Is this guy the biggest dipshit in science?

>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.

You mean venerated right?

just hold on second!
>>something from nothing

>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.

>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.

...

Absolutely not

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

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

nah

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

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

>implying skill is required to wax philosophical

Philosophy was always irrelevant without science

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

Someone watches JRE LOL
:(

>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.