701. Is this another Sokal Hoax?

Comment #29012 by Yorker on April 1, 2007 at 7:11 am

Just to be sure, I've just subjected myself to full reading of it, quite a feat, I assure you!

This is either a joke, I'm an idiot, or the author needs to get laid by a sperm whale before being deified as a God of postmodernist metatwaddle.

702. Is this another Sokal Hoax?

Comment #29009 by Yorker on April 1, 2007 at 6:52 am

I never read it all, did anyone? Bullshit of the highest order is easily recognised.

13. Comment #28988 by Rtambree

"There's too many academics for too little new knowledge."

I like that one!

Carolyn, you need to get laid...BADLY!

703. In the Beginning

Comment #29005 by Yorker on April 1, 2007 at 6:31 am

Comments made earlier by Steve99, have prompted me to look further into the new direction Paul Davies is taking. There's no doubt that Paul's a very good physicist so I must make an effort to be fair in my comments about him. His new argument, still in his words, under development, is based upon the idea that there is some kind of purpose to the Universe. Perhaps this and his other statement that it would be pointless being a scientist if the Universe had no purpose, went a long way to his receiving the Templeton prize. It's difficult to see what else it might be since the argument is incomplete and unsubstantiated.

I suspect many scientists would disagree about the uselessness of their careers in a Universe without purpose! Indeed, why must the Universe have a purpose? There's no more likelihood of purpose than no purpose, so at best it's a 50/50 proposition, perhaps the most lucrative one yet made! I wonder if an atheistic billionaire would give me $1.2 million for producing a still half-baked idea that the Universe has no purpose! I don't think so. Of course, most would rightly argue that Davies past record played a part in the award, but had he come up with a new idea about the Universe that never mentioned purpose, I think his chances of getting the prize would've been similar to Richard Dawkins' chance – close to zero (sorry, Prof.).

I'm trying hard to find a way to recant my original "Judas-like" statement about him, but I still can't help feeling he's done science and his fellow scientists a disservice here. Sadly, other than the past pleasure his earlier books gave me, I can find no more positive things to say about Paul, so I shall say no more.

704. In the Beginning

Comment #28998 by Yorker on April 1, 2007 at 5:37 am

23. Comment #28983 by Logicel

"To criticize atheists who are on the combative front with these wingnuts on a daily basis just because they have not perfectly rebuted their nonsense is to say the least a bit dense. My big toe could not even fit into these atheists' shoes."

Can you clarify this? You said you would've barfed had you been Scott, but I don't understand your conclusion, did she do a good job against Morris or not? The part you heard seems to have expired on the 31st, I don't see the link and didn't hear the conversation.

Maybe I'm a bit dense!

705. In the Beginning

Comment #28937 by Yorker on March 31, 2007 at 5:50 pm

Steve99,

I don't really understand your insistence that the perceived fine tuning of the Universe is important. This planet is the way it is, the Universe is the way it is, why do we need to worry that if the numbers were different we wouldn't be here? That we're able to live here because evolution suited us to the planet seems to me, a very natural explanation. If the Earth had been different we would be different or possibly non-existent but so what? We are here, that's it!

We have no idea of the biology of other life-forms that might exist elsewhere on other planets, but whatever their biological basis, the idea that they too will have been suited to their world by evolution, seems the most satisfactory and simple explanation to me. Again, why worry about cosmological settings? To quote Feynman: "It's no good wondering why things are that way, that's just the way it is!"

All the stuff about the Universe must have known we were coming, is lost on me, it's meaningless. As far as I can see the Universe is entirely indifferent towards humankind and wouldn't be changed in the slightest if we met our demise tomorrow.

I think what Stenger did was to change the way we look at it, he certainly changed the way I look at it; things are a whole lot simpler now. It's the old but true story, why postulate complexity when a simple answer suffices? I haven't lost my interest though; I've had it since childhood and will probably die with it. It's my confidence that's waned, in my youth I felt fairly sure that we'd know for sure that life existed elsewhere but now I feel differently. More and more, I fear that intelligent life may be a rare occurrence; it may be that like us, other intelligences suffer from rapid scientific advancement but slow maturation. Technological power mixed with childish clinging to irrational beliefs may well be a fatal combination that causes intelligent species to self-destruct. I worry that we too are rushing headlong to that end.

706. Richard Dawkins: Author of the Year!

Comment #28847 by Yorker on March 31, 2007 at 8:10 am

53. Comment #28756 by kkant

You mean you want to watch the WHOLE THING???? :)

707. Richard Dawkins: Author of the Year!

Comment #28846 by Yorker on March 31, 2007 at 8:08 am

14. Comment #28290 by BaronOchs

I'm with you here. I hope Prof. Dawkins would not accept a knighthood, too many honours are being sold nowadays, not being a knight means he could never be accused of buying it.

Congratulations Richard, nice feeling to know that I voted on the winning side for once!

708. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28841 by Yorker on March 31, 2007 at 7:56 am

94. Comment #28837 by Fishpeddler

While I broadly agreed with your statement about #4, I think the following needs to be clarified.

"It is reasonable to say that accusing someone of criminal and immoral acts is an incitement to hatred."

Is it? Perhaps you should have said unfounded accusations, if the accusation is supported by evidence it's not an incitement, it's a factual statement!

"…I presume the rationale is that people living in a democracy can and should be held responsible for the actions of their government."

A debatable point, I would contend that people living in a true democracy could be held responsible for governmental actions. The USA of course, wasn't founded as a democracy, isn't and doesn't behave like a democracy, and so it's citizens must be let off the hook.

709. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28838 by Yorker on March 31, 2007 at 7:21 am

Helian,

I note disappointedly, that you failed to comment upon that hilarious clip I sent you the link to, was that a straw man also?

You're confused, to call a person an idiot as I did about Limbaugh, is not a straw man. It is merely an opinion formed by listening to his ludicrous radio show on rare occasions when I needed a laugh. As for debate, well, I read your first post and decided it wasn't worth debating but I sensed you would be easily wound up so I decided to have a little fun with you. Evidently I was right.

93. Comment #28828 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

I agree with all your questions to Helian except #6 and #4, Bush is just a puppet doing what he's told by unseen men who really run the show. The corporate giants run the USA; as Chomsky says, if you want to predict the outcome of a presidential election, just look at the funding, the one with the most money almost always wins. It doesn't really matter anyway, the candidates are just different factions of the same party.

Edited.

I have to agree with Fishpeddler that #4 is over the top. His/her mentioning children was unecessary since nobody in their right mind would blame them, nevertheless, you can't really blame all the adults either.

710. In the Beginning

Comment #28825 by Yorker on March 31, 2007 at 5:03 am

I just listened again to Eugenie and Ham, her tone is concilliatory. She has several opportunities to nail him when discussing the children playing with the friendly T-Rex's, but instead compliments him on the realism of the exhibit!

There are probably more examples of places where Eugenie slipped up that careful analysis would show, but here are just two. At 11:22 Ham says God created various kinds of animals, at 11:26 she agrees. At 11:34 Ham says there was sin, a curse and the flood, at 11:46 she says "that's correct".

Sorry, I think she adopted the wrong approach with Ham, being concilliatory, friendly and courteous doesn't work with creationists, they are not amenable to reason presented in a friendly way.

I tried the friendly method with a guide at the Hovind dinosaur place when I lived in Florida. As you approach the place there's a sign saying that entry is free but a donation is suggested, when you arrive at the actual entrance it becomes a mandatory $7 charge. When I pointed out the obvious nonsense of the exhibits to the guide in a friendly way, he just treated me like an idiot and told me to read my bible more. I then cast aside my nice guy approach, jumped up an intellectual gear, and tore the the fundie a new one. He then called for help and I was asked to leave the premises, I demanded my money back on the grounds of fraud, they didn't accept my fraud accusation, but gave me my money.

I'm convinced that intellectual confrontation is needed when dealing with these people.

711. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28812 by Yorker on March 31, 2007 at 3:43 am

Watch this Helian, the interviewer is Australian, in case you want to slate that country like you do Europe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp4iI59BfpQ

712. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28809 by Yorker on March 31, 2007 at 3:14 am

Helian,

You are the most easily "wound-up" person I've ever baited!

I guess you're not a Simpsons fan then, considering the way they regularly take the piss out of your heroes Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. I have to say that whether YOU like it or not, I never met a sane, atheistic American who liked that idiot Limbaugh or Fox News. I think you stand alone on a pillar of delusion.

713. 'The Evolution of Homer' Intro

Comment #28775 by Yorker on March 30, 2007 at 6:35 pm

5. Comment #28748 by macronencer

Yes, the early drawings were less attractive. I would really like to know if I'm the only guy who finds Marge sexy? :)

714. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28763 by Yorker on March 30, 2007 at 5:01 pm

Helian - I merely stated my own experience. I don't see the USA as bad as you seem to think I paint it. My son still lives there and I have some good American friends. But I have to say that on a per capita basis, I came upon more people with extreme or silly views and who were very poorly educated, than anywhere else I've ever been and I've been all over the world. On the plus side, I would say Americans are generally more polite and courteous than most and they seem to like people from my country (Scotland) particularly.

You must ask yourself however, why it is that the USA is seen throughout the world as the biggest threat to peace. When you have a president who states that the USA is going to "own" space and militarise it, are you surprised that other nations get alarmed? If the USA ditched religion, ditched its excessive patriotic bullshit and stopped being such a bully, it would do a whole lot better.

China has recently shown that it will not allow Bush's plans to own space, it is about to outstrip the USA economically also, I predict the USA will not attempt to bully China for fear of getting its butt kicked. America's greatest weakness is low tolerance of its soldiers coming home in body bags; China, I fear, does not suffer this weakness so America will avoid conflict. Of course, we must all hope that such a situation does not arise.

715. In the Beginning

Comment #28757 by Yorker on March 30, 2007 at 4:27 pm

Steve99, we're obviously not going to agree about Paul Davies so further discussion of him is pointless. But just as a quick aside, I must also admit that his thoughts about Martian colonists made me slightly skeptical.

In parts of the Universe where life can arise, Vic Stenger's thoughts make the most sense, it's a beautiful example of Occam's Razor in action. Which is more likely, the universe is possibly full of life and in each case is locally tuned to suit it, or wherever life arises evolution ensures universal compatibility? To me it's clear and I am in the good company of other cosmologists who disagree with Rees, but irrespective of company, the great simplicity of Stenger's argument has the ring of truth that for me, nothing else has. I think Einstein and Feynman, both champions of simplicity, would've been proud of him.

716. 'The Evolution of Homer' Intro

Comment #28743 by Yorker on March 30, 2007 at 3:06 pm

I use the Simpsons as a yardstick. Every time I meet someone new, I ask if they like the Simpsons, if they say "no" I don't ask anything else.

If I had to cut a character, I would ditch "Krusty", but the rest are indispensible!

717. In the Beginning

Comment #28738 by Yorker on March 30, 2007 at 2:48 pm

I should have mentioned in my last post that in the light of Victor Stenger's wonderfully simple insight, "Goldilocks Zone" and "Fine Tuning" supporters must be feeling a little foolish. To paraphrase him:

"The Universe wasn't tuned to suit us, evolution tuned us to suit the Universe"

I think this will hold universally for all life-forms no matter what "zone" they're in, they will be the product of evolution tuned to suit whatever environment they were spawned in.

718. In the Beginning

Comment #28733 by Yorker on March 30, 2007 at 2:32 pm

Steve99, You must be as old as I am!

I too have read Paul's books since he was at Durham University and I also liked his talk at the BB conference, I haven't read his latest work but I'm sure it's good. It was precisely my past liking of his work and disappointment, that caused me to characterize his taking of Templeton money as "Judas-like". Like most scientists, RD for example, I see Templeton as a subverter of science, you must have seen the distaste that most present at the BB, held for him. The warm applause given to Annie Druyan's attack on the Templeton puppet, the declaration by other scientists who vowed not to accept Templeton money, was evidence of the contempt felt for this man.

So, with regret, I will buy no more of Paul's books because I would feel uncomfortable doing so, in addition, I must stand by my original words. Paul would no doubt say he'd simply changed his mind and that's fine, but nobody forced him to take the "pieces of silver".

719. In the Beginning

Comment #28682 by Yorker on March 30, 2007 at 11:42 am

Eugenie Scott just took a dive in my rating of her, I had to rewind to verify she actually agreed with some of the crap Ham was spewing. When talking by herself she's fine but when confronted with a creationist, she almost flops.

The Judas-like defection of Paul Davies disappoints me also, his earlier books were very good and I rated them highly. But it looks like he decided Templeton's money was more important than anything else to him. A sad case that's cost him the respect that many once had for him.

720. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28658 by Yorker on March 30, 2007 at 9:27 am

73. Comment #28596 by Rtambree

"As for AI, progress after 50+ years is not encouraging"

I think you're being kind here! Even if we could make an intelligent aware computer, I would fight against it. Thankfully that's a long way off. Let's look briefly at what computers are.

They're just a bunch of switches, lots of them, but still just switches. When unpowered they "know" nothing and can do nothing, when powered up the only difference is that software is loaded that "tell" the bunch of switches how to be a computer. Computer memory is nothing more than a means of storing the current setting of switches and/or software instructions. The I/O devices, drives, screens etc. are a way to allow humans to see what the switches are doing and to store switchable settings when the computer is "killed" by removing its power. Despite appearances to the contrary, computers know only two things 1 or 0, true or false, all else is entirely a human construct.

Perhaps we'll develope quantum computers using entangled particles or even a biologically based methodology, but still they'll be simple, unaware machines. If the day ever arrives when we allow computers to become aware, I don't want to be here; luckily, I won't see that day.

721. Study Finds Shark Overfishing May Lower Scallop Population

Comment #28652 by Yorker on March 30, 2007 at 8:54 am

E.O.Wilson, the world-renowned entomologist - an atheist - has said that within the next 50 years, 50% of the species alive today will be extinct. He's even trying to enlist the help of religious leaders to combat this trend.

722. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28645 by Yorker on March 30, 2007 at 8:35 am

Hello Helian,

Clearly you're not a fool so I slightly admire your balls (please don't take that the wrong way...)! Yes, occasionally the USA is unfairly lambasted, it happens to all nations. However, I lived in your country for a long time and can honestly say that it was the only place I was slightly scared of admitting to atheism. When you're surrounded by a horde of trigger-happy, machine gun-wielding fundies in Southern Indiana who ask you the question directly, then it's wise to choose your words carefully! I don't know where you're from, but you may be aware that the Indiana/Kentucky border area seems to be a hotbed of fundie militia groups who give the impression they'd cheerfully shoot you for not believing as they do.

Personally, I've never seen that anywhere else in the world.

723. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28620 by Yorker on March 30, 2007 at 6:34 am

38. Comment #28618 by Helian

Oooh Helian! You're either a fool or have a lot of balls to say something like that here! You'd better brace yourself for a broadside! I have to go shopping but I expect this thread will have grown larger by the time I return.

724. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28619 by Yorker on March 30, 2007 at 6:28 am

Ridelo,

Your comment fired off my memories of a long dead friend of mine, he was a catholic priest. In private conversation he never mentioned religion and his manner of speech was entirely normal, the word "fuck" frequently issued forth from him. One day over a drink, I took the risk and asked him why he was able to behave the way he did considering his profession. He replied that he trusted me as a friend and felt able to tell me that he became a priest because it was simply a good job! Free house with a free housekeeper, free groceries, meat and fish from his faithful flock etc. He ended by saying if I told anyone it would be no problem, who's word would be believed, mine or that of a priest?

725. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28617 by Yorker on March 30, 2007 at 6:11 am

34. Comment #28608 by ridelo

Well ridelo, you evidently know more intelligent catholics than I do. If I were you I'd ask your catholic science teacher friend how it's possible that someone who believes in magic can become a science teacher? Also I would have thought that doubting their pope would be sinful, but probably they're just hypocrites, I've never met a catholic who isn't.

726. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28604 by Yorker on March 30, 2007 at 4:59 am

30. Comment #28595 by Rtambree

"I'd like to invite Dawkins to speculate (of course no one knows) as to *how* compartmentalisation takes place, because it suggests a biological determinism to religion, and not upbringing or the environment. Some of my other questions in that top 10 list allude to that."

I've considered this "god gene" myself but rejected it because I can't see how such a mechanism could come about. If such a gene exists, it doesn't exist in me because I've never had a god and for as long as I can remember, I've considered the idea ridiculous. In addition, how is it that a person can reject god and become atheistic if there's a biological reason for belief? I'm not a biologist so I don't know, but I can't see how one can "think" a gene away, therefore I'm convinced that religion is purely learned. If you study the difference between an intelligent believer and a less intelligent one, the differences are often huge. The simpleton buys the entire tale, the smarty cherry picks; this again, would imply control over genes by thought. I don't see how that's possible.

I said earlier that it may not be compartmentalisation, e.g. for some unscrupulous scientists, professing a belief in God can be very lucrative, just ask some Templeton prizewinners!

727. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28593 by Yorker on March 30, 2007 at 3:29 am

27. Comment #28585 by amesolaire

I like Paxman and enjoy watching him grill politicians, but even he was fairly easy on Dawkins in that clip. It was clear also that Richard had respect for Paxman because of the way he mollified him slightly. If all interviewers were tigers like Paxman and Dawkins fared well against them, it would strengthen our case even more.

Edited.

I think that the people here know Dawkins better than most and therefore could become his severest ctitics if they so desired. Casual visitors would see the glaring difference between us and catholics for example, who wouldn't dare question their "hero".

728. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28591 by Yorker on March 30, 2007 at 3:21 am

This was a quite "Dawkins-friendly" interview. Indeed, I shall stick my neck out a little here and say that one or two questions were loaded; perhaps I'm too cynical, but I've noticed this before.

For example, at the start of the interview Richard was asked to compare the real age of the Earth with the 6K year creationist version. This was a perfect opportunity for him to use his oft-quoted "distance between two cities reply" most of you will be familiar with. Doesn't it seem odd that an interviewer would word the question in such a way if she didn't already know the answer?

I've seen other examples in videos where similar things have happened, mind you, I don't see a whole lot wrong with it except that if I see it, so will others and that cheapens Dawkins a bit and leaves him open to attack. So far he's got away with it because hostile interviewers probably haven't done their homework in depth, like people here have.

But as I said, perhaps I'm just too cynical or my BDK detector is at too high a sensitivity setting.

729. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28554 by Yorker on March 29, 2007 at 5:32 pm

15. Comment #28547 by Rtambree

It could be fun this game! We could take turns in playing "Dawkins-baiter", see who could pose the most difficult questions.

For now, I'll take a stab at being Dawkins with your 10 questions.

1. I think Dawkins might answer like E.O. Wilson here, i.e. upbringing, frontier country etc.

2. Dawkins already said during the Beyond Belief conference that his "bad cop" approach may have been a mistake.

3. Difficult one, but I'm sure he'd say that religion was hopelessly compounding political issues no matter what countries were involved.

4. Difficult to be Dawkins here, but he would broadly say no.

5. He'd say no, largely a matter of upbringing.

6. He'd be hard pressed to give an exact answer, as I am! In some cases I think there's more going on than we can see, it's not only compartmentalisation.

7. Try to make the people more aware of the folly of divisive sectarian schools; give examples; encourage them to change their minds.

8. All forms of non-religious charlatanry.

9. Moderates prevent reconciliation, they legitimise fundamentalism.

10. Mainly to honour Darwin, critics highlighting problems, is not a problem for me!

That was just a quick stab off the top of my head, most of the questions need longer answers than I gave. :)

730. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28545 by Yorker on March 29, 2007 at 5:02 pm

6. Comment #28533 by sane1

I feel the same way. I've said elsewhere on this site that I could do a fair job as a Dawkins stand-in, I often find myself saying the exact same words as him in reply to one of the "standard" questions. I don't think I would have the patience he does though, I'd get bored by it all.

Like you, I don't understand what davec is getting at either.

731. Dawkins says religion is 'like sucking a dummy'

Comment #28450 by Yorker on March 29, 2007 at 8:27 am

24. Comment #28416 by anotherclinton

As don malvado says, "pacifier" is the American term. "Dummy" comes from the original British phrase "dummy teat", meaning a false device taking the place of a mother's nipple.

Dawkins' point was religites use religion as a baby uses a dummy/pacifier. He did not mean that they were "dummies" in the American sense, (although many may be!) :)

732. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28441 by Yorker on March 29, 2007 at 7:48 am

55. Comment #28318 by Shuggy

Don't want to belabour the IQ thing, but a quick Google reveals that many testing organisations use a limit of 170 for tests. It seems to depend on who does the testing.

733. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28434 by Yorker on March 29, 2007 at 7:20 am

Spinoza,

If, as you say, you were referring to the article being retarded, perhaps you should have said so, then of course I wouldn't have attacked you. But the reality is that I made a simple comment, a few others did, then you commented; your first words being "This is retarded", I think I can be forgiven for assuming you meant one of the previous commenters. Had you said "This article is retarded", you would have heard nothing from me!

Clearly, it's important to strive for accuracy in language usage, mistaken meanings have caused fatalities! Without aiming at you directly, I'm becoming increasingly aware that the evident drop in educational standards especially in the use of English is beginning to be troublesome. How can it be that a youngster can graduate from university and yet be unable to write simple sentences free of glaring spelling and grammatical errors? Such persons do exist, I come across them almost daily, in my era, every graduate could write reasonably well, no matter what their chosen speciality. We have a serious educational problem here, it's even worse in the USA.

734. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28427 by Yorker on March 29, 2007 at 7:01 am

57. Comment #28343 by kcjerith

Yes, quite a few of his peers think Hawking is overrated, that, and his obstinate battle with Susskind, was what prompted me to make the original comment. The list idea is not something I support either, it's too likely to be biased. That's why I had to avoid listing the accomplishments of Sir Roger Penrose - it would have been too long.

735. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28221 by Yorker on March 28, 2007 at 12:19 pm

My dear Spinoza, you talk as if you were the REAL Spinoza, better yet, the arrogance of some of your statements makes me think you might think you're the one true GOD!

I gave an opinion about Penrose and lo, I'm a Penrose worshipper! Holy shit, what a deduction! Your use of the word "retarded" made me think you were aiming at the posts of some others, not me, so I wasn't being defensive. I was merely wondering why you would use such an insulting term to describe anyone who had not insulted you. Of course, in so doing, you have left yourself wide open to the retaliatory insult I shall shortly hurl in your direction.

Incidentally, it was Schickard who invented the first non-programmable calculating machine in 1623. It could be called a computer.

You spout crap about quantum physicists being confused, tell us you have a better idea but are unwilling, unable or scared to air it. Why don't you just say your admitted knowledge of the field is insufficient to enable discourse? Better still, you could have just said nothing and I would never have realised you were a dozy wanker!

Anyhow, I have better things to do than argue with pseudo-philosophers who have to use a real philosopher's name because they lack the imagination to come up with an original one; and you call ME a worshipper! Tut tut, your god the real Spinoza would've been ashamed of you!

Ahh, is there anything better than getting up the nose of one so deserving as you? I think not. You have made my night so I'll leave you now to fume, stew and simmer for a while. :)

736. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28192 by Yorker on March 28, 2007 at 9:31 am

Isn't it remarkable that all this sprung from my simple opinion that Hawking had more public recognition than he deserved!

737. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28190 by Yorker on March 28, 2007 at 9:25 am

27. Comment #28179 by Rtambree

I don't know where the laws of quantum come from, I suspect that like the other laws of physics, they are the outcome of mathematical constructs. I can do no better than quote Sagan about gut feelings; I try not to have them.

As far mumbers in a Platonic realm, that means little to me. We once had a very unwieldy number system until the "zero" was invented in India, life was a lot easier after that.

I'm not nearly as smart as Richard Feynman was, but I like to think I have a brain like his, at least I think the same way. He often said it sometimes made no sense to waste too much time wondering why things were "that way", "that's just the way they are". This mode of thought won him a Nobel prize for QED.

When I hear certain philosophical ideas put forward that set off my BDK, Richard's words about "dopey" philosophical statements, ring in my ears and I tend to listen no further. I have nothing against philosophers but they don't produce terrific usable results that I can apply. Look at that list above, a lot of philosophers, Feynman isn't even in it! What a travesty! Of course, it was probably compiled by a philosopher.

My attitude is simple, if a proposition is elegant but untestable, it's an idea, not a theory. If I can't come up with a more plausible idea I don't resort to philosophy, I say nothing.

738. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28178 by Yorker on March 28, 2007 at 8:29 am

I'm getting an impression of confusion here, it's a mistake to think that big-bang theory is somehow related to the "GodDidIt" bullshit.

Those of us not expert in quantum theory will naturally have a "gnawing discomfort" of something coming from nothing. All I can say is this. If you think that's mind boggling, think again, you have some shocks in store if you study further. You will say, "never", "no-way", "ridiculous" etc. etc. But the inescapable fact is that all these counter-intuitive, non-commonsensical things come from quantum mechanics which is by far the most accurate theory we have yet produced.

Accept it or give us a better explanation of the Universe and the human condition.

739. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28176 by Yorker on March 28, 2007 at 8:01 am

22. Comment #28171 by Rtambree

It is my understanding that the IQ scale does not go higher than 170, I'll check that wiki article but have to admit my decreasing confidence in wikipedia, I've encountered a few errors in my own field to trust it much as a font of knowledge.

740. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28175 by Yorker on March 28, 2007 at 7:52 am

21. Comment #28170 by ao9news

A fair comment. Indeed, how can anyone give a realistic assessment about the intelligence of a historical person? It can only come from writings and what others say, Spinoza above (not the real one) gives us a list that he must have got from somewhere/someone else. In addition, I suspect the real Spinoza would not characterize others as "retarded" and would at least have the balls to mention exactly who he meant if he had!

741. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28168 by Yorker on March 28, 2007 at 7:40 am

17. Comment #28164 by Spinoza

"This is retarded...

I really wish Einstein hadn't recanted his view on this in favour of the pseudo-Christian ex-nihilo big bang..."

Are you saying the Big-Bang theory was Einstein's?

"I don't care what the math tells you... the math is wrong."

Possibly, let's hear your alternative explanation.


18. Comment #28166 by Spinoza

I gave my opinion, you can only give yours.

742. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28161 by Yorker on March 28, 2007 at 7:15 am

14. Comment #28158 by ao9news

Well, it's doubtful that Hawking would have the public adulation he has were it not for Penrose, much of his earlier work was in collaboration with Roger. In my opinion, Stephen does not make that clear enough.

As for the ranking of Roger Penrose, his work on singularities, his mathematical discoveries, his genius, and his superbly insightful books make him a strong all-time contender for the top-ten. Myself, I think in his prime Penrose was one of the three smartest men who ever lived.

I would guess that ten times as many people know of Hawking than know of Penrose, the public love an underdog, underdog status was what Stephen's disability bestowed upon him.

743. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28156 by Yorker on March 28, 2007 at 6:55 am

10. Comment #28150 by diquea

"I find it amazing that the guy can do complex equations in his head. I don't think that makes him an authority."

I find it amazing also, but there must be a limit to that. Don't forget he uses a speech-enabled computer to convey his ideas to a highly qualified assistant who blackboards equations for him.

744. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28153 by Yorker on March 28, 2007 at 6:44 am

8. Comment #28145 by robinco

I'm not sure if you're asking me?

The original big-bang model meant precisely that:
nothing, "no thing". The common error is that people assume that there was something for the Universe to expand into, i.e. a pre-existing void. Not so; everything, including space and time began with the big-bang, that's why it makes no sense to ask what happened before the big-bang, "before" is a temporal word so it only makes sense to ask what happened after the event.

Now of course, the mega or multiverse idea changes things a little but an explanation is beyond the scope of a comment like this.

745. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28144 by Yorker on March 28, 2007 at 6:26 am

4. Comment #28134 by Aaron and Bujin

It was the fact he used the same terminology as Einstein, implying they had similar abilities, that I and others didn't like. Also, other physicists, notably Susskind, had been saying he was wrong before he admitted it but Stephen would not give in. Eventually of course, he had to, the error correcting method of science does not "allow" people to hide mistakes.

5. Comment #28136 by diquea

Penrose said Hawking did not rank with Newton, Einstein or Dirac. Roger was too modest to include himself, so I'll include him here myself and concur with the comment made by Steve99. No need to remind me of Stephen's disability, as I said in my original post, I respect him. What is now called "Hawking Radiation" was probably his best work. If you do a little research you'll discover that many physicists hold a similar opinion to mine.

Science respects no authority and grants no sentimental points to those physically less able than others, sad perhaps, but that's the way it is.

746. Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created from Nothing

Comment #28129 by Yorker on March 28, 2007 at 5:26 am

Nothing new here - talked about for twenty years perhaps.

Although I respect Hawking's achievements, I feel like some others who say he gets a little too much public respect. I felt a little embarassed when he likened himself to Einstein as he admitted his "greatest mistake" a few years ago. I think Roger Penrose was right on the mark when he gave his opinion of where Hawking will rank in scientific history.

747. Across the Universe: A Guide to the Past, Present and Future of the Cosmos

Comment #27813 by Yorker on March 26, 2007 at 10:58 pm

An amazing man is Patrick, still active and intellectually sharp. He must be close to 90 years old, it's a long while since I read his book "80 Not Out". Many years ago I saw him demonstrating his typing skills, he used two typewriters, one for each hand!

748. Atheist banned from committee on religious education

Comment #27441 by Yorker on March 24, 2007 at 3:47 pm

10. Comment #27409 by Richard Morgan

"For many adolescents, anything that comes from adults is there to be rejected. Y'know what I mean?"

Bollocks, not a good argument.

I think you have too low an opinion of young people. Take a look at the response Richard Dawkins received from young supporters on his US book tour, they loved him and he's as adult as you can get at 65 years old! The Blasphemy Challenge would also seem to refute your argument about needing no help from websites.

Like I said, it was a quick thought but I expected a few more thoughtfully reasoned responses.

749. Atheist banned from committee on religious education

Comment #27404 by Yorker on March 24, 2007 at 11:57 am

Does anyone know where these poll figures come from?

If they are correct - and I suspect they may be - then perhaps a good idea would be to appeal to the natural rebelliousness of young people. Maybe this site should set up a special section for youngsters where it could be pointed out that those who back religion want to teach religion because it gives them control over the minds of young people.

Of course, the religious establishment would be up in arms about what they would see as subversion and an attempt by atheists to control the minds of our children, but so what? That's exactly what they're doing. Young people are the key and are also more computer savvy than many adults; within a short time the search engines would pick up on the new section of RDF and curious youngsters would want to take a look. The content and presentation of such a section would have to be carefully thought out and designed, but that's another matter.

This is just a quick idea off the top of my head, deeper thought might prove it unwise, but perhaps it's worth that deeper thought.

What do others think?

750. The Salem Hypothesis

Comment #27221 by Yorker on March 23, 2007 at 3:26 pm

Fonex,

You say you formed your opinion after 5 or 6 years, I have formed mine after 40 years. You did not say where you formed your opinion, I assumed the USA which is why I characterized it as narrow. My experience of engineers has been virtually the reverse of yours, almost all of them non-religious and most of them very good at their job; great lovers of science and its method. Here in Scotland we have a few religious people but most are not, in the area where I was raised we looked upon Godites as freakish people who "were not all there" to use a Scottish expression. We also have a great history as people of science, engineering, medicine and literature who have produced famous people vastly more than would be expected from such a small nation. But of course, if you have any knowledge of science history you will already know this.