This was an asinine waste of my time and an excellent way of signaling this channel’s host is a clickbaiting just asking questions style grifter. Get a grip folks.
As my mother used to say, even a broken clock is right twice a day! I loved what Weinstein said about peer review having replaced the scientific method, which has resulted in the proverbial baby being thrown out with the bath water in many cases.
Thank you for your comment, @arcitejack. I appreciate your interest in hearing more about my personal take on Terrence Howard’s theories as presented in his 'paper.' Reviewing Howard's work, it's clear that he brings a unique perspective to the table, one that challenges our conventional understanding of mathematics and physics. His approach is not just about revising numbers or equations; it's about fundamentally rethinking how we conceptualize the universe. While his theories are unconventional and not widely accepted in the traditional scientific community, they do spark interesting discussions about the nature of scientific innovation and the boundaries of accepted knowledge. Personally, I find Howard’s ambition and willingness to challenge established norms both intriguing and courageous. However, as someone who values the rigorous methodologies that underpin scientific inquiry, I also see the importance of grounding new theories in empirical evidence and peer-reviewed research. Howard’s work, while fascinating, would benefit from more rigorous testing and validation within the scientific community to move from speculative to more widely accepted scientific concepts. This blend of radical thought and the need for empirical validation creates a fertile ground for discussion. It’s a reminder that science is not just about maintaining the status quo but also about pushing the boundaries and exploring new ideas, even if they come from unexpected places. What do you think about the balance between innovation and traditional scientific validation? Let’s keep this conversation going
Terrence Howard needs help. WE, the public, need to be helping the man. We are hurting him by encouraging this public behavior. It is a shame that Terrence doesn't hire a graduate student in math or physics to help (show) him privately. I pray that Neil deGrasse Tyson calls him up "privately" and say dude, let us have a beer. By the way, I have two doctorate students at Harvard who will work with you on your theories - in case you don't believe me. Terrence has been "crazy" for ten years. He is hurting not only the public but himself and his family. Stop it. Please stop it. It was funny - at first- now it is just sad.
I watched that episode, he was just being nice, as Eric said so many times, it's ridiculous and you are crazy. Yes your title says supports, so I can't watch this, because he just didn't. Terrence could not read any formulas.
Thanks for your comment! I can see how the title might come across as a bit sensational-sometimes finding the right balance between capturing attention and accurately reflecting the discussion is a real challenge. 😅 Terrence Howard’s ideas certainly push the envelope, and his approach can seem pretty unconventional, which might not be for everyone. But that’s exactly why it’s so fascinating to dive into his theories; they spark lively discussions and bring a variety of opinions to the forefront, just like this! I’d love to hear more about your thoughts on the discussion. Did any particular part of Terrence's presentation or the conversation strike you as especially noteworthy or controversial? Let's keep the dialogue open and engaging!
How do we know that Howard isn't right on some of his theories? He's a free thinker and I think it's unfair his work got the red pen and became a laughing stock.
He's an arrogant know-nothing. He is precisely the kind of person that hinders improvement. He doesn't get it, and he doesn't get that he doesn't get it.
@@eeeaten It seems like it could be an act to me. It reminds me of dialog you might hear in a bad sci-fi movie when they are pretending to be technical.
Howard is a classic text book example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. it's just a shame that there are people out there that fall for this crap. I mean come on. he's an actor! you don't think he can play at sounding as though he knows anything about advanced physics and applied mathematics? there are a number of videos on youtube that debunk everything he says. even Eric says that in the end he made some pretty pieces of art, but that's about it.
I thought Eric was taking shots at Terrence while Terrence thought that was his friend. I feel like Eric’s main point was that, we did the work and had to jump through so many hoops to get to this position, so how dare an actor who didn’t take the academic route like the rest of us. And look at all the attention his getting. That’s what I got from Eric. Even though Eric sees the science in what Howard is saying. That’s what I understood from the Interview
Thank you for sharing your perspective on the conversation between Eric Weinstein and Terrence Howard. It's really interesting to hear how different viewers interpret the dynamics of such discussions. You've touched on a critical point about the tension that sometimes exists between traditional academic pathways and unconventional approaches to science and theory. Eric Weinstein, with his deep academic background, indeed expressed concerns about the process and rigor that traditionally accompany scientific validation. This can contrast sharply with Terrence Howard's more unconventional journey through science, which might not follow the typical academic route. It’s important to note that while there might have been moments in their conversation that felt like challenges or critiques, these are often part of a robust scientific dialogue. Eric’s main objective seemed to be bridging the gap between Howard’s innovative ideas and the established scientific methods, ensuring that these ideas are communicated in a way that can be critically evaluated and understood by the broader scientific community. Your point about the attention Terrence receives is also very poignant. It highlights a broader discussion about celebrity influence in professional and academic fields, which can sometimes overshadow traditional routes and efforts. It's great to see such engagement from you, and I encourage you to keep questioning and thinking critically about these interactions. Dialogues like these are crucial as they push the boundaries of traditional science and open up new ways of thinking and understanding.
@MassaAblo Powerful, meaningful. You know I was thinking Eric basically described the problems within the system but continuing to reference his colleagues and Terrence’s need for their approval leads me to the conclusion he is also part of the system describing himself as a gear or cog. Maybe the only reason Terrence had these thoughts and developed the ideas is because he didn’t have someone like Eric himself who “apprenticed” from the same school of thought which he so adamantly defends and shot down the ideas they might have thought erroneous. He calls for polymaths like Terrence whilst drawing the line the in sand acknowledging himself as a superior to someone 3 years his junior. Why? Eric references having devoted his life to following the already established school of thought but Terrence has spent the same amount of time following his own thoughts and ideas. I do understand Eric meant well in that if Terrence were to learn the mathematical concepts and equations a formal Academia career provides he might be able to describe his theory of the universe in a different manner which would be at least more easily understood by “his community”. I see a blend of respect for Terrence’s obvious high intellect but flawed criticism about a different way of thinking in which Eric himself admitted is just now learning for the first time. 4 hours isn’t enough to fully understand Terrence’s view of reality and Eric seemed to overly express Terrence needs to learn his way of thinking first. Why? Seems like an ego thing to me.
Terence is presenting a Taoist point of view; life is a balance of opposites. Yin and yang, subjectivity and objectivity, in-breath and out-breath, as he continually stated in his podcasts. Eric's philosophy is scientism which is only concerned with objectivity and is by definition loveless and meaningless. It is an insufficient point of view as Terence keeps saying.
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed (that means you @eeeaten). Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
