Cosmic Perspectives: The Philosophy of a Man Against Philosophy

(Evie Wade) 

Neil deGrasse Tyson is first and foremost an astrophysicist. He has many accolades, like when he was twice appointed by President Bush to two separate commissions to research and report on the future goals of US space travel. Also, he’s the recipient of twenty-three honorary doctorates and the NASA Distinguished Public Service Medal, the highest award given by NASA to a non-government citizen. He was also named the Sexiest Astrophysicist alive by People's Magazine, and is so far the only one to receive this prestigious award. 

I picked his book Cosmic Perspectives as my end of semester project because I’m pretty familiar with Tyson’s work, and I was very curious about one of his books being included in a philosophy class, because he really dislikes philosophers. He thinks philosophy is distracting from more important matters (namely science). Here’s a small segment from a podcast episode where he was the guest star:

(For those interested in discovering more of his thoughts: https://gizmodo.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-slammed-for-dismissing-philosophy-a-1575178224)

I would argue that while he publicly claims to reject philosophy as a concept, he certainly seems to engage with it a lot. Here are some direct quotes of his that I found after a mere google search:

“My view is that if your philosophy is not unsettled daily then you are blind to all the universe has to offer.”

“For me, I am driven by two main philosophies: know more today about the world than I knew yesterday. And along the way, lessen the suffering of others. You'd be surprised how far that gets you.” 

Hmm, doesn’t sound like someone who is completely anti-philosophy. Even the name of this book, Cosmic Perspectives, implies some sort of ‘higher thinking,’ perhaps a better way of looking at the world. Almost like…a philosophy (but don’t tell him I said that). 

The book opens with a preface containing his thesis: The world is full of contradicting information, it’s very hard to wade through the noise and find the truth. The answer? He says it’s science. Not very ‘philosopher’ of him. But he clarifies, saying that we need to return to rationality. 

“Science distinguishes itself from all other branches of human pursuit by its power to probe and understand the behavior of nature on a level that allows us to predict with accuracy, and even control, the outcomes of events in the natural world.” 

He comments on how the scientific community is also distinct from most others, because Group Think is heavily discouraged. In most other fields, you move up by being agreeable to others, affirming them and tying yourself to people further up the ladder. This is especially prominent in politics in this age, with bipartisan feuds bleeding into literally every aspect of life. Science advances, however, because people are encouraged to second guess every assumption about reality. He thinks society would benefit a lot from learning how to constructively question our leaders. But he’s not a skeptic, he very much believes in science, and would probably consider it the highest authority. He wants us as readers to approach every discussion, every issue, as a scientist. Question, but be rational, and be aware of when the facts end and your opinion begins.

Each chapter of the book discusses a modern day controversial issue like Gender, Sexuality, Abortion, Race, War, etc. He provides the science, the facts of each issue, and does his best to come to the most logical conclusion based on those facts. He dabbles in ethical or philosophical elements, but tries to stick to the science. Obviously one can’t be completely rational and unbiased, and I disagree with some of his interpretations, but I respect what he does. 

A thought experiment that stood out to me was his idea that humans may not be the most intelligent life form out there. Our closest biological relatives, the apes, only have a 2% difference in DNA from us, and yet think of the difference that 2% makes. We can’t even communicate with them, we operate on totally different wavelengths. And yet we presume to theorize about possible alien life as if we would be on the same level. Think about it: most media about intelligent alien life involves humans being smarter and saving other societies, or them being marginally more advanced and saving us. What’s to say the difference between them and us isn’t the same as us and apes? The smartest apes achieve what any human toddler can do. We can’t speak to them, can barely read their emotions and figure out their reasoning. We could be that to another alien species.

Here’s a video where he discusses this in more detail, starting around minute 50. 

A main concern of his that arises from this reasoning is that humans may not be smart enough to fully comprehend the universe and how it works. He actually admits that the idea scares him, keeps him up at night. Which I find very interesting, because surely someone so immersed in the scientific community would be aware of the fact that we are always discovering new things. Unless the world ends in the next 50 years or so, he will die before some scientific discoveries are made. Does he think he’ll be part of the generation that cracks the code, that finally figures out how everything works? Even if our brains are capable of understanding it, there’s no telling when science will advance to that point. So it’s incredibly unlikely that he’ll be one of the lucky few in history to finally get it. So why does it keep him up?

Another aspect of this thought experiment that’s really interesting to me is how it almost parallels certain religious arguments. If there’s a higher power out there who created the world, and us along with it, surely we wouldn’t be able to gain a holistic understanding of the universe? It may not be because our DNA is 2% different from God’s, it would be because we were created with a limited capacity for understanding. I’ve fully embraced the idea that there are some things simply unexplainable by science, and that doesn’t bother me at all. I love science, and love learning about new discoveries that we’ve made, but let’s be honest, every intelligent person will happily admit to you how much they don’t know about their field.

I suppose that’s part of my own cosmic perspective: science is important. Philosophy is important. And there are things that can’t be explained or reasoned around by either, and that’s ok. I would say it's good, even, because we can keep striving for better understanding and deeper knowledge indefinitely. 

Question: What do you think about the idea that some things are beyond human reasoning or science?