Neil deGrasse Tyson Responds to Terrence Howard
Terrence Howard’s recent appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience continues to stir debate and conversation online. Howard’s theories have created interesting reactions that can not only be observed in the content of his positions but also in the human reaction his stances seem to evoke.
I’ve seen very little refutation of the specifics surrounding Howard’s claims but I’ve seen plenty of personal attacks on him. People online are quick to call him a “quack” or claim that he’s legitimately insane. Others choose to refer to him as a washed-up actor. Fortunately for Neil deGrasse Tyson’s video, he doesn’t stoop to such levels and keeps everything factual.
Despite the video’s accuracy, Tyson doesn’t address much of what was said on the Rogan podcast. Instead, he goes through a few excerpts of the information that Howard sent him 8 years ago. The information came in the form of a 36-page document where Howard highlighted some of his work and theories he had been working on. During his guest spot on the JRE, Howard made it seem that Tyson was overly dismissive of the information. After watching Tyson’s response, my initial reaction is to disagree. Although we’re only shown a few brief sections of the 36 pages, I feel that Tyson extended a great amount of courtesy, taking the time to review the entire document and include notes.
With all that being said, I find Tyson’s video to be underwhelming and avoidant of some of the scientific questions that Howard presented last month. Tyson seems more concerned with clearing himself of the “name check”, as he puts it, where Howard gave his version of their years-old interaction. I should’ve guessed that a 17-minute video wouldn’t be very satisfying.
Tyson’s post is split up into three chapters, What Happened & The Dunning-Kruger Effect, Breaking it Down, and Handling New Ideas. He does well to bring his charisma to the video and the overall production quality stands out as well. After going over what happened 8 years ago, Tyson explains the Dunning-Kruger Effect. This will essentially set the tone for the rest of the video as he mostly sticks to scientific principles, rather than Howard’s specific ideas. The Dunning-Kruger effect refers to the phenomenon when someone of little skill or knowledge overestimates their ability, while an expert is inclined to underestimate their own abilities. Again, it’s commendable that Tyson took the time to review Howard’s ideas. Tyson even refers to it as a “peer review”, as he includes more scientific terminology.
Howard’s most polarizing assertion is that 1 x 1 = 2. This is an obvious contradiction to the times table that we all grew up learning but I’m still curious as to why Howard is so comfortable declaring as much. I’ve yet to see someone explain how Howard got to such a conclusion. Instead, there are plenty of tweets and videos of people explaining multiplication tables as is widely understood. At 4:23, Tyson comes as close as he ever will in the video to addressing this issue.
“It can never occur, that the square root of a given number when added to itself is 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” — T. Dashon Howard
Poor grammar aside, this is false and I’d be interested to hear Howard’s response. Tyson gives an example of a number that defies his statement. For further confirmation, I took to ChatGPT to have AI weigh in on the matter.
ChatGPT also determines that Howard’s position is false, specifically when considering any number from 0–1.5874. If Tyson says that this disproval unravels all of Howard’s theories pertaining to math, then fair enough I suppose.
“To the extent that the next 35 pages depends on your stated thesis, this fact undermines your claims and assumptions and conclusions” — NDTyson
A portion of this breakdown is dedicated to discussing the work of past scientists, including Walter Russell, John Keeley, and Nikola Tesla. Howard claimed that Tyson trashed these gentlemen and their work but from what was shown in this video, I feel that Tyson was simply putting things plainly.
At 11:06, Tyson de-bunks some odd claim that Howard expresses where a light put up to a mirror “doubles” the light source, including how much light is emitted. I’m not sure what this is in the context of since Tyson appears to be jumping around the document. Either way, it’s easily disproven. After this minor point, Tyson skips to his ending remarks which explain that his candid and blunt approach is out of respect for the work Howard has done. He goes on to say that if he feels that he misunderstood the thesis then he would have to look to another person to evaluate the information, essentially a second peer. Also fair.
The final 3 minutes of the video are spent discussing other controversial scientific theories from the past, such as continental drift, that were later proven correct and other general principles. Tyson then reveals that he considered making his notes on the document available on his website but opted against it because we “get the gist.” I would still like to see Howard debate someone about his ideas, assuming he hasn’t changed his theories since his Rogan appearance. I imagine he’s been on the receiving end of much backlash and fair criticism.
I think there is still a ton that has been left unsaid and unexplored. On his 3-hour JRE appearance, Howard gives theories on gravity, explains the Walter Russell Periodic Table of Elements, discusses the Flower of Life, Tesla’s 3–6–9 theory, and presents his application of tangential flight. It’s odd that so much was presented in the episode yet dull and brilliant minds alike are stuck on “1 x 1 = 2.” The human ego is almost inescapable. Even in science some of the most renowned minds within the field get offended by the theories of others. I’m not sure why things of this nature get so personal but I do know it stifles creative thinking and can ultimately delay the revelations of truth. People with an interest in the topic would do well to let data and research speak for themselves, rather than investing emotional energy into such debates.
I’m on Twitter: https://twitter.com/KillMThomas
