My Response to Terrence Howard

Summary

In this script, Neil deGrasse Tyson recounts his interaction with actor Terrence Howard, who sent Tyson a 36-page treatise attempting to revolutionize mathematics and physics. Tyson, respecting Howard's effort, provided a detailed critique, highlighting the importance of peer review and the scientific method. Tyson addresses the Dunning-Kruger effect, cautioning against overconfidence in one's understanding, and emphasizes the rigorous testing required for new ideas to gain acceptance in the scientific community.

Takeaways

• 🎤 Terrence Howard, an actor, was mentioned by Neil deGrasse Tyson on Joe Rogan's show, leading to an invitation for Howard to appear on Tyson's show.
• 📜 Howard had previously sent Tyson a 36-page document attempting to reinvent mathematics and physics, which Tyson read and critiqued in detail.
• 🔍 Tyson provided a peer review of Howard's work, identifying numerous assumptions and statements that were incorrect or underinformed.
• 🤔 Tyson discussed the Dunning-Kruger effect, explaining how a little knowledge can lead to overconfidence in one's understanding of a subject.
• 🧐 He emphasized the importance of rigorous scientific review and the need for reproducibility in validating scientific theories.
• 🚀 Tyson highlighted the difference between being a genius and being misunderstood, noting that many historical figures were not immediately recognized for their contributions.
• 🌐 He critiqued the idea of attaching numbers to physical objects to gain insight, a concept dating back to Pythagoras, and pointed out its flaws.
• 🔬 Tyson explained the scientific method, including the necessity of testing ideas through experiments and peer review, rather than relying on personal beliefs.
• 🖼️ Despite the critical analysis, Tyson appreciated the artistic value of the illustrations in Howard's document, finding them intriguing and beautiful.
• 🌟 Tyson concluded by encouraging the pursuit of knowledge and the importance of challenging ideas through the scientific process.

Q & A

Who is Terrence Howard and what is his connection to Neil deGrasse Tyson?

Terrence Howard is an actor who expressed a childhood interest in science and the universe. Neil deGrasse Tyson, a renowned astrophysicist, learned about Howard's interest and considered inviting him to his show, StarTalk, which features celebrities with a passion for science.

What did Terrence Howard send Neil deGrasse Tyson?

Terrence Howard sent Neil deGrasse Tyson a 36-page document in which he attempted to reinvent mathematics and physics.

What is the Dunning-Kruger effect mentioned by Neil deGrasse Tyson?

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with a little knowledge overestimate their understanding of a subject, leading to a false confidence in their abilities.

What does Neil deGrasse Tyson believe is necessary for scientific ideas to be validated?

Neil deGrasse Tyson believes that scientific ideas need to be peer-reviewed, tested for reproducibility, and published in research journals to be validated.

Why did Neil deGrasse Tyson spend time reading and commenting on Terrence Howard's document?

Neil deGrasse Tyson spent time reading and commenting on Terrence Howard's document as a form of peer review, out of respect for Howard's interest in science, and to provide an informed critical analysis.

What was Neil deGrasse Tyson's main critique of Terrence Howard's document?

Neil deGrasse Tyson's main critique was that the document contained many false assumptions and statements, and that the opening thesis was incorrect, which undermined the subsequent claims and conclusions.

What historical figures did Terrence Howard mention in his document as having been persecuted for their ideas?

Terrence Howard mentioned figures such as Walter Russell, Nicola Tesla, and John Keeley as having been persecuted for their ideas that exceeded the understanding of their contemporaries.

How does Neil deGrasse Tyson view the work of historical figures like Tesla and Russell?

Neil deGrasse Tyson acknowledges that Tesla's work on electromagnetism was valuable and recognized, but much of Russell's and Keeley's work lacked experimental support and reproducibility.

What does Neil deGrasse Tyson suggest about the process of scientific discovery?

Neil deGrasse Tyson suggests that scientific discovery is a cautious and rigorous process that involves testing ideas through experimentation and peer review, rather than immediate acceptance based on initial plausibility.

What advice does Neil deGrasse Tyson give to those who believe they have discovered new scientific truths?

Neil deGrasse Tyson advises that new ideas should be put through rigorous testing and peer review, and that one should be cautious of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which can lead to overconfidence in one's understanding.

What does Neil deGrasse Tyson appreciate about Terrence Howard's work, despite his critiques?

Despite his critiques of the scientific content, Neil deGrasse Tyson appreciates the artistic value of the illustrations and sculptures that Terrence Howard produced, finding them intriguing and beautiful.

Outlines

00:00

📜 Neil deGrasse Tyson's Critique of Terrence Howard's Theories

In the first paragraph, Neil deGrasse Tyson discusses being mentioned by Terrence Howard on Joe Rogan's show and his subsequent invitation to Howard's platforms. Tyson recounts his initial interest in Howard due to his expressed childhood desire to be a scientist. Tyson then delves into a detailed critique of a 36-page document Howard sent him, which attempted to revolutionize mathematics and physics. Tyson provides a peer review, pointing out fundamental flaws and the Dunning-Kruger effect, which describes the overconfidence of those with limited knowledge. Tyson emphasizes the importance of rigorous scientific scrutiny and the value of years of study and peer-reviewed research in advancing scientific understanding.

05:02

🔍 Dissection of Terrence Howard's Claims and Historical Figures

Paragraph two sees Tyson dissecting Howard's document, specifically challenging the opening thesis that '1 * 1 equals 2' and providing mathematical counterexamples. Tyson also addresses Howard's mention of historical figures like Walter Russell, Nicola Tesla, and John Keeley, discussing the reproducibility and experimental support necessary for scientific acceptance. Tyson differentiates between Tesla's recognized contributions to electromagnetism and the fringe ideas that lack such validation. He stresses the importance of honest critique and the evolution of ideas in the face of new evidence, cautioning against clinging to outdated beliefs.

10:03

🌐 Debunking Misconceptions and the Role of Numbers in Understanding the Universe

In the third paragraph, Tyson critiques Howard's approach to assigning numbers to physical ideas, tracing the concept back to Pythagoras. He refutes Howard's claim that a candle's light doubles when placed in front of a mirror, explaining the principles of light reflection and distance that affect perceived brightness. Tyson acknowledges Howard's artistic creations as intriguing, even if the scientific reasoning behind them is flawed. He concludes his critique by reiterating the importance of scientific rigor and the value of failed ideas in the pursuit of knowledge.

15:04

🚀 The Importance of Scientific Method and Peer Review in Validating Ideas

The final paragraph has Tyson emphasizing the role of the scientific method and peer review in validating new ideas, using the historical acceptance of continental drift and Einstein's theory of relativity as examples. He explains that ideas must withstand rigorous testing and not just rely on superficial fits or social media validation. Tyson advocates for the respect of intellectual effort through honest and thorough evaluation, suggesting that Howard seek another evaluator if he believes his work is misunderstood. Tyson ends with a reminder of the Dunning-Kruger effect and the importance of continuous learning and skepticism in the scientific community.

Keywords

💡Peer Review

Peer review is a process where scholars or experts in a similar field evaluate the work of their colleagues to ensure its quality, validity, and relevance. In the video, Tyson discusses how he provided a peer review on Terrence Howard's 36-page treatise, which is a critical analysis meant to help refine and validate Howard's ideas. Tyson's comments in red represent his effort to give an informed critique, which is a common practice in academic and scientific communities to maintain standards and advance knowledge.

💡Dunning-Kruger Effect

The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias where individuals with limited knowledge or skill in a domain overestimate their competence. Tyson references this effect to caution against the overconfidence that can come from having a little knowledge. In the script, he suggests that Howard might be falling into this trap by attempting to reinvent mathematics and physics without fully understanding the depth and complexity of these fields.

💡Reproducibility

Reproducibility in science refers to the ability of other researchers to replicate the results of an experiment or study. Tyson emphasizes the importance of reproducibility, stating that ideas must be testable and verifiable by others to be considered scientifically valid. He contrasts this with the work of individuals like Walter Russell and John Keeley, whose work has not been reproducible, and thus not widely accepted by the scientific community.

💡Flat Earth

The 'Flat Earth' concept is a historical belief that the Earth is flat, which Tyson mentions as an example of an antiquated belief that has been disproven by scientific methods. In the context of the video, Tyson uses this to illustrate the evolution of scientific understanding and the importance of not clinging to outdated ideas. He contrasts this with modern scientific consensus, which is built on evidence and rigorous testing.

💡Antiquated Beliefs

Antiquated beliefs refer to old, outdated ideas that are no longer supported by current knowledge or evidence. Tyson criticizes the clinging to such beliefs, suggesting that they hinder progress and understanding. He encourages embracing new ideas and evidence, as science continually evolves and our understanding of the universe deepens.

💡Objective Reality

Objective reality is the concept that certain facts or truths exist independently of individual perception or belief. Tyson discusses this in the context of evaluating ideas and theories, emphasizing that personal feelings or beliefs should not influence the assessment of whether a scientific claim is true or false. He stresses the importance of evidence and logic in determining objective reality.

💡Treatise

A treatise is a formal and systematic written discourse on a particular subject, often presenting an argument with supporting evidence. In the video, Tyson refers to the 36-page document sent by Terrence Howard as a 'treatise,' indicating that it is an attempt to present a comprehensive argument for a new approach to mathematics and physics. Tyson's critique of the treatise is part of his broader discussion on the importance of rigorous evaluation of new ideas.

💡Scientific Method

The scientific method is a systematic approach to research that involves forming hypotheses, conducting experiments, and drawing conclusions based on empirical evidence. Tyson implies the importance of the scientific method throughout the video, suggesting that any new ideas in science should be tested rigorously using this method to ensure they are valid and contribute to the body of knowledge.

💡Revolutionary Ideas

Revolutionary ideas are those that significantly challenge or change existing knowledge or paradigms. Tyson mentions that ideas like Newton's Laws, Einstein's relativity, and quantum physics were once considered revolutionary but were ultimately accepted because they were supported by compelling arguments and experimental evidence. He uses these examples to illustrate that while new ideas should be critically evaluated, they should also be open to consideration if they offer valuable insights.

💡Continental Drift

Continental drift is a theory that proposes the Earth's continents move across the surface over geological time. Tyson references the initial skepticism and eventual acceptance of continental drift as an example of how scientific ideas can be initially met with resistance but ultimately proven through rigorous testing and evidence. This example underscores the importance of subjecting new ideas to thorough scrutiny.

Highlights

Terrence Howard's attempt to reinvent mathematics and physics was met with a detailed review by Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Neil deGrasse Tyson's initial interest in Terrence Howard stemmed from his mother's mention of the actor's scientific aspirations.

Howard sent Tyson a 36-page treatise, which Tyson critically analyzed, providing a peer review in red.

Tyson's review highlighted the importance of understanding the existing body of work in a field to avoid repeating mistakes.

The Dunning-Kruger effect was discussed, illustrating the potential for overconfidence in one's understanding of a subject.

Tyson emphasized the value of peer review in advancing scientific understanding and the importance of objective truth.

Howard's treatise was criticized for its foundational thesis being incorrect, undermining the subsequent arguments.

The discussion touched on the reproducibility of scientific results as a cornerstone of scientific validity.

Tyson differentiated between the recognized and fringe aspects of historical figures like Tesla and Russell.

The importance of being honest with ideas, even if it means challenging established beliefs, was underscored.

Tyson critiqued the idea of assigning numbers to physical objects to gain insight, a concept rooted in ancient philosophy.

The concept of light measurement and reflection was discussed, with Tyson correcting a misconception from Howard's treatise.

Tyson praised the artistic value of Howard's work, separate from the scientific merit of his theories.

The cautionary tale of the Dunning-Kruger effect was reiterated as a lesson in the importance of rigorous scientific testing.

The historical resistance to the theory of continental drift was used as an example of scientific caution and eventual acceptance.

Tyson emphasized the role of peer-reviewed journals as the platform for validating new scientific ideas.

The process of scientific discovery was described, from the proposal of an idea to its rigorous testing and potential acceptance.

Tyson concluded with a call to keep looking up, encapsulating the spirit of scientific inquiry and exploration.

Transcripts

I recently learned I got name checked by

Terrence Howard on his recent appearance

on Joe Rogan I reached out to Neil

Degrassi Tyson Neil degrass Tyson he was

like hey man yeah I'd love for you to

come on my show do my radio do my TV

thing would love that I was like yeah

but let me I've got something I want to

introduce to you I got name checked

because 8 years ago he sent me a 36 page

treaties and it was only 36 pages so

this is Terence

Howard attempting to reinvent

mathematics and physics a little

backstory there I took initial interest

in Terrence because my mother said to me

do you know Terrence Howard I said yeah

I know you mean the actor she said yeah

well I heard him interviewed on NPR on

there he said that like when he was a

kid he wanted to be like a scientist and

study the Universe I said well that's

cool okay maybe we'll get him on Star

Talk we love talk to celebrities who

have a soft geek underbelly at the time

I didn't quite know how to get in touch

with him but we met at a something

called the upfronts which is where

networks present their next season's TV

shows I saw him at an event um uh

upfront and then this came in in my

inbox in this particular case since I

basically solicited it from him I

actually spent time reading every line

of all 36 pages and I commented my

comments are in red here you see that so

I spent a lot of time on it and I

thought out of respect for him what I

should

do is give him my most informed critical

analysis that I can in my field we call

that a peer review you come up with an

idea you present it either at a

conference or you first write it up and

you send it to your colleagues it is

their duty to alert you of things about

your ideas that are either misguided or

wrong or or there's a Mis the

calculation doesn't work out or the the

logic doesn't comport that's their job

not all ideas will turn out to be

correct most won't be but to get to that

point you need to know things like what

has everyone else said about this same

subject am I repeating someone else's

work is this a new insight that no one

else has had but has foundations that

are authentic or legitimate or

objectively true am I making a false

assumption am I makinging an assumption

that someone else has already shown to

be false all of this goes on on the

frontier of science let me make it clear

that I'm delighted when I see people

with active Minds trying to tackle the

great unknowns in the universe it's a

beautiful thing that people want to

participate on this Frontier what can

happen is if you're a fan of a subject

let's say a hobbyist let's call it it's

possible to know enough about that

subject to think you're right but not

enough about that subject to know that

you're wrong and so there's this sort of

Valley in there a valley of false

confidence this has been studied by

others and it's called the Dunning

Krueger effect it's the phenomenon where

a little bit of knowledge you over

assess how much of that subject you

actually know and then when you learn

even more you realize no I didn't know

as much as I thought I did so then

there's a sort of a lull there and then

when you learn even more you come back

up ultimately learning enough to know

whether you are right or wrong to become

an expert means you spend all this time

it doesn't happen overnight you can't

just sit in an armchair and say I'm now

an expert it requires years and years of

study especially looking through

journals where new ideas are published

and contested that's what we have

learned learned is the most effective

means of establishing that which is

objectively true or determining that

which is objectively false both of those

work hand in hand to move the needle on

our understanding of the universe I'm

going to read you just my opening line

here it's titled 1 * 1 equal 2 so I lead

off by saying this is an ambitious work

that is a clear indication of a Restless

active mind with in these Pages however

there are many assumptions and

statements that are underinformative

greater than the initial number squared

for that would expose a loose thread

within the fabric of our understanding a

loose thread capable of unraveling the

very ground rules of mathematics that's

a bold statement so then I I just say

this opening thesis is false there are

plenty of examples of this that have

escaped your attention his statement is

shown to be false for every number

that's less than one and greater than Z

for example the square root of 64 is8 8

is bigger than 64 and it's a larger

number than the original and 64 squared

=

496 a smaller number than the original

to the extent that the next 35 Pages

depends on your stated

thesis this fact undermines your claims

and assumptions and conclusions it's not

about feelings here it's about objective

reality so at the time I I considered

Terren a strong acquaintance and we hung

out a bit and had much exchange we

haven't spoken much since then but go to

page two and in here he mentions people

who he declares were persecuted because

their Vision exceeded the myopic view of

their contemporaries and he mentions

Walter Russell Nicola Tesla John Keeley

and many many more regarding you L your

list of people who have made Brave

sacrifices I note that to be a genius is

to be misunderstood but to be

misunderstood is not to be a genius the

work of Russell Walter Russell has

eluded any experimental support and the

work of Keeley is generally not

reproducible science is about

reproducibility I can have the most

brilliant crazy fun idea ever and if I

perform an experiment and no one else

can duplicate that experiment it belongs

in the trash Heap it's me in my own

world think I have landed on an

objective truth when in fact I haven't

that's how science works the

reproducibility of results as for the

work of Tesla much of it had very real

value to physics and our understanding

of electromagnetism and that value is

duly recognized by my community in the

naming of a unit of electromagnetism

after him you can't get more badass than

having a unit named after you Newton has

a unit named after him for example the

metric unit of force is a Newton much of

the rest of his work was Fringe and

unrealized either for violating known

laws of physics or for being simply

impractical just because you do some

good stuff doesn't mean everything you

ever did is going to be great I will

further affirm that just because an idea

sounds crazy doesn't make it wrong the

system of research and Publications in

peer-review journals has the capacity to

spot crazy but true ideas provided they

supporting by compelling arguments and

ultimately supported by experiments and

observations Newton's Laws Einstein's

relativity quantum physics were all

revolutionary ideas that appeared in

peer-review settings or journals

meanwhile most of the work of Russell

and Keeley had no such success with

their ideas so I think on Rogan Terren

said that I trashed those three

researchers attack that I had immediate

that I talked about Walter Russell and

Victor Shaw Berger and John Keeley as

and Tesla as the people that I looked up

to so he threw on on he was like

well Tesla Tesla stuff worked but Tesla

was never really respected and out there

when I'm just simply stating the fact I

don't think of that as trashing I think

of that as being honest I mean I could

have softened it but I don't think

that's what people who care about you

should do people who care will be honest

with you about ideas about thoughts the

world is changing so quickly and so is

everything around us unfortunately we

have chosen to remain handcuffed to

Antiquated and obsolete beliefs we have

put an enormous amount of faith faith

into the methods and practices of old

that are as dead today as The Men Who

propagated the notion that the world was

flat so I say here regarding your world

was flat reference

it's not widely appreciated that the

idea of a flat Earth predates the

introduction and development of the

methods and tools of science as we

practice them today those processes date

back to around 1600 coincident with the

invention of the microscope and

Telescope before then truths were

whatever seemed right to the senses

afterwards and to this day truth was

whatever the verified data obtained by

your instruments forced you to believe

if your senses otherwise contradicted

the data this fact means that there's no

such misunderstanding on the scale of

the Flat Earth in the era of modern

science and in multiple places

throughout the

treaties he's attaching a number to a

physical idea or a physical object that

idea goes way back by the way go back to

Pythagoras famous for the Pythagorean

theorem which we all learned in 8th

grade was it or nth grade Pythagoras was

also a philosopher who tried to

understand how things worked he felt

among others in his group that if you

assign a number to something the number

can abue that object with certain

meaning and significance which means

then if you manipulate the numbers that

you gain insight into the objects

themselves once you've assigned a number

to it there's a lot of that that

permeates this document uh but it's a

long disproven approach to the world

again there's nothing wrong with a

failed idea now other people know to not

do it right that has value if we place a

candle in front of a mirror the

measurement of light is doubled is it

not it does not measure as only one

light source we actually see two lights

a light meter will show twice the

intensity of light this is false he

attacked it so with such

vitro maybe that's too blunt what else

should I say I'm a scientist that's what

I would tell a colleague a colleague who

then say would thank you and then we go

out for beer after cuz that's how that

works and there's an old saying I first

heard it from Michael Dell of Dell

Technologies if one day you find

yourself the smartest person in the room

change rooms I say this is false the

light in the mirror appears dimmer than

the source of light itself for several

reasons starting with the fact that no

mirror is 100% reflective but more

importantly the candle in the mirror is

always is farther away from you than the

candle itself so the light meter will

always read less than twice the actual

value of the candle itself I will

note that from this work Terren produces

art sculptural art which I find to be

intriguing even beautiful to me more

intriguing than beautiful because you

got to look at it and you keep looking

at it like what is that and what's going

on there I just want to read you my end

and comments here I could not follow the

reasoning on these last few pages but

the illustrations that derive from them

are beautiful regardless of how they

were derived my notes have been strongly

critical of your reasoning and

conclusions I was candid and blunt out

of respect for the energy you have

clearly invested in this work but if

you're sure that you are still right and

that I have completely misunderstood

your thesis then you will need to look

for another person to evaluate what you

have done and solicit their comments in

any case like I say above the images and

illustrations in your final pages are

beautiful works of art unlike any I have

seen best to you Neil so in case people

wanted to know what actually went down 8

years ago just always be cautious of the

Dunning Krueger effect you put in a

little bit of work and you have an idea

and then you think your idea is right

and that Einstein is wrong and Newton is

wrong and that everybody's wrong and

that all of modern astrophysicists are

wrong that's

bold that's B audacious

Bodacious when continental drift was

proposed it was like what land masses

are moving on Earth Sur that's a weird

idea that's going to be a hard cell we

think there's sort of up swelling of the

yes locally but whole continence move

that's crazy it would take a few decades

until ultimately when we're mapping the

bottom of the ocean we find that there's

a Mid-Atlantic Ridge that the ridges are

separating it's like bada bing so the

resistance to jumping on the idea that

continents

move was not because people were

stubborn it was because people are

cautious any new idea needs to be put

through the ringer that's how science

works you put it through the ringer

every possible test you can not just cuz

it happens to look like South America

fits with Africa any better evidence

than that oh wait a minute fossils

matched between the west coast of South

America and the east coast of Africa not

recent fossils fossils from millions of

years ago that's interesting things that

make you go hm that brought some more

people over to the camp you keep that up

and you reach a point where enough

evidence is brought to bear on the

question and then you have a new

emerging truth but at the the vibrant

energy that goes on it conferences and

the contest of ideas that's how we roll

that's how it works when Einstein came

out with relativity saying SpaceTime

curves Albert Al what are you saying

what are you doing well you can test it

the total solar eclipse so the idea

comes out in 1915 is published in 1916

1919 we measured light around the edge

of a total so during a total solar

eclipse cuz you can't see the stars

during the daytime you see the light the

light rays bent from their actual

coordinate positions on the sky Sir

Arthur Edington an astrophysicist

provided the first experimental evidence

for Einstein's general theory of

relativity which by the way was

published in a peer-review journal crazy

idea the platform to be accepted for the

ideas is not social media it is not Joe

Rogan it is not my podcast it is

research journals

where attention can be given on a

level that at the end of the day offers

no higher respect for your energy and

intellect than by declaring that what's

in it is either right or wrong or worthy

of publication or not I wanted to post

this to my website so you can see my

comments mixed in with his treaties but

uh you got the sense of it thanks for

listening thanks for watching

Neil degrass Tyson here as always keep

looking up

[Music]