The Desolation of Reification - Part I

5/17/2021 The Desolation of Reification — Part I | by Alexander Sich | May, 2021 | Medium
Open in app
Alexander Sich
2 Followers About
The Desolation of Reification — Part I

Alexander Sich 2 hours ago · 23 min read
https://asich-620610.medium.com/the-desolation-of-reification-part-i-dfddc66ed144 1/24
This is the introduction to a three-part series that expounds upon some of the self-
inflicted wounds plaguing the modern empirical sciences — physics in particular —
threatening their continued successes. The second article focuses upon necessary
terminological distinctions that must be drawn to provide a context for addressing
the problems. The third article examines common examples of the deeply flawed
language of mathematical reification employed to describe physical phenomena.
Introduction
To greater and lesser extents, for approximately the past 150 years the
astounding growth of knowledge of the world employing physics has been
hamstrung largely by physicists themselves. The primary contributor is the
repeated careless use of terms spurred by the imposition of unscientific
interpretations. Of course, this will require some expansion… and a humble
request for the reader to indulge me with a little patience.
Hubris? Physics “hamstrung” by physicists? The universe is “not mathematical”?

Hear me out, please.
Exposing Some Nonsense
Around the turn of the 20th century, classical physicists were confronted by
seemingly inexplicable observations that eventually spurred (in particular) the
development of quantum and relativity theories. During roughly the same period
and all the way up to the present, the brilliant findings of physics have been
tainted by neo-Kantianism, positivism, and various forms of reductionism.
Physicists were generally neither trained nor experienced in philosophy — in
particular, missing the boat on realism. Einstein understood this and mildly
chastised physicists to engage in philosophical reflection upon the findings. [00]
To be clear: it is not the undeniable successes of physicists during this period,

e.g., extremely accurate and precise predictions of quantum mechanics, and of
special and general relativity. These and other findings have greatly increased
our knowledge of the physical world. It would be an understatement merely to
suggest resulting technologies have altered the course of human development.
But, the natural science of physics is practiced by human beings, and the human
condition is all too often burdened by pride, ignorance, complacency, entrenched
orthodoxy, and jealousy. While the practice of any natural science — understood
as an intellectual virtue (more on this below) helps to promote healthy
reasoning, as humans there are many competing forms of “Turkish Delight” that
weaken our capacity to reason. For example, success in prediction and theory
development is not necessarily accompanied by understanding. Moreover, if not
careful in one’s own field and if not open to the findings of other fields of inquiry,
success can take on a momentum of its own to breed pride… and even contempt.
The terms and even the kind of terminological language employed in one field do
not apply as well in other fields, which in turn leads to confusion and jealously
protecting one’s own turf. [01]
Stephen Hawking’s derisive view of philosophy was shocking in its ignorance

when he asserted “Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in
science. Particularly physics,” and that scientists rather than philosophers “have
become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge”. [02]
The underlying view espoused by Hawking is that other fields of inquiry must be
practiced like physics or face derision and be ignored. Indeed, in his book The
Grand Design, Hawking opined “philosophy is dead” because the big questions
discussed earlier by philosophers are now in the hands of physicists. [03] The
irony is not only that Hawking promoted his own inadequate philosophical
opinion (hence refuting himself), but he also squarely ignored Einstein’s
admonition to, well, avail one’s self of an education.
Nobel laureate physicist Steven Weinberg, guilty of spouting nonsense on

previous occasions (the laws of physics are as real as the rocks in the field [04]),
devoted an entire chapter “Against Philosophy” in his book Dreams of a Final
Theory in which he ineptly argued philosophy is more damaging than supportive
of physics, often like a straightjacket from which physicists must free themselves.
Not to be outdone, Neil de Grasse Tyson — supported by Richard Dawkins —
categorically stated in public “…we learn about the expanding universe, … we
learn about quantum physics, each of which falls so far out of what you can
deduce from your armchair that the whole community of philosophers … was
rendered essentially obsolete.” [05, 06] Tyson completely misses the point:
philosophy depends upon what the MESs learn about the natural world in order
to then reason to higher verities. There is more on Tyson below.
By self-admission, these gentlemen despise the “love of wisdom” (philosophy),

[07] perhaps because they know not what wisdom is, in contrast to the mere
acquisition of knowledge within their own narrow fields. They are little more
than the modern version of Ancient Greek sophists: more concerned about
profiting from winning arguments and entertaining the unsuspecting with
allegedly profound assertions than about pursuing truth. However, addressed
below is a deeper more problematic issue (for them) why these gentlemen reject
philosophy as an effective means for reflecting upon reality.
Indeed, it is not the successes themselves, but the reductionism of many

physicists’ perspectives imposed upon reality that is at issue. Physics is a powerful
tool, but neither is it the only tool (an opinion that betrays an ontologically flat-
landed view of reality) nor the “best” one (an opinion which betrays a flat-landed
epistemology) — both largely imposed uncritically. If one believes a priori (and
quite unscientifically) that the only or “best” available tool by which to
understand reality is a hammer (physics), then every problem (phenomena not
understood) looks like a nail… and is treated as such.
This disordered perspective was animated by bad philosophical (ultimately self-

immolating) ideas — wrecking damage in their wake: naturalism, materialism,
physicalism, scientism, reification, etc. To be clear: criticized are not necessarily
the “process” or “methodological” versions of such philosophical views, although
there are ample reasons to criticize unrestrained versions of these. Rather, it is
the fallacy reification (in particular) that must be exposed for the cancerous
meme it is. Reification is a fallacy of ambiguity by which an abstraction is treated
as if it were a concrete real event or physical entity with causal efficacy. In the
case of physics, mathematics takes on a life of its own — trumping even the
reality of the physical phenomena described (the map is confused for the
territory).
Some examples are, “the laws of nature govern the behaviors of…,” “light is not
only an electromagnetic wave but a probability wave…,” “spacetime bends,
warps, and twists…,” “the laws of nature are as real as the rocks in the field,”
“mass is equivalent to energy,” “the universe is mathematical,” etc. Here is
another recent example quoted at length:
“… buried in [quantum mechanics’] complex equations, is the key to understanding

how life unfolds. Quantum theory tells us that reality is expressed in a function
called a wavefunction which describes not only what exists based on our experience
but all things that could exist at that moment. That which we have not observed or
measured, exists within the wavefunction even if it contradicts other observations.
The cat is dead and alive at once.” [08]
Interestingly, much of this parallels what resulted from a flawed philosophical

perspective imposed upon Newton’s “Laws” of motion (in particular the 2nd
Law): a mechanistic view of reality that denies the intrinsic natures of material
objects and physical phenomena, reducing them to inert marionettes whose
actions are wholly explicable by the application of external forces. Indeed, it is
the deist notion of the “Watchmaker” Creator (who wound up the mechanical
universe and let it go — precluding His presence from that point) that is one of
several flawed views of reality resulting from the notion of Newtonian
“mechanism”.
A Digression on Worldviews that Animate the Pursuit of Knowledge and

Truth
On the above point, while Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga’s criticisms of

methodological naturalism are in some respects correct, in a broader sense he
misses the mark a bit. It is, in fact, irrelevant whether “the actual practice and
content of science” imposed by some reductionist scientists to poison the well for
others: this does no violence to the nature and efficacy of methodological
naturalism. [09] Partly as a result, Plantinga fell prey to supporting the
misguided and failed project known as “Intelligent Design”. Interestingly,
Plantinga himself correctly doubts whether the Intelligent Design movement is
capable of achieving its goal, “The hallmark of intelligent design, however, is the
claim that [the world is intelligently designed by God] can be shown scientifically;
I’m dubious about that.” [10] On the other hand and on a broader point,
Plantinga is spot-on correct to hold there is no tension between religion and
science, that the two go hand in hand, and that the actual conflict lies between
naturalism and science. [11]
From another perspective, part of Plantinga’s main point is extremely important

and quite correct. While the “practice” of the MESs might be procedurally
separated from (and not directly reference) any a priori presuppositions,
metaphysical principles, and/or religious commitments, these don’t just
disappear. Indeed, Plantinga opens the door to a proper philosophical assessment
of natural scientific approaches to the investigation of reality to the extent they
rely on a priori commitments. In other words, it is not the scientific investigations
that are necessarily questioned — rather, it is their commitments. On circularity
grounds alone the natural sciences are not equipped to conduct such assessments
(let alone spout unchallenged categorical assertions), nor should such a non-
starter approach ever see the light of day. The commitments must be examined
and critiqued philosophically and then either adopted or abandoned. Plantinga
provides an example of a Christian commitment:
“God is already and always intimately acting in nature, which depends from
moment to moment for its existence upon immediate divine activity; there is not and
could not be any such thing as [H]is intervening in nature.” [12]
This is brilliant. However, it must be understood that by “divine activity”

Plantinga does not mean a physical efficient causality akin to a cosmic pool shark
pushing cue balls around, which is most certainly not a Christian conception of
reality. What is meant by “divine activity” is the wholly atemporal act of creation
that constantly maintains in existence of all contingent beings accessible directly
to human perception. (God does not “make” using existing material — He creates
by “gifting” existence.) Indeed, God’s “activity” is ever-present and imparts
contingent beings with their own natures (loci of their own unique actions) to act
per their own natures. Put another way, without ever-present divine action there
would be no existents; with divine action objects in the context of the world act
on their own.
Indeed, this appears to be the reason Plantinga correctly doubts the soundness of
Intelligent Design’s argument: no natural scientific investigation can say
anything directly about God’s existence, attributes, actions, etc. Such knowledge
can only be attained from two sources: (a) revealed knowledge reflected upon by
solid metaphysical reasoning (e.g., the Trinitarian attributes of God and His
relationship to us), and solid metaphysical reflection on sensory-accessible
reality without an a priori faith commitment (e.g., the Existence of God). This
also exposes Richard Dawkins’s ignorance and intellectual immaturity in the
context of his failed attempts to refute Aquinas’s Five Ways [13]— choosing,
instead, to critique a straw man. The Five Ways are metaphysical arguments that
“gather” and depend upon observations of the real world (i.e., the natural
sciences) to conclude metaphysically to the existence of Existence Itself. Dawkins
misses or rejects this completely.
Of course, it cuts both ways: Plantinga’s own reformed evangelical worldview

clearly influenced his philosophical reflections, including employing a take on
the Calvinist theological notion of “total depravity” to argue for the existence of
God. Plantinga is a very honest philosopher and he is most certainly open to
charitable philosophical criticisms of his commitments. What Plantinga cannot
do is to leave his theological commitments unexamined.
Back again to the other side of the two-edged sword: one can now understand, at
least partly, what animates Hawking’s, Weinberg’s, Tyson’s, Dawkins’ and others’
derisions of philosophy: fear. They are not interested in subjecting their a priori
commitments to rigorous philosophical analysis, so they embrace intellectual
laziness by derisively rejecting philosophy as a serious human endeavor in the
vain hope philosophy will fade away.
No matter Dawkins’ et al takes on the matter, the “battle” is a philosophical one

— not one that artificially pits the natural sciences against philosophy and
religious faith. The most fundamental difference between any two philosophical
positions is always rooted in fundamental differences in a priori metaphysical
commitments. Metaphysics is the division of philosophy that investigates the
nature of reality. The natural sciences are much more narrowly focused: each
particular natural science studies changeable beings under certain narrow
aspects. Yet, each natural science contributes to the broader project of

metaphysics to, for example, understand what change is in its widest throw —
whether change is physical motion for physics or the change I undergo when I am
moved by the beauty of my wife. For this reason, motion cannot be reduced
merely to what is understood by physics expressed (one way) mathematically as
v = ∂r/∂t.
This point can be made another way. Can one answer the question upon which
our pursuit of knowledge of the world: “how and what can a human know about
the sensory-accessible world external to him or her?” That question can only be
addressed if one can answers the prior anthropological question, “what is a
human being?” Expanding: is a human merely a fortunate cosmic accident in the
form of a heap of chemicals that learned to wear clothes and make artifacts? Or,
is man merely God in disguise? Or is man higher than the brutes but lower than
the angels? What exactly does the Aristotelian definition mean, man is a rational
animal? What exactly is meant by Boethius’s definition of a person as “an
individual substance of a rational nature”?
Yet, those questions also depend on the prior metaphysical question “what is
real?” or “what is?” or “what does it mean to exist?” If an immaterial soul (the
Aristotelian form of a human being) does not exist, humans are simply reducible
to material constituents… which has great implications for whether complex
material existents can know anything. A mountain — roughly one million times
the size and material complexity of a human being — knows nothing… so, size
doesn’t matter? Can one validly ask, “how many kindergarten pupils in a room
sum to the intelligence of Albert Einstein?” or is that a non-starter category
error? On the other hand, if matter doesn’t exist then are immaterial entities the
only existents? Is the universe itself, at bottom, wholly mathematical?
And, deeply “involved” in all these questions — metaphysical, anthropological,

psychological (not to mention questions of ethics, politics, production of
artifacts, etc.) is the bottom-line question of epistemology: “how can we know
these things?” Indeed, how could anyone credibly limit questions about reality to
only those things accessible to the modern empirical sciences?
The Natural Sciences and What Supports Them
To be clear from another perspective, the targets are also not the epistemic
limitations of the modern empirical (natural) sciences (MESs) themselves. To be
successful in their own context, the MESs must operate under the constraint that
material objects and physical phenomena are the only things (in logic these are
deemed “material objects”) accessible to them. However, based solely on those
epistemic constraints, one cannot conclude that material objects and physical
phenomena are the only existents.
The “formal objects” of (or “formal aspects” under which) the thin slices of
reality investigated by the MESs must also be limited. For example, the formal
object of physics is “non-living material objects in physical motion,” whereas its
“material objects” are neutrinos, stars, objects on an incline, etc. Similarly, the
formal object studied by biologists are “living (or once-living) things” while the
material objects are specific living (or once-living) things, say, aardvarks or
velociraptors.
In no way does methodological naturalism imply other modes of existence are

impossible and inaccessible by other intellectual means. Neither does
methodological naturalism undermine philosophy or religious faith. It simply is
not equipped to do so. For example, physicists cannot, even in principle, study
“order” or “causality” — even as physics results in remarkable knowledge that
must be further reflected upon (philosophized upon) to broaden and deepen our
understandings of order and causality. All the natural sciences presuppose reality
is ordered, consistent, and predictable on the path to coming to understand
physical phenomena. Simply put, order and causality are “objects” accessible
neither to physics nor to any of the modern empirical sciences. They are not
empirically accessible by their natures, but this does not imply we are incapable
of reasoning about them based upon observational input from the MESs. This
point is intentionally belabored because it echoes Aristotle’s brilliant principle:

while all knowledge originates through our senses, not all knowledge is sensory
knowledge. Yet, we moderns have the temerity to argue fallaciously (genetic
fallacy and historicism) that a long-dead European white male has nothing to
teach us.
Aristotle “The Philosopher” (384–322 BC)
To repeat: the natural sciences presuppose “order” and “causality” to do their

good work (e.g., prediction and confirmation), but (metaphorically stated) one
can never place “order” or “causality” on a lab bench to observe — let alone
measure — their “properties”. Einstein was exceedingly good at this: he had a
deep-seated faith that reality is not fundamentally chaotic and acausal, which is
precisely why he saw further than the physicists of his age… that is, why he was a
true genius. Einstein trusted the findings of science and he trusted the universe
was profoundly ordered and knowable. Even if not an observant Jew, Einstein’s
latent faith seems, at least partly, to have been the positive influence to support
his view that reality is ordered. The following excerpt from the first paragraph of
Yuval Levin’s The Tyranny of Reason addresses this point directly:
In the beginning, God created order… We value monotheism not for the fact that
it offered answers, but rather for the fact that it offered one answer. The notion
that beneath the erratic clamor and din of daily life there lays a single logic, a
single course of truth and law, is the genuine uniqueness and the essence of
monotheism. The idea that the universe, its physical existence and its moral
laws, is entirely the work of a single God is what made Judaism different from
the religions which preceded it, and what made it in time, and through its union
with Greek thought in Christianity, fertile ground for the flowing of philosophy
and science. [14]
The knowledge obtained by the particular (individual) natural sciences is limited

because they all presuppose not just “order” and “causality” but other extra-
scientific concepts and principles. These cannot be derived from any of the
natural sciences for that would be circular. Moreover, the scientific method
cannot validate its own ability to guide scientists to contingent truths about
reality: it cannot be the epistemic arbiter of all knowledge — otherwise known as

the unscientific pseudo-philosophy of scientism.
The perspective just offered is not based on the philosophy of science, whose
formal object is the study of systems of reasoning about natural things — a
material object of which is the “scientific method.” Rather, the perspective rests
upon the philosophy of nature, whose formal object is the study of “changeable
natural things” and the foundational principles upon which all the natural
sciences depend. That is, the philosophy of science is the epistemic “arm” of the
study of nature while the philosophy of nature is the ontological “arm”. One
cannot emphasize the former at the expense of the latter, and neither can either
one be used to undermine other non-empirical sciences. Unfortunately and more
often than not, the natural sciences are seen pitting themselves in a war against
other disciplines in a wholly artificial war for pride of “best form of knowledge,”
which led one of my colleagues sadly to quip that as a result of this war there are
two wounded casualties (science and religious faith) and one missing in action
(philosophy of nature).
Examples of One Scientist’s Flawed and Pedantic Assertions
Neil deGrasse Tyson, the anti-philosophy “philosopher”
To whet the readers’ appetites, the second half of this article, perhaps
provocatively but also as a segue to the second article, takes aim at some more of
the careless assertions of the well-known astrophysicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson.
[15] There are many more such examples from a wide spectrum of natural
scientists which are outside the immediate scope presented here and which
would unduly exploit the reader’s patience. Perhaps their day will come in
another article.
“The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.”
This is logically incoherent — the assertion itself is not true. Why? First,
propositions are true to the extent they accurately reflect reality, whereas
arguments are productive of true and certain propositions (as conclusions) to the
extent they are both valid (in their logical structure) and sound (in the veracity
of the premises). That is, reasoned arguments cannot be characterized as true or
false: they are either valid or — more profoundly — sound (demonstrated).
Indeed, this grounding yields the proper definition of science: mediate
intellectual knowledge obtained through demonstration (sometimes truncated to

“knowledge through causes”). Science is neither a mere proposition (therefore, it
cannot be characterized as “true”) nor is it a mere methodological process. Two
notions flow from this — the first supporting the second:
(1) The natural (or modern empirical) sciences are not the only sciences — at
the very least because to assert otherwise is itself unscientific. (Indeed, another
problem with Tyson’s assertion is that it is demonstrably unscientific!) That
there are other non-empirical sciences does not mean they are any less
legitimate in their pursuit of contingent and certain truths.
(2) The natural sciences say nothing about the existence of existents other than
material objects and physical phenomena. As noted above “order” and
“causality” are manifest in the world and they are central to the ability for us to
conduct natural scientific undertakings. Yet, they are not objects studied by the
natural sciences. Justice also exists, otherwise, we would not be able to criticize
the “cooking of results” recorded in a charlatan’s laboratory manual. But, we
cannot study “justice” in a lab and subject it to experimentation.
While science is a method of investigation of the natural world. But it is far more
than this. Science (επιστήμη) in its widest throw is also one of several intellectual
virtues: a good habit of the mind. It is adverbial because it is a “way” or a “how”
one’s intellectual capacities are engaged and actualized. And, because of this,
science is a striving for intellectual excellence. One does not merely “know”
science — one lives it. Science is not a doctrine, let alone a collection of truths. If
it were, it would be like a cult — which is what Tyson and others dangerously
approach in the scientism animating their presuppositions.
Another problematic view Tyson invites regarding science (the unquestionable

good of popularizing science notwithstanding) is that, for all intents and
purposes, science can be digested as a series of tweets. Indeed, the title of Tyson’s
book, Astrophysics for People in a Hurry, undermines the claim he is a “good
storyteller. He is not. Tyson may be a good entertainer — and certainly a
pedantic one [16], but entertainment is the hypocrisy of false knowledge that
vice pays to virtue — especially to the intellectual virtue of science. As one
reviewer opined, “Who has the time to contemplate the stars and the planets
anyway?” is a rhetorical form of intellectual laziness. Virtues — good habits — of
which science is only one, are developed only after long, careful, hard, focused
work.
In his book, Tyson betrays his own unscientific a priori commitments. For
example, his careless claim “We’re all made of star stuff” is sophomoric in its
incompleteness. Most certainly, humans are not reducible to what is described by
the natural sciences, i.e., substances are not reducible to their material
constituents. The following disarming exchange in C.S. Lewis’s The Voyage of the
Dawn Treader gets it right: “In our world,” said Eustace, “a star is a huge ball of
flaming gas.” “Even in your world, my son,” [replied Ramandu] “that is not what
a star is, but only what it is made of.”
Tyson’s stumbling about doesn’t stop. Consider the assertion, “The universe is
under no obligation to make sense to you.” Is he speaking metaphorically, that is,
unscientifically… or does he actually impute a moral imperative upon the
universe — one it is not obligated to fulfill? The universe is not a rational agent,
which means there can be no moral obligation in the first place. Leaving this
aside, the universe does, in fact, make sense — even if not immediately to us
because it is ordered (see Levin reference above). Among other things, Tyson
fails to distinguish (a) the order of knowing from (b) the order of being (or
existence): that we don’t know everything about the universe in no way implies
the universe is either wholly or in part unknowable. Interestingly, this is a similar
error (echoing a neo-Kantian perspective) into which interpreters of quantum
mechanics fall: just because we are (currently) forced to rely on probabilistic
mathematical formalisms to describe quantum mechanical phenomena does not
imply the reality of the quantum mechanical world is itself probabilistic: an
epistemic limitation does not impose ontological status. To channel Tyson, the
universe is under no obligation to be fully understood by the limited epistemic
tools of the natural sciences.
While we may not fully understand all aspects of the physical universe, the
potential to be able to do so is undeniable: (1) we are rational agents who are
capable of understanding (2) an ordered, consistent, and beautiful universe.
(Note the Greek word for “cosmos” stems from considering the universe as a
beautiful thing — it is the root of our word “cosmetic”.) Tyson’s opinion, in fact,
has the potential to undermine science… for if he (as it appears) believes the
universe, ahem, “need not” make sense to us, then why “do” science? Worse, if
the universe makes no sense as such, then neither does Tyson’s own categorical
assertion (a “part” of the universe) make sense — it is nonsense.
“I don’t want students… to have been taught anything they don’t understand, and
that nobody yet understands, is divinely constructed and therefore beyond their
intellectual capacity.”
This is bigoted and self-serving. Tyson’s ignorance of what religious faith’s

relationship is to studying and understanding Creation is shocking, as least as it
pertains to Judeo-Christian faith. There are two primary reasons Tyson gets away
with this: (1) he’s a celebrity and therefore almost untouchable regarding
criticisms of his opinions, (2) most folks don’t realize the depth of nuance
required to parse such issues — demands far more than tweet-level responses.
Indeed, the Judeo-Christian view is quite the opposite of Tyson’s intentional
mischaracterization: it is precisely because the world is ordered by its very nature
that it is knowable and understandable. Once he gets beyond the findings of
astrophysics conveyed in strictly univocal language, Tyson often spouts such
“senseless dogma” in support of personal unscientific presuppositions in a
manner well-described by Yuval Levin, worth quoting at length:
“The greatest enemy of wisdom is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge. Just
as knowledge of the truth can liberate, so knowledge of a falsehood firmly held as
true can make us slaves to senseless dogma. Again and again, through the spiraling
story of history, man has imprisoned himself in imaginary cages of his own creation.
Arrogant creeds disguised as knowledge and clothed in familiar language and form
can lead us into darkness and convince us it is light. In the modern age, impressed by
his own power and fully satiated by the partial answers it provides, man has fallen
prey to just such an illusion. It is a dogma well suited to the style of the times, which
presents itself in warm, kind, comforting words as a logical powerful answer to
society’s problems. But speaking to us in the common vernacular of modernity, it has
proven quite appealing, and become widely accepted.
The vernacular of the modern age is the language of the modern natural sciences,
and the illusory dogma of modernity is based around a misapplication of its logic,
and a gross misuse of its authority.” [17]
A calm yet powerful indictment, that.
“Within one linear centimeter of your lower colon there lives and works more
bacteria (about 100 billion) than all humans who have ever been born. Yet many
people continue to assert that it is we who are in charge of the world.”
This is another ignorant and unscientific assertion. Tyson passes a value

judgment based on numbers and size but neglects to draw the most crucial
distinction between bacteria (or, for that matter, any brute animal): bacteria are
not rational agents; humans are rational agents. Rational agents do, in fact,
“rule” the world, but not in the pejorative way Tyson would lead the reader to
swallow.
Aristotle’s geocentric model of the universe
A follow-on assertion related to the above is, “The day our knowledge of the cosmos
ceases to expand, we risk regressing to the childish view that the universe figuratively
and literally revolves around us.” It should be lost on no one that Tyson criticizes
the Ancient Greek geocentric notion that the earth is at the center of the universe
as if the Greeks believed it was a “good” or “privileged” place to be. A moment’s
reflection might have led Tyson to question why, if he personally interpreted the
Greeks to hold the earth in such high esteem, the earth is only one step above
Hades and well below the celestial spheres? Moreover, any careful and honest
reading of Plato (hyperrealism notwithstanding) would reveal the human
adventure is epic because we are to pursue the Forms and to return to them. It’s
hard to believe Tyson has no idea of the importance of the sun for Plato in his
cosmology, but more importantly for what it depicts in his epistemology: the
highest Form — the Good Itself, that by which all else is known.
Indeed, the irony behind Tyson’s unfortunate assertions is that he fails his own
test miserably, “If you want to assert a truth, first make sure it’s not just an
opinion that you desperately want to be true.”
References
[00] Don Howard, “Albert Einstein as a Philosopher of Science,” Physics Today,

58:12, (01 December 2005): 34,
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.2169442#.
[01] Avi Loeb, “When Scientific Orthodoxy Resembles Religious Dogma,”

Scientific American “Policy and Ethics Opinion,” (17 May 2021),
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-scientific-orthodoxy-
resembles-religious-dogma/.
[02] Matthew Reisz, “Is Philosophy Dead?” Times Higher Education, (22
February 2015), https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/is-philosophy-
dead/2018686.article#.
[03] Carlo Rovelli, “Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics,”

Scientific American “Observations,” (18 July 2018),
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-needs-philosophy-
philosophy-needs-physics/)
[04] Steven Weinberg, “Sokal’s Hoax,” The New York Review of Books, Volume
XLIII, №13, pp 11–15, (08 August 1996),
https://physics.nyu.edu/sokal/weinberg.html. The entire quote is a prime
example of philosophical ineptitude. One wonders whether Weinberg might offer
us an empirical test to back up his assertion: could he demonstrate stubbing his
toe on a “Law of Physics.”
[05] Rovelli, Ibid. Rovelli’s (and Loeb’s) articles ought to be required reading for
every natural scientist.
[06] Richard Dawkins and Neil deGrasse Tyson, discussion and presentation
“The Poetry of Science,” YouTube, (20 October 2010),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RExQFZzHXQ&t=3767s. See starting
from 01:02:50.
[07] News, “Why Do Some Materialist Scientists Hate Philosophy?” Mind

Matters, (09 May 2021), https://mindmatters.ai/2021/05/why-do-some-
famous-materialist-scientists-hate-philosophy/.
[08] Tim Anderson, “Our Purpose May Pursue Us Through the Quantum
Wavefunction,” Medium (16 May 2021), https://medium.com/the-infinite-
universe/our-purpose-may-pursue-us-through-the-quantum-wavefunction-
4c44110fccdd.
[09] See:
(a) Alvin Plantinga, “Methodological Naturalism,” Origins and Design 18 (1):18–

27 (1997), https://philpapers.org/rec/PLAMN.
(b) Alvin Plantinga, Methodological Naturalism, Part II, Origins and Design 18
(2):22–34 (1997), https://philpapers.org/rec/PLAMNP
(c)Alvin Plantinga, “Methodological Naturalism?” Perspectives on Science and

Christian Faith 49 (September 1997): 143–154,
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF9-97Plantinga.html.ori.
[10] Alvin Plantinga, “Evolution, Shibboleths, and Philosophers,” The Chronicle

of Higher Education, 11 April 2010.
[11] “Where the Conflict Really Lies,” exposition of Alvin Plantinga’s criticism of
naturalism by the Center for Philosophy of Religion,
https://www.plantingavideos.com/.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Gary Gutting, “Can We Prove that God Exists? Richard Dawkins and the
Limits of Faith and Atheism,” Salon, excerpted from What Philosophy Can Do, (29
November 2015),
https://www.salon.com/2015/11/29/can_we_prove_that_god_exists_richard_
dawkins_and_the_limits_of_faith_and_atheism/. A simple Google search reveals
Dawkins’s sophomoric attempt to refute the Five Ways was met with an
avalanche of rightly deserved criticisms.
[14] Yuval Levin, The Tyranny of Reason, (Lantham, MD, University Press of
America, 2001): 1.
[15] Jessica Orwig, “Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s best quotes may make you fall in love
with science all over again,” Business Insider, 22 November 2015,
https://www.businessinsider.com/15-inspirational-quotes-from-neil-degrasse-
tyson-2015-11.
[16] Joe Berkowitz, “A Telescopic Look at Twitter’s Intergalactic Troll: Neil

deGrasse Tyson,” Fast Company, March 2020,
https://www.fastcompany.com/90473689/a-telescopic-look-at-twitters-
intergalactic-troll-neil-degrasse-tyson.
[17] Yuval Levin, The Tyranny of Reason, “Introduction,” (Lantham, MD,

University Press of America, 2001): xiii.
Philosophy Natural Science Reification Scientism Faith And Reason
About Help Legal
Get the Medium app

The Desolation of Reification - Part I

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Desolation of Reification - Part I

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5/17/2021 The Desolation of Reification — Part I | by Alexander Sich | May, 2021 | Medium

The Desolation of Reification — Part I

Hubris? Physics “hamstrung” by physicists? The universe is “not mathematical”?

Exposing Some Nonsense

To be clear: it is not the undeniable successes of physicists during this period,

Stephen Hawking’s derisive view of philosophy was shocking in its ignorance

Nobel laureate physicist Steven Weinberg, guilty of spouting nonsense on

By self-admission, these gentlemen despise the “love of wisdom” (philosophy),

Indeed, it is not the successes themselves, but the reductionism of many

This disordered perspective was animated by bad philosophical (ultimately self-

“… buried in [quantum mechanics’] complex equations, is the key to understanding

Interestingly, much of this parallels what resulted from a flawed philosophical

A Digression on Worldviews that Animate the Pursuit of Knowledge and

On the above point, while Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga’s criticisms of

From another perspective, part of Plantinga’s main point is extremely important

This is brilliant. However, it must be understood that by “divine activity”

Of course, it cuts both ways: Plantinga’s own reformed evangelical worldview

No matter Dawkins’ et al takes on the matter, the “battle” is a philosophical one

aspects. Yet, each natural science contributes to the broader project of

And, deeply “involved” in all these questions — metaphysical, anthropological,

The Natural Sciences and What Supports Them

In no way does methodological naturalism imply other modes of existence are

point is intentionally belabored because it echoes Aristotle’s brilliant principle:

Aristotle “The Philosopher” (384–322 BC)

To repeat: the natural sciences presuppose “order” and “causality” to do their

The knowledge obtained by the particular (individual) natural sciences is limited

reality: it cannot be the epistemic arbiter of all knowledge — otherwise known as

Examples of One Scientist’s Flawed and Pedantic Assertions

Neil deGrasse Tyson, the anti-philosophy “philosopher”

intellectual knowledge obtained through demonstration (sometimes truncated to

Another problematic view Tyson invites regarding science (the unquestionable

This is bigoted and self-serving. Tyson’s ignorance of what religious faith’s

A calm yet powerful indictment, that.

This is another ignorant and unscientific assertion. Tyson passes a value

Aristotle’s geocentric model of the universe

[00] Don Howard, “Albert Einstein as a Philosopher of Science,” Physics Today,

[01] Avi Loeb, “When Scientific Orthodoxy Resembles Religious Dogma,”

[03] Carlo Rovelli, “Physics Needs Philosophy / Philosophy Needs Physics,”

[07] News, “Why Do Some Materialist Scientists Hate Philosophy?” Mind

(a) Alvin Plantinga, “Methodological Naturalism,” Origins and Design 18 (1):18–

(c)Alvin Plantinga, “Methodological Naturalism?” Perspectives on Science and

[10] Alvin Plantinga, “Evolution, Shibboleths, and Philosophers,” The Chronicle

[16] Joe Berkowitz, “A Telescopic Look at Twitter’s Intergalactic Troll: Neil

[17] Yuval Levin, The Tyranny of Reason, “Introduction,” (Lantham, MD,

Philosophy Natural Science Reification Scientism Faith And Reason

About Help Legal

Get the Medium app

You might also like