But Tyson does deny philosophy's relevance to science, as I showed, since he ignores philosophy in his book. If pressed with this list you've provided, he might backtrack, but that would support rather than undermine my argument.

My point isn't that philosophy is useless to science; rather, it's that secular humanistic scientists like Tyson are scientistic, so they can't see straight or they're oversimplifying in their propaganda for the neoliberal society that technoscientific progress sustains.