Bill Nye claims that although philosophy is a subject worth studying, it is unable to give the concrete results which science produces. He criticizes Descartes’s quote arguing that “I think, therefore I am,” is invalid since one exists despite not thinking about existing. He further supports his argument that thinking is not correlated to existence by claiming that the sun would certainly rise the next day regardless of being unable to prove such a fact. Furthermore, he utilizes the hammer test which is: “If you drop a hammer on your foot, is it real or just your imagination?”, suggesting that the hammer is real and one’s pain is real, therefore one’s existence is real despite not thinking about it, in order to support his argument. Rather than the ability to think, Bill Nye seems to rely upon senses in order to verify one’s existence, thus, he condemns philosophy and Descartes for undermining the reliability of senses. By insinuating that one’s senses are absolute, he claims they are capable of verifying one’s existence. However, there are certainly cases in which one’s senses can be deceptive. In this paper, I will refute Descartes’s method of doubt and support Bill Nye’s argument by showing that doubt is an inefficient method to prove existence and that senses can certainly be trusted to an extent.
Descartes’s Method of Doubt states that, “If something has deceived in the past, it cannot be trusted to provide infallible certitude.” To establish certainty, Descartes uses doubt to test his beliefs. He believes that the only way to certainty is by starting from the very basics of all knowledge. In order to determine if one can be certain of anything one knows, one must doubt everything one knows. However, Descartes’s goal is not to doubt everything but to discover a belief that simply cannot be doubted. To achieve this, everything one knows must be questioned. This applies to his proposition: “I think, therefore I am,” because the fact that one thinks is “infallible certitude”, thus, it is certain one exists. Moreover, even if one doubts one’s existence, then one is merely proving Descartes’s proposition, since, doubting is a form of thinking. In other words, contrary to Bill Nye’s statement that one exists despite not thinking about existing, one does not have to think about existing to exist, one must merely think, according to Descartes. The fact that Bill Nye is contemplating whether he exists or not is proof of his existence. Descartes may apply his proposition and refute Bill Nye’s argument that one’s senses is a verification of one’s existence by arguing that one’s senses is not “infallible certitude,” due to its ability to deceive. In fact, there are many instances in which one’s senses can be deceiving. For example, there is the Mandela Effect, which is when one has a clear memory of something that has never happened or a misconception. Everyone remembers the “Berenstein Bears” spelled with a “stein” when evidently, it is spelled as “Berenstain Bears.” This fallacy occurred supposedly because most people are used to last names ending with “stein” rather than “stain,” therefore, people’s brains automatically assume it is spelled such a way. People read words by order rather than letter, thus, such mistakes are easily made. Additionally, Descartes would note that there are many instances in which things are not what they look like. For example, things in the distance which look small, objects when submerged in water, etc. If we can doubt our senses, then according to Descartes, it is not certain and therefore, incapable of verifying existence. To counter Nye’s argument about the hammer, Descartes would respond by questioning the legitimacy of the pain one feels when the hammer is dropped upon one’s foot. He’d ask: “How can one tell if this pain is not just a fabrication of one’s own imagination?” After all, one can certainly feel pain within a dream and Descartes believes that it is almost impossible to distinguish between a vivid dream and reality. He suggests that one cannot be fully sure if the reality of what one is experiencing is truly reality. Additionally, Descartes would question if the pain felt by the hammer is really even pain since he believes that even one’s own reasoning abilities can be trusted. How can one be sure if 2 plus 3 is really 5 or if the sky is really blue? There could be an evil mastermind inputting these supposed truths into one’s brains when in fact, they are false. To Descartes, the only proof of our existence is the indisputable fact that we think.
Evidently, Bill Nye seems to have an elementary understanding of Descartes and philosophy in general. He completely misinterpreted how Descartes’s cogito functioned. Actively thinking about one’s own existence is not what proves your existence, but the fact that you are even able to think of such a question. Furthermore, it is ironic that Nye claims that it is wrong of philosophy to place doubt upon our senses when in actuality, science has proved that we cannot completely trust our senses. However, he is not completely wrong, although, he certainly needs more depth to his argument. Descartes claims that one’s senses are not trustworthy, however, just because there are special instances in which sense are deceptive, it’s not enough reason to be doubtful all of them. Furthermore, one’s senses aren’t deceptive in how they experience things as they are. For instance, sticks half-submerged in water look bent because the eye can see it only because light comes from the object and enters the eye. Meanwhile, light from the part that's underwater is refracted when it goes from the water into the air; it changes direction. So this light comes to the eye from a slightly different angle, and the straw looks bent. Therefore, one’s senses coupled along with reasoning is actually not deceptive at all. People are fooled by optical illusions because that is their purpose. People remember misconceptions because of what they are taught in school or what they are familiar with. Descartes wants people to view facts, ideas, and senses as if they are part of an external world but how can that be when these things are part of the world in which we live in?
