Author Topic: Lawrence Krauss  (Read 1810 times)

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30897
Re: Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #125 on: January 10, 2019, 09:34:55 PM »
Are you denying Krauss admits redefinition?
Yep, in any sense you mean it. And I doubt Krauss thinks he is physics so even at the misrepresentation  level you are working at  here, that would just be misrepresentation squared

Phyllis Tyne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24586
  • We're doomed, doomed.
Re: Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #126 on: January 10, 2019, 10:07:54 PM »
Yep, in any sense you mean it. And I doubt Krauss thinks he is physics so even at the misrepresentation  level you are working at  here, that would just be misrepresentation squared
Check back
I said Krauss admits redefinition in response to your claim that the word nothing had not been redefined.

You were rumbled and don't like it.

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30897
Re: Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #127 on: January 10, 2019, 10:43:01 PM »
Check back
I said Krauss admits redefinition in response to your claim that the word nothing had not been redefined.

You were rumbled and don't like it.
Incorrect. Nothing has different meanings. That you appear to be unable a coherent view of your nothing is just your issue.

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10225
Re: Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #128 on: January 11, 2019, 03:08:42 PM »
Do you think it would be more appropriate to talk about Krausses conduct in the context of conduct in antitheism or in the context of conduct in academic science?
We in reality we either talk about Krause and his case in isolation or we talk about the wider issues of conduct in academic research (note not just science) or in the context of the non religious activist community.

And in the broader context I think the only meaningful topic would be about the academic research community. Why - because there is undoubtedly evidence of a culture within those communities (academic research) which may be conducive to inappropriate behaviours (whether bullying or harassment).

To my mind there is no reasonable debate with the non religious activist community/prominent antitheist community (call it what you like) simply because there is not coherent and meaningful community which rules, conventions etc of a size that leads to a cultural behaviour.

So there are examples of inappropriate behaviours amongst academic researchers, amongst priests, amongst antitheists, within Hollywood etc etc - but only where there is a cultural and institutionalised system that supports and/or facilitates certain behaviours is it reasonable to broad it beyond the individual and into the culture. So that is appropriate for academic research communities, it is for Hollywood, it is for the various churches and religious organisation, but not for antitheists (call them what you like) because that established community doesn't exist.

Phyllis Tyne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24586
  • We're doomed, doomed.
Re: Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #129 on: January 11, 2019, 03:56:19 PM »
We in reality we either talk about Krause and his case in isolation or we talk about the wider issues of conduct in academic research (note not just science) or in the context of the non religious activist community.

And in the broader context I think the only meaningful topic would be about the academic research community. Why - because there is undoubtedly evidence of a culture within those communities (academic research) which may be conducive to inappropriate behaviours (whether bullying or harassment).

To my mind there is no reasonable debate with the non religious activist community/prominent antitheist community (call it what you like) simply because there is not coherent and meaningful community which rules, conventions etc of a size that leads to a cultural behaviour.

So there are examples of inappropriate behaviours amongst academic researchers, amongst priests, amongst antitheists, within Hollywood etc etc - but only where there is a cultural and institutionalised system that supports and/or facilitates certain behaviours is it reasonable to broad it beyond the individual and into the culture. So that is appropriate for academic research communities, it is for Hollywood, it is for the various churches and religious organisation, but not for antitheists (call them what you like) because that established community doesn't exist.
I take issue with your thesis bout there being no antitheist community. It sounds like the first rule of fight club.

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10225
Re: Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #130 on: January 11, 2019, 04:07:05 PM »
I take issue with your thesis bout there being no antitheist community. It sounds like the first rule of fight club.
There is one with the kind of organisations and institutional structures necessary to support and sustain the development of an institutional culture (for good or bad) that might promote best practice, or on the other hand institutionally support inappropriate practice, for example though power structure where those making their way in the institutional are beholden to those with power.

The latter is the case in other institutions and has negative impacts in many including the film industry in Hollywood, various religious institutions and certainly in academic research. The same does not exist in the 'antitheist' community as such power structure and 'patronage' do not exist in a similar manner.

Phyllis Tyne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24586
  • We're doomed, doomed.
Re: Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #131 on: January 11, 2019, 04:13:01 PM »
There is one with the kind of organisations and institutional structures necessary to support and sustain the development of an institutional culture (for good or bad) that might promote best practice, or on the other hand institutionally support inappropriate practice, for example though power structure where those making their way in the institutional are beholden to those with power.

The latter is the case in other institutions and has negative impacts in many including the film industry in Hollywood, various religious institutions and certainly in academic research. The same does not exist in the 'antitheist' community as such power structure and 'patronage' do not exist in a similar manner.
You are obviously not aware of elevatorgate

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Elevatorgate

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10225
Re: Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #132 on: January 11, 2019, 04:28:08 PM »
You are obviously not aware of elevatorgate

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Elevatorgate
And ... an individual incidence of inappropriate behaviour isn't the same as an institutional culture. I'm sure there are example like this in all sorts of places, professions etc. To be clear I am absolutely not dismissing inappropriate behaviour, merely stating that individual examples of inappropriate behaviour do not, necessarily, point to an institutional or systemic problem.

Where there is a difference is where there is a culture of patronage - effectively where there is a career structure and for someone at the bottom of that career structure there is a feeling that their ability to progress is dependent on the patronage of other more powerful people. This occurs (or occurred) in Hollywood, in many religious organisation and in academic research and can lead to an institutional culture that in effect condones inappropriate behaviours.

The same institutional culture doesn't exist in the so-called antitheist community, not least because there is no career structure to be supported by patronage.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2019, 04:48:19 PM by ProfessorDavey »

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13224
Re: Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #133 on: January 11, 2019, 06:53:54 PM »
As it seems to have been forgotten recently can I just remind folks that Vlad’s “obsession” with Krauss is actually just a particularly nasty slur by association: Krauss accused of bad things; Krauss an atheist; therefore atheism bad. It’s insidious and unpleasant stuff, but no more that I for one would expect.

As for discussion about pederastic priests, if there was some kind of global organisation of scientists with a man at its head called, say, The Schlope who issued an instruction that no members should report child abusing scientists to the local police and instead had them removed beyond the reach of the law to – ooh, I dunno – CERN maybe then, but only then, would there be an analogous situation.

As it is, what we actually have is an individual with expertise and strong views across several disciplines facing some serious accusations about his behaviour who’s been referred by his employer to the relevant investigatory authorities and who, if found guilty, would no doubt face the appropriate disciplinary measures. No more, no less.

Why on earth this is on the Theism and Atheism area rather than the General Discussion area is therefore anyone’s guess. Perhaps the Mods would like to consider moving it to its more appropriate home (or better yet consider recognising it for what it is and putting it out of its misery entirely)?     
« Last Edit: January 11, 2019, 07:14:50 PM by bluehillside Retd. »
“One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all.”

Arthur C. Clarke

Phyllis Tyne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24586
  • We're doomed, doomed.
Re: Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #134 on: January 11, 2019, 07:40:31 PM »


Those who doubted that there are those who wanted this issue suppressed would do well to read Hillsides last paragraph
« Last Edit: January 11, 2019, 07:43:51 PM by Phyllis Tyne »

Phyllis Tyne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24586
  • We're doomed, doomed.
Re: Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #135 on: January 11, 2019, 07:53:40 PM »
As it seems to have been forgotten recently can I just remind folks that Vlad’s “obsession” with Krauss is actually just a particularly nasty slur by association: Krauss accused of bad things; Krauss an atheist; therefore atheism bad. It’s insidious and unpleasant stuff, but no more that I for one would expect.

As for discussion about pederastic priests, if there was some kind of global organisation of scientists with a man at its head called, say, The Schlope who issued an instruction that no members should report child abusing scientists to the local police and instead had them removed beyond the reach of the law to – ooh, I dunno – CERN maybe then, but only then, would there be an analogous situation.

As it is, what we actually have is an individual with expertise and strong views across several disciplines facing some serious accusations about his behaviour who’s been referred by his employer to the relevant investigatory authorities and who, if found guilty, would no doubt face the appropriate disciplinary measures. No more, no less.

Why on earth this is on the Theism and Atheism area rather than the General Discussion area is therefore anyone’s guess. Perhaps the Mods would like to consider moving it to its more appropriate home (or better yet consider recognising it for what it is and putting it out of its misery entirely)?     
That's right.....advocate censorship.

Maeght

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4560
Re: Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #136 on: January 11, 2019, 07:58:15 PM »
How is suggesting the thread should be moved censorship or suppression?

Phyllis Tyne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24586
  • We're doomed, doomed.
Re: Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #137 on: January 11, 2019, 08:02:49 PM »
How is suggesting the thread should be moved censorship or suppression?
You failed to read the last bracketed bit, I think.

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10225
Re: Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #138 on: January 11, 2019, 08:10:23 PM »
As it is, what we actually have is an individual with expertise and strong views across several disciplines facing some serious accusations about his behaviour who’s been referred by his employer to the relevant investigatory authorities and who, if found guilty, would no doubt face the appropriate disciplinary measures. No more, no less.
He already has been investigated, and found, on balance of probabilities, to have violated the university's policy against sexual harassment. As a result he has lost his position as Director of the prestigious Origin's project.

Maeght

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4560
Re: Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #139 on: January 11, 2019, 08:13:45 PM »
You failed to read the last bracketed bit, I think.

I did :-)

Wouldn't advocate that.

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10225
Re: Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #140 on: January 11, 2019, 08:16:09 PM »
You failed to read the last bracketed bit, I think.
Vlad - you do realise there is a difference between censorship and there being nothing more to say on a topic.

The complaint has been raised, an investigation conducted (involving people unlike us who have been appraised of the full details), the investigation has concluded and found that on balance of probabilities, Krause violated the university's policy against sexual harassment. As a result he has been removed from a prestigious position at the university.

And the findings are public for all to see (indeed I think I linked to them previously):

http://www.webcitation.org/71ePhFDfA

I'm struggling to see what more there is to add. No one is censoring anything.

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10225
Re: Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #141 on: January 11, 2019, 08:28:08 PM »
As for discussion about pederastic priests, if there was some kind of global organisation of scientists with a man at its head called, say, The Schlope who issued an instruction that no members should report child abusing scientists to the local police and instead had them removed beyond the reach of the law to – ooh, I dunno – CERN maybe then, but only then, would there be an analogous situation.
There is also a world of difference between child abuse and touching a adult woman's breast (without consent) in public where the woman in question told investigators that "she did not feel victimized, felt it was a clumsy interpersonal interaction and thought she had handled it in the moment."

I am in no way condoning the action and it is entirely correct that he was subject to disciplinary proceedings, but this is a million miles away from the systematic institutional preponderance of child sex abuse and cover up seen in various churches. I also have no doubt there are many Krause-like incidents involving priests too - but I suspect they never even come close to media attention as they would be seen as so trivial compared to some of the stuff going on, for example, over decade in the RCC.

Phyllis Tyne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24586
  • We're doomed, doomed.
Re: Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #142 on: January 12, 2019, 08:28:45 AM »
There is also a world of difference between child abuse and touching a adult woman's breast (without consent) in public where the woman in question told investigators that "she did not feel victimized, felt it was a clumsy interpersonal interaction and thought she had handled it in the moment."

I am in no way condoning the action and it is entirely correct that he was subject to disciplinary proceedings, but this is a million miles away from the systematic institutional preponderance of child sex abuse and cover up seen in various churches. I also have no doubt there are many Krause-like incidents involving priests too - but I suspect they never even come close to media attention as they would be seen as so trivial compared to some of the stuff going on, for example, over decade in the RCC.
One has to laud the speed at which several Atheist and skeptic alike organisation dealt with Krauss removing him from positions, honours and speaking itinerary. Credit is due to those in the skeptisphere who persisted and eventually acting on bad apple, sexist and abusive behaviour  in that community to the shame as you point out of the RCC community.

Steve H

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2823
Re: Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #143 on: January 12, 2019, 08:49:56 AM »
You are obviously not aware of elevatorgate

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Elevatorgate
What a complete and utter fuss about nothing! Dawkins's sarcasm was crude and heavy-handed, but he had a point: what on earth is wrong with asking a woman back to your room for a coffee, provided you take a polite "no" for an answer and leave it at that?
There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.
George Orwell.

Phyllis Tyne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24586
  • We're doomed, doomed.
Re: Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #144 on: January 12, 2019, 09:05:24 AM »
What a complete and utter fuss about nothing! Dawkins's sarcasm was crude and heavy-handed, but he had a point: what on earth is wrong with asking a woman back to your room for a coffee, provided you take a polite "no" for an answer and leave it at that?
I used that example to remind PD that there was an atheist network since I perceived he was trying to present some atheist groupings as more ad hoc than they really are. Whether it was seen as trivial or symptomatic by all atheists? Atheists would do well to study the works of Rebecca Watson as well as the four horsemen group. I m ho.
This thread though is about Krauss though. Krauss and Dawkins had another tour planned but Krauss was dropped after the revelations

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13224
Re: Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #145 on: January 12, 2019, 09:29:11 AM »
Hi Prof,

Quote
There is also a world of difference between child abuse and touching a adult woman's breast (without consent) in public where the woman in question told investigators that "she did not feel victimized, felt it was a clumsy interpersonal interaction and thought she had handled it in the moment."

I am in no way condoning the action and it is entirely correct that he was subject to disciplinary proceedings, but this is a million miles away from the systematic institutional preponderance of child sex abuse and cover up seen in various churches. I also have no doubt there are many Krause-like incidents involving priests too - but I suspect they never even come close to media attention as they would be seen as so trivial compared to some of the stuff going on, for example, over decade in the RCC.

Yes I know – that was my point. When Vlad’s called out on his nasty slur by association he resorts to, “but why then is it ok to discuss allegations of sexual abuse by priests?”. I was merely explaining that the comparison is false for the reasons I gave, and that you have reinforced the same point. Moreover, his slur still has absolutely bugger all to do with "Theism & Atheism", which is what this part of the mb is supposed to be for.   
“One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all.”

Arthur C. Clarke

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13224
Re: Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #146 on: January 12, 2019, 09:36:18 AM »
Maeght,

Quote
How is suggesting the thread should be moved censorship or suppression?

It isn't, and nor is suggesting that they may want to put out of its misery an attempt by a poster at a nasty little slur by association: "Krauss accused of a bad thing; Krauss an atheist; therefore atheism bad." If anyone can identify that there is in fact "an issue" to be discussed, then fine; as it stands though, it's pollution. 
“One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all.”

Arthur C. Clarke

Phyllis Tyne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24586
  • We're doomed, doomed.
Re: Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #147 on: January 12, 2019, 09:40:00 AM »
Hi Prof,

Yes I know – that was my point. When Vlad’s called out on his nasty slur by association he resorts to, “but why then is it ok to discuss allegations of sexual abuse by priests?”. I was merely explaining that the comparison is false for the reasons I gave, and that you have reinforced the same point. Moreover, his slur still has absolutely bugger all to do with "Atheism & Theism", which is what this part of the mb is supposed to be for.
The fact here is that you have almost uniquely called for censorship.
Of course this issue is about atheism.
A leading member of one of its communities which is dedicated to promote the idea that religion makes Good people do bad things and reason and science has the opposite effect....in fact one of that creeds most vociferous preachers....has been found to have blown his own thesis and with it a plank of his entire group.

The idea that I am trying to impute this behaviour to the entire skeptisphere is Balderdash considering I have praised and supported and raised the profile of those seeking to eradicate this from atheism even groups such as the Dawkins foundation and individuals such as Sam Harris and Dillahunty who acted I very appropriately in the wake of the revelations. I also linked to blogs like the friendly atheist.

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13224
Re: Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #148 on: January 12, 2019, 03:11:02 PM »
Krauss speaking fluently and persuasively about what he's professionally best known for:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKapUWxTvWI
“One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all.”

Arthur C. Clarke

bluehillside Retd.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13224
Re: Lawrence Krauss
« Reply #149 on: January 12, 2019, 03:14:03 PM »
“One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion. So now people assume that religion and morality have a necessary connection. But the basis of morality is really very simple and doesn't require religion at all.”

Arthur C. Clarke