[bagster]

People like Hawking who have one freakish skill--in his case the arcane mathematics of contemporary physics--are no more qualified for social commentary than someone whose great skill is dunking a basketball.

I almost disagreed with this then I kept thinking.

I almost said that a powerful brain can apply its thinking to anything successfully and better than an average brain.

Then I thought that Hawking had VERY LITTLE if any EXPERIENCE interacting with social settings and diverse people.

Interaction with 'all kinds' of different types of humans allows for even a lesser brain to be able to form observations and make accurate social commentary.

A cloistered brain in a jar like Hawking is unqualified, no matter how smart he is. The basketball dunker would be more qualified on this subject.

Once again, Dis, I find our thoughts nearly identical.

When the machines put our brains in a jar, I would like them to park mine next to yours.

[TangoLimaSierra]

When the machines put our brains in a jar, I would like them to park mine next to yours.

So gay.

[Disestablishmentarian]

Then I thought that Hawking had VERY LITTLE if any EXPERIENCE interacting with social settings and diverse people

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Academia in general has lost its way; determined that only the opinions of other isolated academics matter. (That's the essence of "Peer-reviewed" science or scholarship.)

Don't get me started on the stupidity that this approach engenders. I could attack Hawking's specific (stupid) cosmology, which has been refuted amongst others by Halton Arp (who had equally great credentials until he tried to buck the "Peer-review" process).

Then there is EXHIBIT A of STUPIDITY: The academic computer models used to support the Marxist social theory known as global warming.

Having sometimes worked side-by-side with academics in the course of my professional life, I have lost a tremendous amount of respect for the whole business of academia.