Friday, September 03, 2010

Hawking and the cephalopod

Sadly not a battle royale between Stephen Hawking with his augmentive robotics and a giant squid, but a poem by The Digital Cuttlefish which talks about some reactions not to Hawking’s book, which is not out yet, but to comments on various websites reporting inaccurately to a badly-written press release about the book.

I’ve witnessed a few of these myself.  Many are claiming bad science by Hawking, presumably for no reason other than it doesn’t agree with what they wish to be true.  Some are about as incoherent as you can get.  For example, this comment appeared on the guardian site:

Hawking has been proven wrong on at least two of his major 'declarations' regarding physics. Chalk this one up as another.

And its quite amusing that people belief in Hawking's 'declarations' simply because its him stating them. Its a form of worship of self, of man, of British Man.

Given that Britain is part of the Anglo American world order which controls the world, which dictates to the world laws and right and wrong, its no surprise to me that there's a growing call for self worship.

As I said, Hawkings has been proven wrong about time travel, black holes, about dark matter. I see Hawking and I see a man who lacks the ability to care for himself, has been proven wrong on major theories, and who declares in his erroneous state there is no God, and I don't know whether to revile him or pity him.

And here British and Westerners who want to worship themselves, to render themselves gods without a God, will take his erroneous claims as DOGMA.

Justification for use of nuclear war can't be far behind.

The astonishing hyperbole at the end only seems to sweeten the deal.  I’m not sure how we get from being wrong about time travel to justifying nuclear war, but here we are.  I’m not surprised by the lies about Hawking or the misunderstanding of how science works and what it means to be wrong about things in science.  I am surprised at the apparent sneering at him because of his condition, though.  Why does the author need to either revile or pity Hawking?  Can’t he just ignore him, disagree with him, argue with him or even just read what he actually has to say?  Why rush to judgement?  Why create a false dichotomy before even hearing Hawking’s argument?  Because the author is an imbecile, and that’s why.

No comments:

Post a Comment