Stephen Hawking: “The laws of science are sufficient, we don't need God."

Science is the new superstition of plebeians. In any debate, there's always some dull, confident fellow quoting "science" without understanding it. People fling around technical jargon like parrots, with zero comprehension behind it.

I'll stick to reason over the new "science". If I wanted to be preached to, I'd go sit in church.

a reply to: Talorc

So who is your target in this?

Meaning who is preaching this 'new' science in this topic.

a reply to: Talorc

I can only assume you have absolutely no understanding of what the scientific method is and how it is utilized by the scientific community.

a reply to: Sremmos80

No one in particular, it's just an observation I've made over time.

I dislike people's credulity where science is concerned. If you're going to quote a study, for the sake of consistency you really should read through it and try hard to understand the data, and the reasoning behind their conclusions. Few people do this it seems.

You can lavish praise on guys like Hawking and consider yourself "lesser" (as someone here apparently does), but it speaks nothing of the truth. This all seems quite distasteful.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Talorc

I can only assume you have absolutely no understanding of what the scientific method is and how it is utilized by the scientific community.

I'd hope that I do, knowing how important it is in this day and age.

What are you basing that assumption on? You should explain yourself more clearly.

originally posted by: Talorc

What are you basing that assumption on? You should explain yourself more clearly.

I'm basing it on your strange characterization of science, perhaps you may wish to expand on exactly why you believe this is so.

a reply to: GetHyped

That characterization is less of science itself (what science ought to be, anyway), and more the way people refer to it. Some people will believe in what scientists say without understanding anything. It's an issue of the noun 'science' being given too much authority. To be clear, I have no misgivings about the actual methodology. I appreciate it's practicality and importance.

Personally, when I see someone say "science has proved such and such, science has invented such and such" I wince a little. Rational, thinking people proved it, and people invented it. Science helped them, is all.

My problem is with Science, not with science. If that's clear enough.

a reply to: Talorc

Pffffttt.... That's funny, I don't care who you are!

originally posted by: Variable
You are saying he is more educated on whether God is real or not? I think the more we look around the universe the more we realize how special our little blue planet is. I'm not sure Hawking or anyone else has a clue as to what is going on when it comes to God - that is just human ego and hubris.

No, I'm saying he's more educated on the laws of science.

My guess is that since he feels the laws of science are sufficient without including God, that he'd agree with you that he doesn't have any clue what is going on with God. Nor does he care. In the same way he doesn't have a clue what's going on with Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny either.

a reply to: Sremmos80

I would Think he Knows ALL The Answers.........

a reply to: Talorc

Those who deify science, don't understand science.

I just been researchin steve's troubles.

Seems many believe that he has been brain dead for yrs and that some how they are keeping the shell alive but no one is home.

Does anyone know how he is the longest survivor of the disease by several decades?

originally posted by: deadeyedick
I just been researchin steve's troubles.

Seems many believe that he has been brain dead for yrs and that some how they are keeping the shell alive but no one is home.

Does anyone know how he is the longest survivor of the disease by several decades?

where were you researching, world weekly news?

a reply to: TzarChasm

something equally exciting

on the real why is he alive and no one else could survive under the same circumstances

My guess is that phage just sits at his computer answering for steve.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: TzarChasm

something equally exciting

on the real why is he alive and no one else could survive under the same circumstances

My guess is that phage just sits at his computer answering for steve.

phage ought to be proud of that comparison.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Yea just read his post in that ai voice.

Since this is a conspiracy forum, I might as well let one fly. How do we know Hawking isn't just a complete imbecile who used to be a genius but is now being used as a living puppet because they know nerds are easily led by the nose by demagogues?

Something like Sagan, who had a gift for communicating complicated things in an appealing and simplistic way. People now look at Sagan as some kind of departed deity. If you're watching something that is borderline scientific, it will either have a Hawking quote or a Sagan quote.

I wonder if people would swallow this stuff as easily as they do if was coming from some boring guy without a communication gimmick? You hear that monotone robot voice and you know it's Hawking. Or is it?

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Since this is a conspiracy forum, I might as well let one fly. How do we know Hawking isn't just a complete imbecile who used to be a genius but is now being used as a living puppet because they know nerds are easily led by the nose by demagogues?

Because it makes no sense whatsoever?

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Since this is a conspiracy forum, I might as well let one fly. How do we know Hawking isn't just a complete imbecile who used to be a genius but is now being used as a living puppet because they know nerds are easily led by the nose by demagogues?

Because it makes no sense whatsoever?

Sure it does. How many celebrity science people do you know of that the average person has actually heard of? I'll bet you can't use up the fingers of both hands with their names.

Now. If you wanted to spread ANY scientific message (doesn't even necessarily have to be a lie) who would you put on TV to tell people about it? Some brilliant (but boring) guy nobody has ever heard of or Stephan Hawking?

It makes more sense than a lot of things do. The man never actually speaks with his own voice. He can barely move. All he can do is sit there and show his teeth. Put any message you want into a machine and give it that robot voice and pay it while he sits there and smiles. The nerds will love it. The news people will put it on every channel. And because people feel sorry for him and people love stories of triumph in the face of extreme adversity, they want to believe this invalid is still the smartest man alive.

Or maybe he is still a pretty bright guy and he's allowing them to use him as a spokesman because he wants to stay relevant or because he generally believes it.

Am I right? I don't really care. It's just a thought. Regardless, I get suspicious when the media keeps thrusting "experts" in my face. I am not religious. I don't believe in God. I don't believe in anything other than objectivity and skepticism. IMO, science is becoming a religion of it's own and that's just as bad.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Since this is a conspiracy forum, I might as well let one fly. How do we know Hawking isn't just a complete imbecile who used to be a genius but is now being used as a living puppet because they know nerds are easily led by the nose by demagogues?

Because it makes no sense whatsoever?

Sure it does. How many celebrity science people do you know of that the average person has actually heard of? I'll bet you can't use up the fingers of both hands with their names.

Scientific discovery isn't driven by celebrity science communicators.

It's driven by scientists.

Now. If you wanted to spread ANY scientific message (doesn't even necessarily have to be a lie) who would you put on TV to tell people about it? Some brilliant (but boring) guy nobody has ever heard of or Stephan Hawking?

Still not making any sense. Even if we were to entertain such nonsense, why would they not choose a charismatic person instead of a guy in a wheelchair who can barely talk?.

It makes more sense than a lot of things do. The man never actually speaks with his own voice. He can barely move. All he can do is sit there and show his teeth. Put any message you want into a machine and give it that robot voice and pay it while he sits there and smiles. The nerds will love it. The news people will put it on every channel. And because people feel sorry for him and people love stories of triumph in the face of extreme adversity, they want to believe this invalid is still the smartest man alive.

You seem to have this bizarre belief that scientific research somehow has to cater to laymen nerds. I don't even...