Is this guy the biggest dipshit in science?

>>8784118
who is he?

He looks like Stephen Merchant dressed up as an old man.

>>8784123
This, give a tl;dr.

>>8784123
Lawrence Krauss. A massive asshole.

Was at a talk of his, pretty interesting, but he seemed to have an unstoppable urge to throw shade onto religion.

>>8784118
Nah you're just butthurt that he points out the contradiction between science and your fairy tales

>>8784118
Are you a believer?

Or just edgy elitist?
The guy might be more pop science then science. Nothing wrong with that. Even not as severe as Black Science Guy.

The only thing he annoys me with is "well... it depends what you mean by nothing". Then argues that time-space with quantum field is actually nothing and therefore something can come from nothing.

Other than that I'm happy that he is one of the scientist that take on christians and trumpists. There are to few of those. The idea, that scientist should stick to their fields and keep it quiet is terrible. Then talented men will be used as tools by insane politicians producing bombs instead energy for all. Don't be a tool.

>>8784282
I'm an atheist and I still find him pretty fucking annoying.

>>8784118
>biggest dipshit
You could have just stopped right there.

>>8784458
>The idea, that scientist should stick to their fields and keep it quiet is terrible
He looks like a fucking moron every time he strays outside his area of expertise and tries to talk philosophy or metaphysics. He's arrogant while also being profoundly ignorant about anything other than physics

Also Trump will be vindicated as a great President in time.

I dislike him mostly because he insists upon himself. Rather than attempting to work towards substantiating his belief (or lack thereof), he merely follows himself in rhetorical circles in an attempt to make reality cater to his desire not to believe.

On the other hand, there have been (arguably more accomplished) physicists, mathematicians, logicians, and theoretical computer scientists who have been able to believe. Further, some of them have even incorporated religion and religious thought into the body of their work.

The issue with people like Krauss is that he is throwing around his weight. It's somewhat of an inconvenience, yet, but he is as limited as any other person, and so it is a pointless inconvenience. Aside from this slight agitation, I ignore him, focus on my work, and continue on my way as both a scientist and a believer.

>>8784476
You mean venerated right?

File: dilahunty.jpg (32KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 600x400px

just hold on second!
>>something from nothing

>>8784476
>he strays outside his area of expertise and tries to talk philosophy
He actually has a philosophy degree.
Look who is an "arrogant while also being profoundly ignorant" cunt.

>>8784489
>physicists, mathematicians, logicians, and theoretical computer scientists who have been able to believe. Further, some of them have even incorporated religion and religious thought into the body of their work.
LIke what?

You are okay with religious propaganda in science, but atheism is a no no.
No bias at all.

File: 1481256072153.png (331KB, 396x468px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 396x468px

>>8784528

>>8784118
Absolutely not

>>8784118
Nice synchronicity bro I was watching this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRNtcj6YRuc

>>8784552
Good old Lawrence "A quantum vaccum counts as nothing!" Krauss.

>>8784118
nah

>>8784118
This guy looks worse than oatmeal-san.

Anyway I found him extremely annoying. He's pretty condescending in his talks, in explaining things. Career wise he's not that great either, he was one of the Higgs boson skeptic who completely got BTFO'd. Also he's nothing special in academia, it's not like he's Richard Feynman or John von Neumann. He kind of peters out in the early 2000 and hasn't really done anything other than being a public intellectual persona and jumping incredibly late onto the religion bashing popsci bandwagon

>>8784634
He's a brainlet who thinks science has made philosophy irrelevant.

>>8784476
>implying skill is required to wax philosophical

>>8784637
Philosophy was always irrelevant without science

>>8784657
Really? Tell me what science has to say on the philosophy of Ethics.

>>8784118
Someone watches JRE LOL
:(

File: peter-singer-001.jpg (20KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 460x276px

>>8784665
>philosophy of Ethics
Not him, but modern science is the cornerstone of ethical philosophy. That is why Derek Parfit, Peter Singer and co argument are so convincing.

For example, Animal Liberation movement, as an intellectual movement would never have taken off without theory of evolution laying the groundwork that humans are just another animals. Furthermore 21st century animal behavior and biology lay the groundwork on how we know that farm animal suffer to almost the same extent as people, suffer terror, anxiety, etc. From science we also know that bivalves like oyster don't have pain receptors, so it is as ethical to eat an oyster as it is to eat a lettuce on moral grounds of not inflicting pain and suffering upon other sentient being.

The latest version of utilitarianism, effective altruism is incredibly science driven. Charities are tested on every angle, from overhead, immediate effectiveness, lasting effect, amount of diminishing return on investments, etc through the scientific process of testing hypothesis, rinse and repeat.