Talk:Stephen Hawking

Addition to Selected publications -> films and series

"Into the Universe, with Stephen Hawking" is listed, but is not an actual link, it only has a citation to the link. "Into the Universe, with Stephen Hawking" should be made into an actual link. Here is what you can type to do so; <a href="http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/stephen-hawking/about/about.html">Into the Universe, with Stephen Hawking</a>

Minor addition to Discovery Show

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/stephen-hawking/ is the link to his new show on the Discovery Network, and should be included with the rest of the links. Thanks.

Not agnostic

In none of the cited articles does Hawking "describe himself as agnostic", as is stated in the article. This statement is a fraudulent deception. If you can argue that he is agnostic, that is your opinion, but he has not described himself as such. Jasonid (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I've removed that claim. HiLo48 (talk) 08:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems like out of the sake of public interest, that it would be fair and reasonable (and proper) to describe him as an atheist now. After all, he is now being attacked for exactly that by the Discovery Institute and other religious organizations on those grounds, and it is being reported in the media as such. It's pretty clear from his new book that he is an atheist, so why must we keep skirting the issue? There's no particular reason not to present this fact; it seems entirely relevant and important for a WP article. Obamafan70 (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You have made the reason pretty clear there yourself. Most people who want an article to say that someone is atheist or agnostic want it there so that the article really says to other believers "Look, a non-believer. We must condemn him, He should go to Hell." It is almost always intended as a negative, i.e. obvious POV. This is a biography of a living person, and WP:BLP says it can really only contain things from reliable sources. For a person's religious beliefs, the only truly reliable source is what they say about themselves. If there is no evidence existing that says Hawking has said it himself, you are drawing a conclusion yourself. Obviously that is allowed in your head, but you cannot tell others in Wikipedia. It is WP:SYNTH and quite unacceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48 -- reporting a fact about whether or not someone is an atheist is not POV. However, your attempt to keep this article sound is admirable (semi-barnstar worthy at least). Reliable sources such as the AP, Telegraph (UK) and Yahoo! News (possibly reliable) have reported that he is an atheist (and used the word). Also, I have no idea why you would assume the atheist description is necessarily negative...maybe in America. In Sweden, 85% of people are atheists; in Berlin, it's 68%. Among prominent scientists, globally, it's 97%. Also, that's a non-sequitor -- the fact that something is a weapon for defamation doesn't mean it is non-reportable. Thanks for your input. Obamafan70 (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If, as you say, it has been reported that he has said it himself, then please go ahead and use those references to add it to the article. Otherwise, with no new sources, you are not justified in changing the article. Please discuss your proposed changes here first. HiLo48 (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued input, and I agree with the general spirit of your comments. The need for improving the section comes from this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7979211/Has-Stephen-Hawking-ended-the-God-debate.html

We really need a better "religious views" section here. I'm going to give a better effort on this next try to make sure it's all factual -- let me know what you think. If it still fails, just go ahead and revert it and discuss the changes you recommend here. Otherwise, please allow others to opine. Thanks Obamafan70 (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm a member of the Atheist Wikiproject here...Stephen Hawking is listed as an atheist under our lists. This is not a controversial point, so an editor is welcome to include that here if it improves the article and she sees it fit to include.PalindromeKitty (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Telegraph reported he's an atheist. It's the most reliable newspaper in the -- wait for it -- world. Therefore, it's not synthesis. Stop trying to obscure the issue and discuss **here** next time, "HiLo". You're not following procedure. I'm sick and fed up with people coming on Wikipedia and deleting references to people about being atheists. If the Telegraph reported that he was a marxist and wrote a book about it, I doubt anybody on here would be deleting that mention. But when it comes to God, if any authoritative figure doubts She exists, then believers start trying to come up with ways to make it seem like oh wait, actually she does believe...or...in this case (even when we have credible sources) -- oh wait the jury is out! PalindromeKitty (talk) 05:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You really need to stop making assumptions about other editors' goals and perspectives here. I can assure you that you are completely wrong about mine. While I haven't read all the sources, as far as I can tell, there is nothing in the article that says that The Telegraph says that Hawking (or anybody else) has said that he has said that he is an atheist. (Yes, you need to read that carefully.) This is a biography of a living person. It should not include conclusions drawn by others about that person, if that person has not confirmed that point themselves. Hawking's recent words about the creation of the universe simply said that, in his view, God wasn't required in the process. He said nothing about whether or not he believes God exists. If we're not getting it from Hawking himself, we're synthesing it. (And please note that my views on the existence of God, which I have not expressed her, are irrelevant in all the above.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48, you're right -- we should all do our best to be WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, but PalindromeKitty is correct that you're not following protocol when you fail to discuss relevant changes here first. Remember that the primary criterion here is WP:BLP, although your criticism using WP:SYNTH is still possibly valid. As far as I can tell, you may not have read WP:BLP because the burden is on you for adding/removing or content. I'm sorry to be so frank, but you strike me as very poorly read and uninformed on Hawking. He has written in the Grand Design that he is (at least) a weak atheist -- "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist." In the extract to the book, Eureka asked Hawking, "Did the Universe need a creator," and Hawking's answer was a "resounding no". The extract then continues -- that the personal god creator theory is redundant and replaced by 'm theory'. In the "Genius of Britain", he sets the question up as a dichotomy which proves the point, "The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second." I believe that settles it.Obamafan70 (talk) 06:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologise if I have breached some protocol in the reverting I did. That wasn't my intention. I truly felt that the sources and rest of the article did not justify including the atheism claim. However, if there is a good source (his own writings would be excellent) showing that he has declared himself to be "(at least) a weak atheist", then I have no problem with the article saying the same thing AND using that source. But, that he has said that God was not needed to create the universe, is not proof that he is an atheist. He may still be open to the idea of the existence of a god who doesn't go around creating universes. I truly have no idea if that is his view, and I doubt it, but it's possible. I think he appears to have chosen his words quite carefully in that area. HiLo48 (talk) 07:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

HiLo, thanks for your continued comments. It seems like the real issue here is that you seem to be interpreting atheism to encompass only strong atheism (an equivocation). The fact that he is open to the possibility of God's existence is perfectly consistent with atheism. In fact, as Richard Dawkins (and I agree) has argued, any true scientist should always remain open to contradictory evidence. To my knowledge, most atheists fall under the weak atheist demarcation. Dawkins himself only lists himself as a 6.0 on the atheism scale (through 7), though he has at times given himself a 6.8. Also, just a disclaimer -- I'm not a member of the Wikiproject, and I don't know anything about it. The atheist project may also have their own rules about classification. Obamafan70 (talk) 07:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added a few quotations. Edit, revert if necessary. Then we will discuss here (the burden will then be on me for the changes). I don't see how you could object here, though, since I pulled quotes straight from the sources.Obamafan70 (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

People need to stop pulling conclusions out on BOTH SIDES of this. For one, someone who does not believe god created the Univere does NOT mean that the person does not believe in said god. This is like saying that Since I'm not a republican, I must be a democrat. Buddhism, for example, does not hold that a creator god exists, but they are agnostic as to whether or not a god or some gods exist. Regardless, what does it matter? His contributions to science have NOTHING to do with whether or not he believes in a god. It has to do with his science. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, what does it matter? His contributions to science have NOTHING to do with whether or not he believes in a god. It has to do with his science. Did you read the article? The discussion pertains to Hawking's religious views...under the section "Religious views". Your argument ignoratio elenchi fails. Thanks for your sharing your thoughts, though. Obamafan70 (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that many people do seem interested in Hawking's religious beliefs, our IP editor's logic is valid. When Hawking says that no god was needed to create the universe, he is actually saying absolutely nothing about whether he personally believes in a god. Editors must not draw conclusions about his personal beliefs from that statement. HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

This is beating a dead horse; the issue was resolved. The article uses the exact quotation from Hawking that he does not believe in a personal God -- with 3 sources.Obamafan70 (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Atheist" and "agnostic" are mere speculations; unless Hawking explicitly identifies himself in a book or in an interview, an encyclopedia can only tag him as a "religious skeptic". My personal view (which I would not turn into an edit, for the aforementioned reason) is that he's still an agnostic. He didn't say that "there's almost certainly no God", like Dawkins does. Hawking simply states in "Grand Design" that God is not necessary to be invoked as an explanation in physics, that's quite different. In fact, even religious (but no creationist) scientists would say the same. Yes, he doesn't believe in God, but who agnostic does? As for the Daily Telegraph article, it begins with a journalist's conclusion on the book, not a Hawking's quote. The word "atheist" is used twice only, for Dawkins and for a reader in comments.--85.72.207.230 (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox repair needed

The infobox is erroneously showing a "Death" field. Normally if a field is left blank it should not appear in the infobox. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Robert Berman is listed as an other academic advisor. The link is to the incorrect (American) Robert Berman, rather than the long-time fellow of University College Oxford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.68.200 (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong quote from ABC news on Hawking being religious

I am not editing, but I will, if someone does not tell me the reason why he just put in [faith] in a quote of Hawking that clearly is not there in the original article.

"When Sawyer asked if there was a way to reconcile religion and science, Hawking said, "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."

Compare that to

"There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority [imposed dogma, faith], [as opposed to] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."[60]

If you think that faith is an synonym of authority I recommend reading Heidegger.

BrAndi

Suggestion

Where it says "He advocated that, rather than try to establish contact, man should try to avoid contact with alien life forms." I think this should be changed to INTELLIGENT alien life forms, to clarify that he was talking about intelligent life - 93.97.255.48 (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Recognition - acclaim

Original text reads: On 19 December 2007, a statue of Hawking by renowned late artist Ian Walters was unveiled at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology, University of Cambridge.[44] In May 2008, the statue of Hawking was unveiled at the African Institute for Mathematical Sciences in Cape Town.

The above statement is factually incorrect and infers that the sculpture of Hawking unveiled in Cape Town was produced by Ian Walters.

Actually the sculpture unveiled in Cape Town was created by Eve Shepherd A.R.B.S, S.P.S a larger version of which has been commissioned for Cambridge University.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/7661892.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article4914634.ece C Wilson Shepherd (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.198.215.196, 31 January 2011

Please change this statement- "Hawking has a neuro-muscular dystrophy that is related to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis...." to this "Hawking has motor neuron disease (MND), or, as it is known in the United States,amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)." Per Stephen Hawking's own website- http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/disability/disabilityadvice - this is his correct diagnosis. Muscular Dystrophy is a different disease. 71.198.215.196 (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)