"You're trying to fit a twin size sheet onto a king size mattress and you get two corners to fit so you dismiss the rest". This is a perfect description of my issues with Mick West's 'debunking' videos. He's not taking all data into account for each encounter. He takes one aspect of the encounter and explains that it 'could' be this other thing, so therefore the entire encounter is debunked, when there are 3 other corroborating data points that when put together are very hard to explain. The Nimitz encounter is the perfect example.
Right. Ship Radar was first. 2 planes and 4 pilots sent to investigate. Yup, there it is. 4 pilots on 2 planes from 2 DIFFERENT perspectives see it. Then ship radar tracks it to the CAP. Then a 3rd plane sees it and records IR and electro-optical (which has now been CLASSIFIED). ....but let's pretend away all that data, and just whine about how IR doesn't look like visible light photography. That's Mick West and his cohort in a nutshell. Nothing remotely scientific about his "debunking". Bias, conformation bias, and more bias. "Here's something that sorta looks like my opinion if you squint, AND ignore all the other supporting data" is not proper scientific inquiry.
@@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475 You're correct about West. His method is not scientific. His mind is made up and he dismisses information that does not fit his opinion without objectively analyzing it.
@@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475 I'm putting my faith in multiple and disparate sensor systems detecting over multiple bandwidths and wavelengths across multiple mediums from trained professionals over selective and often out of context dribble from Mick West
@@jacquesstrapp3219 Agreed. It's Cut-and-Paste Conformation Bias, not rigorous scientific methodology. Apriori opinion massage. "Here's my list of possible things: Stars, Moving Stars, Close Stars, Drone Stars, Stars emitting RF," etc. Despite the fact the Navy looked for tail numbers on the "green pyramid" craft, and ranged them at 1000 yards, and released a new video showing this-- He wants you to believe the Navy... who spends all their time on boats under the stars... would call in a "Drone Swarm" because they SUDDENLY saw STARS??? Not even a child would buy that nonsense. I have a working hypotheses that Mick West is Swamp Gas. (or possibly a balloon filled with Swamp Gas.)
Sign Up For TOEmail at www.curtjaimungal.org The question about "why is it so hard to believe that we're not being observed, given we observe almost each species we can?" is cut off at the end, and you can listen to it in full on the clips channel: ruclips.net/channel/UCdITf9DoFmndXy7nXWIoa7g (the particular clip in question is ruclips.net/video/4ZWOae7qFUU/видео.html)
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.
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
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.
@@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 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.
As much as I admire Eric, I'm starting to recognize a pattern of grievance. Although he is obviously doing well for himself, he appears to hold the rather irrational belief of being targeted - by his colleagues during hid PhD days, by the UFO debunkers, his borther "had a nobel prize" stolen from him, he is targeted by an organized smearing campaign, his theory of everything is throttled by the entire physics community... mind you, at one point, he did a whole Portal episode about how actually his generation, gen X, was doomed by boomers. I don't want to sound mean, but for an average American earning lesser than a living age, with a threat of medical bankrupcy if given bad luck, unaffordable housing, etc. it must be confusing to see the financial manager of Thiel capital complain so often about the injustices of his life.
David, you've won the internet with that post. A very astute observation. His response to any sort of pushback to his claims are often met with a why-is-this-person-who-is-not-as-clever-as-me-challenging-my ideas, type of vibe.
Let’s follow that logic for a moment. If you worked really hard for everything you’ve gotten in life, you are somehow forfeiting any right you have to discuss perceived injustices? Think about that…. We have a police brutality issue in America but simultaneously there are people in third world countries who do not have clean water to drink. We should all abruptly stop discussing police brutality right? I mean, imagine how privileged we are to worry about such trivial things comparatively. Obviously not. This binary thought process coupled with logical inconsistency is an awful combination
I agree, also he sounds a bit narcisistic. He sounds like someone that devolves lots of energy to build an interesting and knowledgable persona, in order to command respect and even some form of authority. The essence of his ideas and topics is really vague and generic. And i know i sound like i am judging him based on my ignorant perception, but he willingly puts himself under the spotlight in regards to a really controversial and hot topic, so i don't think it's bad to assume he does it for money or fame, even at the cost of openly judging him with the risk of hurting his feelings. He is not a charlatan like Bob Lazar, Greer etc, but he surely rides the wave of the ufo topic, where many people (me included, until a years ago ) are so intrigued and open minded that they lower they rational thinking.
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 !
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.
Weinstein is so incredibly disingenuous and insufferable, this isn't even a conversation. It's Weinstein raising strawman after strawman and complaining about his feelings. This guy should be laughed out of here.
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
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).
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
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.
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.
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”
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 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.
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 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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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...
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!
I found this discussion deeply disturbing. Eric's repeated attack on micks empathy towards the ufo community was totally uncalled for. Attacking micks rational explanations, to mis interpreted sightings, limits our understanding of uap. There seems to be an aggressive trend to ridicule people seeking rational explanations. open minded ufo investigators would love to see genuine evidence of exotic science but are smart enough to filter out stuff with obvious explanations. I was deeply saddened that eric, also, attacked mick from a cultural perspective. US v Uk. I felt, eric genuinely did not understand what mick was saying and how tolerant he is to people who have seen something they can't explain. There was a total disconnect in this discussion, that maybe TOE could have moderated better.
Even taken in his own terms, Eric came across as a hypocrite. So he doesn't have time for "little green men", finds the notion ridiculous, thinks there's a lot of "crazy stuff" (paraphrasing) that he doesn't think should be part of the conversation. Fine. But then he acts incredibly offended that some might level the same ridicule at UFOs altogether (which he insinuates but, interestingly, refuses to state that Mick does). Well, what is it, Eric? Either ridiculing silly ideas is ok or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.
Actually if you’ve followed Mick, “empathy” cannot be use in relationship to the UFO/UAP community. Mick has been eternally, hostile, judgmental and apathetic towards the UFO community at large. I think Eric’s confrontation was exactly what someone like West needed … You can’t yearn to rationally explain anything on this subject until you’ve investigated and confirm; Mick comes up with his genius explanations without any confirmations and preach them as rational explanation; that’s as bad as UFO=aliens from other planets believers doing the same thing.
I just watched the video. While I have respect for Eric's knowledge and background, I lost more and more respect for him as the video progressed. Beyond now believing that Eric likes the sound of his voice, I believe Eric had a pre-planned agenda of attacking Mick and, in my opinion, talking down to Mick and presenting himself as the only adult in the room feeling the need to scold an insolent child. It really turned me off. I also think this video displayed Curt's inability, unwillingness and/or fear of moderating a high profile, alpha guest. By the way Mick, I feel that Lazar is a fraud as well. Mick displayed himself to be truly professional, patient and polite.
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.
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.
Weinstein seems really butt hurt about something Mick West did or said at some point and it’s destroying his objectivity about Mick West’s true position and intentions. Mick. West comes across by far as the more genuine and objective party. I love Eric Weinstein but he’s losing a lot of credibility in my eyes in this one. He doesn’t seem truly objective and is projecting that on Mick.
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.
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.
14:00 It was absolutely clear, even for a non-native English speaker such as me, that Mick said " I like flexing my muscles" to mean "I like to practice my math and programming skills". Never did he imply flexing as in "I like to show off and put people down". You either have to be really stupid or really dishonest to read the second interpretation based on his actual words, like Eric did a few minutes after the comment. If I were Mick I would have immediately called him out on such dishonesty and would not let go until he admitted to wrongdoing. Once you allow your opponent to lie straight to your face, twist your words, and not be held accountable for it... you've lost the discusion.
Cambridge dictionary: Flexing to show that you are very proud or happy about something you have done or something you own, usually in a way that annoys people: "I beat you!" "Hey, no flexing." No need to flex about all the cash you've got. When you are not a native speaker, you miss these things... Flexing is not practising, it is showing off
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.
@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.
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.
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 -- 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.
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'
There are explanations as to why there is no evidence. Many witnesses say the government/military took it. These are extremely respectable people who are saying this.
First time listening to Mr Winestein,I've heard of the man, listening to him you can tell his super intelligent and has an understanding of the physics surrounding UFO/UAP alot more than his telling,his brilliant at disarming ppl and comes across as genuine,i listen to more of this man see what i think 🤔
No, he's actually making sense, but it comes off certain way. It's a problem of human nature that people are more concerned with how something appears, rather than the facts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
I think Eric has fallen down the post-modernism rabbit hole. He jumps into every conspiracy theory head first. Science is about the most logical probability, not every possibility.
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.
2h 22 min in, and Eric just comes across as an insufferable intellectual bully towards Mick. His pedantic argument against "debunking" became tiresome. Eric was on offense the whole time, when his key argument against "debunking" could have and should have been made in the first 15 min. Eric continued to make an argumentation fallacy by focusing on whether Mick "mocks" others with whom he disagrees instead of focusing on whether Mick is indeed falsifying the specific claims that he investigates; or whether Mick employs sound scientific methodologies; or addressing the evidence and validity of Mick's findings on specific claims. This was really off-putting.
"This was really off-putting." You are too kind. The ancient Romans referred to him as Eric the Insufferable. Eric is a study in bogus argumentation and subtle bullying. To name just a few of his tactics: 1. Seize the High Ground: Virtue signals that he's the only one in the room with a heart. The only one who notices the weak and the misled. The champion of sensitive souls who've HAD THEIR LIVES DESTROYED by either skeptical meanies or gullible dummies like whoever's in front of him. I.e. Ad hominem. 2. Go Big Picture: Whenever he's cornered into talking and explaining himself like a normal smart guy would, he goes all airy fairy thought guru. Presses the break on everything, then slow-mo talk slams the Big Picture over whoever's in front of him. 3. Go Kindergarten Teacher: Whenever whosever in front of him shows exasperation because Eric is a big exasperation muther effer, he starts addressing them as if they were an unsettled child. "Ok, I don't want this to sound...ill-willed, because it truly isn't. Truly. Here's the problem with you. And, no, please...hear me out. Believe it or not I've got your interest at heart. Let me just, "help", as it were..." 4. Go Amateur: At the start of interview or new topic let everyone know that you're no expert on this. You've got more important things to do and think about. But you'll grace this show for a few hours because everything-everything, something-something is "CRUCIALLY DEVESTATINGLY IMPORTANT" and only you can decipher the meaning for everyone. You know the ways of the serpent. Shhhhhhh....be very quiet...and listen. 5. Ronald McDonald: Derail everything. Similar to Go Big Picture. But can go Small Picture as well. Whatever it takes to scramble out of the corner he's put himself in. Start talking about Ronald McDonald if that's what it takes. 6. Bore to Tears: Just wear down whoever's in front of him with all of the above tactics, (and probably 15 more that are too subtle for conscious detection) so that whoever's in front of him stops arguing and lets Eric indulge in whatever bizarre talk-dominant ritual this is for him.
Eric saying that "things in the field need to be destroyed" sums up what kind of a person he is. I don't appreciate people like this and I don't consider him a true scientist, he just mimics the scientific approach to defend his ego battles. Not to even mention that he knows nothing about the phenomenon.
Are used to get frustrated with Mick West, and his sort of “too cool for crazy stories”, type of attitude, but after hearing him talk, I see that I rushed judgment from him he’s right. Evidence doesn’t stand up so scientific scrutiny alot of the time. And the truth is that the burden of proof is on those making the claim Doesn’t mean it’s not real but until we know it’s real let’s wait to see what turns up. And I’m glad that people are soberly investigating without pushing the data because they want it be real. I want it to be real . Probably why I judged him in the first place.. I like Erics position of open to any and all posibility. We need both of these men
Weinstein looked small arguing with Mick here. Sounded like a teacher in a classroom lecturing a pupil that is not only better at the facts game but also at arguing. His ratio of words spoken to sensible thoughts expressed reminds me of a hot air balloon.
I agree. Mick is trying to find out if these claims are true and Eric is saying he shouldn’t do it because it discourages people from coming forward. That seems like nonsense. How or when would we know? Just believe what someone says? What would be the point?
It seems to me that West was more precise, while Weinstein was stuck on generalities. West didn't hold Weinstein accountable for all UFO hoaxes, yet Weinstein kept on harping about bad actors within the skeptic community. The reality is that neither gentleman can be held accountable for what people in their own group say. Too bad Weinstein failed to grasp that fundamental concept.
Eric was actually saying that the stigma and social queing of "skeptics" and "debunking" is anathema to science. And Mick ultimately agreed so what are you talking about?
That's what I thought! He went way up in my estimation considering Eric did pretty much everything he accused Mick West of doing. Quite arrogant I thought.
Mick West is a stain in the conversation. He's a biased professional skeptic who has no business being in this type of conversation let alone talking to and about scientists and experts in the field. His roasting is warranted. He is the literal definition of the stigma surrounding the subject.
Unfortunately it seems to be all face. Mick West isn't interested in getting closer to the truth -- and when people point out that he adds nothing to the conversation than simply contributing 'skepticism' in favor of majority consensus -- or the accepted consensus by the relevant authority. I'm all for skepticism -- I'm against bias. Mick is nearly always biased and never examines his own presuppositions.
@@pulsemaps As you might infer, it depends on the topic. I find he only tends to lean on alleged scientific authority and the dominant narratives within media. There is nothing wrong with that; but it's clear that he does not look through any alternative lens from which to formulate an opinion; nor does he aggregate information and analyze the problem from a 'wholistic angle'. Mick has a strong distaste from analyzing things from a game-theoretical angle (speaking of social phenomena). He doesn't like the 'unknowns' -- and so he strays away from continuous and probabilistic reasoning in favor of more discrete forms of thought. Of course, we can probably just reduce that to him just being a Positivist and ontic physicalist. Personally -- I think that's a sign of either intellectual inflexibility, a conflict of interest, or perhaps a mixture of both. Either way, I don't think he provides very much to these conversations. Everything he says seems to be everyone's first guess to begin with. I don't believe in treating an audience as stupid or lacking basic critical thinking skills.
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 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?
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!!! 🇨🇦
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.
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.
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.
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.
The UFO/UAP believer community need to be grateful for Mick West's input. Let's get rid of everything that is noise. What are we left with, should there be anything, concentrate on that. He is doing a the necessary work, a great service and i appreciate it. He states very pointedly, he is prepared to change his position based on available/new data. The scientific method. Keep up the good work Mick.
I had no idea who Mick was until recently, and it really seems he’s being disingenuous about his position. I constantly see him gaslighting ppl, so it’s kinda humorous to stumble across this now, bc it’s pretty obvious he is misrepresenting himself. He’s either very naive about his own behavior, or he’s purposely misrepresenting his intent and behavior. He seems very sober and logical, so I can’t imagine it’s the first option. I’m pretty confident he knows exactly what he’s doing-he just doesn’t want to think of himself as being someone that gaslights, mocks and belittles ppl. He absolutely does tho. I think this is why Eric is having a really hard time accepting how Mick is representing himself.
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.
@@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”.
Eric loves himself some Eric. He’ll explain something with an example -> Mick agrees and confirms he understands -> Eric can’t handle that so he scoffs and insists surely he must make another point as well -> verbose nonsense about something entirely different. I used to hate Mick and now I respect him more than Eric.
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.
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!
"You're trying to fit a twin size sheet onto a king size mattress and you get two corners to fit so you dismiss the rest". This is a perfect description of my issues with Mick West's 'debunking' videos. He's not taking all data into account for each encounter. He takes one aspect of the encounter and explains that it 'could' be this other thing, so therefore the entire encounter is debunked, when there are 3 other corroborating data points that when put together are very hard to explain. The Nimitz encounter is the perfect example.
Right. Ship Radar was first. 2 planes and 4 pilots sent to investigate. Yup, there it is. 4 pilots on 2 planes from 2 DIFFERENT perspectives see it. Then ship radar tracks it to the CAP. Then a 3rd plane sees it and records IR and electro-optical (which has now been CLASSIFIED).
....but let's pretend away all that data, and just whine about how IR doesn't look like visible light photography.
That's Mick West and his cohort in a nutshell. Nothing remotely scientific about his "debunking". Bias, conformation bias, and more bias. "Here's something that sorta looks like my opinion if you squint, AND ignore all the other supporting data" is not proper scientific inquiry.
@@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475 You're correct about West. His method is not scientific. His mind is made up and he dismisses information that does not fit his opinion without objectively analyzing it.
@@onebylandtwoifbysearunifby5475 I'm putting my faith in multiple and disparate sensor systems detecting over multiple bandwidths and wavelengths across multiple mediums from trained professionals over selective and often out of context dribble from Mick West
@@gfenwick1 "...but if you squint hard enough, it sorta looks like a balloon surrounded by [moving] stars".
@@jacquesstrapp3219 Agreed. It's Cut-and-Paste Conformation Bias, not rigorous scientific methodology. Apriori opinion massage.
"Here's my list of possible things: Stars, Moving Stars, Close Stars, Drone Stars, Stars emitting RF," etc.
Despite the fact the Navy looked for tail numbers on the "green pyramid" craft, and ranged them at 1000 yards, and released a new video showing this-- He wants you to believe the Navy... who spends all their time on boats under the stars... would call in a "Drone Swarm" because they SUDDENLY saw STARS??? Not even a child would buy that nonsense.
I have a working hypotheses that Mick West is Swamp Gas.
(or possibly a balloon filled with Swamp Gas.)
Sign Up For TOEmail at www.curtjaimungal.org
The question about "why is it so hard to believe that we're not being observed, given we observe almost each species we can?" is cut off at the end, and you can listen to it in full on the clips channel: ruclips.net/channel/UCdITf9DoFmndXy7nXWIoa7g (the particular clip in question is ruclips.net/video/4ZWOae7qFUU/видео.html)
just wondered is there a part 2 ? or is it just planned for future ?
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
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
💯
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.
Once again, TOE allows one to observe experts. Well done Kurt
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 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.
As much as I admire Eric, I'm starting to recognize a pattern of grievance. Although he is obviously doing well for himself, he appears to hold the rather irrational belief of being targeted - by his colleagues during hid PhD days, by the UFO debunkers, his borther "had a nobel prize" stolen from him, he is targeted by an organized smearing campaign, his theory of everything is throttled by the entire physics community... mind you, at one point, he did a whole Portal episode about how actually his generation, gen X, was doomed by boomers. I don't want to sound mean, but for an average American earning lesser than a living age, with a threat of medical bankrupcy if given bad luck, unaffordable housing, etc. it must be confusing to see the financial manager of Thiel capital complain so often about the injustices of his life.
David, you've won the internet with that post. A very astute observation. His response to any sort of pushback to his claims are often met with a why-is-this-person-who-is-not-as-clever-as-me-challenging-my ideas, type of vibe.
@@rstevens7711 he´s a spoiled boy with a personal model that is as good as string theory. :D
Let’s follow that logic for a moment. If you worked really hard for everything you’ve gotten in life, you are somehow forfeiting any right you have to discuss perceived injustices? Think about that…. We have a police brutality issue in America but simultaneously there are people in third world countries who do not have clean water to drink. We should all abruptly stop discussing police brutality right? I mean, imagine how privileged we are to worry about such trivial things comparatively. Obviously not. This binary thought process coupled with logical inconsistency is an awful combination
This is a terrible summary of his positions. Like, not even close.
I agree, also he sounds a bit narcisistic. He sounds like someone that devolves lots of energy to build an interesting and knowledgable persona, in order to command respect and even some form of authority. The essence of his ideas and topics is really vague and generic. And i know i sound like i am judging him based on my ignorant perception, but he willingly puts himself under the spotlight in regards to a really controversial and hot topic, so i don't think it's bad to assume he does it for money or fame, even at the cost of openly judging him with the risk of hurting his feelings.
He is not a charlatan like Bob Lazar, Greer etc, but he surely rides the wave of the ufo topic, where many people (me included, until a years ago ) are so intrigued and open minded that they lower they rational thinking.
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%
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
Weinstein is so incredibly disingenuous and insufferable, this isn't even a conversation. It's Weinstein raising strawman after strawman and complaining about his feelings. This guy should be laughed out of here.
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
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 Weinstein is trying to win a debate, Mick West doesn't know he is in a debate.
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.
I’m team Mick on this subject
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
Eric Weinstein, the most distressed man on Earth.
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.
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.
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.
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's opening couldn't have been more clear. Eric didn't listen and was simply looking for a fight.
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.
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.
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?
Oh boy oh boy oh boy this is gonna be intense
Inglorious basterds?
Love how this eric dude knew he wasnt going to have any sound arguments so his first swing at Mick was about a word.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
This is literally the only comment I have found that's non biased and truthfull
@gtaiv2993 ...oh, really now. Google your silly "Fallacy of Begging the Question," Genius; then click, "Examples."
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.
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...
After listening to all of it now, Eric is just sad.
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
I found this discussion deeply disturbing. Eric's repeated attack on micks empathy towards the ufo community was totally uncalled for. Attacking micks rational explanations, to mis interpreted sightings, limits our understanding of uap. There seems to be an aggressive trend to ridicule people seeking rational explanations. open minded ufo investigators would love to see genuine evidence of exotic science but are smart enough to filter out stuff with obvious explanations. I was deeply saddened that eric, also, attacked mick from a cultural perspective. US v Uk. I felt, eric genuinely did not understand what mick was saying and how tolerant he is to people who have seen something they can't explain. There was a total disconnect in this discussion, that maybe TOE could have moderated better.
Even taken in his own terms, Eric came across as a hypocrite. So he doesn't have time for "little green men", finds the notion ridiculous, thinks there's a lot of "crazy stuff" (paraphrasing) that he doesn't think should be part of the conversation. Fine. But then he acts incredibly offended that some might level the same ridicule at UFOs altogether (which he insinuates but, interestingly, refuses to state that Mick does). Well, what is it, Eric? Either ridiculing silly ideas is ok or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.
I agree with you I very disappointed by Curt’s hands off policy and not moderating a connstant barrage of attacks.
Actually if you’ve followed Mick, “empathy” cannot be use in relationship to the UFO/UAP community.
Mick has been eternally, hostile, judgmental and apathetic towards the UFO community at large.
I think Eric’s confrontation was exactly what someone like West needed … You can’t yearn to rationally explain anything on this subject until you’ve investigated and confirm; Mick comes up with his genius explanations without any confirmations and preach them as rational explanation; that’s as bad as UFO=aliens from other planets believers doing the same thing.
@@TheHighlanderprime 1. Examples? 2. Can you prove him wrong?
I just watched the video. While I have respect for Eric's knowledge and background, I lost more and more respect for him as the video progressed. Beyond now believing that Eric likes the sound of his voice, I believe Eric had a pre-planned agenda of attacking Mick and, in my opinion, talking down to Mick and presenting himself as the only adult in the room feeling the need to scold an insolent child. It really turned me off. I also think this video displayed Curt's inability, unwillingness and/or fear of moderating a high profile, alpha guest. By the way Mick, I feel that Lazar is a fraud as well. Mick displayed himself to be truly professional, patient and polite.
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.
Eric has no comment when Mick asks for direct examples. So ridiculous
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 did not use flex in the sense that Eric alluded to! still Eric felt offended when Mick tried to explain that… 🙃
Weinstein seems really butt hurt about something Mick West did or said at some point and it’s destroying his objectivity about Mick West’s true position and intentions. Mick. West comes across by far as the more genuine and objective party. I love Eric Weinstein but he’s losing a lot of credibility in my eyes in this one. He doesn’t seem truly objective and is projecting that on Mick.
Brilliant. Curt, you demonstrate empathy and non-hateful discussions with each podcast. Keep it up.
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?
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.*
Eric is such a jerk to Mick who deserves congratulations for not walking out. Mick is a real gentleman.
14:00 It was absolutely clear, even for a non-native English speaker such as me, that Mick said " I like flexing my muscles" to mean "I like to practice my math and programming skills". Never did he imply flexing as in "I like to show off and put people down". You either have to be really stupid or really dishonest to read the second interpretation based on his actual words, like Eric did a few minutes after the comment. If I were Mick I would have immediately called him out on such dishonesty and would not let go until he admitted to wrongdoing. Once you allow your opponent to lie straight to your face, twist your words, and not be held accountable for it... you've lost the discusion.
yep that is such a turn off for me when listening to this
Cambridge dictionary:
Flexing
to show that you are very proud or happy about something you have done or something you own, usually in a way that annoys people:
"I beat you!" "Hey, no flexing."
No need to flex about all the cash you've got.
When you are not a native speaker, you miss these things... Flexing is not practising, it is showing off
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.
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.
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.
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
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".
I think weed need people like Mick west on the ufo topic
I agree. I think Eric’s point seemed to be that you can be scientific and objective but you don’t have to be a dick about it. 😂
Great Job Kurt. I was an hour and a half in and completely forgot it was your show! You really sat back and just let them discuss. Fantastic.
Watch the eye movements at 1:30:02
Like he’s watching Wimbledon!
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.
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
There are explanations as to why there is no evidence. Many witnesses say the government/military took it.
These are extremely respectable people who are saying this.
First time listening to Mr Winestein,I've heard of the man, listening to him you can tell his super intelligent and has an understanding of the physics surrounding UFO/UAP alot more than his telling,his brilliant at disarming ppl and comes across as genuine,i listen to more of this man see what i think 🤔
Yeah, he brilliantly disarms people so he can convince people that there’s nothing to it.
It's really insane how long Eric can talk without saying anything. Dude is the adult equivalent of a child asking if you have games on your phone.
No, he's actually making sense, but it comes off certain way. It's a problem of human nature that people are more concerned with how something appears, rather than the facts
He's trying to be nuanced, seems like you can only do binary thinking.
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
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.
Weinstein hobby is listening to sound of his own voice😂😂he is a b movie intellectual.
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.
💯
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.
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.
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.
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!
Mick owned the hell out of this dude. I love how his even keeled nature and cool customer being pisses off emotional superstitious ppl.
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.
21:43 "I haven't enjoyed our interactions" The impression I get from everyone regarding Mick West
I think Eric has fallen down the post-modernism rabbit hole. He jumps into every conspiracy theory head first. Science is about the most logical probability, not every possibility.
Damnnn i like that🤙🏻
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.
2h 22 min in, and Eric just comes across as an insufferable intellectual bully towards Mick. His pedantic argument against "debunking" became tiresome. Eric was on offense the whole time, when his key argument against "debunking" could have and should have been made in the first 15 min. Eric continued to make an argumentation fallacy by focusing on whether Mick "mocks" others with whom he disagrees instead of focusing on whether Mick is indeed falsifying the specific claims that he investigates; or whether Mick employs sound scientific methodologies; or addressing the evidence and validity of Mick's findings on specific claims. This was really off-putting.
"This was really off-putting." You are too kind. The ancient Romans referred to him as Eric the Insufferable. Eric is a study in bogus argumentation and subtle bullying. To name just a few of his tactics:
1. Seize the High Ground: Virtue signals that he's the only one in the room with a heart. The only one who notices the weak and the misled. The champion of sensitive souls who've HAD THEIR LIVES DESTROYED by either skeptical meanies or gullible dummies like whoever's in front of him. I.e. Ad hominem.
2. Go Big Picture: Whenever he's cornered into talking and explaining himself like a normal smart guy would, he goes all airy fairy thought guru. Presses the break on everything, then slow-mo talk slams the Big Picture over whoever's in front of him.
3. Go Kindergarten Teacher: Whenever whosever in front of him shows exasperation because Eric is a big exasperation muther effer, he starts addressing them as if they were an unsettled child. "Ok, I don't want this to sound...ill-willed, because it truly isn't. Truly. Here's the problem with you. And, no, please...hear me out. Believe it or not I've got your interest at heart. Let me just, "help", as it were..."
4. Go Amateur: At the start of interview or new topic let everyone know that you're no expert on this. You've got more important things to do and think about. But you'll grace this show for a few hours because everything-everything, something-something is "CRUCIALLY DEVESTATINGLY IMPORTANT" and only you can decipher the meaning for everyone. You know the ways of the serpent. Shhhhhhh....be very quiet...and listen.
5. Ronald McDonald: Derail everything. Similar to Go Big Picture. But can go Small Picture as well. Whatever it takes to scramble out of the corner he's put himself in. Start talking about Ronald McDonald if that's what it takes.
6. Bore to Tears: Just wear down whoever's in front of him with all of the above tactics, (and probably 15 more that are too subtle for conscious detection) so that whoever's in front of him stops arguing and lets Eric indulge in whatever bizarre talk-dominant ritual this is for him.
Unclear why a scientist would speak on this! You and the other reply may have a point. Now I must listen to validate your character assassination.
Eric saying that "things in the field need to be destroyed" sums up what kind of a person he is. I don't appreciate people like this and I don't consider him a true scientist, he just mimics the scientific approach to defend his ego battles. Not to even mention that he knows nothing about the phenomenon.
Are used to get frustrated with Mick West, and his sort of “too cool for crazy stories”, type of attitude, but after hearing him talk, I see that I rushed judgment from him he’s right. Evidence doesn’t stand up so scientific scrutiny alot of the time. And the truth is that the burden of proof is on those making the claim Doesn’t mean it’s not real but until we know it’s real let’s wait to see what turns up. And I’m glad that people are soberly investigating without pushing the data because they want it be real. I want it to be real . Probably why I judged him in the first place.. I like Erics position of open to any and all posibility. We need both of these men
Weinstein looked small arguing with Mick here. Sounded like a teacher in a classroom lecturing a pupil that is not only better at the facts game but also at arguing. His ratio of words spoken to sensible thoughts expressed reminds me of a hot air balloon.
I agree. Mick is trying to find out if these claims are true and Eric is saying he shouldn’t do it because it discourages people from coming forward. That seems like nonsense. How or when would we know? Just believe what someone says? What would be the point?
It seems to me that West was more precise, while Weinstein was stuck on generalities. West didn't hold Weinstein accountable for all UFO hoaxes, yet Weinstein kept on harping about bad actors within the skeptic community. The reality is that neither gentleman can be held accountable for what people in their own group say. Too bad Weinstein failed to grasp that fundamental concept.
👍😊
Eric was actually saying that the stigma and social queing of "skeptics" and "debunking" is anathema to science. And Mick ultimately agreed so what are you talking about?
Wrong! Eric seems open to new ideas, West is set in his ways, like possibly yourself
Mick West has more patience than just about anyone I've known or seen or heard.
Truth
Yes, Weinstein is a jerk for sure!
@@briangorman186 nope, he’s the best thing that’s happened to this subject.
Yeah, it's called ignorance.
That's what I thought! He went way up in my estimation considering Eric did pretty much everything he accused Mick West of doing. Quite arrogant I thought.
I''m in awe of Mick West's patience.
I came to say the same thing. I would have lost it in the first five minutes and confronted Eric head on. Total lack of respect.
Mick West is a stain in the conversation. He's a biased professional skeptic who has no business being in this type of conversation let alone talking to and about scientists and experts in the field. His roasting is warranted. He is the literal definition of the stigma surrounding the subject.
Unfortunately it seems to be all face. Mick West isn't interested in getting closer to the truth -- and when people point out that he adds nothing to the conversation than simply contributing 'skepticism' in favor of majority consensus -- or the accepted consensus by the relevant authority. I'm all for skepticism -- I'm against bias. Mick is nearly always biased and never examines his own presuppositions.
@@Archeidos-Arcana pray tell what is this "accepted consensus"? And who is this "relevant authority"?
@@pulsemaps As you might infer, it depends on the topic. I find he only tends to lean on alleged scientific authority and the dominant narratives within media. There is nothing wrong with that; but it's clear that he does not look through any alternative lens from which to formulate an opinion; nor does he aggregate information and analyze the problem from a 'wholistic angle'.
Mick has a strong distaste from analyzing things from a game-theoretical angle (speaking of social phenomena). He doesn't like the 'unknowns' -- and so he strays away from continuous and probabilistic reasoning in favor of more discrete forms of thought.
Of course, we can probably just reduce that to him just being a Positivist and ontic physicalist.
Personally -- I think that's a sign of either intellectual inflexibility, a conflict of interest, or perhaps a mixture of both.
Either way, I don't think he provides very much to these conversations. Everything he says seems to be everyone's first guess to begin with. I don't believe in treating an audience as stupid or lacking basic critical thinking skills.
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 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?
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!
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.
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.
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
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.”
The UFO/UAP believer community need to be grateful for Mick West's input. Let's get rid of everything that is noise. What are we left with, should there be anything, concentrate on that. He is doing a the necessary work, a great service and i appreciate it. He states very pointedly, he is prepared to change his position based on available/new data. The scientific method. Keep up the good work Mick.
The science is not bad....
I had no idea who Mick was until recently, and it really seems he’s being disingenuous about his position. I constantly see him gaslighting ppl, so it’s kinda humorous to stumble across this now, bc it’s pretty obvious he is misrepresenting himself. He’s either very naive about his own behavior, or he’s purposely misrepresenting his intent and behavior. He seems very sober and logical, so I can’t imagine it’s the first option. I’m pretty confident he knows exactly what he’s doing-he just doesn’t want to think of himself as being someone that gaslights, mocks and belittles ppl. He absolutely does tho. I think this is why Eric is having a really hard time accepting how Mick is representing himself.
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.
This is incredible and exactly what we need more of
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”.
Eric loves himself some Eric. He’ll explain something with an example -> Mick agrees and confirms he understands -> Eric can’t handle that so he scoffs and insists surely he must make another point as well -> verbose nonsense about something entirely different. I used to hate Mick and now I respect him more than Eric.
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
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.
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!
Mick seemed perfectly reasonable. Not sure why Eric was so annoyed lol
Because he’s a crackpot and has to play the victim.
Eric Weinstein vaguely insulting Mick West for 2+ hours