Sod the Bond-off, Rob's Stephen Hawking impression is the reason to watch this.

Your video, The Trip - Coogan's Stephen Hawking impression, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Stephen Hawking: Aliens most likely a threat.

The chair is your controller!

Larry Flynt and Stephen Hawking approved.

I recognise Stephen Hawking's voice, but it doesn't sound like anything he'd actually say. Has his voice box caught a virus? Who's the hoe?

Successfully processed your "amazon" invocation - view all Amazonized posts here

Stephen Hawking looks terrible! Did he fall down a wormhole?

Given your bullet reply I will do likewise. (even though I think that turns our conversation into more of an argument, and I hate arguments)

I) Both sides had only mathematical constructs with a central notion of understanding behind the numbers. What I mean is, there was no NASA or anything to go look...there was only math. The Heliocentric model was exactly that, a (very) complex mathematical model (of exceptions) to explain the motion of the planets based on observed phenomena. Geocentrism had data as well, but lacked the cultural bias for it to be accepted as a valid view point. Which adds to my point, not detracts from it; as my point what theories get mocked or accepted has more to do with culture than premise.

A) I bet you didn't read the link I posted, and I can't blame you (Quine on a weekday and all!). But what I wrote was a hasty, and perhaps, oversimplified version of Quines waxing and waning on the politics of science. You can see examples of this today where scientists and large hang on the breath of the great intellectuals of the day, like Stephen Hawking. Or, how quickly Einstein is falling out of favor now that quantum doesn't quite add up. More than likely, within our lifetime, you will stop hearing about space time curves and it will be supplanted by some other thing. The main difference between planet orbits and the general laws of the universe are that you can go outside and look at the orbit (with a rocket). You can't go just "see" the laws of nature and therefore have no reason to thing Enstein was any more right about space time curves than of fundamental forces. You can explain, using Newtonian language and adapting its math, relativity and motion. The reason we don't has more to do with culture and self advocacy than evidence. And to the point, that still doesn't address the primary problem, that of which, the PEERS that review are under the influence of culture, they are the rose colored glasses to which I was referring all along.

B) See, I understand a bit of that. But ultimately that seems like an undersell to how life works on this planet. No doubt, change will bring hardship on certain species, but wouldn't also create new opportunities for others? A lack of snow on the tundra is bad for snow foxes...but good for regular foxes. Change is one thing life on this planet handles well...as for individual members their fates are less certain.

C) I disagree on 2 counts. One is my first example. Simply put, even if you idea treads water, it can be framed in such a way as to be demeaned of any value, regardless of merit. You can see this in media smear campaign stuff, if you can frame someone as a nut job, it will discredit them. For example, "The Industrial Revolution and its consequences" is a great read and has many, good observations....but is written by the uni bomber so not high on anyone's reading list. It isn't culturally acceptable to go...hey, the uni bomber is right, this is a problem! Same goes for here, it doesn't matter if it's 600 or 6000 scientists that disagree with the climate change model, if your ideas aren't popular, no one is going to be there to listen.

And second, you can't prove a negative. The only way the could prove that climate change isn't human caused is to completely understand the whole system and then point out how humans are trivial factors. In other words, they would have to be able to do the thing that no climatologist can claim, to know the whole truth about the weather and all its complexities. The burden of proof is actually on those making the claim, not the ones countering that claim. So really, the only thing they have to proof is nothing and just make the assertion that the doomsays math doesn't add up (and why). They just have to poke the holes in the boat in other words...which is what I think they are getting ostracized for. Get on board or get out kind of thing. But that is just an outsiders opinion.

>> ^LarsaruS:

>> ^LarsaruS:
I actually find the notion of saving our species to be a vain and misguided effort. In 100 million billion trillion years when the Universe is still here, We wont be. If we survive long enough we will evolve from Homo Sapien to something else.
Of course. So what? Humans have children, even though those children are not clones of their parents. Why should we care that somewhere far down the line our offspring will speciate into something else? They will still be Homo in some way. /rebuilder

Aye, Homo is the way of the future :-D
But in all seriousness it means that we can't save our species. That's all.


Well, that applies whether we leave the planet or not. Semantic quibbles are the least of our challenges in colonizing another world.

I recently read some interesting stuff (i.e. nerd porn) relating to this here on Pharyngula. Just a smattering (the comments section mainly) of the very real obstacles preventing us from achieving this dream not likely until the far distant future. Also some interesting speculation on the idea that genetically modifying ourselves to be able to thrive on otherwise inhospitable planets being the more important/crucial barrier than our rocket/space propulsion technology.

I'm typically an optimist on this subject (damn you Carl Sagan!) but also a realist.

>> ^LarsaruS:

I actually find the notion of saving our species to be a vain and misguided effort. In 100 million billion trillion years when the Universe is still here, We wont be. If we survive long enough we will evolve from Homo Sapien to something else.


Of course. So what? Humans have children, even though those children are not clones of their parents. Why should we care that somewhere far down the line our offspring will speciate into something else? They will still be Homo in some way.

>> ^LarsaruS:

I actually find the notion of saving our species to be a vain and misguided effort. In 100 million billion trillion years when the Universe is still here, We wont be. If we survive long enough we will evolve from Homo Sapien to something else. Ergo the Human race as we are today, here defined as Homo Sapien as I doubt we would consider Cro Magnon or Neanderthal as Human beings if they were around today, can not survive even if we leave this planet. All paths of evolution lead to something else that is "better", it is just a matter of applying the right amount of time and biological pressures, or it dies out in the end.
Nietzche said it best: "Let us beware of saying that death is the opposite of life. The living being is only a species of the dead, and a very rare species."

Then why bother to type that post?

Our lives have meaning to us today, this is true regardless of their ultimate end. If you have any values at all, it's rational to try to advance and sustain those values; the continuation of our species is, currently, necessary to that operation.

It's not particuarly well executed, but the "stephen hawking" inserts of new names/phrases cracked me up.

Your video, Richard Dawkins meets Stephen Hawking, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Stephen hawking is like

Poor Stephen Hawkings. It's bad enough to have your dragged into this bullshit, but she could at least get it right.