Jump to content

Talk:Lawrence Krauss/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

This page was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion and the consensus was to keep: see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lawrence M. Krauss

I'm moving this line from the main page as I'm pretty sure it's vandalism- "He likes to wear black turtlenecks, as shown in his picture." In the odd chance it's not, give a holler. Andromeda321 00:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It may be at least partly true, but not to an excessive degree. It's certainly NN. Gjc8 03:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't see anything proving that he's an agnostic. What's your opinion about this?--Starnold (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


@Starnold: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597314928257169.html Krauss states in this article, "My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.3.242 (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Disagreement on POV, others invited to comment

If you feel that this article has inappropriate liberal point of view, I encourage you to try to improve it, but adding the vague pejorative term "leftist" fails to accomplish that. Furthermore, although it may be the opinion of some that intelligent design is a "scientific hypothesis," it is the opinion of many others that it is an unscientific powerplay intended to insert ultra-conservative Protestant religious dogmas into public school education. Lawrence Krauss's biography is hardly the place to debate such a complicated issue.

Also, did you really mean to say that Krauss opposes intelligent design "as a result of his involvement on the issue with the state school board of Ohio"? If you want this article to criticize Krauss's opposition to intelligent design, the way to do this is to find reliable sources that you can quote, as well as balancing sources expressing the opposite point of view. betsythedevine (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Scientific Work/Experts needed

It seems to me that much of Krauss's notability comes from his impressive scientific output complemented by his teaching, referenced here, which has in turn been the wellspring of his subsequent influence as a public intellectual, academic administrator, and public science policy advisor. Many of the articles listed in his complete publications list are popular rather than scientific, but at least a couple hundred of them are hardcore cosmology and theoretical physics research/reviews. I'm going to try to build a section into the article detailing his scientific work, because at the moment the article makes it difficult to understand why he's such a highly regarded and awarded physicist. If anyone would care to assist in this project, (in particular experts?) please do. --Grapplequip (formerly LAR) (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

My real question is this: What significant discoveries has Krauss made or contributed to? Either he hasn't really discovered much, or he's the most modest guy in the universe, because in spite of his tremendous output, none of the biographies I find of the guy clearly state anything about his scientific achievements. Yet I look at his publication list and see a tremendous amount of technical material that he's put out over the last three decades, in addition to a lot of popular stuff in between. Is any of it notable? This is why an expert is needed. We can't have an article stating foremost that he's "a theoretical physicist" and then not include a damn thing about his actual work. And just to clarify, I'm not saying this as thinly veiled criticism. I like the guy, (you can guess my opinions by looking at my edit history) so I would like to include something more persuasive here about what makes him a notable physicist, assuming he is one. --Grapplequip (formerly LAR) (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

As of today, the most notable thing he has done is to personally co-opt ~20,000 man-years of work by LIGO scientists. I expect it will stand as the high water mark of his career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

"and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture"

This is just silly. What does it even mean? What is the impact of superstition in pop culture? What is the impact of religion in pop culture? How could one work to reduce them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.18.12 (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Citation and more information needed

"In 2006, Krauss led the initiative for the no-confidence vote against Case Western Reserve University's president Edward M. Hundert and provost Anderson by the College of Arts and Sciences faculty. On March 2, 2006, both no-confidence votes were carried: 131–44 against Hundert and 97–68 against Anderson."

This needs a citation. Anderson? Anderson who? There's no first name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.77.247.60 (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Early personal life

It might be possible that Krauss was born in NYC, but supposedly he spent a lot of his childhood in Calgary, Alberta, or at least that is what he told me. Is this wrong? Maybe someone should ask him. --Filll (talk | wpc) 02:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The early life section contains the sentence, "He was reared in a Jewish household." I've changed the word 'reared' to 'raised.' To some people only animals are reared while raised is pretty much accepted everywhere. Thus to some groups that original wording might be a little offensive. I consider it a minor change but didn't mark it as one so that it isn't overlooked if people disagree. MeDrewNotYou (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

"objective morality" - incest debate with Tzortis - in "Atheist activism"

Facts

The following text:

Later, in the wider context of the "wrongness" of homosexuality, the audience protested, when Krauss answered the question "Why is incest wrong?" with "It is not clear to me that it is wrong", and gave an example case, where a simple answer may not be satisfactory.

was "corrected", reverted to:

Later, in the wider context of the "wrongness" of homosexuality, the audience protested, when Krauss answered the question "Why is incest wrong?" with "It is not clear to me that it is wrong", saying that he wouldn't recommend it but may listen to rational arguments concerning the objective morality of such acts.

commenting:

revert unclear sentence to original

original and "unclear" sentence:

OLD: saying that he wouldn't recommend it but may listen to rational arguments concerning the objective morality of such acts.

NEW: and gave an example case, where a simple answer may not be satisfactory.

the NEW-edit was accompanied with the following comment:

krauss in his statement does not use the word objective nor objective morality, usually used by apologetics


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Quessler (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2015

Arguments

Content

What is wrong with:

saying that he wouldn't recommend it but may listen to rational arguments concerning the objective morality of such acts.

  1. Krauss does NOT use the term objective morality
    for a reason, as the term is exclusively used by his opponent and theist apologists in general
    Krauss does not "believe" in objective morality
    in the debate he uses the terms: "absolute condemnation", "absolutely morally wrong"
  2. the "it" falsely suggests that this quote refers to incest in general while, in the context of the debate, in fact, it refers to the example of an incest case given by him,
  3. "rational arguments" in the actual debate does not refer to arguments supporting an absolute incest taboo but rather to arguments against

an absolute incest taboo in the context of the given example

in other words:

saying that he wouldn't recommend it but may listen to rational arguments concerning the objective morality of such acts.

is a "gross" misrepresentation of Krauss' position and the actual debate
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Quessler (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2015

Form

if you hold that

and gave an example case, where a simple answer may not be satisfactory.

is unclear, compared to factually false:

saying that he wouldn't recommend it but may listen to rational arguments concerning the objective morality of such acts.

please provide a "clear" factually correct alternative.

Quessler (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Please note that an adjacent REF contains a youtube video, pointing to the exact start of the "incest" debate.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Quessler (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2015

Criticism section

@I am One of Many: you removed a criticism section I added. What do you mean by 'too early to know'? The Science source says he has been criticized by 3 different astronomers/physicists, all named: Michael Merrifield, Erik Mamajek, and Gabriela González. The criticism has already happened and has been documented. Whether his rumor about the GW detection is true or not is not relevant here. Even if it is true, he would still have received significant criticism for announcing this news early and not leaving that to the discoverers. His rumor has received a lot of attention (I only selected two sources) so I think a small section on this is justified. Just the fact that his criticism happened in the last 6 months is in itself no reason to leave it out based on WP:RECENTISM. Gap9551 (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

See the essay WT:Criticism which explains that such sections are rarely helpful. If there is encyclopedic information it should be integrated into the existing text because articles should not unduly draw attention to what critics have claimed. Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the helpful explanation, Johnuniq. I'll look more carefully into that essay and talk page, but it is good to know there are guidelines saying such section are preferably left out. Gap9551 (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I would also add that the rumor has not even played out yet. His rumor might be correct and that is the reason for WP:RECENTISM. Maybe, if his tweets become an essential part of his notability, then criticism could be included. --I am One of Many (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
As I already mentioned above, the criticism is not about whether the rumor is false of correct. He may be right, but he'd still have 'stolen some of the glory' (to quote some criticism) of the people doing the work. Gap9551 (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
We really do have to be careful about these things. The reason I brought up recentism in addition to BLP, is that it really is too soon in terms of sources to make this an encyclopedic claim. Keep in mind that he just reported what he heard, so if true, it could also be that someone (or more than one) could not keep their mouth shut. Also, he is not the only source of rumors. As of now (things could change), it would be against policy to add this section as criticism. After the announcement on Feb 11, 2016, and depending on the coverage, perhaps the discussion of rumors would be appropriate in LIGO. But, this is getting a little crystal ballish. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

A number of organizations have cancelled his appearance or affiliation, I think it's an appropriate topic for the moment. -Reagle (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The consensus a bit further down this page is that people are waiting for a WP:RS other than BuzzFeed to vet some of the claims in BuzzFeed article. The Gizmodo article does not address the validity of claims. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Pronunciation of surname

Shouldn't there be a pronunciation guide for "Krauss"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearsca (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lawrence M. Krauss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lawrence M. Krauss. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lawrence_Krauss/Archive_1&oldid=1136896620"