I call this to your attention because your two emails to me were not in the form of questions. They were declarations of information, as though drawn from some source that you trust. But, like I said, that source does not have your science literacy or intellectual enlightenment as a priority.
Sincerely,
Neil deGrasse Tyson
* Of course millions of people, mostly children, starve each year. But this is traceable to bad politics and broken distribution channels, not to a shortage of food in the world.
† Name changed.
Chapter 6
Philosophy
Sometimes you just have to ask a deep question.
Alien Homicide
In February 2007, Michael Cuellar inquired about the legality and morality of killing a visiting space alien who may be more intelligent than we are. Or does might make right?
Hello Mr. Cuellar,
I do not claim to be an expert on morality, but I am happy to offer an opinion and perspective on your queries. Yes, it would be morally wrong, unless we were starving with no other source of food and their flesh were digestible to our stomachs.
I would think it’s morally wrong to harm anything, regardless of its measure of intelligence, without reasons of promoting your own survival or the survival of your kin. I cannot imagine who would think that it’s not wrong to do so. There is a growing literature of Space Law that addresses the meaning of murder if you kill a visiting space alien, whose civil rights are not protected under any constitution in the world.
Furthermore, “might makes right” is not the same thing as “might makes morality.”
No doubt we’d have a hard time killing a more intelligent species than we are. If we assume they are more intelligent compared with us than, say, we are compared with chimps, then they would not fear us any more than we fear an uprising in the monkey jungle.
To keep our identity secret will be very hard, now that our radio bubble is more than 70 light-years out there, and expanding.
Thank you for your interest.
Sincerely,
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Truth or Meaning?
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Dr. Tyson,
I am a high school science teacher (astronomy and physics) and a tremendous fan of your work.
I am also currently pursuing my doctorate in Educational Psychology (University of Illinois-Chicago). I am engaged in a lively debate this semester as to the role of science in research. Distilled, the question comes down to, “Is science concerned with truth or understanding/meaning?” I would value your opinion on this matter.
Best Wishes and Clear Skies,
Kevin Murphy
Dear Mr. Murphy,
Thanks for your note.
I have never been a big fan of philosophy as applied to the physical sciences in the 20th (+21st) century. I have found common arguments to be based more on word usage and word meaning than on ideas, and so have found the discussions to be largely useless to the progress of science.
So I refuse to enter arguments over words. I would rather state what science does, and leave you free to attach whatever words you wish to the enterprise. If we agree on the word, then fine. If we do not agree on the word, the expressed idea remains unaffected.
That being said, science seeks all three (truth, understanding, meaning), but primarily concerns itself with obtaining sufficient knowledge of how the universe works to be able to make testable predictions about its past and future behavior. Computer simulations can substitute for past and future behavior when sensible.
If we predict with accuracy and precision the behavior of nature, then we are satisfied with our work and move on to the next problem. I would say that the major equations of modern physics represent cosmic truths. As do the major ideas of how the universe works—quantum theory, relativity theory, evolutionary theory, thermodynamic theory, etc. These truths provide understanding for the behavior of things and the existence of phenomena.
The word “meaning” is more often than not taken to be personal. The way people often use the word specifically excludes science and its methods and tools. But one can imagine a new kind of philosophy where science is brought to bear on social/political/cultural issues. For example, if you a-priori assert that human life is sacred, then decisions related to saving and preserving it become simple matters of reason. If vacation and home life adds meaning to peoples’ lives, then you would use the methods and tools of science to help you make decisions that maximize this feature of life. Right now, these issues and others are inefficiently argued by politicians, religious leaders, and lawyers.
Good luck with your studies. And thanks again for your comments and your interest in my views.
Neil deGrasse Tyson
How?
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Dr. Tyson,
I had the pleasure of attending your lecture last night with my two colleagues. The topic of the convergence of Science & Religion has fascinated me for years as a scientist and as a religious person.
I wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion that using religion to explain frontiers of science is inherently shortsighted. Over the past several years, I have read books where a common theme in all of them is a need to separate science’s goals (explaining “how”) and religion’s goals (explaining “why”). When either of the two attempt to explain the others’ main goal, they necessarily fail.
One philosophical note: it is my personal feeling (regret), that science is converging with religion because it is becoming a religion. The absolute faith that science can explain everything (i.e. “Scientism”) is unfortunately embraced by those who do not see they are creating this new religion. In politics, the principal of Secularism closely parallels this.
Thomas E. Downs
Dear Mr. Downs,
This distinction between “how” and “why,” while resonant with emergent philosophies, is not entirely clean. The following are just a few (pure) “why” questions for which faith-based inquiry is powerless to answer, beyond the catch-all response of “Because God made it that way”:
•Why is the sky blue?
•Why does the moon always show the same face to Earth?
•Why does Venus go through phases like the Moon?
•Why does the Sun have spots?
•Why do hurricanes in the northern hemisphere rotate counterclockwise?
•Why is August hotter than June, when the Sun’s rays on Earth are more direct in June?
Consider further that I know of no book of “why” questions, answered unambiguously by faith-based religious philosophy—that is, “why” questions answered in a way that everyone can agree. If faith is a personal construct, then there can be no agreed-upon book of answers.
Active scientists do not run around declaring that science can explain everything. For example, no one of us claims that science can explain love or hate or beauty or valor or cowardice. But as science advances, these notions may indeed come into the experimental purview of science, just as so many previously intractable subjects have done in the past. This is not an absolute faith as you describe it, it is a prevailing confidence based on past performance of the methods and tools of science.
Faith, as the term is commonly used, requires no experimental evidence to hold a belief. So to declare that science is becoming an absolute, faith based religion generalizes science in a way that is simply untrue among the actual practitioners of the field. I find this argument used principally when the arguer hears the word “faith” used pejoratively, and so invokes it as an attack on science so that science does not retain that philosophical advantage over religion.
Thomas E. Downs continued . . .
Finally, don’t get me wrong—as a scientist myself, I realize that “active scientists do not run around declaring that science can explain everything.” However, public opinion (mostly a result of ignorance) does lead to this conclusion when science is presented as an attack on relig
ion.
You know as well as I that the intention of most scientists is not one of anti-religion, but there are a few out there who revel in it and the backlash it creates.
One quick clarification. For sake of space, from Merriam-Webster.
•Why: For what cause, reason, or purpose.
•How: In what manner or way; to what degree or extent.
I followed . . .
To base a philosophy on a dictionary distinction between two related words is shaky ground. All too often, modern philosophical arguments are traceable to disagreements in the definitions of words rather than in the analysis of ideas themselves.
“Why is the sky blue?” is a question that seeks a cause, just as required of the definition above. I suppose we could re-word the question to use “how,” but the sentence would be awkward and not represent the way anyone thinks about the problem in real life: “How does white light coming from the Sun turn blue as it passes through the atmosphere?”
From the other direction, one could ask: “Why am I here?” A common, simple construction. But I assert that this can be turned into “how” questions with similar effort: “How did inanimate matter assemble to become animate? How did animate matter evolve to become Homo sapiens? How did the run of Homo sapiens lead to me, here and now?”
I think the real issue here is not “how” or “why,” but the questions themselves, without regard to the definition of the first word in the sentence. We can make a book of questions about the world that are answered by science. And this book continues to grow exponentially, with a doubling time of 15 years (based on peer-reviewed research publication rates in all sciences).
Is there a book of questions with answers provided by spiritual inquiry? (Of course, religion has been at it for many thousands of years.) If such a book exists, how big is it? Is this book growing? Does the book distinguish itself from other written works that probe the human condition, like the complete works of Shakespeare?
So while I will not declare that science can currently answer all questions, the trend is quite impressive, especially when compared with religion, which spent most of its history explaining things (answering whole categories of questions) via divine forces that, in fact, had natural explanations, such as disease, hurricanes, planetary orbits, etc. Note that natural disasters are still referred to in many insurance contracts as “Acts of God.”
I note further that religion-bashing occurs primarily among atheists and not by scientists (while there is, of course, some overlap, the loudest atheists are generally not scientists). And yet, my read of modern culture tells me that attacks by religion on science are vastly more common than the reverse, contrary to your statement. Recently in Georgia, the school board wanted to put a disclaimer sticker on biology textbooks. But you do not find scientists asking for disclaimers to be affixed to Bibles in church.
The most visible anti-religion scientist I know is the physicist Steven Weinberg. And he is far outnumbered by pro-spiritual scientist/writers such as Paul Davies, Robert Jastrow, and John Polkinghorne.
And may I remind you that in the famous Scopes “monkey” trial,* the science teacher lost the case.
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Why?
Circa 2009
Via Facebook
May I ask you two quick questions?
1.Are you a Sam Cooke fan?
2.What’s your honest opinion as to why we are here?
Jason Harris
Dear Jason,
1.I’m not any more of a Sam Cooke fan than I am of other crooners in the era.
2.I never think much about “why.” Why implies purpose set by external forces. I have always felt that purpose is not defined outside of ourselves, but from deep within. My purpose in life is to lessen the suffering of others; advance our understanding of the universe; and enlighten others along the way.
Neil
Yin and Yang
Circa 2009
Via Facebook
Neil,
Everything I have learned and observed in this world and in this universe seems to fit into the idea of Yin & Yang. Everything flows in cycles from biological and physical realities to ideologies, to presidents. However, as I understand it, the prevailing astrophysical view of the end of the universe is one that fits the entropy law: greater and greater disorder until everything is basically as spread out as it can get. This seems to me to be the only example of Yin & Yang being violated.
I understand that nothing has been shown to violate the entropy law. However, the principle of yin and yang seems to work inside the entropy law. Is this the case in your mind? Are there any oscillatory theories of the universe that would allow me to reconcile these beliefs? What are your thoughts on the matter?
Reid Tice
Dear Reid,
Yin & Yang offers no predictive value unless you can invoke its principles to say when and where something will cycle back. Apart from this, my read of Yin and Yang is not that things cycle but that things are in balance—with opposite forms, themes, ideas, in mutual, though beneficial, tension.
Furthermore, many things have not cycled back—and will not likely ever cycle back. There’s no longer any state-sanctioned slavery. Kings have lost most of the power they once wielded in war, culture, and politics.
Mars was once an oasis of running water. It’s bone dry today. And there is no evidence that it will ever return to its previous state. Same for Venus, on which there’s a runaway greenhouse effect, leaving the surface at 900 degrees Fahrenheit.
We are living longer than ever before. This advance of technology, and its role in our lives, is not a reversible trend. So you cannot ignore all that does not cycle, select what does, and declare Yin and Yang to be an operational principle of our universe.
Neil
I Think, Therefore I Doubt
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Dear Mr. Tyson,
I am somewhat torn. I can’t get near philosophy without being repelled by its un-scientific musing and empty wordiness. I simply do not understand how one can be so confident that their particular explanation for the universe, or consciousness, or the meaning of knowledge is anywhere near correct without the necessary experimentation and peer review. Can this field be taken seriously when, to debate another person’s point of view, one must only summon up their own, equally unfounded, ideas?
But, many of these philosophers were also very intelligent men. Some were even scientists themselves. Certainly if these intelligent men muse to themselves, it could have some merit. This leads to my dilemma: I do not know how to reconcile the fields of philosophy and the fields of science, except to say that philosophy simply muses about things science hasn’t explained yet. To me it is a more relaxed and vague form of theology.
So I ask you: What do you think of philosophy’s role in the explanation of the workings of the mind and universe, and in the field of science?
Thank you very much for your time.
Respectfully,
Daniel Narciso
Dear Mr. Narciso,
My sentiments largely align with yours. I have yet to see a philosopher, formally trained in the 20th century and onward (via a university Philosophy Department) make any material advances in our understanding of the natural world. They typically carry a level of confidence in their knowledge that is unwarranted by data and observations of the physical universe. Philosophers have no laboratories. No telescopes. No microscopes. They have their brains and armchairs, and falsely believe that this is sufficient to gain insight to the operations of nature.
I have no comment on other branches of philosophy: ethics, religious philosophy, political philosophy, etc. I lament the loss of useful philosophers that predated modern physics—Immanuel Kant, David Hume, Kurt Gödel, Bertrand Russell, Ernst Mach. Not coincidentally, the transition to uselessness began when our experiments revealed aspects of the universe that no longer followed what anyone would call common sense. The tenets of relativity and quantum mechanic
s, for example.
The day a philosopher’s conversation on the “meaning of meaning” offers useful insight to the next cosmic discovery, I will be happy to revise my views.
Best to you,
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Express Yourself
Undated Communication—circa 2014
Via US Postal Service
To: Neil deGrasse Tyson
I have seen you on the History Channel, Discovery Channel, I bought and read your books. And I have heard you on the overnight radio show “Coast to Coast.”
One thing has remained constant throughout all these media forms; and that is how you communicate; the style that you express and transfer information, which leads to my question.
Who, what, where, and how have you learned to communicate so effectively. I have a lot of information (in my head) that I have trouble expressing effectively. You seem to the able to anticipate what questions a person may be thinking while they are reading or listening—and then answer them in the next sentence or paragraph. I wish to learn how to be so foresighted.
I have included a return envelope for your convenience. The Number and Unit designation on the envelope is my address at the Texas prison where I am housed.
Thank you,
David Swaim #1436288
Iowa Park, Texas
Letters from an Astrophysicist Page 8
