goodbytes Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Just wanted to get you guys' take on this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Could you highlight what part you are referring to? I for one am not inclined to sit through 80 minutes of something that can be summed up as truth is false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodbytes Posted May 10, 2014 Author Share Posted May 10, 2014 if you press play it fast forwards to the part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaSait Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 if you press play it fast forwards to the part. It doesn't for me. EDIT: and there's nothing in the page source that would suggest a timestamp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrCapitalism Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Looks like he tried to put in a time stamp of 62m47s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Looks like he tried to put in a time stamp of 62m47s Thanks. Mr. Tyson's words are puzzling. First of all because he acknowledges that science is in fact a branch of philosophy. Secondly because he doesn't bother to define what philosophy means. Which is really important if you think a phrase like "religious philosophy," which he says, makes any sense. Philosophy is method to test the truth value of an objective claim. I cannot imagine a set of circumstances that would make it valueless to humankind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nathanm Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Tyson says philosophy doesn't have anything to offer the physical sciences but he allows for ethical philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 Judging by the discussion leading up to it, it's the practice of apologetics looking for loopholes and interpretations to justify continued belief that he's denouncing. --jrp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kalmia Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 Considering that much of recent philosophy is relativistic, their negative view of recent philosophers is valid. n Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulbasaur Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 This may be of interest (Tyson responds in the comments) http://horselesstelegraph.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/an-open-letter-to-neil-degrasse-tyson/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal9000 Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 Philosophy is method to test the truth value of an objective claim. I cannot imagine a set of circumstances that would make it valueless to humankind. How do you test truth values about the physical world or maths with philosophy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 I cannot tell if your question is agreement or suggesting that branches of philosophy are independent and exclusionary of philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiepolo Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Tyson seems to be referring to natural rather than moral philosophy as the thing science has superseded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Wouldn't that be like saying that Ford has superseded the automobile? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts