MFW Lawrence Krauss has taught me at my uni

literally a meme-scientist

Yeah well to the credit of meme scientists, between the two sets of quotes there's a century where the whole field of interpretation of quantum physics consumed the career and brain of brilliant physicists and produced... nothing of value whatsoever.

Also it's not like they are the first generation of philosophy-detached physicists, Feynman and his band were.

There is also a difference between knowing about Plato and Hume, and reading fucking contemporary philosophers. As in, actually following their publications. Good luck finding physicists who do that.

So yeah, don't distort the truth too much for the sake of memes.

But philosophy aside, those people on the right are fakers and clowns, they are like celebrities using science as they tool, just like actors use their shitty acting

seriously dawkings and tyson should be killed

mfw lawrence krauss got his undergrad at my uni
mfw my uni is literally garbage tier yet he somehow is successful

>those people on the right are fakers and clowns, they are like celebrities
Which is why I mentioned they are not the first generation of anti-philosophy physicists. Feynman, Susskind and their whole band didn't give a fuck about philosophy academia.

Honestly I like philosophy and all but I can't really see the last time it was actually relevant to anyone in physics. I have a hard time honestly justifying its importance today, other than calling opponents philistines.
Supposedly neuroscientist do use it still, I don't know.

I cant even begin to comprehend how can you have scientific progress and break boundaries without being a philosopher and daydreamer.

>make scientific progress and break boundaries
Yeah ok that's some nice abstract stuff right there, but can you give me an example of a physicist you know who would have done anything differently in his work if not for a certain philosophical consideration?

>seriously dawkings and tyson should be killed

Maybe you can plot their demise while you're emptying out the french fry grease, phi-major.

>You can make something our of yourself independently of where you studied

Who would have thought

Tim White, anyone?

S A V A G E

Do you guys ask for their autographs or something or would that be way too lame?

I wanna take a selfie with Isaac Newton.

>>tfw dawkins canceled a speech at my university cause he was feeling "unwell"

I feel bad for you, bro. I've always dreamed of meeting Dawkins.

youtube.com/watch?v=uSwJuOPG4FI

I respect Krauss but in this debate he basically gets defeated by the muslim Hamza Tzortzis. Hamza knows very little of science and maths but his arguments are generally more solid and he's very good with words. He serves Krauss more than once. The fun starts when Hamza uses Krauss's own book against him.

Finally, at the end of the video some mathematician starts nitpicking about a chapter title in Krauss's book and Krauss just gives up, exhausted.

Witten wouldn't have made so much progress were it not for the general philosophies appreciated in category theory. Ask a real question.

Really there are people who are impressed by that kind of empty word games?

Hamza keeps insisting on the difference between his "philosophical nothing" and Krauss' nothing, except he conveniently forgets his argument for the necessity of "getting something from nothing" is the big bang. And the big bang theory doesn't imply that the singularity is the beginning of the universe, or that you need a "philosophical nothing" before that.

As for the argument "the universe can't be infinite because infinity doesn't exist", man, talk about empty unjustified circular drivel.

>attenbrough came to mine

>seemed like a fucking champ

>would beer

>mfw people on this board unironically defend autism-tier meme intelectuals

He must be an annoying arrogant motherfucker...

Fucking 21 century meme scientists

I could be better than him, it's just that I'm too young.

So I never ask for pictures or photographs

I'd gladly become a meme scientist one day.

How is "work" even a real scientific quality?

Gravity doesn't do "work".

Why? He doesn't even do s c i e n c e anymore.

>another 2cool4school fag
I'm so fucking sick of people shitting on science popularizers because they've been traumatized by le fedora maymay. On Veeky Forums of all places.
Yeah if you dedicate your career to public representation you're not gonna have that much time for research.

Those people are the ones that make it so fundamental science is still somewhat a concern on the public space. You're not getting grants otherwise. Sure you're not gonna have the highest degree of discourse if you have to argue with the general public, but somebody has to get their hands dirty. And shitting on them for doing that is being nothing but an ivory tower entitled cunt.

If they weren't there nothing but applied science and engineering would get fundings.

>I straight up tell you I'm going to disrespect your ideas.
>I'm upset because you don't agree with my ideas!

What a pompous ass. They're both idiots. Why do people even watch this garbage?

I think i saw him at UNSW around 10-13 years ago

talking about (then hypothetical) gravitational wave detectors

I wish i stuck with physics, but gausian fields really tripped me up for some reason

>another 2cool4school fag

Actually, I love school. Thanks for making an incorrect assumption about me.

>I'm so fucking sick of people shitting on science popularizers because they've been traumatized by le fedora maymay.

If you mean people who are damaging science by the way they act, then sure.

>Those people are the ones that make it so fundamental science is still somewhat a concern on the public space.

Except they're not. They go to debates and debate religion by ridiculing others beliefs instead of actually debating. How does being disrespectful towards others make you deserve respect? Shitty ass pop science websites do a better job of popularizing science than these people.

>And shitting on them for doing that is being nothing but an ivory tower entitled cunt.

You mean shitting on them for debating religion? I thought they were supposed to be science educators, not religious debaters? I would have no problem with them trying to educate others in the importance of science and why we need to fund it more, but consistently going to "Christian vs Atheism", "Muslim vs Atheism", and "[Insert Some Other Religion Here] vs Atheism" debates is not helping science become popularized.

>Those people are the ones that make it so fundamental science is still somewhat a concern on the public space. You're not getting grants otherwise.
>If they weren't there nothing but applied science and engineering would get fundings.

Citations?

Look, you can love Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, or Bill Nye all you want. More power to you and I honestly don't give a fuck, but don't call them science educators if they're just going to debates to shit on religious beliefs instead of promoting science.

>You mean shitting on them for debating religion? I thought they were supposed to be science educators, not religious debaters?
Nigger every single congressman is religious. Religion matters in this country. They didn't make up the whole "let's teach creationism in school" bill you know, it really happened.
And no they don't do only religious debates, that's actually a small part of what they do, but of course you would only know that because all you know about them is what religious people complaining post here.
Your motivation is trying to distance yourself of a hat meme. I suggest you try to gain some perspective.

>Shitty ass pop science websites do a better job of popularizing science than these people.
They ARE pop scientists and they do contribute to websites and pop science website, magazines, events and tv shows. What are you on about?

>Nigger every single congressman is religious. Religion matters in this country. They didn't make up the whole "let's teach creationism in school" bill you know, it really happened.

You actually think antagonizing them by ridiculing their religious beliefs actually make it better?

>And no they don't do only religious debates, that's actually a small part of what they do, but of course you would only know that because all you know about them is what religious people complaining post here.

I know they don't, and they should spend more of their energy on promoting science, not making it seem like a field of pretentious assholes.

>hat meme
>I'm going to make up terms now

>I suggest you try to gain some perspective.

Ok.

>They ARE pop scientists and they do contribute to websites and pop science website, magazines, events and tv shows. What are you on about?
>They ARE pop scientists

Then they should be doing pop science, not the religious drivel. They think ridiculing someone else for their belief system is enlightening. It's not, it makes people feel terrible. THAT'S my problem and it will always be my problem. They aren't promoting science by going to debates and treating them like jokes, instead of a platform to promote science.

>Then they should be doing pop science, not the religious drivel.
That's just more wish to not get your hands dirty. If you promote science on the public space you WILL be asked to address religion. If you try to oppose a bill forcing schools to teach about creationism you WILL have to confront religious arguments.
This isn't a country where people are happy to let science and religion be separated in the first place.

>you WILL have to confront religious arguments

Okay, yes, you are right. They will have to confront religious arguments and that is fine. One of the points I am trying to make is, ridiculing someone's belief system is not a good way to get them interested in science. They don't do science any favors by doing that.

You say that but they do get emails from people saying they changed their mind. When you do this kind of debating you're always gonna offend a portion of the target audience and drive them back further but that's inevitable. Some will change their mind and that's what matters.

Also their rudeness is largely exaggerated. If you look at the Nye vs. Ken Ham debate, Nye was incredibly polite the whole way through. Even though Ham used really offensively stupid arguments like answering "that can't happen because of the Bible" when asked "what sort of proof would change your mind".

Yes in the Rezla debate Krauss said he would be disrespectful (to his ideas). He's not saying that out of nowhere. Religious people often try to use respect in a debate, that at some point there are things they say you shouldn't question because it's disrepectful to them. He's addressing that before the debate starts.

lol. I went to Carleton too (for math). What are you majoring in there?

>quotes on the left from when philosophers did useful shit like refining inductivism into the modern scientific method
>quotes on the right from when philosophers spend all day shitposting on Veeky Forums

there's a reason for this

I can see your point. I guess my judgment has mostly been shrouded by those who use Richard Dawkins as some savior of science and that his word is absolute law. Thank you for showing me a different perspective even though we got off on the wrong foot.

No problemo famalam, glad to see this board is still characterized by open mindedness.