What James Cameron Got Wrong in “Titanic” – Neil deGrasse Tyson


  1. 1:10 yes and Icarus could have listened to his father’s original observations, of the initial design, to inform the new design. He was just lazy… and filled with that youth exuberance (hubris)

  2. I've only just heard of moonfall just now but from the sounds of things, i'd give it a pass, physics-wise. I don't watch the lord of the rings thinking "well the balrog is just completely unfeasible"

  3. Neil is one of those guys that you would hate to talk to or even be around because no matter the subject, he thinks he is an authority, and how dare anyone question him on it.

  4. Watched all three parts of this. One of the best interviews with Tyson I’ve seen. As popular as he is, I have to admit, I’m not the biggest fan of Tyson. He’s often speaking outside his expertise. As a scientist myself, I see this all the time. Many scientists are too big for their britches. Tyson got all persnickety over the Tom Brady Deflategate scandal and completely messed up his basic Physics 101 math. I run into the same thing in atmospheric science. 98% of climatologists believe in anthropogenic climate change; only 70% of meteorologists do. Meteorologists aren’t experts. Yes, they’re more knowledgeable than the average person, given their grasp of atmospheric science, but their not experts in climatology. The concentration of CO2 in the air is not impacting their forecast for Denver next Tuesday. So, they pay no attention to such things. They don’t study such things. You don’t go to a proctologist to have a brain scan unless you’ve got your head up your ass. Just because a proctologist and a neurologist are both doctors doesn’t make them both experts in brain functions. Tyson speaks out of school WAY too often. And he’s wrong way more often than people think and is never called out on it due to his reputation. But I loved his AI/teaching answer in the first part of this interview. And I don’t consider that speaking out of school. AI impacts all areas of science. In its more broad form, even the simplest computer programming is a form of AI, as a machine is being programmed to perform a function otherwise performed by a brain. So, ALL science/tech fields are DEEPLY embedded in AI. I don’t think Tyson is unqualified to speak on that and, as a teacher (yes, I’m both a scientist and a teacher), I liked his answer. Force the students to engage and process… oral presentations or exams. OR, in class writing without technological aids.

    Understand that the human element remains important. Humans created the texts in which AI is retrieving information and creating. On the data level, perhaps the AI can take over in terms of analysis, but it would require very complex AI to then determine the next steps… what needs to be done… and then implement it. In fact, if it requires in situ observations, AI may be incapable of providing that function. So, AI will never put humans out of business. It may reduce our workload. So, it may requires some creativity and innovation to ensure that our society continues to be a functioning, productive workforce. So, I’m not saying there are no challenges. There are. Absolutely. But they are manageable. We can function and flourish as humans within an AI dominated world. Anyway, I digress. But Tyson really hit on this well. One of his best interviews. And kudos to Colbert for scoring it.

Comments are closed.