Astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson Analysis

In an interview, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson sheds light on a pathway to truth that relies on possibilities. This can strike viewers as confusing; it is a universal expectation for the natural sciences to have its roots in the absolute. However, Tyson reassures viewers that, to reach knowledge, there is a need to latch onto possibilities and theories. Without these starting grounds, there are no chances for progress. Tyson’s claim applies to areas of knowledge beyond that of astrophysics, which heavily relies on the theoretical, to subjects such as ethics and natural science. While some believe that universal absolutes exist within ethics, moral issues that arise often that call for the pursuit of the truth are based on the unknown.

They must be able to take the step forward without knowing if their claims are concrete or not. The exact origin of morals is unknown; but this force tugs at the conscious of many. Despite the unclear origins, the human conscious is key to determine the definition of universe morality. To this day, the existence of moral truths remain in question. This is the equivalent of what Tyson refers to as the “abyss” (Tyson). Even though this is up to debate, it is necessary for the field of ethics to consider moral truths a possibility. Only when they accept the plausibility of moral truths can they then begin to explore the what ethical values humans should pursue.. Had people not recognized moral universality as a possibility, there might not have been efforts to push forth human rights. Defined as the “basic entitlement of human beings”, human rights is instrumental to understanding the value of human life (Dombrowski et al. 259). A world that does not acknowledge the need for human rights is inherently dangerous. Whether it be for the best or the worst, the study of ethics is dynamic and flows according to

Sagan describes science as an “openness to new ideas” and “the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new” (Dombrowski et al. 323). This contradiction sheds light on how the search of truth is an examination of all possibilities. Science is a work in progress. It relies on assumptions, hypotheses, and trial and error. Approaching the truth requires risks and even failure. This is evident in the discovery of electrons in the 19th century. J.J. Thompson, despite that atomists in Ancient Greece denied that the atom could be divided into smaller units, saw the divisibility of an atom as a possibility. With only an assumption, Thompson had made a step towards the abyss. Had he rejected the possibility, the discovery of electrons might have been delayed. His experiments with the cathode ray revealed that atoms contained negatively charged sub-particles. With this information, however, he created the plum pudding model that asserted that protons and electrons were evenly dispersed within the atom. Even though the model was later proved incorrect, Thompson’s assumptions and experimentation only led others closer to the truth about the structure of the atom. Because he was able to, in Tyson’s words, “make stuff up”, Thompson’s actions catalyzed scientific discovery in the field of chemistry (Tyson). There is a widespread belief that science is inherently objective. This holds truth