Neil Degrasse Tyson takes on every major conspiracy theory including aliens and visitation...

page: 1
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
This MAY have been posted before .. but given it's an hour and 30 minutes long .. he talks about SO many topics, I did post this also in the 911 forum at first... but he speaks a lot about space, aliens and ufos .. PLEASE watch this ..





posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Interesting video. Kept me entertained while mining in Eve Online. The crowd did seem almost all atheist and almost belligerently so. Not really a believer, but I don't begrudge others their beliefs as long as they don't force it on others like I've seen both religious and atheist people do.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 


Tyson - or should I say Degrasse Tyson? Just Tyson, I think - is a prime example of the type of person who is highly educated in a particular field of study and seems to assumes that it allows him to proclaim authoritatively on any topic whatsoever.

He implies (in another bit on UFOs, and I'm assuming in this one too, though I haven't watched it yet) that UFOs can be chalked up to people seeing something unusual in the sky and immediately jumping to the conclusion that they are looking at an alien spaceship. He totally ignores the fact that, according to people who have actually studied UFO reports first hand and interviewed the witnesses in many unexplained cases, this is not the case at all.

Here's Dr. James E. McDonald on the matter:


Another characteristic in interviewing the witnesses is the tendency for the UFO witness to turn first not to the hypothesis that he is looking at a spaceship, but rather it must be an ambulance out there with a blinking red light or that it is a helicopter up there. There is a conventional interpretation considered first; only then does the witness get out of the car or patrol car and realize the thing is stopped in midair and is going backwards and has six bright lights, or something like that. Only after an economical first hypothesis does the witness, in these impressive cases, go further in his hypotheses, and finally realize he is looking at something he has never seen before.


McDonald's testimony before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Science and Astronautics

This indicates to me that Tyson is woefully unfamiliar with the serious literature on the subject.

Stephen Hawking stuck his foot in his mouth in the same manner when he was quoted in an interview remarking that UFOs are only seen by "cranks and weirdos".

Science is not always what scientists do, according to J. Allen Hynek - a man who DOES have some worthwhile things to say about the UFO phenomenon and the experience to back it up.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


I have the same opinion of Dr. Tyson when it comes to anything having to do with anthropology. Sometimes the man just needs to shut the hell up or say "I don't know much about what you are talking about and am not qualified to give a scientific opinion on that particular subject."
edit on 21-6-2012 by Furbs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Zakaris
 



Originally posted by Zakaris
Interesting video. Kept me entertained while mining in Eve Online. The crowd did seem almost all atheist and almost belligerently so. Not really a believer, but I don't begrudge others their beliefs as long as they don't force it on others like I've seen both religious and atheist people do.


Thank you so much for posting this. I completely agree with you, and have a real problem with belligerent atheists as you say (the same problem I have with belligerent christians, belligerent muslims etc etc).

I think I would've found the vid annoying because of it, and I'm glad you saved me from that. It may be an interesting video, but forcing your beliefs - no matter how 'proven' they might be - on other people is never cool.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by miniatus
 
I like the guy and usually find what he says to be informative and entertaining. The UFO comments let him down a bit because it's clear he hasn't read much about it.

One of his peers was astronomer Clyde Tombaugh who discovered Pluto, worked at White Sands and taught Naval personnel - not a tin-foil hatter. TG would know all about Tombaugh's UFO sighting reports because he holds a professional interest in Pluto.

Prof Peter Sturrock, equally as educated as TG, surveyed the Membership of the American Astronomical Society Concerning the UFO Problem and discovered astronomers see UFOs too.

I'm not arguing the case that UFOs are real here, but that TG is very wide of the mark to presume that people who see UFOs automatically think *aliens.* He's just wrong.

Well said Orko:



...prime example of the type of person who is highly educated in a particular field of study and seems to assumes that it allows him to proclaim authoritatively on any topic...



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
I haven’t watched the posted video, but I got a kick out of something condescending he said on TV: “Next time you’re abducted, steal an ashtray!”



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   
The guy is arrogant. Hasn't read the literature. Worst of all, he has a big podium for some reason. Just like Hawking, Sagan, Shostak and others. In my opinion, Michio Kaku is the most open minded.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
For the folks that did not watch the entire clip, he does state that it is a mathematical certainty there are other life forms in this universe. It is the people who say they see a UFO and within the same breath they say its aliens spaceship with no evidence other then the eye witness testimony that bother him as should most thinking people. In science, eye witness testimony, is the lowest reliable information to even consider. He looks for proof of his theories and uses science and math to proves ideas with facts. At the very least you have to respect this man for being able to take complex information and relaying it to us laymen in an enjoyable way.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker
reply to post by miniatus
 


Tyson - or should I say Degrasse Tyson? Just Tyson, I think - is a prime example of the type of person who is highly educated in a particular field of study and seems to assumes that it allows him to proclaim authoritatively on any topic whatsoever.

He implies (in another bit on UFOs, and I'm assuming in this one too, though I haven't watched it yet) that UFOs can be chalked up to people seeing something unusual in the sky and immediately jumping to the conclusion that they are looking at an alien spaceship. He totally ignores the fact that, according to people who have actually studied UFO reports first hand and interviewed the witnesses in many unexplained cases, this is not the case at all.

Here's Dr. James E. McDonald on the matter:


Another characteristic in interviewing the witnesses is the tendency for the UFO witness to turn first not to the hypothesis that he is looking at a spaceship, but rather it must be an ambulance out there with a blinking red light or that it is a helicopter up there. There is a conventional interpretation considered first; only then does the witness get out of the car or patrol car and realize the thing is stopped in midair and is going backwards and has six bright lights, or something like that. Only after an economical first hypothesis does the witness, in these impressive cases, go further in his hypotheses, and finally realize he is looking at something he has never seen before.


McDonald's testimony before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Science and Astronautics

This indicates to me that Tyson is woefully unfamiliar with the serious literature on the subject.

Stephen Hawking stuck his foot in his mouth in the same manner when he was quoted in an interview remarking that UFOs are only seen by "cranks and weirdos".

Science is not always what scientists do, according to J. Allen Hynek - a man who DOES have some worthwhile things to say about the UFO phenomenon and the experience to back it up.


Great post!
I have felt the same way many times, and you spelled it out quite nicely. well done, and thanks!



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by coolhanddan
For the folks that did not watch the entire clip, he does state that it is a mathematical certainty there are other life forms in this universe. It is the people who say they see a UFO and within the same breath they say its aliens spaceship with no evidence other then the eye witness testimony that bother him as should most thinking people. In science, eye witness testimony, is the lowest reliable information to even consider. He looks for proof of his theories and uses science and math to proves ideas with facts. At the very least you have to respect this man for being able to take complex information and relaying it to us laymen in an enjoyable way.


I disagree, in this case, that Tyson is using science in coming to his conclusions. Rather he is using stereotyped notions of UFO witnesses to support his preconceived ideas of the topic. It's obvious to anyone who is familiar with the serious work that has been done investigating and studying UFO reports that Tyson is either ignorant of the facts or is attempting to deliberately mislead his audiences. I'm guessing it's the former.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by coolhanddan
He looks for proof of his theories and uses science and math to proves ideas with facts.


Proof, science, maths, facts.

Which of these can hold up to an intelligent race (or races), of unknown technology, who wish to remain hidden?

It's all well and good to try to apply maths and scientific theory to the UFO phenomena, but when you include another intelligence in your calculations everything flies out the _ That's the problem with trying to approach the UFO/Alien question scientifically, as respectable as the idea might be.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vandelay Industries
The guy is arrogant. Hasn't read the literature. Worst of all, he has a big podium for some reason. Just like Hawking, Sagan, Shostak and others. In my opinion, Michio Kaku is the most open minded.




I think he knows enough about the subject to have an opinion on it. He has become popular because he, like Carl Sagan before him, can explain difficult things in a way that ordinary people can understand. I suspect you like Kaku because he is more willing to speculate whereas Degrasse Tyson is more of a hard science guy. Which is odd considering you call yourself a research scientist
edit on 22/6/2012 by cripmeister because: grammar and other stuff



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
You think a research scientist shouldn't want to speculate


What is hypothesis other than speculation?

Look at it this way, there are two facts which remain unproven, but they have also not been proven to be untrue:

1. Aliens exist
2. Aliens are visiting earth

As long as both remain unproven, any discussion of them is speculation. So if you've got an issue with discussing in vague terms things that have no tangible proof and sharing possible explanations those things, then you should really just avoid the subject altogether.

This forum is entirely speculation, and will be until proof is found. But new scientific frontiers are founded on speculation, so I think it's ridiculous you suggest that speculation is somehow not 'hard science'.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister



I think he knows enough about the subject to have an opinion on it. He has become popular because he, like Carl Sagan before him, can explain difficult things in a way that ordinary people can understand. I suspect you like Kaku because he is more willing to speculate whereas Degrasse Tyson is more of a hard science guy. Which is odd considering you call yourself a research scientist
edit on 22/6/2012 by cripmeister because: grammar and other stuff


Well, to start with, "eye witness testimony" is the basis of science. If you didn't have a scientist recording his observations, then you would have no science. Perhaps some science is now based on automated recording of experimental data direct from instrument readings to some media by computer, but that has certainly not always been the case.

So I think he is being a bit disingenuous when he puts down "eye witness testimony". What he is really saying is that he just isn't willing to trust what others observe as much as he trusts in what a scientist observes in a laboratory setting.

He starts off his segment on UFOs playing a little word game. Okay, a UFO does mean "unidentified", however, the reality of the experience and the actual source of the observed anomaly is unaffected by what you choose to call it, "UFO", "spaceship", whatever. And what it is to "the skeptical scientist awaiting proof" is not the same as what the person actually observed. It is theoretically possible that a person might see an "alien spacecraft", even if he does not have access to the physical evidence that will prove the reality of his sighting to the scientist.

As someone else mentioned, if there are real spaceships from ET civilizations visiting earth, and they don't want us to have proof of their existence or presence, it is quite possible that they may be able to thwart all our legitimate scientific attempts to obtain physical evidence of their presence, because they are probably much more technologically advanced than us, and possibly smarter than us also (or they have smarter computers).
Of course, most scientists who call themselves "UFO skeptics" are against the idea that it might even be worthwhile to search for evidence that ET is visiting the planet, because they have already concluded this is not happening before they even do a scientific investigation.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bluestreak53

Well, to start with, "eye witness testimony" is the basis of science. If you didn't have a scientist recording his observations, then you would have no science. Perhaps some science is now based on automated recording of experimental data direct from instrument readings to some media by computer, but that has certainly not always been the case.

So I think he is being a bit disingenuous when he puts down "eye witness testimony". What he is really saying is that he just isn't willing to trust what others observe as much as he trusts in what a scientist observes in a laboratory setting.


You got this wrong. The hard sciences (physics, chemistry etc) rely on reproducibility. Reproducibility means that results should be the same independent of the observer. Trust is irrelevant.


It is theoretically possible that a person might see an "alien spacecraft", even if he does not have access to the physical evidence that will prove the reality of his sighting to the scientist.


Yes but what good is it to the rest of us, besides an interesting read perhaps, if it can't be independently verified?



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister
I think he knows enough about the subject to have an opinion on it.


What makes you think that? Has he written anything or said anything publicly that leads you to believe that he has taken more than a cursory glance at the subject? If so, I'd like to check it out, because some of the statements he makes seem to indicate that he thinks that the "U" in UFO stands primarly for "unidentified to the percipient", whereas experienced, reputable investigators of UFO reports like Hynek, Vallee and McDonald - guys who have far more first hand experience with UFO witnesses that Tyson I bet - typically use the term to denote the residue of unexplained and perplexing cases that have stubbornly refused to yield to attempts at conventional explanation despite the availability of copious data and thorough investigation. His dismissal of the whole subject in such a flippant fashion leaves one with only a couple possible conclusions: Either he is unaware of the work that has been done by competent investigators, or he is aware of it but chooses to ignore it so that the facts don't get in the way of his stand-up routine. Please help me clarify my thinking on this.
edit on 22-6-2012 by Orkojoker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orkojoker

[...] because some of the statements he makes seem to indicate that he thinks that the "U" in UFO stands primarly for "unidentified to the percipient", whereas experienced, reputable investigators of UFO reports like Hynek, Vallee and McDonald - guys who have far more first hand experience with UFO witnesses that Tyson I bet - typically use the term to denote the residue of unexplained and perplexing cases that have stubbornly refused to yield to attempts at conventional explanation despite the availability of copious data and thorough investigation.


I think it's pretty obvoius that he isn't talking about any specific case. Instead I think he's talking about the slews of people (percipients) that see lights in the sky and proclaim them UFOs or worse alien craft.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Tyson is like most scientists.

Not only does he have an unshakable belief in science. He also has an unshakable belief in governments being truthful to their citizenry.

Its the easy path for those wanting a career in the sciences. Quite an understandable option to take. However if they are wrong they have willfully set our civilization back for their own interests.



posted on Jun, 22 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
The amount of butthurt Degrasse Tyson brings is evidence of his greatness







new topics
top topics
 
6
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join