#Lawrence M. Krauss

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

"Keeping religion immune from criticism is both unwarranted and dangerous."

-- Lawrence M. Krauss

#Lawrence M. Krauss #religion #criticism of religion #unearned deference #criticism of ideas #religion is a mental illness

[harmcityherald]

#atom #Lawrence M. Krauss #cosmology #astrophysics #atomics

[arcticdementor]

A colleague recently sent me a link to this paper, published in The Physics Review.   When I read the abstract, I was pretty sure it must be a spoof paper, published by Peter Boghossian, or one of his colleagues, to make fun of the current incursion of viruses based in the humanities and social sciences into physics.  

…

That this got published in a peer-reviewed physics journal is what makes this so surprising.  It means there is something fundamentally wrong with the system, and it isn’t systemic racism.  It is sheer stupidity combined with lethargy.

The natural tendency of academics, and scientists in particular, is to ignore this kind of nonsense and focus on their own work.   But once the bar gets this low, and the flood waters are rising, you can be certain a lot of nasty effluence will be flowing out as well.    And with the pressing need for better physics education at all levels (that is, better ways to actually teach physics), this garbage filling up journals and taking away precious research resources means that there is less room for the good stuff.

#lawrence m krauss #substack #amy robertson #w tali hairston #physics

[reality-detective]

Here are just a few of the visitors to Jeffrey Epstein's island who were confirmed: 👇

▪️Adam Perry Lang

▪️Akon

▪️Al Gore

▪️Alan Dershowitz

▪️Albert Pinto

▪️Alee Baldwin

▪️Allison Mack

▪️Alyssa Rogers

▪️Anderson Cooper

▪️Andrea Mitrovich

▪️Andres Pastrana

▪️Angelina Jolie

▪️Anthony Kiedis

▪️Anthony Weiner

▪️Barack Obama

▪️Ben Affleck

▪️Bernie Sanders

▪️Beyonce

▪️Bill Clinton

▪️Bill Gates

▪️Bob Saget (deceased)

▪️Bruce Willis

▪️Casey Wasserman

▪️Callum Hudson-Odoi

▪️Celine Dion

▪️Charles Barkley

▪️Charlie Sheen

▪️Charlize Theron

▪️Chelsea Handler

▪️Cher

▪️Chris Tucker

▪️Chris Wagner

▪️Chrissy Teigen

▪️Cyndi Lauper

▪️Claire Hazel

▪️Courteney Cox

▪️Courtney Love

▪️Demi Moore

▪️Dan Schneider

▪️David Koch

▪️David Spade

▪️David Yarovesky

▪️Dolores Zorreguieta

▪️Donovan Mitchell

▪️Doug Band

▪️Drew Barrymore

▪️Ed Buck

▪️Ed Tuttle

▪️Ehud Barak

▪️Ellen DeGeneres

▪️Ellen Spencer

▪️Eminem

▪️Emmy Tayler

▪️Fleur Perry Lang

▪️Francis X. Suarez

▪️Freya Wissing

▪️Gary Roxburgh (pilot)

▪️George Clooney

▪️Ghislaine Maxwell

▪️Glenn Dubin

▪️Greg Holbert (deceased)

▪️Gwen Stefani

▪️Gwendolyn Beck

▪️Hank Coller (pilot)

▪️Heather Mann

▪️Heidi Klum

▪️Henry Rosovsky

▪️Hillary Clinton

▪️James Franco

▪️James Gunn

▪️Jay-Z

▪️Jean-Luc Brunel (deceased)

▪️Jean-Michel Gathy

▪️Jeffrey Jones (deceased)

▪️Jim Carrey

▪️Jimmy Kimmel

▪️Joe Biden

▪️Joe Pagano

▪️John Cusack

▪️John Legend

▪️John Podesta

▪️John Travolta

▪️Joy Behar

▪️Juan Pablo Molyneux

▪️Juliette Bryant

▪️Justin Roiland

▪️Justin Trudeau

▪️Kathy Griffin

▪️Katy Perry

▪️Kelly Spam

▪️Kevin Spacey

▪️Kirsten Gillibrand

▪️Kristy Rogers (deceased)

▪️Lady Gaga

▪️Larry Summers

▪️Larry Visoski (pilot)

▪️Laura Z. Wasserman

▪️Lawrence M. Krauss

▪️Linda Pinto

▪️Lisa Summers

▪️Lynn Forester de Rothchild

▪️Madonna

▪️Mandy Ellison (assistant)

▪️Mare Collins-Rector

▪️Marina Abramovic

▪️Mark Epstein

▪️Mark Lloyd

▪️Melinda Luntz

▪️Meryl Streep

▪️Michelle Obama

▪️Michelle Wolf

▪️Mikel Arteta

▪️Miley Cyrus

▪️Nadine Dorries

▪️Naomi Campbell

▪️Naomi Watts

▪️Natalie Blachon de Perrier

▪️Nicole Junkermann

▪️Olga Kurylenko

▪️Oliver Sacks

▪️Oprah

▪️Orlando Bloom

▪️Paris Hilton

▪️Patton Oswatt

▪️Paul Mellon

▪️Paula Epstein (deceased)

▪️Paula Hala

▪️Peter P. Marino

▪️Pharrell Williams

▪️Prince Andrew

▪️Prince Charles

▪️Quentin Tarantino

▪️Rachel Maddow

▪️Rainn Wilson

▪️Ralph Ellison

▪️Ray Barzana (pilot)

▪️Ricardo Legorreta Vilchis

▪️Rihanna

▪️Rita Wilson

▪️Rob Reiner

▪️Robert DeNiro

▪️Robert Downey Jr.

▪️Rodney E. Slater

▪️Ronald Burkle

▪️Rudy Gobert

▪️Sander Burger

▪️Sarah Kellen (assistant)

▪️Sarah Silverman

▪️Seth Green

▪️Shelley Harrison

▪️Shelley Lewis

▪️Sophie Biddle-Hakim

▪️Sophie Trudeau

▪️Stephen Collins

▪️Stephen Colbert

▪️Steven Spielberg

▪️Steven Tyler

▪️Svetlana Glazunova

▪️Teala Davies

▪️Tiffany Gramza

▪️Tom Hanks

▪️Tom Pritzker

▪️Tyler Grasham (deceased)

▪️Victor Salva

▪️Wanda Sykes

▪️Whoopi Goldberg

Of course we knew some of these already. 🤔

#pay attention #educate yourselves #educate yourself #knowledge is power #reeducate yourself #reeducate yourselves #think about it #think for yourselves #think for yourself #do your homework #do some research #do your own research #ask yourself questions #question everything

[pazzesco]

We live in an explosion so violent that dust woke up and started thinking about it. We are the universe observing and considering itself.

"Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution and for life - weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way for them to get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. The stars died so that you could be here today." ~ Lawrence M. Krauss

#star dust #big bang #astronomy #nasa #space

[monriatitans]

LITERACY QUOTE OF THE DAY

Thursday, March 14, 2024

“To be scientifically illiterate is to remain essentially uncultured. And the chief virtue of a cultural activity–be it art, music, literature, or science–is the way it enriches our lives.” – Lawrence M. Krauss

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Check out Kids Need to Read to help children discover the joy of reading and the power of a literate mind! For the curious, the purpose of the Literacy Quote series can be found here!

Enjoy what I do? Please consider supporting via Buy Me a Coffee! Like what you see and want to know when there’s more? Click here to subscribe for updates and/or hit the Follow button!

Watch MonriaTitans on Twitch and YouTube! For more about MonriaTitans, click here!

View On WordPress

#BecomeSmarterEveryday #CulturalActivity #Culture #Educational #EducationalPost #EducationalPosts #FightIgnorance #FightStupidity #Illiteracy #JoyOfReading #KidsNeedToRead #LawrenceMKrauss #LawrenceMKraussQuote #LawrenceMKraussQuotes #LearnSomethingNewEveryday #Literacy #LiteracyQuote #LiteracyQuoteOfTheDay #LiteracyQuotes #LiterateMind #MonriaTitans #MT #OaT #PromoteLiteracy #QuoteOfTheDay #QuotesAboutLiteracy #QuotesCreatorApp #Science #ScientificallyIlliterate #Uncultured

[alphaman99]

Carl Sagan’s Vision  ·

Not only do open-minded individuals seek alternate viewpoints and weigh the evidence fairly, they are meticulously careful about which particular ideas and perspectives they should consider and acquire.

Being open-minded and receptive to new information involves a bold and unbiased character strength, in which individuals build knowledge about specific issues and different points of views.

This mindset provides sound recommendations and guidance versus the mentality of closed-minded individuals with fixed mindsets; open-minded individuals don’t casually and quickly jump to conclusions, but instead, they seek out and examine all of the available and credible evidence before forming a proper opinion.

Not only is this a sign of intelligence, it’s liberating to disenthrall the mind, as Lawrence M. Krauss strongly implies.

[says-megzzz]

“The amazing thing is that every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics: You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements - the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution - weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of stars, and the only way they could get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget Jesus. The stars died so that you could be here today.” ― Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing

#space #inspiration #stardust #astrophysics #poetic #stars #cosmic #life #evolution #nature #science #dalle-2 #4

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

"I don’t know which is more dangerous, that religious beliefs force some people to choose between knowledge and myth or that pointing out how religion can purvey ignorance is taboo. To do so risks being branded as intolerant of religion."

-- Lawrence M. Krauss

Faith is pretending to know things you don't know.

#Lawrence M. Krauss #faith #faith is not a virtue #knowledge vs myth #knowledge #myth #deliberate ignorance #ignorance #faith is pretending to know things you don't know #religion #religion is a mental illness

[atheismlibrary]

قسم الإلحاد Atheism section الإلحاد- كتب معاصرة ملف1 الإلحاد- كتب معاصرة ملف2 Atheist Modern books 1 2 Atheist Modern books کتابهای بيخداى مدرن (لینک مستقل)ملحد کتابیں/ إلحاد- أوردو (باكستان) Ateisme -Atheism- Bahasa Indonesia  Delusi akan Tuhan- God Delusion-Indonesian libros ateos modernos1 (español) libros ateos modernos2 (español) livres athées modernes 1- athéisme (Français ) livres athées modernes 2- athéisme (Français )2 Ateísmo livros (Português)Dawkins Richard - Deus é um delirio- God delusion- Portuguese, e outros livros Ateismo libri (Italiano)Ateizm-Atheism-Turk Tanrı Yanılgısı- God Delusion- -Türk-Turkish Hiç Yoktan Bir Evren - Lawrence M. Krauss- A Universe From Nothing- Turk+ diğer kitaplar   تاريخ الإلحاد والفكر الحر (ملف ج1) تاريخ الإلحاد والفكر الحر(ملف ج2) History of Atheism and freethought 1History of Atheism and freethought 2 أدبيات ورويات وأشعار إلحادية Atheist Novels & Poets  الأعمال التشككية والإلحادية لدوستويفيسكيأعمال أدبية إلحادية ج2  Novelas ateo Romans athées- Français رمان و شعر ها بیخدایی(لینک مستقل)নাস্তিক সাহিত্য- Bengali বাংলা- লজ্জা Lôjja - lajja- Taslima Nasrin  قسم التراث اللاديني الإلحادي والربوبي كل أعداد مجلة العصور 1927-1930م - أصدرها إسماعيل مظهر (أعداد أثرية في حالة ممتازة مصوَّرة)Atheist and Deist LegacyAtheism legacy 2- English Héritage athée et déiste- Français

[arcticdementor]

Earlier this month Science magazine, whose editor since 2019 has promoted the notion that science is systemically racist and sexist, ran four hit pieces on physics in a single issue. It was claimed that physics is racist and exclusionary, run by a “white priesthood,” and based on “white privilege.”

The articles themselves were inconsistent at best. They promoted a specific viewpoint and sometimes made claims that were manifestly contradicted by their own examples. I don’t want to spend a lot of time here critiquing the specifics, or the magazine in general, because I don’t think either are worth it. But it is worth summarizing some of the misconceptions they promote. If one hears the same things over and over again, even if they are not true, it is easy to begin to believe them. So, it is important every now and then, to step back and question the assumptions on which they are based.

(a)  If the representation of various groups in scientific disciplines does not match the demographics of the society at large, the cause must be racism, sexism, or other forms of discrimination.

This is the starting point for most claims of racism or sexism in science, and for the recent rise of “anti-racism” initiatives most closely associated with Critical Race Theory. But one of the most basic things one learns in science is that correlation is not causation. Without some control over confounding factors or some other clear empirical data validating a theoretical model, it is impossible to isolate the cause of this effect. Most areas of human activity are self-selecting. To argue that people don’t become scientists because they are excluded by the scientific community is an extraordinary claim. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is not to claim that racism or sexism do not exist in society at any level. Nor that examining such demographics might not be useful. But to lay this demographic on the doorstep of science without further justification is inappropriate. Moreover, there is a lot of empirical data that shows quite the opposite. Namely that in societies that are more egalitarian on issues of gender or race, self-selection effects produce as much or more variation in sex or gender ratios in the choice of professions as any other factor, something that clearly can’t be explained on the basis of sexism.

(b) When interviewed, white male scientists cannot provide examples of racism or sexism in their disciplines

In the Science articles, this was taken, as it often is, as manifest evidence of white privilege. One is reminded of one of the ancient ways of determining if someone was a witch. If they claimed not to be, that was good evidence that they might be. Alternatively, it could be because most faculty at universities are acutely concerned about possible discrimination on the basis of race and gender and would root out efforts to discriminate on the basis of either. In these articles, and in most other claims about systemic racism in science, empirical examples of such systematic racism are generally absent. Instead vague anecdotal claims are made.

…

(d) It is claimed that too few programs exist to recruit and retain women and minorities.

This is manifestly wrong. In fact it was remarkable that in the four Science articles, a host of examples of programs that exist throughout academia were described, and numerous individuals who were interviewed for the articles had benefitted from these programs. In spite of this, at the same time, it is argued that such programs can stigmatize people by labeling them in the eyes of others. Actually, sometimes these programs achieve the opposite of their intent. A letter from a female colleague recently expressed this well:

“With the increase of “girls that code” and other programs aiming to attract girls to computer sciences, we have seen a decline in the percentage of women in these fields. Observing from my daughters, they figured out they hate coding early on due to these programs, and now for sure will not go into computer science fields.”

…

(e)  It is claimed that standard merit-based evaluations must be relaxed to increase diversity in science, and that this will strengthen the field.

Once again, standardized testing has its problems, but there is a great deal of evidence that it achieves a number of its goals, in particular ensuring that students who are admitted to programs are not being set up to fail. Also, as a colleague who came from a remote Third World university but scored in the 99th percentile in her GREs, described her experience, getting her admitted to graduate school in the US provided a key opportunity for upward mobility. Moreover, there is little or no objective evidence that talented students or researchers who have a genuine interest in science are excluded on the basis of these measures. It is true that social inequities, financial at least as much as racial, mean that some individuals who, had they access to proper educational resources early on, end up not following a career track in science. But the solution to this is not diluting requirements for researchers at an advanced level.

…

Similarly, while enjoying science is everyone’s right—I have spent a large part of my career trying to spread that joy as widely as I can—being paid to do science is a privilege, not a right. It is largely solipsistic and self-indulgent. What right have we to be supported by the public to simply explore questions that interest us? Science is supported by the public because of the public good it does. That good is not met by employing a rigidly diverse workforce. It is met by producing the best science money can buy. We should reserve that privilege to carry out this public good to those who can best exploit it. No system of culling is perfect, but not all students should succeed, nor should all researchers.

The goal should be to open science so that everyone who is sufficiently talented, and sufficiently dedicated, has the opportunity to try their hand at it. Beyond that, we shouldn’t be expected to do much more. Just as anyone can pay to go to a basketball camp, most of us (especially those of us who are vertically challenged) realize our basketball careers will end there.

Moreover, while a lack of talent should be limiting, so should a lack of interest. And there is nothing wrong with having other interests. Another colleague, a distinguished professor of law wrote in a letter about her experience:

“The notion that not enough women (or URMs or whatever) become scientists because we don’t encourage them is one of the most ridiculous, destructive fallacies out there. I am almost 70 years old and was encouraged CONSTANTLY as a student and young woman to go into STEM because I was good at math and science and really enjoyed them. The encouragement was NON-STOP. Of course, the lab atmosphere in the places where I worked in college and after was stringent – but that was as it should be. To succeed in science you not only have to have the talent for it, but you have to be compulsively interested in it and in DOING it, and monumentally persistent and determined despite numerous setbacks and bracing relentless competition (which, frankly, has an inevitable male inflection). It’s not warm and fuzzy, although it can offer the pleasures of camaraderie if one is ready to accept the terms of interaction. All these programs to recruit more x, y, and z to science, or medicine, just end up producing a lot of underachievers or disappointed drop outs who turn around and cry “discrimination.” The good scientists – male and female – are highly self-motivated. You can’t impart that kind of motivation to other people.”

…

And that is the key point. There may be economic and racial barriers that currently restrict equal opportunity in society. But science itself is not the cause of any induced lack of diversity, nor can it be the solution. To address deeper issues of racism, or sexism, requires addressing societal problems at a much deeper level, and confusing the end result with the root causes is folly.

…

We should advocate that the pursuit of science to be welcoming to anyone of sufficient talent and drive, but that is all. As much as we would all like the idea of a diverse workforce, as long as there are no explicit strictures in place within science itself that restrict admission to those within any group, the system works. Sometimes it results in under-representation of certain groups, and sometimes over-representation, such as Jewish scientists in the last half of the 20th century or Asian scientists in the US today. For better or worse, like all professions, there is culling at every level, and if that culling is based on the likelihood of future success, it is not unreasonable.

Science may not always be friendly, collegial, or welcoming, but that may be what produces the best science. Resources are scarce enough that we do the public a disservice by encouraging participation by those who might squander them.

Ultimately, what is the evidence that the current overwhelming imperative to impose diversity is good for science, or good for those who thus attempt to join STEM fields and don’t make the cut? Forty years of ever-increasing affirmative action in medicine has not significantly increased the diversity in the number of medical school applicants, and there is a lot of data that for weaker students, admission to elite programs is a recipe for failure.

Put another way, as harsh as it may sound, we need to ask a question that is currently impossible to ask in polite company, or even impolite company: Why is it so necessary for more women, minorities, and transgender individuals, and fewer white males, to become scientists? Surely the science doesn’t care about melanin or gonads or sexual preferences or identities.

#lawrence m krauss #substack #science magazine #science

[spiritually-caffeinated]

Every atom in your body came from a star that exploded. And, the atoms in your left hand probably came from a different star than your right hand. It really is the most poetic thing I know about physics. You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements – the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, all the things that matter for evolution and for life – weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in the nuclear furnaces of the stars, and the only way for them to get into your body is if those stars were kind enough to explode. So, forget God. The stars died so that you could be here today. Lawrence M. Krauss

[desassossegosliterarios]

Enquanto o lítio é importante para algumas pessoas, mais importante ainda são os núcleos mais pesados, como o carbono, o nitrogênio, o oxigênio, o ferro, e assim por diante. Esses elementos não passaram a existir com o Big Bang. O único lugar em que podem ser gerados é no núcleo ardente das estrelas. E a única maneira de estar em seu corpo, hoje, seria por meio da explosão dessas estrelas, que espalhariam seus produtos pelo cosmos para um dia poder se aglutinar em volta de um pequeno planeta azul localizado perto da estrela que chamamos de Sol. Ao longo da história de nossa galáxia, explodiram cerca de 200 milhões de estrelas. Elas se sacrificaram, por assim dizer, para que um dia você pudesse nascer. Imagino que isso as qualifique, mais do que qualquer outra coisa, para o papel de salvadoras.

Lawrence M. Krauss, no livro Um Universo Que Veio do Nada: Porque há criação sem Criador

[a-scientific-spirituality]

Stardust, that Reflects Upon Itself

"A universe without purpose should neither depress us nor suggest that our lives are purposeless. Through an awe-inspiring cosmic history we find ourselves on this remote planet in a remote corner of the universe, endowed with intelligence and self-awareness. We should not despair, but should humbly rejoice in making the most of these gifts, and celebrate our brief moment in the sun."

Lawrence M. Krauss

We are sacred.

We are, each of us, a collective piece of the self realization of the universe.

By sheer magnitude, By raw probability, By sheer brute force, we are.

Stop and consider this.

How are we then anything but sacred? We are the very act of self realization of the universe itself.

We matter. You matter.

We progress. You progress.

We excel. You excel.

You, matter; you matter.

#spirituality #spiritualawakening #spiritual knowledge #religion

[surinco]

“A beginning implies creation and creation stirs emotions.” - Lawrence M. Krauss in ‘A universe from nothing; Why there is something rather than nothing.’ #lawrencekrauss #universe #creation #richarddawkins https://www.instagram.com/p/CmZPIBhPhSjuiL0tEXdkXo6mgCOi9gC_m1DpWk0/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

#lawrencekrauss #universe #creation #richarddawkins

[says-megzzz]

“In 5 billion years, the expansion of the universe will have progressed to the point where all other galaxies will have receded beyond detection. Indeed, they will be receding faster than the speed of light, so detection will be impossible. Future civilizations will discover science and all its laws, and never know about other galaxies or the cosmic background radiation. They will inevitably come to the wrong conclusion about the universe......We live in a special time, the only time, where we can observationally verify that we live in a special time.” 

― Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing

#dalle 2 #dalle-2 #quotes #space #universe #science #14