Kraussianism

wretcheddomain

I think Lawrence Krauss has tarred his own reputation and the reputation of atheists by being, probably, the biggest talker of ignorant guff on the subject of atheism and religion. Everything he says in relation to religion is almost exclusively plagiarised from the work or musings of Christopher Hitchens to an almost pathetic degree

He seems to have no original opinion on the subject of religion and is rude and crude about philosophical objections which will ordinarily play a large part in a discussion or debate about religion.

In this video, he exemplifies this educational intolerance by being cringe-worthily rude to Hamza to the point you nearly want to turn it off. From the beginning of the debate, he's just unnecessarily aggressive and arrogant by claiming he's more knowledgeable about physics than Hamza (which is obviously true), but it's so obvious, there's no need to constantly reinforce it in his aggressive style.

Why do I think he's tarred his own reputation? While he's great at talking about physics and the workings of the Universe, his forceful rude style contradicts this and is an unnecessary stain. I've called this attitude Kraussianism where followers of atheism (and I'm an atheist) plagiarise almost verbatim the arguments of Dawkins and Hitchens without thinking for themselves about the answer.

In addition, the rude way to speak to religious believers in a simple discussion is uncalled for but unfortunately I've seen it happen many times during discussions between us and our religious counterparts. Anyway, don't know if you've seen that video but even if you watch the Krauss' first contribution [32-59 minutes] you'll get an idea of where I'm coming from. He's really not doing the atheist cause any good and I think it's a shame he's been adopted by Dawkin's when the latter was doing a sufficient job and the former was already doing a great job in science education.

MagicMarker

This was the debate where the Islamic side wanted the attendees to be segregated by gender. Could that be why he may have seemed rude (I haven't watched it so don't know if he was, but I'll take you at your word), I'm just watching the opening seconds of his statement and it does appear that the idea of segregation really pissed him off, in which case I probably wouldn't be so diplomatic either.

keane2097

He's not as eloquent as some of the others you've named there so he doesn't get away with his belligerence quite as well. Hitchins was worse than this any number of times but spoke so beautifully that people were delighted to see him getting aggro.

wretcheddomain

MagicMarker wrote: »

This was the debate where the Islamic side wanted the attendees to be segregated by gender. Could that be why he may have seemed rude (I haven't watched it so don't know if he was, but I'll take you at your word), I'm just watching the opening seconds of his statement and it does appear that the idea of segregation really pissed him off, in which case I probably wouldn't be so diplomatic either.

Yep, he was obviously vexed at the gender segregation but unfortunately his style is consistent with each discussion and debate i.e. a condescending approach just because he's a physicist and therefore thinks he knows it all. He's gotten far too big for his boots.

keane2097 wrote: »

He's not as eloquent as some of the others you've named there so he doesn't get away with his belligerence quite as well. Hitchins was worse than this any number of times but spoke so beautifully that people were delighted to see him getting aggro.

I wouldn't say Hitchens was worse, at least he knew how to argue and make a point whereas Krauss just shouts and patronises his opponents. I can see where you're coming from but I just think that Krauss is a parasite to the atheist cause and infecting it from within.

Mardy Bum

He was just calling him out on his bullshit and got a bit worked up because he was either purposefully misleading the audience or ignorantly misleading the audience.

MagicMarker

People should be more rude, it made for an entertaining debate.

Corkfeen

MagicMarker wrote: »

People should be more rude, it made for an entertaining debate.

That's why I watch Vincent Browne........

Zillah

They're both terrible, Krauss should stick to physics.

wretcheddomain

It's not just about Krauss ineptitude at having discussions about religion - it's also about how he (...and many other atheists) recant Dawkins and Hitchens arguments and perspectives almost verbatim as if it makes them sound intelligent. In the above debate, Krauss embarrassingly represents Hitchens '100,000 year argument' and unfortunately I've heard many atheists who copy this in discussions against religious folk. Krauss appears to be the leader of this type of plagiarism hence why I've called this subservient attitude Kraussianism. It didn't even make the 'debate' more entertaining when Krauss goes wild, it makes him look like a juvenile idiot who can't have a proper discussion with someone who disagrees with him. As Zillah has said so eloquently 'Krauss should stick to physics'.

MagicMarker

wretcheddomain wrote: »

In the above debate, Krauss embarrassingly represents Hitchens '100,000 year argument' and unfortunately I've heard many atheists who copy this in discussions against religious folk. Krauss appears to be the leader of this type of plagiarism hence why I've called this subservient attitude Kraussianism.

Most arguments in these kinds of debates are recycled, and when Krauss brought up the '100,000 year argument' he specifically referenced Hitchens, that's not plagiarism.

wretcheddomain

MagicMarker wrote: »

Most arguments in these kinds of debates are recycled, and when Krauss brought up the '100,000 year argument' he specifically referenced Hitchens, that's not plagiarism.

In many instances he hasn't 'referenced' and literally excretes linguistic burps and farts based on the references he digested.

MagicMarker

wretcheddomain wrote: »

In many instances he hasn't 'referenced' and literally excretes linguistic burps and farts based on the references he digested.

Okay, well in this instance he did, and that's not plagiarism.

Akrasia

Krauss can be a bit painful at times, mainly cause he tends to dominate any debate he is involved in, interrupting others constantly, even those on his own side.

That said, accusing him and other atheists of plagiarism is unfair. All the arguments against god are recycled. You don't think Dawkins invented the flying spaghetti monster or the orbiting teapot do you?

There are very few arguments used to support the existence of god. Atheists can only work within this framework

wretcheddomain

By using the word 'plagiarise', I'm using hyperbole in the sense that it's taking other peoples arguments to prop up your own position much like a plagiariser will take other people's work to make himself look good . I don't mean it in the literal legal sense but I should have made that more clear in my opening post. It's true that arguments are recycled but with Krauss there is no originality to that recycling, as he doesn't bother recycling only rehashing verbatim what Dawkins and Hitchens say. And as you've said Akrasia, he tries to dominate debates by shouting over others and it's so awful because you can see that he thinks he's doing a good job when he just keeps embarrassing himself.

Turtwig

OP, a friendly reminder to be careful here, you're threading on the border of the making an accusation of plagiarism against someone publicly identified.

By all means, criticise Krauss's debating style or rhetoric, just be careful about making any sort of accusation against an identified person.

Zillah

wretcheddomain wrote: »

It's not just about Krauss ineptitude at having discussions about religion - it's also about how he (...and many other atheists) recant Dawkins and Hitchens arguments and perspectives almost verbatim as if it makes them sound intelligent. In the above debate, Krauss embarrassingly represents Hitchens '100,000 year argument' and unfortunately I've heard many atheists who copy this in discussions against religious folk. Krauss appears to be the leader of this type of plagiarism hence why I've called this subservient attitude Kraussianism. It didn't even make the 'debate' more entertaining when Krauss goes wild, it makes him look like a juvenile idiot who can't have a proper discussion with someone who disagrees with him. As Zillah has said so eloquently 'Krauss should stick to physics'.

If you understand and agree with a good argument you have heard, are you supposed to avoid using it because the original speaker "owns" it, somehow? I'd suggest that that would result in a rather rapid decline in the available arguments to be made. I'm sure I've paraphrased Hitchens, Dawkins and Sam Harris on multiple occasions...should I not talk about how God's behaviour in light of the real world is insane and despotic (Hitchens) or how biological life requires no divine intervention (Dawkins) or how faith makes one unreceptive to reason (Harris), all because someone else has said it before?

I don't read the thoughts and arguments of established thinkers to sit back, file them away and never invoke them again. A smart person understands the positions of others, and integrates them into their own world view and repertoire...it is basically the fundamental process of intellectual exchange.

I agree Krauss is a poor debater; he doesn't have an assertive tone, he's not very articulate and he sounds petulant and disruptive, but I think your argument about plagiarism is completely without merit.

wretcheddomain

Zillah wrote: »

If you understand and agree with a good argument you have heard, are you supposed to avoid using it because the original speaker "owns" it, somehow? I'd suggest that that would result in a rather rapid decline in the available arguments to be made. I'm sure I've paraphrased Hitchens, Dawkins and Sam Harris on multiple occasions...should I not talk about how God's behaviour in light of the real world is insane and despotic (Hitchens) or how biological life requires no divine intervention (Dawkins) or how faith makes one unreceptive to reason (Harris), all because someone else has said it before?

I don't read the thoughts and arguments of established thinkers to sit back, file them away and never invoke them again. A smart person understands the positions of others, and integrates them into their own world view and repertoire...it is basically the fundamental process of intellectual exchange.

My point wasn't that we shouldn't employ others arguments in discussions but rather his arguments are almost exclusively based on Dawkins and Hitchens and he has no originality to add to the discussion himself. If you're prepared to debate religious folk about religion (and not science), then you should at least show you've done some degree of research into the topic and arrived and articulated your own conclusions as well as the inclusion of others work. This is in stark contrast with Krauss who almost exclusively references the work of Hitchens and Dawkins and clearly shows ignorance in a subject he's prepared to debate theists about. Hope that clarifies my position. In addition, I've cleared up in previous posts that I didn't mean he actually plagiarised in the literal legal sense and used the term as hyperbole for using other peoples work to make yourself look better, albeit referenced but it was an exaggerated metaphor.

MrPudding

wretcheddomain wrote: »

My point wasn't that we shouldn't employ others arguments in discussions but rather his arguments are almost exclusively based on Dawkins and Hitchens and he has no originality to add to the discussion himself. If you're prepared to debate religious folk about religion (and not science), then you should at least show you've done some degree of research into the topic and arrived and articulated your own conclusions as well as the inclusion of others work. This is in stark contrast with Krauss who almost exclusively references the work of Hitchens and Dawkins and clearly shows ignorance in a subject he's prepared to debate theists about. Hope that clarifies my position. In addition, I've cleared up in previous posts that I didn't mean he actually plagiarised in the literal legal sense and used the term as hyperbole for using other peoples work to make yourself look better, albeit referenced but it was an exaggerated metaphor.

There is little, if any, originality on the theist's side. Why is the burden of originality levelled only at the atheists?

MrP

Turtwig

MrPudding wrote: »

There is little, if any, originality on the theist's side. Why is the burden of originality levelled only at the atheists?

MrP

Atheists have a lot of burdens to bear it seems. It's another one of our admirable traits.:p

stevejazzx

I actually watched the whole debate
Krauss definitely handles some areas badly.
He physically points at his opponent and presumes his opponents ignorance publicly scorning him for not knowing what he is talking about (mostly in regard to physics). Although Krauss appears correct in all his assumptions his execution in delivering them is, in this particular debate, flawed.

However it must be understood that he almost walked out of this before it started due to the issue with segregation. He was essentially lied to in this regard by the organisers who had to back pedal furiously in order to keep him there.
Going into the debate therefore under such circumstances was I believe a major cause of the 'cranky' Krauss performance we see here.
Hitchens was like this many times.

Despite Krauss' poor performance his points were generally good and he comfortably won the debate; mainly because his opponent when cornered started praising Allah, revealing that underneath the facade of of logical progressive thought he appeared to be championing lay a fearful superstitious Muslim. And when his opponent attempted to 'catch him out' on the issue of infinities it became clear he had misunderstood the paragraph in question.

Krauss' upfront dismissal of Islam was refreshing. I did not find it disrespectful.
He is entitled to express his opinion this way. Part of Sam Harris' long running criticism of debaters is that they often afford some extra sensitivity to Islam.
I have always agreed with him on this. Islam as religion deserves no more or less respect than other religions; all religions are equally ridiculous.

In terms of Krauss regurgitating the standard atheistic arguments I am a little confused by the OP's claim. As has been said already he did use one of Hitchens standard arguments but admitted such beforehand. The rest of his arguments here were mainly centered around exposing his opponents blatant deficiency in regard to truly understanding the more complex area of physics. His opponent tired to interpret such things (infinities and origins etc) and use them against Krauss to which Krauss was rightly not standing for and used most of his time pointing out the flaws in opponents argument and knowledge or lack thereof. It is only in this last regard that Krauss acted poorly.

wretcheddomain

As an atheist, I know how sensitive it can be to come on to this forum and attack one of its leading spokesmen but I think it's necessary.

With respect SteveJazzx, I almost completely agree with your entire post, with just one tiny exception.

Yes - Krauss was trying to expose Hamza's weaknesses in areas of cosmology and infinities but Krauss could not argue against any other point without 'rejecting definitions'. For example, his repetitive use of 'a priori', then contradicting himself multiple times later, and his rejection of other philosophical concepts which always arise during religious debates. Instead of engaging in these concepts which he claimed he would do, he dismissed it and repetitively intervened in Hamza's discussion to dismiss definitions or other concepts which you cannot reject.

There's more to this debate than 'infinities' and Hamza explicitly stated his main argument was not from this perspective. His other arguments, although weak in themselves, were poorly or not addressed by Krauss and it's for this reason I would ascribe Hamza as the winner of the 'debate' given Krauss' poor debating style and lack of engagement with the discussion. It's important to note that while I concede Hamza won the debate, this is only from a debating perspective and doesn't mean I think his points are viable in any way.

MagicMarker

wretcheddomain wrote: »

As an atheist, I know how sensitive it can be to come on to this forum and attack one of its leading spokesmen but I think it's necessary.

What does this mean exactly?

Turtwig

MagicMarker wrote: »

What does this mean exactly?

The 'its' refers to 'atheism' not 'this forum'. Implication seems to be that folks on this forum get hurt or upset when one of the leaders of the new atheist movement is criticised on this forum.

Mardy Bum

Jernal wrote: »

The 'its' refers to 'atheism' not 'this forum'. Implication seems to be that folks on this forum get hurt or upset when one of the leaders of the new atheist movement is criticised on this forum.

I thought he was being rhetorical.

Turtwig

Mardy Bum wrote: »

I thought he was being rhetorical.

Ah! Damn. Yes, Possibly. It's that cute dog face, get's me every time.

wretcheddomain

MagicMarker wrote: »

What does this mean exactly?

Jernal wrote: »

The 'its' refers to 'atheism' not 'this forum'. Implication seems to be that folks on this forum get hurt or upset when one of the leaders of the new atheist movement is criticised on this forum.

Yes, Jernal got it right.

I knew in advance that if I posted a thorough critique of Krauss, there would a one-sided approach with all the 'Thanks' going toward other posters even though I largely agreed with them and that focus was shifted on my use of the word 'plagiarism' which I should not have used in hindsight.

I don't want to divert the thread wholly in this direction but considering you asked I'm obliged to reply. When OP's post critiques of Dawkins or other leading spokesmen for atheism, there tends to be an obvious backlash and I don't think this is obvious to many members of this forum who have a tendency to defend the spokesmen with equal rigour that members of the Christian forum would if I justly criticised an Archbishop or other such person.

There is a sensitivity toward attacking leading spokespeople and I think that's important to recognise. These people aren't infallible but the hypersensitivity on this forum to many criticisms of these spokespeople is clearly evident, especially in regard to the 'Thank' posters.

A regular poster is going to come along, dismantle this thesis either by sarcasm or some other rhetorical device and get 400 thanks. It's the typical method of discussion when a spokesperson is attacked.

Mardy Bum

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Yes, Jernal got it right.

I knew in advance that if I posted a thorough critique of Krauss, there would a one-sided approach with all the 'Thanks' going toward other posters even though I largely agreed with them and that focus was shifted on my use of the word 'plagiarism' which I should not have used in hindsight.

I don't want to divert the thread wholly in this direction but considering you asked I'm obliged to reply. When OP's post critiques of Dawkins or other leading spokesmen for atheism, there tends to be an obvious backlash and I don't think this is obvious to many members of this forum who have a tendency to defend the spokesmen with equal rigour that members of the Christian forum would if I justly criticised an Archbishop or other such person.

There is a sensitivity toward attacking leading spokespeople and I think that's important to recognise. These people aren't infallible but the hypersensitivity on this forum to many criticisms of these spokespeople is clearly evident, especially in regard to the 'Thank' posters.

A regular poster is going to come along, dismantle this thesis either by sarcasm or some other rhetorical device and get 400 thanks. It's the typical method of discussion when a spokesperson is attacked.

Dawkins has been criticised in here plenty as has Sam Harris. The only person to avoid a lot of criticism would be Hitchens.

Akrasia

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Dawkins has been criticised in here plenty as has Sam Harris. The only person to avoid a lot of criticism would be Hitchens.

Hitchens was an asshole. Dennett is the man who is most immune to reproach

stevejazzx

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Yes, Jernal got it right.

I knew in advance that if I posted a thorough critique of Krauss, there would a one-sided approach with all the 'Thanks' going toward other posters even though I largely agreed with them and that focus was shifted on my use of the word 'plagiarism' which I should not have used in hindsight.

I don't want to divert the thread wholly in this direction but considering you asked I'm obliged to reply. When OP's post critiques of Dawkins or other leading spokesmen for atheism, there tends to be an obvious backlash and I don't think this is obvious to many members of this forum who have a tendency to defend the spokesmen with equal rigour that members of the Christian forum would if I justly criticised an Archbishop or other such person.

There is a sensitivity toward attacking leading spokespeople and I think that's important to recognise. These people aren't infallible but the hypersensitivity on this forum to many criticisms of these spokespeople is clearly evident, especially in regard to the 'Thank' posters.

A regular poster is going to come along, dismantle this thesis either by sarcasm or some other rhetorical device and get 400 thanks. It's the typical method of discussion when a spokesperson is attacked.

I imagine a sensitivity exists but to a far lesser degree to what it appears you believe. The small sensitivity that does exists I imagine is essentially a respect for that persons general position. But that only gets them so far. I've seen Dawkins criticised heavily on here by Atheists and with good reason, same goes for Sam Harris and (it goes without saying) the crazy but brilliant Chris Hitch!
I don't care if you criticise Krauss, I care if what you're saying is accurate.
You certainly have a point in relation to his somewhat obnoxious behaviour here; however it would seem there is a genreal disagrement to your claim that he was unoriginal to the point of being plagiaristic?

Turtwig

Akrasia wrote: »

Hitchens was an asshole. Dennett is the man who is most immune to reproach

Except for his idea with the 'brights' initiative that definitely warranted reproach.

OP, most folk in this forum criticise Dawkins & Co. at times. The majority of posters so far on this thread mostly agreed with what you were saying. It's just that this forum is also full of pernickety pedants who often like to probe others' arguments deeper (sometimes at the expense of their own.:o). So even though they agreed with you most of what you said they didn't agree with all of it.

wretcheddomain

stevejazzx wrote: »

You certainly have a point in relation to his somewhat obnoxious behaviour here; however it would seem there is a genreal disagrement to your claim that he was unoriginal to the point of being plagiaristic?

Maybe I'm not a clear and effective writer but I believed I clarified this point at least thrice in my previous posts i.e that I meant it in a non-literal sense, exaggerated metaphor, and hyperbole to reflect Krauss inability to articulate his own argument as the expense of using everyone else's arguments to prop up his own position.