So, I reblogged Massimo Pigliucci’s post responding to Tyson’s remarks about philosophy, which appears to have generated some heated discussion. After reading some of it, I realized that I have a few thoughts on this.
First, I suspect Tyson’s blanket dismissal of philosophy is simply the result of insularity. I’ve noticed that philosophy’s critics tend to be those who’ve never read any of it, or only read a limited amount. I don’t know for sure if that applies to Tyson specifically, but I’ve noticed a lot of it from his field, physics, and most intensely from theoretical physicists. (Although certainly not all of them. Sean Carroll comes to mind as a prominent exception.)
Ironically, this is in a field where the practitioners arguably cross over into philosophy regularly. What’s more ironic, as I’ve discovered a few times in various internet forums, pointing that out to them is received as a major insult. Indeed…
View original post 560 more words