Is Stephen Hawking a meme scientist?

>>8996812
yes. is that what you want to hear?

>>8996812
no. is that what you want to hear?

>>8996812
>Is the former Lucasian Professor of Mathematics a meme scientist.
No.

>>8996812
He is over-hyped because of the chair. If he was fully abled then very few would know who he is. He's good at what he does but the fame makes him seem more impressive.

>>8996822
>>8996822
>>Is the former Lucasian Professor of Mathematics a meme scientist.
Not an argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_King

>produced someone of importance. He became Senior Wrangler, and his reputation in Cambridge was immense. It was believed that nothing less than a second Newton had appeared. They expected his work as a mathematician to make an epoch in the science. At an early age he became president of Queens’; later, he was Lucasian Professor. He published nothing; in fact, he did no mathematical work. But as long as he kept his health, he was an active and prominent figure in Cambridge, and he maintained his enormous reputation. When he died, it was felt that the memory of such an extraordinary man should not be permitted to die out, and his papers should be published. So his papers were examined, and nothing whatever worth publishing was found.

>>8996851
>Not an argument.
Better than any brainlet itt.

>>8996812
Very overrated.

He has contributed valuable work to physics, but his fame due to being a cripple has caused him to weigh into things he knows nothing about and everyone thinks he's some kind of oracle. If he could walk he would just be another dork physicist.

Hawking:Cripple::Tyson:nyuqqa

>>8996859
B-but this physicist who doesn't know shit about AI said it's going to take over.

>>8996858
>Better than any brainlet itt.
irregardless, prestige fallacy != an argument

>>8996867
I've got bad news for you. Fallacies just mean something isn't *necessarily* true. It also doesn't mean it's false. Also, it's still an argument, it may just not be conclusive.

>>8996882
people who rattle off logical fallacies without understanding what they mean in context of a discussion and why they are fallacies is my pet peeve
having to explain to people that argument from authority is perfectly good inductive reasoning is the most tedious thing

>>8996894
It's basically the acme of a sophomoric teenager trying to sound le more intelligent than u

>>8996896
nice appeal to intellect.

File: BriefHistoryTime.jpg (48KB, 312x475px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 312x475px

Is this book worth reading?

>>8996894
Not the same guy you were arguing with and sorry for asking for something so tedious, but I'm curious as to why argument from authority is perfectly good inductive reasoning?

As I see it, IF the authority has no evidence or backing for it's position (different to having evidence but not using it), surely that gives no reason to assume it is correct? I don't see how you could reason otherwise.

Again, sorry if I'm being a brainlet but I've always been told argument from authority is a no-no and I'm really interested to know why it can be sufficient.

>>8996812
He is the smartest meme scientist.

One of the few pop scientist which really also do Actual Science.

File: that leggo hawking.jpg (165KB, 565x600px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 565x600px

>>8996812
He is a scientist who has become a meme.

Seriously, if it weren't for the horrible disease and all, we'd all want to be him.

File: steven_hawking_small.jpg (8KB, 120x96px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 120x96px

>>8996923
I enjoyed reading it.

It is not the perfect holy grail of bookness, but it was worth reading.

>>8996917
Nice appeal to reason faggot

>>8996945
Not him but I share his sentiments.

There's a difference between saying "the authority has no evidence" and "I have no evidence, but that authority does, and despite my lack of knowledge I have reason to believe the foundations upon which their authority rests is sound, so we should probably listen to what they have to say."

It's like, you trust doctors, right? Not all doctors are right, sometimes they even get shit wrong. But even so, if one diagnoses you with cancer, and you relay the news to someone else, is the appropriate response of that someone else to go "FUCKING PROVE IT BRO YOU'RE JUST SAYING WHAT THE DOCTOR SAID, THATS A FALLACY"?

Maybe you DO want a second opinion. But, your doctor PROBABLY spent a shitload of time studying what cancer is and what the signs are, and he probably ran tests to confirm suspicions. He could still be wrong, sure. But so can the second opinion, and the third, and so on. Unless you're going to doctors who have really fucking shady degrees and run-down offices, you're probably going to trust that they're legit and knows what they're talking about. Because that's the intelligent thing to do, because inductive reasoning allows you to say "gee maybe if this entire profession were populated by scam artists, somebody would have caught on by now"

>>8996945
I agree with
>>8997023

It does not conclusively mean it is right but it's probable that it is. Google "inductive reasoning". If you are arguing with somebody who only argues in absolutes it will get you nowhere. However, if you want to make use of it for real world applications then it would be helpful.