Thank you Curt! I'm so glad that you were mostly silent as a moderator and let this conversation flow. Your inputs were timely and non-intrusive. I am hoping that that you and Eric will collaborate again soon!
@@WizardTerence Cheap comment. Your attitude undermines what Curt is trying to do. This world is made up of all of us. It appears that the 2 hours of golden work is lost on you. This isn't a schoolyard bullying contest. Please be respectful. That's our only hope.
This was a great episode. I love the fact that Curt sits back and let's Eric and Mick carry the show. Only inserting himself to ask what one of them means to make sure his audience doesn't get lost and understands where the conversation is going. Curt is quickly becoming one of the best in this field !
Kurt. You are s great interviewer. The way you stood back and let them go back and forth was PERFECT! Alot of other interviewers people with a podcast simply CANNOT do that due to ego or narcissism. GREAT JOB
36:08 This is classic Eric. He accuses Mick of "throwing out the outliers", and when Mick asks Eric the VERY direct question of "What outliers are being thrown out?", Eric absolutely will NOT answer. Eric is very intelligent. Certainly intelligent enough to understand how to answer an extremely direct question. There's a reason he refuses.
yes! exactly. Thank you for the perfect illustration of Eric's MO. Vague gesturing about things... and when asked a serious question - quickly change the subject, cry foul, anything but engage in normal adult conversation...
at 1:50 as well. eric is asked "exactly who are you taling about" he says "that comes across as playing dumb" and then once again hes asked the exact same question and avoids it again. 2 times in a row on purpose
Thank you so much for this conversation. It actually made me cry. This is how to have honest conversations. I didn’t like Mick West until today. I think his intention is misunderstood and he took criticism with grace. Im grateful for Eric for standing up for those of us who are mistrusting of government and other entities because of having been lied to and manipulated. Thank you to all three of you!
I agree completely. I previously disregarded everything West said in the past because of his "debunker" fame. I think I had him pegged wrong. Weinstein was fantastic and Curt is always fantastic.
I'm so glad this wasn't an ugly fight, I have a bit more hope we can move forward after discussions like this. Kurt, thank you for the show and empathy you show your guests.
@Sal Jefferson What about Mick who passive aggressively suggests that his analyses top those of real scientists and investigators? The pomposity is coming from Mick, not Eric … Mick wants further investigations as long as they conclude to be his hypotheses … Sorry Eric expresses what he really feels; meanwhile, Mick is being the true condescending D … He’s not being truthful when he stated that he wants further scientific investigations.
@Sal Jefferson really? I can't stand mick west. Dude is as two faced as they get. If the evidence is not in his favor he dismisses it. Oh and multiple credible fighter pilots say that they all saw something? Well mick west says it couldn't be. Snake imo
20:00 Eric, c'mon man, he made a little mistake saying that he didn't say "flexing", but then rightfully corrected himself saying that he meant to express something different from the more common use of the term. Chilli chill out
Yea. It shows Eric's emotional issues. He clearly states that he has an emotional connection with this topic and you can see him struggle to try to stay level headed, but when an opportunity presents itself, he collapses. That said, he's still very intelligent and has useful things to say.
TOE Bingo for this week! 0. A lengthy discussion regarding nomenclature and definitions 1. Mick failing to understand Eric’s point and repeating his previous thought 2. Eric explaining GR in far too little detail for the sake of a grander point 3. Eric saying “phenomenon” 4. Mick saying “birds” 5. A disagreement about whether or not trained observer testimony can be considered ‘data’ 6. Curt attempting to ease tensions by casting a spell with his eyebrows Leave yours in replies :)
Upvote. But in some points I think he also has to give credit to Mick on how deep he dove into the matter. Eric himself seems to go over it a bit superficially. I expected they would actually get into details about the pyramid ufos and so on. Mick has a super-compelling argument there, combined with the chilean video which is a plane. When I first saw the chilean video I almost wanted to believe that they intentionally spray us!
@@InTheSh8 Agreed, but Eric as he states is just a newbie, but he’s sees enough substance there for it to raise his curiosity, for anyone who has followed this subject for some time, that’s all we ask for from the scientific community, “Please take an unbiased look at all this, your input is welcome” As Eric pointed out, Mick goes in to this with snark, which voids any meaningful contributions that he has. We’ve had 75 years of ridicule, we don’t need snark we need answers from our representatives.
I am so curious to know the experiences of the people he’s spoken to, because it sounds very convincing. Eric doesn’t seem like someone easily tricked. He hated this topic not so long ago. Also his comments at the end are things that have been on my mind. Is life destined to evolve on one planet and never allowed to physically leave (seeing how much we’re up against regarding gravity, speed of light etc).
@@RedOlympus I am not always a big Mick West fan, and I listen to many podcasts that Eric is on. But I think Eric was quite insufferable in this podcast. It is frustrating that he cant take push back without feeling like he doesn't enjoy talking to the person on the other end of the conversation
That's funny. I took away the complete opposite impression. Eric was patiently explaining how he was not a fan of this subtle self-gratification game that debunkers play in opposition to the alleged "conspiracy nuts". He was direct and didn't mince his words. Would you guys rather have him pretend that he wasn't feeling displeased by his past interactions with Mick and others who produce content along similar threads?
@@SisypheanRoller So I take it you believe the kinds of things Mick West debunks in his videos? The rest of us have a right and responsibility to make stupidity look stupid. If you feel we're too smug about it, then consider how we feel about having someone attempt to vandalize our sense of reality the way Eric and his ilk do. The lying is much more toxic than the smugness.
@@DanielBeddingfield493 You're a real class act. I made no mention of my beliefs and you somehow turned me into some kind of lunatic who must be purged. In any case, what I take issue with is the gall to pretend that, by virtue of being a skeptic, you can trample over people and silence them for having (controversial or otherwise) opinions that don't fit your worldview. If you are of the opinion that humanity has figured out everything there is, then you are part of the problem and by definition not a skeptic. A true skeptic would engage with these people and call out BS while also admitting things where our knowledge is lacking, which doesn't have to be a kooky position. It takes about as much work to prove something to be true as it does to prove it to be impossible. You can be a die-hard skeptic while maintaining a Bayesian attitude to life. Knee-jerk skepticism is just cheap entertainment for people who get off on making others appear stupid.
Eric Weinstein hates debunkers who try to destroy other peoples' character. Eric Weinstein also spent the entire discussion trying to debunk Mick West and destroy his character.
Yes and he succeeded in doing so, putting. Nick in his place, he was completely destroyed , I bet when it was over be must have been thinking ,well I sure fuccezzd up there
The conversation from 19:13 to 20:30 is telling. Mick was very clear in his initial assertion that he enjoys flexing his programming and math skills (not taking down people). Eric's reaction regarding the word "flex" (clearly misinterpreting Mick's statements) shows that he came in with a preconceived judgement against Mick's character. It goes to show how much even an intelligent person can misinterpret an unambiguous statement because of a prior bias.
Eric’s main problem wasn’t the word flex. Although he didn’t like it, ( due to a misunderstanding) his main issue was Mick’s claim that he never used the word flex, and doesn’t even have it in his vocabulary. Which is an obvious falsehood.
@@mcarey94 I disagree. Eric's main issue was he thought Mick was beating up on people online for fun (or "flexing" on them). At 19:43, Eric says "No.. You did say it in the original sense from which the Internet term 'flex' comes from, so I don't think that's even correct." From 20:10 to 20:48, he elaborates heavily on his main problem with Mick, where he again claims that Mick "flexes" on people online for fun. Whether or not Mick used the word "flex" is a minor question of little significance that, as even Eric says, is "at most a misunderstanding. But the feeling of somebody saying 'No you're wrong' and thinking that that's fun..." Mick had originally said he enjoys flexing his programming skills, and he even clarified that he does not use the word "flex" in the second sense (instead simply to mean "stretching"). But as seen in the time range I specified here, Eric still clearly misinterprets Mick's original statement and is unwilling to accept that Mick does not "flex" on people for fun.
@@theoneattop It's almost as if Eric's focus on "flex" shows he's a Wordcell while Mick, who remembers the meaning of what he says, not what he said, is a Rotator. In any event, I get the sense that Eric is bullying to win arguments, while Mick's just trying to understand things.
Wow. I used to have utmost respect for Eric but this was near insufferable his unceasingly putting his knee and full weight on Mick's neck. I feel Eric was trying to gain not only the sympathy from a community he claims to be unfamiliar with and new to but wanting to gain their following by making Mick a bad guy when he seemed quite agreeable and patient for putting up with this. I had no clue of Mick until this interview and wonder just how much Mick is culpable of the accusations that Eric repeatedly pushed. It wasn't until the last 15 minutes that Eric let up and spoke with some self-reflective humility. There is some importance in giving experiencers some respect and a safe space to come forward but also there is a place for "debunking". Sheesh! This was overall painful to endure and could have been self edited to have included the first 10 and last 20 minutes as a complete show. Glad it's over and can't get back most of that 2 hours time in between lost.
@xtian 777 wrote, " I used to have utmost respect for Eric but this was near insufferable his unceasingly putting his knee and full weight on Mick's neck." Ditto. Precisely put. Thanks.
To me it seems Eric got involved in a new bubble post-IDW (that just happened to involve UFOs), got called on some bullshit on Twitter by Mick West, and now he feels uncomfortable and defensive having to justify a mindless Twitter hobby as something more intellectual than it actually is. A bit embarrassing to watch because in a sense he's trying to save face. But it was an entertaining debate.
Curt, you are a fantastic interviewer, you know how to ask expandable questions and, more importantly, when it's better to ask nothing. A fantastic conversation, it is a little sad that Mick doesn't seem to grasp the importance of language and approach when researching this topic. It's not only about holding in your heart that you won't/don't judge, you must shape your language and persona to create the most conducive environment to collect data and come to the best conclusions we can.
Mick West.. was suprisingly, forthcoming, concise and very refreshing. Its not everyones cup of tea i iunderstand but when someone says 'debunker' i had a completely different image.
Then you misunderstood what he said. West claims there has been lack of evidence. Fighter pilot faber and his pilot made visual contact with something, the jet that was paired with him made the same contact they got radar data from their planes or some of other type of telemetry and note the reason why they were even sent up there was because the Ships advanced radar system detected them. But yet West is going to play dumb and say well, Im sure faber thinks he saw x. It was seen by multiple pilots in different plans and captured on Radar. This guy is playing dumb.
@@swagikuro The u.s. military released the videos . Eye witness testimony on 60 minutes from pilots confirmed the video. Witnesses of the ship radar testified. Either this is some vast conspiracy on an order I never heard before or where there is smoke there is fire. I don't know if that is true that Radar was not provided for support.
Perhaps because he's not as bright as he likes to believe? He has this portentous, pompous way of speaking that seems subtly belittling of both the listener and his interlocutor Mick West.
What a fascinating conversation. Firstly, BRAVO to Curt for some outstanding moderation. The whole video is a model of two people with different positions being able to engage with each other in a civil and meaningful way. In the field of UFO study, the approaches of both men are equally valuable: witnesses need to be treated humanely and not stigmatised. And then, their evidence needs to be rigorously stress-tested by a person like Mick West.
The ghost thing is killing me, because I saw one, and then we moved and I ran into someone who I never met, lived in the same house a decade later, and saw the same ghost. It's like, does everyone need to see a ghost for people to believe....yes they do, and if they did, do you think Eric wouldn't believe his experience, no, he would believe what he saw. It's jarring, I closed my eyes and said, "this can't be real" opened my eyes again and there she was....still sitting in my bedroom
What did it look like ? Did you get a feeling it was evil or good? I want to believe this stuff so bad. I'm not necessarily saying I want to experience it first hand. I don't know maybe from a distance though
That's the problem with "I don't believe in X" just bc it sounds silly. I mean, I've never seen a ghost nor have I seen any convincing evidence to make me think they're real, but I am 100% agnostic on the subject. There is so much we don't know and understand, it's truly arrogant to say "I don't believe in X" just based on your gut feeling
@@brianredban9393 it felt utterly terrifying, but no malevolence, just a massive adrenaline rush. I dared not move for fear the thing might interact with me. It was a kindly looking old woman sitting and knitting, translucent. Oddly, it was translucent yes, but like a 2D representation, you know I couldn't see her organs or the "other side", which is an interesting fact about translucent ghost sightings.
I concur. In my youth, I took a job at a funeral home. And as a young cocky kid, I didn’t believe in ghosts, as I thought it foolish. This inevitably changed the day that I had an experience with a spirit. The fear and denial that I felt on that day and for many years to follow, felt like a burden that I could not speak about openly. Since then, I’ve had multiple sightings or experiences, and now, although I can’t explain it, I know it to be true, and apart of this reality.
This is my favorite TOE episode of all time...and for so many reasons! I could listen to Eric talk for hours. Curt's self-berating rant was so incredibly sincere that it tugged at my heart strings.
TOE is SO underrated. Rather than giving me a picture to paint by numbers (as most) Curt gives us the paint and an open cavass on which to expand our consciousness and ideas.. I love it. so sincerely!
Eric drops a lot of implicit emotional payloads and doesnt work from the ground up in terms of his communication, so youre only on his team if you're already on it, because he doesn't help you get there. Unless you're a bit afraid of the weight of his words. He has mentioned "destroying people" and I get how that is increasingly possible with a large "team" behind you, but the ease (and the payoff) of imparting this destroy-people motive to individuals, that itself is suspect, and has a destroy-people potential. So it points to this larger issue of recognizing vulnerability and risk, and whether we can bind ourselves to non-destructive motives, and renounce the incentives and payoffs of "destruction" (literal or figurative). But we've noticed the flipside of destructive behavior is "weaponized vulnerability" which involves stoking outrage and overinflating belief that someone else's behavior is destructive in nature or intent, thus causing a destructive backlash against them, or at least controlling them out of fear of destruction. It's a very elaborate group dynamic, dealing with power(s) and vulnerabilities and lots of mindgames and guesses. To be factual and humble in this game is probably to get lost and ignored and dismissed in layers of noise. I dunno. Eric so anxious vibing to me, doesn't have peacemaking resolution seeking in him.
A conversation with Eric looks like one with my ex-wife - never summarize what he said, you will never use the correct descriptive words - his words only.
Well put. I found Eric rather obnoxious and off-putting here. And he didn't say much of substance then continues to fall back on "well I'm new in studying this phenomenon."
@@pdubdesigns8961 I'm not gonna judge him, I can relate. The 'vibe' I getis he's hurting, feeling pressure, tense inside, his voice is coming from his nasal passage. Thing is, some of us choose our words very carefully, not only for the purpose of accuracy, but also... because we don't want to be held accountable for another's Interpretation of what we said. Yeah, OK, that'sall me. But maybe he can relate.
He’s emotionally charged for sure. I get the impression that Eric hasn’t spent much time around Brits. That’s just how we approach things, from a place of humour. Yeah we can take it seriously but make a joke about it as well.
Mick West -- who comes across very well in this interview -- plays a vital role in the UFO debate by finding alternative and prosaic explanations for UFO phenomena. I find it surprising that this single individual is perceived as so threatening by many in the UFO community. He's very pleasant and does not appear to attempt to demonise anyone let alone attempt to prevent any person from investigating UFOs.
@@Prod-23 I understand what you mean. Personally, I'm fascinated by the UAP topic and want all our governments to tell us everything they know. However, I don't think West is providing cover for the government to continue hiding what they know. I think he's just doing what a good sceptic should do, and question the claims others make and provide alternative information.
@@reviewreview6298 I've no time for them. The historical nature of "Debunkers" in this topic is hideously ugly. The term is unbelievably loaded, peoples lives and professions have been destroyed by "Debunkers". Anyone coming into UFOs, labelling themselves a Debunker and then wondering why people like Cahil don't want to talk to them says it all. "Debunker" is both a statement of intent and a position, all wrapped up in one term. I've found that certain character types gravitate to being "Debunkers" and they are generally pretty arrogant people to be honest. Mick comes across to as such too.
Eric is constantly frustrated that Mick isn’t the caricature that he’s built up in his head. He was orders of magnitude more rude, dismissive and condescending than Mick. Eric is an intellectual bully that embodies the physical manifestation of the word “bloviation”
Eric totally misunderstood when he tried to claim Mick likes to "flex". It's very obvious he said flex his muscle with the math, (practice his math skills). Eric is talking about his "feelings" and used the word "dumb" a lot.
That's exactly how I interpreted Mick's comment too. I enjoy mathematically modelling systems. If I don't have one that I need to model, sometimes I like looking at a problem and modelling it just to "flex my muscles".
Mick West is stuck. His action to deny everything is how he makes his money. So he puts himself in a position no matter what, it’s going to have to be skepticism . And Eric Weinstein is brilliant, when he brought up some of the governments dark past that sounds insane but is unfortunately true. And knowing what the CIA ,FBI, etc. has done in past has made me not believe in the government and believe in the opposite. And that’s where Eric and I have the same view. I’ve notice Mick West is not being the hardcore skeptic he is. Eric has him shook. About Air Traffic Controllers, just recently they want you to report them, before then your job as a pilot would be in jeopardy.Cause you would be labeled a mental case. I’m so glad you put this together Curt. Great job . I was so excited to see this as I was just browsing RUclips. Keep up the great work Curt.
From what I have read of Mick West, making money from this subject is not likely a motivation. He's been very successful in far more remunerative fields then doing podcasts.
Curt you’re such a phenomenal host. I’ve never seen someone as good at listening, not interrupting, and only stepping in when necessary. I don’t know if it’s a lack of ego thing, or just your own curiosity that makes you want to just listen without interjecting excessively, but you’re _literally_ an exceptional host.
Hello Curt. I struggled with the beginning of the video as I am always fearful that Eric may get to a point of serious irritation with other parties (I usually agree with his irritation but I am much more "diplomatic") - I do absolutely enjoy Eric's being. I now got past my fear and sitting on edge watching him being as calm as Eric could be in this situation. You have an enormous amount of guts to be in the middle of this 'Eric irritation phenomenon'
Mick simply investigates reports to see if his experience and knowledge can help get to the bottom of what is really happening. Just because some things turn out not to be exotic and can be easily explained is not Mick's fault. There is no ridicule; I think that because Mick explains it as matter of fact offends people and they read it as being condescending. Mick's videos are an excellent display of rational problem solving we can all learn something from. Stop destroying the problem solvers.
Well I think Eric is at the point where he believes a radical new fundamental physics is humanity’s only hope for survival. When you understand that motivation things make a bit more sense. We must prove Einstein non fundamental and use the new physics to get some of us off the planet or we go extinct. That’s basically where he’s at. We really don’t have much time to do this so you can understand the frustration when you understand that’s what he believes.
Oh my god thank you thank you thank you. It's so demoralizing to see people taken in by Eric's self-centred persecution complex - and because Mick is patient and mature and less bombastic, people going on tone not substance think that Eric carries the day... Mortifying.
@@maggiehoness Eric is operating under a peculiar set of assumptions, and it is the logical consequence of those assumptions that results in his hostility towards Mick. IF it was true that there were these unexplainable mysterious phenomena being covered up, then Mick would either be A) an agent of the cover up, or B) an unwitting dupe who is doing their work for free. IF it's (A), then he's a bad guy, and deserves to be challenged and called out for his nefarious efforts to "destroy" innocent people who just saw something they shouldn't have seen etc. Hence, Eric's hostility. IF it's (B), then he's ignorant and (worse, in Eric's mind) insubordinate. Eric insists that he has "credible intelligence" from people who are "reputable" and important and blah blah blah... In other words, Eric is at the vanguard of a great adventure unfolding... people are coming forward and letting him in on their experiences. He's getting the inside scoop. And Mick is just not taking Eric seriously when Eric says this. (Because, in reality, it's actually NOT serious, and Mick understands exactly what's happening. Eric is getting taken in by people who are expert at roping people in...). You might think Eric would pity Mick for being a dupe, but the insubordination piece is what prompts the hosility. He's furious that Mick is just not deferring to Eric's cartoonish worldview...
Absolutely fucking phenomenal episode curt. I have to be honest I fell into the anti mick west camp for quite a bit, but seeing him talk and understanding his perspective makes me dramatically reconsider how my judgement effects my opinions. I’ve gained a great deal from this podcast, I deeply thank you.
@@Swadaable my initial view was that mick west was some sort of almost pseudo troll with how outlandish his debunks were. Some people claiming his debunks are more mental gymnastics than the conspiracy itself. I didn’t find him in this presentation to be overtly out to discredit anything necessarily. Rather he seemed quite willing to be fair when assessing potential evidence. Not saying his claims aren’t outlandish but I can understand his intentions (I think) better.
Love this theolocution format, especially from the starting frame you're using of having the participants state what they respect about each other. Great starting point for productive conversations. While this conversation had its share of conflicting discord, I felt it was extremely productive and synergistically beneficial in a way that a typical 'debate' style is not. Job well done Curt. Would be incredible to see both of these gentlemen take a shared Skinwalker trip as a result.
Professional debunkers are as open minded as Westboro baptist church members. People like Mick West already know all the answers, he already knows what's possible and what's not, he's not searching for anything.
I realized a while ago that the UFO subject is full of crackpots. Crackpot believers and crackpot skeptics. Crackpot skeptics are dogmatic and believe things without any information or even looking at the data or information.
I appreciate Mick’s work, and I like to see his ingenious attempts at explanations. But anyone paying the slightest attention knows that his expectation for a non-mundane explanation is effectively zero.
Just looking at the probability alone, it is very unlikely all of these claims are actual alien crafts. Having a strong skepticism when approaching such a topic is actually a smart way to do it. These claims are pretty wild, so the onus is on the people making them to provide proof if they are expecting people to belive them. The fact that there are so many claims and no actual agreed upon hard evidence proving UFOs definitely exist is why people are so skeptical of the claims. Personally I do feel like there must be other smart beings out there but I have yet to see any video which proves it to me. Some are very intriguing but 99% of them can be explained away as something else.
The reason Jacque Vallee has come to his conclusions is because he is extraordinarily well versed in the breadth and depth of subject and has utilized the discipline of science to arrive at his perspective. To dismiss his point of view is to be inherently unfamiliar with the science that brought him there. Mick West doesn’t know the full subject. I doubt he has read a single book by Jacque Vallee or J. Allen Hynek.
Great discussion with two great minds. However, I have two problems with Eric's position: 1) I'm not sure Eric understood (at least at the beginning) that Mick isn't trying to mock or "defeat" the UFO community. Mick doesn't have some larger agenda. He's simply trying to offer explanations for specific videos that have been widely circulated around the internet as "definitive proof" of unexplained technology. I find his videos incredibly informative on the subject of optical effects and camera technology, among other things. 2) Eric seems to believe that people who claim UFO sightings are generally stigmatized and bullied by a larger, non- believing community. I mostly disagree. I've actually found the opposite to be true, at least in 2022. Not only do about half of Americans believe in UFOs with alien origins, but it's skeptics that present more plausible (and boring) explanations that suffer the most criticism, especially on social media. Skeptics are often seen as the wet blanket, the Debbie Downers who ruin the party. That's why you see Mick getting a bit confused and defensive when Eric brings this up in the conversation. If anyone is getting attacked or ridiculed its people like Mick.
I assume Eric is talking about how it’s stigma for scientists to take the exotic explanations as viable theories and explore them. I think Eric is talking about his circle of people.
Mick was respectful and clear. Brett came off as defensive and condescending and as always meanders around, with much name dropping, taking his time, and everyone else’s too, eventually and reluctantly getting to the point.
Eric is just a Man child who wants Everybody to be in his limited little echo chamber. I find him very rude, arrogant and abrasive. Well done Mick West.
This was the best podcast on UFOs I’ve seen, and Ive seen a lot. I’m actually quite startled on Eric Weinstein’s change of mind based in his evaluations of other people’s experiences, because his interview with Hal Puttof was quite aggressive! And also Mick West has become very likable in this episode. Amazing conjunction Curt. Great job.
The 1 with dr puttof was great watching Eric confront a man who personafys the to thing he repeatedly clames to have avoided in his professional career, ufos and remote viewing. Love Eric but you could litraly see him mentaly squirming. I find it all to be fasinating but mr west gives me that "the world is 5000 years old" vibe i get from my extremely intelligent uncule who ternd evangelical, no everdence will shake a deep seeded belief. Good interview.
@@yesnomaby Why does your uncle believe the world is 5,000 years old? That wouldn’t make any sense even while using biblical history. According to Biblical history there were many generations who lived for approximately 1,000 years each. How could the world be 5,000 years old if that were to also be true?
@@Sapientiaa pass & thats kinda my pont it makes no sence, i gave up attempting to comprehend there line of logic years ago when he was making an argument that dinosaur bones had been put here by jessus to test peoples faith.
@@yesnomaby He could just say that dinosaurs along with other living organisms (mainly plants) were put here for fossil fuels as a step for advancement; his arguments are hilarious. LOL
@@Sapientiaa i know its alittle sad but what ever helps some one sleep at night is ok with me, but when one starts dragging people into there delusion buble thats when it becomes problematic. I like not knowing makes it more exciting having no fixed beliefs just a sliding scale of approximation and probabilitys. Much love 🤝
So enjoyable to watch the interaction between these two. They are both okay being disagreeable to each other at the reward of learning something they didn’t know before. They both have egos and are quite smart with lots of experience… as many are. But this is a wonderful example where they are wise enough to realize there are more than two sides-to any issue. This world is complex, misunderstood, evil, and wonderful but with patience and love, a lot of good can be done. Thanks Curt, another great episode. However, please let me know the remainder of your question and the response… :)
@@WardenOfTerra Everyone *should* have some ego as it helps argue points we believe are important for ourselves or others. I wouldn't say either are egotistical though... just that they have self-esteem, and are aware of themselves, and how self-understanding has helped formed their beliefs.
Absolutely RIVETING show Curt. Your serious-minded Ufo/UAP discussions are by far, the best I have ever listened to. Two great guests, both being respectful. What a breath of fresh air. Love ya Curt!!! 🇨🇦
Thank you Eric Weinstein for spending your human time on this video. I really think this will be one of the formal videos for trying to prime new minds to get onboard with trying to understand how much disinformation is pushing the creative minds off from this topic. Curt, keep doing your thing!
@@nrrgrdn To be "Devil's advocate" here... It certainly felt pretty aimed from my perspective. Also, this is my 1st exposure to Mick. That, written... From what I gather & admittedly as a fan of Eric's (he IS the reason I'm even watching), Mick is a, seemingly, self-admitted person of the strictly-factual and provably-evident. If he does NOT stray from that into criticality, then perhaps Eric was exaggerated. However, based on what I've seen of Weinstein, I doubt his pointedness to be absolutely foundless.
Weinsteins recent past attempt to claim he's found a unifying theory of everything while telling physicist it's their problem when they ask him questions, tells me he thinks he's the smartest guy in the room.
Wtf are you talking about...mick tried to gaslight Eric at the beginning of the conversation with the whole flex thing. It passed me off just listening. Mick is a disingenuous blow hard
@@nrrgrdnwell, that’s a fair evaluation of behavior in this specific setting. But if you don’t ask a question about - or didn’t hear Eric cite - Mick’s behavior that essentially compelled this debate, then you’re leaving out a massive element of what it would take to reconcile it convincingly. On the other hand, you might have looked, or eventually look into Mick’s normal conduct, determine it to be perfectly fine and come away with the same conclusion. But you’d be more certain.
I really enjoyed this conversation and thanks Curt for letting it run in a way that many other hosts wouldn’t. Hadn’t expected Eric to be so abrasive because I’ve always found Mick to be extremely polite and respectful and his perspective has always helped me to keep my beliefs grounded whenever they’re prone to fly too far and too fast. I don’t think Mick needs to moderate his style nor should he get back in his corner - as if that’s going to unleash a wave of credible UAP reports and academic investigators who’ve been cowed into silence by Metabunk! On the other hand I always love to hear Erics perspective on almost anything and his points about respecting different communities perspectives was an interesting one.
Eric on the verge of tears throughout the interview that someone disagrees with him. Says Mick should stop doing what he's doing because he makes people cry. Fcking cringe
Three human beings I have the utmost respect for. Thank you for this Curt, astonishing conversation. I feel for Mick as I side with his humour and dismissiveness as someone who has been engaged with this subject for decades now. I also side with Eric as his fierce intelligence consistently unsettles me on such a broad scale that it's near impossible for me to decipher his macro point at times. I also appreciate Eric's point that stigma needs to be removed yet I'm not sold that the responsibility should land on Mick so hard. Seems to me that both (conversation) artists got their word in and both appreciated each other's ability to converse so brazenly. Thank you all so much, this was/is a wealth of wits. Cheers!
Yes, it's a fascinating conversation. I think the positions of both men are very valuable in getting to the bottom of the UFO mystery. Witnesses should be welcomed and not stigmatised. They should not have to pay a social or professional price for reporting an experience that they genuinely feel was real. And then their evidence should be vigorously examined and stress-tested to find out the explanation for what happened to them.
This was a well-served breakfast for Eric. From a socionics view, his personality has the natural supervisor role towards people like Mick. Not only does he have a swift way of thinking but also thinking that takes into consideration the feelings of the collective, the stigma and censorship. Mick cannot outwit Eric nor can just carelessly hide behind pure thinking and realism. Eric's criticism ranges from telling Mick not to gatekeep the discussion, to not dismiss outright, to be less rigid, and they all truly stand. Hope Mick learns a lot from this discussion. This is also a great showcase of Eric's evolution on the topic, his maturity and open-mindedness. This is extremely welcome to both ufological and general scientific communities, even humanity as a whole, with this topic potentially having humanity-reaching implications. Eric is not without his criticism and sometimes he falls into his own criticism, has some virtue signalling and an unstable ego, but the effect of it is nothing compared to the negative effect of previous approaches of the scientific community, governments and even Mick on this topic.
Interesting, I got the opposite. Eric came to the table with an 'I'm smarter than you' attitude and a single talking point. When Mick disagreed or pushed back, Eric could do nothing but simply restate is position in different words. Eric fired his one shot and then had nothing else to bring to the table. Literally the whole of the last hour was Eric saying the same thing over and over again.
Whilst I usually enjoy listening to Eric, I feel that he didn’t add anything new, he simply goes on an on (and on) about being “nice” to people who have - apparently - seen ufo. Mick seems to take a science based approach and find answers. That’s science. I’d rather have the truth than manage feelings. Eric seems happy to ridicule certain paranormal phenomena but the ufo topic is to be handled with kit gloves. Why does Eric get to decide who is called “silly”. You can’t have it both ways.
I think the problem people have with Mick is that he thinks every case can be explained. People aren’t going to feel comfortable telling someone their story if they know that your ultimate conclusion will be something different than theirs. His goal is find a solution inside the box and their trying to explain how the solution is actually outside of it.
Yeah mick is a skeptic. He just makes some clearly irrational and invalid conclusions about things. And I think everyone has just been so caught up in being polite to really drive that point home.
Exactly this. Mick stated in this interview that he does not start with the intention of debunking something but even in this TOE discussion you can see his starting point with some of the scenarios raised by Eric are that of scepticism, shaking his head, smirking, laughing. Those are not initial reactions of someone who has an open mind.
@@Yewbzee Yes exactly. When he first stated “Nono, I don’t start at a conclusion,” but then proceeded to betray that position throughout the discussion was very revealing. I’m surprised more people aren’t talking about this in the comments. I don’t have respect for Mick
@@th600mike3 the problem with Mick’s approach is if something seems improbable based on humanity’s current understanding of physics, tech or mathematics he aims to automatically rule it out or debunk it. Yet for example some of the most preposterous theories of quantum mechanics have eventually been shown to be valid experimentally. Based on this behaviour you can only come to the conclusion that he is very narrow minded.
Erics interview style is awful and rude/aggressive yet he feels upset by Mick West who has always been clam, polite and knowledgeable! Eric sounds incredibly unscientific!
Glad to see these two respectfully hash out their differences. From the beginning you can tell that they are cut from the same cloth and I can see them doing some extraordinary research together. We should always question our truths and what we see while always being open to the possibilities of the extraordinary.
I also find that Eric ironically is trying to debunk Mick as a person who has an honest interest in something as sinister. It’s a shame. I think he’s misunderstood Mick’s position and just ploughs on without really listening to Mick because he’s already decided he doesn’t really like him.
I don’t think he misunderstood Mick by one iota , there was an arrogance right from the start with West , as regards lack of proof maybe, but it’s as well to Remember. Absence of Evidence Is not Evidence of Absence Fact
My issue with West is with his delivery and approach. There’s an arrogance and dismissal that’s hard to get past. I tend to avoid his analysis due to this. I’m probably missing out on some good insight from his research, but it’s hard for me to get past.
Damn Eric is like "You say you're sorry." and Mick is like "Ok sorry" and Eric is like "Now say you're a jerk." Eric was quite adamant here, but I do ultimately agree with his point about the skeptic mindset being very limited and not good at perceiving anything that is not right in front of its nose.
I don't see skepticism as a negative. Rather it is ESSENTIAL to science. Without it, people can proclaim anything as true, and science becomes a religion, or at least dogma.
It struck me that this conversation at its core was a clash in fundamental world views. Mick is thoroughly ensconced in scientific materialism, while Eric is intuitively open to a non-materialist view. I would like to see a conversation with Mick, Bernardo Kastrup, and someone like Diana Pasulka, or possibly Jacques Vallee, that delves into the philosophical foundations of the topic. Pasulka or Vallee would have a much broader knowledge of specific UFO cases, and could also speak to a non-materialist interpretation.
I just don’t see Mick West’s level of importance deserving of the attention and conversation amongst the aforementioned; Mick is just another version of Micheal Shermer; though Shermer has gotten more notoriety. But intellectually, I didn’t get any sense of higher thinking from Mick; his narrative is predictable and uncontrollable.
I struggle with Eric Weinstein. His allure is obvious and he's bound to be popular. He's intriguing. But why on Earth does any sensible person take him seriously?
It's simple: He wants a new physics, a Post-Einstein physics that allows us to travel faster than the speed of light so we can find new planets to live on. He gets annoyed that everyone else in the world isn't developing that new Physics for him, even though he's the only one that believes in it. His obsession with the UFOs is based entirely on this desire for a new Physics, which is pointless, because you can either develop this new science, or not, and it's irrelevant whether UFOS are aliens or not. You could just as easily use The Physics of Fairies or Angels as inspiration for your new science, but you're still going to have to build it.
@@rianzogwhat interview did you see? The one I saw was a pseudo intellectual (West) debating an actual intellectual (Weinstein). The “triggered” or irritated reactions by Dr. Weinstein were justified; it’s called “incredulity”.
"This decision tree has no boring branch." What great concise way to explain to someone who may not get this topic. Not talking about Mick, just in general.
The only thing is that I don't understand what is meant by "the decision tree". They keep using it - but I honestly can't work out what that phrase refers to.
@@Midwinter2 They just mean that whatever path you go down, trying to explain what the phenomenon is, you are probably going to find something extraordinary. Edit: Wanted to clarify. A ufo decision tree you can imagin as the ufo question at the base of a tree with many branches. And each branch is a possible solution to the question. And they all are interesting. And could lead to great discoveries.
@@Midwinter2 Glad I could help. But I'm not entirely sure I explained accurately. I think I did good enough, but I'm not a formally educated person. So if i got it wrong, someone please chime in.
I think that Eric is a great example of how to be an open minded skeptic. Skepticism is important, but when Mick so confidently makes blanket dismissals of eyewitness accounts as fatigue hallucinations, misidentification, etc. it's missing the open-mindedness we need to encourage people to report encounters without fear of ridicule.
Are you sure that's what you saw? Eric seemed pretty emotional and defensive. There was a lot of projecting negative intentions and attitudes onto Mick and other "debunkers". He really latched onto that. He got bizarrely fixated on the word "flex" when it clearly meant the satisfaction that comes from solving puzzles. You know, like: exercising feels good because you flex your muscles, actually use your body to it's capacity; mental challenges feel good because you "flex" your neurons, actually use them to their capacity. Pretty straightforward for most normal people to completely understand what Mick was obviously saying. But Eric - no... Jumps on it and complains for 10 minutes as if he just caught Mick red-handed saying he loves stomping on the little people who dare ask questions...
@@jimhobbs3792 that is true. I did appreciate that, and in all fairness I was impressed with the host for making multiple attempts to bridge the divide, and with Eric for moderating his accusations at least a little... given what he believes, I think sincerely but mistakenly, it must've been incredibly hard for him and I think anyone in that circumstance would have a hard time not falling into being abusive.
Eric is an angry guy and it showed. This was not simply an exchange of ideas. This was Eric superimposing his view that the Government is lying to us. He's not even aware enough to know that this isn't what Mick debunks.
@@dingai Totally agree. Eric comes across as a typical “get off my lawn” curmudgeon who was unnecessarily confrontational. Very often I flat out don’t like him. He also comes across to me as someone who thinks he’s always the smartest person in the room. I like his brother a lot better because Bret seems so much more humble.
Unfortunately it is not us as in future Humans, the evidence shows that they are a completely separate biological species separate from humans that are building and flying these unknown aircrafts. I live in a hotspot with regular activity, I have seen their craft a lot and up close in personal way to close for comfort. I have not seen the occupants myself however but I have studied the topic heavily for the past 15 years and listened to thousands of eyewitness testimony and nearly every UFO documentary on the internet. It’s right in our faces and us humans are ignoring it as a whole. I do believe the ETs are going to force the disclosure on their own terms.
@@allthingsparanormal4109 What I was pointing out was that Eric is at least open-minded enough to explore this....he is without a doubt one of our most prominent thinkers of our time...and his brother Brett as well....Brett is more eloquent with his opinions I might add. What I like about Eric is that he doesn't pull any punches.
@@randster64 you are 100% correct. Him taking the topic seriously and keeping an open mind is a big deal. If only the other scientists would follow suit.
@@allthingsparanormal4109 Agreed....Michio Kaku...is another one too but he's kind of commercialized....I think Eric is well grounded and looks at things from a skeptical but open-minded perspective
@@randster64 Absolutely, I think Michio Kaku knows it is Aliens, he all but says it is, but it is more professional at this time to remain neutral. He is another one helping drive the scientific community to looking into this. And Avi Loeb.
I always feel like Eric is trying to get a conversation started that nobody is ready to have. Love listening to him talk even tho I have mostly no idea.
Few do. I've watched several of his interviews and talks. He speaks from his own patently private stream of consciousness, and after about ten minutes, you're thinking, either the guy's so brilliant that nobody can keep up with him, or he's an unhinged, rude, bully, as he demonstrated here, and it's a clear case of The Emperor's New Clothes. Personally, I'm favoring the latter. There's nothing about the world Weinstein occupies that requires an enforcer, as he seems to fancy himself. I felt sorry for West and Jaimungal looked like he was wondering how he got duped into thinking this was ever going to go well. I got out after about an hour, but that's an hour of my life I'll never get back. Damn. I could have taken a nap.
Should be a good discussion. I think the main difference between them is Mick's obsession with what you could call "pre-epistemic judgement." In other words, slotting a phenomenon into a category well before sufficient evidence is gathered (and, no, grainy videos are not even close to sufficient). Of course, we all do these sorts of judgements to some degree. It's mainly to avoid wasting time on pointless pursuits. However, when applied to purported phenomenon interacting with military pilots, nukes, and taken seriously up the ranks of multiple CIA/DIA directors, secdef, senate intel, congress, former presidents, international agencies... If acting logically, there has to be a point when the desire to not waste time is overshadowed by the desire to fully investigate a phenomenon, unfettered by preceding judgements. I'd say we're well past that threshold. We've certainly spent a lot of time and money chasing down rabbit holes in theoretical physics with even less direct evidence. Which is fine, if not necessary. I just think it's worth being consistent in scientific pursuits.
But Americans are insane, right up to government. Can't trust a single witness statement. Still zero evidence of any credibility. Zero. Its all for show for chins, I'm sure mick will explain. And as for the historical stuff, name me one that's credible... I fear for the US.
I agree, much of the last twenty years of physics theoretical/Astro has been founded on fart huffing pedants basement dreams. This is just the first time in history we have a mostly international long form, forum for discussion.
Not the UK has said not a thing about all this. Its just the latest technology being tested and mind games for the benefit of adversaries. Happens every 20 years or so... there's barely any evidence of alien spaceships visiting earth, just mad stories. There's all sorts of stuff up in the sky, the most credible weird stuff studied in the sky for me is in Norway. Hessdalen.
Eric didn’t come across as particularly intelligent to me in this interview. I felt he struggled to keep up with Mick & started throwing out bad arguments. Really felt like Mick was being polite and wasn’t wanting to absolutely destroy Eric’s arguments for the sake of not escalating.
I politely disagree , I think Eric is pointing out that great achievements have been wrought by outliers , who had a different perception than than the whole group. They had to deal with a whole society ridiculing them. , and certain people reveling in that . Actually taking glee when they felt “better than “ or “smarter than “ the equivalent of school yard bullying. Eric was taken aback when he saw this displayed.. he called it out . Which part did he have trouble keeping up with ?
Weinstein was just an a-hole for an hour. He reminds me of the drunk guy that starts roping you into his conversation at the bar and no matter how much you shake your head and say “yeah man, you’re right” he hauls off with another “nah nah listen, listen man, listen, nah, listen”. Honestly scary. I can only imagine Weinstein patching holes in his wall every time he’s had a few.
Definitely one of the most amazing podcasts I've seen on this topic! Thanks for setting this up Curt! These two people perfectly represent the cognitive dissonance I feel in my mind. I tend to agree and nod heavily at both of their opinions on different arguments.
J. Allen Hynek went from debunker to being convinced because of the depth and quality of the hard scientific evidence. The science brought him there - & the eye witness accounts were only part of the evidence. I suspect if Mick West genuinely pursued the evidence he would be equally convinced one day.
well said. the shallowness of Mick West's knowledge is striking. combine that with his near certainty that this can't have a component of "other" really lowers my respect for his meta thinking skills.
@@JM-co6rf I think he is an excellent critical thinker and brings a valuable and grounded perspective to specific videos - but his focus is narrow and his knowledge is shallow and he is as guilty of cultivating his “debunker” brand and persona as the scientist with the Skinwalker Ranch TV show is at finding high strangeness. I’m not sure he is that interested in pursuing the truth as he is at justifying a predetermined bias. He cherry picks the videos he thinks he has a handle on and ignores others. And he is flat out wrong with his analysis of the Omaha sphere.
@Vlasko60 Do you know what the problem with Mick is? The problem is he constantly coming up with the same dumb explainations to every ufo story. Being skeptic or not believing in aliens is fine. But saying stupid shit like, as example what David Fravor saw was another plane or whatever. That's not making any sense what so ever.
Wow I loved the debate between these two! I wasn’t a fan of mick mostly based on the opinions of others in the topic but after this podcast debate I have a newfound respect for him. I viewed him as one dimensional and only trying to debunk but to hear that he’s open minded to all possibilities is very cool. Thank you for your work again Curt!
Every skeptic is open minded, who tells you otherwise is just doing propaganda. Everyone, literally everyone, would love to see aliens or even cryptoterrestrials, ultraterrestrials, multidimensional beings, leaving aside the people that may be scared for religious reasons or that are just xenophobic and hate even another human with a different skin tonality.
Aww poor Eric, Mick's after him. After seeing Eric's interviews on Lex I thought what an amazing person but not so sure now. Wether Mick is right or wrong we must be open to, there are 2 sides to every biscuit. So we must be open to explore both sides. Personally I'd love Mick to be wrong but he has brought a calm balance to my thinking. 👀
The thing to keep in mind about Eric is that he believes humanity is on the brink of extinction. Lots of smart people think this. Eric is unique in that he thinks a new fundamental physics is the only thing that can save us. Basically we have to get some of us off the planet. If ufos exist then they prove Einstein non fundamental and thus we have a chance. So that might explain his eagerness to want to get her as much data as possible. If you believe new physics is our only hope you’re going to want to go balls out in pursuit of that. At some point you put aside the possibility that Einstein was right because if so we go extinct anyway.
I'm under the impression that these two have never met but that there has been a lot of trash-talking on other platforms. My main take away so far is that one believes in little green men and the other doesn't, but I'm at about the 1/2 mark and I haven't heard (evidence) from either of them yet.
I'd argue that their exchange around 19:00 demonstrates that Weinstein's negative impression of West leads him to interpret West's intentions and actions as being in bad faith. Weinstein interpreted West saying that he's able to flex his programming skills in analyzing UAP footage as meaning that West flexes on UAP experiencers, in the same way that someone would intimidatingly flex their muscles. When corrected by West, who would know what he meant, that it was a misunderstanding, Weinstein goes on about how it makes him FEEL. From the way that Weinstein somberly said "I haven't enjoyed our conversations", It seems to me that Weinstein's feelings have been hurt in his Twitter conversations with West, so Weinstein doesn't view West as having good intentions. At 13:14 West says, "Eventually I kind of settled down in a way on this UFO thing because it's so interesting in terms of the mathematics, the geometry, and the physics, very simple physics, just simple Newtonian stuff, linear algebra and things like that. It's nothing complicated, but it's stuff that I used in my previous career. So I kind of enjoy *flexing* those muscles, and recently I've been enjoying *flexing* my muscles programming simulations." Later, at 19:05 Weinstein says, "...somebody wants to, in your own words, flex. I don't find the flexing fun." West responds, "I didn't say flex." Weinstein: "You did say 'flex'". West: "Well, it's not a word I actually use, so-" Weinstein interrupts, "You might say something about flexing your own muscles." West: "Oh, flexing my muscles, but it's not like 'flex' as in like showboating 'flexing'." Weinstein interrupts, "You did say 'flex'". West: "Yes, I know, but for me 'flexing' actually means the same thing as stretching or exercising--" Weinstein interrupts, "Okay, but right now I just went through exactly one of these moments where I tried to remember something you'd said, and then you told me that you don't use that as a phrase and I happen to be able to recall it." West: "Yes, but in the sense that you mentioned." Weinstein: "No. I think you did say it in the original sense, where the Internet term 'flex' comes from, so I don't think that's even correct. So, my point to you is I don't enjoy the feeling in my body right now, which is I've just contradicted you. You assured me that that's not a term that you use. We had perhaps at most a misunderstanding..." West interjects, "It is a misunderstanding." Weinstein continues, "...but the feeling of somebody saying, no, you're wrong, and thinking that that's fun, your initial description of your activities is a hobby. I don't much care for this as a hobby." For those who aren't familiar, the slang "flex", usually phrased as "flexing on...", means "to purposely brag, or show off something you have" (Urban Dictionary) in a similar way that someone would literally flex their muscles to show their strength or superiority. I think it's clear that West meant "flex" in the typical sense of "to put a (skill, talent, or ability) to use" (Oxford Dictionary), as that's what makes sense in context and it's what West claims he meant. So, Weinstein confidently claimed to know the intentions of West's statement in the face of West telling him he is misunderstood him, then Weinstein cited his personal feelings. Overall, Weinstein misunderstands what West means when he says that analyzing UAP footage, and conspiracy theories broadly, is a hobby of his. Weinstein interpreted that to mean that West enjoys telling UAP experiencers that they are wrong or lying, which is not the case. You can verify this by watching any interview West does with UAP experiencers; he is always respectful and never claims they are lying. West clearly explains that the "hobby" aspect is analyzing specific claims about specific events using the available data. West has explained that a lot of the work of a programmer is actually de-bugging, which shares many similarities with debunking. Both processes involve problem solving including analyzing data, separating relevant data from the irrelevant, identifying logical errors, and attempting to find all possible solutions to those errors. This exchange may seem like an unimportant misunderstanding or miscommunication, but I think it reveals Weinstein's emotional investment in this issue (that he himself claims to not know much about) and his false preconceptions about West. What I would like to see from the rest of this conversation is a logical analysis of the issue, instead of an emotional one... Edit: Nope, Weinstein kept talking about feelings with tangentially related scientific concepts thrown in, but West kept wanting to talk about the EVIDENCE. If anyone reading this has a negative impression of West, but you haven't actually engaged with his analyses in depth, I highly recommend watching his longer videos summarizing his data analysis of specific UAP footage as well as his interviews of UAP experiencers. I think you will see that West is sincerely transparant about his methodology and conclusions. Twitter conversations will always be quippy and contentious, so we need to look at long form conversations to have a complete understanding of the competing arguments and evidence. The truth is out there.
The bulk of almost 3 hours of this conversation is all about stigma. Is Eric's point that nothing should have stigma? Then why is Eric bothered by his surgeon claiming he was abducted by aliens? Does he think people's beliefs matter and have consequences and as such he is using the adaptive social feature we evolved called stigma to make a useful judgment about someone? So assuming Eric believes stigma does serve a useful social function, the point of the conversation should be centered around if the topic of UFOs deserves stigma or not, based on the available evidence. It should have been 3 hours of that. Looking at the evidence. Instead we got a man that admits he wants Einstein to be wrong, so that there's some chance of his own theory being right. So he likes it when he hears stories about physics defying vehicles, but he doesn't like that those stories have stigma. So his whole point Is that we should all get along and not be mean to this particular field, because it's relevant to his interests. And Mick West isn't even mean to people, he's super nice wtf!
Mick is an UAP atheist, and that’s a relatively safe thing to be, right now. As a self appointed gate keeper on this subject, he may do well to encourage other skeptics to maintain a bit of tolerance, and encourage open minded dialogue. What Eric is saying, and I totally agree with, is that ridicule and mockery may force a chance to discover new paths in science out of the picture. Skepticism is ok, and needed, but it should not be a religion.
Eric gives a lot of advise. If he is reading this, here is some advice for you: Try and be less patronising, condescending, aggressive, supercilious and judgemental. It seems to me that you have done very little research into what Mick West does. You are not Mick’s professor and you are not a gatekeeper in any of this. Respectfully, take some of your own advice and reflect on how you interact during debates.
Considering that Mick has literally no idea what he’s talking about and he keeps saying there’s no evidence yet he keeps blatantly, ignoring the undeniable evidence of things like the TicTac incident where these objects were not seen by the pilot with their own eyes, but with multiple methods of view With different technologies all collaborative. That’s just about as good of evidence as you’re gonna find anywhere for any topic yet because it’s for you APs he discredits it. Eric actually is very patient and he’s talking to Mick the same way he talked to Terrence Howard because like Terrence Howard Mick is in over his head and has no clue what he’s talking about.
@@ATFstein 😂 what an incredible way of viewing this. West is an expert at analysing footage - he does this well and has provided a simply explanation. People like you don’t like that and don’t understand what he is saying. Weinstein showed himself to be an angry, pompous buffoon here. He even pretty much admits that West is right all along. If any of this is real then get some footage that proves your case. Don’t blame people like West when they prove you wrong each and every time
My great grandmother could read the future as a party trick for friends and relatives. She stopped doing it in 1912 because all she kept seeing was blood and violent death.
Thank you Curt! I'm so glad that you were mostly silent as a moderator and let this conversation flow. Your inputs were timely and non-intrusive. I am hoping that that you and Eric will collaborate again soon!
Eric is a great guest.
Intellectual. Thoughtful. Not hubristic.
Curt is just great 👍
This was a brilliant chat thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Yes Curt and ERIC,. ....NO MICK !
@@WizardTerence Cheap comment. Your attitude undermines what Curt is trying to do. This world is made up of all of us. It appears that the 2 hours of golden work is lost on you.
This isn't a schoolyard bullying contest.
Please be respectful. That's our only hope.
This was a great episode. I love the fact that Curt sits back and let's Eric and Mick carry the show. Only inserting himself to ask what one of them means to make sure his audience doesn't get lost and understands where the conversation is going. Curt is quickly becoming one of the best in this field !
Agreed though I think sit forward might be a better phrasal verb here! He's quiet but his presence is palpable.
Curt is absolutely one of the best, if not the best in this field. People are just now catching on. : )
@@MacEwanRobert Lex puts his two cents in too much for my liking!
@@MacEwanRobert I love the people Lex has on his show but he sometimes ruins the flow of the conversation trying to put his opinion in too much.
@@loucard4856 agree with you 100%
Kurt. You are s great interviewer. The way you stood back and let them go back and forth was PERFECT! Alot of other interviewers people with a podcast simply CANNOT do that due to ego or narcissism. GREAT JOB
💯
36:08 This is classic Eric. He accuses Mick of "throwing out the outliers", and when Mick asks Eric the VERY direct question of "What outliers are being thrown out?", Eric absolutely will NOT answer.
Eric is very intelligent. Certainly intelligent enough to understand how to answer an extremely direct question. There's a reason he refuses.
...right...because there are too many outliers to list.
yes! exactly. Thank you for the perfect illustration of Eric's MO. Vague gesturing about things... and when asked a serious question - quickly change the subject, cry foul, anything but engage in normal adult conversation...
@@michaeljorden3670 List a few.
at 1:50 as well. eric is asked "exactly who are you taling about" he says "that comes across as playing dumb" and then once again hes asked the exact same question and avoids it again. 2 times in a row on purpose
Thank you so much for this conversation. It actually made me cry. This is how to have honest conversations. I didn’t like Mick West until today. I think his intention is misunderstood and he took criticism with grace. Im grateful for Eric for standing up for those of us who are mistrusting of government and other entities because of having been lied to and manipulated. Thank you to all three of you!
I agree completely. I previously disregarded everything West said in the past because of his "debunker" fame. I think I had him pegged wrong. Weinstein was fantastic and Curt is always fantastic.
Before you change your mind too much he claimed that the Ariel school sighting were hippies pulling up in a BMW. Seriously.
Well said. Very well said. 👍🏻✅💕
@@dougr8646 Are you saying Mick West claimed this?> can you link where he said this please
It made me cry too. I cried tears of boredom listening to these two go back and forth over nothing
I'm so glad this wasn't an ugly fight, I have a bit more hope we can move forward after discussions like this. Kurt, thank you for the show and empathy you show your guests.
@Sal Jefferson What about Mick who passive aggressively suggests that his analyses top those of real scientists and investigators? The pomposity is coming from Mick, not Eric … Mick wants further investigations as long as they conclude to be his hypotheses … Sorry Eric expresses what he really feels; meanwhile, Mick is being the true condescending D … He’s not being truthful when he stated that he wants further scientific investigations.
@Sal Jefferson really? I can't stand mick west. Dude is as two faced as they get. If the evidence is not in his favor he dismisses it. Oh and multiple credible fighter pilots say that they all saw something? Well mick west says it couldn't be. Snake imo
Same. I like both Eric and Mick.
@@roseg2239 how did this come about, were they rivals that I didn’t know about?
@Sweet Music I think they had a Twitter interaction or two.
20:00 Eric, c'mon man, he made a little mistake saying that he didn't say "flexing", but then rightfully corrected himself saying that he meant to express something different from the more common use of the term. Chilli chill out
Yea. It shows Eric's emotional issues. He clearly states that he has an emotional connection with this topic and you can see him struggle to try to stay level headed, but when an opportunity presents itself, he collapses. That said, he's still very intelligent and has useful things to say.
TOE Bingo for this week!
0. A lengthy discussion regarding nomenclature and definitions
1. Mick failing to understand Eric’s point and repeating his previous thought
2. Eric explaining GR in far too little detail for the sake of a grander point
3. Eric saying “phenomenon”
4. Mick saying “birds”
5. A disagreement about whether or not trained observer testimony can be considered ‘data’
6. Curt attempting to ease tensions by casting a spell with his eyebrows
Leave yours in replies :)
I'm "hearting" because you were unsettlingly correct about #6.
@@TheoriesofEverything you and your eyebrows are inimitable, my friend!
I have to start over... I couldn't take my eyes off Curt's eyebrows.
I like that Curt knows when to shut up....and use his eyebrows.....Eric is a no bullshit scholar and that's why I listen to everything he says
Water you talkinabeet?
I’m grateful to see Eric approach this subject with an open mind, that’s all anyone in this community wants.
Upvote. But in some points I think he also has to give credit to Mick on how deep he dove into the matter. Eric himself seems to go over it a bit superficially. I expected they would actually get into details about the pyramid ufos and so on. Mick has a super-compelling argument there, combined with the chilean video which is a plane. When I first saw the chilean video I almost wanted to believe that they intentionally spray us!
@@InTheSh8 Agreed, but Eric as he states is just a newbie, but he’s sees enough substance there for it to raise his curiosity, for anyone who has followed this subject for some time, that’s all we ask for from the scientific community, “Please take an unbiased look at all this, your input is welcome” As Eric pointed out, Mick goes in to this with snark, which voids any meaningful contributions that he has. We’ve had 75 years of ridicule, we don’t need snark we need answers from our representatives.
I am so curious to know the experiences of the people he’s spoken to, because it sounds very convincing. Eric doesn’t seem like someone easily tricked. He hated this topic not so long ago. Also his comments at the end are things that have been on my mind. Is life destined to evolve on one planet and never allowed to physically leave (seeing how much we’re up against regarding gravity, speed of light etc).
Such a self-important blowhard. Incapable of communicating in a way that doesn't always try to underline how he's the smartest guy in the room.
@@MacEwanRobert I saw that, I wish Hal would be more open about RV evidence.
Mick West is absolutely on point here, as usual. Eric is a master of sounding like he is straight to the point but actually only talks around it.
He's literally just insulting Mick for 2+ hours
@@RedOlympus I am not always a big Mick West fan, and I listen to many podcasts that Eric is on. But I think Eric was quite insufferable in this podcast. It is frustrating that he cant take push back without feeling like he doesn't enjoy talking to the person on the other end of the conversation
That's funny. I took away the complete opposite impression. Eric was patiently explaining how he was not a fan of this subtle self-gratification game that debunkers play in opposition to the alleged "conspiracy nuts". He was direct and didn't mince his words. Would you guys rather have him pretend that he wasn't feeling displeased by his past interactions with Mick and others who produce content along similar threads?
@@SisypheanRoller So I take it you believe the kinds of things Mick West debunks in his videos?
The rest of us have a right and responsibility to make stupidity look stupid. If you feel we're too smug about it, then consider how we feel about having someone attempt to vandalize our sense of reality the way Eric and his ilk do.
The lying is much more toxic than the smugness.
@@DanielBeddingfield493 You're a real class act. I made no mention of my beliefs and you somehow turned me into some kind of lunatic who must be purged. In any case, what I take issue with is the gall to pretend that, by virtue of being a skeptic, you can trample over people and silence them for having (controversial or otherwise) opinions that don't fit your worldview.
If you are of the opinion that humanity has figured out everything there is, then you are part of the problem and by definition not a skeptic. A true skeptic would engage with these people and call out BS while also admitting things where our knowledge is lacking, which doesn't have to be a kooky position. It takes about as much work to prove something to be true as it does to prove it to be impossible.
You can be a die-hard skeptic while maintaining a Bayesian attitude to life. Knee-jerk skepticism is just cheap entertainment for people who get off on making others appear stupid.
Eric Weinstein hates debunkers who try to destroy other peoples' character. Eric Weinstein also spent the entire discussion trying to debunk Mick West and destroy his character.
so true
Yes and he succeeded in doing so, putting. Nick in his place, he was completely destroyed , I bet when it was over be must have been thinking ,well I sure fuccezzd up there
@@robertgunter7230 His name is Mick, not Nick. The only thing that happend in this "discussion" was Eric embarrassing himself.
Once again, TOE allows one to observe experts. Well done Kurt
The conversation from 19:13 to 20:30 is telling. Mick was very clear in his initial assertion that he enjoys flexing his programming and math skills (not taking down people). Eric's reaction regarding the word "flex" (clearly misinterpreting Mick's statements) shows that he came in with a preconceived judgement against Mick's character. It goes to show how much even an intelligent person can misinterpret an unambiguous statement because of a prior bias.
Eric’s main problem wasn’t the word flex. Although he didn’t like it, ( due to a misunderstanding) his main issue was Mick’s claim that he never used the word flex, and doesn’t even have it in his vocabulary. Which is an obvious falsehood.
@@mcarey94 I disagree. Eric's main issue was he thought Mick was beating up on people online for fun (or "flexing" on them). At 19:43, Eric says "No.. You did say it in the original sense from which the Internet term 'flex' comes from, so I don't think that's even correct." From 20:10 to 20:48, he elaborates heavily on his main problem with Mick, where he again claims that Mick "flexes" on people online for fun.
Whether or not Mick used the word "flex" is a minor question of little significance that, as even Eric says, is "at most a misunderstanding. But the feeling of somebody saying 'No you're wrong' and thinking that that's fun..."
Mick had originally said he enjoys flexing his programming skills, and he even clarified that he does not use the word "flex" in the second sense (instead simply to mean "stretching"). But as seen in the time range I specified here, Eric still clearly misinterprets Mick's original statement and is unwilling to accept that Mick does not "flex" on people for fun.
I came here to write this comment, glad you already did
@@theoneattop It's almost as if Eric's focus on "flex" shows he's a Wordcell while Mick, who remembers the meaning of what he says, not what he said, is a Rotator. In any event, I get the sense that Eric is bullying to win arguments, while Mick's just trying to understand things.
Wow. I used to have utmost respect for Eric but this was near insufferable his unceasingly putting his knee and full weight on Mick's neck. I feel Eric was trying to gain not only the sympathy from a community he claims to be unfamiliar with and new to but wanting to gain their following by making Mick a bad guy when he seemed quite agreeable and patient for putting up with this. I had no clue of Mick until this interview and wonder just how much Mick is culpable of the accusations that Eric repeatedly pushed. It wasn't until the last 15 minutes that Eric let up and spoke with some self-reflective humility.
There is some importance in giving experiencers some respect and a safe space to come forward but also there is a place for "debunking". Sheesh! This was overall painful to endure and could have been self edited to have included the first 10 and last 20 minutes as a complete show. Glad it's over and can't get back most of that 2 hours time in between lost.
@xtian 777 wrote, " I used to have utmost respect for Eric but this was near insufferable his unceasingly putting his knee and full weight on Mick's neck." Ditto. Precisely put. Thanks.
To me it seems Eric got involved in a new bubble post-IDW (that just happened to involve UFOs), got called on some bullshit on Twitter by Mick West, and now he feels uncomfortable and defensive having to justify a mindless Twitter hobby as something more intellectual than it actually is. A bit embarrassing to watch because in a sense he's trying to save face. But it was an entertaining debate.
I always knew he was like that, but this specific interaction also made me feel the same way.
Eric Weinstein is trying to win a debate, Mick West doesn't know he is in a debate.
Mick seemed perfectly reasonable. Not sure why Eric was so annoyed lol
Because he’s a crackpot and has to play the victim.
Curt, you are a fantastic interviewer, you know how to ask expandable questions and, more importantly, when it's better to ask nothing. A fantastic conversation, it is a little sad that Mick doesn't seem to grasp the importance of language and approach when researching this topic. It's not only about holding in your heart that you won't/don't judge, you must shape your language and persona to create the most conducive environment to collect data and come to the best conclusions we can.
Mick West.. was suprisingly, forthcoming, concise and very refreshing. Its not everyones cup of tea i iunderstand but when someone says 'debunker' i had a completely different image.
@gtaiv2993 ...oh, really now. Google your silly "Fallacy of Begging the Question," Genius; then click, "Examples."
Eric dodges so many questions. His entire argument summarized felt like “stop being a buzzkill” but disguised in big words
Then you misunderstood what he said.
West claims there has been lack of evidence. Fighter pilot faber and his pilot made visual contact with something, the jet that was paired with him made the same contact they got radar data from their planes or some of other type of telemetry and note the reason why they were even sent up there was because the Ships advanced radar system detected them.
But yet West is going to play dumb and say well, Im sure faber thinks he saw x. It was seen by multiple pilots in different plans and captured on Radar. This guy is playing dumb.
@@Herc11355Be fair to Mick, he specifically said that case was the one that gave him most pause.
@@kelvincasing5265 But than he's talking out of both sides of his mouth and why this slap down he received was well deserved.
@@Herc11355that radar data was never released, we have only testimony. So mick is completely right
@@swagikuro The u.s. military released the videos . Eye witness testimony on 60 minutes from pilots confirmed the video. Witnesses of the ship radar testified.
Either this is some vast conspiracy on an order I never heard before or where there is smoke there is fire.
I don't know if that is true that Radar was not provided for support.
Why does Weinstein always sound defensive. No matter what he’s talking about.
Perhaps because he's not as bright as he likes to believe? He has this portentous, pompous way of speaking that seems subtly belittling of both the listener and his interlocutor Mick West.
@glenrotchin5523 Because he's aware of how much we don't know about this world(life)
He has a large ego to defend
What a fascinating conversation. Firstly, BRAVO to Curt for some outstanding moderation. The whole video is a model of two people with different positions being able to engage with each other in a civil and meaningful way.
In the field of UFO study, the approaches of both men are equally valuable: witnesses need to be treated humanely and not stigmatised. And then, their evidence needs to be rigorously stress-tested by a person like Mick West.
The ghost thing is killing me, because I saw one, and then we moved and I ran into someone who I never met, lived in the same house a decade later, and saw the same ghost.
It's like, does everyone need to see a ghost for people to believe....yes they do, and if they did, do you think Eric wouldn't believe his experience, no, he would believe what he saw.
It's jarring, I closed my eyes and said, "this can't be real" opened my eyes again and there she was....still sitting in my bedroom
What did it look like ? Did you get a feeling it was evil or good? I want to believe this stuff so bad. I'm not necessarily saying I want to experience it first hand. I don't know maybe from a distance though
That's the problem with "I don't believe in X" just bc it sounds silly. I mean, I've never seen a ghost nor have I seen any convincing evidence to make me think they're real, but I am 100% agnostic on the subject. There is so much we don't know and understand, it's truly arrogant to say "I don't believe in X" just based on your gut feeling
@@brianredban9393 it felt utterly terrifying, but no malevolence, just a massive adrenaline rush. I dared not move for fear the thing might interact with me.
It was a kindly looking old woman sitting and knitting, translucent.
Oddly, it was translucent yes, but like a 2D representation, you know I couldn't see her organs or the "other side", which is an interesting fact about translucent ghost sightings.
@@dougr8646 agree
I concur. In my youth, I took a job at a funeral home. And as a young cocky kid, I didn’t believe in ghosts, as I thought it foolish. This inevitably changed the day that I had an experience with a spirit. The fear and denial that I felt on that day and for many years to follow, felt like a burden that I could not speak about openly. Since then, I’ve had multiple sightings or experiences, and now, although I can’t explain it, I know it to be true, and apart of this reality.
This is my favorite TOE episode of all time...and for so many reasons! I could listen to Eric talk for hours. Curt's self-berating rant was so incredibly sincere that it tugged at my heart strings.
TOE is SO underrated.
Rather than giving me a picture to paint by numbers (as most) Curt gives us the paint and an open cavass on which to expand our consciousness and ideas..
I love it. so sincerely!
Wow I am so glad you’re enjoying the content. Your appreciation is so appreciated!
Sorry, but it's definitely NOT "underrated", guy 😂
TOE will find its steam
Eric drops a lot of implicit emotional payloads and doesnt work from the ground up in terms of his communication, so youre only on his team if you're already on it, because he doesn't help you get there. Unless you're a bit afraid of the weight of his words. He has mentioned "destroying people" and I get how that is increasingly possible with a large "team" behind you, but the ease (and the payoff) of imparting this destroy-people motive to individuals, that itself is suspect, and has a destroy-people potential. So it points to this larger issue of recognizing vulnerability and risk, and whether we can bind ourselves to non-destructive motives, and renounce the incentives and payoffs of "destruction" (literal or figurative). But we've noticed the flipside of destructive behavior is "weaponized vulnerability" which involves stoking outrage and overinflating belief that someone else's behavior is destructive in nature or intent, thus causing a destructive backlash against them, or at least controlling them out of fear of destruction. It's a very elaborate group dynamic, dealing with power(s) and vulnerabilities and lots of mindgames and guesses. To be factual and humble in this game is probably to get lost and ignored and dismissed in layers of noise. I dunno. Eric so anxious vibing to me, doesn't have peacemaking resolution seeking in him.
A conversation with Eric looks like one with my ex-wife - never summarize what he said, you will never use the correct descriptive words - his words only.
Well put. I found Eric rather obnoxious and off-putting here. And he didn't say much of substance then continues to fall back on "well I'm new in studying this phenomenon."
@@pdubdesigns8961 I'm not gonna judge him, I can relate. The 'vibe' I getis he's hurting, feeling pressure, tense inside, his voice is coming from his nasal passage. Thing is, some of us choose our words very carefully, not only for the purpose of accuracy, but also... because we don't want to be held accountable for another's Interpretation of what we said. Yeah, OK, that'sall me. But maybe he can relate.
@@iiz67 Yes, Eric’s goal is precision, my ex-wife’s goal was to make me wrong. 👍
He’s emotionally charged for sure. I get the impression that Eric hasn’t spent much time around Brits. That’s just how we approach things, from a place of humour. Yeah we can take it seriously but make a joke about it as well.
Mick West -- who comes across very well in this interview -- plays a vital role in the UFO debate by finding alternative and prosaic explanations for UFO phenomena. I find it surprising that this single individual is perceived as so threatening by many in the UFO community. He's very pleasant and does not appear to attempt to demonise anyone let alone attempt to prevent any person from investigating UFOs.
Not threatening. Annoying.
Having debunkers around whilst the gov is doing what it's doing is a bit odd.
@@Prod-23 I understand what you mean. Personally, I'm fascinated by the UAP topic and want all our governments to tell us everything they know. However, I don't think West is providing cover for the government to continue hiding what they know. I think he's just doing what a good sceptic should do, and question the claims others make and provide alternative information.
@@reviewreview6298 I've no time for them. The historical nature of "Debunkers" in this topic is hideously ugly. The term is unbelievably loaded, peoples lives and professions have been destroyed by "Debunkers".
Anyone coming into UFOs, labelling themselves a Debunker and then wondering why people like Cahil don't want to talk to them says it all. "Debunker" is both a statement of intent and a position, all wrapped up in one term. I've found that certain character types gravitate to being "Debunkers" and they are generally pretty arrogant people to be honest. Mick comes across to as such too.
Eric is constantly frustrated that Mick isn’t the caricature that he’s built up in his head. He was orders of magnitude more rude, dismissive and condescending than Mick. Eric is an intellectual bully that embodies the physical manifestation of the word “bloviation”
You may just be a dullard
It's clear Eric was subconsciously realizing how hoodwinked he has been by the UFO community and his ego wouldn't let it go.
Eric totally misunderstood when he tried to claim Mick likes to "flex". It's very obvious he said flex his muscle with the math, (practice his math skills). Eric is talking about his "feelings" and used the word "dumb" a lot.
That's exactly how I interpreted Mick's comment too. I enjoy mathematically modelling systems. If I don't have one that I need to model, sometimes I like looking at a problem and modelling it just to "flex my muscles".
Excellent discussion. I was afraid I would not be able to stand listening to Mick West, but Eric Weinstein made it palatable. Great job Curt.
Mick West is stuck. His action to deny everything is how he makes his money. So he puts himself in a position no matter what, it’s going to have to be skepticism . And Eric Weinstein is brilliant, when he brought up some of the governments dark past that sounds insane but is unfortunately true. And knowing what the CIA ,FBI, etc. has done in past has made me not believe in the government and believe in the opposite. And that’s where Eric and I have the same view. I’ve notice Mick West is not being the hardcore skeptic he is. Eric has him shook. About Air Traffic Controllers, just recently they want you to report them, before then your job as a pilot would be in jeopardy.Cause you would be labeled a mental case. I’m so glad you put this together Curt. Great job . I was so excited to see this as I was just browsing RUclips. Keep up the great work Curt.
From what I have read of Mick West, making money from this subject is not likely a motivation. He's been very successful in far more remunerative fields then doing podcasts.
"Governments do shady stuff therefore aliens"
@@IkeMcFadden dont underestimate how much podcast pay
Felt bad for Mick, It's always hard for me to listen to Eric. Always seems far more interested in hearing himself talk.
I would also like the talking time to be more balanced.
Curt you’re such a phenomenal host. I’ve never seen someone as good at listening, not interrupting, and only stepping in when necessary. I don’t know if it’s a lack of ego thing, or just your own curiosity that makes you want to just listen without interjecting excessively, but you’re _literally_ an exceptional host.
+10000
I couldn't agree more.
This is true but for the for me this is normal
Mick West's opening couldn't have been more clear. Eric didn't listen and was simply looking for a fight.
Brilliant. Curt, you demonstrate empathy and non-hateful discussions with each podcast. Keep it up.
Lost a fair bit of respect to Eric Weinstein after this performance.
yeah, he's trying to use lots of words to sound smart.
Eric: "it sounds like you're mocking them"
Also Eric: commences to mock his grandma for believing in ghost stories
I totally agree. He wants to be the adjudicator of what can and can’t be mocked. Can’t have it both ways.
Mick did not use flex in the sense that Eric alluded to! still Eric felt offended when Mick tried to explain that… 🙃
Hello Curt. I struggled with the beginning of the video as I am always fearful that Eric may get to a point of serious irritation with other parties (I usually agree with his irritation but I am much more "diplomatic") - I do absolutely enjoy Eric's being. I now got past my fear and sitting on edge watching him being as calm as Eric could be in this situation. You have an enormous amount of guts to be in the middle of this 'Eric irritation phenomenon'
hes always irritated when hes getting challenged and someone sees through his word salad put on a nothing burger called the eric special with cheese
Mick simply investigates reports to see if his experience and knowledge can help get to the bottom of what is really happening. Just because some things turn out not to be exotic and can be easily explained is not Mick's fault. There is no ridicule; I think that because Mick explains it as matter of fact offends people and they read it as being condescending. Mick's videos are an excellent display of rational problem solving we can all learn something from. Stop destroying the problem solvers.
Well I think Eric is at the point where he believes a radical new fundamental physics is humanity’s only hope for survival.
When you understand that motivation things make a bit more sense. We must prove Einstein non fundamental and use the new physics to get some of us off the planet or we go extinct. That’s basically where he’s at. We really don’t have much time to do this so you can understand the frustration when you understand that’s what he believes.
Oh my god thank you thank you thank you. It's so demoralizing to see people taken in by Eric's self-centred persecution complex - and because Mick is patient and mature and less bombastic, people going on tone not substance think that Eric carries the day... Mortifying.
i dont understand why eric really dislikes mick?can someone enlighten me?
@@maggiehoness cos Eric’s a fed
@@maggiehoness Eric is operating under a peculiar set of assumptions, and it is the logical consequence of those assumptions that results in his hostility towards Mick. IF it was true that there were these unexplainable mysterious phenomena being covered up, then Mick would either be A) an agent of the cover up, or B) an unwitting dupe who is doing their work for free. IF it's (A), then he's a bad guy, and deserves to be challenged and called out for his nefarious efforts to "destroy" innocent people who just saw something they shouldn't have seen etc. Hence, Eric's hostility. IF it's (B), then he's ignorant and (worse, in Eric's mind) insubordinate. Eric insists that he has "credible intelligence" from people who are "reputable" and important and blah blah blah... In other words, Eric is at the vanguard of a great adventure unfolding... people are coming forward and letting him in on their experiences. He's getting the inside scoop. And Mick is just not taking Eric seriously when Eric says this. (Because, in reality, it's actually NOT serious, and Mick understands exactly what's happening. Eric is getting taken in by people who are expert at roping people in...). You might think Eric would pity Mick for being a dupe, but the insubordination piece is what prompts the hosility. He's furious that Mick is just not deferring to Eric's cartoonish worldview...
Absolutely fucking phenomenal episode curt. I have to be honest I fell into the anti mick west camp for quite a bit, but seeing him talk and understanding his perspective makes me dramatically reconsider how my judgement effects my opinions. I’ve gained a great deal from this podcast, I deeply thank you.
Watching this is hard not to follow the same instinct as your initial one. I'm curious what changed your mind?
@@Swadaable my initial view was that mick west was some sort of almost pseudo troll with how outlandish his debunks were. Some people claiming his debunks are more mental gymnastics than the conspiracy itself. I didn’t find him in this presentation to be overtly out to discredit anything necessarily. Rather he seemed quite willing to be fair when assessing potential evidence. Not saying his claims aren’t outlandish but I can understand his intentions (I think) better.
Mick hasn’t shown any contritions about his many preposterous debunking claims free of any scientific rigor.
Same! Well said Austin!
@@TheHighlanderprime lmao did you just find a thesaurus?
Love this theolocution format, especially from the starting frame you're using of having the participants state what they respect about each other. Great starting point for productive conversations. While this conversation had its share of conflicting discord, I felt it was extremely productive and synergistically beneficial in a way that a typical 'debate' style is not. Job well done Curt. Would be incredible to see both of these gentlemen take a shared Skinwalker trip as a result.
Mick threw down the shared Skinwalker experience idea with a "we could share notes" and now there's only one thing I want from life.
I would be all for that. Wonderful idea!
Eric spanked Mick West booty
I’m team Mick on this subject
Love how this eric dude knew he wasnt going to have any sound arguments so his first swing at Mick was about a word.
Professional debunkers are as open minded as Westboro baptist church members.
People like Mick West already know all the answers, he already knows what's possible and what's not, he's not searching for anything.
I realized a while ago that the UFO subject is full of crackpots. Crackpot believers and crackpot skeptics. Crackpot skeptics are dogmatic and believe things without any information or even looking at the data or information.
100%
“Be open minded, but not so open minded that your brains fall out.”
Oh boy oh boy oh boy this is gonna be intense
Inglorious basterds?
I appreciate Mick’s work, and I like to see his ingenious attempts at explanations. But anyone paying the slightest attention knows that his expectation for a non-mundane explanation is effectively zero.
@@davexmit define least likely.
@@davexmit
Agreed. Mick’s methodology and point of view are far more useful to “ufology” than he is given credit for.
Just looking at the probability alone, it is very unlikely all of these claims are actual alien crafts. Having a strong skepticism when approaching such a topic is actually a smart way to do it. These claims are pretty wild, so the onus is on the people making them to provide proof if they are expecting people to belive them. The fact that there are so many claims and no actual agreed upon hard evidence proving UFOs definitely exist is why people are so skeptical of the claims.
Personally I do feel like there must be other smart beings out there but I have yet to see any video which proves it to me. Some are very intriguing but 99% of them can be explained away as something else.
It's important to be honest with ourselves and others, just like it's important to approach things like this w an open mind.
@@asynchronicity a closed mind and subjective skepticism is not useful to ufology.
I like these conversations. Eric has that angry undertone. Great
Anger is never great. Anger shows something bad. Which is a bad situation but not a great situation.
@@Jakob.HamburgFrustration can bring you to it. Exasperation is allowed, imo which might look like it.
The reason Jacque Vallee has come to his conclusions is because he is extraordinarily well versed in the breadth and depth of subject and has utilized the discipline of science to arrive at his perspective. To dismiss his point of view is to be inherently unfamiliar with the science that brought him there. Mick West doesn’t know the full subject. I doubt he has read a single book by Jacque Vallee or J. Allen Hynek.
Yeah exactly
Jacques had a ufo sighting as a child in france
Vallée wouldn't recognize science if it slapped him in the ass and gave him a peck on the cheek.
Great discussion with two great minds. However, I have two problems with Eric's position:
1) I'm not sure Eric understood (at least at the beginning) that Mick isn't trying to mock or "defeat" the UFO community. Mick doesn't have some larger agenda. He's simply trying to offer explanations for specific videos that have been widely circulated around the internet as "definitive proof" of unexplained technology. I find his videos incredibly informative on the subject of optical effects and camera technology, among other things.
2) Eric seems to believe that people who claim UFO sightings are generally stigmatized and bullied by a larger, non- believing community. I mostly disagree. I've actually found the opposite to be true, at least in 2022. Not only do about half of Americans believe in UFOs with alien origins, but it's skeptics that present more plausible (and boring) explanations that suffer the most criticism, especially on social media. Skeptics are often seen as the wet blanket, the Debbie Downers who ruin the party. That's why you see Mick getting a bit confused and defensive when Eric brings this up in the conversation. If anyone is getting attacked or ridiculed its people like Mick.
This comment section proves your point.
I assume Eric is talking about how it’s stigma for scientists to take the exotic explanations as viable theories and explore them.
I think Eric is talking about his circle of people.
Mick was respectful and clear. Brett came off as defensive and condescending and as always meanders around, with much name dropping, taking his time, and everyone else’s too, eventually and reluctantly getting to the point.
Uhh Bret is his brother, this is Eric. How can anyone take your point of view seriously when your view is blind? Lol
Yeah Eric was coming across a bit of prick here
@@carlosoliveira-rc2xt yeah, the Weinstein brothers, sheesh, PhDs in biology AND physics. Bret is a bit better at coherent thought.
Eric has no comment when Mick asks for direct examples. So ridiculous
Eric is just a Man child who wants Everybody to be in his limited little echo chamber. I find him very rude, arrogant and abrasive. Well done Mick West.
This was the best podcast on UFOs I’ve seen, and Ive seen a lot. I’m actually quite startled on Eric Weinstein’s change of mind based in his evaluations of other people’s experiences, because his interview with Hal Puttof was quite aggressive! And also Mick West has become very likable in this episode. Amazing conjunction Curt. Great job.
The 1 with dr puttof was great watching Eric confront a man who personafys the to thing he repeatedly clames to have avoided in his professional career, ufos and remote viewing. Love Eric but you could litraly see him mentaly squirming. I find it all to be fasinating but mr west gives me that "the world is 5000 years old" vibe i get from my extremely intelligent uncule who ternd evangelical, no everdence will shake a deep seeded belief. Good interview.
@@yesnomaby Why does your uncle believe the world is 5,000 years old? That wouldn’t make any sense even while using biblical history. According to Biblical history there were many generations who lived for approximately 1,000 years each. How could the world be 5,000 years old if that were to also be true?
@@Sapientiaa pass & thats kinda my pont it makes no sence, i gave up attempting to comprehend there line of logic years ago when he was making an argument that dinosaur bones had been put here by jessus to test peoples faith.
@@yesnomaby He could just say that dinosaurs along with other living organisms (mainly plants) were put here for fossil fuels as a step for advancement; his arguments are hilarious. LOL
@@Sapientiaa i know its alittle sad but what ever helps some one sleep at night is ok with me, but when one starts dragging people into there delusion buble thats when it becomes problematic. I like not knowing makes it more exciting having no fixed beliefs just a sliding scale of approximation and probabilitys. Much love 🤝
So enjoyable to watch the interaction between these two. They are both okay being disagreeable to each other at the reward of learning something they didn’t know before. They both have egos and are quite smart with lots of experience… as many are. But this is a wonderful example where they are wise enough to realize there are more than two sides-to any issue. This world is complex, misunderstood, evil, and wonderful but with patience and love, a lot of good can be done. Thanks Curt, another great episode. However, please let me know the remainder of your question and the response… :)
I wouldn't say that Mick has an ego at all.
@@WardenOfTerra Everyone *should* have some ego as it helps argue points we believe are important for ourselves or others. I wouldn't say either are egotistical though... just that they have self-esteem, and are aware of themselves, and how self-understanding has helped formed their beliefs.
The world is not evil.
@@WardenOfTerra He has the biggest ego out of the two.
Absolutely RIVETING show Curt. Your serious-minded Ufo/UAP discussions are by far, the best I have ever listened to.
Two great guests, both being respectful. What a breath of fresh air.
Love ya Curt!!! 🇨🇦
Perhaps you enjoy Lex freedman. Different style, but i like it
Agree!
Thank you Eric Weinstein for spending your human time on this video. I really think this will be one of the formal videos for trying to prime new minds to get onboard with trying to understand how much disinformation is pushing the creative minds off from this topic. Curt, keep doing your thing!
Oooh thank you eric ( arrogant blowhard) for descending from your shining celestial throne to bestow your wisdom upon our lowly unworthy minds.....
It's the lack of evidence that pushes people away. If you think Weinstein is a good ambassador in this video then you must be dumb as fuck.
I don't know why Eric was attacking Mick the whole time I didn't get that feeling about Mick at all
I don't know why Mick took everything as a personal attack.
@@nrrgrdn
To be "Devil's advocate" here...
It certainly felt pretty aimed from my perspective.
Also, this is my 1st exposure to Mick.
That, written...
From what I gather & admittedly as a fan of Eric's (he IS the reason I'm even watching), Mick is a, seemingly, self-admitted person of the strictly-factual and provably-evident.
If he does NOT stray from that into criticality, then perhaps Eric was exaggerated.
However, based on what I've seen of Weinstein, I doubt his pointedness to be absolutely foundless.
Weinsteins recent past attempt to claim he's found a unifying theory of everything while telling physicist it's their problem when they ask him questions, tells me he thinks he's the smartest guy in the room.
Wtf are you talking about...mick tried to gaslight Eric at the beginning of the conversation with the whole flex thing. It passed me off just listening. Mick is a disingenuous blow hard
@@nrrgrdnwell, that’s a fair evaluation of behavior in this specific setting. But if you don’t ask a question about - or didn’t hear Eric cite - Mick’s behavior that essentially compelled this debate, then you’re leaving out a massive element of what it would take to reconcile it convincingly. On the other hand, you might have looked, or eventually look into Mick’s normal conduct, determine it to be perfectly fine and come away with the same conclusion. But you’d be more certain.
I really enjoyed this conversation and thanks Curt for letting it run in a way that many other hosts wouldn’t. Hadn’t expected Eric to be so abrasive because I’ve always found Mick to be extremely polite and respectful and his perspective has always helped me to keep my beliefs grounded whenever they’re prone to fly too far and too fast. I don’t think Mick needs to moderate his style nor should he get back in his corner - as if that’s going to unleash a wave of credible UAP reports and academic investigators who’ve been cowed into silence by Metabunk! On the other hand I always love to hear Erics perspective on almost anything and his points about respecting different communities perspectives was an interesting one.
Mick owned the hell out of this dude. I love how his even keeled nature and cool customer being pisses off emotional superstitious ppl.
Eric is such a jerk to Mick who deserves congratulations for not walking out. Mick is a real gentleman.
Eric on the verge of tears throughout the interview that someone disagrees with him. Says Mick should stop doing what he's doing because he makes people cry.
Fcking cringe
eric is a twatstick and mick is too and if you believe that one is and the other not then YOU ARE TOO
Three human beings I have the utmost respect for. Thank you for this Curt, astonishing conversation. I feel for Mick as I side with his humour and dismissiveness as someone who has been engaged with this subject for decades now. I also side with Eric as his fierce intelligence consistently unsettles me on such a broad scale that it's near impossible for me to decipher his macro point at times. I also appreciate Eric's point that stigma needs to be removed yet I'm not sold that the responsibility should land on Mick so hard. Seems to me that both (conversation) artists got their word in and both appreciated each other's ability to converse so brazenly. Thank you all so much, this was/is a wealth of wits. Cheers!
Totally agree
Yes, it's a fascinating conversation. I think the positions of both men are very valuable in getting to the bottom of the UFO mystery. Witnesses should be welcomed and not stigmatised. They should not have to pay a social or professional price for reporting an experience that they genuinely feel was real. And then their evidence should be vigorously examined and stress-tested to find out the explanation for what happened to them.
This was a well-served breakfast for Eric. From a socionics view, his personality has the natural supervisor role towards people like Mick. Not only does he have a swift way of thinking but also thinking that takes into consideration the feelings of the collective, the stigma and censorship. Mick cannot outwit Eric nor can just carelessly hide behind pure thinking and realism. Eric's criticism ranges from telling Mick not to gatekeep the discussion, to not dismiss outright, to be less rigid, and they all truly stand. Hope Mick learns a lot from this discussion.
This is also a great showcase of Eric's evolution on the topic, his maturity and open-mindedness. This is extremely welcome to both ufological and general scientific communities, even humanity as a whole, with this topic potentially having humanity-reaching implications. Eric is not without his criticism and sometimes he falls into his own criticism, has some virtue signalling and an unstable ego, but the effect of it is nothing compared to the negative effect of previous approaches of the scientific community, governments and even Mick on this topic.
100%! Spot on about everything you noted about Mick and Eric.
Well said!
Interesting, I got the opposite. Eric came to the table with an 'I'm smarter than you' attitude and a single talking point. When Mick disagreed or pushed back, Eric could do nothing but simply restate is position in different words. Eric fired his one shot and then had nothing else to bring to the table. Literally the whole of the last hour was Eric saying the same thing over and over again.
Whilst I usually enjoy listening to Eric, I feel that he didn’t add anything new, he simply goes on an on (and on) about being “nice” to people who have - apparently - seen ufo. Mick seems to take a science based approach and find answers. That’s science. I’d rather have the truth than manage feelings. Eric seems happy to ridicule certain paranormal phenomena but the ufo topic is to be handled with kit gloves. Why does Eric get to decide who is called “silly”. You can’t have it both ways.
Mick behaves more like a scientist than Weinstein.
@@martinw245 That's hilarious.
WOW! You were "Whilist," huh? Boy, I'll bet yer a real high-IQ guy, huh? How awesome to meet you, sir!
*Mick does NOT take a science based approach and at times neither did Eric. But I would say Mick was the lesser scientist here.*
Mick sticks to facts and evidence. Excellent.
I hope he has a true real experience of the phenomenon
Except he often doesn't take all data into account. It's his biggest weakness.
@@IndigoStargazer 😂
@@Paul_G73
The Eyes are Useless when The Mind is Blind .
@@IndigoStargazer Human perception is terrible
I think the problem people have with Mick is that he thinks every case can be explained. People aren’t going to feel comfortable telling someone their story if they know that your ultimate conclusion will be something different than theirs. His goal is find a solution inside the box and their trying to explain how the solution is actually outside of it.
Yeah mick is a skeptic. He just makes some clearly irrational and invalid conclusions about things. And I think everyone has just been so caught up in being polite to really drive that point home.
Exactly this. Mick stated in this interview that he does not start with the intention of debunking something but even in this TOE discussion you can see his starting point with some of the scenarios raised by Eric are that of scepticism, shaking his head, smirking, laughing. Those are not initial reactions of someone who has an open mind.
@@Yewbzee Yes exactly. When he first stated “Nono, I don’t start at a conclusion,” but then proceeded to betray that position throughout the discussion was very revealing. I’m surprised more people aren’t talking about this in the comments. I don’t have respect for Mick
@@TheChadavis33 I think as @TH600 Mike said people have bent over backwards to be polite in the comments.
@@th600mike3 the problem with Mick’s approach is if something seems improbable based on humanity’s current understanding of physics, tech or mathematics he aims to automatically rule it out or debunk it. Yet for example some of the most preposterous theories of quantum mechanics have eventually been shown to be valid experimentally. Based on this behaviour you can only come to the conclusion that he is very narrow minded.
I was impressed with Mick west in this interview. Fantastic talk between both sides and exactly what we need. Can we have more?
Erics interview style is awful and rude/aggressive yet he feels upset by Mick West who has always been clam, polite and knowledgeable! Eric sounds incredibly unscientific!
Glad to see these two respectfully hash out their differences. From the beginning you can tell that they are cut from the same cloth and I can see them doing some extraordinary research together. We should always question our truths and what we see while always being open to the possibilities of the extraordinary.
I also find that Eric ironically is trying to debunk Mick as a person who has an honest interest in something as sinister. It’s a shame. I think he’s misunderstood Mick’s position and just ploughs on without really listening to Mick because he’s already decided he doesn’t really like him.
I don’t think he misunderstood Mick by one iota , there was an arrogance right from the start with West , as regards lack of proof maybe, but it’s as well to Remember. Absence of Evidence Is not Evidence of Absence Fact
My issue with West is with his delivery and approach. There’s an arrogance and dismissal that’s hard to get past. I tend to avoid his analysis due to this. I’m probably missing out on some good insight from his research, but it’s hard for me to get past.
Damn Eric is like "You say you're sorry." and Mick is like "Ok sorry" and Eric is like "Now say you're a jerk."
Eric was quite adamant here, but I do ultimately agree with his point about the skeptic mindset being very limited and not good at perceiving anything that is not right in front of its nose.
I don't see skepticism as a negative. Rather it is ESSENTIAL to science. Without it, people can proclaim anything as true, and science becomes a religion, or at least dogma.
It struck me that this conversation at its core was a clash in fundamental world views. Mick is thoroughly ensconced in scientific materialism, while Eric is intuitively open to a non-materialist view. I would like to see a conversation with Mick, Bernardo Kastrup, and someone like Diana Pasulka, or possibly Jacques Vallee, that delves into the philosophical foundations of the topic. Pasulka or Vallee would have a much broader knowledge of specific UFO cases, and could also speak to a non-materialist interpretation.
Excellent comment. Also, your use of the word “ensconced” made me smile - beautiful and underappreciated word!
I just don’t see Mick West’s level of importance deserving of the attention and conversation amongst the aforementioned; Mick is just another version of Micheal Shermer; though Shermer has gotten more notoriety. But intellectually, I didn’t get any sense of higher thinking from Mick; his narrative is predictable and uncontrollable.
I struggle with Eric Weinstein. His allure is obvious and he's bound to be popular. He's intriguing. But why on Earth does any sensible person take him seriously?
Much like his paper on Geometric Unity, Eric's arguments here are so convoluted that it baffles the mind as to what he's actually trying to convey.
It's simple: He wants a new physics, a Post-Einstein physics that allows us to travel faster than the speed of light so we can find new planets to live on. He gets annoyed that everyone else in the world isn't developing that new Physics for him, even though he's the only one that believes in it. His obsession with the UFOs is based entirely on this desire for a new Physics, which is pointless, because you can either develop this new science, or not, and it's irrelevant whether UFOS are aliens or not. You could just as easily use The Physics of Fairies or Angels as inspiration for your new science, but you're still going to have to build it.
Mick has patience from another world! The methods used by Eric in this debate make my stomach turn..
He is ridiculous.
Problem is that you don't seem to be curious what UAPs are.
Which he? West or Weinstein? @@grabdaCikan
Mick seems like a much more evolved adault in this conversation. Eric seems easily triggered and defensive.
@@rianzogwhat interview did you see?
The one I saw was a pseudo intellectual (West) debating an actual intellectual (Weinstein).
The “triggered” or irritated reactions by Dr. Weinstein were justified; it’s called “incredulity”.
Brilliant interview. I did find Eric rather uptight and pompous though.
That's a fair judgement of him
"This decision tree has no boring branch."
What great concise way to explain to someone who may not get this topic.
Not talking about Mick, just in general.
The only thing is that I don't understand what is meant by "the decision tree". They keep using it - but I honestly can't work out what that phrase refers to.
@@Midwinter2 They just mean that whatever path you go down, trying to explain what the phenomenon is, you are probably going to find something extraordinary.
Edit: Wanted to clarify. A ufo decision tree you can imagin as the ufo question at the base of a tree with many branches. And each branch is a possible solution to the question. And they all are interesting. And could lead to great discoveries.
@@koss04 Ah, I get it - thanks so much!
@@Midwinter2 Glad I could help. But I'm not entirely sure I explained accurately. I think I did good enough, but I'm not a formally educated person. So if i got it wrong, someone please chime in.
Eric is the skeptic we need today. He's my personal pick for #1 new hero 2022.
#1, #2, #3, #n....
I think that Eric is a great example of how to be an open minded skeptic. Skepticism is important, but when Mick so confidently makes blanket dismissals of eyewitness accounts as fatigue hallucinations, misidentification, etc. it's missing the open-mindedness we need to encourage people to report encounters without fear of ridicule.
LOL
So great to see two people with opposing opinions, discussing without getting emotional or defensive, a lesson that would benefit mankind.
Are you sure that's what you saw? Eric seemed pretty emotional and defensive. There was a lot of projecting negative intentions and attitudes onto Mick and other "debunkers". He really latched onto that. He got bizarrely fixated on the word "flex" when it clearly meant the satisfaction that comes from solving puzzles. You know, like: exercising feels good because you flex your muscles, actually use your body to it's capacity; mental challenges feel good because you "flex" your neurons, actually use them to their capacity. Pretty straightforward for most normal people to completely understand what Mick was obviously saying. But Eric - no... Jumps on it and complains for 10 minutes as if he just caught Mick red-handed saying he loves stomping on the little people who dare ask questions...
@dingai they did, you're right, I suppose I mean "without getting abusive"
@@jimhobbs3792 that is true. I did appreciate that, and in all fairness I was impressed with the host for making multiple attempts to bridge the divide, and with Eric for moderating his accusations at least a little... given what he believes, I think sincerely but mistakenly, it must've been incredibly hard for him and I think anyone in that circumstance would have a hard time not falling into being abusive.
Eric is an angry guy and it showed. This was not simply an exchange of ideas. This was Eric superimposing his view that the Government is lying to us. He's not even aware enough to know that this isn't what Mick debunks.
@@dingai Totally agree. Eric comes across as a typical “get off my lawn” curmudgeon who was unnecessarily confrontational. Very often I flat out don’t like him. He also comes across to me as someone who thinks he’s always the smartest person in the room. I like his brother a lot better because Bret seems so much more humble.
I couldn't agree with Eric more.....could it be us from the future? Why are we locked in to Einstein's theories? I like his push back.
Unfortunately it is not us as in future Humans, the evidence shows that they are a completely separate biological species separate from humans that are building and flying these unknown aircrafts. I live in a hotspot with regular activity, I have seen their craft a lot and up close in personal way to close for comfort. I have not seen the occupants myself however but I have studied the topic heavily for the past 15 years and listened to thousands of eyewitness testimony and nearly every UFO documentary on the internet. It’s right in our faces and us humans are ignoring it as a whole. I do believe the ETs are going to force the disclosure on their own terms.
@@allthingsparanormal4109 What I was pointing out was that Eric is at least open-minded enough to explore this....he is without a doubt one of our most prominent thinkers of our time...and his brother Brett as well....Brett is more eloquent with his opinions I might add. What I like about Eric is that he doesn't pull any punches.
@@randster64 you are 100% correct. Him taking the topic seriously and keeping an open mind is a big deal. If only the other scientists would follow suit.
@@allthingsparanormal4109 Agreed....Michio Kaku...is another one too but he's kind of commercialized....I think Eric is well grounded and looks at things from a skeptical but open-minded perspective
@@randster64 Absolutely, I think Michio Kaku knows it is Aliens, he all but says it is, but it is more professional at this time to remain neutral. He is another one helping drive the scientific community to looking into this. And Avi Loeb.
Eric Weinstein, the most distressed man on Earth.
I always feel like Eric is trying to get a conversation started that nobody is ready to have. Love listening to him talk even tho I have mostly no idea.
Few do. I've watched several of his interviews and talks. He speaks from his own patently private stream of consciousness, and after about ten minutes, you're thinking, either the guy's so brilliant that nobody can keep up with him, or he's an unhinged, rude, bully, as he demonstrated here, and it's a clear case of The Emperor's New Clothes. Personally, I'm favoring the latter.
There's nothing about the world Weinstein occupies that requires an enforcer, as he seems to fancy himself. I felt sorry for West and Jaimungal looked like he was wondering how he got duped into thinking this was ever going to go well.
I got out after about an hour, but that's an hour of my life I'll never get back. Damn. I could have taken a nap.
I'm sticking with the former, and think I'd like eventually to hear a follow up, if West wasn't too put off.
"You're not ready to have this conversation". What everyone wants to hear.
Where is the discussion? Who put Weinstein in the role of interrogator?
Should be a good discussion. I think the main difference between them is Mick's obsession with what you could call "pre-epistemic judgement." In other words, slotting a phenomenon into a category well before sufficient evidence is gathered (and, no, grainy videos are not even close to sufficient).
Of course, we all do these sorts of judgements to some degree. It's mainly to avoid wasting time on pointless pursuits. However, when applied to purported phenomenon interacting with military pilots, nukes, and taken seriously up the ranks of multiple CIA/DIA directors, secdef, senate intel, congress, former presidents, international agencies...
If acting logically, there has to be a point when the desire to not waste time is overshadowed by the desire to fully investigate a phenomenon, unfettered by preceding judgements. I'd say we're well past that threshold. We've certainly spent a lot of time and money chasing down rabbit holes in theoretical physics with even less direct evidence. Which is fine, if not necessary. I just think it's worth being consistent in scientific pursuits.
But Americans are insane, right up to government. Can't trust a single witness statement. Still zero evidence of any credibility. Zero. Its all for show for chins, I'm sure mick will explain. And as for the historical stuff, name me one that's credible... I fear for the US.
Well-said
I couldn't have said it better.
I agree, much of the last twenty years of physics theoretical/Astro has been founded on fart huffing pedants basement dreams. This is just the first time in history we have a mostly international long form, forum for discussion.
Not the UK has said not a thing about all this. Its just the latest technology being tested and mind games for the benefit of adversaries.
Happens every 20 years or so... there's barely any evidence of alien spaceships visiting earth, just mad stories.
There's all sorts of stuff up in the sky, the most credible weird stuff studied in the sky for me is in Norway. Hessdalen.
Eric didn’t come across as particularly intelligent to me in this interview. I felt he struggled to keep up with Mick & started throwing out bad arguments. Really felt like Mick was being polite and wasn’t wanting to absolutely destroy Eric’s arguments for the sake of not escalating.
I politely disagree , I think Eric is pointing out that great achievements have been wrought by outliers , who had a different perception than than the whole group. They had to deal with a whole society ridiculing them. , and certain people reveling in that . Actually taking glee when they felt “better than “ or “smarter than “ the equivalent of school yard bullying. Eric was taken aback when he saw this displayed.. he called it out .
Which part did he have trouble keeping up with ?
Im going to disagree. Eric was so scientific that he's pushing back against the current maps.
I had the opposite come across to me in this interview.
Mick West isn’t qualified to clean up Eric’s dogs shit!
Weinstein was just an a-hole for an hour. He reminds me of the drunk guy that starts roping you into his conversation at the bar and no matter how much you shake your head and say “yeah man, you’re right” he hauls off with another “nah nah listen, listen man, listen, nah, listen”. Honestly scary. I can only imagine Weinstein patching holes in his wall every time he’s had a few.
💯
Definitely one of the most amazing podcasts I've seen on this topic! Thanks for setting this up Curt!
These two people perfectly represent the cognitive dissonance I feel in my mind. I tend to agree and nod heavily at both of their opinions on different arguments.
God that so true to my own assessment
J. Allen Hynek went from debunker to being convinced because of the depth and quality of the hard scientific evidence. The science brought him there - & the eye witness accounts were only part of the evidence. I suspect if Mick West genuinely pursued the evidence he would be equally convinced one day.
well said. the shallowness of Mick West's knowledge is striking. combine that with his near certainty that this can't have a component of "other" really lowers my respect for his meta thinking skills.
@@JM-co6rf I think he is an excellent critical thinker and brings a valuable and grounded perspective to specific videos - but his focus is narrow and his knowledge is shallow and he is as guilty of cultivating his “debunker” brand and persona as the scientist with the Skinwalker Ranch TV show is at finding high strangeness. I’m not sure he is that interested in pursuing the truth as he is at justifying a predetermined bias. He cherry picks the videos he thinks he has a handle on and ignores others. And he is flat out wrong with his analysis of the Omaha sphere.
Mike needs to drop the word "debunker" for the simple fact that he is a believer, why else would he be so invested.
@@JM-co6rf "the shallowness of Mick West's knowledge is striking"
Ok so can you prove any of his explanations wrong?
This whole thing feels odd. Mick keeps saying he gets it but then we do another analogy
you get it.
Mick's not acting in good faith unfortunately
@@dougr8646 So can you prove him wrong or what
Mick, you do great work. Keep it up buddy.
But have more of an open mind.
@Vlasko60 no, because there’s no evidence. But if there were evidence for unicorns, would you believe it?
@Vlasko60 a myriad of witnesses and images would be nice lol I feel like this isn’t hard to understand.
@Vlasko60 Do you believe in narwals?
@Vlasko60 Do you know what the problem with Mick is? The problem is he constantly coming up with the same dumb explainations to every ufo story.
Being skeptic or not believing in aliens is fine. But saying stupid shit like, as example what David Fravor saw was another plane or whatever. That's not making any sense what so ever.
I love this style of thought exploration. Well done Kurt, Mick and Eric. I wish we could see this form of exploration in science and politics.
Wow I loved the debate between these two! I wasn’t a fan of mick mostly based on the opinions of others in the topic but after this podcast debate I have a newfound respect for him. I viewed him as one dimensional and only trying to debunk but to hear that he’s open minded to all possibilities is very cool. Thank you for your work again Curt!
We have a similar mind my friend
Every skeptic is open minded, who tells you otherwise is just doing propaganda.
Everyone, literally everyone, would love to see aliens or even cryptoterrestrials, ultraterrestrials, multidimensional beings, leaving aside the people that may be scared for religious reasons or that are just xenophobic and hate even another human with a different skin tonality.
Aww poor Eric, Mick's after him. After seeing Eric's interviews on Lex I thought what an amazing person but not so sure now. Wether Mick is right or wrong we must be open to, there are 2 sides to every biscuit. So we must be open to explore both sides. Personally I'd love Mick to be wrong but he has brought a calm balance to my thinking. 👀
The thing to keep in mind about Eric is that he believes humanity is on the brink of extinction. Lots of smart people think this. Eric is unique in that he thinks a new fundamental physics is the only thing that can save us. Basically we have to get some of us off the planet.
If ufos exist then they prove Einstein non fundamental and thus we have a chance. So that might explain his eagerness to want to get her as much data as possible.
If you believe new physics is our only hope you’re going to want to go balls out in pursuit of that. At some point you put aside the possibility that Einstein was right because if so we go extinct anyway.
Mick "Can we discuss some specific examples of where I'm incorrect?"
Eric: "It's just a vibe man, you're like bumming me out...that's all."
I'm under the impression that these two have never met but that there has been a lot of trash-talking on other platforms. My main take away so far is that one believes in little green men and the other doesn't, but I'm at about the 1/2 mark and I haven't heard (evidence) from either of them yet.
Mick farted and it smelt like burnt beef
Hey, buddy--let's get real here. Huh? What meds are you on?
I'd argue that their exchange around 19:00 demonstrates that Weinstein's negative impression of West leads him to interpret West's intentions and actions as being in bad faith. Weinstein interpreted West saying that he's able to flex his programming skills in analyzing UAP footage as meaning that West flexes on UAP experiencers, in the same way that someone would intimidatingly flex their muscles. When corrected by West, who would know what he meant, that it was a misunderstanding, Weinstein goes on about how it makes him FEEL. From the way that Weinstein somberly said "I haven't enjoyed our conversations", It seems to me that Weinstein's feelings have been hurt in his Twitter conversations with West, so Weinstein doesn't view West as having good intentions.
At 13:14 West says, "Eventually I kind of settled down in a way on this UFO thing because it's so interesting in terms of the mathematics, the geometry, and the physics, very simple physics, just simple Newtonian stuff, linear algebra and things like that. It's nothing complicated, but it's stuff that I used in my previous career. So I kind of enjoy *flexing* those muscles, and recently I've been enjoying *flexing* my muscles programming simulations."
Later, at 19:05 Weinstein says, "...somebody wants to, in your own words, flex. I don't find the flexing fun."
West responds, "I didn't say flex."
Weinstein: "You did say 'flex'".
West: "Well, it's not a word I actually use, so-"
Weinstein interrupts, "You might say something about flexing your own muscles."
West: "Oh, flexing my muscles, but it's not like 'flex' as in like showboating 'flexing'."
Weinstein interrupts, "You did say 'flex'".
West: "Yes, I know, but for me 'flexing' actually means the same thing as stretching or exercising--"
Weinstein interrupts, "Okay, but right now I just went through exactly one of these moments where I tried to remember something you'd said, and then you told me that you don't use that as a phrase and I happen to be able to recall it."
West: "Yes, but in the sense that you mentioned."
Weinstein: "No. I think you did say it in the original sense, where the Internet term 'flex' comes from, so I don't think that's even correct. So, my point to you is I don't enjoy the feeling in my body right now, which is I've just contradicted you. You assured me that that's not a term that you use. We had perhaps at most a misunderstanding..."
West interjects, "It is a misunderstanding."
Weinstein continues, "...but the feeling of somebody saying, no, you're wrong, and thinking that that's fun, your initial description of your activities is a hobby. I don't much care for this as a hobby."
For those who aren't familiar, the slang "flex", usually phrased as "flexing on...", means "to purposely brag, or show off something you have" (Urban Dictionary) in a similar way that someone would literally flex their muscles to show their strength or superiority. I think it's clear that West meant "flex" in the typical sense of "to put a (skill, talent, or ability) to use" (Oxford Dictionary), as that's what makes sense in context and it's what West claims he meant.
So, Weinstein confidently claimed to know the intentions of West's statement in the face of West telling him he is misunderstood him, then Weinstein cited his personal feelings. Overall, Weinstein misunderstands what West means when he says that analyzing UAP footage, and conspiracy theories broadly, is a hobby of his. Weinstein interpreted that to mean that West enjoys telling UAP experiencers that they are wrong or lying, which is not the case. You can verify this by watching any interview West does with UAP experiencers; he is always respectful and never claims they are lying. West clearly explains that the "hobby" aspect is analyzing specific claims about specific events using the available data. West has explained that a lot of the work of a programmer is actually de-bugging, which shares many similarities with debunking. Both processes involve problem solving including analyzing data, separating relevant data from the irrelevant, identifying logical errors, and attempting to find all possible solutions to those errors. This exchange may seem like an unimportant misunderstanding or miscommunication, but I think it reveals Weinstein's emotional investment in this issue (that he himself claims to not know much about) and his false preconceptions about West.
What I would like to see from the rest of this conversation is a logical analysis of the issue, instead of an emotional one...
Edit: Nope, Weinstein kept talking about feelings with tangentially related scientific concepts thrown in, but West kept wanting to talk about the EVIDENCE. If anyone reading this has a negative impression of West, but you haven't actually engaged with his analyses in depth, I highly recommend watching his longer videos summarizing his data analysis of specific UAP footage as well as his interviews of UAP experiencers. I think you will see that West is sincerely transparant about his methodology and conclusions. Twitter conversations will always be quippy and contentious, so we need to look at long form conversations to have a complete understanding of the competing arguments and evidence. The truth is out there.
The bulk of almost 3 hours of this conversation is all about stigma.
Is Eric's point that nothing should have stigma? Then why is Eric bothered by his surgeon claiming he was abducted by aliens? Does he think people's beliefs matter and have consequences and as such he is using the adaptive social feature we evolved called stigma to make a useful judgment about someone?
So assuming Eric believes stigma does serve a useful social function, the point of the conversation should be centered around if the topic of UFOs deserves stigma or not, based on the available evidence. It should have been 3 hours of that. Looking at the evidence.
Instead we got a man that admits he wants Einstein to be wrong, so that there's some chance of his own theory being right. So he likes it when he hears stories about physics defying vehicles, but he doesn't like that those stories have stigma. So his whole point Is that we should all get along and not be mean to this particular field, because it's relevant to his interests.
And Mick West isn't even mean to people, he's super nice wtf!
Pretty much.
Also it's ok to have stigma who believe some silly thigs, but not this one silly thing that I happen to believe in.
Mick is an UAP atheist, and that’s a relatively safe thing to be, right now. As a self appointed gate keeper on this subject, he may do well to encourage other skeptics to maintain a bit of tolerance, and encourage open minded dialogue. What Eric is saying, and I totally agree with, is that ridicule and mockery may force a chance to discover new paths in science out of the picture. Skepticism is ok, and needed, but it should not be a religion.
Who's saying it should be a religion?
Eric gives a lot of advise. If he is reading this, here is some advice for you: Try and be less patronising, condescending, aggressive, supercilious and judgemental. It seems to me that you have done very little research into what Mick West does. You are not Mick’s professor and you are not a gatekeeper in any of this. Respectfully, take some of your own advice and reflect on how you interact during debates.
Considering that Mick has literally no idea what he’s talking about and he keeps saying there’s no evidence yet he keeps blatantly, ignoring the undeniable evidence of things like the TicTac incident where these objects were not seen by the pilot with their own eyes, but with multiple methods of view With different technologies all collaborative. That’s just about as good of evidence as you’re gonna find anywhere for any topic yet because it’s for you APs he discredits it. Eric actually is very patient and he’s talking to Mick the same way he talked to Terrence Howard because like Terrence Howard Mick is in over his head and has no clue what he’s talking about.
@@ATFstein 😂 what an incredible way of viewing this. West is an expert at analysing footage - he does this well and has provided a simply explanation. People like you don’t like that and don’t understand what he is saying. Weinstein showed himself to be an angry, pompous buffoon here. He even pretty much admits that West is right all along.
If any of this is real then get some footage that proves your case. Don’t blame people like West when they prove you wrong each and every time
After listening to all of it now, Eric is just sad.
My great grandmother could read the future as a party trick for friends and relatives. She stopped doing it in 1912 because all she kept seeing was blood and violent death.