Stephen Hawking Has Died - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Notices of a deaths of public figures or other significant or interesting people.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14896536
Pants-of-dog wrote:Now Newton lived in the 17th century, so of course he did not have the same rigour when it comes to science as compared to Hawkins.


Neither did Plato or Socrates, but that doesn't mean Hawking's unwarrented entries into metaphysical philosophy under the banner of "Science" are more "advanced" than theirs just because "Modernism Rulz". His Multiverse theory is mainly pure fiction.

Also "Rigour"= Passion for the job at hand....

So technically he did. Stupid to say "Newton didnt love science and didn't have passion for his profession" as that doesn't make much sense. I accept your arguement he lived in the 17th century, but I think you were looking for the word knowledge instead.

I know I'm being pedantic over that but it does technically mean "Passion for the work" and "loving the job and doing it well".
#14896537


colliric wrote:There are two sides to an arguement.


This is true, but one is based on faith and the other on science, so please, can we not derail this thread with that shit debate. :)
#14896539
skinster wrote:https://twitter.com/SocialistVoice/status/974004608451465216



This is true, but one is based on faith and the other on science, so please, can we not derail this thread with that shit debate. :)


Agreed.

It ultimately ends up turning into the Religious-Science version of Kirk(Religion) VS Picard(Science)....

Lol.

Kirk is better....
#14896558
“God not only plays dice with the universe,” Dr. Hawking said in 1976, paraphrasing Einstein and outraging many physicists for whom it is an article of principle that they can untangle the history of the universe, “but sometimes he throws them where they can’t be seen.”
User avatar
By Ter
#14896570
Ter wrote:A monument of a man.
It is always sad to lose a person with such high intellect.

I do have questions:

1. Why did they never give him a Nobel for his work ?

2. How did he manage to survive fifty years with ALS?
Normal people die after three to five years.


@fuser answered my first question and after reading up about it I can answer my own second question:

Nobody knows why Hawking survived fifty years of ALS.
The average life span after diagnosis is 33 months.
Except for the great round the clock care Hawking received, the hypothesis is now that genetic factors determine how fast or slow the disease progresses. Research is ongoing with money raised from the ice bucket challenge.
#14896674
colliric wrote:Neither did Plato or Socrates, but that doesn't mean Hawking's unwarrented entries into metaphysical philosophy under the banner of "Science" are more "advanced" than theirs just because "Modernism Rulz". His Multiverse theory is mainly pure fiction.

Also "Rigour"= Passion for the job at hand....

So technically he did. Stupid to say "Newton didnt love science and didn't have passion for his profession" as that doesn't make much sense. I accept your arguement he lived in the 17th century, but I think you were looking for the word knowledge instead.

I know I'm being pedantic over that but it does technically mean "Passion for the work" and "loving the job and doing it well".


No. You are, of course, incorrect.

Scientific methodology, like any other technology, became more advanced as time progressed because each generation was able to build in the successes (or failures, of course) of the previous generations. Thus, Newton had better methodology than Plato or Socrates and Hawking had better methodology than Newton, of course.

Rigour does not mean passion. Rigour, when discussing methodology of course, has a specific definition. Rigor in quantitative research is judged by how narrow, concise, and objective the design and analysis techniques are and how scrupulously the rules have been adhered to and applied to all decisions. Feelings like passion are, of course, irrelevant.

Adding imaginary sky friends to your ideas to make them work is the opposite of scientific rigour.
#14896687
It technically means to do things with strictness and attention to detail.

But you are being quite narrow-minded if you cannot see how that can be equated to doing things with Passion for doing them correctly(or with attention to detail).

I mean really. I never said it did exactly mean ONLY Passion as in feelings. Most people interpret it to mean doing a difficult job with an attention to detail or with "a passion for correctness".

Vigour is a similar word, but that simply means doing things passionately or with zeal.

I accept your other arguement but Human nature in relation to "making a name for myself and being different from the others that came before me" can introduce elements of corruption into such modernist logic. Sounds good on paper, but the human factor often undermines it in practice.
Last edited by colliric on 15 Mar 2018 16:19, edited 1 time in total.
#14896689
colliric wrote:It technically means to do things with strictness and attention to detail.

But you are being quite narrow-minded if you cannot see how that can be equated to doing things with Passion for doing them correctly(or with attention to detail).

I mean really. I never said it did exactly mean ONLY Passion as in feelings. Most people interpret it to mean doing a difficult job with an attention to detail or with "a passion for correctness".

Vigour is a similar word, but that simply means doing things passionately or with zeal.


Well, inserting imaginary sky friends into your scientific claims because you have passion or zeal or vigour is still crappy science, and so Hawking’s multiverse theory is the more rigourous one.

Of course.

How about Russia uses a battle field nuclear we[…]

@Tainari88 , @Godstud @Rich , @Verv , @Po[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 29, Friday Mackenzie King wins Canadian el[…]

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over main[…]