Did Stephen Hawking co-author The Grand Design

[william.scherk]

Ellen Stuttle has put forward an interesting thesis in several postings here at Objectivist Living.

Do you have any way of knowing if Stephen Hawking really said what he's said to have said?

Does HE have any way of knowing if what he's said to have said is what he said?

People, just re-issuing a warning I've (briefly) issued before:

You do not know, from anything "Stephen Hawking" is reported as thinking, what Stephen Hawking in fact thinks.

Stephen Hawking has been kept alive for years by extreme means, slowly -- incredibly slowly -- dying from a terrible disease.

He cannot get out of his wheelchair and walk, or even check, and maybe object to, page proofs of a book he's said to have co-authored.

Buyer beware.

What evidence is there that Hawking could co-author a book? "Co-author" in what sense? How? What particulars are given of the details?

I'm not suggesting that Mendelev 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.

-- quoting me and her backchannel communication:

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.

I just don't get it -- your contention that we should hesitate before accepting the idea that Hawking co-authored The Grand Design with Leonard Mlodinow.

Here is what I wrote on that point backchannel . . .

The advanced epistemological stuff makes my eyes glaze (e.g., anything like 'how do we know we know what we think we know he knows he knows'), and I don't think that was what you are getting at. For me, it's a point of curiosity -- IF you think he doesn't have control over what goes out in his name, IF . . . I simply wonder how you came to suspect he doesn't.

Now you have permission to let us know, should you choose to do so, how you got to this bizarre place . . . the answer you gave backstage was pretty feeble.

Your quote above was from your note continuing the topic backchannel after I'd indicated that it would be a few days before I could respond on-list. Here is the "pretty feeble" answer I gave:

1) the realities of his situation;

2) the supposed product;

3) a lot of scuttlebutt which is talked about sotte voce and

indirectly in the physics community.

[ . . . ]

Plus, in response to your saying that you "think the general question of how he gets his thoughts out has been answered," I responded:

I beg to differ. The Guardian interview you cited, I think,

should give considerable pause to the idea that Hawking

could "co-author," in any meaningful sense of writing a

book, what's published as "co-authored" by Hawking.

OK, he got out a coherent, consecutive SIMPLE thought -- in

20 minutes. Imagine trying to get out complicated physics.

I responded backstage:

I put the most cogent questions and material I could come up with on list re: Hawking, so I prefer to have the discussion there, if you don't mind. I wish you would answer there.

Wishes. Horses.

The post we both refer to . . .

What evidence is there that Hawking could co-author a book? "Co-author" in what sense? How? What particulars are given of the details?

Are you suggesting that Hawking's disability prevents him from expressing himself, or that any production in print or on stage/video is suspect in some way? If yes, if as it seems you consider that the productions in his name are suspect, can you give us an idea of what you think happens between him and the apparatus he appears to use?

Have you ever watched Hawking in recent video, Ellen, seen or read of him in action answering questions from an interviewer or audience?

If you are wondering what story is told to explain his synthesized speech productions, and his abilities to use language, there is a page on his website, under the title "Prof Stephen Hawking's Disability Advice."

If you watch a recent video of Hawking 'speaking' through his voice synthesizer, you can see that the only thing that he moves on his body is his right cheek. I have also seen a video of him answering questions recently, which did not edit out the entire time it takes him to answer a question put to him. The video crew showed the screen that he watched. As far as I could tell, the synthesizer is no simple 'hunt and peck' device. In any case, there have been a few cases of folks who have been paralyzed by cerebral accident who have used computers to 'write' . . . I will try to find a reference for you if you like.

I am very interested in your reply. I wonder what kinds of material -- if anything -- might satisfy your skepticism that a production labeled "Stephen Hawking" is actually a production of the man himself.

There is a relatively recent (March 2010) report from BBC that should interest you. See the video of "Giving Stephen Hawking A Voice." There are some other enlightening stories on communication devices and strategies for disabled people on the same page.

PS -- see also an article in the Guardian in which the reporter claims to have interviewed Hawking. I give just a brief excerpt to entice readers who doubt the man can communicate/write/think in consecutive, coherent thought. Those not paralyzed by doubt, who are yet capable of coherent consecutive action, can use Google to find the whole dang thing . . .

"Behind his shoulder, his assistant nods. There will now

be some time for live questions. Stupidly, given that I

have read all about it, I fail to realise just how

arduous and time-consuming the process of live

communication is. If I did, I wouldn't squander the

time on asking a joke, warm-up question. I tell him I

have heard he has six different voices on his

synthesizer and that one is a woman's. Hawking lowers

his eyes and starts responding. After five minutes of

silence the nurse sitting beside me closes her eyes and

appears to go to sleep. I look around. On the

windowsill are framed photos stretching back through

Hawking's life. There are photos of one of his

daughters with her baby. I notice Hawking's hands are

thin and tapering. He is wearing black suede Kickers.

Another five minutes pass. There are pictures of

Marilyn Monroe on the wall, one of which has been

digitally manipulated to feature Hawking in the

foreground. I see a card printed with the slogan: "Yes,

I am the centre of the universe." I write it down and

turn the page in my notebook. It makes a tearing sound

and the nurse's eyes snap open. She goes over to

Hawking and, putting her hand on his head, says, "Now

then, Stephen," and gently wipes saliva from the side

of his mouth. Another five minutes pass. Then another.

Hawking's assistant, who sits behind him to see what is

going on on his screen, nods slightly. Here it comes:

"That was true of one speech synthesizer I had. But the

one I use normally has only one voice. It is 20 years

old, but I stick to it because I haven't found better

and because I'm known by it worldwide." That's it? The

fruit of 20 minutes' effort? This man is a Hercules."

NB -- the purported co-author is Mlodinow, not Mendelev.

If you want to continue this, please copy all the posts on the subject from this thread -- where they're very intrusive -- to the "David Harriman's Book" thread, where the exchange between you and me started. Not that the subject really belongs there either, but at least it's less of a thread hijack there since it came up sort of naturally.

Whether I'll reply further should you choose to continue, I don't know. Depends on how you continue, if you do, and on whether I have time.

I will repeat perhaps the central question to Ellen:

I wonder what kinds of material -- if anything -- might satisfy your skepticism that a production labeled "Stephen Hawking" is actually a production of the man himself.

[william.scherk]

I found a topical note purported to be 'written' by Stephen Hawking, from "My Experience with ALS."

For a time, the only way I could communicate was to spell out words

letter by letter, by raising my eyebrows when someone pointed to the

right letter on a spelling card. It is pretty difficult to carry on a

conversation like that, let alone write a scientific paper. However,

a computer expert in California, called Walt Woltosz, heard of my

plight. He sent me a computer program he had written, called

Equalizer. This allowed me to select words from a series of menus on

the screen, by pressing a switch in my hand. The program could also

be controlled by a switch, operated by head or eye movement. When I

have built up what I want to say, I can send it to a speech

synthesizer. At first, I just ran the Equalizer program on a desk top

computer.

However David Mason, of Cambridge Adaptive Communication, fitted a

small portable computer and a speech synthesizer to my wheel chair.

This system allowed me to communicate much better than I could

before. I can manage up to 15 words a minute. I can either speak what

I have written, or save it to disk. I can then print it out, or call

it back and speak it sentence by sentence. Using this system, I have

written a book, and dozens of scientific papers. I have also given

many scientific and popular talks.

[kiaer.ts]

Ellen Stuttle has put forward an interesting thesis in several postings here at Objectivist Living.

Do you have any way of knowing if Stephen Hawking really said what he's said to have said?

Does HE have any way of knowing if what he's said to have said is what he said?

People, just re-issuing a warning I've (briefly) issued before:

You do not know, from anything "Stephen Hawking" is reported as thinking, what Stephen Hawking in fact thinks.

Stephen Hawking has been kept alive for years by extreme means, slowly -- incredibly slowly -- dying from a terrible disease.

He cannot get out of his wheelchair and walk, or even check, and maybe object to, page proofs of a book he's said to have co-authored.

Buyer beware.

What evidence is there that Hawking could co-author a book? "Co-author" in what sense? How? What particulars are given of the details?

I'm not suggesting that Mendelev 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.

-- quoting me and her backchannel communication:

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.

I just don't get it -- your contention that we should hesitate before accepting the idea that Hawking co-authored The Grand Design with Leonard Mlodinow.

Here is what I wrote on that point backchannel . . .

The advanced epistemological stuff makes my eyes glaze (e.g., anything like 'how do we know we know what we think we know he knows he knows'), and I don't think that was what you are getting at. For me, it's a point of curiosity -- IF you think he doesn't have control over what goes out in his name, IF . . . I simply wonder how you came to suspect he doesn't.

Now you have permission to let us know, should you choose to do so, how you got to this bizarre place . . . the answer you gave backstage was pretty feeble.

Your quote above was from your note continuing the topic backchannel after I'd indicated that it would be a few days before I could respond on-list. Here is the "pretty feeble" answer I gave:

1) the realities of his situation;

2) the supposed product;

3) a lot of scuttlebutt which is talked about sotte voce and

indirectly in the physics community.

[ . . . ]

Plus, in response to your saying that you "think the general question of how he gets his thoughts out has been answered," I responded:

I beg to differ. The Guardian interview you cited, I think,

should give considerable pause to the idea that Hawking

could "co-author," in any meaningful sense of writing a

book, what's published as "co-authored" by Hawking.

OK, he got out a coherent, consecutive SIMPLE thought -- in

20 minutes. Imagine trying to get out complicated physics.

I responded backstage:

I put the most cogent questions and material I could come up with on list re: Hawking, so I prefer to have the discussion there, if you don't mind. I wish you would answer there.

Wishes. Horses.

The post we both refer to . . .

What evidence is there that Hawking could co-author a book? "Co-author" in what sense? How? What particulars are given of the details?

Are you suggesting that Hawking's disability prevents him from expressing himself, or that any production in print or on stage/video is suspect in some way? If yes, if as it seems you consider that the productions in his name are suspect, can you give us an idea of what you think happens between him and the apparatus he appears to use?

Have you ever watched Hawking in recent video, Ellen, seen or read of him in action answering questions from an interviewer or audience?

If you are wondering what story is told to explain his synthesized speech productions, and his abilities to use language, there is a page on his website, under the title "Prof Stephen Hawking's Disability Advice."

If you watch a recent video of Hawking 'speaking' through his voice synthesizer, you can see that the only thing that he moves on his body is his right cheek. I have also seen a video of him answering questions recently, which did not edit out the entire time it takes him to answer a question put to him. The video crew showed the screen that he watched. As far as I could tell, the synthesizer is no simple 'hunt and peck' device. In any case, there have been a few cases of folks who have been paralyzed by cerebral accident who have used computers to 'write' . . . I will try to find a reference for you if you like.

I am very interested in your reply. I wonder what kinds of material -- if anything -- might satisfy your skepticism that a production labeled "Stephen Hawking" is actually a production of the man himself.

There is a relatively recent (March 2010) report from BBC that should interest you. See the video of "Giving Stephen Hawking A Voice." There are some other enlightening stories on communication devices and strategies for disabled people on the same page.

PS -- see also an article in the Guardian in which the reporter claims to have interviewed Hawking. I give just a brief excerpt to entice readers who doubt the man can communicate/write/think in consecutive, coherent thought. Those not paralyzed by doubt, who are yet capable of coherent consecutive action, can use Google to find the whole dang thing . . .

"Behind his shoulder, his assistant nods. There will now

be some time for live questions. Stupidly, given that I

have read all about it, I fail to realise just how

arduous and time-consuming the process of live

communication is. If I did, I wouldn't squander the

time on asking a joke, warm-up question. I tell him I

have heard he has six different voices on his

synthesizer and that one is a woman's. Hawking lowers

his eyes and starts responding. After five minutes of

silence the nurse sitting beside me closes her eyes and

appears to go to sleep. I look around. On the

windowsill are framed photos stretching back through

Hawking's life. There are photos of one of his

daughters with her baby. I notice Hawking's hands are

thin and tapering. He is wearing black suede Kickers.

Another five minutes pass. There are pictures of

Marilyn Monroe on the wall, one of which has been

digitally manipulated to feature Hawking in the

foreground. I see a card printed with the slogan: "Yes,

I am the centre of the universe." I write it down and

turn the page in my notebook. It makes a tearing sound

and the nurse's eyes snap open. She goes over to

Hawking and, putting her hand on his head, says, "Now

then, Stephen," and gently wipes saliva from the side

of his mouth. Another five minutes pass. Then another.

Hawking's assistant, who sits behind him to see what is

going on on his screen, nods slightly. Here it comes:

"That was true of one speech synthesizer I had. But the

one I use normally has only one voice. It is 20 years

old, but I stick to it because I haven't found better

and because I'm known by it worldwide." That's it? The

fruit of 20 minutes' effort? This man is a Hercules."

NB -- the purported co-author is Mlodinow, not Mendelev.

If you want to continue this, please copy all the posts on the subject from this thread -- where they're very intrusive -- to the "David Harriman's Book" thread, where the exchange between you and me started. Not that the subject really belongs there either, but at least it's less of a thread hijack there since it came up sort of naturally.

Whether I'll reply further should you choose to continue, I don't know. Depends on how you continue, if you do, and on whether I have time.

I will repeat perhaps the central question to Ellen:

I wonder what kinds of material -- if anything -- might satisfy your skepticism that a production labeled "Stephen Hawking" is actually a production of the man himself.

Talk about Herculean.

If only there were someone here to appreciate all the pretty nested boxes.

[william.scherk]

If only there were someone here to appreciate all the pretty nested boxes.

I don't mind if you don't appreciate the pretty nested boxes, Ted. I was trying my best to follow Ellen's request that I pull together the relevant posts in one place.

I wonder -- do you have an opinion on the topic?

[Brant Gaede]

We over eat on Thanksgiving, but we don't start by sticking the whole turkey inrto our mouths all at once.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

I see now it's all Ellen's fault.

--Brant

shame, shame, shame

[kiaer.ts]

If only there were someone here to appreciate all the pretty nested boxes.

I don't mind if you don't appreciate the pretty nested boxes, Ted. I was trying my best to follow Ellen's request that I pull together the relevant posts in one place.

I wonder -- do you have an opinion on the topic?

I was certainly not picking on you, but amazed that you had the patience. I understood Ellen's concerns, but if he can communicate at a rate of 15wpm for any real extended period, then he can speak for himself. I have seen a documentary of him preparing a speech ahead of time. The voice synthesizer says very quickly what it takes him quite some time to compose. I hope he has a good lawyer.

Edited October 9, 2010 by Ted Keer

[william.scherk]

I understood Ellen's concerns, but if he can communicate at a rate of 15wpm for any real extended period, then he can speak for himself. I have seen a documentary of him preparing a speech ahead of time. The voice synthesizer says very quickly what it takes him quite some time to compose.

As was pointed out to me backchannel by a couple of folks, asking 'how we could know' Hawking writes his books is not an illicit question. In an attempt to find out the answer I came across the story of 'locked in' writer, Jean-Dominique Bauby, whose story is told in a New York Times book review. Here is an excerpt from that review.

His time "as a perfectly functioning earthling" ended, one might

say, in the blink of an eye. But it was blinking -- that age-old

image of heedless speed turned into literal, concentrated labor --

that saved Bauby from becoming just another object in the room. By

moving his left eyelid in response to an alphabet rearranged

according to the letters' frequency of use, Bauby managed to write a

book as moving as Job's and as expansive, in its way, as any composed

by the wheelchaired, boundless Stephen Hawking.

Jean-Dominique Bauby was the victim of a stroke that left his mind

and one eye functioning -- enough to enable him to dictate "The

Diving Suit and the Butterfly" to Claude Mendibil before dying of

heart failure.

"It is a simple enough system," he explains. "You read off the

alphabet . . . until, with a blink of my eye, I stop you at the

letter to be noted. The maneuver is repeated for the letters that

follow, so that fairly soon you have a whole word." Fairly soon!

Less soon when the amanuensis anticipates and makes mistakes: "One

day when, attempting to ask for my glasses (lunettes), I was asked

what I wanted to do with the moon (lune)."

I don't expect Ellen to defend her contentions here, or rather, I don't think she will assemble a coherent, well-referenced argument that deals with objections raised to her implacable skepticism. I suspect she hasn't thought much about the ways in which a functioning mind can struggle through obstacles to express itself. It is a funny thing.

In the next couple of decades, the arduous techniques by which Bauby and Hawking transcended their disabilities will likely be replaced by ever more wonderful technology.

The creative mind and its abilities to devise, marshall and express extremely complex thoughts -- this is a wonderful, awe-inspiring capacity to me. It saddens me that Ellen apparently cannot conceive of any mind that will battle through grave disabilities to get its intricate interior productions out to the rest of us -- I think of the prodigious feats of memory in which ancient and present-day bards compose and retain vast 'books' of poetry -- without recourse to written language at all. |I think of the prodigies of modern-day 'Memory Palace' competitions and of Matteo Ricci and many score historical prodigies, and I wonder if she makes her own mind the measure of humankind.

At root, Ellen seems to doubt that any human being can be such a titan, whether locked in by disability or not.

Edited October 9, 2010 by william.scherk

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....] I understood Ellen's concerns,

I'm glad someone did.

but if [Hawking] can communicate at a rate of 15wpm for any real extended period, then he can speak for himself.

Can he still do that? The material about his experiences with ALS linked in post #2 was from while Hawking was still married to his first wife, Jane, from whom he was divorced in 1991. He subsequently married Elaine Mason in 1995. He divorced from her in 2006. There are many reports of his having been abused -- Googling "Stephen Hawking divorce" (without the quote marks) turns up multiple stories.

I have seen a documentary of him preparing a speech ahead of time. The voice synthesizer says very quickly what it takes him quite some time to compose.

I don't doubt that prodigious feats have been performed by Hawking in the past in conjunction with the help of a lot of high-tech equipment. I doubt regarding current productions. My point regarding the present book was just to warn people against holding Hawking to blame for the gaffes and ridiculing him when it's impossible to know if he's the responsible party.

I hope he has a good lawyer.

Probably he does. I don't have a lawyer, good or otherwise, and am not interested in needing one, although WSS seems set on pushing me into saying something actionable.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....] I suspect [Ellen] hasn't thought much about the ways in which a functioning mind can struggle through obstacles to express itself. It is a funny thing.

[....]

The creative mind and its abilities to devise, marshall and express extremely complex thoughts -- this is a wonderful, awe-inspiring capacity to me. It saddens me that Ellen apparently cannot conceive of any mind that will battle through grave disabilities to get its intricate interior productions out to the rest of us -- [...].

At root, Ellen seems to doubt that any human being can be such a titan, whether locked in by disability or not.

Wow, you really don't get my concern. Please re-read the material from me you have quoted. Please recall my asking you backchannel if you meant what you said re blame re Hawking. My point has nothing to do with whether people can perform feats despite disability. I've even edited a guy with locked-in syndrome, who expressed thoughts I found profoundly worth the effort of working with him.

My point, one time more, is that I don't like seeing a person in Hawking's horrible situation being blamed for what might not be (and I sincerely hope aren't) his errors.

Ellen

[william.scherk]

My point, one time more, is that I don't like seeing a person in Hawking's horrible situation being blamed for what might not be (and I sincerely hope aren't) his errors.

Well, that was easy. Maybe you would like to point out the errors you have found in a book that you apparently haven't read yet. We can then blame them on both authors, and poor Hawking will just have to somehow live through the horror.

I am on page 29. Have I yet passed the point where my BS detector should have given a mighty 'ping'?

[Ellen Stuttle]

Maybe you would like to point out the errors you have found in a book that you apparently haven't read yet. We can then blame them on both authors, and poor Hawking will just have to somehow live through the horror.

I've read most of it. I would not like to get into a discussion of the errors, no.

Ellen

[Starbuckle]

"At root, Ellen seems to doubt that any human being can be such a titan, whether locked in by disability or not."

Wow.

[kiaer.ts]

I said if.

[Ellen Stuttle]

"At root, Ellen seems to doubt that any human being can be such a titan, whether locked in by disability or not."

Wow.

Starbuckle,

Would you mind explaining your "Wow"?

Are you accepting WSS's description of my attitude and saying "Wow" at someone who would have such an attitude? Or are you wowing the extent of the unwarranted presumption? Or maybe there's some other explanation I'm not thinking of.

Ellen

PS to Ted: I'd noticed that you said "if."

[william.scherk]

I withdraw that remark and strike it out. If Ellen has worked with a 'locked-in' person and understood that a disability like ALS or stroke does not dim a mind or crimp its powers, then I am obviously wrong to impute to her the attitude in the 'wow' phrase. My apologies to Ellen for the over-the top remark.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I withdraw that remark and strike it out. If Ellen has worked with a 'locked-in' person and understood that a disability like ALS or stroke does not dim a mind or crimp its powers, then I am obviously wrong to impute to her the attitude in the 'wow' phrase. My apologies to Ellen for the over-the top remark.

William,

That's the sort of apology which puts the person apologized to in an awkward spot by not really recognizing what needs to be apologized for. It's hardly just that concluding line which you've stricken out. The whole post is of the same tenor. Plus there's the very fact of your misjudgment to begin with in so misinterpreting the source of my concern. I honestly don't understand how someone reading my two short comments which set you off could have interpreted them as anything other than a dislike at seeing Hawking being ridiculed possibly unjustly. Even after I told you off-list what was bothering me, you still didn't see it but instead came after me in an unrelated thread, never mind my having told you I was busy, and then you wouldn't allow me to quote your backchannel comments which provided the context in which I'd replied to you.

I appreciate and thank you for the impetus to apologize, but it's sort of like apologizing for stepping on a person's toe when you've just gashed the person's leg -- or something of that sort.

Ellen

A PS about this particular detail: "a disability like ALS or stroke does not dim a mind or crimp its powers." That's too broad. Certainly such disabilities "dim a mind or crimp its powers" to varying degrees and extents depending on severity and progression. Strokes, for instance, can leave people much diminished mentally. Depends on the stroke.

Specifically pertaining to Hawking's circumstances, I do doubt that Hawking's powers are still what they were 20 years ago, even 10 years ago. To begin with -- proof of the pudding -- the output has diminished in caliber. In terms of his bodily condition, his progressive loss of motor control has gotten worse -- one of your own sources said he's reduced to just a few cheek muscles now. He requires intrusive medical help regularly, I don't know how often per day, because of the tracheotomy. From anything I can judge from my own experience, this would interfere with carrying through on thought trains. He was reportedly -- many public reports agree on this -- physically abused numerous times by his second wife. There might have been non-visible as well as visible injury resultant.

In short, the possible mental effects of Hawking's condition aren't limited to two extremes -- no dimming or crimping of the mind's powers on the one hand, or rendered mentally incompetent on the other.

What I know about the "pudding" test in Hawking's case is that the output supposedly by (or co-authored by) Hawking has become rather embarrassing to a number of physicists I know who respect the physicist Hawking was.

You somewhere got the idea that I "apparently" hadn't read The Grand Design. (I've been reading it, haven't finished it yet.) Maybe what you were remembering was my saying that I'd heard there are errors in A Brief History of Time, but I haven't read that book myself. The sort of errors I was thinking of in the earlier book are a "reasonable" type. Errors happen in books. But what I'm thinking of regarding the new book is different.

A Brief History of Time marked a change in Hawking's perceived status. Before then he was respected by the physics community and considered worth extra effort and ingenuity helping him try to communicate. Afterward, along with becoming well-to-do from the book's sales, he became an exploitable public commodity. He isn't the extent of icon Einstein was, and his name hasn't Einstein's degree of public recognition. But his name -- and his plight -- are pretty well known, and his has become a name which, affixed to an idea, has a way of giving that idea "cachet." This means possibilities of using his name in hype fashions.

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.

[George H. Smith]

I withdraw that remark and strike it out. If Ellen has worked with a 'locked-in' person and understood that a disability like ALS or stroke does not dim a mind or crimp its powers, then I am obviously wrong to impute to her the attitude in the 'wow' phrase. My apologies to Ellen for the over-the top remark.

William,

That's the sort of apology which puts the person apologized to in an awkward spot by not really recognizing what needs to be apologized for....

Bill has now found out first-hand what I discovered some time ago when I attempted to apologize to Ellen for an over-the-top remark, namely, that Ellen is very particular about which apologies she will accept. Ellen, like Jesus, demands that you ask forgiveness for all your sins, whether real or imagined. I'm not sure whether you need to list each and every sin, so she can be satisfied that you are truly repentant. Perhaps you could ask for a blanket absolution and see if that works. But you may need to buy some rosary beads.

Ghs

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen, like Jesus, demands that you ask forgiveness for all your sins [...].

No, George, only for the relevant ones (and I don't think in terms of "sins").

Ellen

[Jonathan]

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

[Ellen Stuttle]

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?

I think there are understandable reasons which aren't issues of spinelessness. In some cases, maybe "spineless" is accurate.

Plus, in some cases, there are vested interests in pushing lines similar to those in the book.

Repeating something I said on a different thread, there needs to be a complete separation of science and state.

Adding: There's resistance against any such solution from multiple angles and sets of vested interests, combined with the general tendency of physicists to be liberal in politics.

Ellen

[George H. Smith]

Ellen, like Jesus, demands that you ask forgiveness for all your sins [...].

No, George, only for the relevant ones (and I don't think in terms of "sins").

Ellen

Apologies, if offered sincerely, are never irrelevant. 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.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

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

[George H. Smith]

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

Everyone who has done a lot of posting on the Internet probably feels that he or she is owed an apology by someone for something. Apologies don't happen very often, however, so to lecture someone about how his apology is not relevant enough or comprehensive enough is like bitching when one wins a lottery for one million dollars instead of five million.

Ghs

[Robert Campbell]

Brant,

Not to worry—I've kept my breakfast down.

But Lindsay Perigo is one of the last people to whom I'd apologize for anything.

Robert Campbell