Talk:Stephen Hawking/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Simpsons References

I know wikipedia doesn't like trivia but Mr Hawking has been cartonnized on the Simpsons three times. I wonder if he knows about that? Homer refers to him as that wheelchair guy. 63.26.200.199 (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Eric

He knows, I've seen quite a few programmes (both Hawking and Simpson centric) with Hawking being shown with a Simpsons figure of himself MeatyDoughnut (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Evolution

{{editprotected}} Please add:

It has become apparent as of late that Stephen Hawking has recanted in his acceptance of the Theory of Evolution. He has come out in disapproval of the theory and now states there is absolutely no evidence to support such a theory. Additionally, he asserts that scientists have "naively" accepted this theory and have not done so on the basis of the objective evidence supporting it, as there is absolutely none. Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO2l7ziEIuk

I'm sorry, but we only used reliable sources as references here on Wikipedia, not easily forged Youtube videos. And special attention is given to statements about living people. Please make sure you have a reliable source (e.g. mainstream newspapers, academic journals, Hawking's website, etc.) for any further claims. Danski14^(talk) 00:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does the video look like its 5 inches bigger u tell me, a really bad fake made with the text-to-speech functionality built into Windows? He doesn't normally speak that fast, and he pauses between forming statements. — George ^[talk] 01:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, this page is not fully protected; I'm disabling the editprotected tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The author claim's he doesn't use Windows so perhaps it's the Mac variant Nil Einne 16:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

People who post such obvious forgeries are hardly trustworthy with statements regarding their OS. However, yes, you can easily fake this kind of thing with any OS, including Mac OS X and Windows. The bottom line, however, is that the audio is an obvious fake. — George ^[talk] 21:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

He is one of the Project Steve signatories. I really wonder how creationists can claim the moral high ground with all this deception. Degenerates, the lot of them. --78.16.53.60 22:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That is clearly 'Bruce' one of the voices on Mac OS, It is not the voice of Dr. Hawking's talking machine. --Dp67 | QSO | Sandbox | UBX's 18:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This is obviously not needed on this page anymore. I removed it but it got put back, so I'll leave it up to someone else.

Unclear Statement

"He lost balance and fell down a flight of stairs, hitting his head".Was that the cause of his illness?

nope, that's what his illness caused :p 74.124.76.121 22:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Illness

I think something about his illness should be mentioned straight off, just a blip. If you didn't know he was ill, you'd first look at his picture and say "What is up with that guy?" A small comment like "suffer of ALS" and a link to the illness section on the article would be best. Even if Hawking doesn't like to be known for his illness, it's still a fact. 63.26.200.199 (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)eric

With all due respect to Professor Hawking and his massive achievements, I find it kind of odd that the thing you notice most if you see him, his illness, isn't mentioned at all in the introduction, I really think it needs to be mentioned there. 84.108.245.222 16:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

A simple, brief note for those that might come to glance at the introduction without knowing much of him? Maybe a biographical caption for the photo? I agree, I think. --Kenneth M Burke 18:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't like being known for his illness. Apparently. I read a biography. 74.124.76.121 22:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's up to Mr. Hawking to decide what he's known for - I'm sure OJ Simpson didn't desire to be infamous for murdering Nicole Brown, but nonetheless.. In any event, I agree, many people come here looking for more information on his illness; I know I did. So why shouldn't it be included in the introduction? 12.150.23.178 14:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the page should respect Dr. Hawking, but we can't very well ask his opinion - or can we? The concern was for those that might come to the page and see the photo while knowing nothing about him. Now, I guess the concern should really be that the introductory paragraph mentions his illness and those people that know nothing about it. Certainly, people aren't guilty of having a disease in the same way that individuals are guilty of murder. --Kenneth M Burke 01:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP

I've removed the "Comments on the future of earth and humanity" the entire section makes him sound loopy, which is contrary to both the spirit and the letter of the WP:BLP--—(Kepin)^{RING THE LIBERTY BELL} 17:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

They are his own words, appropriately sourced. I judge WP:BLP differently, that much is apparent, but I don't hold the particular passages as being particularly contentuous. People being made to sound "loopy", as you put it, is only questionable if it's done by unsourced claims or by other people's words. --Agamemnon2 18:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. It is easily possible to quote people out of context or to otherwise misuse what people have said in whichever way you please. Generally speaking, it is best to rely on statements picked up by secondary sources rather then excessive quotation from primary sources to explain people views (which often results in novel intepretations hence is OR). In this specific case it doesn't seem to apply to what was removed but that doesn't change the fact that something being 'sourced' to someone's 'own words' doesn't automatically mean there are no BLP concerns Nil Einne 09:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

God Created the Integers

Why does God Created the Integers redirect here? The only time it is mentioned in the article is one line under "Technical" publications section. I think if there is no article on the book, then it should just point to a non-existent page, why redirect to the editor? --DFRussia 21:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect Information

Can someone change this garbage: Stephen William Hawking was born on January 8, 1942 to Frank Hawking, a research biologist, and Isobel Hawking. He was actually born in a wheel chair. They had to use the jaws of life and a forklift to get him out. Him and his mom both survived, but he was rendered disabled. He had two younger sisters, Philippa and Mary, and an adopted brother, Edward. It's completely disrespectful of a modern day genius who deserves a lot more respect than the writer gave him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.73.130 (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that Stephen Hawking would go to St Albans High School for Girls. This was obviously a confusion, a mistake, vandalism, or a cheap joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.125.43.135 (talk) 16:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems unlikely, however it is true, as referenced from muliple reliable sources. As well as the reference in the article ((1995) Stephen Hawking A Biography. Greenwood Press.) There is also [1] or [2] [3] or [4]•CHILLDOUBT• 19:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Also:

"Hawking is also known for his wit; he is famous for his oft-made statement, “When I hear of Schrödinger's cat, I reach for my pistol.” This was a deliberately ironic paraphrase of “Whenever I hear the word culture... I release the safety-catch of my Browning”"

...the word "Browning" links to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Browning_Automatic_Rifle , where Hanns Johst is without doubt referring to this Browning instead:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Browning_Hi-Power —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.132.172 (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Pope's discussion

We could add the comments by the Pope asking Hawkings not to study the Universe's origins. I was surprised this isnt in the article already, though the link to the story is in the external links section. Any comments? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The Pope's concern of Hawking's scientific endeavors have no real basis on his life. the church does not persecute and chase down detractors anymore. The Pope disagrees with many things in this world, but they are not referenced each time.141.153.192.150 (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Zacko141.153.192.150 (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

its stated in his book that it happened.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Religion?

Currently, there is no specification of Dr. Hawking's religion. I heard that he converted to Roman Catholicism a decade ago. Although it appears he is being very quiet or humble about this, can anybody try to confirm this?--Geremia (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Hawking's book God Created the Integers seems to give some credence to the fact he is an theist.--Geremia (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt the title shows his beliefs. He just used it for sensation. Some are saying that he's denied being an athiest however this suggests he's one (copy of full paper here). I think we dont have any source about him believing or disbelieving in God to the effect that we can mention it in his article, so its basically unknown, as far as I see it. It seems like he's agnostic (see category at bottom here). NNDB describes him as an agnostic too though it may not be an RS either. Journalist's site quotes him saying he doesnt like using the word God (see details here). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget that "God created integers" is an obvious reference to Kronecker's famous saying. It has nothing to do with the existence of God. Kope (talk) 06:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

He is an atheist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.255.1.38 (talk) 11:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets just do what we did with Einstein. Wait until he is dead and then have a huge verbal war over what to classify him. He said believe in an afterlife is just wishful thinking so I can't really see him having a religion.

Stephen Hawking wrote this regarding the big bang in his book A Briefer History of Time: "In the hot big bang model there was not enough time in the early universe for heat to have flowed from one region to another. This means that the initial state of the universe would have to have had exactly the same temperature everywhere to account for the fact that the microwave background has the same temperature in every direction we look. Moreover, the initial rate of expansion would have had to be to be chosen very precisely for the rate of expansion still to be close to the critical rate needed to avoid collapse. It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us" (73). Does that sound like an atheist to you? I'm not suggesting that he's a theist, but he's certainly no atheist. 71.234.79.94 (talk) 20:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he doesn't spend a lot of time publicly talking about his religion (Or whether or not he has one) However I don't think we should assume unless he actually says what his religion is.NamesR4chumps (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

In "God, the Universe, & Everything Else", in the response to the question "Now 'God' of course means many things to many people. What sort of God are we talking about?", Stephen Hawking said "I use 'God' in the same sense that Einstein did." And Einstein used 'God' as a metaphor for the nature of the universe, denying a personal God and saying "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." 80.235.56.123 (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the designation of his religion as no one has offered a citation indicating a clearly specified category into which he falls. Expressing opinions on religion/theology does not entail having a clear-cut stance. If you have a source that clearly specifies his religious stance, cite it. If not, don't try to pigeonhole him into a category that he may or may not be a member of. Wikipedia is not a place to gossip or make inferences based on ambiguous data. The world is not going to fall apart because we don't have an official statement of theological stance for every remotely famous person. 74.192.199.207 (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Distinctions

Does anyone feel the Shroedinger's cat/pistol reference to the culture/BRowning quote to be a bit over the top and subjective141.153.192.150 (talk)Zacko —Preceding comment was added at 04:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I was not familiar with the Browning quote that the "Shroedinger's cat" remark supposedly parodies. But the remark could exist without the Browning quote. The Shroedinger's cat "mental experiment" is invalid, because it assumes there's a difference between human observation and a machine observation. The resolution of the superposition of states doesn't require a human observer -- any device that measures the state serves the function of collapsing the superposition. (Am I saying that correctly?)

WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad Writing

One of the problems with a neutral-POV approach is that it makes it difficult to praise or criticize. But the fact is that Stephen Hawking is a poor popularizer of science. (Which is polite way of saying he's a lousy writer.) His explanation of Special Relativity is no more than hand waving; it fails to explain what SR is all about. If you don't believe this, dig up "About Time", one of the Bell System Science Series. It explains SR in a way that makes perfect sense, that you will immediately understand and never forget. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but he is a character that is larger than his books- Brief History of Time is an appallingly bad book, but became a best seller because of his persona alone. That's millions of people at least thinking about todays science. Millions more than would otherwise do so and certainly many more than would read any other book on the subject matter. Besides, he had to make money to pay for his treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.103.171 (talk • contribs) 20:54 (UTC), 10 March 2008

If you find a notable book review which agrees with your criticism, you can cite it in this article, not by saying that you think he is a lousy writer, but by saying that his book has been criticised by so-and-so. --Jerome Potts (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How does he communicate?

So if I understood it, he closes his eyes for a second or so, and after that, he can scrunge his cheek to create characters. Exactly how is it done, are there shortcut-commands and so? How fast can you communicate with it? I'm also wondering more about communication through blowing in a plastic hose, I read that a person in the April Witch (the book) could do so. {81.231.181.61 (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)}

• How fast can you communicate with it? He says [5] he can manage up to 15 words per minute, it could be added to the article. {Phoenixdolphin (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)}
• The page referenced above was written at least 9 years ago, and although an accurate picture of his ability to communicate at the time, does not reflect his abilities now. Given the change in computer control from a switch in each hand to a single switch operated by cheek movement, his effective communication rate will be 5 wpm or less these days. 62.254.222.241 (talk) 12:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The Nature of Space and Time

Please add: Stephen Hawking's lectures in The Nature of Space and Time are freely available at http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9409195 Cholewa (talk) 12:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Languages

Is Mr. Hawking known to know any languages other then English?--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 11:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

View on Wikipedia

Are Mr Hawking's views on WP known?
--Jerome Potts (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

media appearances

Stephen Hawking was interviewed by Charlie Rose on the Friday March 7 2008 show. (http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/03/07/1/a-conversation-with-dr-stephen-hawking-lucy-hawking)
--Jerome Potts (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is just another bit of random trivia, but SH was mentioned in an episope of 'Father Ted' - "Are you right there, Father Ted?" - Worth a mention too?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrovitch (talk • contribs) 11:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Does his recent appearance in the Discovery Channel's "Boom De Ah Da!" ad warrant inclusion in the article? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at_f98qOGY0

Mullhawk (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Verdict on God?

This article makes no mention about whether or not Stephen Hawking believes in a god. He concludes in his book A Brief History of Time that there is the possibility of a non-interventionist god that created the initial conditions and no longer intervenes in the universe. There should at least be a subsection that notes this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.12.217 (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the answer to God and Hawking, relation to his concept of time-space constriction. He believed in rare intelligent life out there. At a George Washington University lecture in honour of NASA's 50th anniversary, Prof. Hawking theorised on the existence of extraterrestrial life: "Primitive life is very common and intelligent life is fairly rare." So this is his E=mc2 best quote, ever. --Florentino floro (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking wrote m this regarding the big bang in his book A Briefer History of Time: "In the hot big bang model there was not enough time in the early universe for heat to have flowed from one region to another. This means that the initial state of the universe would have to have had exactly the same temperature everywhere to account for the fact that the microwave background has the same temperature in every direction we look. Moreover, the initial rate of expansion would have had to be to be chosen very precisely for the rate of expansion still to be close to the critical rate needed to avoid collapse. It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us" (73). Does that sound like an atheist to you? I'm not suggesting that he's a theist, but he's certainly no atheist. 71.234.79.94 (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

He is a atheist. In a South African interview when asked the question if he beliefed in an afterlife, he then replied that with a no and said he thinks that death is much like switching off a computer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.209.58.40 (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to call you on this assertion. One) Proof-read your text. Two) I don't see a source. Three) Not everyone who believes in God also believes in an afterlife. Do some research on Deism.

Quite frankly, I don't think he has said he is either theistic or atheistic. Popular thought is that he is agnostic, but I've never seen anything official about his religious views. I also don’t see why it is such a huge deal with people. --75.106.177.22 (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably because he's very intelligent, and people like to identify with others like themselves. If he wants the world to know his specific theological stance, I'm sure he'll be able to get the word out. Heh. Othersider (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In "God, the Universe, & Everything Else", in the response to the question "Now 'God' of course means many things to many people. What sort of God are we talking about?", Stephen Hawking said "I use 'God' in the same sense that Einstein did." And Einstein used 'God' as a metaphor for the nature of the universe, denying a personal God and saying "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." 80.235.56.123 (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The policy wikipedia:verifiability with respect to living persons states

"Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles ... I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons".

calling someone an atheist is not a negative thing, if anything it's positive 210.56.88.40 (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In view of this I am removing the "religious stance: believer" which lacks an adequate citation and is in any respect far too vague.83.105.29.229 (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No source proves he's Atheist. From his own writings, it sounds like he's an Agnostic who, if there is a God, would believe in a Deist God. Armyrifle (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

People a person can only be a theist or an atheist for a given definition of God, it is a true dichotomy, if you make a positive claim or believe that there is a god then you are a theist for all other cases you are an atheist. That includes not knowing if there is or is not a god/s (weak Atheism) or making a positive claim or believing that there is no god/s (strong or explicit Atheism). An agnostic is a person who believes it is impossible to gain any knowledge to verify or disprove the existence of god/s. Therefore it is possible to be both an agnostic and an atheist ie. if you don't know if there is a god/s and believe that it is impossible to find out (agnostic weak atheist) or if you believe there is no god/s but also believe it is impossible to find out (agnostic strong atheist) - look up atheist in wikipedia.

Considering that Hawking has stated that he does not believe in a personal God he is a strong atheist (well closer to than weak atheism) to a personal god. however he may be a theist to a "God" that is defined as nature or the universe (ie. a pantheist, which is a type of theist just in case anyone was going to claim a violation to the true dichotomy). Considering that he stated that a deistic God may exist he is a weak atheist to a deistic God (because he does not make the positive claim or hold a positive belief that a deistic god exists)

Since Hawking has made statements that show his stance on all three positions it can be added to this article ie.

1. Hawking is an atheist in respect to a personal god

2. Hawking is a possible pantheist (or considering that Einstein believed in Spinoza's God and Hawking's eluded to believing in Einstein's God, we can safely say that Hawkins may believe in Spinoza's God)

3. he is a weak atheist in respect to a deistic God

Supporting evidence (sourced from Wikiquote unless stated)

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary". (doesn't really prove anything but is insightful)

"If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we would know the mind of God" (possible theist or pantheist).

"We could call order by the name of God, but it would be an impersonal God. There's not much personal about the laws of physics" (probable atheist to a personal God).

"With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator" (possible atheist, weak evidence though) - http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/scientist/stephen_hawking_god_religion.html.

"I use 'God' in the same sense that Einstein did." And Einstein used 'God' as a metaphor for the nature of the universe, denying a personal God and saying "If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - God, the Universe, & Everything Else (suggests pantheism and definitely an atheist to a personal God) (unverified by me sourced from above).

"I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science,The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws." (weak atheist to a deistic god) - http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE49U6E220081031?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews

I will not make any amendments to the article until there is some consensus, however i feel there is enough supporting evidence to state that he is an atheist to a personal god, a possible pantheist and a weak atheist to a deistic god.

feel free to add to or refute the quotes above, please consider context when adding quotes 1NosferatuZodd1 (talk) 18:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC).