Terrible flirts both of them, but great to see the chautauqua tradition continue. Humans having intelligent conversation that educates. Larry is moved to say:
Most things humans have written over the ages (mythological or otherwise) contain some “wisdom” …. Science isn’t wisdom – just one of the raw materials.
Wow. He’s good. A chameleon who works with his current audience. And he does distinguish himself from Dawkins and from Gould. Distinction between science informing and the doing, the application being more than science. Even the Q&A with sceptics works well. Whatever works for you! Wow, as I said.
[PS – Re previous post – he admits his something from nothing arguments are about “redefining” nothing.]
Apologies for the headline, but since I tend to use Dawkins as my prime example of the arrogant scientist who doesn’t get the value anything other than science (and objective / deterministic logic), but by way of balance, this conversation with Larry Krauss from February this year, has some excellent content.
It does of course still have some cringeworthy moments – like the gratuitous mocking accusations of hypocrisy and madness of people, even scientific people, literally holding mythical truths – or that fact that the title “Something From Nothing” is completely misleading – they never really get past complexity from simplicity, or “matter” out of “nothing” (*) – but anyway … The nature of alternate life evolving anywhere other than life as we know it on earth; serious references (by both Dawkins and Krauss) to the Anthropic Principle and more. (Ordered Larry’s book on the strength of it.)
Krauss – Cosmic Humility. Excellent. Dawkins take note. At least Dawkins has the humility to admit his physics is 19th century.
(*) In fact Krauss does push back the nothingness … towards metaphysical cosmogeny (ie What’s this nothing from which something might come?). Good. Last time I majored on Krauss and Anthropic Principles was here: One of my more important posts.
Physics is science,
and cosmogeny is metaphysics or theology again.
I’m pretty sure Krauss gets it and there is some hope Dawkins listens to him.