I recently learned I got name-checked by Terrence Howard on his recent appearance on Joe Rogan. I reached out to Neil deGrasse Tyson. Neil deGrasse 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 treatise, 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, and 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 to 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 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 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 there's a mis... the calculation doesn't work out, or 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 making 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 is 8. 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 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. 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 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, thinking I have landed on an objective truth when in fact I haven't. That's how science works.

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 are supported 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 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 imbue 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, 'cause 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 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-Kruger 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 audacious, that's bodacious. When continental drift was proposed, it was like, what land masses are moving on Earth? Sure, that's a weird idea, that's going to be a hard sell. We think there's sort of upswelling of the

yes locally, but whole continent 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 'cause 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, 'cause 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 deGrasse Tyson here, as always, keep looking up. [Music]

My Response to Terrence Howard

Science meets pop culture on StarTalk! Astrophysicist & Hayden Planetarium director Neil deGrasse Tyson, his comic co-hosts, guest celebrities & scientists discuss astronomy, physics, and everything else about life in the universe. Keep Looking Up!

StarTalk

닐 드그래스 타이슨은 테렌스 하워드가 수학과 물리학을 재창조하려는 시도에 대해 비판적인 분석을 제공하며, 그의 주장이 틀렸음을 지적한다.

타이슨은 과학적 진실은 실험과 관찰을 통해 검증되어야 하며, 동료 검토를 거친 연구 저널에 발표되어야 한다고 강조한다.

또한 과학계는 새로운 아이디어를 환영하지만, 충분한 증거와 검증을 거쳐야 하며, 단편적인 지식으로 과신하는 더닝-크루거 효과를 경계해야 한다고 설명한다.

닐 드그래스 타이슨, 테렌스 하워드에 대한 응답 시작

테렌스 하워드가 조 로건 쇼에 출연하여 닐 드그래스 타이슨을 언급함.

8년 전 테렌스 하워드가 닐에게 36페이지 분량의 수학 및 물리학 재창조 시도를 보냄.

닐은 테렌스의 논문 모든 줄을 읽고 적색으로 코멘트를 달며 비평적 분석을 제공함.

과학적 탐구와 전문가 지식의 중요성

닐은 우주의 미지에 도전하는 사람들을 격려하지만, '더닝 크루거 효과'로 인해 잘못된 확신에 빠질 수 있음을 지적함.

전문가가 되려면 수년간의 연구와 저널 검토가 필요하며, 객관적으로 진실 또는 거짓을 판단하는 것이 중요함.

테렌스 하워드 논문의 오류 지적

닐은 테렌스의 논문 서두에 나오는 '1 * 1 = 2'라는 주장이 틀렸다고 지적하며, 여러 가지 반례를 제시함.

닐은 과거 테렌스와 교류가 있었지만, 그의 주장이 객관적 현실과 다르다고 비판함.

천재와 오해, 과학적 재현성의 중요성

닐은 천재는 오해받기 쉽지만, 오해받는다고 모두 천재는 아니라고 언급하며, 월터 러셀과 존 킬리의 업적은 실험적 지지를 받지 못했다고 지적함.

테슬라의 업적은 인정받지만, 일부는 비현실적이었음을 언급하며, 과학은 재현성을 통해 객관적 진실을 밝혀내는 과정임을 강조함.

기존 믿음에 대한 비판과 과학적 방법론의 중요성

닐은 테렌스가 평평한 지구에 대한 언급을 비판하며, 현대 과학 이전에는 감각에 의존했지만, 과학 도구 발명 후에는 데이터에 기반한 진실을 추구한다고 설명함.

피타고라스의 철학적 접근 방식을 언급하며, 숫자에 의미를 부여하여 사물을 이해하려는 시도는 오래되었지만, 현재는 부정된 방식임을 설명함.

거울에 비친 빛의 측정에 대한 테렌스의 주장이 틀렸다고 지적하며, 과학적 동료라면 감사해야 할 비판이라고 강조함.

닐은 거울의 반사율과 거리 때문에 빛의 강도가 두 배로 측정되지 않는다고 설명하며, 테렌스의 조각 작품은 흥미롭지만, 과학적 근거는 부족하다고 평가함.

결론 및 과학적 검증의 중요성 강조

닐은 자신의 비판이 테렌스의 에너지에 대한 존경심에서 비롯되었으며, 다른 사람에게 평가를 받아보라고 제안함.

닐은 더닝-크루거 효과에 주의하고, 새로운 아이디어는 엄격한 검증을 거쳐야 한다고 강조함.

대륙 이동설에 대한 저항은 완고함 때문이 아니라 신중함 때문이었으며, 충분한 증거가 제시될 때 새로운 진실이 등장한다고 설명함.

아인슈타인의 상대성 이론이 검증된 사례를 언급하며, 아이디어는 소셜 미디어가 아닌 연구 저널에서 검증받아야 한다고 강조함.

닐은 자신의 웹사이트에 코멘트를 게시할 예정이며, 시청과 경청에 감사하며 마무리함.

🎤 테런스 하워드에 대한 응답: 스타 토크의 비하인드 스토리

닐 드그래스 타이슨은 최근 조 로건의 팟캐스트에 출연한 테런스 하워드에게 이름이 거론된 것에 대해 언급하며 이야기를 시작합니다. 그는 과거에 하워드로부터 받은 36페이지 분량의 논문에 대한 자신의 생각을 공유하고자 합니다. **타이슨은 하워드가 수학과 물리학을 재창조하려 했다고 설명합니다**.

🧑‍🔬 과학적 탐구와 동료 평가의 중요성

타이슨은 과학적 아이디어를 평가하는 과정에 대해 설명합니다. 그는 새로운 아이디어를 동료들에게 알리고, **동료들은 그 아이디어의 오류나 문제점을 지적하는 것이 의무라고 강조합니다**. 그는 모든 아이디어가 옳을 수는 없지만, 객관적으로 검증된 지식을 바탕으로 평가해야 한다고 덧붙입니다.

타이슨은 활발한 지적 활동으로 우주의 미스터리를 탐구하려는 사람들을 긍정적으로 평가합니다. 하지만 그는 **"Dunning-Kruger 효과"** 즉, **"얕은 지식으로 인해 자신의 능력을 과대평가하는 현상"**에 대해 경고합니다**. 전문가는 오랜 시간 연구와 실험을 통해 객관적인 진실을 밝혀내는 사람들이라고 강조합니다.

📝 테런스 하워드 논문에 대한 비판적 분석

타이슨은 하워드의 논문 첫 문장인 "1 * 1 = 2"에 대해 비판하며 자신의 분석을 시작합니다. 그는 **"이 명제는 거짓"**이며, **"1보다 작고 0보다 큰 모든 숫자에 대해 거짓임이 증명된다"**고 지적합니다. 예를 들어, 0.64의 제곱근은 0.8로, 이는 원래 숫자보다 큽니다.

타이슨은 하워드가 논문에서 언급한 월터 러셀, 니콜라 테슬라, 존 킬리에 대해서도 언급합니다. 그는 **"천재는 오해받지만, 오해받는다고 해서 모두 천재는 아니다"**라고 말하며, 러셀과 킬리의 연구는 실험적 지지를 받지 못했다고 지적합니다. 그는 과학은 재현성이 중요하다고 강조합니다.

타이슨은 테슬라의 업적은 인정받았지만, 일부는 비현실적이었다고 평가합니다. 그는 또한 **"아이디어가 터무니없어 보인다고 해서 틀린 것은 아니다"**라고 덧붙이며, 동료 평가 시스템이 혁신적인 아이디어를 발견할 수 있다고 설명합니다.

타이슨은 하워드가 자신을 비판하며 테슬라를 존경하지 않았다고 주장한 것에 대해 해명합니다. 그는 솔직하게 자신의 생각을 밝혔을 뿐이며, **"진실을 말하는 것이 타인에 대한 존중의 표현"**이라고 믿습니다.

타이슨은 하워드의 논문에 등장하는 "지구가 평평하다"는 주장에 대해 반박합니다. 그는 **"지구가 평평하다는 생각은 과학적 방법론이 발전하기 이전에 등장한 것"**이라고 설명하며, 현대 과학 시대에는 그러한 오해가 있을 수 없다고 강조합니다.

타이슨은 하워드가 사물에 숫자를 부여하여 의미를 부여하려는 시도에 대해 비판합니다. 그는 이는 고대 피타고라스 시대의 철학적 접근 방식이라고 설명하며, **"오래전에 폐기된 방법"**이라고 지적합니다.

타이슨은 하워드의 논문에 등장하는 빛의 측정에 대한 주장에 대해 반박합니다. 그는 거울에 비친 빛은 100% 반사되지 않으며, 거울 속 촛불은 더 멀리 떨어져 있기 때문에 빛의 강도가 감소한다고 설명합니다. 그는 **"만약 당신이 방에서 가장 똑똑한 사람이라면, 방을 바꾸세요"**라는 마이클 델의 말을 인용하며, 끊임없이 배우고 성장해야 함을 강조합니다.

🎨 예술적 가치와 과학적 검증의 중요성

타이슨은 하워드의 논문에서 파생된 조각 예술 작품에 대해 흥미롭다고 평가합니다. 그는 자신의 비판이 하워드에 대한 존중의 표현이었으며, **"자신의 주장이 옳다고 확신한다면 다른 사람에게 평가를 받아야 한다"**고 조언합니다.

타이슨은 다시 한번 "Dunning-Kruger 효과"를 경고하며, **"자신의 아이디어가 옳다고 생각하고 아인슈타인과 뉴턴을 틀렸다고 생각하는 것은 오만"**이라고 지적합니다. 그는 대륙 이동설과 같은 혁신적인 아이디어도 오랜 시간 동안 검증을 거쳐야 했다고 설명하며, 과학적 주장은 엄격한 검증 과정을 거쳐야 한다고 강조합니다.

타이슨은 아인슈타인의 상대성 이론이 동료 평가를 거쳐 실험적 증거를 통해 입증되었음을 예시로 제시합니다. 그는 **"새로운 아이디어를 받아들이는 플랫폼은 소셜 미디어나 팟캐스트가 아니라, 연구 저널"**이라고 강조하며, 과학적 논의는 객관적인 평가를 통해 이루어져야 한다고 덧붙입니다.

타이슨은 자신의 웹사이트에 하워드의 논문과 함께 자신의 의견을 게시하고 싶었지만, 지금은 그 내용을 충분히 이해했을 것이라고 말하며 영상을 마무리합니다. 그는 마지막으로 **"계속 하늘을 보세요"**라는 말로 끝맺습니다.