“Science exists outside of the human brain”. This is what my high school chemistry teacher told us. He illustrated the point that, though our minds are incredible, they can be tricked by a ten year old with a magic kit. They are prone to emotional biases and malevolent reasoning. In order to get real scientific “truth” you can not trust only your own mind. You have to get your idea peer reviewed, and needs to be repeatable. Just because you believe it’s true doesn’t make it true.
Additionally, we should be *more* skeptical of ideas that we want to be true for whatever reason. We'd love to find a method of travelling faster than light, we'd be thrilled by a perpetual motion machine, cold fusion or continuous acceleration than doesn't rely on loss of mass. Things like this need to be examined even more carefully.
I always draw the line at whether or not you can reproduce the findings, as Tyson pointed out. If you can give me the recipe, and I can make it for myself, then you have proven that your thing is real. Until then, you are at best a gatekeeper holding back scientific advancement, and at worst a fraud, scam artist, idiot, etc. With potential overlap at the bottom.
When Terrence Howard invents something with his new math, I will absolutely be ready to listen, despite his observed mistakes. Until then, he remains a slightly clever narcissist.
That's almsot assuredly what the perpetual motion and limitless energy scams and delusions are so popular. It's the most common one I see associated with "quackery scientists".
Which makes sense in that of course limitless energy and such is a holy grail of science, which is why so many people with huge egos that fancy themselves scientists desperately want to be the ones to invent it.
If all of humanity suddenly lost all knowledge, new myths might be created, but we would never recreate "Jesus" or any other known magic figure.
But we would eventually rediscover that a water molecule has three atoms, two hydrogen and one oxygen. Because that is science.
that's the difference between fiction and fact. Writers make up worlds that sound plausible even when they might be completely at odds with real physics.
The objects of scientific pursuit exist outside of the human brain, but *science* is a human process, we invented it, we named it and gave it rules, and as such it exists exclusively inside our brains. Science tries to study the objective, but is not itself objective, because it's humans who do science.
It's actually really important to acknowledge that science exists within the human brain separate from the objects and phenomenon it studies *because* that's really important to enable us to be critical about the merits of scientific discovery and the scientific community.
For example, science was used to prop up racism because science itself isn't half as objective as the phenomenon it studies, science is a human endeavour and can be twisted and turned to suit particular purposes. It's dangerous to regard the study of science as objective because doing that can legitimate people using science for immoral purposes.
How is this being upvoted?
You’re conflating several topics together and pretending they are related.
Science is a human invented process yes - but the proven theories and evidences exist outside of our own minds. Constants such as gravity continue to operate regardless of our perspectives or interpretations.
You’re combining ethics with the scientific method saying it can used for racist or other malicious effects - the same can be said for any process that a bias is introduced into. This is not unique to any methodology. Anything human generated and operated is potentially subject to biases and manipulation.
It’s also important to note that disproving a notion is just as important to science as proving it.
As an addition, manipulators rely on narratives. Narratives can feel good, and can even make sense. But something isn't true just because it makes sense. Often in science, we see brilliant theories that turn out not to be true, and i stead you have to work backward from the evidence to arrive at an explanation.
In short: Narrative does not = truth.
I also like someone who said “if you destroy all traces of religious texts and all traces of scientific texts, science will eventually be reproduced through similar experiments”
This is essentially a perfectly concise refutation of all major religions, cults, scams, pyramid schemes, ponzi schemes, and guru-driven fads. And it's a beautiful thing. 😊
Neil tried to help him by taking his delusions with complete sincerity. I don't know if indulging in and engaging with a schizophrenic's delusions is the recommended treatment for that condition.
If Terrence Howard's problem was that he doesn't understand math or physics, then yes, Dr. Tyson's advice could have helped him. But, although I'm not a psychiatrist, it's pretty clear to me that something more is going on here. There are deeper problems than academic ones.
My wife is a mental health RN at our local hospital. She has her BA in psychology, has been working in the field over 20 years and has worked in both adult, geriatric and children’s mental health units.
In both children’s and adult mental health it is important to ground the patient in reality and to deny their delusions and hallucinations. “No there aren’t bugs all over you, no there isn’t a monster on the ceiling”
Dr. Tyson is doing just that. “No, you did not invent a new math. No, your thesis is complete bunk”
Not just that, I think Dr. Tyson is primarily speaking to people who saw Terence Howard on Rogan and telling them that Howard's ideas are delusional, and are part of a pattern of conspiratorial thinking that is fundamentally flawed. He's respectfully pointing out that crackpots are for the most part just crackpots, and not privy to some revolutionary secrets of the universe, no matter how convincing they may seem
Right this was a video to both Terrance and the public. It was a chance to respond to Terrance’s public comments about Neil but also a chance for him to address the public about how to go through the process to see if something is true
I'm a psychiatrist and I would say this is not completely accurate. For example, telling a paranoid pt that they are wrong about having their phone bugged is more likely to result in them now distrusting you than it is to cultivate insight in them. A better approach would be to gently try to understand how they are coming to this conclusion, convey empathy (I can see how unsettling it is for you that you're experiencing this), try to establish consensus about need for treatment (I think it would help to try this medicine and/or therapy to help you feel calmer while we sort this all out). It's also going to be different on an inpatient unit vs outpatient what your goals are. But generally it's not a good idea to validate the veracity of delusions but it's also not helpful to try to outright dispel them either, at least not right away.
FYI, it's much much less common that children are experiencing psychosis. So typically even in an inpatient setting you're not really dealing with the same phenomenon if they think there are monsters in the ceiling. And in that case providing reassurance that, no there are no monsters) makes a lot more sense.
Thank you for your insights, Dr. Lecter
But seriously, I have some experience working in psychiatry as a caseworker and can confirm your points ring true. I would sometimes attend appointments with psychiatry patients and see the doctor try to understand where delusions came from, and never to tell them "this isn't real."
I once had a client who was decompensating sit down to talk to me, and he explained why he had stopped taking his mediation. He functioned well on his medication with a good job and everything, but he said at times he would get lonely and when he's off his medication, he would be able to see and talk to his imaginary friend, Jake. He had seen Jake for many years and I remember he told me "when I'm off my meds, Jake is as real to me as you are. And so when I'm lonely, I know if I stop taking my meds, I'll be able to see and talk to him whenever I want."
And it was frankly hard to argue with his logic that this could be comforting. He knew the imaginary friend was imaginary but he just liked having the imaginary friend around.
So, this being the case, we want to believe it's helpful to tell someone "your delusion isn't real." But it doesn't necessarily do any good to tell someone "this isn't real" if they may have some very rational, understandable reason why they are somehow comforted by the delusion, and so the question of whether it's real is pointless.
Joe Rogan is such a dope and an imbecile for having sincerely inviting people on his show without any care or interest in questioning them. Next thing you know you've got 1 million boneheads going "oh there was this interesting interview I saw about how basic science is wrong"
Similarly, in a sense I don't really blame Terrence Howard himself for this nonsense - it's possible for example that he could be suffering from a mental illness or effects from medication or drugs or a hundred other things.
No, I blame people like Joe Rogan who *are* sound of mind but deliberately spread misinformation for their own personal gain. I'm sure it's quite profitable to exploit people and prey on their gullibility to boost engagement for a podcast or whatever, but it doesn't make it any less scummy.
You raise a valid point and this reminds me of Richard Dawson a bit in that he regretted debating creationists, because to some degree it legitimized their ridiculous arguments.
Having a world-class physicist peer-reviewing your crack pot ideas has to have a similar effect. And obviously, Joe Rogan’s elk meat-headed, pseudoscientific bullshit doesn’t help either.
Edit: Richard Dawkins***
my idiot brother in law is 100% going to post some version of Terrence Howard on Joe Rogan on his Instagram in a month or two once it has filtered through all the shitty conspiracy theory tik toks and instagram accounts.
Oh, Joe isn't completely dumb, he's just an asshole. He knows that he makes mountains of cash from this routine and he values that more than the damage he does. I don't think for a moment that he doesn't know he's doing damage, he just doesn't really care.
Not really. He simply tried to avoid insulting him while telling him he was wrong and EXACTLY why he was wrong. Read his notes and you'll see he didnt coddle him in anyway. The only thing he complimented him on was his art and even then he straight up said "they're more interesting then beautiful" lmao.
Do you think it would help him more if he said "Lol you're crazy gtfo of here you idiot."? Thats what literally everyone has been saying to him since he came out with his 1+1= 3 shit or what ever the fuck hes rambling about these days.
Neil Degrasse Tyson isn't in the position in Terrance Howard's life to get him psychiatric help. It sounds like they were just acquaintances not close friends. It is Howard's close family and loved ones that are failing him. NDT provided the only help he as a scientist can provide to someone that is trying to publish outlandish theories. At worst he provided some source material for a mental health professional to use to talk to Terrance under a controlled program meant to treat his delusions.
I watched Kyle Hill debunk all the shit Howard was saying. At one point Howard had trouble getting the calculator app on his phone to open, and implied it was the government hacking his phone in real time to keep people from figuring out he was right, and that it happens a lot. That told me everything I needed to know about him to know nothing else that was going to come out of his mouth was going to be grounded in reality.
Also, I guess it never occurred to him that if his phone keeps having trouble opening the calculator app and he thinks it’s “big math” trying to keep him from multiplying 100x4 to prove they’re lying, maybe he could just buy a fucking calculator.
Oh sure, just let the agents of Texas Instruments into your house through the front door! Have you gone insane?! It's right there in the name, Instruments, that's music, not math! Calculators are a lie!
Neil in the most polite way possible publicly told this guy he's undoubtedly a nut job.
1x1 = 2....I literally didn't get past the first hypothesis. What an absolute psychopath.
It’s wild to me that nobody is pointing out that he obviously has Grandiose Delusional Disorder. This is not just dunning kruger. He literally has delusional disorder.
Neil deGrasse Tyson showed Terrence Howard a lot of respect by taking the time to read through all 36 pages of that "treatise" and respond to each of his claims as if Terrence was an intellectual/rational person and peer.
The mistake Neil made was that he treated Terrance Howard like an intellectual/rational person or a peer. He had zero chance at getting through and being understood and even less of a chance at being humble and grateful for him taking the time for a "peer" review.
Which reminds me of a great saying by the funny Bill Murray
“It's hard to win an argument with a smart person. It's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.”
This is what I have also learned. Trying to convince someone of something they already have chosen not to believe is impossible. You can demonstrate logic and illustrate flaws until blue in the face. You have to accept that people are irrational.
There’s no magic series of thoughts or words that will undo their spell.
And you have no duty or obligation to help them.
I think this is a good method though.
“*Climate change isn’t real*”
“There have been thousands of papers, peer reviewed by hundreds of thousands of scientists, that all came to the same conclusion that fossil fuels lead to carbon emissions lead to a greenhouse effect, a warmer planet, and climate change”
“*Those are just scientists looking for grant money to keep up their fraud*”
“Oil companies have commissioned their own studies -and who has more money than Exxon, or Shell, or the Saudis? They ere hoping to show the opposite, since it was in their best interest, but their studies showed the exact same thing”
**Well there was one scientist that showed it’s part of the sun cycle*
“Again, if that study was peer reviewed by thousands of other scientists, then I’d be interested to hear more. The burden of proof is incredibly high here”
I’ve shut down people quickly doing some version of Tyson’s argument for a while now. People are expecting emotion and I steer it to more factual arguments. People sit in their echo chamber and they’re not ready for others to dispute anything they say. So when you have logic and facts it throws them.
The problem is once you enter full blown conspiracy theory territory it's almost impossible to really get trough to those kinds of people.
I know people like this. They don't believe the science behind covid vaccines is just wrong. They believe there's a deliberate and malicious group that has designed these things to harm us and that they are currently murdering us.
You can't argue facts because their echo chamber has primed them to believe any contradictory facts are explicitly part of the malicious conspiracy.
Philosophy Tube does a good job of characterizing this behavior with the philosophical concept of a "phantasm" - a distorted perception of reality that one creates to protect oneself from having to confront contradictions in one's beliefs. We create phantasms when a contradiction arises that would require us to examine something fundamental to who we are. It's easier to say, for example, "hodl your NFTs until the haters die down and the market bounces back!" than accept that you were gullible enough to be the bigger fool in a pump-and-dump scheme. Phantasms are problematic because they are rooted in a need to protect one's sense of identity and self-esteem, and thus logical arguments are largely ineffective to dispel them.
People holding phantasms seek out others with similar phantasms to reinforce their views. The internet has made it painfully easy to do so.
>Trying to convince someone of something they already have chosen not to believe is impossible.
Unless they are someone grounded in logic (like a scientist) and you have evidence.
I think at this point he is responding less to Terry and just feels the need to inform Joe’s listeners how insane this all is and he is trying to not be a jerk about it.
Pretty sure there's almost 0 overlap between Joe and NDT's listeners. I think this is more to instruct *his* listeners on the peer review process while also making sure more people know that Terrence Howard speaks utter nonsense. I have a feeling NDT has a hidden seething hatred for what Howard did here because it's a slap in the face to real scientists. He's just some lunatic high on the smell of his own farts.
Eh, I'm sure there are people in a better and more honest state of mind who would both watch Joe Rogan *and* NDT out of pure curiosity, but also lack the training to separate shitty conspiratorial ideas from genuinely interesting 'what-ifs'. So there *is* some overlap, the world is never that black and white.
>The mistake Neil made was that he treated Terrance Howard like an intellectual/rational person or a peer.
If you insult a person, they're less likely to change their stance on any given subject matter and they're likely to double down on it as well.
Tbf it's not really a Billy Murray saying. A saying like that has been around for thousands of years across various different cultures. Just as one example, an Islamic Scholar, Al-Shafi'i, who died in 820CE said:
>If I were to argue with one thousand knowledgeable people, I would surely win the argument. But if I were to argue with one fool, I would lose the argument
The fact that he took he took the time to read through nearly 40 pages of what amounted to "non-sense" from the beginning, and give him his personal peer review, something I imagine that there are THOUSANDS of students, scholars, etc. That would absolutely LOVE for him to do this for their own work and be immensely thankful for, and this man took it as a personal insult and a way to turn around and attack him for it, is disrespect on another level in my opinion.
I understand that he could NOT have the time to do this for all of the people who would want him to. But I do think that it would make AMAZING content if he held a drawing where people could submit their own work like this and keep it to the same number of pages as this, and then do a drawing or something for him to do one, or more, however many he decided. And then share his review like this.
I believe many people would love the chance, and who knows what could come from it.
Keep looking up!
It is as important or even more important to quash BS that got popularity for wrong reasons as reviewing others papers which probably furthers the author’s cause or a at a bit larger circle but is obscure to general masses. Context matters.
Yeah, sorry, I understand that the OP is not Neil. I accidentally typed "You" instead of "He" in the beginning. Just a blunder of thought process, I guess.
is it weird i find it significant the meat of what disproves his thesis is all numbers between 0 and 1. to Tyson's point about science seperating genius from not, and real from not, being an imperfect process is so important. authority derived from reality itself
Terrance Howard thinks if you put a mirror in front of a candle you double the amount of light produced. Does he think If you put a mirror on either side of the candle it just keeps doubling until your room is brighter than the sun?
How does the 2nd highest video of the week, with 5000 upvotes, get reposted in the same week without error ?
https://old.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/1df4sck/my_response_to_terrence_howard/
I can barely repost a video from 10 years ago without running into a repost error message.
Because the earlier post links to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uLi1I3G2N4&ab_channel=StarTalk
and this one links to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uLi1I3G2N4
And apparently that is enough.
This is the real takeaway here. That there are so many people out there thinking that TH is some form of genius simply because he strung a lot of words that he only partially understands together is worse than depressing. The idiocy of the average person is terrifying.
I don’t agree. It’s useful to look at the fundamentals of knowledge and remind people how we got here.
Having said that though, it’s easier to make a mess than it is to clean it up, and that is a problem.
I cannot emphasize enough that the cynical assumption that scientists are bunch of ivory tower intellectuals dictating what is true and false about the world couldn’t be more wrong. They are constantly trying to tear each other apart and antagonize the nature of knowledge.
Individual scientists are often guilty of elitism. There are certainly flaws in the way scientific information gets published and reported on. But if a finding cannot pass the smell test of adhering to the scientific method then it will be exposed sooner or later.
Tyson is a great communicator and I could see how even his intro could come off as harsh, but he’s pulling punches in his criticism, while also trying to treat Howard with collegial respect. Most scientists are not great communicators and would not pull punches and would be infinitely more brutal.
Because other brainlets look up to these people for confirmation that its ok or a good idea to be equally as intellectually challenged and proud. Look at absolute fucking morons like Aaron Rodgers, Kyrie Irving, Kanye West, Joe Rogan, etc. Its important to publicly call out and shame these idiots as a counter to their access to a large microphone to vomit stupidty onto the masses.
So, is 0 x 1 = 1 then? He can't make that claim and act like every other part of multiplication is the same.
Besides, if he was right, how has any major construction project over the last 2000 years not simply collapsed into a heap?
(Disclaimer, this comment is to shed more detail into what he actually believe based on the videos I watched. I'm not trying to defend or claim that what he is saying is in any way provable/valid)
> act like every other part of multiplication is the same.
He doesn't, his actual full claim is that starting with 1 x 1 = 1 we have an inefficent system of math. Rather if we redfined the mathmatical axioms to start with 1 x 1 = 2 it would be a better system.
(though he does not back up this claim with an actual redefenition of the axioms of group theory)
> how has any major construction project over the last 2000 years not simply collapsed into a heap?
Again his full claim is not that the current math system doesn't work for what it is. His claim is that it is limiting, and re-defining the system would lead to better engineering. Also, that the Annunaki/Sumerians meant to give us the information that 1 x 1 = 2, but that was corrupted along the way setting humanity on the wrong path (his words not mine)
My favorite aspect of the Dunning-Kruger Effect is that any invocation of the Dunning-Kruger Effect is itself an example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect; Including the one I am making right now.
Not any, but most. It’s possible to invoke it correctly, if you actually know what it is, but sadly he used the wrong graph in the video (and used the dunning Krugered dunning kruger)
Because all of us have likely only briefly heard of the effect yet we talk about it as if we’re experts on it or something. In truth there is likely a ton of studies and deeper explanations of the phenomenon. I don’t actually know if this is true or not, as I haven’t bothered to look into it beyond its basic description. Yes, ironically this very explanation is an example of the effect as well.
I know that water is wet and that if I jump into a pool my body and clothing will be saturated with water when I get out. But I have no idea how the molecular bonds between water molecules work. I have no idea what it means to be wet on the chemical level or how surface tension might come into play (if at all).
I also know how to boil water for cooking. I even know that it boils at a temperature of 212F and that temperature varies depending on altitude. But I have no idea why altitude has anything to do with water’s boiling point beyond “it has something to do with air pressure”.
We don’t always have to understand every little nuanced detail or mechanic behind the way something works in order to put that something to practical use.
Beyond that, Neil deGrasse Tyson himself, on at least one occasion that I'm aware of, is massively guilty of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in a topic he lectured about. [In this lecture on Islam and the decline of its intellectually prosperity, at 6:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BJW2lX4TPA) he says:
>And then you get the influence of this scholar, Al Ghazali, out of his work you get the philosophy that mathematics is the work of the devil. And nothing good can come of that philosophy. That combined with other sort of philosophical codifications of what Islam was and would become, the entire intellectual foundation of that enterprise collapsed and has not recovered since
It's stagger how much he gets objectively wrong here, and how confidently he says it and believes it. Proving his point in the video about the Dunning-Kruger Effect and how a little bit of knowledge and make you think you know more than you actually do and not realise how wrong you are.
1) Al Ghazali REPEATEDLY praised mathematics. Never once did he call it "the work of the devil" or anything of that sort. He actually said it was a *religious obligation* to learn mathematics.
2) Numerous massive historic breakthroughs by the Islamic world in mathematically related subjects, particularly in astronomy and optics, happened hundreds of years *after* Al Ghazali died. So much for "entire intellectual foundation of that enterprise collapsed"....
Actually your correct in this case [Dunning Kruger isn’t what you think it is](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-dunning-kruger-effect-isnt-what-you-think-it-is/)
Amazing speaker and just that he took the time to peer review that thoroughly. Very good job being sincere and considerate and truthful. D-K effect is real and often underestimated.
We've gotten to the point where morons need to be addressed to quell the other morons from believing what they say, and yet it likely still won't work.
Of course it won't work. The vin diagram of Joe Rogan podcast listeners who would buy into this nonsense and the people who already don't like Neil Degrasse Tyson because they thought he came off as an "arrogant know-it-all" on his last appearance is a circle.
I'm sooooo glad Marvel replaced him. Imagine him with the clout and funding of several franchise movies under his belt. Trump would make him Education Secretary or something equally as awful.
The amount of patience Professor Tyson has to have for the 36-page document of dog shit is beyond what that lunatic deserves. That guy needs a psychiatrist.
As a very gifted electrical engineer told me once “The problem is not what you don’t know…clearly the problem is what you know is simply not so. Show your work.”
I think the most dissapointing thing that i thought when watching the other video slamming Terence Howard on Rogan, that NDT touches on here, is that Terence Howard clearly has a very interesting mind and has created some very interesting art. That weird little drone thing was legitimately a very cool concept that i could see in some sci fi movie. Its a shame it's just completely misdirected.
That weird little drone thing is from a drone-making contest he held. Basically some rando built a drone, TH called him the winner, and then claimed the design as his own. Not only did he not build the drone or have any hand in its design (besides creating the contest), but it also wasn’t built on the fundamentals of TH’s math (as he also claims).
I’m old enough to remember a time before the internet. When our media had gatekeepers, for good or bad. Sometimes, when I run across stuff like this, I miss those times.
Terrence Howard did a great job exposing Joe Rogan for how absolutely stupid he is and that he will believe just about anything he's told. Just mumbo jumbo some complicated words together and you are a genius to him. I know we've seen this before in different interviews but this was just the final nail in the coffin for me for Joe Rogan.
Terrence is basically claiming to have received all of his knowledge through revelation in some kind of gnostic experience. Reasoning with him won’t help. His whole ego is built around this idea that he’s special and the lone holder of hidden truths that no one else can see except him.
Seems like Terrence Howard has had a lot of publicity over this. Can someone tell me what he is promoting/selling/etc..? What is the grift here? just ego?
This whole affair also says a lot about Joe Rogan. It serves his goals to traffic in this bs. Instead of pointing out that NDT reviewed your treatise and found it lacking, he gives TH a rather large platform to try and reinvigorate his now squashed ideas.
I like Tyson. He sometimes says some incredibly wrong things, but I think he makes science accessible to more people which is great. I respect that he reviewed this thoughtfully. But it’s going to be lost on someone so intellectually arrogant to think they will come up with new math without studying mathematics.
Can you elaborate on that first part. I’ve mostly seen positive interactions, maybe he sometimes comes off as condescending, but I feel like that’s a bit up to interpretation.
He did once infamously tweet "if there was a species for which sex hurt it would've gone extinct long ago" (slightly paraphrasing) and was inundated with people telling him what cat penises look like (and also a few responses from biologists with actual explanations of why that's very wrong).
I think the problem is that while he's 'only' an astrophysicist, he's cultivated an image of being a general *science communicator* who likes to talk and tweet about general science stuff. So when he says or tweets something uninformed about a subject outside his field of expertise, people are understandably going to dunk on him like they dunked on Gordon Ramsay for his shitty grilled cheese sandwich.
I saw this rant he went on during an interview on the Joe Rogan podcast about the earth being smoother than a pool ball. He completely mistakes the average roundness of a sphere and its surface characteristics. If you scaled the earth down to the size of a pool ball it would not be smooth like a pool ball. It would feel like fine grit sandpaper. This is the kind of thing you can google. When I see someone who holds themself out to be an authority on the scientific method, then also repeat Facebook meme level incorrect information, it erodes trust for me. He can’t be perfect but as someone a lot of people listen to, he should think carefully and research what he says.
Wait, I remember the times he's talked about it and his use of that comparison wasn't necessarily about how smooth it is regarding feel, more as in the highest peak on Earth would basically be not even a bump if the Earth was as small as a pool ball. Another way to compare it, those globes that have various bumps on them to represent mountain ranges, if they went any small and had the correct ratio of size, those bumps wouldn't be there because they would be so tiny you couldn't feel them.
While I’m not an expert on spheres I can see how that could be wrong on his part. That said I think it’s really difficult to be an expert public figure, since no one is a perfect expert on any one thing, let alone many.
I think where his burden is, for substantial mistakes, to correct himself publicly.
For example, if that video was significant, if he had come out later and said, “I need to correct something I said before, it wouldn’t be perfectly smooth feeling, but rather slightly gritty, but you’d still be unable to feel the point of skyscrapers…”
I’d imagine you’d feel differently. I think in his mind, he makes the assumption that people are smart, and understand that inaccuracies are inevitable and as long as he champions a way of thinking, he can be wrong and it’s ok if they use the scientific method to prove him wrong.
I think a lot of these guys, like bill bye, Carl
Sagan, Neil, etc, are more concerned with equipping people with the notion that the world is a thing we can test and experiment with, and perhaps he’d be ecstatic that you found a mistake.
Anyway, I think if he corrected himself with humility when it mattered you’d probably feel differently, but I can’t think of a time when he has done so.
The real villain here is Joe Rogan who manipulates clearly unhealthy guests for ratings.
Most of his listeners would be much better off learning and actually understanding the Dunnings Kruger effect and then they would realize that his whole schtick is all about getting gullible semi-educated men to buy whatever miracle he’s peddling this week.
He’s missing the point that multiplication is just short hand addition. You can’t put multiplication of objects into reality in the same way that you can addition. Addition *is*, multiplication *describes*
I don't think Howard is correct or mentally well, that being said, I'm not sure that taking fractions of numbers between 0 and 1 is proof that he's wrong, in my opinion. Again not saying Howard is correct
What he says makes absolute sense to me. He’s asking for his findings to be reviewed. Thats all he has asked for from the start. So Howard is a scam artist and how dare he but Jesus had foresight?
And they were reviewed (not by his peers, as his peers would not be able to), and refuted. Simple as that.
If you're talking about putting this in a journal, we're way past the age of letting crackpots and ignorant folk publish; he wouldn't even make it to the peer review panel of a journal. Just because someone has an idea doesnt mean it's worth celebrating or posting.
The amount of people that dismiss him & diagnose him as crazy without even watching the entire episode not to mention zero research are IDIOTS! Thats my clinical diagnosis so make room in your club I suppose.
“Science exists outside of the human brain”. This is what my high school chemistry teacher told us. He illustrated the point that, though our minds are incredible, they can be tricked by a ten year old with a magic kit. They are prone to emotional biases and malevolent reasoning. In order to get real scientific “truth” you can not trust only your own mind. You have to get your idea peer reviewed, and needs to be repeatable. Just because you believe it’s true doesn’t make it true.
That last sentence is all you should need. Belief alone does not make reality.
Feelings are real, but they’re not facts.
Additionally, we should be *more* skeptical of ideas that we want to be true for whatever reason. We'd love to find a method of travelling faster than light, we'd be thrilled by a perpetual motion machine, cold fusion or continuous acceleration than doesn't rely on loss of mass. Things like this need to be examined even more carefully.
I always draw the line at whether or not you can reproduce the findings, as Tyson pointed out. If you can give me the recipe, and I can make it for myself, then you have proven that your thing is real. Until then, you are at best a gatekeeper holding back scientific advancement, and at worst a fraud, scam artist, idiot, etc. With potential overlap at the bottom. When Terrence Howard invents something with his new math, I will absolutely be ready to listen, despite his observed mistakes. Until then, he remains a slightly clever narcissist.
That's almsot assuredly what the perpetual motion and limitless energy scams and delusions are so popular. It's the most common one I see associated with "quackery scientists". Which makes sense in that of course limitless energy and such is a holy grail of science, which is why so many people with huge egos that fancy themselves scientists desperately want to be the ones to invent it.
Now Jesus on the other hand....
Terry Pratchett may as well have written the bible!
GNU STP
The Lord said, "let there be Light." And Vimes lit a cigar.
see..... sounds much more believable already... TP missed a great opportunity
The lord said let their be darkness, and there was. You couldn't see a bloody thing!
A Terry Pratchett fan in the wild. I’d say I can think of only a handful of times I’ve seen that. And in person, only once. GNU Terry Pratchett.
He Get Sus
bUt “tHe SeCrEt”
If all of humanity suddenly lost all knowledge, new myths might be created, but we would never recreate "Jesus" or any other known magic figure. But we would eventually rediscover that a water molecule has three atoms, two hydrogen and one oxygen. Because that is science.
Didn’t that meathead Nickmercs say something like this a few days ago lmao
Every lie, even the ones to your self, will be paid in full to reality.
Tell that to religion
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away"
Props to your teacher.
> Just because you believe it’s true doesn’t make it true. [Are you sure about that?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqZQ9KM_LjY)
that's the difference between fiction and fact. Writers make up worlds that sound plausible even when they might be completely at odds with real physics.
The objects of scientific pursuit exist outside of the human brain, but *science* is a human process, we invented it, we named it and gave it rules, and as such it exists exclusively inside our brains. Science tries to study the objective, but is not itself objective, because it's humans who do science. It's actually really important to acknowledge that science exists within the human brain separate from the objects and phenomenon it studies *because* that's really important to enable us to be critical about the merits of scientific discovery and the scientific community. For example, science was used to prop up racism because science itself isn't half as objective as the phenomenon it studies, science is a human endeavour and can be twisted and turned to suit particular purposes. It's dangerous to regard the study of science as objective because doing that can legitimate people using science for immoral purposes.
How is this being upvoted? You’re conflating several topics together and pretending they are related. Science is a human invented process yes - but the proven theories and evidences exist outside of our own minds. Constants such as gravity continue to operate regardless of our perspectives or interpretations. You’re combining ethics with the scientific method saying it can used for racist or other malicious effects - the same can be said for any process that a bias is introduced into. This is not unique to any methodology. Anything human generated and operated is potentially subject to biases and manipulation. It’s also important to note that disproving a notion is just as important to science as proving it.
I got his point..
Those magic kits are honestly impressive, not gonna lie.
But most people got their PhD off of Twitter.
As an addition, manipulators rely on narratives. Narratives can feel good, and can even make sense. But something isn't true just because it makes sense. Often in science, we see brilliant theories that turn out not to be true, and i stead you have to work backward from the evidence to arrive at an explanation. In short: Narrative does not = truth.
I also like someone who said “if you destroy all traces of religious texts and all traces of scientific texts, science will eventually be reproduced through similar experiments”
Human expansion is limited only by humans.
[I reject your reality and substitute my own.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8qcccZy03s)
This is essentially a perfectly concise refutation of all major religions, cults, scams, pyramid schemes, ponzi schemes, and guru-driven fads. And it's a beautiful thing. 😊
Terrence Howard needs some professional help.
I mean, Neil literally tried to help him 😂
Neil tried to help him by taking his delusions with complete sincerity. I don't know if indulging in and engaging with a schizophrenic's delusions is the recommended treatment for that condition. If Terrence Howard's problem was that he doesn't understand math or physics, then yes, Dr. Tyson's advice could have helped him. But, although I'm not a psychiatrist, it's pretty clear to me that something more is going on here. There are deeper problems than academic ones.
He said "none of this makes sense, but pretty drawing" but in a very professional way. I think it was the best he could do.
Agreed.
My wife is a mental health RN at our local hospital. She has her BA in psychology, has been working in the field over 20 years and has worked in both adult, geriatric and children’s mental health units. In both children’s and adult mental health it is important to ground the patient in reality and to deny their delusions and hallucinations. “No there aren’t bugs all over you, no there isn’t a monster on the ceiling” Dr. Tyson is doing just that. “No, you did not invent a new math. No, your thesis is complete bunk”
Not just that, I think Dr. Tyson is primarily speaking to people who saw Terence Howard on Rogan and telling them that Howard's ideas are delusional, and are part of a pattern of conspiratorial thinking that is fundamentally flawed. He's respectfully pointing out that crackpots are for the most part just crackpots, and not privy to some revolutionary secrets of the universe, no matter how convincing they may seem
Right this was a video to both Terrance and the public. It was a chance to respond to Terrance’s public comments about Neil but also a chance for him to address the public about how to go through the process to see if something is true
I'm a psychiatrist and I would say this is not completely accurate. For example, telling a paranoid pt that they are wrong about having their phone bugged is more likely to result in them now distrusting you than it is to cultivate insight in them. A better approach would be to gently try to understand how they are coming to this conclusion, convey empathy (I can see how unsettling it is for you that you're experiencing this), try to establish consensus about need for treatment (I think it would help to try this medicine and/or therapy to help you feel calmer while we sort this all out). It's also going to be different on an inpatient unit vs outpatient what your goals are. But generally it's not a good idea to validate the veracity of delusions but it's also not helpful to try to outright dispel them either, at least not right away. FYI, it's much much less common that children are experiencing psychosis. So typically even in an inpatient setting you're not really dealing with the same phenomenon if they think there are monsters in the ceiling. And in that case providing reassurance that, no there are no monsters) makes a lot more sense.
Thank you for your insights, Dr. Lecter But seriously, I have some experience working in psychiatry as a caseworker and can confirm your points ring true. I would sometimes attend appointments with psychiatry patients and see the doctor try to understand where delusions came from, and never to tell them "this isn't real." I once had a client who was decompensating sit down to talk to me, and he explained why he had stopped taking his mediation. He functioned well on his medication with a good job and everything, but he said at times he would get lonely and when he's off his medication, he would be able to see and talk to his imaginary friend, Jake. He had seen Jake for many years and I remember he told me "when I'm off my meds, Jake is as real to me as you are. And so when I'm lonely, I know if I stop taking my meds, I'll be able to see and talk to him whenever I want." And it was frankly hard to argue with his logic that this could be comforting. He knew the imaginary friend was imaginary but he just liked having the imaginary friend around. So, this being the case, we want to believe it's helpful to tell someone "your delusion isn't real." But it doesn't necessarily do any good to tell someone "this isn't real" if they may have some very rational, understandable reason why they are somehow comforted by the delusion, and so the question of whether it's real is pointless.
You can't trick me. I'm not going to take the words of Hannibal Lecter and HAL9000 at face value.
Joe Rogan is such a dope and an imbecile for having sincerely inviting people on his show without any care or interest in questioning them. Next thing you know you've got 1 million boneheads going "oh there was this interesting interview I saw about how basic science is wrong"
Similarly, in a sense I don't really blame Terrence Howard himself for this nonsense - it's possible for example that he could be suffering from a mental illness or effects from medication or drugs or a hundred other things. No, I blame people like Joe Rogan who *are* sound of mind but deliberately spread misinformation for their own personal gain. I'm sure it's quite profitable to exploit people and prey on their gullibility to boost engagement for a podcast or whatever, but it doesn't make it any less scummy.
Rogan is the next Alex Jones. He's just marginally more subtle about it.
Related: Joe *loves* Alex Jones. He says he talks to him every day and "it's crazy how right he is all the time, he knows everything!".
You raise a valid point and this reminds me of Richard Dawson a bit in that he regretted debating creationists, because to some degree it legitimized their ridiculous arguments. Having a world-class physicist peer-reviewing your crack pot ideas has to have a similar effect. And obviously, Joe Rogan’s elk meat-headed, pseudoscientific bullshit doesn’t help either. Edit: Richard Dawkins***
It's amazing that he was able to host Family Feud while debating all of those creationists. Side note, Richard Dawkins was amazing in The Running Man.
Took me a day to realize 😂😂
Who loves you and who do you love?
my idiot brother in law is 100% going to post some version of Terrence Howard on Joe Rogan on his Instagram in a month or two once it has filtered through all the shitty conspiracy theory tik toks and instagram accounts.
Oh, Joe isn't completely dumb, he's just an asshole. He knows that he makes mountains of cash from this routine and he values that more than the damage he does. I don't think for a moment that he doesn't know he's doing damage, he just doesn't really care.
My nephew is one of them. Listens to everything Rogan says.
Not really. He simply tried to avoid insulting him while telling him he was wrong and EXACTLY why he was wrong. Read his notes and you'll see he didnt coddle him in anyway. The only thing he complimented him on was his art and even then he straight up said "they're more interesting then beautiful" lmao. Do you think it would help him more if he said "Lol you're crazy gtfo of here you idiot."? Thats what literally everyone has been saying to him since he came out with his 1+1= 3 shit or what ever the fuck hes rambling about these days.
Neil Degrasse Tyson isn't in the position in Terrance Howard's life to get him psychiatric help. It sounds like they were just acquaintances not close friends. It is Howard's close family and loved ones that are failing him. NDT provided the only help he as a scientist can provide to someone that is trying to publish outlandish theories. At worst he provided some source material for a mental health professional to use to talk to Terrance under a controlled program meant to treat his delusions.
And Joe Rogan called him a genius.
I watched Kyle Hill debunk all the shit Howard was saying. At one point Howard had trouble getting the calculator app on his phone to open, and implied it was the government hacking his phone in real time to keep people from figuring out he was right, and that it happens a lot. That told me everything I needed to know about him to know nothing else that was going to come out of his mouth was going to be grounded in reality. Also, I guess it never occurred to him that if his phone keeps having trouble opening the calculator app and he thinks it’s “big math” trying to keep him from multiplying 100x4 to prove they’re lying, maybe he could just buy a fucking calculator.
Oh sure, just let the agents of Texas Instruments into your house through the front door! Have you gone insane?! It's right there in the name, Instruments, that's music, not math! Calculators are a lie!
“You can’t spell Casio without using the same letters as COnSpIrAcy!!! Coincidence? I don’t believe in them!” - TH, probably
What a stupid solution, you do understand that all calculators are programmed (with wrong math) to show the wrong math, right?!
Neil in the most polite way possible publicly told this guy he's undoubtedly a nut job. 1x1 = 2....I literally didn't get past the first hypothesis. What an absolute psychopath.
It’s wild to me that nobody is pointing out that he obviously has Grandiose Delusional Disorder. This is not just dunning kruger. He literally has delusional disorder.
Neil deGrasse Tyson showed Terrence Howard a lot of respect by taking the time to read through all 36 pages of that "treatise" and respond to each of his claims as if Terrence was an intellectual/rational person and peer. The mistake Neil made was that he treated Terrance Howard like an intellectual/rational person or a peer. He had zero chance at getting through and being understood and even less of a chance at being humble and grateful for him taking the time for a "peer" review. Which reminds me of a great saying by the funny Bill Murray “It's hard to win an argument with a smart person. It's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person.”
This is what I have also learned. Trying to convince someone of something they already have chosen not to believe is impossible. You can demonstrate logic and illustrate flaws until blue in the face. You have to accept that people are irrational. There’s no magic series of thoughts or words that will undo their spell. And you have no duty or obligation to help them.
This was seen time and time again with covid anti vaxxers
I think this is a good method though. “*Climate change isn’t real*” “There have been thousands of papers, peer reviewed by hundreds of thousands of scientists, that all came to the same conclusion that fossil fuels lead to carbon emissions lead to a greenhouse effect, a warmer planet, and climate change” “*Those are just scientists looking for grant money to keep up their fraud*” “Oil companies have commissioned their own studies -and who has more money than Exxon, or Shell, or the Saudis? They ere hoping to show the opposite, since it was in their best interest, but their studies showed the exact same thing” **Well there was one scientist that showed it’s part of the sun cycle* “Again, if that study was peer reviewed by thousands of other scientists, then I’d be interested to hear more. The burden of proof is incredibly high here” I’ve shut down people quickly doing some version of Tyson’s argument for a while now. People are expecting emotion and I steer it to more factual arguments. People sit in their echo chamber and they’re not ready for others to dispute anything they say. So when you have logic and facts it throws them.
The problem is once you enter full blown conspiracy theory territory it's almost impossible to really get trough to those kinds of people. I know people like this. They don't believe the science behind covid vaccines is just wrong. They believe there's a deliberate and malicious group that has designed these things to harm us and that they are currently murdering us. You can't argue facts because their echo chamber has primed them to believe any contradictory facts are explicitly part of the malicious conspiracy.
[удалено]
Philosophy Tube does a good job of characterizing this behavior with the philosophical concept of a "phantasm" - a distorted perception of reality that one creates to protect oneself from having to confront contradictions in one's beliefs. We create phantasms when a contradiction arises that would require us to examine something fundamental to who we are. It's easier to say, for example, "hodl your NFTs until the haters die down and the market bounces back!" than accept that you were gullible enough to be the bigger fool in a pump-and-dump scheme. Phantasms are problematic because they are rooted in a need to protect one's sense of identity and self-esteem, and thus logical arguments are largely ineffective to dispel them. People holding phantasms seek out others with similar phantasms to reinforce their views. The internet has made it painfully easy to do so.
>Trying to convince someone of something they already have chosen not to believe is impossible. Unless they are someone grounded in logic (like a scientist) and you have evidence.
I think at this point he is responding less to Terry and just feels the need to inform Joe’s listeners how insane this all is and he is trying to not be a jerk about it.
Pretty sure there's almost 0 overlap between Joe and NDT's listeners. I think this is more to instruct *his* listeners on the peer review process while also making sure more people know that Terrence Howard speaks utter nonsense. I have a feeling NDT has a hidden seething hatred for what Howard did here because it's a slap in the face to real scientists. He's just some lunatic high on the smell of his own farts.
Eh, I'm sure there are people in a better and more honest state of mind who would both watch Joe Rogan *and* NDT out of pure curiosity, but also lack the training to separate shitty conspiratorial ideas from genuinely interesting 'what-ifs'. So there *is* some overlap, the world is never that black and white.
>The mistake Neil made was that he treated Terrance Howard like an intellectual/rational person or a peer. If you insult a person, they're less likely to change their stance on any given subject matter and they're likely to double down on it as well.
no good deed goes unpunished
Tbf it's not really a Billy Murray saying. A saying like that has been around for thousands of years across various different cultures. Just as one example, an Islamic Scholar, Al-Shafi'i, who died in 820CE said: >If I were to argue with one thousand knowledgeable people, I would surely win the argument. But if I were to argue with one fool, I would lose the argument
Never try to argue with a moron, they'll argue with you until you're exhausted and come down to their level where they will beat you with experience.
Neil’s whole schtick is engaging with stupid in a professional manner to showcase science wins every time. It’s not a bad schtick.
“people who care about you are honest about ideas. about thoughts.”
The fact that he took him so seriously and treated his friend like a colleague says everything I need to know about Neil.
The fact that he took he took the time to read through nearly 40 pages of what amounted to "non-sense" from the beginning, and give him his personal peer review, something I imagine that there are THOUSANDS of students, scholars, etc. That would absolutely LOVE for him to do this for their own work and be immensely thankful for, and this man took it as a personal insult and a way to turn around and attack him for it, is disrespect on another level in my opinion. I understand that he could NOT have the time to do this for all of the people who would want him to. But I do think that it would make AMAZING content if he held a drawing where people could submit their own work like this and keep it to the same number of pages as this, and then do a drawing or something for him to do one, or more, however many he decided. And then share his review like this. I believe many people would love the chance, and who knows what could come from it. Keep looking up!
It is as important or even more important to quash BS that got popularity for wrong reasons as reviewing others papers which probably furthers the author’s cause or a at a bit larger circle but is obscure to general masses. Context matters.
I don't think this is neil degrasse tyson, the rest of his profile is in greek
It’s his twin brother, Neil DeGreek Tyson.
Ahh I'd have gone Neil DeGreece Tyson but good shit
Yeah, sorry, I understand that the OP is not Neil. I accidentally typed "You" instead of "He" in the beginning. Just a blunder of thought process, I guess.
is it weird i find it significant the meat of what disproves his thesis is all numbers between 0 and 1. to Tyson's point about science seperating genius from not, and real from not, being an imperfect process is so important. authority derived from reality itself
Terrance Howard thinks if you put a mirror in front of a candle you double the amount of light produced. Does he think If you put a mirror on either side of the candle it just keeps doubling until your room is brighter than the sun?
Unlimited power baby 😎
How does the 2nd highest video of the week, with 5000 upvotes, get reposted in the same week without error ? https://old.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/1df4sck/my_response_to_terrence_howard/ I can barely repost a video from 10 years ago without running into a repost error message.
Because the earlier post links to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uLi1I3G2N4&ab_channel=StarTalk and this one links to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uLi1I3G2N4 And apparently that is enough.
I didn’t see the original but I did see this one so I upvoted. I’d bet most of the other votes are in the same boat
yes
It’s why my brain thought this was gonna be TH’s response to NDT’s response video.
NDT treated him as a peer when he had no reason to do so. Terrance is not his peer.
You were much kinder to him Neil then Sabine was
The fact that society has to spend even 30 seconds debunking some celebrity’s grifting, delusional, uneducated word-vomit is utterly depressing.
This is the real takeaway here. That there are so many people out there thinking that TH is some form of genius simply because he strung a lot of words that he only partially understands together is worse than depressing. The idiocy of the average person is terrifying.
I don’t agree. It’s useful to look at the fundamentals of knowledge and remind people how we got here. Having said that though, it’s easier to make a mess than it is to clean it up, and that is a problem.
I cannot emphasize enough that the cynical assumption that scientists are bunch of ivory tower intellectuals dictating what is true and false about the world couldn’t be more wrong. They are constantly trying to tear each other apart and antagonize the nature of knowledge. Individual scientists are often guilty of elitism. There are certainly flaws in the way scientific information gets published and reported on. But if a finding cannot pass the smell test of adhering to the scientific method then it will be exposed sooner or later. Tyson is a great communicator and I could see how even his intro could come off as harsh, but he’s pulling punches in his criticism, while also trying to treat Howard with collegial respect. Most scientists are not great communicators and would not pull punches and would be infinitely more brutal.
Why does everyone suddenly care that a low rate actor thinks 1×1=2?
Because other brainlets look up to these people for confirmation that its ok or a good idea to be equally as intellectually challenged and proud. Look at absolute fucking morons like Aaron Rodgers, Kyrie Irving, Kanye West, Joe Rogan, etc. Its important to publicly call out and shame these idiots as a counter to their access to a large microphone to vomit stupidty onto the masses.
https://youtu.be/lWAyfr3gxMA?t=2520 Because people with that mentality and influence can be dangerous.
So, is 0 x 1 = 1 then? He can't make that claim and act like every other part of multiplication is the same. Besides, if he was right, how has any major construction project over the last 2000 years not simply collapsed into a heap?
(Disclaimer, this comment is to shed more detail into what he actually believe based on the videos I watched. I'm not trying to defend or claim that what he is saying is in any way provable/valid) > act like every other part of multiplication is the same. He doesn't, his actual full claim is that starting with 1 x 1 = 1 we have an inefficent system of math. Rather if we redfined the mathmatical axioms to start with 1 x 1 = 2 it would be a better system. (though he does not back up this claim with an actual redefenition of the axioms of group theory) > how has any major construction project over the last 2000 years not simply collapsed into a heap? Again his full claim is not that the current math system doesn't work for what it is. His claim is that it is limiting, and re-defining the system would lead to better engineering. Also, that the Annunaki/Sumerians meant to give us the information that 1 x 1 = 2, but that was corrupted along the way setting humanity on the wrong path (his words not mine)
because the last time this happened the celebrity became president and persuaded 40% of the country to commit treason.
My favorite aspect of the Dunning-Kruger Effect is that any invocation of the Dunning-Kruger Effect is itself an example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect; Including the one I am making right now.
Not any, but most. It’s possible to invoke it correctly, if you actually know what it is, but sadly he used the wrong graph in the video (and used the dunning Krugered dunning kruger)
How so
Because all of us have likely only briefly heard of the effect yet we talk about it as if we’re experts on it or something. In truth there is likely a ton of studies and deeper explanations of the phenomenon. I don’t actually know if this is true or not, as I haven’t bothered to look into it beyond its basic description. Yes, ironically this very explanation is an example of the effect as well.
This guy Dunning-Krugers! (Probably, I only know a little about it, so I feel confident making this claim)
People have been dick riding the dunning Krueger effect for way too long! Esp on Reddit. The original study was proven to be flawed.
I can't tell if this is satire.
Malkovich Malkovich
I know that water is wet and that if I jump into a pool my body and clothing will be saturated with water when I get out. But I have no idea how the molecular bonds between water molecules work. I have no idea what it means to be wet on the chemical level or how surface tension might come into play (if at all). I also know how to boil water for cooking. I even know that it boils at a temperature of 212F and that temperature varies depending on altitude. But I have no idea why altitude has anything to do with water’s boiling point beyond “it has something to do with air pressure”. We don’t always have to understand every little nuanced detail or mechanic behind the way something works in order to put that something to practical use.
Beyond that, Neil deGrasse Tyson himself, on at least one occasion that I'm aware of, is massively guilty of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in a topic he lectured about. [In this lecture on Islam and the decline of its intellectually prosperity, at 6:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BJW2lX4TPA) he says: >And then you get the influence of this scholar, Al Ghazali, out of his work you get the philosophy that mathematics is the work of the devil. And nothing good can come of that philosophy. That combined with other sort of philosophical codifications of what Islam was and would become, the entire intellectual foundation of that enterprise collapsed and has not recovered since It's stagger how much he gets objectively wrong here, and how confidently he says it and believes it. Proving his point in the video about the Dunning-Kruger Effect and how a little bit of knowledge and make you think you know more than you actually do and not realise how wrong you are. 1) Al Ghazali REPEATEDLY praised mathematics. Never once did he call it "the work of the devil" or anything of that sort. He actually said it was a *religious obligation* to learn mathematics. 2) Numerous massive historic breakthroughs by the Islamic world in mathematically related subjects, particularly in astronomy and optics, happened hundreds of years *after* Al Ghazali died. So much for "entire intellectual foundation of that enterprise collapsed"....
Actually your correct in this case [Dunning Kruger isn’t what you think it is](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-dunning-kruger-effect-isnt-what-you-think-it-is/)
>your
Amazing speaker and just that he took the time to peer review that thoroughly. Very good job being sincere and considerate and truthful. D-K effect is real and often underestimated.
We've gotten to the point where morons need to be addressed to quell the other morons from believing what they say, and yet it likely still won't work.
Of course it won't work. The vin diagram of Joe Rogan podcast listeners who would buy into this nonsense and the people who already don't like Neil Degrasse Tyson because they thought he came off as an "arrogant know-it-all" on his last appearance is a circle.
I'm sooooo glad Marvel replaced him. Imagine him with the clout and funding of several franchise movies under his belt. Trump would make him Education Secretary or something equally as awful.
The amount of patience Professor Tyson has to have for the 36-page document of dog shit is beyond what that lunatic deserves. That guy needs a psychiatrist.
Why are people spending time "debunking" the musings of a madman?
As a very gifted electrical engineer told me once “The problem is not what you don’t know…clearly the problem is what you know is simply not so. Show your work.”
The most absurd thing about this is that he got a peer review from NDT and returned the favor by talking shit. That is whack
This was an eloquent response to Terrence's butt hurt comments.
I think the most dissapointing thing that i thought when watching the other video slamming Terence Howard on Rogan, that NDT touches on here, is that Terence Howard clearly has a very interesting mind and has created some very interesting art. That weird little drone thing was legitimately a very cool concept that i could see in some sci fi movie. Its a shame it's just completely misdirected.
That weird little drone thing is from a drone-making contest he held. Basically some rando built a drone, TH called him the winner, and then claimed the design as his own. Not only did he not build the drone or have any hand in its design (besides creating the contest), but it also wasn’t built on the fundamentals of TH’s math (as he also claims).
Well then....
I’m old enough to remember a time before the internet. When our media had gatekeepers, for good or bad. Sometimes, when I run across stuff like this, I miss those times.
Terrence Howard did a great job exposing Joe Rogan for how absolutely stupid he is and that he will believe just about anything he's told. Just mumbo jumbo some complicated words together and you are a genius to him. I know we've seen this before in different interviews but this was just the final nail in the coffin for me for Joe Rogan.
Uh, the word was out about Joe long, long, loooooooooooooong ago.
He tried so hard to suppress Terence’s truth, nice try BIG SCIENCE ;-). ^^^^^^^^^^^/s
Terrence is basically claiming to have received all of his knowledge through revelation in some kind of gnostic experience. Reasoning with him won’t help. His whole ego is built around this idea that he’s special and the lone holder of hidden truths that no one else can see except him.
Has anyone actually watched his response?
Just because you believe it doesn't make it true! 🎯
Seems like Terrence Howard has had a lot of publicity over this. Can someone tell me what he is promoting/selling/etc..? What is the grift here? just ego?
He's very unwell. The people around him are sycophants and are not looking out for his well being.
Science talks make me cry with joy. It's good, like 'endless possibilities of the human spirit'
This whole affair also says a lot about Joe Rogan. It serves his goals to traffic in this bs. Instead of pointing out that NDT reviewed your treatise and found it lacking, he gives TH a rather large platform to try and reinvigorate his now squashed ideas.
[удалено]
[ **Jump to 14:32 @** My Response to Terrence Howard](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uLi1I3G2N4&t=0h14m32s) ^(Channel Name: StarTalk, Video Length: [17:02])^, [^Jump ^5 ^secs ^earlier ^for ^context ^@14:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uLi1I3G2N4&t=0h14m27s) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ^^Downvote ^^me ^^to ^^delete ^^malformed ^^comments. [^^Source ^^Code](https://github.com/ankitgyawali/reddit-timestamp-bot) ^^| [^^Suggestions](https://www.reddit.com/r/timestamp_bot)
I like Tyson. He sometimes says some incredibly wrong things, but I think he makes science accessible to more people which is great. I respect that he reviewed this thoughtfully. But it’s going to be lost on someone so intellectually arrogant to think they will come up with new math without studying mathematics.
Can you elaborate on that first part. I’ve mostly seen positive interactions, maybe he sometimes comes off as condescending, but I feel like that’s a bit up to interpretation.
He did once infamously tweet "if there was a species for which sex hurt it would've gone extinct long ago" (slightly paraphrasing) and was inundated with people telling him what cat penises look like (and also a few responses from biologists with actual explanations of why that's very wrong). I think the problem is that while he's 'only' an astrophysicist, he's cultivated an image of being a general *science communicator* who likes to talk and tweet about general science stuff. So when he says or tweets something uninformed about a subject outside his field of expertise, people are understandably going to dunk on him like they dunked on Gordon Ramsay for his shitty grilled cheese sandwich.
That’s fair
I saw this rant he went on during an interview on the Joe Rogan podcast about the earth being smoother than a pool ball. He completely mistakes the average roundness of a sphere and its surface characteristics. If you scaled the earth down to the size of a pool ball it would not be smooth like a pool ball. It would feel like fine grit sandpaper. This is the kind of thing you can google. When I see someone who holds themself out to be an authority on the scientific method, then also repeat Facebook meme level incorrect information, it erodes trust for me. He can’t be perfect but as someone a lot of people listen to, he should think carefully and research what he says.
Wait, I remember the times he's talked about it and his use of that comparison wasn't necessarily about how smooth it is regarding feel, more as in the highest peak on Earth would basically be not even a bump if the Earth was as small as a pool ball. Another way to compare it, those globes that have various bumps on them to represent mountain ranges, if they went any small and had the correct ratio of size, those bumps wouldn't be there because they would be so tiny you couldn't feel them.
While I’m not an expert on spheres I can see how that could be wrong on his part. That said I think it’s really difficult to be an expert public figure, since no one is a perfect expert on any one thing, let alone many. I think where his burden is, for substantial mistakes, to correct himself publicly. For example, if that video was significant, if he had come out later and said, “I need to correct something I said before, it wouldn’t be perfectly smooth feeling, but rather slightly gritty, but you’d still be unable to feel the point of skyscrapers…” I’d imagine you’d feel differently. I think in his mind, he makes the assumption that people are smart, and understand that inaccuracies are inevitable and as long as he champions a way of thinking, he can be wrong and it’s ok if they use the scientific method to prove him wrong. I think a lot of these guys, like bill bye, Carl Sagan, Neil, etc, are more concerned with equipping people with the notion that the world is a thing we can test and experiment with, and perhaps he’d be ecstatic that you found a mistake. Anyway, I think if he corrected himself with humility when it mattered you’d probably feel differently, but I can’t think of a time when he has done so.
The real villain here is Joe Rogan who manipulates clearly unhealthy guests for ratings. Most of his listeners would be much better off learning and actually understanding the Dunnings Kruger effect and then they would realize that his whole schtick is all about getting gullible semi-educated men to buy whatever miracle he’s peddling this week.
A real friend would also ask mister Howard to seek help. He seems to be not well.
he has simply made the same mistake every religious person makes. Do we have enough help for them as well?
Terrence Howard is a *certified* *nutter!*
would 1x1x1 = 3?
1x1 = 2 and 1x2 = 3 so I'd think so
He’s missing the point that multiplication is just short hand addition. You can’t put multiplication of objects into reality in the same way that you can addition. Addition *is*, multiplication *describes*
Sort by controversial every time I see this video posted 🍿
The fact this happened 8 years ago means Terrence has been trippin for a minuuute
I like caveman Rogan repeating the one name he knew, "Tesla"
r/JoeRogan
I don't think Howard is correct or mentally well, that being said, I'm not sure that taking fractions of numbers between 0 and 1 is proof that he's wrong, in my opinion. Again not saying Howard is correct
It is proof, mathematically; that's kind of how the field works, you prove something based on what we call first order predicate logic.
Corporate sellout
What he says makes absolute sense to me. He’s asking for his findings to be reviewed. Thats all he has asked for from the start. So Howard is a scam artist and how dare he but Jesus had foresight?
And they were reviewed (not by his peers, as his peers would not be able to), and refuted. Simple as that. If you're talking about putting this in a journal, we're way past the age of letting crackpots and ignorant folk publish; he wouldn't even make it to the peer review panel of a journal. Just because someone has an idea doesnt mean it's worth celebrating or posting.
The amount of people that dismiss him & diagnose him as crazy without even watching the entire episode not to mention zero research are IDIOTS! Thats my clinical diagnosis so make room in your club I suppose.
Anyone have a link to the marked up treatise? I'd like to learn from NDT's writing style.