A Cosmic Perspective: Science and Philosophy Intertwined
Written on
Chapter 1: The Call for a Cosmic Perspective
Neil deGrasse Tyson argues that a cosmic viewpoint is crucial to escape the traps of tribalism, suggesting that science offers this perspective. His book, Starry Messenger: Cosmic Perspectives on Civilization, serves as a clarion call for humanity. He states:
> "Starry Messenger serves as a wake-up call to civilization. Trust has eroded; we harbor animosity toward others based on what we believe or wish to believe, disregarding the truth. Cultural and political factions vie for the allegiance of communities and nations. We struggle to discern facts from opinions, reacting with aggression while kindness is scarce."
Tyson envisions Starry Messenger as a collection of insights drawn from the universe, facilitated by scientific methodologies. How might a cosmic perspective aid us? It could help us rise above our narrow biases that entrap us in trivial cultural disputes. The key lies in focusing on objective evidence, and since science epitomizes objectivity, it illuminates the path forward.
As Tyson expresses:
> "Contemplating the scientific view of the world, the appearance of Earth from space, and the enormity of cosmic time shifts our terrestrial thoughts. Our priorities change, and we reassess our actions. No aspect of culture, society, or civilization remains unaffected. In this mindset, the world transforms; you are transported."
Experiencing life through a cosmic lens is essential.
Section 1.1: The Nature of a Cosmic Perspective
I firmly believe that humanity requires a cosmic outlook. Personally, I advocate for a blend of naturalism, existentialism, cosmicism, and pantheism. However, there is a significant flaw in Tyson's argument: it is overly scientistic and thus still tribal in nature.
Consider whether the cosmic viewpoint he proposes is exclusively scientific. The subjects he discusses in his book—war, politics, religion, truth, beauty, gender, race—represent artificial battlegrounds in life's landscape. One might easily conclude that Starry Messenger leans heavily into philosophical territory, which it undeniably does. While Tyson draws from scientific principles, his broader worldview is fundamentally philosophical, specifically embodying a Brave New World-style neo-positivism.
Yet, Tyson appears reluctant to even mention the term "philosophy." He indirectly acknowledges its value when discussing our slight genetic divergence from chimpanzees, remarking, "What a difference that 2 percent makes! We have poetry, philosophy, art, and space telescopes." He even questions our essence in relation to bears: "Are we sentient beings capable of art and philosophy? No, we are free-range meat."
However, he confidently asserts that "any opinions you currently hold can be deepened and informed through science and rational thought." Although he acknowledges the distinction between science and broader reasoning, he neglects to recognize that this type of reasoning already has a name—philosophy, which predates the Scientific Revolution.
Mind you, the situation is even more troubling. Despite the extensive index of his book, which includes entries from "wine" to "mollusks," there is no mention of "philosophy." Consider this: a book addressing the evident philosophical need for a cosmic perspective, yet entirely omitting "philosophy" from its index. This is not a coincidence.
Section 1.2: Tyson's Reluctance to Engage with Philosophy
Why does Tyson shy away from discussing philosophy? Perhaps this reluctance stems from his remarks on the 2014 Nerdist podcast, where he claimed that philosophy is a futile pursuit. He expressed concern that philosophers believe they are probing deep questions about nature, while scientists question, "What are you doing? Why concern yourself with the meaning of meaning?"
He further argues that if philosophical inquiries distract us from progressing, we are not contributing productively to understanding nature. He dismisses the question, "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" as a hindrance to progress.
Nonetheless, Tyson believes that a cosmic perspective is vital for human advancement, which is the intent behind Starry Messenger. Yet, he seems intent on attributing this credit solely to science, which seems petty and narrow-minded.
This isn't merely an academic dispute; it reveals Tyson's misunderstanding of both science and philosophy.
Video: Neil DeGrasse Tyson on Why Having a “Cosmic Perspective” Will Help You Do Life Better
In this video, Tyson elaborates on the importance of viewing life through a cosmic lens. He discusses how this perspective can reshape our understanding of existence and our place in the universe, emphasizing the need for a shift away from parochial views.
Chapter 2: The Limitations of Science
Tyson asserts that science distinguishes itself by its ability to investigate and comprehend nature, enabling us to predict outcomes. He notes:
> "When disagreements arise in our complex world of politics, religion, and culture, the underlying causes are straightforward, even if the solutions are not. We possess different knowledge portfolios, values, priorities, and interpretations of events. Our perspectives vary, leading us to form tribes based on shared appearances and beliefs."
He posits that science can unify us through objective evidence, guiding us onto common ground. But can an institution focused on the practicalities of understanding and manipulating nature genuinely embody the objectivity and elevation that Tyson seeks?
Science, too, has its own agenda—namely, the agenda of humanity. Scientists do not speak for the cosmos in its entirety; rather, they empower us with knowledge about nature's vulnerabilities. The significant knowledge is the empirical kind that helps civilization navigate its challenges.
Tyson's understanding of scientific operations is somewhat naïve, as one would expect from a science communicator. He claims that scientists eventually learned "not to assert knowledge of a newly discovered truth until a consensus among researchers is established." He downplays the prevalence of erroneous or biased results, noting that publishing such findings can severely affect a researcher's credibility.
However, the ongoing replication crisis in various scientific fields highlights the reality that this standard is not being upheld. There is little repercussion for producing sensationalized findings that cannot be reproduced, as the pressure to achieve career advancement often overshadows the effort to replicate others' work. This scenario indicates that science is largely influenced by capitalist motivations, integrating it into the broader civilizational project.
In physics, the leading discipline of science, advancements are hindered by the necessity to transform scientific methodologies. Conventional methods often fall short due to the perplexing nature of quantum mechanics, the Big Bang, black holes, and Gödel's incompleteness theorem. Consequently, theoretical physicists increasingly depend on speculative mathematics rather than experiments. The challenge lies in encapsulating all known phenomena within an intricate mathematical framework.
Yet, this comprehensive model of everything cannot be entirely objective.
Scientific knowledge is objective not solely because researchers set aside personal biases, but because they prioritize the progress of humanity. This prioritization raises questions about the nature of objects in the universe. Can we genuinely classify a black hole or a quantum wavefunction as an object, particularly when no one is observing it? Objectivity remains anthropocentric, as does the endeavor of scientific advancement.
Not everyone agrees that progress in science or civilization is inherently positive. Many ascetics, mystics, nomadic animists, and radical environmentalists would contest this notion. Hence, even through Tyson's cosmic perspective, social conflicts will persist.
Video: Lawrence Krauss - The Cosmic Perspective
In this video, Krauss discusses the significance of a cosmic perspective and how it can broaden our understanding of existence. He highlights the transformative power of viewing our lives in the grand context of the universe, encouraging viewers to reconsider their priorities and beliefs.
Chapter 3: The Interplay of Science and Philosophy
Returning to the issue of tribalism, can science alone provide a cosmic viewpoint? The answer is no; philosophy is essential in this equation. Science tends to fragment knowledge rather than unify it. Different scientific disciplines develop specialized models, and only those with a strong philosophical foundation can perceive the entirety of nature.
Tyson's simplistic view of philosophy is further illuminated by his 2016 tweet advocating for a virtual country, Rationalia, with a constitution grounded in evidence-based policy. In Starry Messenger, he expands on the backlash he received regarding the moral implications of such a concept. He highlights the criticism that arose concerning the source of morals and how ethical matters would be determined.
Tyson responds with several red herrings:
- He suggests that the U.S. Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention morality, yet includes an amendment that prevents military occupancy in private homes without consent.
- He proposes that a "fully evidence-based" legal ruling would redefine "not guilty" to imply guilt without sufficient evidence, while also introducing an "innocent" verdict.
- He claims that morals evolve over time and are typically refined through rational analysis of their effects in light of new knowledge.
While moral values certainly evolve, does that mean the most enduring ones are the best? According to whose criteria? Furthermore, Tyson's reference to "wisdom" and "insight" contradicts the premise of Rationalia, indicating that philosophy is required to navigate moral complexities.
Tyson asserts that his tweet focused on policies rather than morals, suggesting that science should influence governmental decisions. While this empirical approach could enhance policy-making, it overlooks the harsh realities that often accompany truth. Throughout history, leaders have concealed truths from the populace, as self-deception is a common human trait.
Tyson recognizes our tendency for self-deception, encapsulating the essence of science in one phrase about objectivity: "Do whatever it takes to avoid fooling yourself into believing something false is true or vice versa." While this aligns with the notion of a cosmic perspective, how does mere evidence perfect our character? Philosophy—and broader cultural elements like religion and art—are essential for that process.
If evidence reveals harsh truths, such as the absence of a higher power or the lack of inherent meaning in existence, should that knowledge be disseminated? The Scientific Revolution championed public knowledge over elite secrecy, driven by the philosophy of secular humanism. However, no empirical evidence dictates that we must adhere to humanism or cherish the strengths of humanity.
In fact, a cosmic viewpoint may challenge humanism's anthropocentric optimism. Viewing life through the lens of the universe could render our existence trivial, akin to a fleeting moment in an otherwise dark void. Hence, the rationale behind humanistic progress needs philosophical grounding.
Ultimately, philosophy can provide a rational basis for our values, addressing Tyson's critics regarding morality in Rationalia. Yet, once again, he refrains from acknowledging philosophy's role.
Chapter 4: The Risks of a Cosmic Perspective
While we may agree with Tyson that a cosmic perspective can be enlightening and transformative, it carries inherent risks. Such a viewpoint might not only strip us of our parochial illusions but could also lead to dehumanization. As the Buddhist perspective suggests, we often cling to our identities and connections, including those to our families, tribes, and species. Even Tyson, as a scientist, is emotionally tied to his community.
Exiting this form of myopia could be akin to achieving enlightenment in the traditional sense. Yet, too much illumination can be detrimental. Historical figures like Lucifer, Icarus, and Prometheus illustrate the consequences of hubris and the dangers of excessive enlightenment.
In conclusion, while a cosmic perspective can be a powerful tool for understanding our existence, it is essential to remember the value of philosophy and the human experience. Balance is crucial, and wisdom lies in integrating both scientific insights and philosophical reflections in our quest for meaning.