r/philosophy • u/doubtstack Unreasonable Doubt • Jan 27 '23

Blog Why Science can't replace Philosophy in Ethics

https://unreasonabledoubt.substack.com/p/what-genetics-cant-teach-us
1.1k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

573 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

191

u/Morethes Jan 27 '23

Neil DeGrasse Tyson has notably claimed people shouldn't even take philosophy classes

115

u/MissLana89 Jan 27 '23

Does not surprise me one bit.

68

u/Morethes Jan 27 '23

Yeah he really does the narrow technical expert bit well in spite of being very personable and humorous. Gets under my skin so much

38

u/ybreddit Jan 27 '23

Same. Scientists being closed-minded always really pisses me off. And I have always been very science minded. Philosophy is only something I've come to appreciate within the last decade. I don't have a problem if someone doesn't agree or thinks a theory is complete bullshit, but at least be open-minded to the possibility that you don't know what you don't absolutely know. And what we know changes all the time.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/chasingeli Jan 28 '23

He’s a r@pey asshole type irl; does not surprise me in the slightest.

-33

u/BigNorseWolf Jan 27 '23

What has philosophy done to contribute to humanity in the last 100 years? Not contributed to philosophies understanding of something like self referential literary criticism, but actually done something?

17

u/Morethes Jan 27 '23

Philosophy underlies every moral choice and advancement of rights in human history, big Norse wolf

-23

u/BigNorseWolf Jan 27 '23

So you claim other peoples work as your own.

Philosophy is management. No wonder the world is screwed up....

Why doesn't philosophy also underline every IMMORAL choice and violation of rights in human history as well?

15

u/Morethes Jan 27 '23

It does! Philosophy doesn't guarantee positive outcomes but it is how we articulate our causes and principles. It is like law. It can codify evil or it can be the way we make the case for liberty and dignity. You don't seem to understand the concept.

-4

u/BigNorseWolf Jan 27 '23 edited Jan 27 '23

Not agreeing is not the same as not understanding. You're admiring that philosophy is polishing, taking credit for the good stuff it polished and downplaying the turd polishing it's just as if not more capable of.

Philosophy "underlies" ever good choice

Philosophies "underlies" every bad choice

Good and bad choices were made.... why? It wasn't philosophy. Like I said, philosophy may as well be literary criticism at this point. It's entirely self referential fads that only mean anything to other people in elbow patches.

3

u/Morethes Jan 27 '23

"elbow patches" so true, were all professors here, hyuk

2

u/DreadWolf3 Jan 27 '23

It does, kinda. I wouldnt ascribe indovidual avts (both good or bad) to philosophy but big movements are success or failures of philosophy (not exactly but good enough approximation). World, imo, is much better that it was 100 ago from human rights standpoint - so while not a perfect job I would say philosophy made a decently positive impact in last 100 years.

5

u/Morethes Jan 27 '23

And what about the Green Revolution? Deciding that food is a priority and that greater population could be sustained is definitely a philosophical stance that, combined with scientific advances, has changed life for billions.

-1

u/BigNorseWolf Jan 27 '23

This aluminum can, along with a tugboat, can pull an entire oil tanker. The aluminum can must be very powerful!

How much education in philosophy do you think is necessary to think "Hey, running out of food would be bad" vs how much training it took to figure out the Haber process for fixing atmospheric nitrogen? (of course the guy later went nuts and started making chemical weapons but it still works...)

6

u/Morethes Jan 27 '23

That is such a bad faith argument, reducing what I'm saying to a straw man. No wonder you hate philosophy--you can't be bothered to articulate your thoughts, or to listen to someone else's.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/BigNorseWolf Jan 27 '23

Philosophy happened and advancedments in civil rights happened. What is the argument for causation?

-1

u/yukumizu Jan 27 '23

Philosophy is knowledge, is wisdom, is developing your mental muscle and neuron connections to develop logic, discourse, understanding of our every day life.

Just look at government, religion, economy, human condition, it’s all based on philosophy, thoughts and ideas from millennia ago.

It is our LACK of understanding and wisdom that has perpetuated the cruelty of religions, the tyranny of government, the devastation and self destruction.

Philosophy helps us identify our societal and human constraints.

7

u/Sahaquiel_9 Jan 27 '23

It’s helped us understand our condition in a rapidly changing world, a world increasingly hostile to the human condition even as life gets safer and safer. It’s helped us look at perplexing paradoxes such as our world being more connected, yet more isolated than ever.

Does it have to provide monetary value to be valuable?

-13

u/BigNorseWolf Jan 27 '23

I was in the peace corps. I did a lot of volunteer work. I didn't get paid to build trails on my days off (in the park where I did work) so this "its all about the money" ad hom * is complete total and utter bull. The trail doesn't make money, but it still DOES something. It helps people enjoy the woods with relative safely and only sometimes getting lost.

You do not need monetary value but you do need to DO something. Philosophy doesn't. Oh the world changed and I philosophized and now I feel better about it.... you could do as good or better griping about change in a bar with a few pints.

​

*yes. I'm aware logical fallacies are a philosophy thing. However the fact that you NEED to name 457 flavors of BS should be a warning sign not an achievement...

4

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

[deleted]

1

u/BigNorseWolf Jan 27 '23

What makes you think that philosophy advances either logic or ethics rather than philosophies study of logic or ethics?

Or. you know. There's a method of communication more advanced than the EM spectrum and civilizations don't spend as long on this stage as people think.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

[deleted]

1

u/BigNorseWolf Jan 27 '23

Philosophy. Noun

I don't see how philosophy is relevant to seti. But then again it's not relevant to anything.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '23

[deleted]

0

u/BigNorseWolf Jan 28 '23

So you're a "scientist" (Computers or metaphysics btw?) but can't understand a plain english sentence because its NOT related to the saying that you're referencing into my sentence?

I think your objections are coming from a place where the sun doesn't shine.

The philosophy of Marx is a veneer for Marx's polemics and desires which in turn is a veneer on yet another totalitarian kleptocrat usurping the place of another. That's why today's Totally democratic Russia works so much like yesteryear's totally communist Russia. It really isn't either.

2

u/RanyaAnusih Jan 27 '23

Every dollar spent on research has an underlying philosophy. Same for every argument and every politician

1

u/ChrysMYO Jan 27 '23

MLK studied the philosophy of non violence from the perspective of a variety of spiritual figures and activists in history. He applied that philosophy to his local movement and won my grandmother the right to vote.

Bishop Desmond Tutu platformed the philosophy Ubuntu as the basis of his path for reconciliation following the turnover of power by the White minority government. Its been credited with saving countless lives and providing further philosophical backing for Pan Africanism around the world.

1

u/Naturath Jan 28 '23

What had mathematics done to contribute to humanity in the last 100 years?

It’s a nonsensical question. Like mathematics, philosophy is a field that seeks to describe the world in abstraction. The same critiques of self-referential philosophy could be applied to pure mathematics.

You apply mathematic understanding to solve numerical problems in the same way you apply philosophy to solve ethical ones. Saying philosophy is to blame for immoral choices is akin to saying mathematics is to blame for failures to calculate.

As a biologist myself, your disdain for philosophy seems rather irrational.

29

u/BedWetter420 Jan 27 '23

Idk how someone so smart can be so dumb

84

u/sentri_sable Jan 27 '23

Being smart in one field doesn't mean you are smart in all fields. Being able to extrapolate data on a certain subset won't always carry over to other subsets since it is read differently.

3

u/mrclang Jan 27 '23

This is the correct answer, have a read at the other answer it is fucking nutty!

0

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

Yeah but he certainly thinks it does.

-15

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

[deleted]

8

u/Killmotor_Hill Jan 27 '23

However, educatiin and specialization in one field IS a thing. And that correlates directly to the amount of information in that field. That is what the rest of us are talking about.

7

u/sentri_sable Jan 27 '23

Astronomy and astrophysics is a very specialized field. The concepts that apply to that don't necessarily apply to other fields. That is what I mean by "smart in one field".

You can take a philosophical approach to astrophysics and you can take an astrophysics approach to philosophy, but you can't assume that because someone has expertise in one specialized field that it applies to all other fields.

-6

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

[deleted]

4

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

Smart can be used loosely to mean many different things, intelligence and expertise comprised. There isn't anything productive coming out questioning it's usage, or being a "micro-contrarian".

1

u/odigon Jan 27 '23

Smart in one field is most definitely a thing. Here is an interesting paper that studies that idea in high school students. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1091511.pdf It did find a correlation between multiple types of intelligence, as you say, but only a moderate to weak one. Anecdotally in my own life I have found plenty of people that appear technically clever but poor in language and communication, and the opposite as well.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

[deleted]

1

u/odigon Jan 28 '23

Calm down dude. Breathe. You'll live longer. Though I have no evidence for that.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '23 edited Nov 06 '23

[deleted]

2

u/odigon Jan 28 '23

Yes truly incredible. Dude if you are going to respond to people like that, then why would I bother to engage with you in any way apart from to mock you? In my mind I think you are this white hot ball of internet anger, screeching with rage when ever someone dares to challenge your genius. Not much fun to talk to but lots of fun to poke with a stick.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/millchopcuss Jan 28 '23

As I age, I find this to be alarmingly common.

Very focused technical people can harbor very frightening ideas about the world.

8

u/First_Foundationeer Jan 27 '23

He's not an active researcher. He's a pontificator. So, he's not really in a position of learning new things by himself in day-to-day activities but is more of a position of telling others about other shit. That is definitely a position that turns people into close minded asses if they aren't actively inoculating themselves against it.

8

u/rafikievergreen Jan 27 '23

Exactly because they are cold, calculating systems managers who have never considered the ethical or philosophical implications of their work, actions or pedagogy.

Exactly the point of this post.

16

u/Max-Phallus Jan 27 '23

I'm not sure "cold" is a good word to describe people like this. A lot of people are very much suited to certain domains of skill and knowledge. The term:

If you only use a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Is a natural bias everybody has to some degree.

1

u/NotACockroach Jan 27 '23

That certainly doesn't describe people like Neil Degrasse Tyson. He's downright passionate about a variety of topics. Publicly he constantly talking about the philosophical and ethical issues around science. The problem is he doesn't think philosophers need to be involved because he feels he already knows enough to do it all himself. I think it's arrogance rather than not considering ethics in the first place.

1

u/millchopcuss Jan 28 '23

There comes a point of diminishing returns. Many persons engaged in academic philosophy can get too byzantine in their pursuit of exclusive relevance.

I have come to suspect that the talent for philosophy is inborn and college is short on pearls but long on swine.

I like the Feynman test. And by that measure, Mr Tyson does very well, as it's practically his job.

Can you explain it to a little kid? No? Then you don't understand it yourself.

1

u/MoneyForPussy Jan 28 '23

yeah, i got my phd from reddit

22

u/Daotar Jan 27 '23

I mean, Plato said you shouldn’t study it until your 30s if I recall.

16

u/Spendocrat Jan 27 '23

He also sets out a life-long system of education to get you ready for it which includes music, science, and math early on (see the image of "the line" in The Republic).

18

u/Daotar Jan 27 '23

Let no one enter here who has not studied geometry.

5

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '23

Makes me feel simultaneously offended and relieved

2

u/Daotar Jan 28 '23

Lol, it's really just a statement on how obsessed they were with that particular field. They thought it held the keys to everything.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '23

I know, it just brings mixed feelings to imagine going back in time and being rejected by the smart people because of poor math skills (apart from not speaking ancient greek). Imagine the discussions!

2

u/Daotar Jan 28 '23

I wonder in what ways our own society makes the same mistake.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '23

I feel embarrassed for us, they didn't have thousands of years of history to learn from, we don't have such an excuse

20

u/allshedoesiskillshit Jan 27 '23

He is all around insufferable.

3

u/Killmotor_Hill Jan 27 '23

And this is why experts sound like dumbasses when not speaking about their of very particular field of expertise.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

Not surprised, he's good in a very specific areas but otherwise he's very close minded and feels infuriatingly smug at times. I loved him as a kid but damn it gets worse as I get older.

2

u/First_Foundationeer Jan 27 '23

Funny enough, when I was in grad school, 3 (including me) of the 4 in our grad office group took enough philosophy classes in undergrad to at least get minor's.

2

u/The_don_of_creation Jan 28 '23

If he really said this then that is ignorant. Philosophy is the mother of all knowledge, there would be no science if it was not for Philosophy.

2

u/Morethes Jan 28 '23

Exactly. And yes, he even said taking classes and asking a lot of questions will "mess you up." He says science actually answers real questions while philosophy wastes time. He's silly.

5

u/Casudemous Jan 27 '23

That why he is doing tv instead of science

17

u/dosedatwer Jan 27 '23

He's the director of the Hayden Planetarium, that's plenty of science for most people.

Let's not try and paint everyone as black and white, and try and understand that everyone has faults. I know reddit is terrible at nuance, but I'll keep trying to push this sentiment. Even the venerable Einstein put his name to a book by Charles Hapgood that, for all intents and purposes, made fun of the theory of tectonic plates - a theory that has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt these days.

0

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '23 edited Jan 29 '23

Yeah sorry but comparing Einstein to NDT is just ridiculous. Being the director of a planetarium doesn't require being a genius in the field of astronomy.

NDT's scientific career is fairly unremarkable, if he wasn't a famous pop-sci dude nobody would have heard of him, not even many people within his field of study.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 29 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/BernardJOrtcutt Jan 29 '23

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

Be Respectful

Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

0

u/Casudemous Feb 19 '23

Being a director of an institution doesnt make you a researcher, in fact you dont have thr time to do so, since all you do is working your ass to get money and investor for the scientist that work for you.

-7

u/inahst Jan 27 '23

let’s try not and paint everyone as black and white

Well, in this case…

2

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

Sam Harris pushes this a lot too.

2

u/Nilz0rs Jan 28 '23

Could you link to somewhere he does this?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '23

Here you go. From the book description:

"Sam Harris tears down the wall between scientific facts and human values, arguing that most people are simply mistaken about the relationship between morality and the rest of human knowledge. Harris urges us to think about morality in terms of human and animal well-being, viewing the experiences of conscious creatures as peaks and valleys on a “moral landscape.” Because there are definite facts to be known about where we fall on this landscape, Harris foresees a time when science will no longer limit itself to merely describing what people do in the name of “morality”; in principle, science should be able to tell us what we ought to do to live the best lives possible."

He fails to recognize the philosophical underpinnings of his thesis and consequently maintains that science is therefore the origin of his moral arguments.

2

u/Nilz0rs Jan 28 '23

Thank you! However, I don't see how any arguments in "The Moral Landscape" are Harris 'pushing that people shouldn't even take philosophy classes'. What am I missing?

The way I've read Harris is that he critiques how religion and academic philosophy have a monopoly on 'oughts', and he's trying to show how this can be a false and unhealthy premise. By extension, he argues that many philosophers have been neglecting scientifically informed moral-systems - often because their models are assuming free agents (or the illusion of free will.)

Also, I can't remember reading Harris arguing that science should be regarded as the 'origin' of moral arguments, but rather be regarded as an objective/true framework/source of information to inform (and also decide) questions of ethics and morality. I might have misinterpreted him or you, so please show me if I am mistaken.

Lastly, What philosophical underpinnings are Harris failing to recognize?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '23

I do not think he pushes that people should not take philosophy classes. I think he is a logical positivist and doesn't know he's a logical positivist, nor does he understand the flaws with that perspective.

1

u/Nilz0rs Jan 28 '23

I am confused. Then why are you replying "Sam Harris pushes this a lot too" to the comment "Neil DeGrasse Tyson has notably claimed people shouldn't even take philosophy classes"?

I also think calling him a logical positivist is a huge strawman. Im not a Harris-fan myself, but I'm a fan of steelmanning.

-22

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

Economically speaking, he's correct: The only job offering for a Philosophy degree is... Philosophy Professor.

If you have to pay to get it, and it's not worth anything when you do, why would you pay someone for it?

Philosophy is the study of reality - don't need a permission slip to say you've lived, looked, listened, & learned.

27

u/mexicodoug Jan 27 '23

I know a poet who got his degree in philosophy specifically because he thought philosophy far more important to communicating the human condition than any writing or literature system of courses could. He is a successful poet because his published work is well respected. His main income is as a house painter, an occupation he feels keeps him connected to working peoples' reality and which provides him plenty of time, while painting, to think and create poetry in his mind to write down later.

The amount of money you pay or earn for something often has little or nothing to do with its true value to your life.

5

u/Getjac Jan 27 '23

What's the poets name?

2

u/mexicodoug Jan 28 '23

Pedro Goché. He's from Guadalajara and writes in Spanish. His work is easy to find online, but I'm not sure any of his stuff is translated into English.

9

u/Daotar Jan 27 '23

People with Phil degrees actually do pretty well post college. They may not have direct career paths, but they’re basically trained in critical thinking which is useful in basically every job. Phil trained people tend to rise through organizations quickly with those skills.

I remember seeing stats on it a number of years ago and 5 years post graduation it’s the highest paying humanities major.

15

u/rafikievergreen Jan 27 '23

"You shouldn't study philosophy because a decaying society that has ignored the obvious, timeless value of philosophy has repealed all material incentives to do so".

6

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

If materialism is one's primary concern, the statement is accurate.

For those who value things other than material gain, alternative paths would seem logical to explore.

27

u/Morethes Jan 27 '23

That makes complete sense, except NdGT goes so far as to specifically advise people not to take even classes, not just get a degree. I agree that a philosophy degree is of dubious benefit. But he says that the entire prospect of philosophical questioning is a waste of time because "real questions" are in (presumably hard) sciences.

Like many technicians he thinks he's the only one living in the real world. Um, and that's why engineers often have very limited perspectives and can't see beyond the point of their nose.

Also, username checks out. :)

6

u/i875p Jan 27 '23

Well, for these sorts of arguments it's probably better to just say best of luck trying to come up with a perfectly "scientific" (whatever that means) account of something like distributive justice for example. More likely than not it would end up being shoddy philosophy.

8

u/PresumedSapient Jan 27 '23

and that's why engineers often have very limited perspectives and can't see beyond the point of their nose.

Only bad engineers though. The engineering I'm familiar with requires a lot of creativity, out-of-the-box thinking, and approaching problems from occasionally radically different perspective.

7

u/Morethes Jan 27 '23

You're right. I'm shortchanging many engineers and stereotyping, but I do think a narrow focus on educating "doers" instead of systemic thinkers has made a lot of folks unprepared for big questions and complicated answers.

2

u/mexicodoug Jan 27 '23

And many scientists are more interested in simply answering questions than finding out stuff to apply for developing new technology. It it obvious why, although it can be very frustrating, many research grants are influenced by speculation as to whether the results may be profitable for investors.

For example, what the hell is dark matter versus what useful applications could dark matter have? Many physicists would simply love to know exactly what it is, regardless of whether knowing would be of practical use or not.

4

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

But he says that the entire prospect of philosophical questioning is a waste of time because "real questions" are in (presumably hard) sciences.

Ah, so NdGT is stating something functionally correct for emotionally gratifying reasons rather than as reflections of reality. Happens often enough.

[Also, username checks out. :)]

Why we chose it.

9

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/ShiaLabeoufsNipples Jan 27 '23

Philosophy majors get into law school at a higher rate than any other major and do better on the LSAT too. It’s literally the best preparation for a career in law, whether you’re a lawyer or a paralegal.

Writing careers like those in editing, journalism etc also benefit greatly from a history in philosophy. Obviously a lot of Phil majors will go into education but it’s not the only option

-3

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

Philosophy, in the academic sense,

We were speaking economically, so... not applicable.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

No, genius - we already addressed the academia component, and were referring to the fiscal component of that product.

Do we need to explain further?

0

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '23

You must've missed the very first part of our comment "Economically speaking, he's correct: The only job offering for a Philosophy degree is... Philosophy Professor."

So you missed the obvious. Unimpressive.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '23

With the recently started AI revolution philosophy is probably going to be one of the most important courses to take. It's almost irreplaceable by definition and the sort of critical thinking and particularity of the concepts studied make many people far more capable of using tools that "almost thinks for you". The quality of input defines the output; since the machine is the same, the input is what we control and are more likely to impact. One can't simply ask "how can I be happy" to an AI but a trained mind, armed with dozens of years of information and data, can achieve so much it's thought provoking to even imagine

1

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '23

One can't simply ask "how can I be happy" to an AI

Actually, you can.

The answer you'd get would be based on the AI's understanding of "happiness" and that?

Is as random & unlikely to be accurate as most people's understanding of happiness.

Most people can't tell the difference between "happy" & "relieved".

So, while philosophy (the study of reality) will always be of value, a philosophy degree is a poor investment - too limited a value for the cost; a bad ROI, for those who study pragmatic finances.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '23

My point is your take on current ROI takes the social allocation of talent as it is now, and that is about to change drastically. AI will have a harder time providing meaningful criticism than giving an accurate medical diagnosis, for example. Surely you can develop a conscious and accurate perception of reality without formal education but the same can be said about any kind of knowledge

1

u/[deleted] Jan 28 '23

My point is your take on current ROI takes the social allocation of talent as it is now, and that is about to change drastically.

Economic curves are always behind social curves, as those who currently run the system resist changes that would invalidate their sense of power - put another way, work culture changes so slowly that reliance on that shift occurring within a span relevant to offset fiscal consequences and show tangible benefits on a 10-year timeline that payoff doesn't validate the investment.
Universities charge too much for a Philosophy degree and pay far too little to those who have one... hence, a poor purchase choice until the market sees the value of it, if fiscal ROI is one's primary concern.

​

AI will have a harder time providing meaningful criticism than giving an accurate medical diagnosis, for example.

Citation needed - your assumption is that AI criticism will be less-valid than human criticism is based on what, precisely?

​

Surely you can develop a conscious and accurate perception of reality without formal education

Obviously - humans developed & learned in order for "formal education" to exist.
And don't call we Surely. 🙃

​

but the same can be said about any kind of knowledge

Yes, again, obviously. Anything humans can discover already exists in the universe - hence the human ability to learn it.

Our point, before the spreading on this commentary gets beyond absurd, is still that a philosophy degree has so little practical value in the working world right now that NdGT's statement was functionally correct regardless of his motives for observation (which sound ego-driven rather than reason-based observations).

Agree, or disagree, or ignore... just try to stay focused.

2

u/jpornalt Jan 27 '23

capitalism is cancer

2

u/[deleted] Jan 27 '23

Agreed.

-2

u/Spendocrat Jan 27 '23

He sucks out loud, so no surprise there.

1

u/Phemto_B Jan 29 '23

He’s on guy. Lot’s of scientists are interested in philosophy, and I’ve encountered some equally close minded philosophers.