarily make it philosophy.

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

Snigger...

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.

Quite right! Philosophy, logic and mathematics are “absolutely essential” tools of science, but they are unable to generate new factual knowledge of their own. For this we need science.

[JimL]

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.

Philosophy is just a way of thinking AP, of using logic to come to well reasoned conlusions, but it doesn't prove those conclusions. Square circles cannot exist because sqaures are not circles. Thats logic, not philosophy. Such is the logic which philosophy uses to arrive at reasoned conclusions, but it doesn't discover the logic itself, it uses it.

[Sparko]

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.

You can't be human and non-human at the same time.

If something is false, it cannot be true.

Right angles are 90 degrees. The angle of B is 34 degrees. B is not a right angle.

Now it's your turn. Show me a scientific fact that is absolutely true and can never change with later and better knowledge. And prove why it cannot change. And don't use philosophy or logic to make your argument.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Philosophy is just a way of thinking AP, of using logic to come to well reasoned conlusions, but it doesn't prove those conclusions. Square circles cannot exist because sqaures are not circles. Thats logic, not philosophy. Such is the logic which philosophy uses to arrive at reasoned conclusions, but it doesn't discover the logic itself, it uses it.

Actually, it is philosophy. Go read some Aristotle and find that out.

[JimL]

You can't be human and non-human at the same time.

If something is false, it cannot be true.

Right angles are 90 degrees. The angle of B is 34 degrees. B is not a right angle.

Thats semantics Sparko, not philosophy. You know that something is either false or true but can't be both because you understand what the terms true and false mean not because you proved it through logic.

Now it's your turn. Show me a scientific fact that is absolutely true and can never change with later and better knowledge. And prove why it cannot change. And don't use philosophy or logic to make your argument.

Where do you get the notion that scientifically proven facts cannot change? But here are some facts, not semantics, proven by empirical science: Under standard conditions water freezes at zero degrees celsius and evaporates at 100 degrees celsius. The earth is spherical, not flat, and revolves around the sun. The moon revolves around the earth. Space is not nothing, as it warps due to the massive objects within it. When you look up at the night sky you are seeing the objects there as they were in the past, not as they are in your present, dependent upon their distance from you. It would be to long a list to expound upon here as to what empirical science has proven, facts for which philosophy could only speculate upon.

And those semantical arguments of yours such as "if you're a bachelor then you are not married," as if that was a fact discovered and proven by deep thinking, are not philosophical proofs, they are semantical truths based on obvious facts.

BTW, that right angles are 90 degrees, not 34, is an empirical not a philosophical proof.

[Sparko]

[QUOTE=JimL;74822]Thats semantics Sparko, not philosophy. You know that something is either false or true but can't be both because you understand what the terms true and false mean not because you proved it through logic.[/qouote]

No Jim. It is logic. It is the law of non-contradiction. One of the primary axioms of logic. You should at least read up on logic and philosophy before making such statements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

Where do you get the notion that scientifically proven facts cannot change? But here are some facts, not semantics, proven by empirical science: Under standard conditions water freezes at zero degrees celsius and evaporates at 100 degrees celsius. The earth is spherical, not flat, and revolves around the sun. The moon revolves around the earth. Space is not nothing, as it warps due to the massive objects within it. When you look up at the night sky you are seeing the objects there as they were in the past, not as they are in your present, dependent upon their distance from you. It would be to long a list to expound upon here as to what empirical science has proven, facts for which philosophy could only speculate upon.

And those semantical arguments of yours such as "if you're a bachelor then you are not married," as if that was a fact discovered and proven by deep thinking, are not philosophical proofs, they are semantical truths based on obvious facts.

BTW, that right angles are 90 degrees, not 34, is an empirical not a philosophical proof.

If a fact can change with new knowledge, then it was not a fact. It was just believed to be a fact.

BTW, water doesn't "evaporate" at 100 C. It boils. It can evaporate at any temperature. and it when it freezes or boils depends on the composition of the water, what impurities are in it. And atmospheric pressure. So your claim is not a fact. There are no "normal conditions"

as for your other facts, I already dealt with them by showing you that if we were living in a simulation, then everything you believe about the universe would be false. Can you prove we are not in a simulation? If not, then there is no way to know if those "facts" are facts, or just what we currently believe to be facts.

And I asked you not to use a philosophical argument to prove your facts. Use science only. You couldn't even do that. Which shows that even science depends on philosophy.

Debating with you is pretty much a waste of time. You don't have enough knowledge of the subjects to even discuss it coherently.

[JimL]

[QUOTE=Sparko;74862]

Thats semantics Sparko, not philosophy. You know that something is either false or true but can't be both because you understand what the terms true and false mean not because you proved it through logic.[/qouote]

No Jim. It is logic. It is the law of non-contradiction. One of the primary axioms of logic. You should at least read up on logic and philosophy before making such statements.

I didn't say it wasn't logic, I said it wasn't philosophy. It is merely a logical statement of an obvious fact, not a logical philosophical inquery leading to a proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

BTW, if you wish too be consistent in your argument then if you can't be human and not-human, then you must also admit that you can't be jesus the human and jesus the God.

If a fact can change with new knowledge, then it was not a fact. It was just believed to be a fact.

Facts don't change with new knowledge, perhaps they could change under new conditions. If the earth stopped revolving around the sun, it wouldn't be because of knew knowledge, it would be because of a change in conditions. At any rate it is a fact, a scientifically proven fact, that the earth does revolve around the sun and has done so consistently since it was proven to be a fact.

BTW, water doesn't "evaporate" at 100 C. It boils. It can evaporate at any temperature. and it when it freezes or boils depends on the composition of the water, what impurities are in it. And atmospheric pressure. So your claim is not a fact. There are no "normal conditions"

Yes, there are standard conditions in which it can be empirically tested and re-tested. Its called science.

as for your other facts, I already dealt with them by showing you that if we were living in a simulation, then everything you believe about the universe would be false. Can you prove we are not in a simulation? If not, then there is no way to know if those "facts" are facts, or just what we currently believe to be facts.

And I agreed, if the world doesn't exist, if we don't exist, then we can't know any facts pertaining to a non-existent world. But if that is the basis upon which you are making an argument, if you believe that to be the case, then stop asserting that philosophy and logic can prove facts about existence. Obviously you are arguing, just as I am, based upon the assumption that the world is real, that it is not a simulation.

And I asked you not to use a philosophical argument to prove your facts. Use science only. You couldn't even do that. Which shows that even science depends on philosophy.

I didn't make a philosophical argument, I stated scientifically proven facts based upon the assumption that the world is real and that therefore the empirical evidence gleened from it is also real. You have been arguing under the same premise when claiming that philosophy and logic can prove facts. You revert to your existence may not be real argument only when you have nothing under the assumed premise.

Debating with you is pretty much a waste of time. You don't have enough knowledge of the subjects to even discuss it coherently.

LOL.

[Tassman]

You can't be human and non-human at the same time.

If something is false, it cannot be true.

Right angles are 90 degrees. The angle of B is 34 degrees. B is not a right angle.

Now it's your turn. Show me a scientific fact that is absolutely true and can never change with later and better knowledge. And prove why it cannot change. And don't use philosophy or logic to make your argument.

We have no absolutely true premises, except ones we define to be true (such as 1+1=2). And they are of no use unless they are applied, e.g. as they are in science. Mathematics and Logic are useful tools of science in this regard.

Science cannot attain absolutely true premises, but it can acquire facts about nature which have been multiply tested and are verified true beyond reasonable doubt. The laws and constants of nature for instance, such as the speed of light. They do not appear to change over time and they seem to exist throughout the universe. That’s about as “absolute” as one can hope for. If you want more you will have to subscribe to the fabulous, if unsubstantiated, claims of religion.

[Sparko]

We have no absolutely true premises, except ones we define to be true (such as 1+1=2). And they are of no use unless they are applied, e.g. as they are in science. Mathematics and Logic are useful tools of science in this regard.

Science cannot attain absolutely true premises, but it can acquire facts about nature which have been multiply tested and are verified true beyond reasonable doubt. The laws and constants of nature for instance, such as the speed of light. They do not appear to change over time and they seem to exist throughout the universe. That’s about as “absolute” as one can hope for. If you want more you will have to subscribe to the fabulous, if unsubstantiated, claims of religion.

wash. rinse. repeat. and still wrong.

[Cornell]

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

No, because of the problem of induction. I mean absolute in the sense of an objective truth that tells us HOW the universe REALLY is, not how humans see it in current time.

Shall I clarify?

By the way do you realize how many branches of philosophy there are?

When you say something is 'logic' you're talking about philosophy, when you speak of semantics you're diving into another branch of philosophy that is the philosophy of language, philosophy is everywhere.

Philosophy's major branches are: Metaphysics, Epistemology, Logic, and Axiology (Ethics, Aesthetics)

Metaphysics gets broken down into many other areas concerning free-will, time, truth, abstracta etc.

So I don't know what you mean when you say 'philosophy' but it doesn't line up with academia, and your ignorance is your problem.

Here are branches of philosophy:

http://www.philosophy-index.com/philosophy/branches/

another link

http://philosophy.lander.edu/intro/what.shtml

So what was that again about philosophy not telling us any absolute truths?

[Cornell]

We have no absolutely true premises, except ones we define to be true (such as 1+1=2). And they are of no use unless they are applied, e.g. as they are in science. Mathematics and Logic are useful tools of science in this regard.

Science cannot attain absolutely true premises, but it can acquire facts about nature which have been multiply tested and are verified true beyond reasonable doubt. The laws and constants of nature for instance, such as the speed of light. They do not appear to change over time and they seem to exist throughout the universe. That’s about as “absolute” as one can hope for. If you want more you will have to subscribe to the fabulous, if unsubstantiated, claims of religion.

religion (if I can ever get a good definition for what exactly entails a religion, though I think I know what you're talking about) isn't a universalized epistemology, some religions use different methods of epistemology, some religions have different factions within themselves, in fact as a Christian I know for a fact that there are Thomists (fellow Christians) who do not agree with my rationalist epistemology. There are also fideists, and presuppositionalists who disagree with me as well. Epistemology isn't a religion, and religion isn't an epistemology. In fact when one joins a religion, they already have an epistemology to work with, it may change, but the fact of the matter is, epistemology is prior to religious commitment.

Second science without God is only as good as the humans conducting it, so we can only gain knowledge as far as our limitations will let us, therefore when you say 'absolute as it gets' this doesn't mean much, because if our goal is to find out HOW the universe REALLY Is, then 'absolute as it gets' just doesn't cut the mustard. All you are doing here is sugarcoating, I know it's tough, but without a necessary rational being possessing the property of omniscience there will never be a person that knows everything, and IF (not saying you said this) you think that this batch of people who still can't even travel to its closest star is going to gain knowledge of everything that there is to know, then you are worse than a westboro fundy living in a delusion.

Finally why doesn't it even matter that we 'know' anything at all? Will the unconscious, purposeless, unintelligent, valueless universe give us a medal and say 'good job to my pointless creation'

[JimL]

No, because of the problem of induction. I mean absolute in the sense of an objective truth that tells us HOW the universe REALLY is, not how humans see it in current time.

Shall I clarify?

Please do. If the universe is real, if it is not some sort of simulation, then the objective truth concerning the universe is there for empirical science to discover. If it weren't, then we wouldn't be wasting our time trying to reveal to ourselves how the universe really is. Current time is all we are talking about, and in current time science has revealed the truth in that the earth revolves around the sun. So by what argument, assuming the universe is real, will you deny that to be a scientifically revealed truth, whether one believes it or not?

[Cornell]

Please do. If the universe is real, if it is not some sort of simulation, then the objective truth concerning the universe is there for empirical science to discover. If it weren't, then we wouldn't be wasting our time trying to reveal to ourselves how the universe really is. Current time is all we are talking about, and in current time science has revealed the truth in that the earth revolves around the sun. So by what argument, assuming the universe is real, will you deny that to be a scientifically revealed truth, whether one believes it or not?

So let's break this down, which observation from empirical science verifies this statement "If the universe is real, if it is not some sort of simulation, then the objective truth concerning the universe is there for empirical science to discover"

Because it looks like you're justifying this a priori

You also left out other options,

What if you were the only thinking thing that existed? (Solipsism)

What if you were dreaming or hallucinating this up right now (problem of perception)

How do you justify the reliability of your senses since you can't observe by empirical science whether or not what you're perceiving is what you're actually perceiving and not just a deception?


"If it weren't, then we wouldn't be wasting our time trying to reveal to ourselves how the universe really is."

But here's the catch, it doesn't matter if we waste or time or not, humanity doesn't possess all possible knowledge, so we can THINK that we know as an absolute fact that the earth revolves around the sun, but for all we know 100,000 years from now some new piece of evidence will show us otherwise, the point is we are not in any epistemic position to know how the universe really is if we only use science.


"Current time is all we are talking about, and in current time science has revealed the truth in that the earth revolves around the sun. So by what argument, assuming the universe is real, will you deny that to be a scientifically revealed truth, whether one believes it or not? "

Current time is NOT what I'm talking about, because as we've seen in the past, we've been wrong so many times. Didn't our scientists of the past think Pluto was a planet not so long ago? What happened? That's just where I'm going with this, and that is to say that everything is suspect. So why should we think that we have things right in 2014? I really don't see how anything presumed to be true isn't suspect for change (though I don't see what's the big deal) when new data presents itself. So my final conclusion is this, I'm about 99.9% certain that the Earth revolves around the sun, though I'm not absolutely sure, because I haven't experienced all possible experiences of what could be possible outlooks, I'm just not in any epistemic position to do so.

[Apologiaphoenix]

in fact as a Christian I know for a fact that there are Thomists (fellow Christians) who do not agree with my rationalist epistemology.

Present!

[Tassman]

religion (if I can ever get a good definition for what exactly entails a religion, though I think I know what you're talking about)

Religion:

isn't a universalized epistemology, some religions use different methods of epistemology, some religions have different factions within themselves, in fact as a Christian I know for a fact that there are Thomists (fellow Christians) who do not agree with my rationalist epistemology. There are also fideists, and presuppositionalists who disagree with me as well. Epistemology isn't a religion, and religion isn't an epistemology. In fact when one joins a religion, they already have an epistemology to work with, it may change, but the fact of the matter is, epistemology is prior to religious commitment.

See above.

Second science without God is only as good as the humans conducting it, so we can only gain knowledge as far as our limitations will let us,

Correct! Is this a problem?

therefore when you say 'absolute as it gets' this doesn't mean much, because if our goal is to find out HOW the universe REALLY Is, then 'absolute as it gets' just doesn't cut the mustard.

Wishing

All you are doing here is sugarcoating, I know it's tough, but without a necessary rational being possessing the property of omniscience there will never be a person that knows everything,

is such a rational being? Evidence please.

and IF (not saying you said this) you think that this batch of people who still can't even travel to its closest star is going to gain knowledge of everything that there is to know, then you are worse than a westboro fundy living in a delusion.

Who thinks that we will Highly unlikely I would've thought!

Finally why doesn't it even matter that we 'know' anything at all?

It matters to us. We are curious about how the universe functions. This is a naturally selected survival mechanism of mammals such as us. We instinctively search for explanations of why things are so. In the earliest days this took the form of of identifying what predators to avoid, where to best to forage for food and, importantly, the appeasement of powerful gods to whom, in the pre-scientific age, we attributed frightening and/or destructive natural forces (such as lightning, volcanoes and eclipses etc). Thus, it "matters" to us as a species, even if it doesn't matter in the overall scheme of things.

Will the unconscious, purposeless, unintelligent, valueless universe give us a medal and say 'good job to my pointless creation'

No medals and yes, an ultimately pointless universe - as far as we can tell, that is.

Although, in the unlikely possibility that there IS a not as yet ― David Hume.

wash. rinse. repeat. and still wrong.

Oh Sparko. Spare me your devastating riposte! <sarcasm>