Turn on thread page Beta

RIP Stephen Hawking watch

Announcements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    RIP, may he rest in peace this clever mind
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I'm suspicious of the strong possibility that many of those who praise him are the same who like Ed Sheeran, Katy 'Nun taken' Perry, or Pop Idol.

    Do they identify quite so strongly with him not because of his intellect, let alone because they've read or understood his books, but because they like to tie their mast to someone whose medical condition reflects their own psychological sense of vulnerability?

    I know how stupid the world en masse is and I know that the passing of , say, Witgenstein, would have probably resulted in grudging admiration at best but with a lot fo snide asides about being 'full of himself' or 'aloof'.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Death and Taxes)
    Overrated physicist. Most people who praise him don't even understand basic physics.
    Death and Taxes. Well you're definitely not an optimist then.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Picnic1)
    I'm suspicious of the strong possibility that many of those who praise him are the same who like Ed Sheeran, Katy 'Nun taken' Perry, or Pop Idol.

    Do they identify quite so strongly with him not because of his intellect, let alone because they've read or understood his books, but because they like to tie their mast to someone whose medical condition reflects their own psychological sense of vulnerability?

    I know how stupid the world en masse is and I know that the passing of , say, Witgenstein, would have probably resulted in grudging admiration at best but with a lot fo snide asides about being 'full of himself' or 'aloof'.
    You know that you don’t have to put other people down for you to be worthwhile.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    One of his books, simplified of course, got me interested in physics. It's such a shame he passed
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Picnic1)
    I'm suspicious of the strong possibility that many of those who praise him are the same who like Ed Sheeran, Katy 'Nun taken' Perry, or Pop Idol.

    Do they identify quite so strongly with him not because of his intellect, let alone because they've read or understood his books, but because they like to tie their mast to someone whose medical condition reflects their own psychological sense of vulnerability?

    I know how stupid the world en masse is and I know that the passing of , say, Witgenstein, would have probably resulted in grudging admiration at best but with a lot fo snide asides about being 'full of himself' or 'aloof'.
    Are you for real? You don't need to have understood his books to realise that without people like him, we'd all be travelling in a very different direction, you included. The fact that his work encouraged someone to pick up a Physics or an Astronomy book instead of another type of 'book' says it all. I didn't understand his book either and gave up a few pages in, but I then sought out another, easier book on space. I could have, of course, spent that time reading something else - and what a waste that would have been. Thank you, Stephen Hawking.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Medrat)
    Are you for real? You don't need to have understood his books to realise that without people like him, we'd all be travelling in a very different direction, you included. The fact that his work encouraged someone to pick up a Physics or an Astronomy book instead of another type of 'book' says it all. I didn't understand his book either and gave up a few pages in, but I then sought out another, easier book on space. I could have, of course, spent that time reading something else - and what a waste that would have been. Thank you, Stephen Hawking.
    Tell me how I would be 'travelling in a very different direction'.

    If reading 'something else' would have been a waste to you then that shows that you've got a narrow interest. That's OK but it wouldn't have
    necessarily been a waste to me to read 'something else' e.g. a book on art or philosophy.

    I'm pleased that Stepehn Hawking pleased other people and contributed towards science. But many of you are hardly good examples of science yourselves as a result as you're not stating logical arguments even in a short post. So how beneficial was he
    to most people really aside from the subjectivity that he was inspirational (I'll agree that it's objective that he was inspirational to many though) Many people in many fields are, or should be, potentially inspirational. When people mix the logical and the emotive it tends to diminish both.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    Professor Hawking had a razor sharp wit:


    During an appearance on Last Week Tonight with Jon Oliver, the host asked Hawking: ‘You have stated that you believe that there could be an infinite number of parallel universes. Does that mean there is a universe out there where I am smarter than you?’ To which, Prof Hawking hit back: ‘Yes. And also a universe where you are funny.’

    :rofl:

    I guess he was very smart in lots of ways, not just mathematical cosmology.

    It was interesting last night listening to a recording they did on R4 some years ago where the audience read out prepared questions and he did prepared answers. It was hosted by Sue Lawley, who kept interjecting and trying to make it 'understandable for the folks back home' (quite patronisingly, given this was a radio 4 audience) and Hawking kept derailing her by making random rude remarks every time she set off on of her producer-prompted BBC moron-fodder monologues. He was a class act.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Picnic1)
    I'm suspicious of the strong possibility that many of those who praise him are the same who like Ed Sheeran, Katy 'Nun taken' Perry, or Pop Idol.

    Do they identify quite so strongly with him not because of his intellect, let alone because they've read or understood his books, but because they like to tie their mast to someone whose medical condition reflects their own psychological sense of vulnerability?

    I know how stupid the world en masse is and I know that the passing of , say, Witgenstein, would have probably resulted in grudging admiration at best but with a lot fo snide asides about being 'full of himself' or 'aloof'.
    With any famous person, there are people who know their work well and appreciate it fully, others who have a more average understanding and still more who know they are famous and accept that they must be great in some way, without pretending to understand. There's nothing wrong with that.

    As to the evidence of his greatness, I know little about cosmology, so I have to accept the word of other leading scientists in the field, who have been queuing up (not just now, but for many years) to sing his praises. I assume they know their business.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    The front page of Google is now saying 'Physicist. Philosopher. Hero. Stephen Hawking. 1942-2018'.

    He was no philosopher!" In fact, he said 'Philosophy is dead'. And,no, this kind of anti-philosophy isn't itself a kind of philosophy. It just shows that he
    had little or no interest in thinking beyond the physical.

    If everything is regarded as merely physical then it leads to a decline in morality because life is treat like going shopping and people treat as importantly or uninportantly as a sophisticated robot or even a simple object depending on selifsh wants. I know it's outside of Hawking's remit but the word philosophy and him should not be within a mile of each other.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    RIP
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kallisto)
    That is a big coincidence indeed.

    Missed yeah, but not forget. Great personalities are never dead forever, their great ideas, their achievements as their legacy always left behind. And so I think he will influence the (astro-)physics even over his death.
    True that.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    You'd think there would be a little more repect here for the death of a legend to the world of science. Yes. death is death. and yes it happens all the time but its not gonna be so casual if you're faced with it. RIP Hawkings.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by Picnic1)
    He was no philosopher!" In fact, he said 'Philosophy is dead'. And,no, this kind of anti-philosophy isn't itself a kind of philosophy.
    Who did he say that to? A Google Zeitgeist conference. I think Google is having a little banter that Prof. Hawking would also appreciate.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Picnic1)
    Tell me how I would be 'travelling in a very different direction'.If reading 'something else' would have been a waste to you then that shows that you've got a narrow interest. That's OK but it wouldn't have necessarily been a waste to me to read 'something else' e.g. a book on art or philosophy.

    I'm pleased that Stephen Hawking pleased other people and contributed towards science. But many of you are hardly good examples of science yourselves as a result as you're not stating logical arguments even in a short post. So how beneficial was he to most people really aside from the subjectivity that he was inspirational (I'll agree that it's objective that he was inspirational to many though) Many people in many fields are, or should be, potentially inspirational. When people mix the logical and the emotive it tends to diminish both.

    Two points - 1) the guy got a First from Oxford, a PhD from Cambridge, became a Professor there and won numerous awards and prizes throughout his career. An example of just one of these,

    "Professor Stephen Hawking has been announced as one of the winners of the Fundamental Physics Prize. Professor Nima Arkani-Hamed, a member of the Selection Committee, said that the winners of the Fundamental Physics Prize “have done transformative work spanning a wide range of areas in fundamental physics.”

    So, are people really saying that he achieved all of this because people felt sorry for him?

    "Tell me how I would be 'travelling in a very different direction'."

    You wouldn't be writing this on your computer for a start. You'd most likely be sitting in a cave or dying at 40 after spending your life ploughing a field, if people like Stephen Hawking had decided to write a trashy novel or study the bible instead of doing his physics (there's room for these, of course, but they are not going to produce technology, cure cancer or improve everyone’s quality of life. Studying a painting, as lovely or important as it is, will NOT produce space travel (offshoots of this research have been used in the health setting), an electric car (no oil), a cure for testicular cancer (which now has a cure rate of nearly 100%) or allow disabled people to communicate with others around the world via the internet). He was a part of this. That’s the second point. The fact that he achieved 1) despite his terrible health problems (his second wife said that his death would be a relief to him) is astounding. So, on these two counts, people can't find it in their hearts to celebrate the man?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I cried for 20 minutes.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Medrat)

    "Tell me how I would be 'travelling in a very different direction'."

    You wouldn't be writing this on your computer for a start. You'd most likely be sitting in a cave or dying at 40 after spending your life ploughing a field, if people like Stephen Hawking had decided to write a trashy novel or study the bible instead of doing his physics (there's room for these, of course, but they are not going to produce technology, cure cancer or improve everyone’s quality of life. Studying a painting, as lovely or important as it is, will NOT produce space travel (offshoots of this research have been used in the health setting), an electric car (no oil), a cure for testicular cancer (which now has a cure rate of nearly 100%) or allow disabled people to communicate with others around the world via the internet). He was a part of this. That’s the second point. The fact that he achieved 1) despite his terrible health problems (his second wife said that his death would be a relief to him) is astounding. So, on these two counts, people can't find it in their hearts to celebrate the man?
    My point wasn't disputing ow clever he was in his own field , or that he was inspirational to some, so I've
    started lower down on your distasteful reply.

    Is this really the fiction that you've been brought up to believe- that
    life before computers was some nasty, brutish, short, thing?

    I'd be sitting in A CAVE? Where do you think I live- Middle Earth or
    Afghanistan? I live in England - we've had significantly prosperous
    towns since the 1700s. We've had Victorian terraces, garden cities,
    suburbs.

    Dying at 40? (Despite my grandparents, who never used a computer in their life, living in to their 70s-90s- and many Victorians, even of the
    servant classes, livingv to ripe old age).

    Spending my life ploughing a field? You're talking about pre-1800s
    ways of living! You might want to look up the Industrial Revolution.
    Some people, of course, do plough fields in England now. Maybe they
    helped make any cereal or cake or bread you might eat.

    Your post infuriates me, how simplistic it is. A CAVE!!??
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I'm making the point that since the Enlightenment (circa 16th Century), science/technological innovations have been the single 'thing' that has increased everyone's quality of life. How can anyone argue with that?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Rip!
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    "life before computers was some nasty, brutish, short, thing?"

    Life before science was. If not for societies incorporating science (instead of, eg, religion) into all aspects of our lives, we'd all be living in caves, dying early through backbreaking work (slavery, anyone?) or dying in infancy. This took centuries to accomplish, but what an accomplishment it has been, culminating in our computerised age. Science has always been a part of humanity (science just means empirical and objective thought) but was either suppressed or derailed. It became a formal thing with the Enlightenment (in Western societies), but started with the beginning of humanity in all societies.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.