The one who steps back to look at the big picture and is filled with the desire to share it with others.

Like, for instance, Tyson.

It doesn't matter whether or not they have a philosophical mindset--though they might stress different things depending on whether or not they do--because there's nothing about the big picture that requires philosophy.

Also, there's a second alternative that you don't consider here with how to interpret Tyson's cosmic perspective. It still isn't scientific because he doesn't have the data to support it, as far as I know. But it's a logical possibility.

He could be claiming that humans have the psychological makeup such that when they are exposed to a cosmic perspective--when someone shares with them the big picture, completely with a fair degree of assurance that most of it is pretty accurate--people cannot (typically) help but de-tribalize.

It can be taken as not a philosophical claim at all, but rather an empirical claim about human psychology.

Which is totally testable, and probably wasn't tested, and so isn't something that should be stated with such confidence. But it's not so clearly philosophy then.

I don't think this alternate interpretation can quite rescue Tyson from having to interface with philosophy at all. But since you didn't mention this way to view the statements, I thought I should bring it up.

Also, I think Tyson would be fully justified in saying something like, "Hey philosophers, when you can explain, in a compelling and widely-agreed upon way, the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the physical sciences and why empirical investigation works so well to accumulate knowledge, come talk. Until then, go argue with each other and let us keep discovering stuff, which we're doing at an ever increasing pace while you can't even agree if we are, let alone explain how it's happening. Popper helped us focus a bit more--thanks!--but since then most philosophy makes it sound like what we've already done is clearly impossible, so...yeah. Get back to us. Oh, and we're taking morality away from you. Cognitive scientists and psychologists are actually making progress."

I think there is at least a partial answer to this, but it's a stiff challenge, and I think something sort of like that is behind Tyson's (and Feynmann's, etc.) disdain for philosophy.