Connecting Singles^® Forums100% Free Online Dating

Stephen Hawking is a perfect example of quite something else in human nature, that of showing positive/negative bias to people who appear to have any form of handicap. Stephen Hawking is the most overrated person in his field, he merely quotes other peoples work and only attracts attention because of his disability. Positive bias.

I have seen the same trait shown to people with Autism and the ability to produce copies of works of Art. It is extraordinary that they can do this but it is often disregarded that the quality of these works are far from genius and merely the work of a talented amateur.

A more balanced view is the regard given to Rodrigo and lots of other people like him that are judged purely on the quality of their work. No bias.

Sorry untraceable reference here. Rodrigo? googling this name gave me a potpourri of indistinguisable nonsense. Do you have other names, terms or search criteria?

Rodrigo, Spanish composer, born Andelucia, wrote specifically for Segovia, thats off the top of my head will look him up now. He wrote "Concierto de aranquis" one of the most beautiful pieces of music I have ever heard, Made me cry 25 yrs ago when I first hrard it and was not moved to tears again by music until I heard Polish composer Gorvecki, "a symphony of sorrow songs" I think great Artists somehow see the truth.

Apologies for commercial break.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joaquin_Rodrigo

not a problem, was curious to the reference, thanks!

Hawking was making substantial contributions to sigularity of relativity before he even started showing signs of ALS.

I agree that often the handicap are shown positive bias, but after the numerous times Stephen Hawking has actually been shunned by the scientific community for his "outside the box" theories, and the numerous times he has been denied grants and funding for his refusal to ammend his theories for the comfort of his elders, I'd be hard pressed to believe that he's been shown positive bias.

I wouldn't put him on the top 10 lists of physicists world-over, but to discredit his contributions by referring to him as having done nothing more than quoted the works of others, seems a bit harsh.

With or without physical handicap, the man is a genius who has contributed greatly to quantum physics.

excellent rebuttal dormouse

I would qualify him as intelligent even if positive bias is a factor. Certainly more intelligent than hitler or other people who's idea of eugenics is to cull everyone but their chosen few, under any false pretense.

He has not been shown any bias by the scientific community, but has hugely by the media and popular press. What he did do is bring new ideas in physics to a larger audience, and I would think head and shoulders above Hitler im intellegence, though Hitler was a lot of things but not so bright

Hitler was power hungry and grasped that eugenics theory and ran with it, thinking that man would not object to culling itself or rather him leading the way and doing it for them. Thank god men woke up.

I think the really scary part about Hitler was that people were so ready to accept what he had to say, I know from people who have done a lifetimes study on WWII that it is generally agreed that if Hitler had not come along there would have been someone else as there was a general feeling of need for change not only in Germany but in many European countries. The EU was formed as a direct result of WWII and founded on very idealistic notions, Shared wealth being the fundamental basis of it.

We have seen even to our surprise that so far it is working but it is still early days. A lot of people feel that Hitler had the right idea (United Europe) but very wrong methods and he also made the mistake of being greedy and wishing to take more than Europe. It is generally felt that if Hitler had settled for Europe we would all be speaking German now.

Eugenics will be the source of much debate now and in the future, Progress will always bring new concepts that test our morals and ethics but I for one am not scared by the future of eugenics. I find it easy to see a world 100 yrs from now that have a class of people genetically purer than ever before but as usual these people will be in the minority. There will still be people living in third world conditions as now.

If this huge experiment of the EU works, and I hope with every fiber of my being that it does work, It may prove to be a model for other places to follow.

Just to give you an example of the type of thinking that is being used here now, 21 yrs ago the Finnish Government decided to make a decision regarding the use of nuclear power. They started an education program in their schools and continued this program of debate and discussion so as to prepare people to make up their minds on the subject while having full access to all facts and information on nuclear power. After 20 yrs of this they put this to their people and they voted to start building nuclear plants. Informed, logical, educated decisons by the people.

I think that this way of thinking is truly amazing and farseeing. It takes us a long way from short-term election promises that are often forgotten about. The same period of time spent looking at and debating Eugenics is needed so we know what we are getting ourselves into.

Wasn't it Hitler who said something like "its easier to get the people to believe the big lie than the small one." the banner of present day pys-ops.

That shared wealth idea in EU is more of a money thing than you know, with the world bank leaders at the head of the movement. Rockerfeller, etc. Same idea, but using a slower evolution so as to not cause revolution. Evolution, not revolution, keeps them from being ousted [like what happened to the Roman Empire, France, America and other major revolutions] (or so they think).. the EU then AU, then ...Asian U? all without revolution.

I agree the debate (any debate about mankind) needs input, over a period of time and finland's method is ideallic. I agree with your thought process. Frankly I am concerned that those who run things have different ideas that are less than ideallic... or will be for some.

Evolution has always been a driving force in the universe and always will be. I believe humans are degenerating as a race. We're countering natural evolutionary process witch is far more beneficial then anything artificial.
That said, aiding that process or taking it to the next level is a nobil goal as it benefits species as a whole. Most will not survive the next ice age. We're not equipped to deal with even slightest changes in our environment. We are dependent on the machines around us. I see any dependency as a weakness. Nature works best at discarding inferior specimens. It's cruel and brutally efficient. Strong and selfish survive, weak perish. We're the only species that care about other species with little selfish motivation. Self preservation is most basic and primal instinct. Selfishness, that goal to survive has kept us alive and hopefully will keep us a live.
So yeah being human means killing, stealing doing anything that will benefit your offspring. That is the cold, hard truth about humanity and any other species for that matter. Procreation.