Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Someone claims to know what scientific arrogance looks like

arroba Email

Here. By definition, no one can know what arrogance looks like. It wouldn’t be arrogance if we knew it.
Here (Ethan Siegel)

Now, philosophy doesn’t have the answers, but it does teach ways to consider the limits of our knowledge. And if you’re talking about the philosophy of science, so long as those doing the philosophizing are honestly and accurately representing the science (which is something they can only do if they actually understand it adequately themselves, which many?—?but not all?—?of them do), it can certainly give you a number of interesting possibilities to think about. Which is why I was incredibly disappointed to learn that Neil de Grasse Tyson went on the Nerdist Podcast, and absolutely ripped the entire field of philosophy as useless:

Th fact that philosophy won’t fix Tyson’s telescope does not make it useless.

Sorry. '....if his name had been Bert Higgins or Fred Watson.' Axel
Odd to hear him include evolution as science. Also, as I might have mentioned in relation to Carl Sagan, I wonder if Neil de Grasse-Tyson would have been such a popular media figure, if his been called Bert Higgins or Fred Watson. What's in a name? Oddly, an awful lot, and that, in the most superficial of ways. Axel

Leave a Reply