Overhyped Physicists: Neil de Grasse Tyson

[@gadzirayi]

You are one of the very few people that understand the crisis in physics. I respect your deepest insight into this problem

[@MK-wn6hl]

That's why Unzicker doesn't sell well, sadly.

[@BobWidlefish]

As an American philosopher who knows physics, I couldn’t possibly agree more! Neil isn’t what he seems. He’s an intellectual gatekeeper whose job is to decide what ideas and approaches are acceptable inside the Overton window for low-achievement academics who fancy themselves as the expert class. Modern “physicists” are very often mathematicians more-so than true physicists who have a grasp of epistemology. The term physicist has been captured by the gatekeeper class so it means what they want it to me. To them it means you got a PhD in physics from a school they accept and believe the same brings as them.

[@Autobotmatt428]

Don't forget Neils bad and often miss representation of The History of science and Philosophy.

[@BobWidlefish]

@@Autobotmatt428 true - he’s not anything like as smart as he presumes to be.

[@strayspark1967]

hence why I dont listen to him

[@Autobotmatt428]

@@strayspark1967 Same

[@resiliencewithin]

What did you add to philosophy to be called a philosopher?

[@Steaphany]

You should also have a look at Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist whose work has involved String Theory, but who is also a self proscribed futurist who is often in front of a camera talking on subjects well outside his field of expertise.

[@deltalima6703]

String conjecture didnt work out. What was he really doing? 🤔

[@danielmccarthyy]

Kaku is a showman and a bit of a scammer. His books are fluff.

[@fabiana.4640]

I like his cameos in Ancient Aliens 😂

[@user-yd4nk4lm6s]

@@danielmccarthyya bit? 😂

[@debasishraychawdhuri]

Kaku is even worse than Tyson.

[@ienjoyapples]

"No, I can't tell you WHY the hallway chirps. But I can measure it. I can predict the next and following chirp. I have a very good understanding of it and that's good enough for me. I'm not distracted by the philosophical side of WHY the hallway chirps." -Neal Degrasse Tyson

[@marcv2648]

Hahahaha priceless.

[@ZeroOskul]

@@marcv2648 Yeah! He explained what science is about! Woo!

[@philipoakley5498]

But has he/we measured how often ghosts appear - I saw a movie about busting them. [i.e. what is the philosophy of measuring ghosts...?]

[@dangaines405]

Yep, this confirms it, Neil DeGrasse is an empty head…

[@ZeroOskul]

@dangaines405 In what way?

[@kylezo]

Well, NGT is not a physicist, he's an entertainer.

[@JorgeBrown]

And also a BSer that promotes nothing but scientific gibberish

[@peterplotts1238]

And yet, I am not entertained. He's obnoxious.

[@johnnym6700]

He is an actor that helps sell the BS science to the masses......

[@kafka27]

Agree@@peterplotts1238

[@ronmullick253]

He is a science popularizer like his Mentor Carl Sagan.And he is very good at it.I don't understand this snark towards him.Especially when you can see that the guy in the video is using him as a click bait.

[@zhenma8053]

Tyson's lack of humility is the main anti scientific attitude I can blame him for.

[@ZeroOskul]

What lack of humility do you see in him? Did you watch the video or just read the title?

[@orionspur]

@@ZeroOskul Oh come on. The guy's entire stage personality is "pompous ass". It may even be intentional.

[@ZeroOskul]

@@orionspur And what of your stage personality? Are you projecting?

[@orionspur]

​@@ZeroOskul Just keepin it real. lol.

[@ZeroOskul]

@@orionspur Or keeping it real presumptive.

[@jonahansen]

Well, most can probably agree that Neil is quite full of himself. He didn't even let the last question go for 5 seconds before interrupting, after being explicitly asked to not interrupt...

[@philipoakley5498]

Isn't that 'don't interrupt', we must hear both side equally, one of the miss-measured faults we endure. What is it that measures equality in human communication?

[@MK-wn6hl]

the wisdom of silence@@philipoakley5498

[@grumpysdr6139]

Obviously not explicit enough. Next time "Shut TF Up" may have a better chance of success.

[@SoloRenegade]

and he avoids answering questions he doesn't like or disagrees with.

[@buryitdeep]

Neil de Grasse Tyson's walls are all just pictures of him. His ringtone is him just talking about himself.

[@ZeroOskul]

No they're not. We've seen inside his home and office plenty of times.

[@RedSupergiant]

Tyson's greatest skill is grandstanding and physics is a distant second and yet he wants to reform the world with his distant second skill wrapped in grandstanding. His favourite tools for this, a megaphone and a wrench. He should find an alternate career in Hollywood or News media, certainly a great speaker and communicator. In those fields he could be the best among the group, occassionally create some propaganda but not in creating new science.

[@ZeroOskul]

@@RedSupergiant Or his greatest skill is condensing huge statements about science into soundbites around a minute orr less.

[@justbecauseOK]

nah

[@williamengels8216]

Have to mention - the quintessential American philosophy is pragmatism. John Dewey, William James et al asserted an epistemology that truth and usefulness are the same when it comes to knowledge claims. Even at the upper layers of abstract intellect, this country has always been almost uniquely committed to avoiding truly deep questions

[@Itsgone99]

And we all know that avoidance of those truly deep questions often originated with the forces within markets in counterpoise asking through the grapevine "but what about my bottom line?"

[@SeanAnthony-j7f]

Yeah, that has been described by Deutsch as a bad philosophy. The same as the logical positivism

[@Tom-sp3gy]

I like the observation that physics hasn’t had many breakthroughs in understanding the nature of reality after WW2 becoz it got almost completely divorced from philosophy

[@donzxcv1]

not from philosophy .. from God .. the theory of everything is God

[@karlschmied6218]

@@donzxcv1 Tell me more about your "theory" of "god".

[@ZeroOskul]

@@donzxcv1 Have you ever read The Bible? You should, it's very silly. You'll enjoy it.

[@ryanashfyre464]

@@donzxcv1 Talking about God is fine, but I would submit that it's important you define what you mean by that term and to be as reasonably specific as you can. FWIW I'll put my money whether my mouth is here. I think what humans refer to as "God" points to the fundamental base of all reality - a single universal mind from which all else can be rightly interpreted as a projection and/or manifestation. This is why the entire physical universe functions w/ such precision and regularity as to lead one to the conclusion that it is, in fact, a single system. That's not a mistake. Arthur Schopenhauer conveyed it better than I ever could in his timeless book The World as Will and Representation.

[@donaldkasper8346]

Really just bitching that the great physicists were all German and than the Yankees are full of it. But the great German physicists thought that if you logically deduced patterns of nature, you could apply them anywhere and scale them to any level and it all just magically works and explains everything. That is, they thought of taking local observations and hyperextending them to the universe because their egos said to do so. Neil is engulfed in all the bullshit of our time, usually focusing on infinities and the unobservable to explain everything, a sort of sick state of mind to say everything we cannot figure out we can assign to another parameter or dark thing or infinity and it all just glues together to explain it all of a sudden. Than is, Neil is a dumbshit. Yet, current physics confuses real things with 1800s placeholder terms like fields. Fields are behavior caused by particles they could not observe, but instead of finding those particles they gave fields, which are math constructs only in relation to matter, lives of their own as things. Or rather, nothings with behavioral values, that affects somethings, that is, nearby masses. Like their observation of magnetic lodestone affecting iron filings. Now Neil talks of matter and fields like they are all equivalent somehow.

[@NEKRWSPHERE]

I'm not a physicist. My background is Cognitive/Behavioral science. But I find myself in agreement with many of your statements as far as science goes in general. Scientific method is first and foremost - a philosophy. If it ceases being a philosophy, - it ceases being science. It's difficult for me to appreciate the idea of "just following the math, you don't have to understand it..." when applied to any field. "Just following the math" conceptually divorces Natural Philosophy from its subject of study: - the Natural world. Everything about Einstein's thinking about Special Relativity, - the real world examples he used - suggest a thought pattern which involves the way objects and people behave in the Natural world, and we do use similar real world example even when explaining Special Relativity to students mathematically, using an XY plot. Mathematics is purely an abstraction unless it correctly and reliably describes a process found in the natural world.

[@Trajectionable]

"Big Science" Yes, it's time to adopt this term. One of the best observations I've seen, Alexander. And I've seen this effect in my own field.

[@Thesecondcomingpodcast]

Neil Degrasse Tyson is to physics what McDonald’s is to fine cuisine

[@davestorm6718]

Where does Bill Nye fit in this spectrum?

[@naringrass]

now say it with hunger

[@naringrass]

@@davestorm6718 burger king or A&W or wendy's or smthin

[@deltalima6703]

Bill nye is beef stock. Very practical, even in fine cousine, but not inventing anything new on his own.

[@jimstiles26287]

@@davestorm6718 Nye is a pair of chili dogs and a frosty A&W Root Beer.

[@Carlos101010101]

Scientism is Tyson's religion.

[@naringrass]

are you saying he's a scientologist? or did something get lost in translation

[@RM-yf2lu]

He said scientism not scientology

[@ForzaJersey]

​@naringrass Scientism is a cult of the idolatry of science.

[@bugmonkey9226]

I used to not mind him. He seems to have become insufferably arrogant recently, the "we know everything" attitude.

[@hannachumakova1086]

As a layman I liked him mostly for his flamboyance up until he spoke about climate change and then about gender.

[@Autobotmatt428]

He was kinda always like that.

[@peterplotts1238]

This was a fascinating presentation, full of insight and information. Well done. I love the way NDT speaks utter nonsense but with utter confidence and supreme authority. By the way, if anything, you aren't "mean" enough.

[@t9620]

I appreciate your addressing this problem. As a pholosopher in the U.S. , and a lover of physics there is an obvious divorce from physics and most sciences in this country from their philosophical roots . Indeed,many scholars have no idea of the philosophical history of science itself. 🙏

[@Autobotmatt428]

It doesn't help ether when you get guys like Tyson or the late Carl Sagan who are so bad at history that they ended up miss representing the true History of science and the philosophy and theology behind it. And what were left with is the same bad history and philosophy spouted by Gibbon of the 18th century still being spewed today long after historians have moved away from it.

[@orionspur]

Philosophy takes the wheel when Science is unsure what to ask. Both are essential. Neil gets neither.

[@ZeroOskul]

If Neil gets neither, why is he introduced in this video as a good scientist, and why does he frequently discuss the wat physics works in comics and movies and scifi to inform, and to get the next generation interested in real science? What if you're just an ignorant bigot who can't bear to listen to him because you are just too distracted by the fact he is Black?

[@kebeleteeek4227]

Philosophy is also failing to answer basic questions .. Is this why Islam filling the vacuum in the West ..??

[@ZeroOskul]

@@kebeleteeek4227 What vacuum in the west is Islam filling? Where?

[@bakters]

" *Philosophy takes the wheel* " It did and we listened. The philosophers told us, that there is no truth, just opinions. So we stopped caring. You a philosopher? Look at your works and despair!

[@ZeroOskul]

@bakters What does Ph.D stand for? Is an exploratory experiment based on faith or based absolute knowledge? Do we simply not do experiments because we know the outcome before any experiment is performed? Is that not faith about the absolute nature of what we presume to already know?

[@heneverreturnasahorse9773]

Thank you. I am tired of this overbearing celebrity.

[@Ernesto1317]

Media star-scientist, mercenary of the power that controls our minds.

[@ZeroOskul]

Did you watch the video or just the title? What does his celebrity have to do with anything? Maybe it's his being Black that you don't like and that is why you find his celebrity overbearing?

[@TheBelrick]

@@ZeroOskul of course his being black is a matter to dislike. He was elevated above his position and capability because he could voice act as a white physicist.

[@Scanlaid]

^ People can be tiresome irrespective of their skin color, dope. First person to bring race into it was you. Your racist brain sees it everywhere huh?

[@blossom357]

@@ZeroOskul No??? Holy shit, why are people without any argument so ready to go with the strawman of because she is a woman, because he is black, etc. For Tyson in particular it's because he is incredibly rude, interrupting everyone during interviews.

[@dorhinj23]

Narcissism: Bad for science; Bad for humanity

[@dorhinj23]

Another observation is that there are still continuing breakthroughs in our scientific understanding; though it seems mainstream sci-logians frequently choose to ignore such advances ...

[@pandzban4533]

Neil has issues with recognizing biological genders. Cased closed but I respect your effort to communicate how deeply physics has collapsed.

[@Tara-Maya]

Don't let your knowledge go to your head; you'll confuse it for wisdom.

[@duanemansel5704]

WHAT CONTRIBUTION HAS OL' NEIL MADE TO ANY SCIENCE?

[@ZeroOskul]

His personal work is in astrophysics and exploring ideas involving star formation and galactic bulges. For those who haven't ignored him on the basis of racial bigotry or hatred, he has contributed public understanding to most fields of science to show an open door to people who want to explore it. You may as well ask what contribution Carl "The Man Who Taught the World Science" Sagan made. Sagan was part of a team that proposed the likelihood of global climate change, being the S in the original TAPPS paper, and nothing much after in hard science after that. Teaching science to the world is not a small accomplishment, it is what Sagan did and what Tyson does.

[@justacherryontop6538]

Yes yes that is very true! he doesn't even have a Nobel Prize 😆

[@ZeroOskul]

@justacherryontop6538 Do you believe all good scientists and all scientific discoveries earn Nobel Prizes? Thomas Edison never got a Nobel. I guess he was crap, right?

[@Jeff-z3l3q]

Didn't get the joke again, I see. @@ZeroOskul

[@tuberroot1112]

@@Jeff-z3l3q Sarcasm only works when you read it in your head. Saying the opposite of what you mean to underline it almost NEVER works in comments or any platform unless you write /sarc at the end.

[@poksnee]

The problem with string theory and the multiverse is they were born of mathematics. Somewhere along the line, many physicists replaced physics with mathematics. Math is a tool for physicists...nothing more; Advancement in physics comes from insight, imagination, and intuition.

[@TheBelrick]

Its akin to going from builders producing structures to builders simply drawing plans and nothing more

[@johnnicol8598]

Yes. Math follows philosophy. Else... fail.

[@ZeroOskul]

@@TheBelrick No, it's like builders looking at impossible plans and asserting they can build from them despite their being impossible, and then the builders never building anything from the impossible plans while claiming they are working on getting started building from those plans and stating they will do it as soon as they figure out what the foundational basis of the function of concrete is.

[@JackPullen-Paradox]

Of course, this is also true of mathematics. But I think one must have a physicalist intuition to be a topflight physicist, just as one would have a great mathematical intuition to be a topflight mathematician. What exactly one must have for quantum theory specifically I can't imagine. Perhaps a quirky sense of humor?

[@ZeroOskul]

@@JackPullen-Paradox Quantum Theory is a branch of Physics. Physicalism is not physics.

[@l00d3r]

"John Bell of the No Bell Prize" I don't know if the pun was intended, but I found it amusing. I know he said "Nobel Prize" but the pun is there.

[@Jollyprez]

Tyson is a used-car salesman who will NEVER depart from orthodoxy. He will not investigate truly paradigm-shifting ideas. He asks for evidence, but disbelieves it when it's interpretation is at variance with his own. You're correct that he's superficial.

[@rinzler9775]

There has been a dramatic slowdown in physics developments in the last three decades. People like Tyson are paid to make sure that is the case.

[@douglasstrother6584]

"The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America" by Daniel J. Kevles gives an interesting history of American Physics; I read the 1st Edition (1978) when I was an undergrad (in the 20th Century). "American Physics" always had a very applied approach. There is a 2nd Edition (1995) that I haven't read.

[@TheMachian]

Thank you very much for the hint. Will buy it.

[@jeffg4570]

Could part of the problem be that in America when we refer to physics we may really talking about engineering?

[@alejandrorivera2734]

What I see is that american science, as many other things in america, is about money. If it is not good business then it is not worthy

[@RealRavi]

I just found this channel and absolutely love it.

[@petermilburn4244]

De Grasse Tyson… the ‘Foghorn Leghorn’ of modern physics.

[@alphadog6970]

0:26 those words are too kind for someone like Neil.

[@ZeroOskul]

Or you're just racist and "someone like Neil" is a Black person.

[@nwogamesalert]

Yes it's hard to believe that Unzicker is being honest in that assessment. There is nothing even slightly likable about Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

[@ZeroOskul]

@@nwogamesalert Well, your racial hatred is showing.

[@nwogamesalert]

@@ZeroOskul Uh? Didn't see that one coming!

[@ZeroOskul]

@@nwogamesalert That's because you don't think Black people can think and communicate sanely, or that we would have any interest in a German physicist's content. Unzicker was absolutely clear about everything wrong with Neil's approach to communicating science. You decide that everything else about him, including his skin and face, is not remotely likeable. That is you exposing your racial hatred to the world, and you don't deny it.

[@rutkowsky]

He's a comedian. He makes up stuff as he goes along.

[@markbarber7839]

Thanks for the video. Ya, show biz has consumed this guy. His constant glancing away is a hallmark of his.

[@ZeroOskul]

We call that: thinking.

[@tuberroot1112]

@@ZeroOskul "We call that: thinking." No, it's a social media cliche to PRETEND to be thinking.

[@ZeroOskul]

@@tuberroot1112 No, when an actual scientist does it, they are actually thinking. Weird as it may be: Neil deGrasse Tyson is not a social media personality but a popular scientist who is good at reducing scientific concepts down to sound bites so they can be readily understood by people like you.

[@larianton1008]

He just feels superior because he feels like he is on the side of physics. Although, he isn't, witch is unfortunate not only to him, but to those who religiously listen to him talk.

[@geraldleuven169]

We all know why Neil is promoted by the mainstream but I'm not allowed to say the reason on KZbin. Most can guess why I believe.

[@dankurth4232]

Shades of … color

[@ZeroOskul]

Because you're a racist?

[@TheBelrick]

you should of noseticed by now who and why neil was promoted

[@ZeroOskul]

@@TheBelrick Yeah, he's a good scientist and a good speaker, as Unzicker explains in the video

[@pyropulseIXXI]

@@ZeroOskul He isn't a scientist at all, though; he has published basically nothing and has been a 'caretaker' of a planetarium for decades, which isn't science. He is a science populizer.

[@pyropulseIXXI]

He isn't even a physicist... he published like one paper for his PhD, then never did any science beyond that. He is a 'caretaker' of a planetarium. He is a science populizer, not a scientist/physicist. Also, his dislike of philosophy is a massive negative. Physics is litearlly a subbranch of philosophy; the entire notion of how we can 'know' things is HUGE, and physics is NOT separate from philosophy; it is litearlly a natural philosophy.

[@ZeroOskul]

Define "science". You can't because you have no clue what you mean, right?

[@michaeljosephjackson2364]

​@@ZeroOskulscience is philosophy

[@ZeroOskul]

@@michaeljosephjackson2364 Saying one thing is another thing is not defining it. Define philosophy AND define science. You can't, because you have no idea what you mean by the words that you use.

[@michaeljosephjackson2364]

@@ZeroOskul science is philosophy that works It's of aristotlianism

[@ZeroOskul]

@@michaeljosephjackson2364 Science is observing reality, testing those observations, and proving assumptions about those observations as true or false. It is an active process of suggestion, acceptance, and elimination. Philosophy is opinion. Your feelings about the meanings of scientific discoveries or procedures is philosophy.

[@bitskit3476]

I'm an American, and it's practically a mantra of mine that science is a subset of philosophy. Tyson seems to think that philosophy is just sophistry or mysticism, which is not the case. The word literally means "the love of knowledge" or "pursuit of wisdom". A philosopher is a seeker of truths. To them, it doesn't matter if an idea is useful. If it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, then it's untrue. Which means that the truth has not been found. A true philosopher has very few strongly held beliefs and will question everything they believe a over a thousand times. Somewhat ironically, the ideal seeker of truth is the most untrusting individual imaginable. This is the kind of person that you *want* to be participating in the peer review process. Because if you used vague language, screwed up *anywhere,* failed to consider any parameters, or your conclusions do not immediately follow from the premises; you can be absolutely certain that a philosopher will find it and scrutinize it.

[@davestorm6718]

Well said!

[@markwadsworth1254]

I'm an American scientist but agree completely with your opinion of physics. Modern science is a ship without a rudder; wandering aimlessly (spending huge sums of taxpayer money in the process) because they have no philosophical guidance. Unfortunately American science has become guided by national science foundation bureaucrats instead of thinking men in an armchair. Plus the intolerance from the consensus destroys creativity in the minds of young philosophers.

[@soanvig]

It's not only science wandering without aim, it's whole society. And I guess most developed countries are affected by that more or less

[@musaire]

Good points! Great channel! (Less importantly, please check if there is another audio track in your video editor/recorder and mute that - I see a mic under the chin (perfect!) but maybe there is another one from camera - this can create reverb effect when the phase is delayed (not that I'd have to tell that to a physicist 😄) by having that mic placed further away or just having room reverb effect from distant mic).

[@YuTv1408]

I definitely agree. Philosophy_ as you mentioned is just curiosity of finding things out. Trained how?? The human brain is resilient, mganificent and still a mystery.

[@charleschidsey2831]

Very nice presentation. The most “philosophical” of today’s physicists, in my opinion, is Roger Penrose who is simultaneously advancing ideas about cosmology (conformal cyclic cosmology) and the origins of consciousness. He’s not afraid to criticize quantum mechanics as being an incomplete theory due to the measurement problem (collapse of the wave function). He spent some time with Dirac whom I believe influenced and informed his mathematical and geometrical approaches to getting at the deep mysteries of nature.

[@MIKEMIKE-te2dt]

It's good that Neil has achieved celebrity as a brilliant black physicist. His prominence is an inspiration to those who aspire to careers in science. However, when Neil wanders into social commentary, he may step into a deep hole that he can't get out of.

[@mattterry1255]

Alex, I love you and your channel! Shre the vids all the time. Thank you for keeping it real, as we say in the USA, and seems literally the case! Keep up the great work!

[@l.rongardner2150]

Two strikes against deGrasse: 1. He disses philosophy, 2. He, like Sean Carroll, believes in multiple genders. What are your thoughts on Michio Kaku?

[@Ernesto1317]

Michi KAKA

[@lowersaxon]

Entertaining science fiction.

[@carlosgaspar8447]

wormholes do exist between his earlobes.

[@ZeroOskul]

So you don't believe there are Androgynous people, Hermaphroditic people, Intersex people, and Transsexual people? Very interesting. Is that belief based on anything tangible in the real world, or is it just philosophical rhetoric meant to close rather than open a discussion? I love how you open with insults against the subject of the video but then change the subject making the discussion almost impossible to follow in a logical way. Did you know that a person who insults others and then changes the subject, essentially making coherent discussion impossible, is the definition of Internet Troll? Mucho Kuku is a scifi author. Why do you ask?

[@bakters]

" *1. He disses philosophy,* " No, he doesn't. He accepts a postmodernist idea, that the pursuit of truth is pointless. As the answer to this he accepts a pragmatic approach. Pragmatism is a philosophy. His failure is not in rejecting philosophy, but in accepting the dominant philosophy of our times. " *believes in multiple genders* " Why wouldn't he? It's perfectly in line with the philosophical principles he endorses.

[@alphaomicron8]

Here is a fun fact, physics stopped being an evidenced based scientific field when Einstein came into the picture, IMO that was done on purpose but that's another story. Dayton Miller was around at the same time as Einstein, just for reference here are a few snippets that Einstein wrote about him. "My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory." - Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.) "I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards." - Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328) Dayton proved conclusively the presence of Aether, his experiment ran for 20 years, was done with the most sophisticated instrument to this date, and was performed using multiple altitudes ranging from the basement to the top of a mountain, when compared to what Michelson-Morley did, theirs only lasted only for a few weeks in a basement with an instrument nowhere as precise. Yet Michelson-Morley were taken as prof no Aether is present. They simply ignored Dayton till he died since no one could refute his data, when he died a clown show verified his data and concluded that he was wrong conveniently. So now that they have removed a medium by which waves, frequencies and vibrations can propagate " particles are a figment of a bunch of buffoons imagination " they had to invent stuff that can travel in a empty vacuum of space. The rest is history, we now have people who no longer do physics, instead they simulate while "data adjusting" and a new Nobel is awarded to any one that can make up new ones. As a result anything based on particles is wrong and will lead no where Astrophysics is even in a worst state, good news is that Dayton's data is still available for anyone who wants to verify the results oh and Einstein pretty much stole all his ideas from Lorentz and Poincaré and I suspect even the math was done by his wife.

[@BrotherAlyx]

NdGT gets the philosophy wrong, the history wrong…how’s his physics?

[@MrFlaviojosefus]

Yes, Herr Unzicker, I am absolutely with you. I think the GREAT LOSS for physics AND (ALSO) FOR PHILOSOPHY is this separation, assumed today to be correct, between physics and philosophy.

[@jesusfernandez5248]

At a bar in Brazil, a local, realizing I was an American, made it a point to educate me that the Wright Brothers didn't invent the first airplane, but they did create something that allowed them to fly 😅 I ended up learning about Santos Dumont that day

[@Kyanzes]

He is a science popularizer. On that note, all physicists are overhyped who appear on screen. And he is also black: meaning that he also furthers the case of blacks in a sense. Maybe it's more obvious nowadays but it sends the message "You can be absolutely anything in life if you work for it."

[@alex79suited]

I'm with you. ideas come from individuals rather then concession.

[@Chris.Davies]

5:10 - This one slide indicates to me why the USA became so utterly dominant in science and technology, and in aerospace research after WW2. Their scientists were more concerned with making advanced things for war, and high-tech products for air and space. Just imagine where American industry would be today, if it had continued funding NASA at 1969 levels until today!

[@trippyliquids]

we’d probably be on the moons of jupiter by now

[@ashtar523]

Absolutely brilliant video, and an extremely important one as I believe the scientific community is in need of a wake-up call.

[@larstillberg412]

Thank you profusely, Mr Unzicker. Despite the noisy chair, a brilliant piece.

[@stevenverrall4527]

Thank you for your extremely insightful historical context! For a recent example of 1930s-style physics thinking see "Ground state quantum vortex proton model" published in Foundations of Physics on January 23, 2023.

[@maeton-gaming]

wow, this is basically ken Wheeler's principle but made quantum because we cannot do anything in this blasted world but align everything after a "amount of energy" type BS :D HYSTERICAL. This only revises my essay slightly ;)

[@stevenverrall4527]

@@maeton-gaming I honestly have not been able to make any sense of what Ken Wheeler says. I am definitely not inspired by him. The Unruh effect, Casimir effect, and quantum electrodynamics are my inspirations. I think that the strong force and gravity arise from quantum electrodynamics. I have a new preprint titled "Unbound low-energy nucleons as semiclassical quantum networks"

[@stanleyklein524]

Same critique can (and has -- see Klein, 2015, 2016, 2021: Psychology of Consciousness), be applied to contemporary psychology. By the way, I just ordered your book.

[@williamlavallee8916]

NGT is an excellent foil for this discussion. Maybe just maybe, possibly not what he believes .... anyway thanks for another fine presentation AU. Really enjoyable and not unimportant since philosophy underpins everything we think we know.

[@quantumwormholes8246]

When you realize that the "threads of wormholes" De Grasse talks about at 3:45 mark could just be plain old photons, everything falls into place: Photons experience no proper time, so they'd experience leaving and arriving at the same time. So photons are kind of wormholes that interconnect past emission events with present absorbtion events instantly (from their own perspective), while their instantaneity is always experienced as different time intervals at the speed of light for the observers that detect them. This duality of photons as "wormholes" interconnecting spacetime explains entanglement, and from there, all quantum conundrums can be explained.

[@Mikey-mike]

Good one. I share your sentiments. Thank you.

[@ekszentrik]

Youth is thinking empiricism is OBVIOUSLY the way to go. I mean, look at all the flashy results! Maturity is realizing continental rationalism is the correct way forward regarding the first choice methodology. And I admit this as a Humean.

[@mightisright]

All I see in him is a pompous high school teacher.

[@ZeroOskul]

That's your philosophy and it us invalid based on observable reality.

[@stormtrooper9404]

@@ZeroOskul What observable reality?!? The on in which Neil barely graduated and got his PhD based on “inclusion of ppl of color”?! In the same one in which Neil has ZERO scientific research or achievement whatsoever?!? Even the high school teacher is a compliment he does not deserve! His job is pure showbiz! Who cares about your schizophrenic reality?!

[@stoneneils]

@@ZeroOskul You're hald right...all i see is a pompous GYM hgih school teacher....the guy talks as if he's discussing the rules of soccer..he's got no depth whatsoever...might even be sociopathic for all the postiive emotion he shows across his career..ie none. He's always angry.

[@HopDavid]

All my high school science teachers at least reviewed their text books before teaching a class. Neil does not bother. So many of his explanations are badly wrong.

[@jexthegamer]

So many awesome quotes from this video. You have nailed it, in my opinion - it's a lack of philosophy and thinking in that sort of direction. I especially like when you say at the end, "We have a problem of scientific culture." Exactly right, and the poor results and output from these "leading scientists" continue to demonstrate just that.

[@mikerilling2745]

He’s an actor who just happens to know a little bit about physics

[@xxxYYZxxx]

Your observation is confirmed by looking at Tyson's original science series "The Elegant Universe", where Tyson sounds utterly incompetent as a host. It's clear took some acting lessons somewhere between "Elegant Universe' and "Cosmos 2". I'm not bashing Tyson for being a bad host as I would prefer an incompetent host with genuine insight compared to what Cosmos 2 had to offer.

[@kylezo]

He's not an actor he's a museum director.

[@benmcreynolds8581]

We can't have physics without those people who are great philosophers. Thought experiments will always be a useful tool. There are scales in our universe that are so immense, it's understandable if we can barely grasp them. There's so much yet to learn in science. It's hard for us to comprehend dynamic chaotic systems. Especially vast systems. What if at those immense scales, we don't yet fully grasp how things fully work? Like density, mass, Electromagnetism, static charges, fluid dynamics, temperature, pressure, radiation, velocity, etc. *I think there is a lot left to learn about these behaviors on VAST scales throughout our cosmos? I hope we continuously try to improve our understanding of the cosmos over time because it would be foolish to think we fully understand these things. Especially when talking about scales of galactic filaments, multiple galaxies interacting, and many more cosmic bodies & structures. We are getting better & better but some things are just so vast it's understandable we don't yet fully grasp them yet. I'm curious to see where things go as we advance our ability to study these things. One thought experiment i like to ponder about is what we can learn from the science of the behavior of bubbles? I like to ponder about the structure and properties of the fabric of our own universe. Maybe with every black hole a bubble in the overall universe is created? Thus creating a structure of unique stability and instability bubbles throughout the overall universe...? (Just a hypothetical concept that's fun to ponder about) In the past people talked about space as an ether. Maybe bubble science theory could end up being a new way to theorize about space and the universe as a whole..? On all sorts of different levels.. because I'm sure bubble science plays roles in all sorts of different levels of our universe. From the very small to the very large.. We even see that our own sun has a bubble around it, that is just a single bubble created by our sun's cosmic rays and it's interaction with the surrounding cosmic neighborhood create a boundary layer. That in itself seems to imply this is a common aspect of the nature of our universe, and we are just now starting to learn more about it, and measure it, visualize it, theorize about it... It's at least fascinating to me.. There are really interesting videos on the different aspects of science behind bubbles. It just fuels my curiosity about how things work. Nature is fascinating and it's really fun to ponder about the ways our natural world behaves.

[@gbormann71]

Tyson is putting the cart before the horse. Experiments (and the corresponding tools) are the means to test ideas but before you can test them you need to have them. You don't systematically discover new things if you're not looking for them. Thinking and experimenting go hand in hand in pursuit of deeper understanding. He confuses Science with Engineering. The end goal is not solving problems but understanding why things are like they are. Not all human desires are reducible to economics.

[@OfficialGOD]

such a great presentation

[@shrunkensimon]

When Neil spoke on Rogan's podcast with such a dismissive stance towards Nikola Tesla, and towards those who acknowledge Tesla's unparalleled genius, was the moment I knew Neil was completely irrelevant and/or a paid agent of the state. I am instantly repulsed by people who deny what is obvious to myself and countless others, that Tesla clearly knew many things we still don't understand. He did it all without computers, transistors, and modern materials. He is a verifiable scientific saint, perfectly embodying the principle of 'know them by their fruits' by his prolific discoveries and inventions. So when someone dismisses Tesla so freely, someone who hasn't even invented a single thing, I am instantly repulsed. A million of Neil's minds wouldn't even budge the scale in comparison to just Tesla's alone.

[@ZeroOskul]

That things are obvious to you does not make them obvious or even rational to anyone else. It may be obvious to you that your arm is broken, even if all exams and X-Rays and MRIs show it healthy and unbroken. Should we trust you about it, or the examination results?

[@lucassiccardi8764]

​@@ZeroOskul Yesterday my girlfriend had shivers; I told her she surely had a fever, but she pointed to the thermometer and told me she hadn't. Today she discovered the thermometer was broken, she measured her temperature with another one and voilà, she had a fever all along.

[@ZeroOskul]

@@lucassiccardi8764 So you couldn't just touch her and recognize the fever? You don't have a girlfriend, do you?

[@davestorm6718]

What podcast was this? Curious, I never heard anyone dis Tesla before (maybe the car company, but not the man).

[@ZeroOskul]

@@davestorm6718 The way it works is that you search keywords. On KZbin, search: Neil Degrasse Tyson Joe Rogan Nikola Tesla. See what cones up.

[@ready1fire1aim1]

Can someone tell me where/how I'm wrong here: Zero is the most important number in mathematics and zero is both a real and an imaginary number with a horizon through it. It's geometric counterpart zero-dimensional space is the most important dimension in physics and zero-dimensional space is both a real and an imaginary dimension with an event horizon through it. Since zero is the only number with a horizon and the next time we encounter 0 is in the number 10 then shouldn't their geometric counterparts 0D and 10D be the event horizon boundaries of the universe? Making black holes 10D, right?

[@Marley-ii6ls]

That sums up Tyson. He doesn't think thoroughly. His arrogance keeps his mind narrow, rigid, and limited, creating an aura of stupidity. A little humility would go a long way for him, but his shtick relies on him being a know it all. That's what makes him an entertainer and not a serious physicist.

[@user-ju7dx8mu6d]

As a PhD who isn't a physicist, I have always considered scientific inquiry to be an entirely philosophical pursuit and I sometimes refer to myself as a natural philosopher, but I am Canadian and old. Canada used to be somewhere between Europe and the US in our thought processes but sadly we have been overwhelmed by the American technologist view of science. Tyson consistently misses the boat on a number of issues. He would have benefitted from a broader education in general but especially in the philosophical underpinnings of science and why many scientists have a Doctorate of Philosophy degree.

[@sergiomanzetti1021]

Oh I have been waiting for this for a long time. Touchee

[@ZeroOskul]

Watch the video instead of reading the title and feeling self-satisfied.

[@sergiomanzetti1021]

@@ZeroOskul 😆 🤣🤣

[@MK-wn6hl]

Once I told a philosopher "All you folks offer are word salads". To which he smirked and replied "Yes we're good at word salads!". I guess this video is important to open the eyes of many who want them open. But these days physics is a serious business. Consciousness, multiverse, standard cosmological model, many-worlds, string theory and astrology are its serious works.

[@leirbag7924]

Physics Hollywood style

[@StephenRayWesley]

I think heared gumdum style

[@nozz71]

N DG Tyson Was explaining how incandescent light bulbs lose most energy as heat which is ALL ir energy and LED light's don't emit heat and how instead they turn all of the electrical energy into light which is wildly inaccurate. Incandescent bulbs give off approximately 5% of the used energy as visible light, about 12% as IR light and 83% as heat, whereas LED's use significantly less power but only about 15% of the power is converted to light. The rest is lost as heat but there is no loss in the IR spectrum usually.

[@konstantinos777]

Great video, thanks! I have seen some of your older videos, but I think YT showed me this now, because of some relevant videos that I have watched and commented on, namely SH's latest video "is science dying?". I just want to offer a bit of my opinion on the matter for what's worth. I think there is a general misuse of the words "philosophy" and "science". They came to mean something else than they originally meant, so most people get confused. Philosophy is a Greek word "φιλοσοφία" meaning "φίλος" (phile, as in "audiophile", friend of, love for) + "σοφία" (wisdom). So basically it means the love of wisdom, or "liking wisdom". In that sense, we are all philosophers here, because we like or love wisdom. But the modern meaning that we give to this word, is actually "deep thinking". That's why I would prefer the phrase "deep thinker" instead of philosopher. So, why "deep" thinkers and how deep? Because deep thinkers always ask "why" and never accept "we don't know", "we need more data", "more research is required", etc. as answers. On the other hand the Greek word for science is "επιστήμη" (episteme) which is "επί"+"ίσταμαι", which means "stand upon", metaphor for "knowing very well", "being sure about", "have solid proof" of something. So, you see the difference right here, the scientist does not need to ask why, he needs to know his subject very well and to be able to always prove it. The scientist doesn't need a "why" in order to be a scientist, however by that I don't mean that a scientist cannot also be a deep thinker. One can be both, of course. Now, you see, Tyson selects to be a scientist and not a deep thinker as well. To each his own, he is very good in what he does, he admits he is not a deep thinker and maybe he dismisses deep thinkers in general. But, as you pointed out, he would not be there being a scientist right now, had there not been the deep thinkers who pushed the boundaries of science and still do. As you said, modern day scientists dismiss or ignore new ideas that emerge from deep thinkers, because they don't agree with their established theories and models. That's why they don't seem to get any progress lately. It's 2023 and we are still talking about Einstein and the theory of relativity, which for example I thought of when I was a kid, before I learned in school that there was some Einstein dude who made a theory about it. That is to say, these theories are old and simplistic when even a kid can figure them out, yet all physicists are stuck with them and can't seem to be able to move forward. I mean, light? And speed of light? And quanta? This is old stuff, okay it's useful to build tech (and bombs) and all, but they don't explain anything. Listen to some deep thinkers (philosophers) and lets take it to the next level. There is no light, as there is no time, therefore no E=mc². Time is the measurement of duration, not a spacial dimension. Why is it always forward? There is no stupid arrow of time, it is measurement and not a vector, therefore it doesn't have a particular direction, it's just units added upon. A duration cannot be negative, because it's a freaking' duration. Scientists or anyone talking about time travel, especially "going back", "going to the past" are ridiculous to me. How can you "travel" or "go" or do anything without adding to a duration? They certainly don't mean rewinding everything, that would be pointless. But going "back" in time is essentially going forward, just by performing an action, such as going or traveling. Yet, there are still people talking about "time travel" as it could ever be a thing, we can only travel in spacial dimensions and this action has a duration, big or small, but cannot be negative. Our world (the Universe) is not just 3 dimensions bouncing here and there inside time. Einstein is obsolete as is Newton and so is Bohr and all the old heroes and so is Tyson.

[@wasifulalam1393]

Wish carl Sagan was still alive, he would have re-educate him. All the real physists who made these equations were philosophers. Can you please arrange a meeting with him and assign me at least for 10 minutes to discuss.

[@ZeroOskul]

Wish you'd read a book by Carl Sagan, or even actually watch the video under which we are communicating, you'd be able to reeducate yourself

[@wasifulalam1393]

when i was a little kid about 6, 7 years old i watched the entire series of carl sagan and when i was 14,15 I watched the entire series by Neil de grace tyson...........tyson today is not same as tyson used to be back then, he used to speak really carefully .......aND Carl Sagan also studied science and philosophy in various religion, Carl was a great philosopher that's why he worked on sending that record out side of earth...... he didnt do it for money but he tried to represent culture from different region of earth in that record. you should better study Carl sagan or may be you have read a thousand books on him but understood nothing. if so , then, Please read about him again@@ZeroOskul

[@PvtSchlock]

Well if this is click bait, wtf is the point? Tyson often opines about non-physics topics all the time, but his opinions are those of the layman. Is he a physical anthropologist? No. Is he read in elite theory? No. Does he open his mouth about whatever he likes? Yes. Thats fine but we can get that from a guy at the goddamn bus stop.

[@jameskirk5778]

I am annoyed by Tyson. The arrogance and looking down at people and making fun. He is at the level of a high school physics teacher (which I respect) and is not Richard Feynman. My education is applied math and machine learning / AI and computational neuroscience. I grew up being a huge fan of Carl Sagan and I know this is what Tyson was supposed to be. I was also a fan of Jacob Bronowski and even more impressed as he is a real deep thinker. I want to see Tyson make a public statement on the new woke position that math is racist.

[@asumazilla]

I don't want that because I'm not sure which way he will support on the day.

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

I agree with you, but there is nothing stopping the individual going it alone

[@StephenRayWesley]

Yes it has happened account times before

[@ferdinand002]

Love this point of view!

[@JorgeBrown]

I'm so happy you are touching this subject and exposing people that do a tremendous disservice to real science and, unfortunately, are popular! These guys all over the Internet saying nonsense that fill the void of iliteratted but passionate people. Dr. Unzicker you have brought the pleasure of real physics approach and understabnding that guys such as deGrasse, Michio Kaku, Brian Greene have spoiled along the last decade. I've read all your books and I watch all your YT vídeos. You are the real scientist that are a rare jewell these days. Authors such as the mentioned above have contributed for the derail of scientific development that has begun with the GTR in the early 1900s. The uttermost one is the String Theory and it shows clearly that we are now going through a path of pure mathematics with absolutely no experimental counterpart to check the validity of such theories. Keep up the great job and be the lighthouse on these dark days.

[@TheMachian]

Thanks for your kind feedback :-)

[@PatrickRyan147]

​@@TheMachianWith all due respect Dr., you are also part of the problem. Fundamentally, you are all cowards because you refuse to discuss the holodeck theory. Please follow my train of thought good Dr. The conscious observer effect debunks the big bang theory and supports the simulation theory. But string theory (and the notion that our reality might have more than 9 spatial dimensions) would tend to debunk the simulation theory.. but it supports the holodeck theory (this is the notion that all of our reality is contained within (and created by) giant holodecks that we can't see or feel because they are hidden in parallel dimensions). The holodeck theory also finally explains fine-tuning. Our constants were manually fine-tuned. If you were not aware of the holodeck theory then please accept my apology for calling you a coward.. 🙂

[@lucassiccardi8764]

You're too soft on him. He's not a good communicator nor an intelligent person, he's a shame for science and humankind.

[@ZeroOskul]

What evidence do you have to back that comment? It seems you just don't like him because he is Black.

[@lucassiccardi8764]

@@ZeroOskul "Evidence"? What kind of "evidence" could prove a person is not intelligent, or the like? Of course those are my opinions. And the above video is better "evidence" that I could ever sum up in a YT comment anyway. Isn't this the guy that says "laboratories as opposed to armchairs"? On the other hand, I would like to know what kind of argument *you* have to say that my judgement is racially biased.

[@TheBelrick]

@@lucassiccardi8764 zero is just a nigerian. ignore it as background noise that his kind are limited to

[@thephuntastics2920]

@@ZeroOskul did you pay attention to the mumbojumbo hes verbalizing ?

[@ZeroOskul]

@@thephuntastics2920 Could you be specific? Who is verbalizing what? Where? When?

[@Who-Dat42]

Enjoyable video. Just a note, you have Max Planck listed as being born in 1958 on the slide at 18:02.

[@thunderbearclaw]

I enjoy your presentations. The questions why and how do evoke a very compelling curiosity in me. Answering these questions tends to spawn even more questions. I like that you are not afraid to ruffle some feathers and to rock the boat. I think that this is healthy for science. Science is often like a joke, where one needs to "get" the punchline. It is good to be respectful of people, because people tend to crave respect. However, this is different than Idol worship which often signifies a dead end.

[@dsm5d723]

"We're the people who are right for a living." Proving them wrong will make them very angry.

[@sanjaybhatikar]

He communicates science in a way that most people can relate to.

[@jonahansen]

That's why he is best described as a "science communicator" rather than a theoretical physicist.

[@Total_Entropy36]

​@@jonahanseni'd argue you're giving him too much credit there .. more 'entertainer' than a communicator lol😅

[@robinsutcliffe-video_art]

The summation is quite correct: it is the Culture which has been fostered within physics, and other fields, which is the root of the problem.

[@OverandOutChief1]

He's a glorified planetarium director.

[@obiwanduglobi6359]

Just to put things into context: Neil de Grasse Tyson has received twenty-four honorary doctorates from various universities. Over 1400 citations. You?

[@larstillberg412]

... and Barack H Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. 😂

[@johndickson9677]

Brian Cox deserves a show.

[@seabud6408]

Brian Cox is chief education officer for militant materialism. Is indoctrinating kids in his belief system by the arena full. Philosophy- the of love truth/wisdom …. not the love of matter devoid of life and consciousness. Physicist - 14 billion year old plasma which via chemistry in a astrological context became conscious biology. Mission - ignore the last part of that journey because we haven’t the first clue .. nothing .. about how that happens .. we only know it must have happened but haven’t the first clue how. Option - The Universe is and always has been organismic, and conscious at all system levels … cyclic (living, and only apparently dying ) in each perhaps eternally cyclic phase. How else did plasma become Einstein without a single human thought plan or scientific theory . It grew (growth is a banned term in physics) as much as evolved by perceptual interaction between organisms AFTER the advent of obvious life. The Universe is not obviously alive. It’s as subtle and crazy as Relativity/quantum physics would likely have sounded to Newton. Dr James Lovelock was laughed at with his Gaia theory .. the Earth/eco system is a holonic living system which acts as a system to maintain conditions in Earth within parameters which promote life’s survival on Earth. Life is intrinsically linked to its environment .. it’s Uni- verse . It’s about time physicists started listening to biologists at the cutting edge of the place of electric fields in cell structure growth intelligence and ultimately its link to the unified quantum field .. all that is was and will be .. The Universe . Physicists think they have reality sewn up bar the “minor” details … the major details which may point to the new paradigm which has been strangled at birth by the attitudes of materialists like Tyson and Cox IMO. That the Universe is a living system was the prevailing philosophical view until the church started burning people and advising the remainder that the living conscious or spiritual domain is our territory buster . Like defeated sheep scientists have unconsciously toed that line ever since aided by the counter creed of .. you guessed it.

[@seabud6408]

Dr Brian Cox in similar vein, is self appointed chief education officer for militant materialism. These figures are indoctrinating kids in this belief system by the arena full. Philosophy- the love of truth/wisdom …. not the love of matter devoid of life and consciousness. Physicist - 14 billion year old plasma which via chemistry in a astrophysical context became conscious biology. Mission of physics - ignore the last part of that journey because we haven’t the first clue .. nothing .. about how that happens .. we only know it must have happened but haven’t the first clue how. Option - The Universe is and always has been organismic, and conscious at all system levels … cyclic (living, and only apparently dying ) in each perhaps eternally cyclic phase. How else did plasma become Einstein without a single human thought plan or scientific theory . It grew (growth is a banned term in physics) as much as evolved by perceptual interaction between organisms AFTER the advent of obvious life. The Universe is not obviously alive. It’s as subtle and crazy as Relativity/quantum physics would likely have sounded to Newton. Dr James Lovelock was laughed at with his Gaia theory .. the Earth/eco system is a holonic living system which acts as a system to maintain conditions in Earth within parameters which promote life’s survival on Earth. Life is intrinsically linked to its environment .. it’s Uni- verse . It’s about time physicists started listening to biologists at the cutting edge of the place of electric fields in cell structure growth intelligence and ultimately its link to the unified quantum field .. all that is was and will be .. The Universe . Physicists think they have reality sewn up bar the “minor” details … the major details which may point to the new paradigm which has been strangled at birth by the attitudes of materialists like Tyson and Cox IMO. That the Universe is a living system was the prevailing philosophical view until the church started burning people and advising the remainder that the living conscious or spiritual domain is our territory buster . Like defeated sheep scientists have unconsciously toed that line ever since aided by the counter creed of .. you guessed it.

[@JustMaybeSteorn]

Sorry, off-topic, but I think my novice question may be important. Why does the electromagnetic wave diagram at 6:50 show both the magnetic field and electric field as having zero energy at the same time, I thought that the magnetic field would be at maximum when the electric field is at zero and vice versa so I figure the diagram wrongly depicts the actual situation? (Conversation of energy and all that) If this is so, more questions arise.... but I'm most likely wrong :)

[@TheMachian]

That follows from Maxwell's equations; yet I recognize there is some intuitive difficulty, since it does not correspond to a dipole field which shows a Pi/2 phase shift between the maximum of the electric and megnatic field.

[@bobmcclure8069]

I went to one of his lectures in Hershey, Pennsylvania. This was shortly Donald Trump was elected. He pulled up a county map of Pennsylvania which showed a mostly 'red' state with pockets of blue in the Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and State College areas. There was also a pocket of blue in the Hershey-Harrisburg area. This is not a new thing. It is referred to as the 'Pennsylvania T'. Cities are more liberal and rural areas are more conservative. People are allowed to have different ideas. Tyson pointed to the sea of 'red' and commented to the audience, 'What is wrong with these people???' Umm... Nothing. The voting majority in those areas have different ideas than the voting majority in the 'blue' counties. More importantly, what does this state map of the 2016 election have to do with a physics lecture???

[@ZeroOskul]

And what was the next thing he said? What is wrong with these people *that they want to destroy the fabric of America?* Right? It was about statistics and civics.

[@stoneneils]

in america everything is political potato.

[@ZeroOskul]

@@stoneneils That's because, in America, everyone is the government and only the people in office seem to know that, so they have to trick people into making everything political to the slant of their values so that the people will feel it is important to vote against their own better interests to the will of the body politic.

[@fredbloke3218]

If you want to understand the music of Beethoven examine the ink he wrote the notes in.

[@SpinStar1956]

I'm only a laymena and an electrical engineer, but I too have sensed a great seeming-pause in fundamental physics discovery. When I was a boy, I studied all the great men of science, and it was evident that their discovery-prowess was born out of philosophical-introspection. In ancient times, you studied philosophy which encompassed all the physical fields of human wonder and experience.--it had an inclusive nature/curriculum. My opinion of a lot of the present-day physicists, are that the are really well-educated engineers, simply refining into practice the fundamental discoveries. What I think Neil gets wrong, is that he conflates philosophy with religion, and doesn't want to be tainted with that brush. Philosophy is NOT religion! Philosophy is wisdom (or love of wisdom if you want to use the PHd description) but much more. it is a fundamental tool to keep an open mind, of the possibility of even seemingly bizarre physical phenomena; which was the situation, whereby when these things were discovered, they seemed more like magic than a likely assumption. I never really understood a lot of principals in my physical field of electricity, until I went back and studied in detail how the fundamental discoveries were made; but more importantly the progressive mindset that allowed stacking seemingly unprobalistic correlations until the phenomena finally revealed itself. We all stand on the shoulders of giants, and Neil de Grasse Tyson needs to better appreciate, not only them but their philosophical mindsets that yielded obvious success!

[@GH-li3wj]

In my opinion, real progress in physics comes from the use and deep understanding of right mathematical tools. The rise of physics in the early 20th century was because we had physicists who were also very good mathematicians like Poincaré, Planck, Boltzmann, these people had a deep understanding of the physical meaning of any mathematical equations. Currently, mathematicians and physicists work too separately. Today, as Sabine Hossenfelder noted, some quantum physicists even have difficulty with the probability theory meaning. This is the main reason why some physicists like Aspect have come to make bizarre assertions according to which nature is not local but nevertheless compatible with relativity after Bell EPR experiments. Natural philosophy results from the logical and mathematical understanding of physics.

[@michaelmaloskyjr]

@GH-li3wj "mathematicians and physicists work too separately"? Huh? For starters, math is simply a tool scientists use in collecting, analyzing, and making predictions of data. They're literally intertwined. Look at the work of Donald Hoffman, computational biology, computational genomics, et. al., literally so many of the younger scientific disciplines employing math in numerous ways. Physics is one of the oldest, most mature of scientific applications; but like almost every other science, its application splinters into diverse niches of every kind to help us solve an equally diverse set of problems. I'd be curious to hear what kind of "natural philosophy" follows from a profound understanding of quantum mechanics? And in a somewhat related sense, what kind from a proper understanding of evolutionary cognition? After all, the actual organ you use to think about this has a tumultuous millions of years long history of selection, mutation and fitness pressures. Might be kinda important ;)

[@GH-li3wj]

​@@michaelmaloskyjr I meant by natural philosophy, philosophy of nature, to talk about quantum physics is to talk about the laws of nature. In Newton's book The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, he first sets out his laws of dynamics, then the rules of reason. In the same way, from the laws of QM you can learn a philosophy or an epistemology, a philosophy of science which could help to use mathematics applied to physics in return. Max Born's interpretation of the wave function is a philosophy of nature. Logic and mathematics are the same regardless of the physical domain. Nature uses the same language at any physical scale, everywhere and at any time. Since evolution has selected the best possible brains to understand logical rules and mathematics, our brains should be perfectly suited to understand the language of nature at any scale, anywhere and at any time, no matter what. Isn’t that wonderful.

[@xxxYYZxxx]

Real progress in Physics and Science in general comes from Models, not Theories. Models disambiguate Theory. The problem for Physics is that its models are ... particles, waves, strings, curved space and such, but no Model of Reality to which Theories refer. Dogma is rooted in the lack of a coherent Reality Modeling. Models refute established authority figures in a way nothing else can, just look at Ptolomy and his ilk in light of Heliocentrism. The Mid-Atlantic ridge is another Model which embarrassed established authority figures. The real problem is the pseudo-intellectual class carrying-on about "Mathematics", as Ptolomy did with Epicycles, who simply aren't interested in valid Models, but rather about filling the power vacuum wherever such Models are absent.

[@xxxYYZxxx]

@@michaelmaloskyjr A profound understanding of QM & EB requires the CTMU, aka the "Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe". It's frustrating to know, because then every "expert" and "authority" looks like a clown, like understanding Heliocentrism must have been back when Ptolomy & Epicycles were being promoted by power-wielding authority figures. QM & EB simply can't makes sense without the principles underlying the CTMU, particularly "Conspansion", the inverted semi-model of an "expanding" universe, namely a static universe composed of "virtually contracting" objects and time scales.

[@GH-li3wj]

@@xxxYYZxxx a model must follow a certain logic, logic must first guide the design of your model of reality, if your model is not at least logicaly coherent you can dump it. Reality is at least logical and so mathematical.

[@Ernesto1317]

Also his very representative phrase that makes his vulgar conception of science shine: "Science is true even if you don´t believe in that" The popes from the dark ages would be stunned by the wisdon of such a disciple.

[@ZeroOskul]

_The Earth is round. Even if you are a flat-Earther, the Earth is round and your beliefs do not change it._ You find that vulgar?

[@davestorm6718]

@@ZeroOskul This is funny, but, if you change your coordinate system, you can make Earth flat. lol!

[@ZeroOskul]

@@davestorm6718 What specific coordinate system would you change? Change it to what?

[@steampunk888]

The American physicist, increasingly, is concerned primarily with whether a given theory can be USED, and this to a much greater extent than whether it is true.

[@Rody_le_Cid]

How can you criticize him? He's a black man.. black science man.. what more do you want?

[@douglasstrother6584]

RHEEEE!!! ;)

[@dinf8940]

well, old minsrel shows provided plebeians with educational value of 'cultural enrichment' in safe environment whilst this new, reversed - minstrel show provides plebeians with arrogance of scientism and opportunity to virtue signal their negrolatory

[@useodyseeorbitchute9450]

To further boost his ESG score which seem to be his main asset. Maybe he should consider sex readjustment surgery?

[@markoj3512]

you mean dark energy ;)

[@fredsalter1915]

Philosophy is obsolete. The physics debates that raged back in the day were due to the dearth of facts and to the inability to acquire hard data.

[@edkeller8078]

I wish I could give you a thousand thumbs up. You are far too kind in your critique.