Why are so many smart

people such idiots about

philosophy?
http://qz.com/627989/why-are-so-many-smart-people-such-idiots-about-philosophy/

Theres no doubt that Bill Nye the Science Guy is extremely

intelligent. But it seems that, when it comes to philosophy, hes
completely in the dark. The beloved American science educator and
TV personality posted a video last week where he responded to a
question from a philosophy undergrad about whether philosophy is a
meaningless topic.

The video, which made the entire US philosophy community

collectively choke on its morning espresso, is hard to watch, because
most of Nyes statements are wrong. Not just kinda wrong, but deeply,
ludicrously wrong. He merges together questions of consciousness and
reality as though theyre one and the same topic, and completely
misconstrues Descartes argument I think, therefore I amto
mention just two of many examples.
And Nyearguably Americas favorite edutaineris not the only
popular scientist saying meh to the entire centuries-old discipline.
Astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson has claimed philosophy is not a
productive contributor to our understanding of the natural world;
while theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking declared that philosophy
is dead.
Its shocking that such brilliant scientists could be quite so ignorant,
but unfortunately their views on philosophy are not uncommon.
Unlike many other academic subjects (mathematics and history, for
example), where non-experts have some vague sense of the fields
practices, there seems to be widespread confusion about what
philosophy entails.
In Nyes case, his misconceptions are too large and many to show why
each and every one is flawed. But several of his comments in the video
speak to broader confusions about philosophy. So lets clear up some
of those:
It often gets back to this question: What is the nature of consciousness?
Here is Nyes full quote, on what he sees as philosophys main
preoccupations:
It often gets back to this question: What is the nature of
consciousness? Can we know that we know? Are we aware that were
aware? Are we not aware that were aware? Is reality real? Or is reality
not real and were all living on a ping pong ball thats part of a giant
interplanetary ping pong game that we cannot sense? These are
interesting questions.
Nyes remarks, which conflate ideas from completely different areas of
philosophy, are a caricature of the common misconception that
philosophy is about asking pointlessly deep questions, plucking an
answer out of thin air, and then drinking some pinot noir and writing
a florid essay.
But ping pong aside, these actually are interesting questionsand far
from idle musing, the methods of analyzing such topics are incredibly,
mind-achingly rigorous. Each of the questions Nye asks is the subject
of extensive study, and philosophy, at its core, involves highly critical
thinking.
Ned Hall, a professor and philosophy department chair at Harvard
University, tells Quartz that a colleague describes philosophy as,
Thinking in slow motion. Its certainly thinking that cannot be
dismissed with a raised eyebrow, la Nye.
The idea that reality is not real, that what you sense and feel is not authentic, is
something Im very skeptical of.
Nyes skepticism is an empty response to the question of whether we can
trust our senses. If you drop a hammer on your foot, is it real? he asks. Or
is it just your imagination? Then he goes on to suggest that the young
philosophy student explore the question by dropping a hammer on his own
foot. But such a painful experiment would not actually address the
underlying question, and this approachsimply mocking the
argument rather than addressing itis so infamous that, as CUNY
philosophy professor Massimo Pigliucci points out on his blog, it has
its own name: argumentum ad lapidemappeal to a stone.
1

Nyes confidence that what we sense and feel is authentic is

particularly strange coming from a scientist, given that several
advanced scientific discoveries do in fact contradict information we
receive from our senses. Einstein discovered that theres no such thing
as absolute simultaneity, for example, while quantum physics shows
that an object can be in two places at the same time. Several
philosophers have long argued that our senses are not a reliable means
of evaluating reality, and such scientific discoveries support the idea
that we should treat sensory information with a little skepticism.
1
Philosophy is important for a while. But you can start arguing in a circle.
Philosophy is important for more than just a while, and has serious,
practical uses for all of society. There are countless examples of
philosophy of mind theories relevance to neuroscientists, or cases where
political philosophers have shaped politicians.
1

Historically, physics and mathematics have often overlapped with

philosophy, and many great scientists engaged with philosophers to
advance their own thinking. (Einsteins work can be studied alongside
that of Kant, for example.) The physicist behind the theory of relativity
was also a philosopher of science and, as Hall points out, Einstein
reconfigured our concepts of space and timeitself a philosophical
undertaking.
1

Philosophers also address the assumptions that underly science.

Theres a huge element in science of relying on our capacity to
reason, says Hall. The way that capacity gets deployed in scientific
inquiry often involves unstated but fairly substantial assumptions
about the simplicity and elegance of the natural world. Philosophers
bring to the table an awareness of how rich the set of assumptions
are.
So, for example, in the video Nye mockingly expresses his confidence
that the sun will come up tomorrow. Philosophers are confident of this
too, but few feel certain that they can explain exactly what causes this
daily phenomenonor any event. The 18th century philosopher David
Humes argument that we dont have a reasonable understanding of
causation at all, but only presume cause and effect when two things have
been observed as conjoined in the past, is notoriously difficult to refute.
The problem underlies much of physics and is hardly insignificant.
1

And then theres the development of formal logic, which was devised
by philosophers a little over 100 years ago and is the foundation of
coding and computer sciencein other words, the grounding for all
modern technology.
1

It doesnt always give an answer thats surprising.

Anyone who believes this clearly hasnt spent much time studying
philosophy. Any far-out, mind-bending, LSD-induced epiphany thats
ever been had has already been ripped apart and taken even further in
sober-looking philosophy books. This is a field where prominent
figures have argued that God is constantly creating the entire world in
every moment, and that failing to donate any superfluous wealth is
morally equivalent to walking past a drowning child.
2

Keep in mind, humans made up philosophy too.

Here, Nye suggests philosophy is irrelevant because were incapable,
as fallible beings, of uncovering the absolute truth. Youre a human
seeking the truth, he says, so there are going to be limits.
Far from a rebuttal of philosophy, this is a component of the field.
Many great thinkers recognize this limit on our search for meaning
and have written a range of complex papers on the subject, its
implications, and the sort of truth that can be uncovered within the
constraints of humans tiny minds. Ludwig Wittgenstein, for example,
might interest those who share Nyes skepticism.
1
Philosophy is not for everyone, and many are perfectly happy to live
their lives without trying to figure out what, exactly, Heidegger is
saying. But for Nye to talk so condescendingly about the cool
questions in philosophy suggests that he doesnt know enough to
dismiss it. Because philosophy is in fact incredibly useful for anyone
interested in language, knowledge, moralityand science. And yeah, it
is pretty cool.