Filakius
Adept
Tyson's claims are in bold. My responses are not.
0:35 UFO remember that the U stands for Unidentified.
But then proceeds to use UFO to mean alien. This is a huge issue that keeps popping up. I discuss UFOs and get accused of discussing aliens all the time. Then the same people will say U stands for Unknown. So its a subconscious thing people do that keeps going around in circles.
0:48 - Psychologists know all about "it".
Know all about "it"? I cannot find one research paper that proves "we are uncomfortable being ignorant" nor can I find any correlation with this and why people formed a ETH. The eth is based on a theory that alien life exists (which most scientists agree on). Where is the psychological link?
This is a huuuuge stretch to make. I know of highly educated scientists that support (or at least don't dismiss) the ETH.
These people are not ignorant. That's just a rude and false accusation with no substance designed to belittle anyone with an opinion that differs.
He speaks of making an argument from ignorance.., then proceeds to lead by example. He cannot dismiss the ETH logically.., so he goes into personal attack mode. When you can't discuss the facts.., start personal attacks.
He makes it seem like an impossible theory to form.., yet in the same breath contradicts himself by saying "we live at the boundary between what is known and unknown in the universe".
So although its wrong to say UFOs must be ET.., he is just as wrong to dismiss the idea based on his contradiction.
1:10 - Someone see's a UFO. They say "I don't know what it is, it must be alien."
This only explains biased believers who see something strange and automatically classify it as alien in real time while making the observation.
However I think he is twisting the majority of UFO witnessess into one category. I think it might be beneficial to start a new thread showing original UFO reports.., and how very few claim "IT MUST BE ALIEN" in their original UFO report.
If someone wants to side with the ETH after making a UFO report.., then that's completely different. People are entitled to their opinions.., and it doesn't negate the report.
If someone sees a UFO and afterwards someone asks what do you think it was. They are allowed to say I think its not from this world.., and that's their opinion.
If they say it MUST be from outer space.., then that's bias.
Just as saying UFOs cannot be ET is biased.
2:00 - Every single journalists article begins with scientists have to go back to a drawing board. But they are always at the drawing board.
This is not true. Scientists have set conclusions, and DO get challenged all the time, and have to do exactly that. Go back to the "drawing board" is an expression he is taking literally.
Also.., I would say he is being dramatic again with his statistics. I don't recall a majority or even a minority of journalists articles stating this. He is being dramatic to make his points seem more valid.
2:25 - If you're not at the drawing board, you're not making discoveries. You're something else.
This is good advice. he should take it. This is a direct contradiction to everything he is saying about being ignorant, and shows how biased he really is. What has he discovered? If he hasn't made any.., he is "something else". A science journalist.
2:50 - Secondly, we know that the lowest form of evidence is eyewitness testimony
Early astronomy was simply observations. Most discoveries are initial observations. The trick is to move past the observation, create a hypothesis and test it. Not dwell on the observations. This is scientific bias. Not open to looking objectively or attempt moving forward.
3:08 - Which is scary because that is some of the highest form of evidence in the court of law.
It is not the hightest form of evidence in the court of law. In fact, it would probably be the lowest under polygraph tests, surveillance footage, audio recording, ducumented facts, DNA samples, fingerprints etc.
UFO witnesses cannot take samples to be tested and can only provide statements and an image. Otherwise, what else can be done?
He is contradicting himself and setting up his tests to fail.
"I need more proof from witnesses.., but they are bad. But I need more.., but can't get. etc etc."
3:20 - .Telephone whispers (relying on sound, passed onto many people) explains why first hand eye witness testimonies are untrustworthy.
This is a game played by children, and relies on the copying of information verbally between numerous people. The original report is never heard.., and we rely on the 20th kid to tell us what happened. UFO reports are visually sighted, and reported first hand by adults. Not by the 20th person they told. There is no connection.
To make this comparison is so lazy. This guy is pathetic. Technically to make a call like this.., you would need to replicate the 'study' with airforce personnel, trained observers and reputable witnesses including scientists, astronomers, police, and more.
This just shows how weak his research procedures are.., and amplifies his bias regarding UFOs.
4:06 - It would not matter if you saw a flying saucer. In science, you cannot simply say you saw something. You need to prove it. Go home and come back with the evidence.
This is the main problem wrapped up nicely. A catch 22. A study paradox. Another argument from ignorance.
Scientists won't look into UFOs.., because there isn't enough physical evidence.
Its up to the witness to prove they saw a UFO. How is a UFO witness (not a scientist) meant to gather further data?
If I gathered some alien DNA or whatever.., I wouldn't need this douche to look into UFOs.., as I already have the evidence.
He wants me to do the hard work.., so he can gloat about it on public television and ride off others success. All with the attitude that "its obvious the whole time". What a knob head.
4:55 -. Human perception gets things wrong. Books on optical illusions should be called brain failures. And UFO sightings are brain failures.
No. They are called optical illusions. Purposely trying to re-word things in an attempt to make it fit your opinion is called bias.
The magic eye books relied on people purposely going "cross eyed" in order to create a 3D effect. Unless people are staring at the sky cross-eyed.., I don't see how this is relevant.
I have yet to find any "optical illusion" that can create a UFO. Many have tried (i.e. Phoenix Lights) but can only provide weak examples of optical illusions that require very specific conditions to work.., that are not present in the real world.
Its just a weak attempt at linking any illusion to UFOs. Nothing specific. Very lazy.
5:25 - We are poor data taking devices.
Yet.., he won't look into UFOs until a witness can prove it. So he has created a contradiction.,. that means he never has to look into it. Nice job.
5:30. That's why we have science. Because we have machines that will get the data right.
Ignore witness testimony.., because machines are better? Better at collecting data on UFOs? But to get the machines out there looking.., we first need a reason. First.., we need people to see an event. This is backwards logic being twisted.
Listen to claims.., and design experiments to test. What does he suggest. Not reporting anything.., and going home quitting my day job and design my own UFO observation station?
As he mentions a lot.., he won't do any of this.., until witnesses provide the proof.
The research paradox summed up nicely by Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
6:00 - If you saw a UFO / ETV I need more than witness testimony and photographs.
I totally agree. I think this quote should be read by everyone here who maintains the stance that viewing witness testimony is enough to form a conclusion.
If you are then going to argue that you're entitled tyo your opinion.., please note the hypocrisy and double standards placed on people with their opinions it could be ET.
6:30 - Scientists will not study UFOs.., until an abductee steals technology from an an advanced alien spaceship. Until then, we can't do anything.
This is a beautiful example of an argument from ignorance. Perfect representation of attitudes and 'logical thinking'.
He just said "The evidence thus far does not satisfy the standards of evidence that any scientists would require for any other claim."
The standards of evidence jumps extremely high for UFO witnesses however. This is a great example of hypocricy, bias and double standards. An argument from ignorance.
8:15 - Astronomers are "always looking up".
This is a huuuuge misconception. Astronomers don't stare at the sky.., or stare through a telescope for hours scanning the sky.
When Astronomers are looking through a telescope, zoomed in on a fixed location, which covers a tiny percentage of a distant part of outer space.., they look, observe the distant star formations.., and record the data. This is why astronomers do not see UFOs.,. even if they were 50 metres away.
The UFO phenomenon is more localised, generally reported being 7000 ft and under.., which would be like moving a pen or even a hand past a pair binoculars, and you see nothing but a blur (if that) as if the hand did not pass by the binoculars at all. They also do not see 100% coverage of the sky.., its like a pin hole in a piece of paper, but focused way out into space. This is why someone standing outside the observatory would see a UFO, but the astronomer didn't (but could see Venus, therefore it was Venus).
Astronomers do not really look through telescopes as much as everybody thinks. This is more of a romanticised version of what we think happens. the very few remote stations are accessed via SSH or VNC on a computer wherever you live.
Competition for telescope time is fiercely prioritised. Even if you as an astronomer managed to snag 2 hours next week, you would be focused on your specific task of studying a distant solar system's planet wobble past it's sun, or whatever your project is.
8:50 - All human testimony is bad, regardless of reputation, position
This really adds to the issue of relying on witnesses to gather sufficient data. People fail to see the irony here. The contradictions.
He demands high amounts of evidence from a witness.., but then says they are unable to produce this data. But then goes back saying he requires proof from witnesses. Then goes back saying how its all bad. Back, forth.., whenever he needs to make his point he switches stance.
He has created the paradox himself.
9:35 - Says he would mis-ID a star if he didn't study astronomy.
I knew what a star was by age 5. I knew what a shooting star was by then also. I think this guy may have some serious issues. Did anyone else freak out about the sky until they studied astronomy? Or is this some kind of over dramatised statement attempting to say everyone is an idiot and doesn't know what a star is.
10:20 - UFOs only land in farmer's yards.
This really shows how little he has researched the subject. I have no respect professionally for this man. He makes stupid assumptions all the time. He recently tweeted "An airplane whose engine fails is a glider. A helicopter whose engine fails is a brick." in his smart ass, know it all attitude. But as happens frequently with this fool.., he is proven wrong by a great man Destin.., who very calmly explained how he was wrong without the arrogant "know it all" attitude displayed by Tyson.
Neil deGrasse Tyson gets challenged by SmarterEveryDay, loses | The Daily Dot
Tyson just wants to brag about (how little) he knows about physics and astronomy.
View Destin's educational videos.., and notice how he is able to actually teach a subject and provide data on why and how.
Now study Neil Tyson's attempts at explaining anything. He is frustrated, emotional and over dramatic. Provides as little data as possible.., instead just talks a bunch of useless vague crap with total arrogance.., and ridicules anyone who doesn't know already. Very bad teacher (unless scripted by Seth McFarlane).
Veritassium, VSAUCE, Coldfusion or Seeker etc. are the new wave of teachers.
This whole "I know more than you. and you're a fool for not knowing what I know" attitude is old school. Clear concise and no emo. Tyson loves over complicating.., and not explaining. Zzzzz.
11:08 - If an alien could traverse space.., they would not crash on Earth.
Another argument from ignorance assuming he knows exactly how an advanced alien race would run. He asumes that one day when humans have developed the technology that will allow long distance space travel.., then we as a race are infallible.
We use lander modules, instead of landing long distance space ships designed not designed for specific planets atmosphere's and gravity.
0:35 UFO remember that the U stands for Unidentified.
But then proceeds to use UFO to mean alien. This is a huge issue that keeps popping up. I discuss UFOs and get accused of discussing aliens all the time. Then the same people will say U stands for Unknown. So its a subconscious thing people do that keeps going around in circles.
0:48 - Psychologists know all about "it".
Know all about "it"? I cannot find one research paper that proves "we are uncomfortable being ignorant" nor can I find any correlation with this and why people formed a ETH. The eth is based on a theory that alien life exists (which most scientists agree on). Where is the psychological link?
This is a huuuuge stretch to make. I know of highly educated scientists that support (or at least don't dismiss) the ETH.
These people are not ignorant. That's just a rude and false accusation with no substance designed to belittle anyone with an opinion that differs.
He speaks of making an argument from ignorance.., then proceeds to lead by example. He cannot dismiss the ETH logically.., so he goes into personal attack mode. When you can't discuss the facts.., start personal attacks.
He makes it seem like an impossible theory to form.., yet in the same breath contradicts himself by saying "we live at the boundary between what is known and unknown in the universe".
So although its wrong to say UFOs must be ET.., he is just as wrong to dismiss the idea based on his contradiction.
1:10 - Someone see's a UFO. They say "I don't know what it is, it must be alien."
This only explains biased believers who see something strange and automatically classify it as alien in real time while making the observation.
However I think he is twisting the majority of UFO witnessess into one category. I think it might be beneficial to start a new thread showing original UFO reports.., and how very few claim "IT MUST BE ALIEN" in their original UFO report.
If someone wants to side with the ETH after making a UFO report.., then that's completely different. People are entitled to their opinions.., and it doesn't negate the report.
If someone sees a UFO and afterwards someone asks what do you think it was. They are allowed to say I think its not from this world.., and that's their opinion.
If they say it MUST be from outer space.., then that's bias.
Just as saying UFOs cannot be ET is biased.
2:00 - Every single journalists article begins with scientists have to go back to a drawing board. But they are always at the drawing board.
This is not true. Scientists have set conclusions, and DO get challenged all the time, and have to do exactly that. Go back to the "drawing board" is an expression he is taking literally.
Also.., I would say he is being dramatic again with his statistics. I don't recall a majority or even a minority of journalists articles stating this. He is being dramatic to make his points seem more valid.
2:25 - If you're not at the drawing board, you're not making discoveries. You're something else.
This is good advice. he should take it. This is a direct contradiction to everything he is saying about being ignorant, and shows how biased he really is. What has he discovered? If he hasn't made any.., he is "something else". A science journalist.
2:50 - Secondly, we know that the lowest form of evidence is eyewitness testimony
Early astronomy was simply observations. Most discoveries are initial observations. The trick is to move past the observation, create a hypothesis and test it. Not dwell on the observations. This is scientific bias. Not open to looking objectively or attempt moving forward.
3:08 - Which is scary because that is some of the highest form of evidence in the court of law.
It is not the hightest form of evidence in the court of law. In fact, it would probably be the lowest under polygraph tests, surveillance footage, audio recording, ducumented facts, DNA samples, fingerprints etc.
UFO witnesses cannot take samples to be tested and can only provide statements and an image. Otherwise, what else can be done?
He is contradicting himself and setting up his tests to fail.
"I need more proof from witnesses.., but they are bad. But I need more.., but can't get. etc etc."
3:20 - .Telephone whispers (relying on sound, passed onto many people) explains why first hand eye witness testimonies are untrustworthy.
This is a game played by children, and relies on the copying of information verbally between numerous people. The original report is never heard.., and we rely on the 20th kid to tell us what happened. UFO reports are visually sighted, and reported first hand by adults. Not by the 20th person they told. There is no connection.
To make this comparison is so lazy. This guy is pathetic. Technically to make a call like this.., you would need to replicate the 'study' with airforce personnel, trained observers and reputable witnesses including scientists, astronomers, police, and more.
This just shows how weak his research procedures are.., and amplifies his bias regarding UFOs.
4:06 - It would not matter if you saw a flying saucer. In science, you cannot simply say you saw something. You need to prove it. Go home and come back with the evidence.
This is the main problem wrapped up nicely. A catch 22. A study paradox. Another argument from ignorance.
Scientists won't look into UFOs.., because there isn't enough physical evidence.
Its up to the witness to prove they saw a UFO. How is a UFO witness (not a scientist) meant to gather further data?
If I gathered some alien DNA or whatever.., I wouldn't need this douche to look into UFOs.., as I already have the evidence.
He wants me to do the hard work.., so he can gloat about it on public television and ride off others success. All with the attitude that "its obvious the whole time". What a knob head.
4:55 -. Human perception gets things wrong. Books on optical illusions should be called brain failures. And UFO sightings are brain failures.
No. They are called optical illusions. Purposely trying to re-word things in an attempt to make it fit your opinion is called bias.
The magic eye books relied on people purposely going "cross eyed" in order to create a 3D effect. Unless people are staring at the sky cross-eyed.., I don't see how this is relevant.
I have yet to find any "optical illusion" that can create a UFO. Many have tried (i.e. Phoenix Lights) but can only provide weak examples of optical illusions that require very specific conditions to work.., that are not present in the real world.
Its just a weak attempt at linking any illusion to UFOs. Nothing specific. Very lazy.
5:25 - We are poor data taking devices.
Yet.., he won't look into UFOs until a witness can prove it. So he has created a contradiction.,. that means he never has to look into it. Nice job.
5:30. That's why we have science. Because we have machines that will get the data right.
Ignore witness testimony.., because machines are better? Better at collecting data on UFOs? But to get the machines out there looking.., we first need a reason. First.., we need people to see an event. This is backwards logic being twisted.
Listen to claims.., and design experiments to test. What does he suggest. Not reporting anything.., and going home quitting my day job and design my own UFO observation station?
As he mentions a lot.., he won't do any of this.., until witnesses provide the proof.
The research paradox summed up nicely by Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
6:00 - If you saw a UFO / ETV I need more than witness testimony and photographs.
I totally agree. I think this quote should be read by everyone here who maintains the stance that viewing witness testimony is enough to form a conclusion.
If you are then going to argue that you're entitled tyo your opinion.., please note the hypocrisy and double standards placed on people with their opinions it could be ET.
6:30 - Scientists will not study UFOs.., until an abductee steals technology from an an advanced alien spaceship. Until then, we can't do anything.
This is a beautiful example of an argument from ignorance. Perfect representation of attitudes and 'logical thinking'.
He just said "The evidence thus far does not satisfy the standards of evidence that any scientists would require for any other claim."
The standards of evidence jumps extremely high for UFO witnesses however. This is a great example of hypocricy, bias and double standards. An argument from ignorance.
8:15 - Astronomers are "always looking up".
This is a huuuuge misconception. Astronomers don't stare at the sky.., or stare through a telescope for hours scanning the sky.
When Astronomers are looking through a telescope, zoomed in on a fixed location, which covers a tiny percentage of a distant part of outer space.., they look, observe the distant star formations.., and record the data. This is why astronomers do not see UFOs.,. even if they were 50 metres away.
The UFO phenomenon is more localised, generally reported being 7000 ft and under.., which would be like moving a pen or even a hand past a pair binoculars, and you see nothing but a blur (if that) as if the hand did not pass by the binoculars at all. They also do not see 100% coverage of the sky.., its like a pin hole in a piece of paper, but focused way out into space. This is why someone standing outside the observatory would see a UFO, but the astronomer didn't (but could see Venus, therefore it was Venus).
Astronomers do not really look through telescopes as much as everybody thinks. This is more of a romanticised version of what we think happens. the very few remote stations are accessed via SSH or VNC on a computer wherever you live.
Competition for telescope time is fiercely prioritised. Even if you as an astronomer managed to snag 2 hours next week, you would be focused on your specific task of studying a distant solar system's planet wobble past it's sun, or whatever your project is.
8:50 - All human testimony is bad, regardless of reputation, position
This really adds to the issue of relying on witnesses to gather sufficient data. People fail to see the irony here. The contradictions.
He demands high amounts of evidence from a witness.., but then says they are unable to produce this data. But then goes back saying he requires proof from witnesses. Then goes back saying how its all bad. Back, forth.., whenever he needs to make his point he switches stance.
He has created the paradox himself.
9:35 - Says he would mis-ID a star if he didn't study astronomy.
I knew what a star was by age 5. I knew what a shooting star was by then also. I think this guy may have some serious issues. Did anyone else freak out about the sky until they studied astronomy? Or is this some kind of over dramatised statement attempting to say everyone is an idiot and doesn't know what a star is.
10:20 - UFOs only land in farmer's yards.
This really shows how little he has researched the subject. I have no respect professionally for this man. He makes stupid assumptions all the time. He recently tweeted "An airplane whose engine fails is a glider. A helicopter whose engine fails is a brick." in his smart ass, know it all attitude. But as happens frequently with this fool.., he is proven wrong by a great man Destin.., who very calmly explained how he was wrong without the arrogant "know it all" attitude displayed by Tyson.
Neil deGrasse Tyson gets challenged by SmarterEveryDay, loses | The Daily Dot
Tyson just wants to brag about (how little) he knows about physics and astronomy.
View Destin's educational videos.., and notice how he is able to actually teach a subject and provide data on why and how.
Now study Neil Tyson's attempts at explaining anything. He is frustrated, emotional and over dramatic. Provides as little data as possible.., instead just talks a bunch of useless vague crap with total arrogance.., and ridicules anyone who doesn't know already. Very bad teacher (unless scripted by Seth McFarlane).
Veritassium, VSAUCE, Coldfusion or Seeker etc. are the new wave of teachers.
This whole "I know more than you. and you're a fool for not knowing what I know" attitude is old school. Clear concise and no emo. Tyson loves over complicating.., and not explaining. Zzzzz.
11:08 - If an alien could traverse space.., they would not crash on Earth.
Another argument from ignorance assuming he knows exactly how an advanced alien race would run. He asumes that one day when humans have developed the technology that will allow long distance space travel.., then we as a race are infallible.
We use lander modules, instead of landing long distance space ships designed not designed for specific planets atmosphere's and gravity.
Last edited:
Rick Hunter
Celestial
In centuries past, Tyson would have been calling people out on the idea that the Earth is round and orbits the sun.
Sheltie
Fratty and out of touch.
I could not agree more, michael! I used to admire Tyson but lately he's been acting very smug and condescending. He wants everyone to carefully consider his ideas and beliefs but he refuses to take anything seriously that involves alien visitation.
Rick Hunter
Celestial
Hmm, he behaves an awful lot like Donald Menzel...
humanoidlord
ce3 researcher
its the elon musk syndrome
media reception = ego patting = asshole
media reception = ego patting = asshole