Alright, time to besmirch the popular celebrity worship of a borderline pseudo-scientist. The target: Neil deGrasse Tyson. The reason? Hes an academic tool. His first-author-credit publications, though interesting, are trivial. Trivial in the sense that they have no significant bearing on modern or popular science and essentially no tangible qualities by which physical science can be advanced. His research is generally of the Huh, thats interesting quality. And, yet, he has the gall to use his popularity to discredit similarly soft forms of science typified by philosophical endeavors. This is the problem with self-absorbed, sheltered, cubicle-dwelling, keyboard warrior academics. People who sit around all day and bask in the glory of how awesome they believe themselves to be simply because they have an advanced degree in some arbitrarily abstract topic that contribute very little to the pursuits of mankind are the problem with academics, in general. Sure, he functions to pique the curiosity of others in science and promotes the necessity of interest in the sciences, and thats all well-and-good, but that is not a credential to unilaterally dismiss anything with which he doesnt agree. He may be a scientist in spirit, but he is not a scientist in practice. Actual, real scientists generate knowledge and encourage and participate in interpretive, intellectual debate. Tyson does not generate knowledge. He re-interprets extant knowledge to his ability, which is also well-and-good, but he also holds and defends the silly notion that philosophy is of little merit. And that is why he is a pseudo-scientist in practice. Such is the reason why I generally view pure academics with disdain. Most pure academics devote a significant portion of their life to learning about a very specific topic while eschewing a more general and arguably more valuable scientific understanding. It is not enough to say, Well, I have a Ph.D. in astrophysics postulating the development of carbon stars in metal-devoid environments by interpretive extrapolation of data from spectrographic analysis. Anyone can say that. It means nothing. It holds no value to simply have such narrowly-focused work published and to use such a publication as justification for academic standing while simultaneously holding disparaging views of philosophical endeavors. Philosophy is the core of science. Understanding does not exist without questioning. Anyone can sit in a lab and review data. Anyone who cares can earn a Ph.D. Not everyone can do something meaningful afterwards, however, and that is why pure academics are dangerous: Pure academics, like government, serve only to perpetuate themselves. They do not contribute to a better or more efficient future. That is the purpose of science: to understand. And, by understanding, to make better. Science without intent is masturbation. Unless youre willing to argue the benefit of individual masturbation to mankind, masturbatorial science is meaningless. My problem with Tyson is not with his character, nor with his persona, nor with his intellect, nor with his pursuits. My problem with Tyson is his self-reveling in the image he intentionally cultivates of himself amongst the TV intellectuals--those whose only interest in science is borne of, facilitated through, and limited by their attention span as it relates to hour-long, academically-limited and factually diminished television specials. He *wants* people to see how intelligent he is and, by correlation, how awesome science is because of him and his television shows. He doesnt represent about actual scientific pursuits, he wants to be recognized for his own own personal interest in science. And thats detrimental to actual, fundamental science, which must be performed in the absence of notoriety. Popular science is wonderful for capitalism. Popular science is terrible for fundamental understanding. Tyson wants to promote a popularist view of scientific principles by bringing his message to a wider audience but, in so doing, is diluting the meaning of actual science. In this day-and-age, NO ONE is restricted from learning, but the intentional perpetuation of idolism and fan-worship of a pseudo-scientist who decries the most basic necessity for science--philosophy--is not only dangerous in thought but in practice, as well. So, hooray for his ability to generate interest in otherwise socially-mundane and obscured topics amongst the general populace, but boo to the man who actually believes that philosophy is no longer relevant to mankind. Isaac Newton was a philosopher, not a physicist. Gottfried Leibniz was a philosopher, not a physicist. Planck, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Einstein, Bose, Fermi, Dyson, Hilbert, Bell...these were all philosophers FIRST, and physicists SECOND. Richard Feynman--easily the most intelligent person who ever lived--was a philosopher. Neil deGrasse Tyson is not a philosopher. And the world will never know the difference.
Posted on: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:59:15 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015