If I were Neil I would have also said, "That very question presupposes guilt" ... and then told him in a polite way to fuck off.

Well said

My favorite part of that exchange was the very quick "why'd you mention it".

@@brianmcnulty287 Mehhhh

I wouldn't be so quick to trust the investigations on Neil. The investigations were conducted by National Geographic and Fox, networks that, at the time, had it in their best interest to find Neil innocent so they could air his new show, Cosmos, which had been delayed as a result of the allegations. There's a conflict of interest there that we should keep in mind.

NDT is overwhelmingly awesome right .he always leaves us spellbound with his wits and savvyness - lol

@@achempim2023 preach.

When i was in jr. high we went on a field trip to the planetarium, that was a long time ago, but it was probably the best field trip that i attended while in school. And it fueled my life long interest in all things science, and especially astronomy. We need more science ED in schools today.

@@randychristensen7173 That is awsome friend. It's the same for me with why I'm In then IT field. I I just love what I do.

@@randychristensen7173 yes we do, well said 👏 Science doesn't just exist in books, it needs to be experienced and seen.

He has my full attention for sure.

You pay attention to him and believe everything he tells you? If so you are a credulous person lacking in critical thinking skills. Neil has made some questionable claims. Even demonstrably false claims.

@@HopDavid You show some hard science evidence mate, using words like some and false. I´m 100% convinced by your insight and knowledge based evidence.

@@TrickOrRetreat Tyson will tell you there are more transcendental numbers than irrationals. You will have no clue this is bull shit because you know absolutely nothing about Cantor's ideas on infinite sets. Tyson will tell his listeners that propellent mass goes up exponentially with payload mass. Again, a steaming pile of bull shit that gets a pass because his fans have no clue. But Neil's bull shit math and science are harmless. Who cares if poser nerds like yourself think there's more transcendentals than irrationals? Much worse is when he uses his poor memory and sloppy scholarship to invent history. And then uses his bad history to push a narrative. Falsifying history is a serious offense, mate. If you want an example of Tyson's bad history, Google "Bush and Star Names". For eight years part of Tyson's routine was a false account of president Bush's 9-11 speech. Tyson tells us it was "an attempt to distinguish we from they." When Bush's actual 9-11 speech was a call for tolerance and inclusion. It was delivered from a mosque. After Tyson was called out he eventually admitted error and apologized to Bush. But this was after he had been telling this bull shit story for eight years. Many KZfaq channels no longer allow posting of links. But I think I've given you enough to Google it for yourself. Though using google is probably above your pay grade.

@@HopDavid Someday, if you are lucky, you will understand the greater wisdom..

👍👍👍

What does it matter that you are Black? Who cares? Surely that you are a 76 year old curious person is all that matters?

I'm just a young 65 year old :) -but you're so right. Learning is always the spice in our life.

Or he’s been asked this question dozens of times throughout his career and has narrowed down a simple and effective way of providing a fruitful answer.

@@AdftliNeil is definitely like a fine wine getting better over time. I agree.

Yes....Neil refused to enter BBC's rabbit hole😅

Actually NDT used to interrupt his guests very often, but recently he's gotten much better. NDT is awesome.

Yes that's admirable!

@@LawrenceReitan I think that's where much if NDT's value to the public comes in. He's about not just scientific facts, but scientific reasoning. A person who understands scientific reasoning doesn't just see a news article that says "COVID VACCINE DOESN'T WORK" and share it. They think about it. They try to put it on context. They consider the source. They look at publicly available data. They look at what sources they do trust are saying. You don't need to be a scientist to do this. But you do need to do this in order to be an informed citizen in a democracy. NDT is a evangelist of scientific reasoning. Happy New Year!

Well said🤙

Inappropriate? I thought the question was needed and asked very appropriately. I also feel like Neil slam-dunked with his answer.

NDT is known as the Great Interruptor. Watch his podcasts with Joe Rogan and you'll see. He's no Richard Dawkins and certainly no Prof Brian Cox

@@thomascochrane3100 Interrupting Joe Rogan doesn't count... The man says at least one stupid thing a minute! No one can resist setting that shit straight for very long. lol

Joe Rogan and this does not compare. This was an interview; questions for Neil DeGrasse Tyson, where as he was in conversation with Joe Rogan.

@@MrNicknayme No comparison? Not even at all? Mind if I double check? 1.They both have NDT 2.They both have two people talking 3.They both involve a person asking questions 4.On both occasions, they talk about science 5. On both occasions they talk about non science stuff. 6. They are both available in podcast form. 7. They both have detractors and fan bois arguing about whether or not NDT is a narcissistic media whore. Yeah, you're right. Can't see anything at all in common between this interview and the Joe Rogan meeting...

@@thomascochrane3100 Ah, I see we’ve got a wiceguy here, ehh? Me saying they don’t compare, is to say they are not the same. I go on to saying where they don’t compare in one crucial way, which makes the argument that Neil behaved equally badly, mute. Did I say that they don’t compare at all? No. I said in this one way they differ, and why that matters. And that single point is left uncommented on by you. Are you ok?

LMAO @ BRILLIANT MAN

I was thinking the same thing. Good on Neil for not taking that bait.

Perhaps you're not British, these questions were designed to illicit positive answers from NDT.

It’s called Hardtalk for a reason. SS has interviewed dozens of world leaders and really grilled them, he was easy on Neil,

You forget to mention that it's the "agenda"™

Neil deDumba$$ Tyson asked about the start of the universe and if he believes in God: Larry King, "Who started all this; do you believe in God?" Neil, "The proper question should be who or what started it, but I don't know. If I don't know I'm going to say I don't know." from the beginning of this video: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rJOhiJd3ldKylok.html What we KNOW and have NO doubts about... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. Neil does not know BASIC science. Not only can't we have creation without God, Neil does not know that we also can't have science without God. The laws of nature can only come from a Lawgiver, God. Tyson says his dung at about 2:00 in the video below about the eye evolution. It is proven false in the rest of the video. But to shallow people, to hell with details and what the evidence shows. Your agenda is all that matters. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jp2YZauIyLrbkWg.html He IS Neil deDumba$$ Tyson.

Neil deDumba$$ Tyson asked about the start of the universe and if he believes in God: Larry King, "Who started all this; do you believe in God?" Neil, "The proper question should be who or what started it, but I don't know. If I don't know I'm going to say I don't know." from the beginning of this video: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rJOhiJd3ldKylok.html What we KNOW and have NO doubts about... Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. Neil does not know BASIC science. Not only can't we have creation without God, Neil does not know that we also can't have science without God. The laws of nature can only come from a Lawgiver, God. Tyson says his dung at about 2:00 in the video below about the eye evolution. It is proven false in the rest of the video. But to shallow people, to hell with details and what the evidence shows. Your agenda is all that matters. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jp2YZauIyLrbkWg.html He IS Neil deDumba$$ Tyson.

@@2fast2block LOL, I can't decide if u r joking or are u this delusional

@@deepakshahi3520 I'm not joking and it's you that is delusional as you show you can't prove me wrong.

@@2fast2block u r filled with hate man, chill. He may be wrong with some facts, as he is human, but he is a well respected scientist, doing a great job popularizing science amongst common folks. P, S-It's purely my opinion I do not intend to force onto other. And I respect your opinion too, it's just that I don't agree with that and that's ok. Cheers

@@2fast2block lmao you need help kiddo

Well said 👍

It's called Hardtalk, snowflake.

@@thomascochrane3100 Yes, HardTalk, not Clickbait Talk. Questions like 'what did you learn from unproven questions that were not pursued after thorough investigation' are only of interest to the social media fodder like you. There's nothing 'hard' about raising issues like this. You have an astrophysicist in front of you, with fascinating and well-informed opinions on science education - ask him about that. I don't care about unproven gossip/speculation/allegations. This is for people who are only interested in celebrity science, and the gossip around individuals. If you follow NDT's views on anything, he is clear that his role as an individual is irrelevant; he's all about communicating the concepts, and that these transcend the individual. If you can't handle this, perhaps find a program called Dumbed-Down-Celebrity-Science-Talk. We expect more from HardTalk, but perhaps you're just fine with this level.

@@RLeaguer_Saint So, not only a snowflake but a fanboi as well. What "thorough" investigation? The one held in-house behind closed doors by the companies responsible for airing his two new shows? One of the companies clearing him was Fox, the company owned by Rupert Murdoch, and has Tucker Carlson as one of its stars.That enquiry...? Let me ask you a straight up question. If you had a daughter, and she made those accusations, would you be happy with an internal enquiry? Would you be happy that a vaunted journalist failed to ask one question about accusations made by 4 women? And how it affected him? Also, shouldn't a public figure, who uses the media to sell books and DVDs, face questions about accusations by reporters? Or, because he is such a hero of yours, you take offence when he is asked straight questions about a serious matter. Are you also a Trump supporter too? 😬 And fyi, the guy doing the interviewing is as highly educated and skilled in their profession as NDT, so he's well within his turf to ask tough questions. Remember, a strong investigation reveals innocence as well as guilt. In this case, NDT still has alot of convincing to do. Watch this space.

@@thomascochrane3100 Perhaps the right venue for a proper investigation is the police department. The presumably affected women should also have shared with the police all the contacts that corroborate their claims, and not just leave those details with the "internal investigation" of for-profit companies. Otherwise, there won't be a satisfactory closure. As to your daughter, advise her to denounce to the police any sexual crime she suffers as soon as possible, and to look for help in associations and her family - she shouldn't wait for too much time to pass.

Neil has pretty much corroborated Ashley Watson's story. And she lost her job a day or two after what appears to be a casting couch interview gone south. I believe Ashley Watson.

...with such matter of factly class...

Triggered!

Some clarity. I am not knowledgeable enough to speak on Neil's reply to the #MeToo movement question. My comment was directed at all the other shady questions he was asked.

He's just answering questions. Is the guy supposed to baby neil and talk about sports or something? It gives neil the chance to give clarity on these topics. It's not a bad thing at all. If you hated neil more than anything you might as well discuss things that go nowhere and don't give him a chance to explain anything or awaken anyone.

Judging by the paper he has in front of him, I'd say the question was prepared in advance. It's a stupid question, but I don't think he came up with it on the spot, just to get back at NDT.

It certainly looks like Neil abused his power over an underling: Ashley Watson. It's a legitimate question.

@Sharon I thought this too

@@mayedalshamsi Definitely a prepared question, but asked at a strategic time.

@@HopDavid Definitely not questions the allegations, just the timing of the asking.

There are no chemical weapon biological weapons or atomic weapons in hands of social media users instead in hands of so called educated people including scientists and they are not wise according to NDT

@@khurramkayani6978 The power to controll the outcomes of elections is stronger than any actual weapon because it determines the wielder of said weapons.

@@khurramkayani6978 the brain was the original chemical weapon, and everything in the environment an ingredient

Some of us ares and some of us ain'ts

are u nostradamus

In England there might still be questions. This interview was for them. It’s good to clear things up.

Neil does not teach his fans how to think critically. He has made many demonstrably false claims which his fans tend to accept without question.

​@@HopDavid Would love to see a list of who does such better, cause he always teaches his 'fans' how to think, and even many times says not to believe him just cause he's the one saying something.

@@m40dot Yes, Tyson does mouth some nice sounding platitudes. But neither he nor his fans practice them. It is much like the U.S. adulterous Republicans preaching family values. A comical spectacle of hypocrisy. I have made a list of Tyson's questionable claims. It's titled "Fact Checking Neil deGrasse Tyson". Google it. It should be near the top. Tyson's false account of Bush's 9-11 speech was a standard part of his routine for *eight years*. Not once in those eight years did Tyson or any of his fans lift a finger to check the accuracy of his claims. And he dropped this steaming pile at several high profile "skeptic" conferences. I put "skeptic" in scare quotes because his celebrity audience is as credulous as they come. That includes Dawkins, Shermer, Novella, Krauss, Sam Harris, Hitchens, etc. Also his bit on Ghazali and the Islamic Golden Age is mostly fiction. But swallowed hook line and sinker by Tyson's "skeptic" audience. Same goes for Tyson's addled history on Newton. Delivered year after year after year after year. And never once questioned by his clueless fans.

@@HopDavid So about that 'list of who does such better'?

and I also like to add that the US spends around twice NASA's budget on pet food each year and 4x on soft drinks. Of course that is cumulative disposable income rather than a slice of annual tax take but the basic argument is about a societies resource allocation to 'solve problems here on Earth' blah, blah, blah.

many of the big space projects are paid for by a consortium of nations.

@@tma2001 We are going to have to change our lifestyles if we want to survive. Our consumer-culture will be our downfall.

and you people just now burned tens of trillions to lockdown the world for a fl season that kills as many people in 2020 as in any other normal fl year

it appears as though wasdwasd*^$# ain't good with the maths or likes to run around trying to spread lies.

THIS DUMMY SAID HUMANS EVOLVED? REALLY? PROVE IT! WE DIG UP DINOSAUR BONES, RIGHT? THEY WERE HERE BEFORE US, RIGHT? ANY MUTATED HUMAN BONES EVER FOUND? WHY NOT? Evolution is BS! We dig up dinosaurs, right? any mutated human bones found? How did the first baby take care of itself? where did it come from? You need to wake up serious. YOU ARE NOT SMARTER THAN THE CREATOR

Extraordinary man? Guy ain't got no business talking about science he needs to change his career to Middle School social studies teacher. js

Tyson is a source of misinformation. Bad math, wrong physics and false history. His bad math and science are merely annoying. It's not as if his pseudo nerd fans will ever actually study science and math. But his false history is a serious offense.

@@HopDavid enlighten us.

@@HopDavid "Wow" -Owen Wilson

@@Dreagostini I have made a list of Tyson's questionable claims. Google: fact checking Neil deGrasse Tyson. My list is usually the 3rd or 4th hit.

@@HopDavid about gmo missinformation. gmo and artificial selection in principle are the same thing.

Wut

Wait your mad that after 3 years someone finally pressed him (hardly) on the accusations levied against him?

@@tskinsplaylists2972 nothing to press, was totally debunked in a matter of weeks of the start.

@@MrBonners agreed and it was clearly out of left field with the way the interview was going. Why bother? Completely unnecessary and obviously this guy had to get that in no matter what.

The show segment is called 'hard talk'. It's supposed to be confrontational.

@@TheYahmez Confrontational against an astrophysicist? Why? Confrontational for being confrontation sake is just being an asshole for asshole sake. From the Piers Morgan School of British Journalism.

Perhaps you’re correct …. and perhaps instead you might be writing in German, Russian, or Chinese now instead of English …. freedom is not free. Best,

@@SailingEast lol no :) definitely not. That is the republican propaganda that US is protecting the world. If anything if there wasn't for the bloated military budget the world would be more peaceful

@Bobb Grimley well that's now and in the near future. We do not know what the future generations will be capable of. Hundreds of years from now...

@Bobb Grimley yes. We all know that. But for instance warp drive is mathematically possible. Who know if we'll be able to invent warp drive in the future. Harness antimatter as fuel... or something else. I think that it's arrogant of us to presume what our future generations will or will not be able to accomplish in the future

@Bobb Grimley yes they are. Now they are. But they're not impossible. Something that's impossible today may very well be possible hundreds of years from now. Just as flight was hundreds of years ago...

Tyson is a bull shitter. But the public loves bull shitters. As the 2016 U.S. election demonstrated.

@@HopDavid can we have some evidence or source to suggest Tyson is a bullshitter or u just gunna hide behind anonymous KZfaq profiles making extraordinary claims?😂

I wouldn't go that far...

@@alfiewoodley01 Absolutely. Just one example here, in August, he tweeted that unvaccinated Republicans are dying at five times the rate of Democrats every ten day while posting a picture of a book with the title "How to die like a medieval peasant in spite of modern medicine". He's trying to take a shot at republicans but what he's conveniently leaving out is that there are far more Republicans in the 65+ age group, which are vastly more vulnerable to Covid, statistically speaking. And these statistics have been around since the beginning of the pandemic. Tyson is misleading by omission. He actually does that a lot. Pay attention to his twitter. He's deleted several tweets already when people call him out hard enough, including the tweet I'm mentioning. He's just a political hack. If he was truly practicing what he preaches, he would have pointed out the statistical differences as well. It's as simple as that.

Oh man, I was just going to type that comment. I have a feeling that high IQ and weird social ticks go hand in hand. I mean.. the hanky in his pocket is perfectly placed, but the knot of the tie is screaming for an adjustment. Come'on Neil..

The show is called HARDtalk. I think the whole point of the show is to ask sensitive and hard-hitting questions. This is not meant to be a lets learn about fun things about space interview, but what is Neil Degrasse Tysons views on these subjects and the show chose negative leaning subjects.

I disagree. This is a sentiment that many people, and unfortunately many politicians, share. So by asking this question the interviewer is also giving Neil the opportunity to adress the issue.

@@ToadalChaos This question has been answered and mauled for thousands of times already, so those with their own narrative would not listen to this answer one more time. Overall, I could not heard anything new in this interview that NDT hasn’t said many times before. If a pompous BBC interviewer can’t extract something new and interesting, then it is a failed interview.

I disagree 100%. NASA has and does waste billions. It is been referred to as welfare for scientists.

@@justayoutuber1906 who else is going to spend money on science simply for science sake? You dont advance any scientific frontiers without government money because the concern of turning a profit becomes a major roadblock.

Yeah, Neil isn't going to just accept someone else's narrative

He always do ;)

The interviewer seemed determined to get a gotcha moment.

Unfortunately he had to. Those questions were brain dead.

@@gyozakeynsianism but you don't give up trying, because every now and then that positivity gets through and makes a huge difference, and we remember that and pass it on

Being a good scientist also takes some self discipline. Neil is no scientist. He hasn't done research since his dissertation in the 90s. And, judging by all the stuff he gets wrong, hasn't opened a textbook either.

That's good I try to do same with my nephew. I do think though zoomer generation is loosing sense of wonderment loosing being marveled in general.

Curiosity is masculinity, insecurity is femininity and its excesse is what makes intellectuals, be they bureaucrats or bible thumpers or fact thumpers who vilify curiosity as liability which they must evade and/or subjugate. Our world suffers from a lack of masculinity, that's why everybody and they mama is now a form of liberal.

questioning gets you labeled as a conspiracy theorist by the left wing propaganda machine. funny how they have claimed to hate nazis so much but still act like the biggest fascists the world has ever seen.

To the last 2 comments I'm a Democrat/ independent and I've been following SpaceX since the beginning. Care to keep labeling space flight?

Answer: they have an agenda or are poor interviewers who like to bully.

Such a butt kisser. Tell the truth. Carl Sagan was more dignified than Neil here. Have you ever read any of his books? He blewn.™

@@nirv So would Carl be proud about your comment or did you blew it yourself, mh?

@@Dreagostini He would be proud because I'm telling the truth and not kissing rear end. He'd realize it's sincere, genuine, and not vituperative and therefore he'd not only be proud of me, he'd GENUFLECT.

@@nirv You're pretty arrogant on that front. Swinging that name in your opinion to insult people without elaboration.

@@Dreagostini have you read any of his books or listened to his audiobook narration? He speaks to you like you're four. The best talk he ever gave was 2006 Beyond Belief.

I guess Cuomo would have been better !!!! What a political mindset you must have, sounds exhausting. lmao

Fox is just controlled opposition. They're only pretending to be what you think they are. Do yourself a favor and stop watching television.

Because CNN is all about facts….

I completely disagree, I find the interview quite interesting and Neil deGrasse’s answers excellent, I really enjoyed that interview.

The BBC, despite all it’s faults, is by no means anything like ‘Fox News’. The BBC has an opinion and to a certain extent, it can be bias at times too. Fox News however is just plain BS . All in all, I don’t think this was such a bad interview. Hardtalk on the BBC is a program format devoted to asking probing and difficult questions to a range of guests on a range of various subjects. You don’t go on Hardtalk expecting an easy interview.

thank god, the government should be deciding as little as possible in delegating resources to things by steaaling it from the people

I had the exact same reaction as NDGT did as soon as dude said it,.. and for the same reason. It was gratifying to see him push back on that, and more than a little heartening to think our minds were working alike, at least in that moment.. lol..

Tyson left the impression that the so called investigations exonerated him. Which isn't the case. The investigations were carried out by entities that had already invested a lot of money in Tyson's and Druyan's TV show Cosmos. So they had an incentive to look the other way. And the results of the investigations were not released. Ashley Watson says she gave investigators contact information of witnesses that could back up some of her claims. These witnesses were not contacted. I believe Ashley Watson and I believe the investigations were a sham.

It's in the past now fellas. Let it go. It was not a big deal.

@@costco_pizza If he can do as he likes without fear of consequences it is likely he will continue his abusive behavior. Often the rich and famous escape justice. And that's not right.

Seems to me NDT made himself look guilty with his response to the #MeToo questions . The interviewer was clearly asking if NDT had had to examine his past behavior after the #MeToo movement began (AS MOST STRAIGHT MEN HAD TO) but instead of saying, "Of course! Didn't we all?" he became very defensive. That was very telling.

@@willowbeederouaux4750 I don't know what world you're living in LOL

@@willowbeederouaux4750 Why should he have to evaluate his past behavior if nothing wrong was done in the first place?

@@costco_pizza that answer predisposes innocence. NDT is overbearing and egotistical. That combination in a male in a position of authority, statistically means that young female subordinates are more likely to be abused. Fact.

@@willowbeederouaux4750 Don't we all slowly change our behaviour in some way as behaviours become scrutinised and judged by society so that hopefully we become more civilised. He's a human not a robot. Willowbee it must be great looking at the world from your glass house. What's it like having a blame free perfect background?

tyson was sagan's understudy

neil was carl's protege

Not even close!!! Sagan was far superior.

Thanks to Carl Sagan. ;-)

✊🏾

Terrible questions, brilliant answers.

If you love listening to this guy you should try listening to a real scientist

@2Lip clearly doesn’t… mature comment.

It’s hard talk you silly billy.