Talk:Scott Aaronson

Sounds like a self-advertisement

It seems as if its written by Aaronson himself. A little cleaning up would be nice to make it sound more objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.181.243.17 (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Note that it is against wikipedia rules to write an article about yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.201.196.148 (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This article contains too many primary sources, including his own blog, cv, articles. While this is not always bad, but most of these sources have not been evaluated for editorial control. And also, it gives undue weight to information that is not considered important enough. As a clear example, the fact that he is married and posted this in his own blog is of no importance, since there are no secondary sources that consider this to be notable. Thus, I join my voice in saying that at this point, this article does sound like an advertisement or cv, rather than a reputable article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.146.44.151 (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It is no different in this respect than the vast majority of our other articles on academics. And the fact that he is married is not what is of importance here; it is that his wife is also notable as a computer scientist. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

A short look at the wikipedia article of his wife shows only primary sources, and not a single reason why she should be notable or why she should even have a wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.146.44.152 (talk) 13:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This shows mostly that you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's guidelines for academic notability. Try looking at the first criterion there (well-cited publications) and her Google Scholar profile linked from her article. Multiple publications with over 100 citations each (she has three) is usually considered good enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced information

I moved the following unsourced data here. There needs to be a reliable secondary source that indicates the course "received widespread attention". The reddit post by itself is not a source that indicates this.

• His "Quantum Computing Since Democritus" course received widespread attention after being posted on reddit.

—Werson (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

References

Why does "Complexity Zoo" redirect here?

200.55.139.212 (talk)

See the "Work" section of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this redirect was intended by the people adding links to the "Complexity Zoo" from articles like R (complexity). Personally, I think the "Complexity Zoo" deserves a Wikipedia entry of it's own. — Hritcu (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can write a new article that demonstrates convincingly that it passes WP:WEB, then go for it. If not, better to have a redirect than a deleted article. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As the creator of the redirect, I confirm, these were exactly my thoughts. While it is notable and usable, there is basically nothing to write about the website in itself. Twri (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

woo hoo

[1] ;-)

67.119.15.177 (talk) 07:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"The David J. Bruton Professor of CS"

The article described Scott Aaronson as "the David J. Bruton Jr. Centennial Professor of Computer Science..." but I think that's wrong, since the word "the" implies that there's only one such professor, and surfing the UT web site shows that David J. Bruton Jr. seems to have endowed a lot of professorships in various subjects, including more than one in CS. The holders are all David J. Bruton Jr. Centennial Professors of whatever.

Scott Aaronson's personal website bypasses the issue while avoiding a longwinded and irrelevant explanation, by omitting the "the":

I'm David J. Bruton Centennial Professor of Computer Science at ...[2]

I therefore followed that example and removed the "the" from the article lede. This issue has come up before so I'm posting the long explanation here. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Added: @David Eppstein: could you possibly check with Scott Aaronson about this? I'd go with whatever he says is best. Thanks. (And describing him as "a David J. Bruton Centennial Professor" would have been ridiculous.) 173.228.123.121 (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Why bother him when he states the title clearly on his web page, as you've already quoted? We should follow that form, so I think your removal of "the" is correct. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll go with that, thanks. I observed what he wrote, but my theorizing above about why he wrote it that way is pure surmise on my part, so I thought it might be worth checking with him. If you're already ok with the change then I'm satisfied. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

As a separate matter, I'll check about the "Jr." (used inconsistently here) on the UT site when I get a chance. I'm posting this mostly as a reminder to myself, but if someone else does it first, that's great. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Atheism

What type of atheist would Scott classify himself as? The following site MAY be useful: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487

Clearly Scott believes that reality is computational in nature (from his works) BUT does he perceive that there's any purpose/directedness to it? If not (which would seems to be the view of an atheist), how did reality emerge to have the rich structure that it currently does? These questions don't necessarily seem to be answered (and may be unanswerable) - however, some ballpark theories would be good. Clearly, from many perspectives, Nature seems to follow a definite Mathematical set of rules and Law - would Scott Aaronson argue that such set of laws arose through some 'blind' physical process - or that there is some 'purpose' to them? Use of notions such as 'Pancomputationalism' may arise. Apologies if these are not exactly Wikipedian Questions. ASavantDude (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Speculation on a person's personal beliefs has no place here. We can only work from what is published in reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

1) From the referenced blog (https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=189), I present the following quote:

"**Admittedly, though, “atheist” isn’t exactly the right word for me, nor even is “agnostic.” I don’t have any stance toward the question of God’s existence or nonexistence that involves the concept of belief**. For me, beliefs are for things that might eventually have some sort of observable consequence for someone."

This seems like a strange quote to me.

It is not for me to say what Scott Aaronson does or does not 'believe' (though he/someone might want to think through his position on this - in particular, how do we define 'belief' and 'observable consequences'). However, Scott Aaronson is, Technically, Not an Atheist by his own admission (given the first quote). I think that article should reflect Scott Aaronson's own blog-words.

2) HOWEVER, you are free to argue that, again by his own words, he states " If you’d asked, I would’ve told you that I, like yourself, am what **most people** would call a disbelieving atheist infidel heretic."

Clearly, these two parts of the blog might cause confusion (as, prima facie, they might be argued to contradict one another). What does Scott Aaronson think that 'most people's' definition of "atheist infidel heretic" is?

In this reasoning, I have tried to stay close to the "Verifiability Not Truth" policy. Clearly the blog SEEMS to be contradictory/prima-facie inconsistent, and it could be argued that if no definite position is verifiable from the blog, then perhaps the article should direct people to the blog BUT NOT state that Scott Aaronson is Necessarily an Atheist.

I note that, according to WP:VNT "The Verifiability policy is related to another core content policy, Neutral point of view, which holds that we include all significant views on a subject. ". Your position that "Speculation on a person's personal beliefs has no place here" might arguably infringe upon "Neutral Point of View" if we go so far as to state that significant views on the verifiable blog (as arise when two separate editors have differing interpretations of what a blog actually says) are not taken into consideration.

There is probably a lot more to say on the matter, and we might get round to it.

I note that Scott Aaronson is careful in his wording when he states "I don’t have any stance toward the question of God’s existence or nonexistence that **involves the _concept_ of belief**". Perhaps there might be other concepts which inform his current position on the question of "God's existence"? Of course, I do not wish to speculate on the matter given your position that "personal beliefs" are off-bounds. The points about what is verifiable from the blog still stand.

ASavantDude (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Addition of Clarify Tag Next to Assertion of Atheism

No-one is stating that Scott Aaronson believes in supernatural magic. HOWEVER, Scott Aaronson's commitment to atheism is worthy of consideration given the contradictory statements made in the blog above. Of course, you could argue that his atheism is obvious - but the verifiability of this from the blog is not clear. We should go off of what is consistently Verifiable.

ASavantDude (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

re anecdote

Re this reversion[3] I thought the passage was a good addition because it communicates a concise picture of the biography subject as a person, and that is something readers look for in biographies. It's certainly not "random" but instead is rather singular. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Notability?

The lede needs to establish his notability. Why does he have a WP article compared to most computer scientists who don't? Ashmoo (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

It does. You see the part where it says "David J. Bruton Jr. Centennial Professor of Computer Science"? Right there in the first sentence? That (a named professorship) is an immediate pass of our criteria for academic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

entire early life/education section written like a self advertisement

it should be rewritten — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.249.213 (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

To the contrary it looks to me exactly like one would expect when writing an encyclopedia biography based on published sources rather than direct contact with the subject, as Wikipedia requires — the result is a rehash of whatever publicity his past employers put out. That's what's in the sources, so it's what should be in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

no it doesnt, the whole bio section is full of weasel words and speculative claims that sources dont make 216.164.249.213 (talk) 05:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

It is difficult to take such assertions seriously when there are no specifics and the article does not even have a "bio section". —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, i'll bite.

Early life and education[edit]

Aaronson grew up in the United States, though he spent a year in Asia when his father—a science writer turned public-relations executive—was posted to Hong Kong. He enrolled in a school there that permitted him to skip ahead several years in math, but upon returning to the US, he found his education EXHIBIT 1 restrictive, getting bad grades and having run-ins with teachers. He enrolled in The Clarkson School, a program for EXHIBIT 2 gifted youngsters run by Clarkson University, which enabled Aaronson to apply for colleges while only in his freshman year of high school. He was accepted into Cornell University, where he obtained his BSc in computer science in 2000, and where he resided at the Telluride House. He then attended the University of California, Berkeley, for his PhD, which he got in 2004 under the supervision of Umesh Vazirani.

Aaronson had shown ability in mathematics from an early age, teaching himself calculus at the age of 11, EXHIBIT 3 provoked by symbols in a babysitter's textbook. He discovered computer programming at age 11, and felt he lagged behind peers, who had already been coding for years. In part due to Aaronson getting into advanced mathematics before getting into computer programming, he felt drawn to theoretical computing, particularly computational complexity theory. At Cornell, he became interested in quantum computing and devoted himself to computational complexity and quantum computing. 216.164.249.213 (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Putting big EXHIBIT A flags on neutrally written descriptions of biographical claims does not make your case look any stronger. Especially when some of those claims are actually negative and you are trying to claim that they are somehow inappropriately positive. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

lol 216.164.249.213 (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

"Gifted youngsters" and "getting into" sound a bit too colloquial, but other than that, I don't really see problems here. XOR'easter (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

all the exhibits reference primary sources and should not be written in wiki voice 216.164.249.213 (talk) 15:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Section removal

I removed the section "Alleged plagiarism by Love Communications", because it's an old and relatively minor event, because nearly no one knows "Love Communications", and because the accusations are on Love Communications, so it does not say so much about Scott Aaronson himself. If you think it's a mistake, feel free to discuss it here. Alenoach (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)