Skip to main content

Why does Stephen Hawking talk such twaddle?

Stephen Hawking is probably the most famous scientist alive. In the popular mind he has taken on the role of the new Einstein or Newton. Now there is no doubt that Professor Hawking is a good scientist - but there are two big problems with this.

One is that if you compare him with those illustrious predecessors, frankly he hasn't changed our understanding of the world a lot. When he was still alive, Richard Feynman could arguably have come close, but Hawking doesn't. Yes, he has done plenty of fine work, but it really isn't comparable.

The other big problem is that the media take all his pronouncements and push them out to the world as if they were great wisdom, when in fact, off topic, he often comes up with dramatic statements that frankly wouldn't be worth the time of day were it not for his media status.

When the COBE satellite came up with the first images of the Cosmic Microwave Background, the so-called echo of the big bang, Hawking called the results 'the greatest discovery of the century, if not of all time.' I'm sorry, but that is absolute baloney. They were certainly interesting, providing useful but not conclusive evidence on the early nature of the universe, but to take his 'discovery of the century' comparison, could he really say they were more important than relativity and quantum theory? Hardly.

More recently, he was warning us we should be hiding from aliens. And now he's on the news telling us that both religion and philosophy are irrelevent now, because science can explain everything. Not only is it not true that science can explain everything, it is just so arrogant. Susan Greenfield, who to be honest I don't usually have much time for, called these 'Taliban statements' on the radio this morning, and I can see her point. Hawking does science no favours by coming up with these plonking opinions - and the media doesn't help by bigging them up far beyond their importance.


Image from Wikipedia
Labels:

Comments

  1. Sarah8 September 2010 at 09:37

    I couldn't agree more - nicely said :-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. http://www.sarahpjwhite.com8 September 2010 at 09:40

    I understand that Stephen Hawking is a great scientist, but I fail to see why everything he says is branded akin to words from someone on high!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...
118 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...
6 comments
Read more