If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   We were all cheering until Neil DeGrasse Tyson disparaged something WE like   (salon.com) divider line 144
    More: Sad  
•       •       •

10422 clicks; posted to Geek » on 07 Jun 2014 at 5:36 PM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



144 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-07 04:12:56 PM  
Really? People actually read that drivel?

I'll bet it's target demographics are young adults in CO and WA.
 
2014-06-07 04:23:36 PM  
Yeah, that's a great article there, Steve Neumann. Now, just get me the latte I asked you for.
 
2014-06-07 04:26:28 PM  
Well... that's one way to look at it...
 
2014-06-07 04:28:10 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-07 04:43:53 PM  
Did he disparage Salon's lack of comprehension that many folks nowadays browse the web on mobile devices?
 
2014-06-07 04:51:32 PM  
Science > Philosophy?  Sure, I can get behind that.  Science has resulted in some truly great things over the years.  Also some bad things.  But mostly cool things.  Philosophy, on the other hand, in my direct experience, is pretty-much Advanced Navel-Gazing.

So...

propasaurus: Yeah, that's a great article there, Steve Neumann. Now, just get me the latte I asked you for.


THIS.
 
2014-06-07 04:53:00 PM  
FTFA: Think of it this way: Philosophizing is all about properly framing the problems we want to solve, and then asking rigorous questions about them, looking at them from as many different angles as possible, leaving no stone unturned in the process; whereas Socratism is more like a dogma, when all those once-fluid philosophical values ironically congeal into a closed-minded credo. Scientism is basically an inordinate belief in the ability of the methods of science to definitively describe all of reality, and also that any questions that can't be answered by science simply aren't worth asking."

Not a bad summary, but not usually what happens. "Philosophers" all too often purport to reach an understanding of the natural world just by thinking about things. The problem with that is that nature doesn't much care what philosophers think. Thinking about things without the tools of actual measurement and experiment results in some self-concocted nonsense unrelated to the truth. Assuming "truth" is the goal of both science and philosophy, philosophy comes in second. Also, I'm pretty sure "scientism" is not a real word.
 
2014-06-07 05:16:45 PM  
Truth is subjective.

Science is objective.

They are not the same.

Plus philosophy is more of a guide.
 
2014-06-07 05:29:31 PM  
tl;dr

will get my best scienticians on it immediately
 
2014-06-07 05:42:06 PM  
Tyson and others like him readily admit that the philosopher used to be the person of knowledge - but insists that the "true" person of knowledge is now unequivocally identified with the scientist. Whatever the merits of this switcheroo, it's worth noting the difference between the philosophizing of Socrates and his "Socratism." The former is to the latter as the virtues of science are to "scientism." The virtues of science include such things as the aforementioned discrimination between appearance and reality, as well as the expansion of our awareness of the phenomena of the world - both of which are necessary but not sufficient for human flourishing. But modern scientism is the conviction that science really is the only worthwhile human endeavor.

"Tyson and others like him" would make a great band name
 
2014-06-07 05:45:02 PM  

sgnilward: tl;dr

will get my best scienticians on it immediately


Don't worry about it. I already got my philosophisicians on it.
 
2014-06-07 05:51:06 PM  
Did not click. Did he disparage beer?
 
2014-06-07 05:51:20 PM  
And science will never, EVER figure out what women want, so in the end, it's mostly useless.
 
2014-06-07 05:52:35 PM  
One: I bet that guy got paid by the word.

Two: Neil de Grasse Tyson is the "artistic Socrates" that guy is pining for.
 
2014-06-07 05:58:06 PM  
It's an old and ridiculous trope, that scientists take the beauty out of the world.

Foolishness - it is a passion for understanding reality that inspires science, but that passion springs from a deep love of life.
 
2014-06-07 05:58:10 PM  
The only true knowledge is that we know nothing.
 
2014-06-07 05:59:48 PM  

syrynxx: The only true knowledge is that we know nothing.


We are all Jon Snow?  Where's my wildling redhead?
 
2014-06-07 06:01:09 PM  

syrynxx: The only true knowledge is that we know nothing.


Are you Jon Snow?

/s
 
2014-06-07 06:02:26 PM  
I always like to tell this little story:

2500 years ago there arrived two schools of knowledge on opposites sides of the Aegean. The Athenians (Socrates, Aristotle, Plato) believed that knowledge can be derived through a process of induction and inference -- by simply thinking about it ie: pure reason. They invented philosophy. But across the sea, the Ionians (Thales, Anaximander, Heraclitus) believed that knowledge can be derived through a process of practical application -- through testing and experimentation. They invented science (or what was known at the time as natural philosophy). The two schools bickered often. The philosophers studied truth while the scientists studied facts.

Two thousand years later, and the scientists have discovered orbital mechanics, circulatory physiology, the dangers of mercury, arsenic and lead, thermodynamics, synthetic materials, central heating, germ theory, radioactive decay, the shape and rotation of the Earth and every weapon more powerful than a pointed stick, while the philosophers are still studying truth (without much progress).

Philosophy is a fun thought experiment, but as an actual field of investigative inquiry it is functionally useless. You cannot come to any authentic conclusions on anything purely through abstract reasoning. Eventually, you have to stop with the bamboozling wordplay and actually get down to practical application.


/and I say this as someone who just spent a week going through Sye Ten Bruggencate's bullshiat
 
2014-06-07 06:02:49 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Truth is subjective.

Science is objective.

They are not the same.

Plus philosophy is more of a guide.


Actually, truth is objective as well.

Truth remains true whether we believe it or not. Our opinions are subjective, our beliefs often are as well. Truth, however, is not subjective.
 
2014-06-07 06:06:22 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: Did he disparage Salon's lack of comprehension that many folks nowadays browse the web on mobile devices?


What? You
didn't enjoy
reading an
article with
only two or
three words
on each line?
 
2014-06-07 06:08:14 PM  

Ishkur: Philosophy is a fun thought experiment, but as an actual field of investigative inquiry it is functionally useless. You cannot come to any authentic conclusions on anything purely through abstract reasoning. Eventually, you have to stop with the bamboozling wordplay and actually get down to practical application.


/and I say this as someone who just spent a week going through Sye Ten Bruggencate's bullshiat


To be fair, Philosophy brought us the basic tools of Math and logical deduction that scientist need as tool for their study of reality.
 
2014-06-07 06:10:59 PM  

sgnilward: tl;dr

will get my best scienticians on it immediately


I hate tl;dr because I would have read it if it wasn't as boring as watching a book club meeting for a book you didn't read on c-span.
 
2014-06-07 06:11:22 PM  

Ishkur: I always like to tell this little story:

2500 years ago there arrived two schools of knowledge on opposites sides of the Aegean. The Athenians (Socrates, Aristotle, Plato) believed that knowledge can be derived through a process of induction and inference -- by simply thinking about it ie: pure reason. They invented philosophy. But across the sea, the Ionians (Thales, Anaximander, Heraclitus) believed that knowledge can be derived through a process of practical application -- through testing and experimentation. They invented science (or what was known at the time as natural philosophy). The two schools bickered often. The philosophers studied truth while the scientists studied facts.

Two thousand years later, and the scientists have discovered orbital mechanics, circulatory physiology, the dangers of mercury, arsenic and lead, thermodynamics, synthetic materials, central heating, germ theory, radioactive decay, the shape and rotation of the Earth and every weapon more powerful than a pointed stick, while the philosophers are still studying truth (without much progress).

Philosophy is a fun thought experiment, but as an actual field of investigative inquiry it is functionally useless. You cannot come to any authentic conclusions on anything purely through abstract reasoning. Eventually, you have to stop with the bamboozling wordplay and actually get down to practical application.


/and I say this as someone who just spent a week going through Sye Ten Bruggencate's bullshiat


I read this and imagined a rumble between the two schools of thought with the philosophers using weapons they think would work and the scientists using weapons they tested to see if they would work. It reminded me of the Simpsons episode where Mr. Burns and his army of German snowmen fought Homer and his army of famous leaders.
 
2014-06-07 06:12:10 PM  

MindStalker: Ishkur: Chicken

Egg


FTFY
 
2014-06-07 06:12:22 PM  

Shostie: [i.imgur.com image 300x169]


This is awesome.
 
2014-06-07 06:14:14 PM  

mongbiohazard: Darth_Lukecash: Truth is subjective.

Science is objective.

They are not the same.

Plus philosophy is more of a guide.

Actually, truth is objective as well.

Truth remains true whether we believe it or not. Our opinions are subjective, our beliefs often are as well. Truth, however, is not subjective.


truth is subjective.
lets use the round about argument that both Fox news and CNN are reporting the truth. but only the truth that Audience wants to hear and that truth can be steered to bolster one side of the argument, and refute the other.

It's the whole point of listening to both sides of the argument in order to make an actual informed  decision on the topic at hand.
 
2014-06-07 06:22:59 PM  
By the time I was about 14 I learned that as soon as someone brought up Nietzsche it was time to stop listening.  Here, I stopped two words in.  Well, actually I read on a little further, but I wished I'd stopped two words in.
 
2014-06-07 06:23:27 PM  

mongbiohazard: Darth_Lukecash: Truth is subjective.

Science is objective.

They are not the same.

Plus philosophy is more of a guide.

Actually, truth is objective as well.

Truth remains true whether we believe it or not. Our opinions are subjective, our beliefs often are as well. Truth, however, is not subjective.



"Truth" is the subjective understanding of facts.  Truth changes as new facts or new understandings of old facts arise.  Truth is perception, which is by its very definition, subjective.
 
2014-06-07 06:23:52 PM  

doyner: syrynxx: The only true knowledge is that we know nothing.

We are all Jon Snow?  Where's my wildling redhead?


Fark that, where's my direwolf?
 
2014-06-07 06:24:06 PM  

Ishkur: I always like to tell this little story:

2500 years ago there arrived two schools of knowledge on opposites sides of the Aegean. The Athenians (Socrates, Aristotle, Plato) believed that knowledge can be derived through a process of induction and inference -- by simply thinking about it ie: pure reason. They invented philosophy. But across the sea, the Ionians (Thales, Anaximander, Heraclitus) believed that knowledge can be derived through a process of practical application -- through testing and experimentation. They invented science (or what was known at the time as natural philosophy). The two schools bickered often. The philosophers studied truth while the scientists studied facts.

Two thousand years later, and the scientists have discovered orbital mechanics, circulatory physiology, the dangers of mercury, arsenic and lead, thermodynamics, synthetic materials, central heating, germ theory, radioactive decay, the shape and rotation of the Earth and every weapon more powerful than a pointed stick, while the philosophers are still studying truth (without much progress).

Philosophy is a fun thought experiment, but as an actual field of investigative inquiry it is functionally useless. You cannot come to any authentic conclusions on anything purely through abstract reasoning. Eventually, you have to stop with the bamboozling wordplay and actually get down to practical application.


/and I say this as someone who just spent a week going through Sye Ten Bruggencate's bullshiat


Well except for the great thought experiments which conceived relativity and Schroeder's Cat/quantum uncertainty, ll
 
2014-06-07 06:26:41 PM  

MindStalker: To be fair, Philosophy brought us the basic tools of Math and logical deduction that scientist need as tool for their study of reality.


Oh, snap.  I'm still on team science, but that's well played.
 
2014-06-07 06:27:04 PM  
"Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics."

- Stephen Hawking in The Grand Design
 
2014-06-07 06:27:09 PM  

ko_kyi: It's an old and ridiculous trope, that scientists take the beauty out of the world.

Foolishness - it is a passion for understanding reality that inspires science, but that passion springs from a deep love of life.


imgs.xkcd.com

//EVERYTHING!
 
2014-06-07 06:27:40 PM  
Neil deGrasse Tyson, who in a recent episode of the Nerdist podcast indulged his habit of making disparaging remarks about the discipline of philosophy, claiming that it no longer has anything to contribute to our understanding of the natural world.

NdGT is a great, great man.

/phil stopped being phil a long time ago
//it's become badly disguised linguistics
///and logic
 
2014-06-07 06:28:02 PM  

Cerebral Knievel: mongbiohazard: Darth_Lukecash: Truth is subjective.

Science is objective.

They are not the same.

Plus philosophy is more of a guide.

Actually, truth is objective as well.

Truth remains true whether we believe it or not. Our opinions are subjective, our beliefs often are as well. Truth, however, is not subjective.

truth is subjective.
lets use the round about argument that both Fox news and CNN are reporting the truth. but only the truth that Audience wants to hear and that truth can be steered to bolster one side of the argument, and refute the other.

It's the whole point of listening to both sides of the argument in order to make an actual informed  decision on the topic at hand.


You are equivocating when you say the truth that wants to be heard -- stop it and don't try to make the statement more difficult than it is
 
2014-06-07 06:28:16 PM  

doyner: syrynxx: The only true knowledge is that we know nothing.

We are all Jon Snow?  Where's my wildling redhead?


Dammit it's a quote from Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure.  Am I that old?
 
2014-06-07 06:28:48 PM  
img.fark.net
/oblig
 
2014-06-07 06:29:05 PM  
In response to creationists asking the value of philosophy, PZ says to simply state, "Philosophy led to science."
 
2014-06-07 06:31:38 PM  

mongbiohazard: Truth remains true whether we believe it or not. Our opinions are subjective, our beliefs often are as well. Truth, however, is not subjective.


It's altogether likely that Truth, as a noun, probably doesn't exist, and even if it does, it's quite irrelevant as there is no way for us to know it for certain.

But truth, as an adjective (ie: to test assertions), is objective.
 
2014-06-07 06:32:28 PM  

syrynxx: doyner: syrynxx: The only true knowledge is that we know nothing.

We are all Jon Snow?  Where's my wildling redhead?

Dammit it's a quote from Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure.  Am I that old?


A Sow-crates would've helped.
 
2014-06-07 06:32:30 PM  

MindStalker: To be fair, Philosophy brought us the basic tools of Math and logical deduction that scientist need as tool for their study of reality.


No, because those things predate philosophy.
 
2014-06-07 06:33:57 PM  

keithgabryelski: Well except for the great thought experiments which conceived relativity and Schroeder's Cat/quantum uncertainty, ll


Those weren't thought experiments, they were real experiments.
 
2014-06-07 06:35:59 PM  

doyner: syrynxx: The only true knowledge is that we know nothing.

We are all Jon Snow?  Where's my wildling redhead?


I don't know.
 
2014-06-07 06:36:02 PM  

Ishkur: keithgabryelski: Well except for the great thought experiments which conceived relativity and Schroeder's Cat/quantum uncertainty, ll

Those weren't thought experiments, they were real experiments.


Schrodinger's was a thought experiment.
 
2014-06-07 06:37:29 PM  
To paraphrase Mel Brooks, Philosophers are BS artists.

That being said, I like to think of philosophy as a form of art. They contribute the same way authors, songwriters and other artists do.
 
2014-06-07 06:38:04 PM  

Ishkur: keithgabryelski: Well except for the great thought experiments which conceived relativity and Schroeder's Cat/quantum uncertainty, ll

Those weren't thought experiments, they were real experiments.


They were thought experiments long before they were proven by science
 
2014-06-07 06:39:49 PM  

MindStalker: Ishkur: Philosophy is a fun thought experiment, but as an actual field of investigative inquiry it is functionally useless. You cannot come to any authentic conclusions on anything purely through abstract reasoning. Eventually, you have to stop with the bamboozling wordplay and actually get down to practical application.


/and I say this as someone who just spent a week going through Sye Ten Bruggencate's bullshiat

To be fair, Philosophy brought us the basic tools of Math and logical deduction that scientist need as tool for their study of reality.


THIS.  Holy crap, is this not obvious?  It's like an engineer biatching about how mathematicians are useless because all they do is sit around debating obscure unsolved math problems that don't contribute anything to society.
 
2014-06-07 06:40:48 PM  
Society needs both the Scientist and the Philosopher.
However, the Scientist and the Philosopher do not require one another.
 
2014-06-07 06:42:04 PM  

UsikFark: Ishkur: keithgabryelski: Well except for the great thought experiments which conceived relativity and Schroeder's Cat/quantum uncertainty, ll

Those weren't thought experiments, they were real experiments.

Schrodinger's was a thought experiment.


So was relativity -- Einstein imagined he was riding on a beam of light -- and the consequences of that lead to the theory
 
Displayed 50 of 144 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report