In Defense of Philosophy

It was really disappointing to hear that one of my heroes, astrophysicist and famous science educator Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson bash philosophy. During an interview with Nerdist podcast (beginning at 20:19), one of the interviewers commented that there was too much questioning in philosophy. Dr. Tyson responded, “That can really mess you up”. He elaborates, “My concern there is that philosophers believe they are actually asking deep questions about nature. To the scientist… its what are you doing? Why are you concerning yourself with the meaning of meaning?”.

The interviewer responded that learning both science and philosophy could be useful, “I think a healthy balance of both is good”. Dr. Tyson disagreed, “Well, I am still worried about a healthy balance.” He continues, “If you are distracted by your questions so you cannot move forward you are not a productive contributor to our understanding of the natural world”.  Moreover, if someone feels inclined to think more philosophically, Dr. Tyson would respond, “I’m moving on, I’m leaving you behind, and you can’t even cross the street because you’re distracted by the deep questions you’ve asked of yourself. I don’t have time for that.”

If I am understanding correctly, Dr. Tyson’s argument is that philosophy is a waste time because unlike science, philosophy spends too much time 1) asking deep questions about the world and 2) understanding the meaning of the words. To Dr. Tyson, what matters, is that, we actually answer questions about the world. Since science excels at this and philosophy does not; science is worth pursuing and philosophy is not.

To the query about philosophers asking deep questions, Mr. Damon Linker (a writer for The Week) does a fine job rebutting Dr. Tyson. The article is worth a full read.

But what Mr. Linker does not address is Dr. Tyson’s other criticism, that philosophy spends too much time on the meaning of words (also known as semantics). Dr. Tyson is right that philosophy spends a significant amount of time understanding the meaning of words. But that is not a bad thing. The point of that is to clarify our thoughts so we can better understand what we are talking about. This is not some trivial exercise. Being very clear about the words we use affects how we view and approach the world. For example, many economists equated economic growth with development. As a consequence, many governments and development institutions also prioritized growth as the end goal of development.

Appropriately enough though, it took an economist with serious philosophical training, Dr. Amartya Sen, to argue that definition is inadequate. To him, growth, although an important means to development, should not be its end goal because it does not necessarily meet other needs important for the well-being of the poor such as health and education.

One illustration that Dr. Sen uses to distinguish growth and development is comparing the life expectancy between African Americans and individuals in substantially poorer countries. He points out that “African Americans as a group have no higher-indeed have a lower-chance of reaching advance ages than do people born in the immensely poorer economies of China, the Indian state of Kerala, Sri Lanka, Jamaica, or Costa Rica”(Sen, 1999, p.21). Men in China and in Kerala decisively outlive African American men in terms of surviving old age groups. Even African American women end up having a survival pattern for higher ages similar to that of much poorer Chinese, and decidedly lower than the even poorer Indians in Kerala (Ibid, p.22). He then concludes that the causal influence go beyond income to include social arrangements and community relations such as medical coverage, public health care, school education, law and order, prevalence of violence, and so on (Ibid, p. 23)

Dr. Sen realized if development is about improving the lives of the poor, then we have to think hard about what kind of life are we trying to improve towards? In other words, what is the good life?  To him, the freedom to choose one’s own destiny or to live the life one values without harming other people’s freedoms is very important for a good life. Indeed, if one looks at history, it is not difficult to believe that a lot people strongly value their personal freedom.

This lead him to write Development As Freedom. In which he defines development as expanding people’s opportunities or capabilities to enjoy the life they value and poverty as the deprivation of those opportunities or capabilities. This definition is superior to the traditional definition, in the sense, that it incorporates other needs such as political and civil rights, health and education. Indeed, it is not difficult, to imagine that better political and civil rights, healthcare and educational opportunities would expand a person’s opportunities to live the life they value.

There were plenty of people who also criticized equating growth with development but what made Dr. Sen different from the rest, is that, he came up with a persuasive alternative. This is because he spent a considerable amount of time and energy trying to understand the meaning of development and poverty and his philosophical training, no doubt, helped significantly.

It is precisely because individuals asked deep questions and thought clearly about the words that they use, did our understanding of ourselves and the world improved substantially. It is sad to hear famous scientists and science educators dismiss the discipline that gave us so much, let alone, science.

 

References

Sen, A.K. (1999). Development as Freedom. Alfred A. Knopf: New York

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

On Why The Anti-Gay Arizona Bill Is Not Based on Religious Freedom But Prejudice

Anderson Cooper interviewed Arizona state senator Al Melvin who voted for SB-1062 Monday night. The proposed legislation allows businesses to exercise their religious freedom to not service LGBT citizens. Senator Melvin states that the bill, ” is nothing more or less than protecting religious freedom in our state.” Cooper made the point that Arizona does not have any laws that protect LGBT citizens from discrimination, so why does Arizona need a law that specifically allows businesses to discriminate against LGBT citizens? Senator Melvin concedes the point but still argues that the bill is “not a discrimination bill but a religious freedom bill”.

Paraphrasing, Cooper responds that since Jesus was against divorce in the Bible, then shouldn’t Arizona propose a bill that allows businesses to discriminate against divorced people? Moreover, Cooper argues that Jesus never actually mentions gay people in the Bible. Senator Melvin does not accept Cooper’s point about divorced people and still repeats the same thing about how the bill is promoting religious freedom and is not based on discrimination.

The problem with proposing legislation based on “religious freedom” is that it is often motivated by people’s prejudices. Most people cherry pick parts of their religion that best fit their beliefs and biases. Senator Melvin and his supporters chose to pick parts in the Bible that rejects LGBT people because they are prejudiced against LGBT people. However, they conveniently ignored the parts in the Bible that explicitly said divorce is immoral. There is a fair argument to make about the state undermining religious freedom by not allowing church establishments or congregations but this is clearly not the case. This is discrimination based on prejudice and cloaked by religion, pure and simple.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

My Blog on Bill Nye and Ken Ham Debating Evolution vs Creationism

I just finished watching the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on evolution vs creationism. I think a revealing moment was at 2 hours and 4 minutes into the debate when the moderator asked Ham, “What if anything would ever change your mind”. Paraphrasing, Ham’s response was “I’m a Christian and as a Christian I can’t prove to you God has definitely shown me very clearly through his word that the bible is the word of God…..”. While Bill Nye responded with “We just need one piece of evidence…”.

These answers show two very distinct viewpoints of the world. Ham will hold onto his beliefs regardless of the evidence, in other words he will believe in creationism no matter what the evidence may show. While Nye forms his beliefs based on evidence.

How can you debate someone who will believe in something regardless of the evidence? I guess Nye’s motive was to show people who are more moderate how absurd Ham’s position was.

Leave a comment

February 8, 2014 · 3:11 pm