# Are Philosophy courses too Eurocentric? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 11, 2016, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-philosophy-courses-too-eurocentric/754570 "2016-05-11T19:56:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-philosophy-courses-too-eurocentric/754570/61 "2016-05-13T18:31:22Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > I think, yes, it can be useful to study refuted ideas. But, as a nitpick, I think you picked a bad example with Newtonian and Galilean physics. > > People commonly think of these ideas as refuted, but most engineers do not routinely use relativistic physics. They use Newtonian equations, and in turn, indirectly, Galilean relativity. > These models make useful predictions. > > So they’re not “wrong” per se, they are crude models, _usefully_ crude, that produce accurate predictions for a particular domain of problems. Well, to pick a nit with your nitpicking, I did say that Newtonian ideas had been supplanted _as a fundamental theory of the universe_. There are of course many situations where the are correct, or a sufficiently close approximation to correct to be useful. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-philosophy-courses-too-eurocentric/754570/62 "2016-05-13T18:31:57Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > I disagree. In maths, we devise concepts which have no material reality, things that we can never encounter in nature - e.g. a point, a line, a circle, a number, a ratio - and we reflect on them and make inferences and deductions leading to statements which can meaningfully be said to be “true” or “false”, “proven” or “unproven”, etc, even though they are statements about imagined, non-existent, never-observed entities. That seems to fall pretty squarely with the mainstream conception of what philosophers do. As I can debate with someone, using argumentation, avoiding fallacies, etc. to discuss a concept and (ideally) come to a meaningful conclusion on it, using nothing more than English, rather than using math. Math is more rigorous than speech, but it’s really just a very terse constructed language. A debate isn’t philosophy. The content of the speech may be philosophical, but the medium is just a medium. Find a reason why speech wouldn’t be philosophy but math would be, and I’ll accept math as a subset of philosophy. Otherwise, it’s just a language which is useful for discussing philosophical (and non-philosophical) topics. > [@](#): > > Stop right there. Because before you can make that claim you have to ask yourself what you mean by “real”. If you don’t have an answer to that question, then you don’t have a coherent conception of science. And of course the question “what do we mean by ‘real’?” That which is consistent. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-philosophy-courses-too-eurocentric/754570/63 "2016-05-13T19:13:39Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > As I can debate with someone, using argumentation, avoiding fallacies, etc. to discuss a concept and (ideally) come to a meaningful conclusion on it, using nothing more than English, rather than using math. > > Math is more rigorous than speech, but it’s really just a very terse constructed language. A debate isn’t philosophy. The content of the speech may be philosophical, but the medium is just a medium. > > Find a reason why speech wouldn’t be philosophy but math would be, and I’ll accept math as a subset of philosophy. Otherwise, it’s just a language which is useful for discussing philosophical (and non-philosophical) topics. If you accept that debate involves using argumentation, avoiding fallacies, etc, then a debate inherently philosophical. I’m not saying that _all_ use of language is philosophical, and nor am I saying that all use of numbers is philosophical. If you employ numbers to count how many apples you have, for instance, I don’t think you’re doing philosophy. But the kind of maths that you might study at university is certainly doing philosophy, for reasons I have already explained. In maths, we come up with entirely imaginary conceptions, we reflect on them, and we make inferences and draw conclusions about them which we assert to be true, useful, valid or whatever. We posit axioms and we argue from those. We don’t test our assertions against empirical evidence because we hold that there is no point in doing so; the assertions relate to things which are not empirically observable. What definition of “philosophy” are you using under which that activity is _not_[ philosophy? > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > That which is consistent. Consistent with what? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-philosophy-courses-too-eurocentric/754570/64 "2016-05-13T19:37:54Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > If you accept that debate involves using argumentation, avoiding fallacies, etc, then a debate inherently philosophical. > > I’m not saying that _all_ use of language is philosophical, and nor am I saying that all use of numbers is philosophical. If you employ numbers to count how many apples you have, for instance, I don’t think you’re doing philosophy. But the kind of maths that you might study at university is certainly doing philosophy, for reasons I have already explained. In maths, we come up with entirely imaginary conceptions, we reflect on them, and we make inferences and draw conclusions about them which we assert to be true, useful, valid or whatever. We posit axioms and we argue from those. We don’t test our assertions against empirical evidence because we hold that there is no point in doing so; the assertions relate to things which are not empirically observable. > > What definition of “philosophy” are you using under which that activity is _not_[ philosophy? That philosophy deals with non-imaginary concepts. Math can be used to work over imaginary concepts, but also non-imaginary concepts. It is not constrained to one or the other. If you’re wholly focused on math, based on imaginary concepts, then you’re doing math. If you’re using math as a tool in the observation of reality, then you’re practicing philosophy. You could also do that same set of observations without math, it would just be less precise. Doing math is not inherently doing philosophy. Practicing philosophy does not equate to doing math. Math is a tool. One can play with the tool and work on enhancing it. One can apply it to the study of reality. These are different things. The former may aid in the latter, in the long run, but that’s a side effect, just as it would be a side effect for the invention of new words in language to aid discussions of philosophy. > [@](#): > > Consistent with what? Consistent, regardless of the observer. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-philosophy-courses-too-eurocentric/754570/65 "2016-05-13T20:27:03Z")
“Math”, in the university sense, is not a tool. The results of mathematicians’ work are often useful tools for engineers, scientists and other mathematicians. But the creation of those tools is what we normally mean by “academic math”, not simply their use. And creating that math is certainly a branch of philosophy. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-philosophy-courses-too-eurocentric/754570/66 "2016-05-13T20:30:35Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Consistent, regardless of the observer. Do you dispute the existence of a subjective reality, that is by definition _not_ consistent across all observers? What do you do and think about when you’re not being observed by the lab techs who study your brain? Or is that all reality consists of for you? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-philosophy-courses-too-eurocentric/754570/67 "2016-05-13T20:32:26Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > “Math”, in the university sense, is not a tool. The results of mathematicians’ work are often useful tools for engineers, scientists and other mathematicians. But the creation of those tools is what we normally mean by “academic math”, not simply their use. And creating that math is certainly a branch of philosophy. I disagree. Or, as said, explain why that would be but the expansion of language would not be? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-philosophy-courses-too-eurocentric/754570/68 "2016-05-13T20:36:27Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Do you dispute the existence of a subjective reality, that is by definition _not_ consistent across all observers? That is, by definition, not reality. If you say that a witch has spirited your penis away, but anyone who is unaware of koro sees your penis still there, functioning perfectly, then your subjective experience of reality is just fantasy, not reality. > [@](#): > > What do you do and think about when you’re not being observed by the lab techs who study your brain? Or is that all reality consists of for you? I’m not following. I assume that you’re implying that (under my definition) reality would go away when not being observed. If so, I made no such claim. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-philosophy-courses-too-eurocentric/754570/69 "2016-05-13T21:29:16Z")
No, I’m talking about actual experiences people (and animals, plants and possibly things) have. And I offered a real world example in the case of what animals feel when they’re held captive, slaughtered, or have their eggs, milk and wool harvested, versus plants, and their experiences of harvesting, having their fruit picked, etc. That’s simply not a question science can answer. Only philosophy can. Have you ever taken a hallucinogenic drug? Does the experience not exist, simply because it isn’t objectively “real”? Is it not worth thinking about feelings, and other qualities things have that aren’t strictly objective and empirical, but which nevertheless exist and effect our lives? ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-philosophy-courses-too-eurocentric/754570/70 "2016-05-13T21:42:25Z")
I mean, science has that “empirical and objective” stuff down pat. Philosophy encompasses _all the rest of human knowledge_. And it encompasses science, too, but we’re talking about non-science philosophy today. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-philosophy-courses-too-eurocentric/754570/71 "2016-05-13T21:47:53Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > No, I’m talking about actual experiences people (and animals, plants and possibly things) have. And I offered a real world example in the case of what animals feel when they’re held captive, slaughtered, or have their eggs, milk and wool harvested, versus plants, and their experiences of harvesting, having their fruit picked, etc. That’s simply not a question science can answer. Only philosophy can. Why do you believe that science can’t establish that? A person’s opinion, state of mind, etc. might not be objective, but the existence of that opinion/state of mind/etc. is real. If I measure your level of anxiety, I’ll get the same result as someone else running the same test at the same time. > [@](#): > > Have you ever taken a hallucinogenic drug? Does the experience not exist, simply because it isn’t objectively “real”? The _experience_ exists. As does the experience of reading a fantasy novel. That doesn’t make Hogwarts or little green men exist. I can scientifically ascertain what your experience was, because the experience was real. I can’t scientifically ascertain what the color is of the wall paint in Gryffindor, because Gryffindor is not real. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-philosophy-courses-too-eurocentric/754570/72 "2016-05-13T22:04:10Z")
> [@nicky](#): > > If the Philosophy curriculum is to be broadened, i vote that the space is made by consigning the tedious fraud Wittgenstein to the dustbin. Please expand on that. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-philosophy-courses-too-eurocentric/754570/73 "2016-05-13T22:09:22Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Why do you believe that science can’t establish that? A person’s opinion, state of mind, etc. might not be objective, but the existence of that opinion/state of mind/etc. is real. If I measure your level of anxiety, I’ll get the same result as someone else running the same test at the same time. So? That’s precisely what I’m _not_ talking about. You can study hormones and nerves and brain chemicals from now until doomsday and it will never tell you what it is _like_ to suffer from anxiety. Science by definition cannot answer subjective questions like that, just like it can’t decide whether your opinion that Cheez Whiz is the best kind of cheese is correct. The vast majority of the realities humans actually inhabit revolve around our experiences and our values and their consequences on our subjective views of the world. We’re in one of those worlds now, discussing abstract ideas and their consequences and their subjective meaning. Science simply cannot tell us whether philosophy (or which philosophical schools of thought) should be included in the curriculum. That is a philosophical question. > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > The _experience_ exists. As does the experience of reading a fantasy novel. That doesn’t make Hogwarts or little green men exist. I can scientifically ascertain what your experience was, because the experience was real. I can’t scientifically ascertain what the color is of the wall paint in Gryffindor, because Gryffindor is not real. So what does science say about “the experience of reading a fantasy novel”? Can they put a probe in your brain and watch the movie playing in your mind while you read it? Can they ever know how it makes you feel when Harry Potter’s friend dies, or what parallels the book causes your mind to contemplate with regard to the “real world”? Science is huge, it’s great, it’s the only useful tool we have to gain reliable knowledge about the objective, external reality we share. But the objective, external reality is not the one we live in. That elusive and mysterious thing called “reality” is filtered through layers of technology, nerves, senses, brain pathways and biological feedback, not to mention culture, peer pressure and whatever else motivates us to consider anything. THAT subjective reality is the only one we all really inhabit, that movie playing in our minds, and it is different for each of us. It’s the world of morals, fantasy, imagination, play, suffering, despair and hope. And it takes up far more of our processing time than “the real world” does. We mainly deal with external reality on autopilot, daydreaming or thinking abstractly while our bodies go through the motions of walking, avoiding passers-by, breathing and scratching without notice, until something surprising happens. The real living mostly happens in the subjective world of our minds, and what can science tell us about that? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-philosophy-courses-too-eurocentric/754570/74 "2016-05-13T22:16:33Z")
I think it’s true that western philosophy has been wrongly defined as the whole of meaningful philosophy. I think it’s most likely an academic issue. Western philosophers run university philosophy departments and define their field. If western philosophy is clearly superior to non-western philosophy, then studying non-western philosophy would be useful as a means of comparatively illustrating western philosophy’s strengths. And if western philosophy isn’t clearly superior to non-western philosophy, then non-western philosophy should be studied alongside western philosophy on its own merits. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2016, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-philosophy-courses-too-eurocentric/754570/75 "2016-05-13T22:35:42Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > So? That’s precisely what I’m _not_ talking about. You can study hormones and nerves and brain chemicals from now until doomsday and it will never tell you what it is _like_ to suffer from anxiety. Science by definition cannot answer subjective questions like that, just like it can’t decide whether your opinion that Cheez Whiz is the best kind of cheese is correct. I would argue that this can all be quantified by science. Using science, I could compare your experience of a thing to someone else’s, quantify it, rigorously explain the difference, what lead to that difference, and make meaningful choices based on that information. Minus science, the ability to understand and compare subjective experiences is decreased. > [@](#): > > The vast majority of the realities humans actually inhabit revolve around our experiences and our values and their consequences on our subjective views of the world. We’re in one of those worlds now, discussing abstract ideas and their consequences and their subjective meaning. Science simply cannot tell us whether philosophy (or which philosophical schools of thought) should be included in the curriculum. That is a philosophical question. The only philosophy which is of value - rather than naval gazing - would be based on what’s real. You might long for one which is just your brand of cheeze whiz - accepts mysticism and hallucinogenic experiences - but your desire for this doesn’t make what you want worthwhile. Just like someone might like the sense of mystique and history of traditional Chinese medicine mixed in with their medical care. It’s still a load of nonsense. And, as noted, the direction of progress is against mysticism. If you want to practice and investigate mysticism, go for it. And perhaps the definition of “philosophy” will go towards that definition, as you desire it. But if you want something of practical value, I’d hope that a scientific version - by whatever name - grows and is improved upon at the same time. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-philosophy-courses-too-eurocentric/754570/76 "2016-05-14T04:35:01Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I would argue that this can all be quantified by science. Using science, I could compare your experience of a thing to someone else’s, quantify it, rigorously explain the difference, what lead to that difference, and make meaningful choices based on that information. Minus science, the ability to understand and compare subjective experiences is decreased. I think that **DrCube** , in his most recent post, did an excellent job of explaining his point that " subjective reality is the only one we all really inhabit". He is correct, and attempts to scientifically quantify or rigorously explain the experience of human beings have failed consistently. One obvious example is attempts to quantify intelligence via IQ tests. In previous generations, many researchers firmly believed that an IQ tests absolutely quantifies a person’s mental abilities in a single number. But they were wrong. IQ tests do no such thing. As a result, IQ tests get used a lot less today than 50 years ago, and when they are used, much less stock is placed in their results. Other supposedly numerical measures of humanity’s internal states have failed for similar reasons. Attempts to categorize or predict subjective experiences turn out to be equally vapid. For instance, the “five stages of grief”, also sometimes called the Kubler-Ross model. This was attempt to fit the subjective experience of grieving into a rigid schema. It was wrong, however. Not all people go through all the stages when grieving, nor do they always occur in the same order. Many other attempts to give a series of steps or categories that attempt to explain some subjective experience have likewise been wrong. It is no surprise that[most psychological studies produce results that can’t be replicated](https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/08/28/landmark-study-suggests-most-psychology-studies-dont-yield-reproducible-results). ---
**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-philosophy-courses-too-eurocentric/754570/77 "2016-05-14T05:12:00Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > The posts in this thread go a long way toward showing the need for more balanced philosophy education. > > There is such a thing, for example, as Chinese epistemology. It is not mystical or unexamined or any of the other Orientalist bullshit was spouted so far. Could you provide 1 or 2 names of people or schools within Chinese epistemlogy to get me started? > [@Shalmanese](#): > > [Here’s a great essay](https://aeon.co/essays/the-logic-of-buddhist-philosophy-goes-beyond-simple-truth) by a philosopher on how certain buddhist concepts in philosophy are leading to new paths of thinking. > > I think there’s still a lot of uncomfortable work to be done in delving into the synthesis between Western and non-Western philosophies which isn’t really happening. Western philosophy places a great deal of primacy on symbolic manipulation. Western thought develops from the ability to make concepts explicit and then reason through transformations of concepts. > > A lot of Eastern philosophy comes from a different intellectual lineage that far more prizes embodied knowledge. Insight is gained through meditation, mood altered states and the contemplation of paradoxes and contradictions. In particular, I think a lot of Eastern thought around ineffability is extremely valuable but deprioritized in Western thought since ineffable things can’t be talked about (by definition). Western philosophy is all about what is true, Eastern philosophy is more about how to get to a place to discover truth. > > The problem is that any attempt to translate Eastern thought into a Western paradigm is largely doomed to fail which is why Eastern philosophy has a reputation for pointless mysticism and fuzzy thinking. Instead, to properly integrate the two schools requires developing a new paradigmic basis under which useful synthesis can be done. How do you see an Eastern philosophy class being taught under these conditions? It sounds like it would require doing away with grading for students and PhDs/published research for academics. I am genuinely curious about the ways you hypothesize they might be integrated. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-philosophy-courses-too-eurocentric/754570/78 "2016-05-14T09:48:33Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > That which is consistent. I’m kind of wondering if what you’re doing here is meant to be some sort of performance art—you’re doing exactly what you claim ‘non-logical philosophers’ do, pull sort of profound-sounding statements out of your ass, and present them as facts. Of course, there really hasn’t ever been a philosopher doing so (if anybody here had ever bothered to read the intricate logical argumentation of, say, Nagarjuna’s _Fundamental Verses of the Middle Way_, this discussion would presumably—hopefully!—not even need to happen), so the project is kind of futile. (Not to mention that the above is false, too—there are plenty of things which are consistent, but fail to be real: ‘the radium atom decaying at 14:00’ is as consistent as ‘the radium atom decaying at 14:10’, but only one of them occurs. Unless you want to advocate for a kind of modal realism. But then, of course, you’d be knee deep into metaphysics.) ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-philosophy-courses-too-eurocentric/754570/79 "2016-05-14T10:08:23Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > I’m kind of wondering if what you’re doing here is meant to be some sort of performance art—you’re doing exactly what you claim ‘non-logical philosophers’ do, pull sort of profound-sounding statements out of your ass, and present them as facts. Of course, there really hasn’t ever been a philosopher doing so (if anybody here had ever bothered to read the intricate logical argumentation of, say, Nagarjuna’s _Fundamental Verses of the Middle Way_, this discussion would presumably—hopefully!—not even need to happen), so the project is kind of futile. > > (Not to mention that the above is false, too—there are plenty of things which are consistent, but fail to be real: ‘the radium atom decaying at 14:00’ is as consistent as ‘the radium atom decaying at 14:10’, but only one of them occurs. Unless you want to advocate for a kind of modal realism. But then, of course, you’d be knee deep into metaphysics.) If you want a longer (and more humorous) version, here’s Neil deGrasse Tyson: But the definition of science is finding things which are consistent and reproducible. If someone can consistently find water with dowsing rods, then it's real, and science will demonstrate it. If they have no better odds than random chance, it's not consistent, it's not real, and science demonstrates that. I'm not saying something profound. I'm giving the definition of "reality" as science - aka the modern incarnation of philosophy - has ordained it. Humans are fallible and think odd things. Where all our oddities align, no matter how perfectly we remove ourselves from the equation, that’s what we call reality. And as we’ve discovered reality, we’ve stopped burning witches, we’ve stopped making tea out of powdered tiger penis, and we’ve stopped asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It makes the world less exciting, maybe, but it means that we’re not killing old ladies when the crops are bad. Instead, we build an aqueduct and fix the real problems. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2016, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-philosophy-courses-too-eurocentric/754570/80 "2016-05-14T10:53:37Z")
[quote=“Sage\_Rat, post:79, topic:754570”] If you want a longer (and more humorous) version, here’s Neil deGrasse Tyson: [/QUOTE] Yes, deGrasse Tyson’s ignorance regarding to philosophy is certainly [well documented](https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-the-value-of-philosophy/). > [@](#): > > But the definition of science is finding things which are consistent and reproducible. If someone can consistently find water with dowsing rods, then it’s real, and science will demonstrate it. If they have no better odds than random chance, it’s not consistent, it’s not real, and science demonstrates that. I’m not saying something profound. I’m giving the definition of “reality” as science - aka the modern incarnation of philosophy - has ordained it. This is circular—claiming science is the proper tool to assess reality, and then defining reality as what science can assess. Plus, the definition of science you gave is itself a matter of philosophical discussion (I’m always awed by those scientists who—like deGrasse Tyson—pretty much in the same sentence claim that philosophy has nothing to offer to our understanding, and then give its lack of falsifiability as a reason—which of course is a criterion developed by the philosopher Karl Popper towards solving the demarcation problem for science: so this sort of argument is both a category mistake and self-refuting even if it weren’t). > [@](#): > > Humans are fallible and think odd things. Where all our oddities align, no matter how perfectly we remove ourselves from the equation, that’s what we call reality. And to figure out these flaws and biases in our thinking, to root it in solid argument instead, is part of the task of philosophy. > [@](#): > > And as we’ve discovered reality, we’ve stopped burning witches, we’ve stopped making tea out of powdered tiger penis, and we’ve stopped asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It makes the world less exciting, maybe, but it means that we’re not killing old ladies when the crops are bad. Instead, we build an aqueduct and fix the real problems. None of which, of course, has anything at all to do with philosophy or the discussion at hand, and is just so much flim-flam thrown in the air in lieu of making an actual point—i.e. the sort of thing that any philosophy 101 course would help to avoid, via teaching better tools for argumentation and thinking. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-philosophy-courses-too-eurocentric/754570.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-philosophy-courses-too-eurocentric/754570.md?page=5)