Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'neil degrasse tyson'.
I watched this portion of Joe Rogan's interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson. They talk about military footage of UFOs. https://youtu.be/1u0VDFppCI4&t=5m52s Tyson seems to be saying that he's skeptical of the footage because sensors on equipment can provide false data. He uses as an example the incorrect data that caused astronomers to search for planet X when they noticed that Neptune's orbit didn't make sense, only it did make sense, they just had bad data and didn't realize it. I've never been impressed by Tyson's reasoning skills. And I don't follow his logic here either. Rogan points out that the military pilots saw the UFOs with their own eyes, or they at least have video of them. So what false data might we be using in this case? We have the testimony of the pilots, and the videos. I don't think the problem is false data. It's that we don't know how to interpret the data. We aren't certain of what we're seeing.
I saw this on The Jimmy Dore Show: Neil deGrasse Tyson and Norm Macdonald had a philosophical exchange on Twitter. Tyson basically said that the universe is indifferent to your pain, which is a pretty common sentiment among atheistic scientists and philosophers. But Macdonald, who is a pretty witty comedian, accused Tyson of a logical flaw. He said that since we are all part of the universe, we too would have to be indifferent to people's pain. I suppose the logical flaw Macdonald identified is the fallacy of composition. Essentially, Tyson is saying that since some things in the universe are indifferent, that means the whole universe is indifferent--which doesn't make sense. If Macdonald's reasoning is sound, we Objectivists might want to revisit our view of the benevolent universe premise. Is that also fallacious?