Disinformation from an otherwise intelligent man. It brings to mind similar nonsense from Bobby Fischer.
Even GREAT minds are sometimes wrong.
Sorry to read this about Hawking. I always admired him, not just for his forays into the more esoteric areas physics, but for his courage in dealing with his disability, and his efforts to popularize science.
I have his book (gave me a headache too, LOL) and I was (for 2 years) a physics major before I switched to EE. Trust me, thinking about physics too much or too long can mess your head up as bad as LSD. Realtime life and human interaction becomes irrelevant
It's not that IQ "don't mean a thing".
In theory, IQ tests are supposed to be a measure of raw processing power, but I don't really trust them. I mean, who writes the IQ tests? Are there social or cultural influences? etc., etc., yadayadayada. Quantifying raw processing power of a neural network is hard to do.
The problem I have with IQ tests is that if you load a super computer with a crap program, you're gonna get crap. On the other hand, if you load a super computer with a great program, it'll give you great results, but ONLY for the specific answer that you asked.
From what I could find, Hawking and Einstein have (had) estimated IQ's of 160. Estimated I.Q. of Famous People
They were both great a solving specific problems, but I wouldn't trust either of them to boil water.
On that same IQ list you have Hitler and Hitlery almost tied at 141 and 140. She's supposed to be incredibly smart, but is a complete failure as a wife, mother, and human being.
The point is that a high IQ is not something to be ignored. In Hitler and Hiltery's case, it can incredibly dangerous.
On the lighter side, I'll never forget reading some Playboy (I swear, I only bought it for the articles, LOL) that featured "smart" women with IQ's of 130. Despite the bimbo's physical assests, all I could think was "if y'all are so friggin' smart, why are you buck nekid in a men's magazine?"
There were some great scientists and philosophers who supported Hitler in the 1930's. And does anyone remember that nut case Bertrand Russell? To paraphrase Laura Ingraham, "shut up and study your black holes" - or whatever.
Did Hawkings ever condemn Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses?
I'll just ignore his (Hawkings) comments--after all, all he does is study Uranus.
Coming on the heels of the Lancet's Goebbels-style study alleging 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq, and Richard Dawkins' increasingly shrill and reckless anti-American bigotry, this is simply conclusive evidence that the British scientific and intellectual community has lost its moral compass.
There is a lot at stake in this politicization of scientific status for evil ends, and the implications extend well beyond the current set of world conflicts.
The credibility of science itself is at stake, with fanatics and charlatans of every stripe and creed as the likely beneficiaries if that credibility collapses.
British scientists seek to appease the monsters of the Islamo/left/media alliance, but they are sowing the seeds of their own destruction and of a new dark age in doing so.
I am, myself, an academic. I am always staggered by how much people's politics reflects wanting to universalize their own circumstances: academics live in a quasi-socialist setting where 'the bottom line' in dollars and cents isn't the point, businessmen see everything in terms of the bottom line. Academics tend to be leftists, businessmen fiscal conservatives (often of a very narrowminded sort). Both positions are absurd: you can't run a business or an economy like a university, and you can't run a university or an education system like a business.
He is pretty much a lefty but I wish someone would show him this site.
Stephen, we're doing what's right and we don't care what you think. Shut up and go back to your lab.