/philosophy/ - Philosophy

oops, forgot link https://theweek.com/articles/447197/why-neil-degrasse-tyson-philistine

He misues the word agnostic so what can you expect?

>>3686

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say he generalizes the word. Of course this is coming from an anon (me) who hasn't explored the definition in full.

He's not that wrong if he means that "ayylmao why do things even matter, can't prove that now can you?" shouldn't be hindering people.

>>3693

It's not. It's the same complete misunderstanding of the field you would expect for your average Norman, with the barest sugarcoating of recognizable terms. He literally says "why are you concerned with the meaning of meaning" and he seriously thinks age old idioms like "what is the sound of one hand clapping" is the height of concern for academic philosophy.

Also he disagrees with it even being tought whatsoever.

The article and is source ate extremely short.

>>3697

I didn't read that in his statement at all, I think that is just your expression of the mutual snobbery between the hard sciences and philosophy.

What I understand from his statement is a frustration with the navel staring that is a constant undercurrent of philosophy the "ayylmao how real is reality" platitudes that are spun as deep questions.

I'm well aware that science needs philosophy because it is incapable of meta-analysis.

>Neil deGrasse Tyson

itstrash/10

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/21/scientists-who-are-actually-really-stupid-1-neil-degrasse-tyson/

>>3699

Amazingly how much ad hom and distortion is in that article. Clearly the author is a right wing apologist for Christianity.

>le negro science man

>worth talking about his dumb opinions

Tyson is famous because of tv and nothing else. Come on, the guy worked at a planetarium explaining dumb shit to dumb people every day. He's never published anything in the field of physics or astronomy, he's a nobody in the theoretical field. He would also be a nobody in the pop culture field if it wasn't for his black ass propping him up as a token science celebrity. He has none of the charisma of Sagan, whom he tries to present himself as.

>>3698

>I think that is just your expression of the mutual snobbery between the hard sciences and philosophy.

maybe i am reading too much into casual a conversation, its entirely possible. this applies to you as well though, insofar as being incorrect. anyway i have to disagree with you because while i have heard some philosophers criticize who-cloth empiricism, karl popper's joke about porcupines comes to mind, but i havent heard any of them dismiss the entire endeavor, nor have i heard any "eminent" philosophers suggest it shouldn't be taught whatsoever, or go so far as to claim that its very undertaking can be bad for you.

>>3700

unlikely considering he's a hedonistic gaymosexual jew. he is writing for a conservative rag though.

>>3700

Milo does actually claim to be a believing catholic. He doesn't talk about christianity itself very much and describes his routine of getting spitroasted by black dudes every weekend without a hint of shame so maybe not apologist.

You see this kind of shit with the alt-right a lot and honestly I think they're just not honest enough to assert that they're culturally christian as a pushback against what they consider degeneracy.

>>3682

Funny, considering the fact that Carl Sagan wrote in the Demon Haunted World that it is inconceivable that scientists are ignorant of Socrates, Plato, Beethoven etc.

(Paraphrased, of course. Because I don't have the book with me)

>>3712

>alt-right

Please explain to me what this is. It's /pol/, right?

>>3713

Basically /pol/. Watch some Gavin McInnes and you'll have a good idea what they're about.

>>3713

Pretty much. They want to distance themselves from the status quo "cuckservatives." The alt-right is the more hip option. Can you really blame them?