Jump to content

Talk:Lawrence Krauss

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 88.97.18.12 (talk) at 13:25, 29 November 2013 (→‎"and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture": new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled

This page was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion and the consensus was to keep: see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lawrence M. Krauss


I'm moving this line from the main page as I'm pretty sure it's vandalism- "He likes to wear black turtlenecks, as shown in his picture." In the odd chance it's not, give a holler. Andromeda321 00:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be at least partly true, but not to an excessive degree. It's certainly NN. Gjc8 03:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything proving that he's an agnostic. What's your opinion about this?--Starnold (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


@Starnold: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597314928257169.html Krauss states in this article, "My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.3.242 (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement on POV, others invited to comment

If you feel that this article has inappropriate liberal point of view, I encourage you to try to improve it, but adding the vague pejorative term "leftist" fails to accomplish that. Furthermore, although it may be the opinion of some that intelligent design is a "scientific hypothesis," it is the opinion of many others that it is an unscientific powerplay intended to insert ultra-conservative Protestant religious dogmas into public school education. Lawrence Krauss's biography is hardly the place to debate such a complicated issue.

Also, did you really mean to say that Krauss opposes intelligent design "as a result of his involvement on the issue with the state school board of Ohio"? If you want this article to criticize Krauss's opposition to intelligent design, the way to do this is to find reliable sources that you can quote, as well as balancing sources expressing the opposite point of view. betsythedevine (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Work/Experts needed

It seems to me that much of Krauss's notability comes from his impressive scientific output complemented by his teaching, referenced here, which has in turn been the wellspring of his subsequent influence as a public intellectual, academic administrator, and public science policy advisor. Many of the articles listed in his complete publications list are popular rather than scientific, but at least a couple hundred of them are hardcore cosmology and theoretical physics research/reviews. I'm going to try to build a section into the article detailing his scientific work, because at the moment the article makes it difficult to understand why he's such a highly regarded and awarded physicist. If anyone would care to assist in this project, (in particular experts?) please do. --Grapplequip (formerly LAR) (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My real question is this: What significant discoveries has Krauss made or contributed to? Either he hasn't really discovered much, or he's the most modest guy in the universe, because in spite of his tremendous output, none of the biographies I find of the guy clearly state anything about his scientific achievements. Yet I look at his publication list and see a tremendous amount of technical material that he's put out over the last three decades, in addition to a lot of popular stuff in between. Is any of it notable? This is why an expert is needed. We can't have an article stating foremost that he's "a theoretical physicist" and then not include a damn thing about his actual work. And just to clarify, I'm not saying this as thinly veiled criticism. I like the guy, (you can guess my opinions by looking at my edit history) so I would like to include something more persuasive here about what makes him a notable physicist, assuming he is one. --Grapplequip (formerly LAR) (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"and works to reduce the impact of superstition and religious dogma in pop culture"

This is just silly. What does it even mean? What is the impact of superstition in pop culture? What is the impact of religion in pop culture? How could one work to reduce them?