-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Real Scientists vs New Atheists/Scientism on the Importance of Philosophy
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
Notice anything about those scientists on the left? They have all died. The philosophy they are talking about is not modern philosophy.
Rationalize all you want.
Earthling
David Henson
Notice the ones on the right. Are they scientists in any real sense or just poster boys for science when they are on TV or a book promotional tour?
Shad
Veteran Member
Nye is an engineer he is not a scientist by profession nor training. He just plays one on TV. As far as I know the other 3 have not done anything serious in their field for years. All they do is write books for public consumption, debate and talk on TV. You are right in my opinion. Hence why I stopped listening the to 3 with degrees years ago and Nye in grade school.
Liu
Well-Known Member
While I heard all those names before, from those on the right I only know anything about the scientific work of the first in the list. Those on the left, I know something about each of theirs.The reason might be that my scientific field is linguistics and not physics, but still.
In other words, not sure whether we are comparing the proper kinds of people here.
In other words, not sure whether we are comparing the proper kinds of people here.
Niels bohrs quote the very last part has changed my opinion of his copenhagen interpretation. I thought he was a clown its his students who are the clowns!!!!!
Altfish
Veteran Member
Good grief, I can't believe the glee you religious people get when you try and knock the modern day scientists.
They are all excellent communicators, people who can translate the science they studied into lay language that the likes of myself and the rest of the lay public can understand.
They have all had books published, Dawkins coined the term the 'meme'; which is in common use today. Krauss has published many papers on theoretical physics. Neil de Grasse Tyson is a research scientist. Bill Nye never claimed to be a scientist.
As I said earlier they are all great communicators - there are many more similar people -
They are all excellent communicators, people who can translate the science they studied into lay language that the likes of myself and the rest of the lay public can understand.
They have all had books published, Dawkins coined the term the 'meme'; which is in common use today. Krauss has published many papers on theoretical physics. Neil de Grasse Tyson is a research scientist. Bill Nye never claimed to be a scientist.
As I said earlier they are all great communicators - there are many more similar people -
What I know of physolophy is that it keeps on back pedalling furiously when a new scientific discovery is done. Viceversa, science does not give a rip of what the most fashionable philosophical is, when it finds something new. Obviously.
So, it should be obvious which one is intellectually dominant here.
Ciao
- viole
exchemist
Veteran Member
I agree there is a chasm in quality between the statements of those on the left and those on the right. The latter, who are indeed, as others have pointed out, TV personalities as well as scientists, may have fallen into the TV presenter's trap of simplifying and trivialising. Let us hope their actual thoughts, off-camera, are more profound.
I reserve special contempt, I think, for Krauss, with his ignorant and superficial dismissal of philosophy.
It is not clear from the context what Dawkins' remark about philosophers was trying to say. It is a true statement, as it stands, but then the same can most certainly be said of any physicist. One of the lessons of c.20th physics is that common sense is a highly unreliable guide to nature. So one would need to know what Dawkins meant by the remark - one hopes he did not intend it pejoratively.
As for Degrasse Tyson, well, he's just inarticulate. I have no idea what the quoted passage even means.
But, to be fair, we do not know how representative the quotations of the the people on the right are of their real thinking (apart from Krauss: Is Lawrence Krauss a Physicist, or Just a Bad Philosopher?). It is quite easy to make someone look a fool by selecting a poor remark.
Last edited:
Jumi
Well-Known Member
I think it's easy to understand once you notice that it's taken from some live discussion.As for Degrasse Tyson, well, he's just inarticulate. I have no idea what the quoted passage even means.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Could be, though Krauss has documented form for being a jerk about philosophy.
Jumi
Well-Known Member
I don't remember that guy. So I don't know what he's known for.
I do like deGrasse Tyson though and the quote makes sense. Didn't know he's now lumped in with "New Atheists"... didn't even know he was atheist.
Liu
Well-Known Member
I have a hard time figuring out any major similarities between linguistics and mathematics you could be referring to.
Only point would be that the findings of both are also used by other sciences (even if not always in a proper manner...), but that's pretty much the case for any science.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Degrasse Tyson also has form for being a jerk about philosophy. Massimo Pigliucci (who is both a philosopher and a biologist) had a good go at him over it a few years ago.I don't remember that guy. So I don't know what he's known for.
But is this thread about "New Atheists?" Is Bill Nye one of these? Surely not. He's just a pop-science TV person, isn't he?
So, as far as philosophy goes, we seem to have 2 opinionated jerks, one irrelevance and Dawkins. On him, one would have to research what he actually thinks, since the quotation does not tell us.
Maybe if I have time I'll take a look at that.