Stephen Hawking WOO??????????????

[Jimbo07]

And his speculations about dangerous aliens are mot definitely not woo.

Sure, but given that he has no more data points than the rest of us, his speculations aren't science, either.

They are entirely within the realm of possibility. Just because they may be pessimistic makes them no less probable.

I'm not denigrating anyone who believes in such a "pessimistic" viewpoint, rather that in his case, people may attribute authority to his position, merely because of his prominence (and, as others have suggested, regardless of what his position really is).

A priesthood of scientists!

There are many places where the priesthood/scientific cabal analogy falls apart. Firstly, if they were really a priesthood, you'd think scientists would have had a better PR campaign! Secondly, the gulf of knowledge isn't a guarded secret. The only barrier to entry is access to student loans (assuming you don't have some independent funding). Thirdly (and finally), as Carl Sagan pointed out, one can immediately see the fruits of their labours by turning on a light switch (unlike a mystical experience, say).

I think that's pretty much what caused the problem.

I highly doubt it. However, I think it's unclear as to what the problem is, much less what caused it.

 

[Philosaur]

Sure, but given that he has no more data points than the rest of us, his speculations aren't science, either.

I doubt he would claim they are anything more than speculation.

I'm not denigrating anyone who believes in such a "pessimistic" viewpoint, rather that in his case, people may attribute authority to his position, merely because of his prominence (and, as others have suggested, regardless of what his position really is).

Ok.

There are many places where the priesthood/scientific cabal analogy falls apart.

I (jokingly) made the analogy *specifically* regarding the post I cited, where the poster (also jokingly, I assume) suggested that scientists should speak only in jargon--similar to how liturgies and Bibles were once mostly in Latin, which prevented the vulgar masses from understanding.

Firstly, if they were really a priesthood, you'd think scientists would have had a better PR campaign!

Because priests have great PR? I don't get it.

Secondly, the gulf of knowledge isn't a guarded secret. The only barrier to entry is access to student loans (assuming you don't have some independent funding). Thirdly (and finally), as Carl Sagan pointed out, one can immediately see the fruits of their labours by turning on a light switch (unlike a mystical experience, say).

I don't know who you are debating, but it's not me, as I never made these claims.

I highly doubt it. However, I think it's unclear as to what the problem is, much less what caused it.

The problem I was alluding to was the propensity to misconstrue the words and misunderstand the work of scientists. The cause of this problem is that many (if not most) people are effectively scientifically illiterate.

 

[Jimbo07]

Sorry I let this fall off the radar. I have trouble keeping track of my threads sometimes.

I doubt he would claim they are anything more than speculation.

I'm sure if somebody tried to pin Hawking down on this, he might be equivocal. Fair enough. It doesn't matter.

Right now, even the existence of aliens is speculation. How they might behave starts to go beyond speculation into musings, I think. Still no problem. However, advocating a proscriptive action at this stage, while not necessarily woo woo, certainly seems to me to border on speculative fiction.

I (jokingly) made the analogy *specifically* regarding the post I cited, where the poster (also jokingly, I assume) suggested that scientists should speak only in jargon--similar to how liturgies and Bibles were once mostly in Latin, which prevented the vulgar masses from understanding.

I was addressing your point specifically, but the world at large more generally. I have come across this analogy before, and not in the context of a joke. There are those who would try to equate the lifetime of learning in science with the lifetime of learning in mysticism. I was merely pointing out that against a serious assertion of this position, Sagan had quite an effective rebuttal. Okay, priests may have had a knowledge barrier to entry, but the fruits of their labours are not as immediately evident as is the turning on of a light switch to studies of E&M in the 19th c.

Because priests have great PR? I don't get it.

Sorry, maybe PR isn't the right term. However, in the past priests enjoyed a great public influence that scientists have never matched. Individual priests could incite people to action. It seems much more difficult for an individual scientist to achieve.

I don't know who you are debating, but it's not me, as I never made these claims.

You're right. As above, I started meandering into a more general set of comments.

The problem I was alluding to was the propensity to misconstrue the words and misunderstand the work of scientists. The cause of this problem is that many (if not most) people are effectively scientifically illiterate.

... and again, I'm not even sure we've landed on a proper definition of the problem. For example, if people are being deliberately misled, then are they the ones misconstruing and misunderstanding? For example, in the great public issues of the day, there seem to be efforts to deliberately obfuscate genuine science. Doubts are cast on the credibility of scientists in general (by unqualified politicians and other lay people no less), woo is given "sciencey" sounding terms, etc.

 

[Fredrik]

Is anyone else disappointed in the “into the universe with Stephen Hawking show on Discovery?
It was bad enough having him fear monger about aliens and then all the news orgs picked it as if it were the gospel but on the last one he plainly states that “ the universe came from an explosion out of nothing” when referring to the big bang.
In his own book “ a brief history of time” he asserts that the pre inflationary universe was some form of unstable energy soup and there for “not nothing”.
The creationists will quoting this till hell freezes over.

Ouch...that's terrible. Kent Hovind was quoting similar statements years ago, and using them to "prove" that "evolution" (which he thinks includes the big bang) is stupid. I totally agree that a theory that actually says that would be stupid.

Strictly speaking, he's not spewing woo. But, he is delivering a kinda "soft" interpretation of science,..

I agree. It's not woo. It's just a misrepresentation of what the theory says. A bad explanation.

That is also one of the reasons why I like Brian Greene's books better than Hawking's.

I think I do too, but it's been a long time since I read either of them. But I also think Greene at least deserves a wedgie or something, for a bunch of annoying things he said about relativity.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Stephen Hawking WOO??????????????

No

 

[Philosaur]

... and again, I'm not even sure we've landed on a proper definition of the problem. For example, if people are being deliberately misled, then are they the ones misconstruing and misunderstanding? For example, in the great public issues of the day, there seem to be efforts to deliberately obfuscate genuine science. Doubts are cast on the credibility of scientists in general (by unqualified politicians and other lay people no less), woo is given "sciencey" sounding terms, etc.

I agree that pseudo-scientists, evangelists, and politicians will twist science to fit their goals. I agree that this is the source of much of the public misunderstanding of science. But I maintain that a proper education in critical thinking is an effective inoculation against the misinformation.

Make no mistake: I'm very pro-science, pro-education, and anti-woo and willful ignorance.

Honestly, I haven't watched the show, so I don't know what Hawking said (or what it was claimed he said). But all of our experience has taught us that when there are limited resources, there is generally conflict. Only after much negotiation (honest or not) is there cooperation. So if he's advocating "hope for the best, prepare for the worst" then I think this is fine advice.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Mr Hawking is a brilliant scientist who happens also to be human.

He's allowed to make a mistake now and again, or to be imperfect, isn't he?

Mountain out of molehill.

 

[Marduk]

i dont think its woo to fear alien invasion.... well atleast not really.

its woo unless youre xenophobic like most of humanity

Personally I will be welcoming our alien overlords on bended knee

perhaps they'll give me Australia

 

[kedo1981]

Have you ever had moles in your yard, their molehills will ruin the yard.
Even a little misinformation, even if all the shows producers are trying to do is sexy up the science will detract from the science.
The WOOs now have a quote from Stephan Hawking “Aliens will invade”, “ the universe came from an explosion out of nothing “ do tell me how you will argue the point.

 

[Marduk]

Have you ever had moles in your yard, their molehills will ruin the yard.
Even a little misinformation, even if all the shows producers are trying to do is sexy up the science will detract from the science.
The WOOs now have a quote from Stephan Hawking “Aliens will invade”, “ the universe came from an explosion out of nothing “ do tell me how you will argue the point.

I'm going to say he was using sarcasm deliberately aimed at those too stupid to know any different. It won't work but it'll be fun to say it

 

[Philosaur]

Have you ever had moles in your yard, their molehills will ruin the yard.
Even a little misinformation, even if all the shows producers are trying to do is sexy up the science will detract from the science.
The WOOs now have a quote from Stephan Hawking “Aliens will invade”, “ the universe came from an explosion out of nothing “ do tell me how you will argue the point.

The woos have also misquoted Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Bacon, Feynman, etc.

So what? <-- I refute it thusly.

 

[stilicho]

I think he's always been like that, so the show does not surprise me. That is also one of the reasons why I like Brian Greene's books better than Hawking's. Though, I still respect Hawking.

I like Brian Greene, too. Can't get enough of him. I actually ran into him because he'd been a guest on the Colbert Report. Another writer I like is Richard Morris (Cosmic Questions) and I own The Physics of Star Trek and The King of Infinite Space among other science or math books.

For those of us who aren't scientists, these writers/books are important. We can't manipulate the media headlines but I would have to imagine I'm not the only non-scientist who has been influenced to learn more through the "pop stars".