Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Science Without Philosophy?

PSI Blog 20230814 Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Science Without Philosophy?

Big Bang Theory falls on its own petard.

Famous engraving in Camille Flammarion’s 1888 book L’atmosphère: météorologie populaire.

 

The current godfather and guardian of the cosmogonical paradigm has just been chastised for his wholesale dismissal of philosophy. In doing this much needed job on Tyson, Benjamin Cain, who has a Ph.D. in philosophy, gives a new definition for the word “scientism.” In the past, that word has been used by religious folks to denigrate the scientific method as the only way to establish truth. I like Cain’s definition a lot, and will use it in the future. There is a telling reason Tyson and his compatriots claim to have no use for philosophy.

 

The reason for the dismissal is clear: Bad Philosophy! Here is my definition of scientism adapted from Cain’s initiation: Scientism is use of the scientific method for making truth claims while being ignorant of the underlying fundamental assumptions.

 

In other words, regressive physicists and cosmogonists are quite happy with their story. It brings riches and fame galore. The public seems to love their fantastic, colorful claims. Sure, the contradictions and paradoxes are vaguely troublesome, but so far there seems to be no reason to dig deeper to find out why. Ignorance sometimes can be bliss.

 

So why is the “underlying metaphysics” the culprit in the mess Tyson stepped in? That becomes clear when you read and thoroughly understand "The Ten Assumptions of Science." It turns out no one can live without philosophy. Like his empiricist ancestors, Tyson does not recognize his own philosophy. According to Collingwood, at best, it amounts to the juvenile form he called “presuppositions.”[1] These are unconscious fundamental metaphysical assumptions that cannot be proven and always have opposites. Cosmogonists, by definition, presuppose finity and that the universe had a beginning. True to form, they rarely, if ever, admit that finity is only an assumption and that without it, cosmogony would be defunct. This is the bad philosophy Tyson has to ignore. Assuming the opposing, also not provable fundamental assumption, infinity would destroy cosmogony and what remains of Tyson’s career.

 

So, you can see why cosmogonists must prevent their presuppositions from ever seeing the light of day as recognized fundamental assumptions. Scientism, as now defined, is no longer a religious swear word, but gives meaning to what regressive physicists and cosmogonists are doing and need to do. It amounts to a travesty of science.

 

The scientific method involves observation, experiment, and interpretation. We have to admit our interpretations may be biased by our underlying fundamental assumptions. But that is seldom the case for paradigms not in crisis. As Kuhn wrote:

 

“It is, I think, particularly in periods of acknowledged crisis that scientists have turned to philosophical analysis as a device for unlocking the riddles of their field. Scientists have not generally needed or wanted to be philosophers. Indeed, normal science usually holds creative philosophy at arm’s length, and probably for good reasons. To the extent that normal research work can be conducted by using the paradigm as a model, rules and assumptions need not be made explicit. In Section V we noted that the full set of rules sought by philosophical analysis need not even exist. But that is not to say that the search for assumptions (even for nonexistent ones) cannot be an effective way to weaken the grip of a tradition upon the mind and to suggest the basis for a new one.”[2]

 

Obviously, Tyson doesn’t realize that. The lesson here: Revolutions do not occur until the contradictions become extreme enough for all to see. Furthermore, do not expect the promoters of the status quo such as Tyson to see the light any time soon. He will not be the one to lead us out of the morass.

 

By now it should be clear why I have emphasized scientific philosophy and the discovery and promotion of fundamental assumptions as the key to overthrowing regressive physics and cosmogony. Tweaking the math without adhering to strictly scientific assumptions, has been, and will continue to be of no avail.

 

I have received comments to the effect that, if fundamental assumptions are not completely provable, then it makes no difference which of the two opposites we choose. This is definitely not the case. The fact is the deterministic assumptions lead to science and the indeterministic ones lead to religion. In reading "The Ten Assumptions of Science" you will see the extensive data I use in support, while their opposites have only dreams and imaginings in “support” as I showed in detail in my recent book “Religious Roots of Relativity.”

 

Here is Cain’s rightful complaint exposing Tyson’s pitiful attempt at doing astrophysics without philosophy:

 

Trampling the Record of Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Scientistic Confusions

 

PSI Blog 20230814

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! Please subscribe for free to receive new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] Collingwood, R.G. 1940. An Essay on Metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

 

[2] Kuhn, T.S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 88.