4 ms·

> Yet when Hawking does metaphysics, the reverence for science as an institution leads people to treat it as they treat science. This simply is not true. If th

by rohern 14y ago

> Yet when Hawking does metaphysics, the reverence for science as an institution leads people to treat it as they treat science. This simply is not true. If this sort of a priori judgement occurs, it occurs because Hawking is a famously intelligent and thoughtful person. Of course people take what he says seriously. However, he is also continually engaged in debates with other scientists, often publicly, and is in no way walled off from questioning by either the institution of science or his own fame. Additionally, I have heard the exact opposite of the sentiment you stated claimed. His biographer, Kitty Ferguson, ludicrously criticized Hawking's atheism as him going beyond his field. As if because one is not a theologian, one cannot discuss religion. What tripe.

001sky 14y ago
If this sort of a priori judgement occurs, it occurs because Hawking is a famously intelligent and thoughtful person. -- The famous "reverse" Ad-Hominem attack? WAT TLDR: Famously intelligent and thoughful people are frequently full of shit, evil, or amoral. Same rules apply. [1] _________ [1] Its worth noting [a] ad-hominem is not a per-se fallacy; And [b] its useful to questions motives. But since many serial killers, terrorists, and supporters of the hollocaust could be considered "famously intelligent and thoughtful people", it goes without saying that arguments should be evaluated on the merits.
- rohern 14y ago
  In a word: duh. However, I do not for a second think that you would not listen more closely to someone like Stephen Hawking than you would a guy shouting "Praise Jesus" on a street corner. There is no fallacy involved here. If Hawking is speaking nonsense, his being Stephen Hawking is not going to save him.
  - 001sky 14y ago
    *If [a scientist] is speaking nonsense, his being [a scientist] is not going to save him. == Fixed that for ya. . . . Carry On.
MrScruff 14y ago
I think the problem there is that just because someone has made a name for themselves in one field does not imply that they have some sort of superhuman intellect that means they will offer useful insights on a range of subjects. You might think that to be the case but there is no evidence for it being so. Hawking's pontificating on metaphysics are of no more interest to me than Linus Torvald's on laptop screen resolutions or Richard Dawkin's theoretical thoughts on cosmology.
- rohern 14y ago
  > I think the problem there is that just because someone has made a name for themselves in one field does not imply that they have some sort of superhuman intellect that means they will offer useful insights on a range of subjects. Of course there is no such implication, nor did I make this claim. But it is absolutely true that certain people are simply better at reasoning than other people. This may be because of biological traits, educational difference, difference of habit, etc., but it is certainly true. Any experience with any human will reveal this to you, I think. > Hawking's pontificating on metaphysics are of no more interest to me than Linus Torvald's on laptop screen resolutions or Richard Dawkin's theoretical thoughts on cosmology. I am not at all clear why you would say this. In fact, I think you are committing an argument from authority in the reverse. You refuse to listen to this guys because you assume that they are not authorities. That's just bogus and I am sure you know that. Instead, you should listen to Hawking discuss metaphysics and decide if he is worth listening to. You would, I think, do exactly that if it were philosopher speaking.
  - MrScruff 14y ago
    I am not at all clear why you would say this. In fact, I think you are committing an argument from authority in the reverse. You refuse to listen to this guys because you assume that they are not authorities. That's just bogus and I am sure you know that. Instead, you should listen to Hawking discuss metaphysics and decide if he is worth listening to. You would, I think, do exactly that if it were philosopher speaking. Why should I listen to Hawking discuss metaphysics? I only have limited time, and I'm entirely unconvinced that would be a good use of it. It's not that I'm refusing, merely that I have no inclination to because I don't have any expectation of particular insight.
chrisdevereux 14y ago
You're underestimating how influenced people can be by status. The fact that science does work, and the resulting status, can lead people to give credibility to ideas about ideas that they otherwise wouldn't, ideas that aren't really about science at all, because they're presented with a scientific gloss. If you don't like the Hawking example, try Social Darwinism.

by rohern 14y ago

001sky 14y ago

If this sort of a priori judgement occurs, it occurs because Hawking is a famously intelligent and thoughtful person. -- The famous "reverse" Ad-Hominem attack? WAT TLDR: Famously intelligent and thoughful people are frequently full of shit, evil, or amoral. Same rules apply. [1] _________ [1] Its worth noting [a] ad-hominem is not a per-se fallacy; And [b] its useful to questions motives. But since many serial killers, terrorists, and supporters of the hollocaust could be considered "famously intelligent and thoughtful people", it goes without saying that arguments should be evaluated on the merits.

rohern 14y ago
In a word: duh. However, I do not for a second think that you would not listen more closely to someone like Stephen Hawking than you would a guy shouting "Praise Jesus" on a street corner. There is no fallacy involved here. If Hawking is speaking nonsense, his being Stephen Hawking is not going to save him.
- 001sky 14y ago
  *If [a scientist] is speaking nonsense, his being [a scientist] is not going to save him. == Fixed that for ya. . . . Carry On.

MrScruff 14y ago

I think the problem there is that just because someone has made a name for themselves in one field does not imply that they have some sort of superhuman intellect that means they will offer useful insights on a range of subjects. You might think that to be the case but there is no evidence for it being so. Hawking's pontificating on metaphysics are of no more interest to me than Linus Torvald's on laptop screen resolutions or Richard Dawkin's theoretical thoughts on cosmology.

rohern 14y ago
> I think the problem there is that just because someone has made a name for themselves in one field does not imply that they have some sort of superhuman intellect that means they will offer useful insights on a range of subjects. Of course there is no such implication, nor did I make this claim. But it is absolutely true that certain people are simply better at reasoning than other people. This may be because of biological traits, educational difference, difference of habit, etc., but it is certainly true. Any experience with any human will reveal this to you, I think. > Hawking's pontificating on metaphysics are of no more interest to me than Linus Torvald's on laptop screen resolutions or Richard Dawkin's theoretical thoughts on cosmology. I am not at all clear why you would say this. In fact, I think you are committing an argument from authority in the reverse. You refuse to listen to this guys because you assume that they are not authorities. That's just bogus and I am sure you know that. Instead, you should listen to Hawking discuss metaphysics and decide if he is worth listening to. You would, I think, do exactly that if it were philosopher speaking.
- MrScruff 14y ago
  I am not at all clear why you would say this. In fact, I think you are committing an argument from authority in the reverse. You refuse to listen to this guys because you assume that they are not authorities. That's just bogus and I am sure you know that. Instead, you should listen to Hawking discuss metaphysics and decide if he is worth listening to. You would, I think, do exactly that if it were philosopher speaking. Why should I listen to Hawking discuss metaphysics? I only have limited time, and I'm entirely unconvinced that would be a good use of it. It's not that I'm refusing, merely that I have no inclination to because I don't have any expectation of particular insight.

chrisdevereux 14y ago

You're underestimating how influenced people can be by status. The fact that science does work, and the resulting status, can lead people to give credibility to ideas about ideas that they otherwise wouldn't, ideas that aren't really about science at all, because they're presented with a scientific gloss. If you don't like the Hawking example, try Social Darwinism.