- Oct 2019
Lawrence Krauss is a physicist (who was recently involved in a sex scandal, but I won't go into that).
However, I'm going to deconstruct some of Lawrence Krauss' assertions, and show why they are patent, contradictory nonsense. (Much like that of Richard Dawkins and other "New Atheists").
Here are some examples:
1. Epistemological contradictions:
Krauss asserts that "we don't really know" that the Big Bang theory is true, because scientists have hypothesized other theories; however at the same time he contradically asserts that "we know" that the theory of evolution is true because it is an established biological theory. Much as he asserts that "the universe came from nothing".
If he were consistent, he would therefore have to assert that "we don't know" that evolution is true, since it may become an outdated theory in the future, just as other scientific theories have - or that "we don't know" the universe came from nothing, because in the future we may learn it came from a creator or designer.
Krauss idiotically asserts that "the universe has no design or intent, and that we are a bit of pollution".
If nature has no "design", then there is no "design or intent" for people to pursue science at all - but science Krauss believes that science is inherently something we "should" do, this means that the universe does have an "intent", or that the universe's "intent is to learn it has no intent" (which is an oxymoron).
(This also reveals why most popular assertions about evolution are nonsensical, because in order for it to be "evolution" to begin with, there has to be something which "evolution is", as well as something which "evolution is not" - or else calling it "evolution" to begin with makes no sense).
Not to mention, Krauss shows ignorance over what "pollution" is in his childish metaphor - pollution is an unintended byproduct of something else (such as how a bus driver may intend to drive from point A to point B, and create exhaust in the process). So this would mean that the universe has an intent, but that humans were "not the intent", rather an unintended by product of whatever the actual intent was... yeah...
Krauss asserts that women, such as those who live in a Muslim country should have rights. (This is of course a faith-based or philosophical belief, not something empirical testable via the scientific method, showing that Krauss really only has a problem with "certain" faith-based or philosophical beliefs, but not his own).
Likewise, if humans are merely "pollution", then there is no reason why women (or anyone) should have any rights at all, so if he believes the should, he debunks his own former assertion and actually does believe that "humans are special" in some way or another.
4. Idiocy about Chaos theory.
Krauss states that he likes to believe we evolved from a "chaotic world", but shows how ignorant and contradictory he is, not even understanding what "chaos" is within the context of science.
In science and math, "Chaos theory" is "the branch of mathematics that deals with complex systems whose behavior is highly sensitive to slight changes in conditions, so that small alterations can give rise to strikingly great consequences" - and has nothing to do with evolution.
This is where the notion that "a butterfly flapping its wings in China could cause a hurricane in the Midwest" comes from - however if the initial conditions can be measured, then the results are predictable.
So not only is his statement unscientific (completely contradicting Newtonian physics, which concludes that the physical unversed is governed by predictable laws, not "random and chaotic") - but it actually has more in common with "Chaos" from Greek and Roman mythology than it does with Chaos theory in actual science and mathematics.
(In ancient Greek and Roman mythology, it was believed that everything originated from a primordial void known as "Chaos", which interestingly has parallels with the Big Bang theory - and that everything in the universe was random and dictated by the "whims of the Gods" - rather than a universe governed by predictable laws as Newton discovered).
In conclusion, Lawrence Krauss is dishonest or foolish, or maybe a bit of both.