Tyson's Rejection of Scientific Philosophy

In a conversation with Curt Jaimongal on YouTube, Tyson's stance on scientism and his utilitarian perspective on science become apparent, revealing his disdain for fields outside of empirical science, notably the humanities. Jaimongal, equipped with a background in mathematics and physics as well as filmmaking, challenges Tyson, advocating for the philosophical dimensions of scientific inquiry.

Jaimongal counters Tyson's instrumentalist view of quantum mechanics—where one is urged to "shut up and calculate" instead of contemplating the meaning behind the equations. He asserts that the instrumentalist stance is not only philosophically questionable but also scientifically dubious, as genuine scientific inquiry should aim to explore the nature of reality, not merely provide a framework for exploitation.

According to Jaimongal, physics should aim to illuminate reality. He contends that a scientific theory ought to clarify what is being examined, whereas quantum mechanics often merely serves as a measurement tool, leaving deeper metaphysical inquiries unresolved.

Tyson retorts that scientists can disregard metaphysical inquiries as long as their methods yield results. He asserts that, for a practicing scientist like himself—focused on practical applications like circuit board design—understanding the underlying reasons is secondary to achieving tangible outcomes. He expresses a preference for prioritizing progress over philosophical distractions.

Tyson further questions the practicality of philosophical inquiries for scientists, suggesting that they hold little utility. Jaimongal then underscores Tyson's utilitarianism, pointing out that Tyson's approach essentially aligns with a perspective that values science solely for its practical benefits.

Tyson's Scientism and Utilitarianism

What stands out in this dialogue is how Tyson’s utilitarianism—his celebration of science's contributions to civilization—functions as a cornerstone of his scientism. He dismisses philosophical critiques from anyone outside the realm of science, including philosophers of science.

Jaimongal highlights how thinkers like Einstein and John Stewart Bell have historically contributed to scientific advancements through philosophical contemplation. Tyson quickly counters that such contributions were made in a time when the boundaries between science and philosophy were less defined. He notes that figures like Bell were trained as scientists, not philosophers, implying that scientific credentials are necessary for critiquing science.

This stance reflects a scientistic bias: one must be educated in science to critique it, while philosophical qualifications are deemed unnecessary for commenting on philosophy. Tyson's viewpoint implies a hierarchy, where science is valued over philosophy due to the perceived complexity of scientific mathematics compared to philosophical speculation.

Tyson fails to recognize the implications of Jaimongal's critique of his positivistic leanings. When Jaimongal points out that valuing civilizational progress entails philosophical considerations, Tyson struggles to grasp the nuance, simply stating his preference for how science enhances civilization.

Tyson's dismissal of philosophy stems from a positivistic worldview that undervalues the humanities, assuming that science is paramount due to its practical applications and technological advancements.

Tyson's Ideology

The framework of Tyson's ideology can be summarized as follows:

1. Neoliberalism: Civilizational progress, particularly in the context of modern Western ideals, is inherently positive.
2. Utilitarianism: Science acts as the driving force behind this progress.
3. Scientism: Any philosophical criticism that impedes progress should be disregarded.

Jaimongal's critique uncovers a fundamental flaw in this perspective: by elevating science above all else, Tyson inadvertently relies on a philosophical framework that he cannot dismiss without undermining his own assertions regarding science.

Specifically, Tyson's implicit endorsement of neoliberalism lacks a strictly scientific foundation, revealing that he resorts to philosophical reasoning to justify his worldview. Although he claims to appreciate philosophers who do not disrupt scientific inquiry, his utilitarian perspective implies that non-scientific disciplines hold minimal significance.

Jaimongal's argument extends further, contending that the concepts within physics are fundamentally philosophical and metaphysical, challenging Tyson's rigid separation of science from philosophy.

Workability and the Existential Driver of Civilizational Progress

Tyson's utilitarian interpretation of science underscores his desire to keep it distinct from philosophy and religion, stemming from his fervent dedication to science. He prioritizes scientific inquiry above all other intellectual pursuits, viewing it as the pinnacle of human achievement.

The hard sciences, characterized by mathematical precision, stand in contrast to the more ambiguous nature of philosophical inquiries. While physics excels in measurement and quantification, understanding the essence of a phenomenon requires deeper contemplation.

Modeling a process does not equate to comprehending its fundamental nature. Early humans thrived by identifying patterns in their environment, even attributing those patterns to spiritual entities. The same observable phenomena can yield diverse interpretations based on cultural contexts.

In the heyday of positivism, early proponents sought to minimize differences in scientific modeling, assuming that facts remain constant across languages and cultures. Jaimongal, however, suggests that these differences are more profound and conceptual.

As previously argued, one such presupposition lies in the scientific practice of objectification, which Tyson views as a progressive force for civilization. The implications of this objectification may either benefit or ultimately harm civilization, raising questions about how civilizational goals influence scientific methodologies.

For civilization to flourish, nature must be perceived as a resource to be exploited, devoid of inherent rights or value. This raises concerns about the extent to which scientists incorporate anthropocentric values and corporate influences into their technical models.

The concept of nature's "workability" becomes subjective, as it is contingent upon humanity's ability to harness natural patterns for practical use. If a scientific theory accurately delineates how nature operates, its value lies in its utility for civilization. Without civilization, natural patterns exist independently, devoid of purpose or function.

Tyson, with his cosmic outlook, may tend to interpret these patterns as evidence of nature's active role in creation, akin to a pantheistic perspective. Nature, in this view, is engaged in a grand construction project—forming galaxies, molecular structures, and stages of universal evolution. However, this work is impersonal and devoid of moral consideration from a human standpoint.

Ultimately, the existential drive for civilizational progress emerges from a desire to create a sustainable alternative to the often chaotic and indifferent natural order. Addressing these complex interconnections requires collaboration among scientists, philosophers, historians, and artists—an endeavor hindered by the dismissive attitudes often associated with positivism and scientism.