Racism, UFOs, and Cultural Appropriation with Neil deGrasse Tyson
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 31 мар 2023
- My guest today needs no introduction, but I'll give him one anyway. Neil deGrasse Tyson is an astrophysicist, author, and science communicator. Neil is the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the Rose Centre for Earth and Space in New York City. He's also hosted and co-hosted numerous science-related TV and radio programs, including Nova Science Now, and Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey. Neil has written several books, including "The Pluto Files: The Rise and Fall of America’s Favorite Planet", "Astrophysics for People In A Hurry", and his new book "Starry Messenger: Cosmic Perspectives on Civilization".
This is Neil's second time on the podcast, and this time we discuss many issues, including declining public trust in science. We also talk about UFOs or UAPs as they're now called. We discuss the history of scientific racism. We talk about the art of communicating science to the general public. We discuss the issue of cultural appropriation. We also talk about the generational gap between Neil and myself and how that may lead us to interpret our experiences differently as black men in predominantly white intellectual spaces, and we go on to talk about much more.
I hope you enjoy this conversation as much as I did.
FOLLOW NEIL:
Website - neildegrassetyson.com
Books - bit.ly/3G9tfvi
Pre-order my book:
"The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America" - bit.ly/48VUw17
FOLLOW COLEMAN:
Check out my Album: AMOR FATI - bit.ly//AmorFatiAlbum
Substack - colemanhughes.substack.com
Unfiltered Community - bit.ly/3B1GAlS
RUclips - bit.ly/38kzium
Twitter - bit.ly/2rbAJue
Facebook - bit.ly/2LiAXH3
Instagram - bit.ly/2SDGo6o
Website - colemanhughes.org
Merch - bit.ly/CWCMerch
Thanks for watching my latest episode. Let me know your thoughts and opinions down below in a comment. If you like my content and want to support me, consider becoming a paying member of the Coleman Unfiltered Community here --> bit.ly/3B1GAlS
Could be because you were a teenager. Sometimes people question how a white teenager got the money to buy a luxary good.
I've seen that happen. When my brother was 18, he was depositing a rather large check he got as a settlement for almost being killed in a car accident. The banking staff was very suspicious of the check .
It's seems in group and out group is left out of the conversation. There is evidence the in group see's it self superior to the out group. Yet with this known evidence Neil is doing the faulty generalization when he talks about racism and white people. His three stories of his past he attributed it to racism. Neil's a evidence guy, where's the evidence. I get to talk to people a lot and I hear these type of stories. I also have these type of stories. The people I talk too and myself almost always have a story of the motivation of the other. I simply ask. How do you know it's true. We as people discriminate against the other a lot. As Neil is doing. Neil from my perspective is in some ways the same as the people he is talking against. He doesn't see it. In closing without looking it up Iranians have Neanderthal DNA. East Asians have the most Neanderthal DNA than any people.
I dig your music and, of course, your viewpoints. I'm a musician myself (guitar, bass, drums, piano, music production, etc.) and I've been working with other artists of all types.
good job voting for an illegitimate old folks home patient destroying the world over the guy with the best results in modern history.
truely deserving of your position as being above the woke, screeching lunatics of the left
This was a brilliant piece of interviewing - seriously - your humility and wisdom betray your young years. NDT was cantakerous at times because he felt it necessary to drive home his points because of his misconception of your conception of topics. But you handled it beautifully and brought him round - I think it was actually cathartic for NDT in the end. You give hope to any of us becoming jaded and cynical about the younger generation - skys the limit.
Coleman: "Hey how are y-"
Dr. Tyson: "JUST TO BE CLEAR,"
Have read most of the comments here (many very good ones). But yours absolutely steals the show. Well done.
😂😂😂
😂😂😂
"I don't have a stance on anything." -NDT
Yeah...right....
In the most recent interviews I have listened to with NDT, the lack of self-reflection is truly wild to behold.
Yeah, it was crazy that he said that.
This is projection. The criticisms of NDT have stemmed from his interview with Ben Shapiro where he gave a reasonable take that we shouldn't use the state to enforce beliefs that will come at the expense of others. Ever since that interview, there's been a ton of random comments criticizing Neil's personality , and many just outright disagreeing with things he says whether factual theoretical or hypothetical
@@CaptainBuggyTheClown erm, what is the projection you speak of?
@@CaptainBuggyTheClown If it means anything to you, I have not watched NDT's interview with Shapiro. I have watched a number of other interviews/podcasts where he has taken very strong (and wrong, IMO) stances on a number of issues, and has had a hard time backing them up with any form of real empirical evidence.
@@lapearl521 That Neil lacks self reflection. Nothing indicates a lack of self reflection, what these people are talking about is their perception of Neil's personality he's always been that way as expected from someone in his field not to be the most socially aware and not awkward.
Also to Stumblingthroughitall, it's projection on their part because they are the ones lacking self reflection here. Just as they admitted they're watching random Neil videos and asserting "he has had a hard time backing them up with empirtical evidence" okay start citing the videos cite the actual claims made. If you want to do this let's do this, I'm absolutely fed up with people ignorantly taking shots at Neil because they don't like his personality. Guess what? Your personality is even more shit.
“I throughly enjoy everything Dr. Tyson says. He speaks so eloquently and intelligently. He’s the best science communicator to date, and everything he says is true, and good.”
-Neil deGrasse Tyson, probably
😂😂😂😂 totally
I would say that ...
Neil deGrasse Tyson is coming off as increasingly smug and condescending.
oh really ? ,,,what makes you think that ? ...😉😅😂😂
I've respected this guy for years. I'm really disappointed. He came across as arrogant and rude for the first half of the interview.
@@Callin-Out-the-Noise He has always been a smug virtue hoarder. He just doesn't hide it as well as he used to that's all.
He desperately needs his ass whipped.
@@airmark02 He doesn't have a specific answer because he knows he's wrong. And these other idiots won't be able to give one specific example either. They're just jealous because they wish they had his confidence and knowledge - but I don't see any of them hosting TV shows, writing books or being the curator of a planetarium.
I've never seen so many negative comments for any of Coleman's guests, we'll deserved imo
This is a great takedown of NDT:
ruclips.net/video/hEgS5lSZ61s/видео.html
Why do you say that?
I watched the episode … you are a conspiracy junkie.
They like humble lovable shoe shine boys 😊
They must’ve been deleted. I came here thinking there would be plenty and I see nothing but rave reviews. He is hard to listen to. Seems to be contradictory at every opportunity just for the sake of being contradictory. I’m more than halfway through but I’m gonna keep listening.
Next time Neil say's he doesn't take stances on things, ask him how he feels about Pluto being a planet.
He had nothing to do with that. Dr Mike Brown is the one who killed Pluto and Pluto had it coming. All that NDT did was change the solar system display to more accurately reflect the new information.
When Dr Brown announced that he'd found a new planet and the other astronomers said "that's not a planet, that's a Kueipper belt object" he said "then Pluto isn't a planet either because Eris is larger and on a more regular orbit than Pluto". That shut them up for a while until they realized that they needed a new definition for a planet the size of Pluto and Eris. So Pluto got demoted to "Dwarf Planet".
Nobody else wanted to accept it but Neil didn't hesitate to update his version of the solar system at the Hayden planetarium. And if you go to any toy store - try to find a model of the solar system that still has Pluto in it. If it has Pluto then it will also include Eris but most of them don't include Pluto at all anymore.
Neil being underestimated his whole life explains a lot about his personality
He has an obvious chip on his shoulder.
@@brentberry5218bit old still be carrying that around
What is resisted persists. Any chip acknowledged is a chip in his emotional armor that he started to develop as a youngster to shield him from the pain of ridicule and prejudice.
@@brentberry5218 then he needs therapy to sort that bs out
Coleman must be a good host, because no matter how many times I skip forward Neil is the one speaking.
Tyson constantly interrupts others and is always unbearably rude in every interview. I tried to get through this whole interview out of respect for Coleman. I failed!
that's because he is the guest
Scientists always talk first
He's nearly always the one I want to hear speaking
The question always is, do you have a conversation or a an interview, if its the later I expect the guest to do the majority of the talking.
Anger at cultural appropriation is “a reminder that, yeah, you were the oppressor. I can’t have you claiming that you’re my friend now.” Perhaps he misspoke, but if not that shows just how much he buys into group (rather than individual) identity
He also said that he thinks we will grow past this, which suggests he doesn't think this is a way we should be thinking. He is just explaining what he thinks the people saying these things are thinking.
@@hpesoj00 He did say that, and I agree that he finds it normatively sub-optimal. However, he explained the reasoning behind the anger against cultural appropriation and signalled that he finds it to have some legitimacy (i.e. it's a reasonable backlash to some extent) - "It's a response; it didn't come out of nowhere".
His initial justification was that such anger is legitimate in cases in which whites (and I took him to mean *specific* white people here, not the entire race) are oppressing or disrespecting people with one hand and taking their culture with the other. If that was all he'd said on the issue, then I wouldn't have criticised it.
The bit I quoted was the second justification he gave (though maybe there were others I'm forgetting). Again, perhaps he misspoke, but here he moved from justifying the anger against specfic whites based on their own actions to justifying anger against whites (specifically or generally) based on the actions of *others* in their group historically. To me, that seemed a worrying (and, frankly, dumb) extension of his previous point.
He's nothing but a zombie pig
>"shows just how much he buys into group (rather than individual) identity"
I thought he was merely stating there are POC who think that way, not that he personally thinks that way.
@@nickelmouse451 well said
Tyson: *goes on a minute long tirade against the word "stance"
Hughes: 😐
*Literally less than 10 seconds later*
Tyson: "I think people are needlessly distracted by the definitions of words..."
Hughes: 😐
Coleman's patience and professionalism is so on point here. If anything he could have been a little more confrontational.
Those two statements are congruous, by the populous at large giving a word like "stance" a strict meaning it forces Tyson to have to state long winded caveats, else they (we) would give his words false meaning.
Did Tyson not just prove himself right? Is he not also human?
I like that you point this out. Neil can be quite contradictory sometimes. Not as a judgement of lesser than however I truely believe when you heavily apply yourself to one major skill set in life you will inevitably have less skills in other areas comparatively to your peers.We all do it as there’s simple too much to know all of. I think alot of scientists lack emotional and sociological context in a few things.
Because of this difference in experiences and self awareness I think perspectives can be limited to how reality works.
Like the above example, he isn’t aware of his value to the importance of meanings and could disregard it in others. That mentality with actions of dismissal on a large scale is not good sociological. (It’s a weird jump apologies if you can’t follow my poor explanation) To not be aware of the factors into others experiences contributing to their struggles could lead to those same factors slowly catching up till it affects you. And then your in the powerless “group”.
@JagaimoNoTensai oh my lord, I have never regretted clicking the 'read more' button more in my life. I'm sure whatever you said is valid, I give you a like
Both can often be true. Sometimes it doesn’t matter what you call something and sometimes it does. Murderer and killer can mean the same thing but not all killers are murderers.
I love Neil and respect all he’s done for the communication/education of complex scientific ideas to the general public but, I think at times he begins to lose touch of how to have a naturally flowing back and forth convo. He constantly interrupts which occasionally is permissible but almost every few sentences he tends to jump in and go on a tangent.
Glad you kept pushing back Coleman! 👌🏾
Neil hasn't done much of anything to be respectful of. Why you'd go so far as to LOVE an arrogant blowhard like him is beyond me.
Go listen to Thomas Sowell. There's someone worth your hero worship.
I don't remember him being this obnoxious until recently.
NDT is very good when he is allowed to take full control and that's the expectation. Otherwise he does not demonstrate any respect for the person who's in the conversation. He interrupted Coleman essentially every time not letting him fully make his point. So I either really enjoy Neil when it's expected that he will dominate the conversation, or I find him obnoxious because you will otherwise try to dominate the conversation. I will continue to listen to him and enjoy him but it's definitely from textual.
Neil's been lost to dogmatic idiotology for a good 5 years now. Not who he used to be.
When you're inviting a man who made his living as a professor/teacher for decades, you're going to get someone who is trained to take over a classroom of wild ass 20 year olds. This is par for the course.
Any interview with Neil will always get me to watch it and give it a thumbs up so I am glad you decided to have him on your show
Another excellent episode. Very interesting and thought-provoking. It seems very difficult to have a true "conversation" with Neil deGrasse Tyson. Solely based on this episode, Mr. deGrasse Tyson appears to very much want people to listen to him but seems to not truly hear what others in the conversation are saying. Still, he's certainly a very interesting person and there is authority behind his words. My admiration and appreciation for Coleman Hughes (which were already at a high level) were increased by the way he handled this difficult interview.
Yep, very rude and irritable Boomer arrogance from NDT, especially considering how relaxed the host was.
His interview with Curt on TOE was similar. Not sure he is used to being questioned or having any push back. Coleman and Curt handled it well though.
I don’t agree. But you’re entitled to your opinion. I’m able to read him pretty good.
I think if NDT made an effort to conduct himself with a bit more humility and grace, he could be a much more effective communicator.
Those things that made Carl Sagan so great when talking to both friendly AND antagonistic conversation partners. I miss him.
Agreed. He’s very much a steamroller who when cornered goes ballistic. The conversation with Ben Shapiro comes to mind. When Shapiro asked him about transgenderism and tried to appeal to the science, Tyson basically abandoned the science and ran roughshod over Shapiro, making what he felt were moral appeals and justifications.
Lol, really? strange then, how he's not interviewing Coleman on his show. Maybe if Coleman showed some humility, instead of trying to go toe to toe, he'd have earned some respect. Instead, he tried to sound as if he had some intellectual authority he was speaking from, which was rude to begin with.
Neil will, and has shown respect to opposing points of view when they're well defended. Coleman couldn't defend his attitude, so he gained no respect.
@@JerryHazard NDT will never engage in a formal debate where he actually has to agree to speak and listen for an equal amount of time as his opponent, and where he can’t steamroll them.
@@JerryHazard Huh, I didn't sense a bad attitude from Coleman, so I guess I disagree. But interesting point. Maybe I'll watch it again with that viewpoint in mind to try to see what you mean.
I thought it was super weird how Neil deGrasse Tyson flipped out on Coleman just for using the phrase "cognitive empathy." I felt like he was making some kind of petty show of dominance.
Weird, I just used that phrase today while talking to a friend! Luckily NDT was not here to smack me down ;)
In general I don't like his personality
I really hope that Neil just isn't knowledgable around the field of cognition, because the terms cognitive empathy & emotional empathy are really neat terms in the field of psychology.
Tyson is petty. Period
NdGT was pretty ungenerous throughout IMO.
This episode really highlights one of Coleman’s strengths. NDT is so salty and Coleman stays calm and collected the entire time. Half his age but twice as wise.
wholeheartedly agree - let the people speak, even the ones that are wrong!
You have got to be joking me , it took him ten minutes to grasp the fact we would have hi res images of a UFO wether it be a mother ship or a probe ? Wowwwwww I think what you’re referring to is his tone to NDT which is that of someone half is age that THINKS he’s smarter 😂
@@scott8957 this is how a lot of smart nerds are lol
Based on what
NDT wasn't salty, but he definitely took a tone. Coleman was trying to speak over his own head - even after NDT showed him why his, or the peanut gallery's point of view was flawed.
He really started out on the wrong foot with his insinuation that science had a problem in it's methodology, where NDT firmly corrected him.
Coleman was out of his league, and wouldn't acknowledge it. He made a couple attempts at self deprecation, but they were insincere, and NDT picked up on it, and decided not to cut him slack. That's not salty. It's just not pampering, which Coleman's generation seems to feel entitled to in such situations.
Neil Degrasse Tyson is a man who is clearly hot-headed, impatient, churlish and loves the sounds of his own voice.
This is one of these videos where I hit the like button even before watching cause I just know and it never fails. Thanks boys! Super enriching interview!
This was disappointing. Perhaps I hadn't listened to enough NDT, and had a much higher opinion of him as a communicator...as looking through the comments this doesn't seem like an off day.
I'm agreeing on most of his points, and yet cringing through the delivery.
I have no doubt he's put up with a heap of bigotry in his day...but the examples he used prove Coleman's point more than his. Especially when he was treating Coleman the same condescending way the 'racist' man in his popcorn story did.
Losing his mind over 'stance' then smugly talking about how we're too wrapped up in words was especially golden.
I really wish Coleman challenged him more, but I get the sense NDT's personality was too big on this day.
Neil I really like you.
I've seen countless hours of you speak but this is hard to watch.
You don't have conversations anymore.
You aren't listening and responding in the moment you are waiting to say things you've said before and I want more from you.
That's selfish of me.
But you feel condescending and arrogant and it disappoints me because I genuinely like you.
I genuinely liked Startalk I shared COSMOS with friends and family and watched the nieces and nephews.
I also watched this happen with Bill Nye but he seemed to have turned it around I hope you do too.
But I also agree science is about questioning the currently held views and I would really love to hear you do that even if you come to those same conclusions it's awesome to see it in action.
A fan
I don’t know Neil to be fair…. Apart from hearing his name all my life.
Came to the comments to see if anyone else found that he was being deliberately and overtly obtuse in his push back, on a lot of Coleman’s very well crafted questions. I’m half way through, and I’m too frustrated to keep going on this one I think.
Every interview he does is like this. Coleman may not be an astrophysicist but he is wayyyyy smarter than NDT
Yeah. I never finished any video featuring this guy because of that same frustration. To me, a scientist that gets defensive when a person asks a factual question deserves to be shamed. He is no longer a scientist but a propagandist.
You are misunderstanding his intentions. Expecting him as a scientist to do anything else would be utter arrogance. He can with authority talk about astrophysics and science communication. So these are the only things he discussed.
Colman Was asking him for example to weigh in UFOs Neil basically said there is insufficient data and jumping to conclusions is not scientific. This is true. Colman is trying to get him to give probability.
Well the reality is any scientist giving a probably on that IS ARROGANCE because it requires so much data we do not have.
Blaming him for being obtuse about this is not arrogance it's just saying with confidence I don't know and perhaps you should be careful making these assertions.
I personally find his manner off putting but it's not arrogance or being obtuse. It's precisely saying what he doesn't know. It just comes across as obtuse.
@@cameronlapworth2284 You make a good point - probably it is a 'scientific (scientistic even?) mindset' that prevents an interesting conversation from unfolding. I guess we are all here for interesting, philosophical conversations, and this interview just shows how pointless it is to try and converse with people who are only interested in 'data'.
danthefrst
1 second ago
Neil is takeing clear stances all the time and talking with absolute authority about stuff outside his expertise just as much.
His shit talk about cars is just sad, so sad.stances all the way.
And to say that it is not within rhe scientist realm to speculate is unscietistic. How much of the scientistic progress isnt rooted in a beginning of speculation?
To stifle thought of whatever kind that might produce new thought is not inventive. New thought and its speculations is the mother of all inventions.
"i have a higher threshold for acceptance of a claim" yet thinks male people should be able to play on female sports teams
DESPITE this comment, and other comments i agree with here. i'm glad he said those things, because i agree with the sentiment. we should be open to hearing other people, talking with them, exploring what theyre saying, exploring other perspectives as well. glad you had him on.
When you say male I assume you mean Trans woman or are you just being deliberately obtuse?
If you’re talking about trans women then there’s a lot of nuance to that. Hormones can change a lot about your body and that also depends on a bunch of different factors.
Says trans people live rent free in your head and you obsess over trans peoples private parts without actually saying all that. Jesus get a life.
@@noah1502 I like your reply. I don't think Trans should be able to compete but I'm open to hearing evidence for it. It seems awfully complicated with the hormones.
After finishing the full video, which took a better part of a day for me, it was a good interchange with points and counter points by both Coleman and Neil on many subjects. I didn’t know of Coleman, or even where he’s coming from prior to seeing this podcast, and I only came upon it as a person watching Startalk and having this suggested in my RUclips feed. I have now subscribed. To be fair, while I’m always in awe of NGT’s knowledge of the universe being an amateur astronomer, I’m also an 42 yr electrical engineer and have a broad foundation of knowledge so am not aligned with his comments on AI, which seem both a bit uninformed and naive. I was also disappointed by his point on why cars now start reliably, which has little to do with being made by robots (smile).. Still love listening to him, especially when it comes to the physics,which he knows so well.
Every now and then he’ll make a boomer point, but it seems to be the exception, and you know his heart is in the right place
Neil started looking uncomfortable as soon as Coleman began to discuss the covid booster efficacy.
Surprised?
Fact. Dude was all in on Vax no questions asked. Very surprised he didn't even question big pharma and bureaucrat claims through covid. Even now doesn't critique the mess it was
😂😂😂
Can't quite understand the criticism of Degrasse. I found him insightful and extremely open minded. What a brilliant conversation! If anything this has increased my respect towards him.
Scary loud Blackman 😂😂😂
Yeah, I thought the interview was mostly fine. People complaining about a black man with a possible chip on his shoulder is just another flavor of racism imo (too "uppity", ect).
I did too. Coleman wants to borderline conspiracy think and NDT is setting him straight.
Tyson is bloated hack. Never made any actual contributions to science. He's little more than a pop star. A borderline bill nye
Cause he is a shill paid puppet used to be so loved but not the same anymore
Man, I used to love NDT but he’s becoming insufferable.
He's no Carl Sagan sadly :(
You are no Tom Brokaw Perkyy. Boring world if we only like people we agree with. 😊
Neil's idea of science communication seems to consist of interruption, tangents, and owning the conversation. Then wonders where the trust went.
thank you for covering the UFO/UAP topic and at least tangentially or indirectly Disclosure itself. Perhaps. Is there any way you could timestamp the specific parts of the interview on that? Thanks!
18:51
Seems like Neil thinks he sounds wise if he acts unimpressed about AI, rather than actually considering the arguments
Coleman asks if he’s ok if AI surpasses human intellect in every way to the extent where our only lot in life is to sit at the beach and his was response was a flippant “why not.” It’s amazing how little he’s thought this through and how arrogantly he holds his position.
@@patrickhassing120Typical Boomer mindset from NDT, arrogantly state your position and refuses any possibility that he could be wrong.
Coleman, this is the first interview of yours I've watched. I am very impressed with your patience and articulation. You've got a new fan in me.
he says "people are needlessly distracted by the definitions of words" after spending 5 minutes describing his definition of the word "stance"
prooving his point
Haha I had this exact thought. He said it immediately after his rant on "stance."
I'm so glad other people caught that, it was amazing
Get on with it the bus will arrive anyi minute !
Oh that's merely your interpretation of the situation !
No, it really could arrive!😅
I hope it will be soon !
Yeah Neil is full of himself lol
Coleman, you have the patience of a God. NDT only interrupted at every single point he could, yet you remained so calm and collected. I would have lost it on him. Good on you man!
I owe NDT for getting me into science many years ago, but man hes become unbearable over the years! He constantly interrupts & somehow never picks up on social cues when he’s annoying someone .. He also tends to think every word uttered by himself will be documented & pondered thousand of years from now, a modern day Aristotle.. haha like I said, he did get me into astrophysics & is a great educator. I honestly don’t know if become sick of him or if he has in fact changed over the years, prob mix of both.
Listening to Neil humble-brag about how incompetent other scientists are at communicating science to your average person is so arrogant and condescending, and clearly conveys he's never watched a Dr. Andrew Huberman podcast (one of the wisest, kindest most valuable scientists on social media IMO).
Oh man Neil
Criticizes Huberman?
He really thinks he’s that smart but if he was an in another country he would a low level corporate manager since other countries don’t have affirmative action
That's my homie Neil!
Only making a word cloud could soothe me. Great job Coleman, you are a Saint.
Interruptions. Condescension. Irritation. Wishful thinking. Dismissiveness. Badgering. Short bursts of reasoning. Platitudes. Indignance. Flustered.
i think what makes this interview so painful is Neil always taking the least charitable interpretation of every question Coleman asked, and was constantly being overly defensive
“i never take stances”
“ai can never be truly creative”
“i don’t get caught up on definitions”
“oh that’s what a conspiracy is”
This was very disappointing. He says he doesn't take stances (though he clearly does) as a way of positioning himself as never having a wrong opinion. His take on AI (which he's been following for 50 years) was childish. He tortured the definition of what a "stance" is, only to then say "*people* are needlessly distracted by the definitions of words".
He definitely took a stance when he casually threw out the term "gender spectrum."
@@Callin-Out-the-Noise Well said
It's really sad to see someone you respect do this
I have not watched Neil for years, probably since the Cosmos days. But, I remember he would butt heads with the 'new atheist' characters back in the day. I think he was not a fan of their approach. Yet, I don't recall him being overly defensive as he is in this interview. I thought this interivew was quite weird.
I could listen to Mr Tyson for the whole day he's so educational.
you are not the only one. i had been following him from the beginning.
He’s grossly misunderstood in how he delivers.
However serious Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson was in this interview, it was compelling and very educative all the same.
What?
He’s greatly misunderstood in how he presents himself.
This makes me wanna go get Neil's book, even more, this interview is fiiyyyya! Especially after listening to Neil talk about that chapter on Joe's podcast also I cant wait to read it! Good work out there fellas!
Yeah the book makes some great points about society, and there's also the audiobook voiced by Neil himself btw.
Thank you for this amazing convo! People sometimes hate on Neil for him Talking too much over the host, but in all honesty I still enjoy it because everything that he says is something interesting that I can learn from. He is just always spewing information constantly and I’ll never get tired of it. Definitely a new fan of your channel and just subscribed right now. All love 😁✌🏽
Tyson comes across as a guy who does not know that he does not know. I doubt if he’s ever heard of Westall, or has every spent any time familiarizing himself with decades old UFO cases on even a cursory level. He fully assumes that he would automatically know if something interesting existed about this. I was the same way 2 years ago. Then I listened.
I'm a pretty skeptical guy, but can you please name the most compelling and easily accessible doco on UFO's in your opinion?
1:35:00 so the oppressor can’t be his friend but they can be his spouse.
Yes! Marriage is an exchange of property. 🤔
Dear Coleman,
Your podcast is one of the best among deeper level conversations. I try not to miss any episode. Your conversation with Dr. deGrasse is very enjoyable. I want to comment on the second topic of this episode - Artificial Intelligence. I must agree with Dr. deGrasse that dangers of AI are not metaphysical. They will not replace humans in creative work. There are other real dangers that we must deal with:
• Humans will lose their jobs to AI, like they lost to machines;
• AI may create disinformation to polarize society. Even can used as a propaganda weapon to demoralize and destabilize a competitive business or an adversary state;
• Empowered AI may make wrong decisions that affect human life or even start the war that will threaten the existence of humanity.
Some AI scientists and philosophers rise another potential existential threat - AI gaining sentience, consciousness, and becoming competitors or enemies of humanity. I don’t agree that this is a real threat. After all AI is just a self-learning machine. No wonder that this generation of AI was initially called (and still called sometimes) machine learning and its brute-force version - deep learning. Because it is the essence - they are machines that are programmed to learn from available data and experimentation. No matter how sophisticated they seem in conversations or writing technical or literary texts - they do not generate new ideas and do not even infer new hypotheses. Ask them to prepare an essay on any philosophical or scientific topic and they may give you a summary of our current knowledge. Even students writing their essays are supposed to do more - to propose new hypotheses or express their personal viewpoints. Scientists, philosophers, or writers who would produce AI level work would be called plagiarists.
The reason is that they do not think creatively. In fact, they do not think at all. All their internal models are purely empirical, not abstract, not causal, not behavioral. It is all about pattern recognition and matching it to existing classes of known patterns. It is impossible to trace back or understand their reasoning, because there is no reasoning. You mentioned that even humans in their creative process often reuse already existing pieces of art or science. That is true, but humans are driven by logic, intuition, or sense of beauty. There is no such drive in AI - they try to best match existing patterns. In unsettled topics their combination of opposite opinions sometimes leads to nonsense - I personally experience it many times. They cannot express their own opinion, because they don’t have it. Old school AI were supposed to model human thinking process - reasoning etc. The new AI is just a trained machine. Trained on available data, not experience.
Machines can do things better that human - lift heavier stuff, work faster and more precise, and run faster. Now they can talk, write, design, compose music, and paint like humans but faster and in many cases better. As long as it does not require to make a quantum leap and invent, discover, or create something qualitatively new.
Can AI overcome this limitation? I think it will be improved, be more reliable and accurate, but not creative. But even making them more accurate faces serious problems of resources. Medium capacity AI (e.g., medical diagnostic advisor) in its learning cycle can consume 20x more electricity than average US household per year. Hence, there are practical limits to AI accuracy. Maybe AI can accidentally create new unique piece of art or music, but unlikely that they will even recognize it. I don’t think that AI is capable of improving itself - analyzing its own weaknesses and writing new code based on different algorithm to eliminate them. (Although I allow that they can fix obvious bugs in their internal code.) And I am sure that AI will never gain consciousness, ambition, feelings, and free will. And without free will there is no creativity.
Fusion power IS coming this decade and the fuel cost will be about $0.10 per household annually.
What interview yall listening to. It was great. They both got along well. I’m thinking y’all didn’t like the racial stuff Neil said about apes lol.
Haha, NDT just got played out of control but most lower intelligent whites and blacks had no idea what Cole was cooking...instead of getting into his concept which is essentially any and all racism is dumb, he let Neil expose his emotional, unscientific side. Neil is a super smart guy, but he too has his weaknesses and I think its important for Cole to keep cooking!
None of those stories of being assumed unintelligent are unique experiences of black people.
These anecdotes were what caught my attention. He completely abandoned the underlying principles upon which he build his earlier arguments in favor of "intellectual rigor", e.g., UFO's.
@@georgeoldham2060 Good point. It's the nature of the race narrative in America that one must, in good conscience, abandon reason to follow its conclusions.
I am convinced that Neil deGrasse Tyson it doesn't actually know how to think. About 45% of the time he's asserting something that he could by no means justify.
His math logic behind the odd number for the bill is completely incorrect - embarrassingly so. Check for yourself.
Im sorry to say this, but a lot about scientific reasoning is brainwashing. You learn how to be trained.
Ironic that he’s talking about the power of learning yet still hasn’t learned how not to constantly interrupt people.
It's ironic that you're criticizing someone who has multiple books on the New York Times best seller list when you haven't published even one single book at all, ever, in your entire life.
@@liquidbraino So only someone with multiple books on the New York times best selling list should be allowed to criticise him for always interrupting people on podcasts?
@@liquidbraino The hell does that have to do with it? O_o So what lol Such a non sequitur...
Nothing in the OP even remotely insinuated something disparaging about Tyson's intellect or professional accomplishments.
People have underestimated me too all my life, and I am a white woman. I don't hold it over people. I understand it is THEIR insecurities. Common, stop carrying these chips on your shoulder. De Grasse "I am so special. Just recognize how special I am". Seriously dude, grow up.
💯
I've listened to many hours of Neil speaking over the years on his own podcasts or shows as well as on others. I haven't typically thought of him as a person who views the world through the lens of science, but there were usually diamonds to be found in the conversation, so it was always worth listening. The more recent podcasts, like this one, put on display his lack of scientific perspective. They may still reveal some diamonds, but mostly from the other people involved, rather than Neil himself.
In the PODCAST HOST POSITION: Coleman Hughes is a writer, podcaster and opinion columnist who specialises in issues related to race, public policy and applied ethics. In the PODCAST GUEST POSITION: Neil deGrasse Tyson is an American astrophysicist, author, and science communicator. Tyson studied at Harvard University, the University of Texas at Austin, and Columbia University. From 1991 to 1994, he was a postdoctoral research associate at Princeton University.
I get that athlete comment all the time because of my size and fitness although I'm the Uni instructor in the Med School and Psych Department… “Oh, are you one of the coaches?”
What drives me absolutely crazy about Neil Degrasse Tyson is nobody pushes him on the actuality of the difference of technologies. Could a stealth jet that we created today. Should it be flown back in the early 19th century go completely unnoticed and unreported by the flyers and the people of that day. Could a single drone go undiscovered? The answer is, of course. Why is it that he is stuck on the fact that our smart phone cameras are capable of picking up what even our US military has difficulty in identifying, but managed still to maintain and identify with three different imaging technologies at the same time..
I think because people are taking hi res pictures all the time and all we’ve seen from people are fuzzy pictures of what they claim are UFO/UAP.
Great conversation! Would like to add one critical comment, as a lecturer. Doctor Tyson does not sufficiently distinguish between 'educator' and 'populariser and presenter'. He is brilliant at the latter, but that is not the meaning of 'educator', except in the most superficial sense. As a lecturer, I have to not only engage students in all the ways he says, but also ensure that months after they have had the class, they have retained the information and skills and can apply them correctly! So his attack on the inadequacy of teachers - the claim that they must 'make you interested' - feels very unfair. Schools are full of teachers who are much-loved, great presenters of the kind he means, but whose students turn out to have learned little or nothing while they were being - essentially - entertained.
I think in light of new things there needs to be a follow up interview. I need to see what Neil will say today.
@ColemanHughesOfficial This was my first time on your channel, and I enjoyed listening and experiencing ideas through NDT's point of view. Thank you.
Why not give the host a chance to ask a question? He keeps interrupting and finishing the host sentences. It could've been better.
This man is inspirational. His 'cosmos' series was very good.
I'm going to have to check it out. Thanks👍🏾
"Cosmos was very good" - are you nuts?! Cosmos is most mind opening documentary ever made
NDT was literally hand-picked by Carl Sagan at a young age as his heir apparent.
His cosmos series was not his - Carl Sagan already did it.
Godly I have to rewind and listen to the guest's responses twice to clearly understand 😅he is semi sarcastic, but highly intelligent with wordings. Loveit
Great video. His book sounds interesting.
100 years ago everything we thought we knew we did not know. Now we know aliens exist in the black man was the first man on the planet. It's now on paper documented scientifically. That knowledge still is just a drop in the bucket. The end,
It's amazing how much more in touch with reality Coleman seems than Dr.Tyson who is the most propped up scientist personality of our time.
Propped up how?
@@stanchik25 He doesn't have an answer because he knows he's wrong.
Prattles on for ten minutes about the necessary parameters *he requires* for proof of UFO's, and then says he never has a stance on anything. Then narrowly defines the definition of "stance". Then in the next breath @ 40:03 "I think that people are needlessly distracted by the definitions of words".
Claiming to never have a stance: a smug braggart's disingenuous proof that they never have a wrong opinion. Never has my high esteem for an indiviual diminished so quickly. It's telling that Neil's disposition completely changes after Coleman showers him with praise, and only then can they have an amiable discussion.
You music is FIRE 🔥 I’m actually shook rn
I see the comments regarding NDT's communication style. And yes, he has always conversed in a manner that many people interpret as rude by constant interruptions. Though true to an extent, it's not his intention to be rude. NDT is extremely intelligent, and when he is presented with a question, he is compelled to give an answer that encompasses all his knowledge on that topic. One of his priorities or passions is to bring science to the people in a way that can be understood by all. Another way of saying it would be to say his tendency to talk over or interrupt is nothing more than his excitement, his passion to teach. I have always enjoyed listening to his interviews, speeches, or presentations. He approaches every topic in a down to earth style. He's a matter or fact type of guy. If you ask him a question, he wants to answer that question completely without being questioned before doing so. Something else he does, or I should say, doesn't do is allow himself to be pulled into discussing conspiracy theories or pseudo sciences. He is a scientist at heart and soul. He uses everyday situations to express his ideas and knowledge, which is far easier, for me at least, to understand and relate that information to my life. He's incredible.❤👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👍🏻👍🏻
The people in the comments section are an excellent example of how overly sensitive humanity has become and how little people listen and think. The majority of the comments have NOTHING to do with what he said, rather they are focused on him as a person and their interpretation of his character based on their own emotional experiences. There is plenty to be learned IF you are willing to let go of what you think you know to allow another perspective to add to or change your mind on certain things hence him not taking stances. (he made that explanation quite clear, but people chose to react emotionally to that too)
He weakens his arguments by being rude and self-righteous.
@@ryanjacobson2508 if what he says makes sense or is correct then rudeness and arrogance won't change that. Again its your perception and sensitivity that has you viewing him from an emotional standpoint rather than. LISTENING to what he says.
@@emmanueloverrated explain
@@emmanueloverrated I agree with what you said about technology basically dumbing society down. AI right now is the worst thing for a society of people who don't think.
NDT, the most difficult man to converse with in the cosmos.
Ironic that he has this whole spiel about communicating science.
@@JJ0n3z exactly
If you're too dumb just say that lol
Great interview! You have my subscription
As a 54 y/o NYC Born 🇩🇴 American I have tears of joy that two Afro Latinos had this quality conversation.
I listened to this hoping Coleman would challenge NDT on his STANCE on Covid vaccinations...but the conversation always took different directions.
Why Tyson's expertise is in astrophysics. He is good communicator but he can't speak with anything but general opinions on Covid.
lol Why would you want that? He could only tell you generalities about life and how to act in a polite society - he's not involved in medical science what-so-ever.
An expert in public communication interacts with a good faith interviewer with condescension, strawmanning, interruptions, and yelling. This is the way to convince audiences. It is known.
Soon as yall started talking aliens I was like here we go 🤣 way to bring the interview back.
Instead of "Conversations with Coleman" this was "Lectures with Neil deGrasse Tyson"
loved it. i adore neil degrasse tyson
🤮
Used to like & respect Neil. He was trying to put Coleman in his place the entire interview. Neil came off as smug, arrogant, rude & hyper defensive. Completely unnecessary. Done with him. Coleman was all class!
How can we go through earth above and their a shield when, their water above and below? please explain this.
New Sub. Xcited to be here.🙏🏾
This dude is living evidence that it is possible to be hyper intelligent and not wise at all. He comes across as petty, competitive, arrogant and presumptious.
I have begun to question his intelligence the last few years, the more interviews I hear him do the less intelligent he appears to be
@@AllenDickenson He might be very smart but if he is, he's even more lazy.
@@bbllrd1917 he kind of comes off as a peon
Presumptuous is spot on, he seems to constantly incorrectly assume what other people are thinking.
@Flain not trying to make a kitchen table psychology diagnosis (maybe a bit) but mind reading is low key such a cluster B/narccistic personality disorder giveaway (edit: giveaway is too strong. More like a characteristic or typical behaviour).
Lol this guy is kind of a nightmare. Not talking about any of his points of view but just his overall attitude and demeanor. Awesome album coleman
Coleman you handed that nice. Neil you are always highly appreciated.
Time stamp for UAP?
God he’s so touchy. You stay always cool Coleman.
Tyson: “…19th century Anthropology… arguably the most racist branch of science there ever was…” Science matured. Sociology and anthropology were clearly at their infancy in the 19th century. It’s not fair to apply 20/20 hindsight and assume out of the gate science would have the methods and knowledge that we have today regarding the human race, particularly given the pre-existing medieval notions from which science broke away. Imagine if someone heard our own half-baked ideas from when we were 10 and categorized us in our entirety by them.
When he was in college it was STILL that way. This man is over 60 years old. He's speaking from personal experience.
But why? Why is it not “fair to apply 20/20 hindsight?” To say that “Sociology and anthropology were clearly at their infancy” is a classic racist talking point. It’s a fact. They were wrong. Their judgments were immoral and unethical. There were no assumptions made only facts. The system was based on a racist racial classification system thus everything that flows from that system is inherently racist.
That doesn’t make his point wrong? It was indeed one of the most racist branches of science
This is a wack excuse for racist behaviour. Funny how you want to explain this away. There is no reason why they needed to have that disposition of superiority but they did. It's okay to talk about it without feeling it's an assault on you.
@@tomsea6017 also the plain audacity to rank themselves on top when they knew very well they (europe and especially western europe) were the last places in the world where civilization emerged. For 1000s of years there were advancements in science in multiple different fields in different parts of the world while europe was just a bunch of hunter gatherers and small time farmers. They knew what they were doing when they decided to rank people.
Good conversation.
Neil deGrasse Tyson did start out a bit defensive and 'splainy, but he chilled out. Some of his views surprised me in a good way, and I thought it was a worthwhile conversation.
Tyson says let AI write the book and then do some error checking on it. How can the human know what is an error and what is not if humans just let the machines know everything so that humans can bask in the sun (with sunscreen, let’s hope)? Will the humans error check a machine-written book using another machine? How do we know the machines won’t be in cahoots with each other? 🧐
One of the biggest life lessons you can learn is realising how most people, either in government or large corporations, are BEYOND incompetent. Hilariously incompetent. If you have spent any medium amount of time working with people you should know this.
It's not even the people, it's the people & it's structures. I've got a thousand pages of correspondence to show for it.
Curious...what would happen if you locked up Neil deGrasse Tyson and Michael Eric Dyson in a room...
Interesting conversation
I feel as though I’ve watched an entirely different interview than 90%of the commenters here. NDT is very animated and values precision in language, but he wasn’t combative. I thought this was a perfectly fine conversation between two smart people with different personalities and perspectives. Not every interaction needs to be boiled down to hero vs villain. What an unproductive attitude.
Neil is disappointing me by not explaining more clearly WHY the idea of aliens visiting Earth is super unlikely. I know why, and so does he, so why not make the point more clearly (he touched on it and then went to something else).
I am an alien. How much more evidence do you need? Take me to Vladimir Putin.
His explanation is clear to me
He chose to focus on the point that people are too easily convinced by limited data.
If you say talk about extreme distances for example conspiracy theorists will just say but they might have invented beyond light speed or worm holes you're then off on a new rabbit hole. Skipping that and simply demanding strong evidence has the added benefit of applying to everything, covid, agw everything.
He did give a explanation but he communicated it very poorly. I’ve only seen deGrasse recently having heard about him for many years (I’m not American) and have been surprised by how poor such a famed science communicator is at communicating.
His main argument is based on the poverty of the evidence. If there really is visitation, why is the best evidence no more than blurry video of black smudges filmed by military aircraft? Why is there no better footage from elsewhere captured by all the billions of smartphones (from the ground or aircraft)?
It’s unlikely that aliens with advanced technology would have a special interest in our military bases.
The most likely hypothesis is foreign spy drones surveilling our military facilities, and whose speed, size and distance is misjudged by pilots, which is easy to do if visually assessed flying over water. There are lots of unsubstantiated claims on the internet of extraordinary speed and manoeuvrability but the only real evidence that’s actually been produced is the blurry footage.
@@jaybo7813 his argument sounds quite logical to me, that’s because, unlike you, I am not searching for confirmation bias. Supposedly, aliens have been visiting the earth for the past 100 years, yet we never managed to get clear images?
I can say after watching this is Coleman has a lot of patience. Neil came across as not only condescending, but kind of simple in his ideas. He seems to just want to talk a lot and never listens.
You need to do chapters homie
How often do civilian smartphones get into Naval airspace?
It's interesting how he made such a strong emphasis on the importance of effective science communication, but he just seems so bad at it in real time. He's acting like everything is a debate. Doesn't feel like he's really listening to the questions, just scanning for key words and angrily rambling on the topic.
Painful to watch, why did Tyson even show up if he was going to act like this.
beautiful episode
17:00 you have to come to where your audience is in order to communicate
Neil can be really hard to listen to
But I'm with Neill on aliens. Seems a big stretch.
Great discussion
I know where Neil’s coming from when he speaks about the racial prejudices he faced earlier in his life. I faced a similar type of condescending racism during the 16 years I lived in China as a Westerner (I’m Spanish). The Chinese tend to treat foreigners as if we were a bit dumb, if only because we can’t speak Chinese at all or not as fluently as the locals (obviously). But the important thing is that most people in China, in the US or anywhere aren’t out to disrespect you intentionally. They’re most often unaware of their own prejudices. You can often prove them wrong by sincerely engaging and showing them that you’re not necessarily dumber bc of the color of your skin, just different. I used to have a chip on my shoulder bc of that. Now I’ve grown more understanding of people’s biases (including my own) and I regret a lot of my frustration over people who had no ill will at all. Looking back, I wish I could apologize to 95% of the people I lashed out to bc I thought they were being racist to me.
I’m not sure Neil is quite there yet. Just take it easy, man. For what I know about America, you’ve come a long, long way in terms of racial equality, and not only legally, but socially and culturally. Perhaps you could give the race issue a bit of a rest and focus more on wealth inequality?