Talk:The Grand Design (book)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Changing the word "religion" to "god" in LEDE.[edit]

The text in the LEDE that says "A number of religious authorities, such as Lee Rayfield and Fraser Watts, have argued that Hawking's findings do not impact the need for religion. [3][1]" doesn't really match the references and it is weasel in that it says "A number of religious authorities" without establishing how many and how are they an authority. With the two references then there is no mention of religion e.g. the Bishop of Swindon - Lee Rayfield says "science "can never prove the non-existence of God, just as it can never prove the existence of God."" and then mentions "faith" but not "religion" and Fraser Watts says "...it is somewhat more likely that there is a God than that there is not. ". In both cases the word "religion" is not used. Therefore the word "religion" should be changed to "god". Ttiotsw (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Would changing the present sentence ("The Rt Rev. Lee Rayfield and Dr. Fraser N. Watts have said that Hawking's findings do not impact the need for religion. [3][1]") to the following sentence ("The Rt Rev. Lee Rayfield and Revd. Dr. Fraser N. Watts have suggested that Hawking's findings do not deny the existence of God. [3][1]") be better? Drbogdan (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Should The Referenced "Religious Authorities" Be Identified As "Scientists"?[edit]

At this time, the term "scientists" has been associated (more than once and without noted rationale by an anonymous editor) with the "Rt Rev. Lee Rayfield and Revd. Dr. Fraser N. Watts" (originally introduced as "religious authorities" and referred to in the "Reactions" Section of the Main Article). Is this really justified? After all, these individuals seem to be much more identified with "religion" than "science" - at least as far as we can tell at the moment. Drbogdan ([[User talk:Drbogdan|talk]]) 17:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitely No! AFAIK Priests, Bishops does not qualify to be called as Scientists. -Abhishikt 00:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talkcontribs)
Perhaps someone, with more editing experience than we, will improve the sentence - and keep the sentence improved. We tried several times to omit the term "Scientists" from the sentence but the anonymous editor restores the term each time (4-times?) - without a noted reason - and without discussion. Drbogdan (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you. My thoughts on this sentence, to change to 'The Bishop of Swindon, Dr. Lee Rayfield and an Anglican priest and Cambridge expert in the history of science, Fraser N. Watts have suggested ...'.
'(who is also a scientist)' needs be removed, it is not mentioned for this in source provided. 'Cambridge expert in the history of science' is too vague and there is no citation. We can keep 'Anglican priest', which is relevent. But currently we can keep it the way it is mentioned in the source. On side note, do we need to keep comments from Fraser N. Watts? there isn't wikipedia article about this person. Is he notable?
I guess we can also add 'dubius' tag or put inline comment to discuss it before modifying it. -Abhishikt 00:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talkcontribs)
I have changed it according to what was mentioned in the sources and gave direct quotes from them. Let's discuss it here before making any changes to that.-Abhishikt 01:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

One of the two served as a "Lecturer in Immunology at the University of London".

That makes him a scientist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolamofficer (talkcontribs) 03:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK just being lecturer does not make someone scientist and it was more than 15 years ago, since then Dr. Lee Rayfield is notable as his religious position than for his scientific work. Provide sources if it is otherway. And why do you think specifying 'Scientist' required here? Note that Scientist word is not specified for Richard Dawkins. So I'm removing those words. And please don't edit the main page, until the dispute is resolved in this talk page -Abhishikt 04:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talkcontribs)
We agree - According to an apparently up-to-date Profile in the Guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/lee-rayfield), The Rt Rev Dr Lee Rayfield is, at present, the Bishop of Swindon and a "former" lecturer in immunology: that is, The Rt Rev Rayfield is primarily a Bishop at present and is no longer, at least officially, a lecturer [in immunology] - and by extension perhaps, not a scientist, at least officially and at present. Drbogdan (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Further researching on Fraser N. Watts, I found that the source seems to be biased in telling him as 'Cambridge expert in the history of science'. Even his own profile on his website doesn't claim that - http://www.prrg.org/prrg/people/staff/staff.acds?context=1609849&instanceid=1813385. If anyone find any unbiased source, please provide it, else I would prefer to replace it with 'Religious leader'. -Abhishikt 06:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talkcontribs)

UPDATE: Also perhaps related - Shouldn't one be, at least, a clearly known scientific researcher (preferably a published one?) to truly be considered a scientist? - Being a "lecturer" (or teacher) of science, in itself, may not really be sufficient to be defined truly as a "scientist" we would think - In any regards, further study suggests The Rt Rev Lee Rayfield, besides being a "lecturer in immunology," may be considered, at least in an earlier career position, truly a scientist. According to Swindonweb.com (http://www.swindonweb.com/index.asp?m=8&s=9&ss=264), "With a PhD in immunology, Dr Rayfield has written more than 30 scientific papers and articles for scientific journals and continues to sit on the UK Gene Therapy Advisory Committee which advises the government on clinical research in the field of gene therapy." - [Aside - should this new background information, if truly ok, be included in the Wikipedia entry for Lee Rayfield in some way?] - In any case, and as before, The Rt Rev Rayfield is now performing primarily as a Bishop, and is not now performing primarily as a scientist - at least as far as we can see at the moment. Drbogdan (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion their possible status as scientists is irrelevent. The points they are making are philosophical and theological relating to limits of scientific knowledge, not criticism of the scientific content of the book. As ordained ministers of the church, of course, we should expect their opinions to be theistic (not always true of the Church of England of course). Dr Watts btw researches into the psychology of religion at the University of Cambridge ( http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/faculty/watts.html ) WhaleyTim (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
PS Rev Watts it is somewhat more likely that there is a God than that there is not pretty much sums up deep and inciteful nature of CofE theology for me WhaleyTim (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

They don't let just anyone teach a Science class at the University of London.

As WhaleyTim has said "In my opinion their possible status as scientists is irrelevent. The points they are making are philosophical and theological relating to limits of scientific knowledge, not criticism of the scientific content of the book", so there is no need to put irrelevant positions, which were held 15 years back. -Abhishikt 21:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talkcontribs)

wikipedia objects to people inserting their opinions into articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolamofficer (talkcontribs) 05:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Every edit reflects the opinions of the editor - including yours; at the most trivial the opinion that the edit is worth the effort to make. Where opinions are divided they should be discussed on the talk page. I do not, myself, have a problem with the Bishop of Swindon been described as an immunologist (or former immunologist)- This is a matter of fact but of perhaps limited relevence in the context of the article and the statement he made - He certainly was not speaking about immunology . I believe that describing him as a scientist is too broad a within the context of this article. I do have a problem with Rev Dr Watts being described as an historian of science without any evidence being given - certainly his list of publications does not seem to indicate that he is. WhaleyTim (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

real discussion[edit]

cool . that is not the way of discussion . clearing the matter . some one be silent when he hasnot any replay . scientific discussion need scientific replaies. if there is not such replaies , it is not better to do sensitive actions .--78.38.28.3 (talk) 06:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Reactions[edit]

The reactions section might need some work. The most obvious problem is that it consists of lots of disconnected reviews - the whole section, I feel, needs more structure. What would be nice is if there were a couple of sources that talk about the criticism of the book and then we can use that to tie up the current sections. Secondly were are verging on synth in respect of the fact that most of the reviews come from primary sources - something that establishes the significance of each review would be stellar. And, finally, we could look at cutting one or two of the review, particularly where they repeat points made elsewhere, the section is a little long for such a short article. Thoughts? --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 20:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is too early to expect any sort of consensus on the book. Better to just quote the reviews, even if they are disjointed. Roger (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
My concern is that we don't really have established significance of the reviews :) but it is proving hard to source.. so looks like you are right. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 20:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
What are peoples thoughts on the reliability of this: http://www.theticker.org/about/2.8220/stephen-hawking-attracts-criticism-for-views-on-god-1.2336589 --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 20:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the position that the reviews are a bit disjointed at the moment. Hopefully, we get something that unifies (the Critical M-Theory!) all the reviews. My only quarrel at the moment is mixing in the criticisms from purely religious people with scientists. I find this a bit misleading, as if religious authorities have any compelling authority on physics. Hopefully at some point the critical positions of scientists and religious figures (and historians and whoever else) can be placed in prose contextually for the sake of the reader. :) Obamafan70 (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
FWIW - I *completely* agree - perhaps trimming (and/or paraphrasing?) some of the "reactions" to the book, in some entirely ok way, to several typical (and appropriate) examples might improve the overall article. "Reactions" from those who may not have read the book at all (if reasonably determined) - or who may be promoting a favored POV unrelated to the actual book itself - might be omitted (or abbreviated?) I would think. Drbogdan (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed something akin to Russell's Paradox in the argument and critical reactions, ? If this can be verified to wikipedia standards it may well help tie the responses together.82.47.212.82 (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Why is there a quote from a Reverand/Psychologist? "Dr. Fraser N. Watts?" Why is he qualified to comment on the makeup of the universe? Chardansearavitriol (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree needs to be cleared up a lot, most importantly the whole section needs to be reserved for well known people with extensive backgrounds in the subject. This article doesn't need to give floor space to every single bishop or journalist who is discomforted by Hawking's views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.25.207 (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Some clarifications by Mladinow[edit]

In this interview, Mladinow denies that he is an atheist, and tries to clarify the fact that their book by no means bears a philosophical weight and is just scientific. I suggest seeing all three, and if you are busy, don't miss the last one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AdKEHzmqxA&feature=watch_response http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCoTGTRfDy0&feature=watch_response http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIttENo2eOM&feature=watch_response_rev Kazemita1 (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Honestly[edit]

Why is there some obtuse remark from D-bag Chopra? Does anyone else support removing that? 67.171.222.203 (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Evidently, IP user "78.8.200.216" agrees with me, but got reverted. 67.171.222.203 (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree, a religionist displaying his broadmindedness, so what? Rothorpe (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 Done - seems the present consensus supports remming-out DC comment - now done - hope this is *entirely* ok - let me know if otherwise of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Gödelmetaphysics: no theory of everything, no unified field[edit]

Can someone cite specific quotations of the authors - not necessarily in the book - about the possible connection of Gödel's incompleteness theorems and the non-existence of a unified field theory (-es, plural for multiverses resulting from different topological algebraic algorithms) and of the theory of everything. We listen and read many paraphilological stuff but no analytical proof is presented (if it could). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:2149:821b:6800:2cf1:48a3:683:6ec2 (talkcontribs) 11:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)