Someones no fan of Laurence Krauss.

https://twitter.com/horganism/status/128...49921?s=21

I think this is about the integrity of Science as much as the integrity of an individual. Imo they can’t be separated.

[Laird]

In what way do you think the integrity of science is at stake in this instance, Steve?

[Laird]

Oh, wait. I think I get what you meant. The bad behaviour of individual scientists can tarnish the reputation of science as a discipline. Right?

In what way do you think the integrity of science is at stake in this instance, Steve?

Hi Laird

I think Alex Tsakiris has quite convincingly shown that Science has major credibility issues, in some areas if not most. If a prominent physicist who is widely followed can show himself to be without integrity in his thinking, as I believe Krauss has done, how can any of his thinking be trusted? Even if he is genuine about his physics, how can we know that is the case? 

Bias is such that it distorts things beyond recognition. Krauss is but one of many such examples of how biased we can be. It’s possible that he was one of many lured into Epstein’s web to be manipulated, however, his dogma cannot be denied when faced with a mountain of evidence in the opposing direction.  

Alex stated his findings years ago, facts are secondary to our beliefs. That is obvious to anyone who has followed any events in politics and beyond. The Covid virus has brought Science directly into the spotlight, the truth is somewhere out there among the ’data’, but which scientists are to be trusted?

Can a generally honest man be this dogmatic? In which areas can he be trusted? 
Can people be honest in one area but not in others?
I think money, ego, background and more all play a part.

Oh, wait. I think I get what you meant. The bad behaviour of individual scientists can tarnish the reputation of science as a discipline. Right?

I tend to think it’s more than that.
A scientists work may be heavily distorted by bias. ie their (often non scientific) beliefs and fears may cause them to say and do things that the scientific work they or others do directly or indirectly contradicts. The thing is, what is truth? Are they all mistaken, all miles off the truth? I think that the best anyone can achieve is to get ‘close to truth’, rather than hit the nail on the head.

I think a huge rethink is necessary.

[Laird]

It seems like you're doing some skeptical thinking of your own, Steve. I don't have the answers to your questions, but just asking them is important. If you manage the huge rethink that you think is necessary, I'd be interested in what you arrive at - or get close enough to.

It seems like you're doing some skeptical thinking of your own, Steve. I don't have the answers to your questions, but just asking them is important. If you manage the huge rethink that you think is necessary, I'd be interested in what you arrive at - or get close enough to.

Laird, thinking or even knowing something’s wrong is far away from knowing what to do about it! 

It will come, it will just take time. 

Krauss has always seemed to be more egocentric than, literally, anything else.

He appears to have been a fame seeker first; scientist second (or third or fourth....).  At least over the past 20 years.

That personality (egocentric and fame-seeking) has always been one I've found suspect in terms of whatever substance may lie beneath.  Krauss was particularly distasteful to me due to his extreme, super-extreme arrogance.

[Ninshub]

Stan, I don’t quite understand the tweet - can you explain it a bit?