"If your belief system is not founded in an objective reality, you should not be making decisions that affect other people." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson
Can someone please send Neil DeGrasse Tyson back to the lab? While I respect all that he has done for the field of physics, the guy needs to step away from the realms of philosophy. I'm sort of in a weird position here: I love that he has done a lot to bring an interest in physics, but at the same time I'm not sure that a science background makes one an expert in religious matters. I'm not trying to say that he should have no opinion, it's just that when he starts discussing religion it seems he tends to be a rabid atheist, and one that tries to discredit religion through logic. Sometimes he tends to go a little far.
Recently, he pointed out those only those whose belief system is based an objective reality should make decisions for other people. This eliminates pretty much everyone. Ignoring the philosophical issues (covered by Kant pretty well), the problem is that there is no objective reality. I know that has to sound weird, but it's because reality is neither objective or subjective; it just is. More to the point, most scientists got away from the idea of an objective universe decades ago.
The problem is that an objective reality implies that there is only correct description of reality, and that it is independent of the perception of any sentient being; in short, there is one truth and that truth exists regardless of what we think of it. While this sounds like it would be common sense, the problem is that there are a few cracks in the concept.
The first problem is that we're not likely to ever really figure out that truth. While I get that Tyson is most likely attempting to point out that we should look at things objectively, the reality is that no human ever looks at things completely objectively. Two people can look at the same thing and have two different opinions of it. While it can be argued that as long as they arrived at the different conclusions through logical thought then they should be considered roughly equal, the reality is that they can't; one opinion has to be right, or at least the best solution.
However, this is complicated by the very nature of modern physics. While in most sciences we can put our theories to an actual test, the same doesn't really apply to physics. Physics, and especially astronomy, is virtually a realm of pure logic, where out ability to deduce how the universe works is arguably at its finest. However, that also means that it is just as likely to involve all else of what we are, which includes our emotions. Given how hard it is to prove which theory is the right one and that it gets really fun when you start figuring out how one theory plays off against another one. Arguments between physicists can get heated; just look at how often you've seen nerd rage over something as insignificant as Power Girl's lack of a symbol, and then realize that it's something done for free. Some of these arguments involve millions of dollars of grants and corporate sponsorships, so it's easy to see why some of them get really heated.
And that assumes that the universe itself is an objective entity. We know nothing really of the universe at the macro-level; he have maps, sure, and we know how much it weighs, but we have no real idea how everything interacts together. We're just beginning to realize that a minor effect in one area can have a major effect elsewhere; there is the proverbial butterfly that creates hurricanes on the other side of the globe. It gets worse when we start looking at the really big events, such as the Fukijima Incident, and their effects on the planet. And things only scale up; why shouldn't an event in the far flung corners of the universe really mess things up for someone else in the center of the universe?
And it only gets weirder. There is a reason for things like the Gaia Theory, where some people believe that the planet has ways to defend itself and can even manipulate events should one area need something that another can provide; this is not just a mere anthropomorphism of the planet but something that a number of scientists are actually starting to debate. What if the some version exists at the universal level?
I'm not suggesting that the universe is watching us or that it even cares about the human race. I am, however, making an observation on just how little we know about the universe, and how it works and that we're depending on humans that are hardly objective to determine how it works. It just feels weird to make any kind of call on whether or not the universe is some kind of objective or subjective entity at this particular point in time. If it turns out the universe is essentially a cold and dead entity later on, I can live with that, as long as that point is at a much later date than right now.
Can someone please send Neil DeGrasse Tyson back to the lab? While I respect all that he has done for the field of physics, the guy needs to step away from the realms of philosophy. I'm sort of in a weird position here: I love that he has done a lot to bring an interest in physics, but at the same time I'm not sure that a science background makes one an expert in religious matters. I'm not trying to say that he should have no opinion, it's just that when he starts discussing religion it seems he tends to be a rabid atheist, and one that tries to discredit religion through logic. Sometimes he tends to go a little far.
Recently, he pointed out those only those whose belief system is based an objective reality should make decisions for other people. This eliminates pretty much everyone. Ignoring the philosophical issues (covered by Kant pretty well), the problem is that there is no objective reality. I know that has to sound weird, but it's because reality is neither objective or subjective; it just is. More to the point, most scientists got away from the idea of an objective universe decades ago.
The problem is that an objective reality implies that there is only correct description of reality, and that it is independent of the perception of any sentient being; in short, there is one truth and that truth exists regardless of what we think of it. While this sounds like it would be common sense, the problem is that there are a few cracks in the concept.
The first problem is that we're not likely to ever really figure out that truth. While I get that Tyson is most likely attempting to point out that we should look at things objectively, the reality is that no human ever looks at things completely objectively. Two people can look at the same thing and have two different opinions of it. While it can be argued that as long as they arrived at the different conclusions through logical thought then they should be considered roughly equal, the reality is that they can't; one opinion has to be right, or at least the best solution.
However, this is complicated by the very nature of modern physics. While in most sciences we can put our theories to an actual test, the same doesn't really apply to physics. Physics, and especially astronomy, is virtually a realm of pure logic, where out ability to deduce how the universe works is arguably at its finest. However, that also means that it is just as likely to involve all else of what we are, which includes our emotions. Given how hard it is to prove which theory is the right one and that it gets really fun when you start figuring out how one theory plays off against another one. Arguments between physicists can get heated; just look at how often you've seen nerd rage over something as insignificant as Power Girl's lack of a symbol, and then realize that it's something done for free. Some of these arguments involve millions of dollars of grants and corporate sponsorships, so it's easy to see why some of them get really heated.
And that assumes that the universe itself is an objective entity. We know nothing really of the universe at the macro-level; he have maps, sure, and we know how much it weighs, but we have no real idea how everything interacts together. We're just beginning to realize that a minor effect in one area can have a major effect elsewhere; there is the proverbial butterfly that creates hurricanes on the other side of the globe. It gets worse when we start looking at the really big events, such as the Fukijima Incident, and their effects on the planet. And things only scale up; why shouldn't an event in the far flung corners of the universe really mess things up for someone else in the center of the universe?
And it only gets weirder. There is a reason for things like the Gaia Theory, where some people believe that the planet has ways to defend itself and can even manipulate events should one area need something that another can provide; this is not just a mere anthropomorphism of the planet but something that a number of scientists are actually starting to debate. What if the some version exists at the universal level?
I'm not suggesting that the universe is watching us or that it even cares about the human race. I am, however, making an observation on just how little we know about the universe, and how it works and that we're depending on humans that are hardly objective to determine how it works. It just feels weird to make any kind of call on whether or not the universe is some kind of objective or subjective entity at this particular point in time. If it turns out the universe is essentially a cold and dead entity later on, I can live with that, as long as that point is at a much later date than right now.
No comments:
Post a Comment