Did Stephen Hawking co-author The Grand Design

[PDS]

Marginally on topic: Bauby's The Butterfly and Diving Bell is a wonderful read, and endorsement of how precious life is.

[Xray]

I actually apologized to Lindsay Perigo. He accepted my apology.

He had/has a lot more to apologize to me for than I him. I made up for that by not posting there any more.

--Brant

John Wayne: "Never apologize. It's a sign of weakness."

I think I made Robert up-chuck his breakfast (tomorrow morning)

I'm sorry, Robert

John Wayne: "Never apologize. It's a sign of weakness."

I would say it's more a sign of bad manners and lack of empathy if a person never apologizes.

I cannot tell you certainly that that's what's going on with this new book. But I have strong suspicions -- added to by stuff I hear, as I said, mostly sotto voce and indirectly, from people in the physics community. There's a reluctance, which I think is very understandable, to say anything outright which might cast discredit on Hawking. On the other hand...the book produces some squirms. Point, I hope, made. This board can be Googled. I won't name or quote my sources.

I don't understand the reluctance to discuss Hawking's (or whoever's) alleged errors. If the math and science are wrong -- and embarrassingly so, to the point of causing "squirms" -- shouldn't standing up and saying so be the only thing that is important to physicists? Ellen, are you suggesting that the physics community is so spineless that they're willing to silence themselves and allow bad science to become popular and prevalent so as not to be accused of picking on a handicapped man?

J

I don't understand the reluctance either to discuss the alleged errors of the book.

Ellen - just curious: would the thought of a 'multiverse' bother you? If yes, why?

Short article on Hawking's theory by cosmologist Lawrence Krauss: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703946504575469653720549936.html

Krauss's new book: A Universe from Nothing will be published in 2011.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Xray

[william.scherk]

I don't understand the reluctance to discuss Hawking's (or whoever's) alleged errors. If the math and science are wrong -- and embarrassingly so, to the point of causing "squirms" -- shouldn't standing up and saying so be the only thing that is important to physicists? Ellen, are you suggesting that the physics community is so spineless that they're willing to silence themselves and allow bad science to become popular and prevalent so as not to be accused of picking on a handicapped man?

Jonathan, Ellen's murky opinions are based on gossip.

She won't cite any errors in Hawking's products, let alone discuss them. Since she won't cite or discuss specifics, we can push her own product into the bin labelled 'tittle-tattle.'

I was initially curious about her murky 'warnings.' How did she get to the place of believing Hawking had a crippled mind, I wondered -- how had she formed that belief?

There are interesting and detailed critiques of The Grand Design recently published, and no doubt more to come. Some of Hawking's peers take issue with the scope and detail of his books. Hawking's peers discuss his work in physics journals. These are interesting. Ellen's retailing of sotto voce mumbles are not.

She has nothing pertinent or useful to say about Hawking, in my opinion.

[william.scherk]

Marginally on topic: Bauby's The Butterfly and Diving Bell is a wonderful read, and endorsement of how precious life is.

Very much on topic, I think. Ellen Stuttle has expressed strong doubt that Hawking is responsible for anything that has his name affixed to it. She goes so far as to warn readers that they mustn't take Hawking to task for anything that has appeared under his name, since no one could ever tell if he was actually responsible . . .

I have only read excerpts and reviews of Bauby's book (and the film based on his book).

Curiously, Ellen claims to have worked on a similar literary production (which begs the question of how she would know the locked-in guy was responsible for the output she claims to have blue-pencilled):

I've even edited a guy with locked-in syndrome.

Frankly, I have doubts that Ellen had any connection with such a writing project. If she really had, I would have expected she would have applied the same epistemological waffle to such a product as she applied to Hawking, would have had grave doubts that she could know such 'a guy' could be said to be responsible.

Especially given her uninformed 'warning' (emphasis added):

"I'm not suggesting that Mendelev

(sic)

just up and wrote a book and put Hawking's name as "co-author." He'd have needed compliance and help from Hawking's caretakers/keepers.

I'm claiming that there's no way anyone could know what Hawking really thinks of what's published in his name, if he even knows all of what that is -- and if he's even still capable of coherent consecutive thought

. Do you believe that someone who, as Baal graphically described one of the details of Hawking's plight, "has to be aspirated frequently or he will drown in his own spit" would be capable of doing a whole lot of detailed mathematical analysis? I don't.

"

I suspect she made up the reference to 'a guy.' Of course we will never know . . .

Edited October 11, 2010 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

Here is the BBC video I referenced in an earlier post. Pertinent to the question "Did Stephen Hawking co-author The Grand Design?"<br><br>

<object width="737" height="542"><param name="movie" value="http://www.bbc.co.uk/emp/external/player.swf"></param><param'>http://www.bbc.co.uk/emp/external/player.swf"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><param name="FlashVars" value="playlist=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ebbc%2Eco%2Euk%2Fworldservice%2Fmeta%2Fdps%2F2010%2F03%2Femp%2F100312%5Fblackburn%5Fvideo%2Eemp%2Exml&config_settings_skin=silver&config_settings_showFooter=true&"></param><embed src="http://www.bbc.co.uk/emp/external/player.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="737" height="542" FlashVars="playlist=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ebbc%2Eco%2Euk%2Fworldservice%2Fmeta%2Fdps%2F2010%2F03%2Femp%2F100312%5Fblackburn%5Fvideo%2Eemp%2Exml&config_settings_skin=silver&config_settings_showFooter=true&"></embed></object>

[Ellen Stuttle]

Very much on topic, I think. Ellen Stuttle has expressed strong doubt that Hawking is responsible for anything that has his name affixed to it. She goes so far as to warn readers that they mustn't take Hawking to task for anything that has appeared under his name, since no one could ever tell if he was actually responsible . . ..

No, I did not "[express] strong doubt that Hawking is responsible for anything that has his name affixed to it." The context of my remarks clearly pertained to current work, which was being discussed when I first commented. Nor did I say any such thing as "mustn't." Nor, actually, did I say "no one could ever tell." Presumably his listed co-author and those in Hawking's close circle know what went on in producing the book.

Ellen

[Mikee]

"Of course we will never know . . ."

Speaking of making things up. You should write a novel William.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I don't understand the reluctance either to discuss the alleged errors of the book.

It's not an issue of reluctance. It's an issue of time.

I told William in the backchannel exchange, (1) that I was having a dental operation the next day (i.e., last Monday -- I'm just about past the worst of the pain at this point); and (2) that this time of year (up to Thanksgiving) is an extremely busy one for me. Apparently nothing will do as far as William is concerned but that I put my schedule on hold to comply with his desire for ANSWERS NOW.

One result of all this is that I will never again reply to an off-list note sent to me by William Scott Scherk on any subject, no matter how seemingly innocuous -- what started the exchange in this case was just his sending me some URL's I'd requested (on-line) re TFT, and he added some comments, to which I replied. Then a few notes later I told him about the dental surgery coming up and about the busy schedule and added (this was the first mention of Hawking in the off-list exchange -- William had meanwhile asked me some questions on-line):

I'm sort of wishing I hadn't mentioned the Hawking

issue, since that gets into a huge can of worms and there's

a limit to what I want to say on-line. (On the other hand,

I don't like seeing Hawking blamed for crud published in his

name.) Please bear with if I don't get back on that for a

few days.

Instead he brought the subject in, using a really bad analogy, on an unrelated thread -- and has now progressed to untrue claims about what I think. Not enticing.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Apologies, if offered sincerely, are never irrelevant.

A silly statement.

Refusal to to "accept" one merely shows a lack of class. Next time, if there is a next time, try saying "Thank you" -- and then shut the fuck up.

Next time, if there is a next time, if it's similar in "essentials" to the incident which apparently still rankles you (else why would you have brought it in on this thread?), I expect I'll respond the same, if I respond at all (if there is a next time).

Ellen

[George H. Smith]

Apologies, if offered sincerely, are never irrelevant.

A silly statement.

Refusal to to "accept" one merely shows a lack of class. Next time, if there is a next time, try saying "Thank you" -- and then shut the fuck up.

Next time, if there is a next time, if it's similar in "essentials" to the incident which apparently still rankles you (else why would you have brought it in on this thread?), I expect I'll respond the same, if I respond at all (if there is a next time).

Ellen

Your response to my apology surprised me; that's all. I commented on this thread because I didn't think you would run the self-righteous prissy play a second time. Perhaps your next tactic will be to demand that questions be properly and politely worded before you will deign to answer.

I recall the day when you were willing to get in the mud and wrestle with anyone, Devil take the hindmost. I hadn't realized that you had risen through the ranks to Bitch-Queen of OL. I liked the earlier Ellen a lot better.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Apologies, if offered sincerely, are never irrelevant.

A silly statement.

My observation is silly only to someone who is so literal-minded as not to understand how apologies serve a number of useful functions in Internet exchanges. For example, they often serve as an olive branch, an indication that a person wishes to cool down a heated exchange before it gets out of hand.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

One result of all this is that I will never again reply to an off-list note sent to me by William Scott Scherk on any subject, no matter how seemingly innocuous...

We can only hope that Bill will recover someday from this terrible blow.

My mother used to use my middle name when she was scolding me as well. But you forgot the "Mr."

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNxHJWGyGK8?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNxHJWGyGK8?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNxHJWGyGK8?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Ghs

[Ellen Stuttle]

I recall the day when you were willing to get in the mud and wrestle with anyone, Devil take the hindmost. I hadn't realized that you had risen through the ranks to Bitch-Queen of OL. I liked the earlier Ellen a lot better.

Ghs

George,

I have posts from nearly ten years ago in which you responded to "the earlier Ellen" with language almost identical to your current responses.

And I was never "willing to get in the mud and wrestle with anyone [...]."

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

I told William in the backchannel exchange, (1) that I was having a dental operation the next day (i.e., last Monday -- I'm just about past the worst of the pain at this point); and (2) that this time of year (up to Thanksgiving) is an extremely busy one for me. Apparently nothing will do as far as William is concerned but that I put my schedule on hold to comply with his desire for ANSWERS NOW.

Is it safe?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

George,

I have posts from nearly ten years ago in which you responded to "the earlier Ellen" with language almost identical to your current responses.

And I was never "willing to get in the mud and wrestle with anyone [...]."

I prefer oil. Bear grease will do in a pinch if it's not rancid.

--Brant

5w-30w