Overhyped Physicists: Neil de Grasse Tyson 

You are one of the very few people that understand the crisis in physics. I respect your deepest insight into this problem

Well, NGT is not a physicist, he's an entertainer.

As an American philosopher who knows physics, I couldn’t possibly agree more! Neil isn’t what he seems. He’s an intellectual gatekeeper whose job is to decide what ideas and approaches are acceptable inside the Overton window for low-achievement academics who fancy themselves as the expert class. Modern “physicists” are very often mathematicians more-so than true physicists who have a grasp of epistemology. The term physicist has been captured by the gatekeeper class so it means what they want it to me. To them it means you got a PhD in physics from a school they accept and believe the same brings as them.

You should also have a look at Michio Kaku, a theoretical physicist whose work has involved String Theory, but who is also a self proscribed futurist who is often in front of a camera talking on subjects well outside his field of expertise.

"No, I can't tell you WHY the hallway chirps. But I can measure it. I can predict the next and following chirp. I have a very good understanding of it and that's good enough for me. I'm not distracted by the philosophical side of WHY the hallway chirps." -Neal Degrasse Tyson

De Grasse Tyson is to physics, what Oprah is to dieting.

I used to not mind him. He seems to have become insufferably arrogant recently, the "we know everything" attitude.

Neil de Grasse Tyson's walls are all just pictures of him. His ringtone is him just talking about himself.

Tyson's lack of humility is the main anti scientific attitude I can blame him for.

I like the observation that physics hasn’t had many breakthroughs in understanding the nature of reality after WW2 becoz it got almost completely divorced from philosophy

Have to mention - the quintessential American philosophy is pragmatism. John Dewey, William James et al asserted an epistemology that truth and usefulness are the same when it comes to knowledge claims. Even at the upper layers of abstract intellect, this country has always been almost uniquely committed to avoiding truly deep questions

Well, most can probably agree that Neil is quite full of himself. He didn't even let the last question go for 5 seconds before interrupting, after being explicitly asked to not interrupt...

Neil Degrasse Tyson is to physics what McDonald’s is to fine cuisine

Thank you. I am tired of this overbearing celebrity.

"Big Science" Yes, it's time to adopt this term. One of the best observations I've seen, Alexander. And I've seen this effect in my own field.

I'm not a physicist. My background is Cognitive/Behavioral science. But I find myself in agreement with many of your statements as far as science goes in general. Scientific method is first and foremost - a philosophy. If it ceases being a philosophy, - it ceases being science. It's difficult for me to appreciate the idea of "just following the math, you don't have to understand it..." when applied to any field. "Just following the math" conceptually divorces Natural Philosophy from its subject of study: - the Natural world. Everything about Einstein's thinking about Special Relativity, - the real world examples he used - suggest a thought pattern which involves the way objects and people behave in the Natural world, and we do use similar real world example even when explaining Special Relativity to students mathematically, using an XY plot. Mathematics is purely an abstraction unless it correctly and reliably describes a process found in the natural world.

WHAT CONTRIBUTION HAS OL' NEIL MADE TO ANY SCIENCE?

This was a fascinating presentation, full of insight and information. Well done. I love the way NDT speaks utter nonsense but with utter confidence and supreme authority. By the way, if anything, you aren't "mean" enough.

Don't let your knowledge go to your head; you'll confuse it for wisdom.

Scientism is Tyson's religion.

I just found this channel and absolutely love it.

Tyson likes to pretend he understands everything, especially when he is completely wrong and confused 😂

Good points! Great channel! (Less importantly, please check if there is another audio track in your video editor/recorder and mute that - I see a mic under the chin (perfect!) but maybe there is another one from camera - this can create reverb effect when the phase is delayed (not that I'd have to tell that to a physicist 😄) by having that mic placed further away or just having room reverb effect from distant mic).

Narcissism: Bad for science; Bad for humanity

0:26 those words are too kind for someone like Neil.

What I see is that american science, as many other things in america, is about money. If it is not good business then it is not worthy

There has been a dramatic slowdown in physics developments in the last three decades. People like Tyson are paid to make sure that is the case.

I appreciate your addressing this problem. As a pholosopher in the U.S. , and a lover of physics there is an obvious divorce from physics and most sciences in this country from their philosophical roots . Indeed,many scholars have no idea of the philosophical history of science itself. 🙏

Philosophy takes the wheel when Science is unsure what to ask. Both are essential. Neil gets neither.

"John Bell of the No Bell Prize" I don't know if the pun was intended, but I found it amusing. I know he said "Nobel Prize" but the pun is there.

Thanks for the video. Ya, show biz has consumed this guy. His constant glancing away is a hallmark of his.

He just feels superior because he feels like he is on the side of physics. Although, he isn't, witch is unfortunate not only to him, but to those who religiously listen to him talk.

He's a comedian. He makes up stuff as he goes along.

The problem with string theory and the multiverse is they were born of mathematics. Somewhere along the line, many physicists replaced physics with mathematics. Math is a tool for physicists...nothing more; Advancement in physics comes from insight, imagination, and intuition.

Good one. I share your sentiments. Thank you.

"The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America" by Daniel J. Kevles gives an interesting history of American Physics; I read the 1st Edition (1978) when I was an undergrad (in the 20th Century). "American Physics" always had a very applied approach. There is a 2nd Edition (1995) that I haven't read.

Absolutely brilliant video, and an extremely important one as I believe the scientific community is in need of a wake-up call.

I definitely agree. Philosophy_ as you mentioned is just curiosity of finding things out. Trained how?? The human brain is resilient, mganificent and still a mystery.

Alex, I love you and your channel! Shre the vids all the time. Thank you for keeping it real, as we say in the USA, and seems literally the case! Keep up the great work!

Thank you profusely, Mr Unzicker. Despite the noisy chair, a brilliant piece.

Love this point of view!

Thank you for your extremely insightful historical context! For a recent example of 1930s-style physics thinking see "Ground state quantum vortex proton model" published in Foundations of Physics on January 23, 2023.

such a great presentation

So many awesome quotes from this video. You have nailed it, in my opinion - it's a lack of philosophy and thinking in that sort of direction. I especially like when you say at the end, "We have a problem of scientific culture." Exactly right, and the poor results and output from these "leading scientists" continue to demonstrate just that.

All I see in him is a pompous high school teacher.

I enjoy your presentations. The questions why and how do evoke a very compelling curiosity in me. Answering these questions tends to spawn even more questions. I like that you are not afraid to ruffle some feathers and to rock the boat. I think that this is healthy for science. Science is often like a joke, where one needs to "get" the punchline. It is good to be respectful of people, because people tend to crave respect. However, this is different than Idol worship which often signifies a dead end.

How many books have your sold?

Yes, more of this content please.

Nailed it - thanks.

I'm an American scientist but agree completely with your opinion of physics. Modern science is a ship without a rudder; wandering aimlessly (spending huge sums of taxpayer money in the process) because they have no philosophical guidance. Unfortunately American science has become guided by national science foundation bureaucrats instead of thinking men in an armchair. Plus the intolerance from the consensus destroys creativity in the minds of young philosophers.

Thank you for showing me the curts channels

Same critique can (and has -- see Klein, 2015, 2016, 2021: Psychology of Consciousness), be applied to contemporary psychology. By the way, I just ordered your book.

NGT is an excellent foil for this discussion. Maybe just maybe, possibly not what he believes .... anyway thanks for another fine presentation AU. Really enjoyable and not unimportant since philosophy underpins everything we think we know.

I'm an American, and it's practically a mantra of mine that science is a subset of philosophy. Tyson seems to think that philosophy is just sophistry or mysticism, which is not the case. The word literally means "the love of knowledge" or "pursuit of wisdom". A philosopher is a seeker of truths. To them, it doesn't matter if an idea is useful. If it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, then it's untrue. Which means that the truth has not been found. A true philosopher has very few strongly held beliefs and will question everything they believe a over a thousand times. Somewhat ironically, the ideal seeker of truth is the most untrusting individual imaginable. This is the kind of person that you *want* to be participating in the peer review process. Because if you used vague language, screwed up *anywhere,* failed to consider any parameters, or your conclusions do not immediately follow from the premises; you can be absolutely certain that a philosopher will find it and scrutinize it.

Very nice presentation. The most “philosophical” of today’s physicists, in my opinion, is Roger Penrose who is simultaneously advancing ideas about cosmology (conformal cyclic cosmology) and the origins of consciousness. He’s not afraid to criticize quantum mechanics as being an incomplete theory due to the measurement problem (collapse of the wave function). He spent some time with Dirac whom I believe influenced and informed his mathematical and geometrical approaches to getting at the deep mysteries of nature.

5:10 - This one slide indicates to me why the USA became so utterly dominant in science and technology, and in aerospace research after WW2. Their scientists were more concerned with making advanced things for war, and high-tech products for air and space. Just imagine where American industry would be today, if it had continued funding NASA at 1969 levels until today!

Physics Hollywood style

Tyson is a used-car salesman who will NEVER depart from orthodoxy. He will not investigate truly paradigm-shifting ideas. He asks for evidence, but disbelieves it when it's interpretation is at variance with his own. You're correct that he's superficial.

Sorry, off-topic, but I think my novice question may be important. Why does the electromagnetic wave diagram at 6:50 show both the magnetic field and electric field as having zero energy at the same time, I thought that the magnetic field would be at maximum when the electric field is at zero and vice versa so I figure the diagram wrongly depicts the actual situation? (Conversation of energy and all that) If this is so, more questions arise.... but I'm most likely wrong :)

It's good that Neil has achieved celebrity as a brilliant black physicist. His prominence is an inspiration to those who aspire to careers in science. However, when Neil wanders into social commentary, he may step into a deep hole that he can't get out of.

Tyson is putting the cart before the horse. Experiments (and the corresponding tools) are the means to test ideas but before you can test them you need to have them. You don't systematically discover new things if you're not looking for them. Thinking and experimenting go hand in hand in pursuit of deeper understanding. He confuses Science with Engineering. The end goal is not solving problems but understanding why things are like they are. Not all human desires are reducible to economics.

I'm with you. ideas come from individuals rather then concession.

At a bar in Brazil, a local, realizing I was an American, made it a point to educate me that the Wright Brothers didn't invent the first airplane, but they did create something that allowed them to fly 😅 I ended up learning about Santos Dumont that day

I'm so happy you are touching this subject and exposing people that do a tremendous disservice to real science and, unfortunately, are popular! These guys all over the Internet saying nonsense that fill the void of iliteratted but passionate people. Dr. Unzicker you have brought the pleasure of real physics approach and understabnding that guys such as deGrasse, Michio Kaku, Brian Greene have spoiled along the last decade. I've read all your books and I watch all your YT vídeos. You are the real scientist that are a rare jewell these days. Authors such as the mentioned above have contributed for the derail of scientific development that has begun with the GTR in the early 1900s. The uttermost one is the String Theory and it shows clearly that we are now going through a path of pure mathematics with absolutely no experimental counterpart to check the validity of such theories. Keep up the great job and be the lighthouse on these dark days.

He’s an actor who just happens to know a little bit about physics

Oh I have been waiting for this for a long time. Touchee

1:17 WOW, you hit the point.

Great video, thanks! I have seen some of your older videos, but I think YT showed me this now, because of some relevant videos that I have watched and commented on, namely SH's latest video "is science dying?". I just want to offer a bit of my opinion on the matter for what's worth. I think there is a general misuse of the words "philosophy" and "science". They came to mean something else than they originally meant, so most people get confused. Philosophy is a Greek word "φιλοσοφία" meaning "φίλος" (phile, as in "audiophile", friend of, love for) + "σοφία" (wisdom). So basically it means the love of wisdom, or "liking wisdom". In that sense, we are all philosophers here, because we like or love wisdom. But the modern meaning that we give to this word, is actually "deep thinking". That's why I would prefer the phrase "deep thinker" instead of philosopher. So, why "deep" thinkers and how deep? Because deep thinkers always ask "why" and never accept "we don't know", "we need more data", "more research is required", etc. as answers. On the other hand the Greek word for science is "επιστήμη" (episteme) which is "επί"+"ίσταμαι", which means "stand upon", metaphor for "knowing very well", "being sure about", "have solid proof" of something. So, you see the difference right here, the scientist does not need to ask why, he needs to know his subject very well and to be able to always prove it. The scientist doesn't need a "why" in order to be a scientist, however by that I don't mean that a scientist cannot also be a deep thinker. One can be both, of course. Now, you see, Tyson selects to be a scientist and not a deep thinker as well. To each his own, he is very good in what he does, he admits he is not a deep thinker and maybe he dismisses deep thinkers in general. But, as you pointed out, he would not be there being a scientist right now, had there not been the deep thinkers who pushed the boundaries of science and still do. As you said, modern day scientists dismiss or ignore new ideas that emerge from deep thinkers, because they don't agree with their established theories and models. That's why they don't seem to get any progress lately. It's 2023 and we are still talking about Einstein and the theory of relativity, which for example I thought of when I was a kid, before I learned in school that there was some Einstein dude who made a theory about it. That is to say, these theories are old and simplistic when even a kid can figure them out, yet all physicists are stuck with them and can't seem to be able to move forward. I mean, light? And speed of light? And quanta? This is old stuff, okay it's useful to build tech (and bombs) and all, but they don't explain anything. Listen to some deep thinkers (philosophers) and lets take it to the next level. There is no light, as there is no time, therefore no E=mc². Time is the measurement of duration, not a spacial dimension. Why is it always forward? There is no stupid arrow of time, it is measurement and not a vector, therefore it doesn't have a particular direction, it's just units added upon. A duration cannot be negative, because it's a freaking' duration. Scientists or anyone talking about time travel, especially "going back", "going to the past" are ridiculous to me. How can you "travel" or "go" or do anything without adding to a duration? They certainly don't mean rewinding everything, that would be pointless. But going "back" in time is essentially going forward, just by performing an action, such as going or traveling. Yet, there are still people talking about "time travel" as it could ever be a thing, we can only travel in spacial dimensions and this action has a duration, big or small, but cannot be negative. Our world (the Universe) is not just 3 dimensions bouncing here and there inside time. Einstein is obsolete as is Newton and so is Bohr and all the old heroes and so is Tyson.

That sums up Tyson. He doesn't think thoroughly. His arrogance keeps his mind narrow, rigid, and limited, creating an aura of stupidity. A little humility would go a long way for him, but his shtick relies on him being a know it all. That's what makes him an entertainer and not a serious physicist.

He isn't even a physicist... he published like one paper for his PhD, then never did any science beyond that. He is a 'caretaker' of a planetarium. He is a science populizer, not a scientist/physicist. Also, his dislike of philosophy is a massive negative. Physics is litearlly a subbranch of philosophy; the entire notion of how we can 'know' things is HUGE, and physics is NOT separate from philosophy; it is litearlly a natural philosophy.

2:22 Isn't Michio Kaku missing from there?

Enjoyable video. Just a note, you have Max Planck listed as being born in 1958 on the slide at 18:02.

Brian Cox deserves a show.

Wish carl Sagan was still alive, he would have re-educate him. All the real physists who made these equations were philosophers. Can you please arrange a meeting with him and assign me at least for 10 minutes to discuss.

Thanks for the show... absolutely agree with your interpretation

I really love your videos Alex. You are like a conscience keeper for the scientific community.

We all know why Neil is promoted by the mainstream but I'm not allowed to say the reason on RU-vid. Most can guess why I believe.

Are you on twitter ?

I missed these videos

How can you criticize him? He's a black man.. black science man.. what more do you want?

He's a glorified planetarium director.

Can I be a member to support you?

Yes, Herr Unzicker, I am absolutely with you. I think the GREAT LOSS for physics AND (ALSO) FOR PHILOSOPHY is this separation, assumed today to be correct, between physics and philosophy.

He communicates science in a way that most people can relate to.

When Neil spoke on Rogan's podcast with such a dismissive stance towards Nikola Tesla, and towards those who acknowledge Tesla's unparalleled genius, was the moment I knew Neil was completely irrelevant and/or a paid agent of the state. I am instantly repulsed by people who deny what is obvious to myself and countless others, that Tesla clearly knew many things we still don't understand. He did it all without computers, transistors, and modern materials. He is a verifiable scientific saint, perfectly embodying the principle of 'know them by their fruits' by his prolific discoveries and inventions. So when someone dismisses Tesla so freely, someone who hasn't even invented a single thing, I am instantly repulsed. A million of Neil's minds wouldn't even budge the scale in comparison to just Tesla's alone.

Can you explain at a high school level Mach's idea about gravity, mass and inertia relationships?

When you realize that the "threads of wormholes" De Grasse talks about at 3:45 mark could just be plain old photons, everything falls into place: Photons experience no proper time, so they'd experience leaving and arriving at the same time. So photons are kind of wormholes that interconnect past emission events with present absorbtion events instantly (from their own perspective), while their instantaneity is always experienced as different time intervals at the speed of light for the observers that detect them. This duality of photons as "wormholes" interconnecting spacetime explains entanglement, and from there, all quantum conundrums can be explained.

Also his very representative phrase that makes his vulgar conception of science shine: "Science is true even if you don´t believe in that" The popes from the dark ages would be stunned by the wisdon of such a disciple.

I went to one of his lectures in Hershey, Pennsylvania. This was shortly Donald Trump was elected. He pulled up a county map of Pennsylvania which showed a mostly 'red' state with pockets of blue in the Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and State College areas. There was also a pocket of blue in the Hershey-Harrisburg area. This is not a new thing. It is referred to as the 'Pennsylvania T'. Cities are more liberal and rural areas are more conservative. People are allowed to have different ideas. Tyson pointed to the sea of 'red' and commented to the audience, 'What is wrong with these people???' Umm... Nothing. The voting majority in those areas have different ideas than the voting majority in the 'blue' counties. More importantly, what does this state map of the 2016 election have to do with a physics lecture???

Question: if you are not a physicist, is there a pathway to get scientific papers published?

We can't have physics without those people who are great philosophers. Thought experiments will always be a useful tool. There are scales in our universe that are so immense, it's understandable if we can barely grasp them. There's so much yet to learn in science. It's hard for us to comprehend dynamic chaotic systems. Especially vast systems. What if at those immense scales, we don't yet fully grasp how things fully work? Like density, mass, Electromagnetism, static charges, fluid dynamics, temperature, pressure, radiation, velocity, etc. *I think there is a lot left to learn about these behaviors on VAST scales throughout our cosmos? I hope we continuously try to improve our understanding of the cosmos over time because it would be foolish to think we fully understand these things. Especially when talking about scales of galactic filaments, multiple galaxies interacting, and many more cosmic bodies & structures. We are getting better & better but some things are just so vast it's understandable we don't yet fully grasp them yet. I'm curious to see where things go as we advance our ability to study these things. One thought experiment i like to ponder about is what we can learn from the science of the behavior of bubbles? I like to ponder about the structure and properties of the fabric of our own universe. Maybe with every black hole a bubble in the overall universe is created? Thus creating a structure of unique stability and instability bubbles throughout the overall universe...? (Just a hypothetical concept that's fun to ponder about) In the past people talked about space as an ether. Maybe bubble science theory could end up being a new way to theorize about space and the universe as a whole..? On all sorts of different levels.. because I'm sure bubble science plays roles in all sorts of different levels of our universe. From the very small to the very large.. We even see that our own sun has a bubble around it, that is just a single bubble created by our sun's cosmic rays and it's interaction with the surrounding cosmic neighborhood create a boundary layer. That in itself seems to imply this is a common aspect of the nature of our universe, and we are just now starting to learn more about it, and measure it, visualize it, theorize about it... It's at least fascinating to me.. There are really interesting videos on the different aspects of science behind bubbles. It just fuels my curiosity about how things work. Nature is fascinating and it's really fun to ponder about the ways our natural world behaves.

Two strikes against deGrasse: 1. He disses philosophy, 2. He, like Sean Carroll, believes in multiple genders. What are your thoughts on Michio Kaku?

I am annoyed by Tyson. The arrogance and looking down at people and making fun. He is at the level of a high school physics teacher (which I respect) and is not Richard Feynman. My education is applied math and machine learning / AI and computational neuroscience. I grew up being a huge fan of Carl Sagan and I know this is what Tyson was supposed to be. I was also a fan of Jacob Bronowski and even more impressed as he is a real deep thinker. I want to see Tyson make a public statement on the new woke position that math is racist.

Can someone tell me where/how I'm wrong here: Zero is the most important number in mathematics and zero is both a real and an imaginary number with a horizon through it. It's geometric counterpart zero-dimensional space is the most important dimension in physics and zero-dimensional space is both a real and an imaginary dimension with an event horizon through it. Since zero is the only number with a horizon and the next time we encounter 0 is in the number 10 then shouldn't their geometric counterparts 0D and 10D be the event horizon boundaries of the universe? Making black holes 10D, right?

Youth is thinking empiricism is OBVIOUSLY the way to go. I mean, look at all the flashy results! Maturity is realizing continental rationalism is the correct way forward regarding the first choice methodology. And I admit this as a Humean.

I wish I could give you a thousand thumbs up. You are far too kind in your critique.

You're too soft on him. He's not a good communicator nor an intelligent person, he's a shame for science and humankind.

What about Michio Kaku?

The American physicist, increasingly, is concerned primarily with whether a given theory can be USED, and this to a much greater extent than whether it is true.

I'm only a laymena and an electrical engineer, but I too have sensed a great seeming-pause in fundamental physics discovery. When I was a boy, I studied all the great men of science, and it was evident that their discovery-prowess was born out of philosophical-introspection. In ancient times, you studied philosophy which encompassed all the physical fields of human wonder and experience.--it had an inclusive nature/curriculum. My opinion of a lot of the present-day physicists, are that the are really well-educated engineers, simply refining into practice the fundamental discoveries. What I think Neil gets wrong, is that he conflates philosophy with religion, and doesn't want to be tainted with that brush. Philosophy is NOT religion! Philosophy is wisdom (or love of wisdom if you want to use the PHd description) but much more. it is a fundamental tool to keep an open mind, of the possibility of even seemingly bizarre physical phenomena; which was the situation, whereby when these things were discovered, they seemed more like magic than a likely assumption. I never really understood a lot of principals in my physical field of electricity, until I went back and studied in detail how the fundamental discoveries were made; but more importantly the progressive mindset that allowed stacking seemingly unprobalistic correlations until the phenomena finally revealed itself. We all stand on the shoulders of giants, and Neil de Grasse Tyson needs to better appreciate, not only them but their philosophical mindsets that yielded obvious success!