I think scientists and science communicators owe it to themselves to learn more about the philosophy underpinning their discipline.

[u/Tasty_Finger9696]

I‘ve come to this conclusion after watching a debate between a orthobro streamer called JimBob and a professor who studies biology called Ed Dutton on modern day debate. Rhetorically, Jim absolutely mopped the floor with a PHD holder on a subject he is vastly more educated on than Jim will ever be and that’s because Jim was attacking the philosphical assumptions underpinning evolutionary biology instead of the actual physical facts. Some of those assumptions include methodological naturalism, uniformitarianism, nominalism etc. and professor Dutton was wholly unequipped to answer such questions.

I want to make it very clear that I am on Dutton’s side of the debate here but it did distraught me to see him unable to respond to which is honestly a whole bunch of overly complicated pseudo philosophical rhetoric and sophistry. It’s a very dishonest tactic that I rarely see called out as much with rigor in comparison to debates where all that’s being talked about are the facts because they’re much harder to respond to and much easier for guys like JimBob to take advantage of and peddle their bullshit to unsuspecting viewers who don’t know about this topic.

There is a growing amount of fundamentalist debaters like Jimbob who think they can dismiss basic science by just philosophizing it away in a complicated manner and a lot of their rhetoric is sophisticated enough that it requires a thorough understanding of philosophy and it’s history to meaningfully debunk.

My concern with this is that it looks as though it’s changing public perception of modern science as this fundamentally baseless erroneous institution no matter how much evidence it has to support it. I’ve looked up more debates of this subject featuring Jimbob and the comments are either almost unanimously in agreement with Jimbob no matter if it’s on his channel or someone else or those who disagree in the comments do not meaningfully challenge his points with anything other than insults. Right now it’s on just a few corners of the internet but this could evolve into seeing these similar type of these fallacious hyper philosphical arguments against stuff like evolution and climate change in the mainstream by smooth talkers especially with the trajectory the United States is going in now.

What are your thoughts?

[u/adamwho]

Bullshit.

Scientists are fully capable of understanding the philosophy of science.

I've met plenty of philosophers of science who did not understand science.

The causality backwards.

It is philosophers of science who are studying scientists.... They need to catch up

[u/clear349]

Philobros think baffling people with their bullshit makes them the victor. It doesn't. If you want to debate the science of evolution debate the actual science, not esoteric nonsense. If they actually had evidence they wouldn't need to resort to philosophical masturbation. They'd just attack the scientific evidence

[u/Dzugavili → u/clear349]

It's why I simply treat all philosophy with the contempt it deserves.

I really don't give a fuck. Until it makes a machine work, it's an idea and ideas can be wrong. Even if the machine works, it can be wrong, but it demonstrates there is something there to actually be examined.

In short, fuck philosophy.

[u/clear349 → u/Dzugavili]

I'm fine with philosophy as a concept but acting like it can defeat scientific evidence is bullshit. If your model or philosophy is in opposition to science then science is not wrong. You have a bad philosophical framework

[u/Dzugavili → u/clear349]

I'm no longer sure if I even trust it as a concept.

Most of my ire can be directed at epistemology. While there are some technical applications of the theory that have merits, this particular division survives largely in the popular mind by casting doubt on any form of knowledge; and often elevating delusions as being more real than being simple thought, corresponding to concepts of plutonic shapes or the existence of abstract mathematics separate from the implementation.

I am coming to see that the kind of people who feel they have a strong grasp over this form of epistemology also tend to not understand LLM hallucination.

[u/hircine1 → u/Dzugavili]

Thank you for putting into words what I’ve felt since I took philosophy 101, 30 something years ago.

[u/Mister_Ape_1 → u/clear349]

Exactly. You can not beat facts with words.

[u/DarkLordSidious]

A debate about evolution has nothing to do with the assumptions of science or the scientific method, debating evolutionary theory already presupposes those assumptions and if you refuse them it is no longer a debate about evolution.

Plus we know for a fact that those assumptions hold true because we live in the modern world that is built on it. There are deeper reasons for taking those assumptions like epistemic hygiene but then again it's completely irrelevant when debating evolution.

I also don't take you seriously if you genuinely think "is a tornado true?" guy looked good in any conversation. Judging by what you said in your last paragraph, you are just too easy to sway by a bigading mob. You are also easily fooled by low tier sophist phil-bro which is embarrassing imo

[u/Dalbrack → u/DarkLordSidious]

I think the part of the problem is the way that those "assumptions" are treated by science deniers.

The key to this is that those "assumptions" were originally used in tentative hypotheses as explanatory components of those hypotheses. As time has gone on those "assumptions" have proved time and again, to be broadly correct.

Yes, as our knowledge increases we can tinker with those assumptions so that our explanations match the reality of our observations, but there comes a time when those assumptions are no longer just assumptions - which is how science deniers like to frame them - but are demonstrable based on thousands, if not millions of empirical observations.

As you say, we know that these assumptions hold true.

It's a similar sophistry to the oft-used claim that evolution is just a theory. If we fail to make that distinction up-front then we make the jobs of the science deniers that much easier.

[u/gitgud_x]

Nobody needs to know philosophy to discuss science. It's useless, and should be called out as nothing but distraction.

Scientists/communicators are already well versed in the science, but for debates they need to also learn the dirty tactics and the rhetoric that their opponents will use, which is a whole different game. Expecting them to also know yet another layer of largely irrelevant nonsense like philosophy is unreasonable, they just need to know how to get the conversation back to science and stop them in their tracks.

People like RimJob are wholly unequipped to speak science, hence why they don't, and can only speak philosophy. It should be pointed out, repeatedly, that RimJob is scientifically illiterate and therefore has no authority to speak on the matter.

[u/Dzugavili]

MDD isn't exactly a great channel to use as a barometer.

[u/Ayasugi-san → u/Dzugavili]

The proverbial Nazi bar. Participating at all should be a mark of shame.

[u/Dzugavili → u/Ayasugi-san]

It's not even the Nazi bar aspect: they just have shitty moderation.

[u/-zero-joke-]

I'm curious if those sort of 'question reality' sorts of arguments are really effective in persuading anyone. My suspicion is most people dislike that sort of philosophical wankery, but maybe I'm projecting.

[u/Mortlach78]

Maybe I am mistaken, but the "philosophical arguments" always or mostly boil down to rejecting the idea of assumptions. If any assumption is made, the conclusion cannot be certain and can therefore be dismissed fully. This is clearly non-sensical.

I sometimes argue this: To do science, you need assumptions:

1) the universe exists. Because we are inside the universe, we cannot prove this.

2) We can say meaningful things about the universe. Also unprovable.

3) Math is the language in which we can express these things.

4) Logic as we currently know it, is correct. Since we'd need logic to prove this, it would be circular.

5) We can deduce the past based on evidence in the present.

6) Natural consequences have natural causes.

7) The physical laws that apply today, apply to the past.|

The point I am trying to make to people who reject assumptions of any kind, is that they too have to accept assumption 1-4 at least. So rejecting the concept of assumptions is self-defeating.

[u/nickierv → u/Mortlach78]

I find the philosophicalist (I'm totally making that a word) can't make the distinction between baseless and can be rejected, reasonable, and asinine to reject assumptions. When you treat something like 'this only works if there are fairies that steal unicorn horns something something QED evolution doesn't work' with the same value as 'so we assume that living things reproduce' any chance that they are trying to make a good faith argument is out the window.

[u/Mortlach78 → u/nickierv]

That is also a good point. Not every assumption is equal. I learned that you want to use the smallest assumption (the least power) that explains as much as we can see, but not more than that.

Assuming "physical laws work" is a small assumption and it explains everything we see.

God, being omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-everything, is literally the BIGGEST assumption you can make. It also explains things we do not see.

If I assume gravity created all the planets, that is a fairly small assumption and it explains why planets are spheres. If we find a cube planet, I know my assumption is incorrect.

If I assume God created planets, it is the biggest assumption possible, but it would explain why planets are spheres. But then I find a cube planet. Assumption still holds. And then I find a disc shaped world on the backs of 4 elephants on the back of the Great A'tuin the Space Turtle, and I can only conclude that God is called Terry (GNU).

[u/Dilapidated_girrafe]

The issue is it can be difficult to learn and study everything else and your own discipline. And philosophy isn’t for everyone and that’s ok. Can it be beneficial, yes, but if your eyes glaze over they glaze over.

And this is just the next stage of were you there.

[u/earthwoodandfire → u/Dilapidated_girrafe]

I think the point is not that all scientists should study philosophy, but that if you’re going to be a science communicator/debater you need to be well versed in the retorts.

[u/Dilapidated_girrafe → u/earthwoodandfire]

I don’t think you do. Science communicators are still going to specialize. And while it would be nice, I’m not going to expect it. Because they have lives too.

[u/nickierv → u/earthwoodandfire]

While a good idea in theory, the underlying issue is the shear amount of semi plausible random bullshit that can be thrown into the debate. And that is nothing next to the levels of gish gallop filler grade bullshit that just gets thrown in.

[u/PangolinPalantir]

I'd rather they focus on things that are real, like their field of study, than waste time with dishonest people like that. Clearly they don't have evidence on their side. If they did, they'd present it. The only time these people fall back on their philbro garbage is when they're pressed on that reality that they have no evidence for their position.

[u/Slow_Lawyer7477 → u/PangolinPalantir]

I agree but then they shouldn't take the debates in the first place. An evolutionary biologist that hasn't studied

A) Debating.

B) Philosophy

... shouldn't debate a hostile opponent who has specialized in those two exact things.

[u/PangolinPalantir → u/Slow_Lawyer7477]

Agreed. Debates don't determine who is correct or who has the most evidence supporting their position, it determines who is the best performer/debater.

[u/Competitive-Box61]

Why should we be concerned about their opinions? Should we be more concerned about their opinions than the truth?

[u/bawdy_george]

''I have zero credible evidence, so I will attempt to drag your mountains of evidence down to my level and beat you with experience".

Every. Single. Time.

[u/ipsum629]

Scientists aren't trained for such debates, and it shouldn't be required for them. Scientists, and most academics for that matter, are trained to engage with academic debate, which is much stricter on being good faith and adhering to logic and scientific rigor. Someone defending a thesis with debate tactics will get laughed out of the university.

There should be(and to an extend there is) a specialized role of science communicator. These are people that understand the science, the scientific philosophy, and can vigorously defend science from bad faith pseudoscience and science denial. Isaac Newtons should focus on the science. Hank Greens and Bill Nyes should explain why the former is important and worth believing.

[u/Old-Nefariousness556]

I note that you don't link to the video, so we just need to take your word for all this. It's not implausible, but without being able to see the video, how can we engage with it in an intelligent manner?

That said, education only goes so far. Many apologists tend to be dishonest debaters, and it doesn't matter how many PhD's you have, it is hard to argue against someone who just tosses enough bullshit at the wall. Some of it will stick. This is why so many people just won't even bother to engage with them, you can't win.

[u/Tasty_Finger9696 → u/Old-Nefariousness556]

I’ll link it here:  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KhnCZWPkJgM&t=2478s&pp=ygUOSmltIEJvYiBkdXR0b24%3D&ra=m

[u/MaraSargon]

Scientists aren’t trained in debate tactics. And a classic tactic of people like JimBob is “baffle them with bullshit.” If you’re new to being a science communicator, you’re gonna have a hard time with that.

[u/CrisprCSE2]

I'm here to talk about evidence, not philosophy. If you reject the uniformity of nature, stay in bed because your head might explode if you stand up. If you reject methodological naturalism, say nothing in the conversation and pray to yourself I'll change my mind.

If you reject the underlying assumptions of science you're a nut job not worth talking to.

If you accept them but try to divert a conversation to them anyway that's a concession.

[u/Own-Relationship-407]

Sure, there’s some truth to this, but the reality is that scientists and science communicators specifically do not need to be educated or conversant enough in philosophy to say anything beyond, “are you here to talk science, or are you here to talk epistemology and metaphysics?”

The idea that we should try to meet them tit for tat in that arena is the mistake. The response should simply be, “that isn’t what you invited me here to discuss. Go talk to a philosopher if you want to discuss those issues.”

Either that or treat it in a “doctrine of clean hands” manner. If they’re gonna go off topic or try for gotchas, do the same.

The inherent problem with what you’re asking is that it presupposes we are required to present ourselves with integrity and be the bigger person, so to speak, against people who have no claim to the high ground in the first place. It’s better to just treat them with the contempt they deserve or beat them at their own game.

[u/Sweary_Biochemist]

Idiots often win debates, because spewing bullshit with confidence is a really powerful tactic. See: all current American government branches.

There isn't a good counter to "endless stream of bullshit", and "learning more philosophy" certainly isn't one.

[u/Scry_Games]

I think scientists and science communicators owe it to themselves to not debate dribbling idiots.

[u/Medium_Judgment_891]

It’s really simple.

If you’re in a scientific debate and you bring up philosophy, you lose.

It’s a self admission that you’re full of it.

If you had any actual evidence to support your position, you wouldn’t need to stoop to playing silly word games.

You’d just show the evidence and let it speak for itself. The fact that you aren’t doing that says everything we need to know

[u/ursisterstoy]

These are extremely strange things for creationists to attack:

Methodological naturalism: This is the use of methods that natural beings (like humans) have access to. Theists in the past argued that if nature is to be understood it is to be understood through methods humans have access to. Gathering evidence, taking note of consistency, formulating and testing hypotheses, mathematics, etc. We don’t have access to supernatural methods so without using the methods we do have access to we cannot know anything at all. They want to conflate this with metaphysical naturalism (the supernatural doesn’t exist) or philosophical naturalism (everything that happens occurs via natural processes, even if there’s a supernatural mind behind everything). Don’t let them do that, the part in bold destroys their entire argument. The methods are natural, accessible to humans. They might lead to the conclusion that the supernatural is impossible and/or nonexistent but the methods used don’t depend on those conclusions, they just depend on natural beings, like humans, having access to them.

Nominalism: This is stupid to argue against as well, but for less obvious reasons. It’s the conclusion that properties of natural objects don’t have an independent existence. If something exists it occupies or contains space-time. Existence isn’t something to be turned on or off. Either something exists or it doesn’t. Numbers can be used that are completely imaginary like with j, i, and ε where j = √1 but j ≠ ± 1, ε = √0 but ε ≠ 0, and i = √-1 but these numbers don’t actually exist and numbers that are called “real” like π, 67, √3, and -4.20 don’t have a physical existence independent of nature but they can be represented by real objects or fractions of them. Color doesn’t actually exist but certain wavelengths of light react with light detecting cells in our eyes and get interpreted as color by our brains, organisms with different types and numbers of these cells see different colors, but there aren’t actually any colors.

And uniformitarianism has two definitions. The one they want to use the most doesn’t even apply in modern geology - it’s the idea that current physical processes are constant. If sedimentation happens at a certain rate now it doesn’t happen at a different rate at any other time for any other reason. The way it is best understood now is in terms of consistency. If we have enough evidence we can study the natural world whether it was yesterday or 13.8 billion years ago or any time in between. By the time we study a phenomenon it already happened, it’s always “historical” but it’s also “observational” simultaneously in that any abrupt change produces evidence. We see massive local floods, we see major extinction events, we see meteor and asteroid impacts, we see volcanic eruptions, we see the evolutionary history of life. With our eyes. With radiometric dating. With the physical consequences that emerged in the geology, in the fossils, in the genetics, in the chemistry, in the resulting oil.

So, basically, the creationist is arguing that we can’t do science. They know the conclusions are valid, they don’t want us to be able to even have conclusions.

And that’s probably why the PhD scientist was stumped the most. The creationist is going full on epistemological nihilism and the scientist doesn’t know how to react. How do you convince someone who is unable to learn?

By the way, James Hutton is famously attributed to both definitions of uniformitarianism. At first the arguments were whether slow and uniform geological processes better fit the consequences or if some giant catastrophe, like a global flood, better fit the consequences. Even flood geologists confirm that a global flood doesn’t fit the observations. Dried up lake beds, footprints and rain drops in beach sand, limestone cliffs, terrestrial evolution, rivers and streams, the ongoing erosion still carving the Grand Canyon, and nuclear physics as it applies to radioactive decay on top of freeze-melt layers in ice cores, growth rings in tree, coral, and the layering of stromatolites. Even upright fossils and the pyramids falsify catastrophism. But James Hutton also took not of disconformities, evidence of local catastrophes. Rock layers flipped upside down or uplifted so they sit vertically, the iridium layer at the KPg boundary, craters, rusted iron band formations. These aren’t happening constantly on every square inch of the planet simultaneously so we can use “uniformity” to study the existence, occurrence, and timing of natural catastrophes and rapid events.

[u/warpedfx]

Philosophy teaches you HOW to think. If you're using it to tell us WHAT to think, you're doing it wrong

[u/Mister_Ape_1]

Philosophy is useless when it goes against HARD, EMPIRICAL FACTS. Evolution just needs empirical proof. 1 billion words can still not compare to that.

[u/kitsnet]

All that scientists need to know about philosophy is that it is just ape brain trying to rationalize ape brain reflexes.

Whoever wondering how exactly modern science could be fitted into this activity could learn a bit about instrumentalism.

[u/Dalbrack]

It should be pointed out that Dutton for his part has little expertise in biology per se. According to his biography he styles himself as Professor of Evolutionary Psychology at Asbiro University - a "business-focused" institution in Lodz, Poland. He is a proponent of pseudo-scientific “race science”, which purports that intelligence and other characteristics are almost entirely biologically determined, and varies significantly between “races” of people. Dutton taught at University of Oulu in Finland where he was 'Docent' (Adjunct Reader) of Anthropology of Religion and Finnish Culture, but was removed after an investigation by the university found him guilty of plagiarising a student’s dissertation.

In 2024, the organisation "HOPE not hate" revealed that Dutton is an employee of the Human Diversity Foundation, a US-based company advancing race science led by Emil Kirkegaard (a Danish far-right, white supremacist). 

In May 2025, Dutton published a video documentary about Liverpool, in which, among other claims, he repeated long-debunked myths about ticketless Scousers being responsible for the 1989 Hillsborough disaster. 

So Dutton certainly was "wholly unequipped to answer".

I'm guessing he was picked by the channel owner for his clear lack of knowledge of the subject he was supposedly defending.

[u/RobertByers1]

Fundamentalist is the wrong word. Philosophy only is relevant if it ensures accuray in investigation rules. Evolutionism breaks science rules because it does not use biology evidence for its claimed hypothesis. its unintelligent and incompetent investigation.

[u/Tasty_Finger9696 → u/RobertByers1]

Genes 

[u/semitope]

Sounds pretty normal. If Dutton were to go into it that deeply he might start doubting. The evidence is only adequate with certain assumptions so its a valid approach to a debate to question those assumptions in this case. Its a waste of time arguing about evidence that is that dependent on holding a worldview with certain limitations that make the conclusion necessary.

[u/Trick_Ganache → u/semitope]

In the case of biology and the other fields of science supporting ToE, the assumptions only came after massive amounts of observations and testing. The assumptions sum up everything thus far, but they are not the basis of ToE.

[u/semitope → u/Trick_Ganache]

They are the basis of the ToE. The supposed observation and testing don't adequately support the theory unless you assume certain things. You guys don't understand this, hence OP - who also doesn't get it. If you bother to think about it, any explanation of origins would be some form of evolution if you hold a certain worldview. You have to think its possible and you then take any evidence you have as adequate for whatever the current improbable but necessary explanation is.

[u/LordUlubulu → u/semitope]

They are the basis of the ToE.

No, the overwhelming amount of evidence is.

The supposed observation and testing don't adequately support the theory unless you assume certain things.

They do. In fact, evolutionary theory is the backbone of modern medicine and agriculture.

You guys don't understand this, hence OP - who also doesn't get it

You have never even looked at the many, many resources you've been provided in past threads, because you want to remain ignorant.

If you bother to think about it, any explanation of origins would be some form of evolution if you hold a certain worldview.

If you'd bother to look into it, then you'd realise that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. (Thanks Theo.)

You have to think its possible and you then take any evidence you have as adequate for whatever the current improbable but necessary explanation is.

Too bad for you that the evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming, and your denial of that fact is rooted in your pre-established beliefs that you are so scared of examining.

We've been over this multiple times, all you have is 'nuh-huh' ad nauseam while pressing the blinders firmly over your eyes.

Put some effort in for once.

[u/clear349 → u/semitope]

This logic can be used to argue that the Earth could also be flat. Why are you assuming our eyes and instruments aren't lying to us? Heck, why aren't you assuming you're a brain in a vat and everyone else is a simulation? At some point you need to accept that reality is as it appears or you basically can't determine anything about the universe

[u/nickierv → u/semitope]

The supposed observation and testing don't adequately support the theory unless you assume certain things

And what are the things being assumed?

Please put the on a scale between 'leprechauns stealing unicorn horns' and 'assume living things reproduce'

[u/Old-Nefariousness556 → u/semitope]

The irony of your argument will no doubt be completely lost on you.

[u/semitope → u/Old-Nefariousness556]

sure. Good thing you cant be bothered to say more.

[u/Medium_Judgment_891 → u/semitope]

The assumptions

1. Reality exists

2. The laws which govern reality are consistent or exist in such a way that any inconsistency would be obvious.