Neil deGrasse Tyson is a fool

[Socrates]

I dont usually watch mainstream materialist scientists and especially celebs like NDT but I love the TOE channel and somehow I managed to watch the whole thing:

I used to think the guy was somewhat intelligent but he showcased SUCH a high amount of ignorance and lack of open-mindedness that I honestly wonder how someone this unintelligent can be considered a rigorous scientist?

Some highlights:

• (14:08) Had we been distracted by those kinds of questions over the past century, none of what we know about the universe would be known today.
• (15:56) philosophers aren't useful anymore
• 26:55 Curt: A Theory talks about what the heck you're dealing with. It talks about ontology, so there needs to be that component as well.
             NDT: Why does it need to be, if what we're doing still works? it needs to be to you, the philosopher, but to me the practicing scientist ... I don't need to know that. The search for that answer will distract me from other progress I will make in this physical universe.
• (46:03)  Im not interested in testimonies, testimonies are the lowest form of scientific evidence.
                   Bring an alien to the public square. 
• (1:01:00) i didn't know porcupines climb trees so you probably didn't see a porcupine. 

And many more, I can't find all those gems ?
Also, notice how extremely defensive NDT was in this whole interview.

This ties perfectly to what @Leo Gura said about materialists in today's blog post. But to be honest I don't like your conclusion Leo, I'm pretty sure Curt, you,  or Bernardo Kastrup can debate NDT or any other materialist and make them look ignorant since they are.

Change starts from public discourse and the more content in favor of idealism comes out, the more people will get to question their beliefs.

[PlayOnWords]

Stage Orange on crack.

[Sincerity]

I've been disgusted by this guy for so long. Such an arrogant fool. Self-importance so big You could land an airplane on it. 

Reminds me of this image I saved years ago.

Edited July 15, 2023 by Sincerity

[thenondualtankie]

Wonderful share @Sincerity

[zurew]

@Sincerity Good stuff!

Its so easy to see the arrogance on the right side - talking about philosophy without thinking about it or studying it in depth.

[Sincerity]

2 hours ago, thenondualtankie said:

Wonderful share @Sincerity

28 minutes ago, zurew said:

@Sincerity Good stuff!

Its so easy to see the arrogance on the right side - talking about philosophy without thinking about it or studying it in depth.

Of course please keep in mind this image is very simplistic and You can't summarize people with one or two quotes.

This is a meme and even though there's some truth here it's extremely biased. Individuals on the left wise and good, individuals on the right stupid and bad.

I'm writing this for myself mostly so that I don't feel bad. 

Edited July 15, 2023 by Sincerity

[Carl-Richard]

When Curt asks about how he learned to communicate the way he does, he does have a surprisingly deliberate and methodical approach to maximizing how he is being understood, which was insightful.

Then also, when he asked whether he does any prepping or psyching up before he goes on stage, he said "absolutely zero, it's like being in my living room, and it has always been like that". That shows how being grandiose and overconfident can actually be a positive thing when being a teacher, as you'll have less self-doubt, anxiety and other things that may make you stumble in your speech or subtract from the teaching in other ways.

In fact, I think the narcissistically prone person is actually the best fit for the type of superficial, one-way, lecture type of teaching that is normal in our society, because they will study the best techniques for getting a positive response from their audience (because that is a lot of what they care about), to such an extent that it selects for a highly simplified and easily digestible format, which creates a perfect fit with that teaching format.

And I can't stop myself from saying something about his MBTI type (he's an ENFJ), in that his highly methodical approach struck me as a very alien way of thinking for me as an INFP (very Fe focused, very "they" focused), and it also seems to be consistent with his strong allegiance to the "old mainstream" in science, as well as "Normal science" (coined by Thomas Kuhn), a.k.a. the highly loyal to in-group and cynical to out-group, almost dogmatic, "intra-paradigmatic" science.

It all seems to go together nicely: the "just shut up and calculate" mentality, or like Neil puts it: "I just want to do the measurements and find the next planet — that's it", has a nice simplicity to it, just like his "I just want to teach easily digestible pop science to kids" mentality.

Edited July 15, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Leo Gura]

Tyson should read what Albert Einstein has to say about philosophy and epistemogoly. Albert Einstien literally credits all his discoveries to the fact that early in his youth he studied a book about epistemology.

Albert Einstein said that "without epistemology science is blind."

Kurt Godel said the same thing about mathematics.

If you actually study HOW the great scientists made the most groundbreaking and important discoveries you will see it's by deeply questioning existing dogma and assumptions.

That's how a serious scientist thinks. Because you CANNOT make groundbreaking discoveries within science without a deep reexamination of your metaphysical assumptions about reality. Which is why current physics is stuck with string theory, QM, quantum gravity, and cosmology. None of the modern physicists have the philosophical depth necessary to question the core metaphysical assumptions that keep science stuck.

"Shut up and calculate" does not actually produce any understanding and is career malpractice for a serious scientist. Which is why Tyson will never make any groundbreaking discoveries.

Edited July 15, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Juan]

A debate between Leo and Neil would be either less than 10 seconds, a violent fight talk over each other or they wouldn't even look at each other. 

[Rishabh R]

Ya  @Socrates questioning our beliefs and assumptions are important not only for science but also for life . 

[Leo Gura]

15 minutes ago, Juan said:

A debate between Leo and Neil would be either less than 10 seconds, a violent fight talk over each other or they wouldn't even look at each other. 

I would just slap him out of his chair and walk out of the room into the sunset.

[LSD-Rumi]

@Leo Gura Yeah, I have always thought of physics as a type of philosophy rather than "science".

[Danioover9000]

@Socrates

5 hours ago, Socrates said:

I dont usually watch mainstream materialist scientists and especially celebs like NDT but I love the TOE channel and somehow I managed to watch the whole thing:

I used to think the guy was somewhat intelligent but he showcased SUCH a high amount of ignorance and lack of open-mindedness that I honestly wonder how someone this unintelligent can be considered a rigorous scientist?

Some highlights:

• (14:08) Had we been distracted by those kinds of questions over the past century, none of what we know about the universe would be known today.
• (15:56) philosophers aren't useful anymore
• 26:55 Curt: A Theory talks about what the heck you're dealing with. It talks about ontology, so there needs to be that component as well.
             NDT: Why does it need to be, if what we're doing still works? it needs to be to you, the philosopher, but to me the practicing scientist ... I don't need to know that. The search for that answer will distract me from other progress I will make in this physical universe.
• (46:03)  Im not interested in testimonies, testimonies are the lowest form of scientific evidence.
                   Bring an alien to the public square. 
• (1:01:00) i didn't know porcupines climb trees so you probably didn't see a porcupine. 

And many more, I can't find all those gems ?
Also, notice how extremely defensive NDT was in this whole interview.

This ties perfectly to what @Leo Gura said about materialists in today's blog post. But to be honest I don't like your conclusion Leo, I'm pretty sure Curt, you,  or Bernardo Kastrup can debate NDT or any other materialist and make them look ignorant since they are.

Change starts from public discourse and the more content in favor of idealism comes out, the more people will get to question their beliefs.

   All I can say is: OMG SO TRIGGERED I LUV IT!!!??

[Danioover9000]

@Leo Gura

28 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Tyson should read what Albert Einstein has to say about philosophy and epistemogoly. Albert Einstien literally credits all his discoveries to the fact that early in his youth he studied a book about epistemology.

Albert Einstein said that "without epistemology science is blind."

Kurt Godel said the same thing about mathematics.

If you actually study HOW the great scientists made the most groundbreaking and important discoveries you will see it's by deeply questioning existing dogma and assumptions.

That's how a serious scientist thinks. Because you CANNOT make groundbreaking discoveries within science without a deep reexamination of your metaphysical assumptions about reality. Which is why current physics is stuck with string theory, QM, quantum gravity, and cosmology. None of the modern physicists have the philosophical depth necessary to question the core metaphysical assumptions that keep science stuck.

"Shut up and calculate" does not actually produce any understanding and is career malpractice for a serious scientist. Which is why Tyson will never make any groundbreaking discoveries.

?

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

41 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

When Curt asks about how he learned to communicate the way he does, he does have a surprisingly deliberate and methodical approach to maximizing how he is being understood, which was insightful.

Then also, when he asked whether he does any prepping or psyching up before he goes on stage, he said "absolutely zero, it's like being in my living room, and it has always been like that". That shows how being grandiose and overconfident can actually be a positive thing when being a teacher, as you'll have less self-doubt, anxiety and other things that may make you stumble in your speech or subtract from the teaching in other ways.

In fact, I think the narcissistically prone person is actually the best fit for the type of superficial, one-way, lecture type of teaching that is normal in our society, because they will study the best techniques for getting a positive response from their audience (because that is a lot of what they care about), to such an extent that it selects for a highly simplified and easily digestible format, which creates a perfect fit with that teaching format.

And I can't stop myself from saying something about his MBTI type (he's an ENFJ), in that his highly methodical approach struck me as a very alien way of thinking for me as an INFP (very Fe focused, very "they" focused), and it also seems to be consistent with his strong allegiance to the "old mainstream" in science, as well as "Normal science" (coined by Thomas Kuhn), a.k.a. the highly loyal to in-group and cynical to out-group, almost dogmatic, "intra-paradigmatic" science.

It all seems to go together nicely: the "just shut up and calculate" mentality, or like Neil puts it: "I just want to do the measurements and find the next planet — that's it", has a nice simplicity to it, just like his "I just want to teach easily digestible pop science to kids" mentality.

   As a Mr. Girl fan, I agree the more narcissistically prone the person is, the more interesting they become.

   Neil is an exception though, maybe it's just my bias for the more hyper logical types.

[Rishabh R]

By the way guys and @Leo Gura is there any philosophy book which is written in easy to understand and places emphasis on questioning and understanding.

[Leo Gura]

I don't think Tyson is a narcissist per se. You just have to consider that his whole life purpose is spreading science to the ignorant masses and defending science against attacks from utter fools. So in serving that role he has no reason to think deeply about science. In fact, it would make his job harder because he would have to equivocate.

Tyson is just a very mainstream guy, that's his whole appeal. So he cannot say truly deep things.

Edited July 15, 2023 by Leo Gura

[StarStruck]

I like Neil, he is a cool guy but he is full of something 

Edited July 15, 2023 by StarStruck

[Danioover9000]

@Leo Gura

2 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I don't think Tyson is a narcissist per se. You just have to consider that his whole life purpose is spreading science to the ignorant masses and defending science against attacks from utter fools. So in serving that role he has no reason to think deeply about science.

   Sure, but his delivery and behavior seems to me makes him more narcissistic, probably on the lighter side of the spectrum, just this 'I'm looking down on you' tonality and body language Neil's communicating. Not comparable to Logan Paul's or Andrew Tate's, but it's similar. Maybe it's the condescending superiority complex his tone is giving? 

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Leo Gura

   Sure, but his delivery and behavior seems to me makes him more narcissistic, probably on the lighter side of the spectrum, just this 'I'm looking down on you' tonality and body language Neil's communicating. Not comparable to Logan Paul's or Andrew Tate's, but it's similar. Maybe it's the condescending superiority complex his tone is giving? 

Scientists think their paradigm is the only possible true one. So of course they are very arrogant if cornered.

Curt does a good job of cornering him. He would never get cornered like that in mainstream media.

Edited July 15, 2023 by Leo Gura