Is it Finished?

First, the Richard Dawkins Foundation and Center for Inquiry suspend their association with Lawrence Krauss.  Then, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists asks him to resign. Then ASU puts him on paid leave.  The Origin Project’s ten year anniversary has been cancelled.  And finally:

A celebrity atheist facing a raft of allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards women has backed out of a New Zealand tour.

Lawrence Krauss was due to speak on a double-bill with Richard Dawkins at the Science in the Soul tour in May in Auckland and Christchurch, but the promoter this morning announced he would no longer be on the bill.

It sure looks like the Buzzfeed article has stripped Krauss of all his public interactions.  It sure is looking like the social justice atheists took away one of Dawkins’ closest and most powerful allies.

Finally, Krauss has posted an open letter responding to the allegations.  Strikes me as weak tea, but your mileage may vary.   Most noteworthy to me is the very first sentence where he characterizes the Buzzfeed article as an attack on the atheist and skeptical community.  Still trying to blame religion.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in atheist activism, atheist wars, Lawrence Krauss, Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Is it Finished?

  1. TFBW says:

    Think Inc have yet to update their promotional website to indicate the absence of Krauss from the NZ leg of the tour. I wonder what their refund policy will be, given the change of programme. Australia has yet to fall, but may do so, as there are plenty of feminist activists prepared to mobilise (e.g. protesting screenings of “The Red Pill”).

    Most noteworthy to me is the very first sentence where he characterizes the Buzzfeed article as an attack on the atheist and skeptical community.

    He does so repeatedly. He probably believes it too, which is a serious error if true. There’s no point trying to rally the troops to your aid with a cry of “we’re under attack” if the same troops are the ones doing the attacking.

  2. stcordova says:

    First Krauss, is Dawkins next? Elevatorgate was a proxy war against Richard Dawkins. Perhaps Dawkins had more sense than to interact in a way that would be interpreted as harassment.

    Confession, back in the days of Telic Thoughts, I was waaaay too naïve to understand what the whole thing was about regarding Dawkins slumming in the basement with the Rational Response Squad. It took Deuce to enlighten me by directing me to encyclopedia dramatica. Seriously, I must float around some pretty tame circles by comparison.

  3. stcordova says:

    “Finally, Krauss has posted an open letter responding to the allegations. Strikes me as weak tea, but your mileage may vary. ”

    I actually think Krauss could be a bit more innocent than he’s been made out to be. In contrast, I totally believe the women complaining about Richard Carrier. So for Krauss, I don’t know. I don’t put it past SJWs to do anything and overstate their case. Freaking scary.

    I read Krauss’ account and I give him the benefit of the doubt because of personal experiences in the work place. The very first 15 met this woman, she made a veiled insult to me that was obviously rooted in jealousy. She was writing up every guy in our team and complaining endlessly. I thank God I eventually worked another shift and hardly saw her again after that one encounter. She’s the sort of girl who could ruin my career. I met a couple of other psycho girls and they complained about me harassing them. These were certifiable kooks, but it just looks bad on ones record whatever they say. Yikes. I thankfully worked in an environment that was male dominated most of my life. So I can’t imagine working in an environment with so many females (like a University) where a lot of accusations can be made.

    I have stand up guys who were teachers at school that were being blackmailed by students when the teacher handed out bad grades. Seriously, the level of ethics in present day culture is hitting some lows.

    In the era of professional victimhood, it’s hard to tell who is telling the truth. I can imagine Krauss, having met enough women, to be fodder for being victims. Scorned women story. Totally believable. Remember Karen Stollznow. Her story seemed totally believable that she was getting unwelcome attention from Ben Radford until Radford (the supposed predator) showed pictures of the two of them in bed which forced her to fess up that she actually had been sleeping with him. Obviously Radford had the goods on her in terms of actual e-mails and texts. It seemed evident to me she was just after some retribution.

    So I don’t know about Krauss. However, I do believe the complaints about Richard Carrier.

  4. Melanie Hensley is the woman who threatened to have a veteran fired years ago, correct? She was angry because he noted that his PTSD was related to war, not being a social justice warrior. She seems a bit unhinged and troubled to say the least, bless her soul. As unpleasant as Krauss is, he deserves to be able to defend himself. I would hate to think he will be punished if none of this is untrue.

  5. Dhay says:

    Lawrence Krauss’ response included this:

    Absurd claims:

    Three false allegations made by the reporters in the BuzzFeed story that don’t focus on
    specific complainants are particularly disturbing to me, not because they are the most
    shocking or salacious, but because they are so deeply out of line with the way I think, write,
    and behave in general, as anyone who knows me or has watched me can attest.

    First, they alleged that I stated to someone that maternity leave for women is unfair. …

    No they didn’t: let’s compare Krauss’ claim with with BuzzFeed published words:

    BuzzFeed News has learned that the incident … is one of many wide-ranging allegations of Krauss’s inappropriate behavior over the last decade — including … telling an employee … that he was going to buy her birth control so she didn’t inconvenience him with maternity leave.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/peteraldhous/lawrence-krauss-sexual-harassment-allegations

    No, BuzzFeed didn’t claim Krauss “stated to someone that maternity leave for women is unfair”: it’s Krauss who is making an absurd claim, here.

    *

    We perhaps shouldn’t read much into this, it’s easy to lose concentration during a long reply covering a number of separate items.

    I think, though, that Krauss’ reply will have been vetted by his legal advisors — it’s shoddy vetting to let through such an obvious and easily checked error of fact.

  6. Michael says:

    We perhaps shouldn’t read much into this, it’s easy to lose concentration during a long reply covering a number of separate items.

    True. But the Buzzfeed article contains another example of a subtle, yet significant misrepresentation:

    “Based on the material available to the University, we do not have sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations,” ANU’s letter said.

    But that’s not how Krauss described the schools’ findings. He told BuzzFeed News that “both Universities independently concluded that the report was unsubstantiated and fabricated with malicious intent.”

    Both schools rejected this characterization.

    “ASU did not find the complaint ‘fabricated with malicious intent,’ and did not make any such statement,” Arizona State told BuzzFeed News. “The characterisation by Professor Krauss that The Australian National University (ANU) found the complaint to be ‘unsubstantiated and fabricated with malicious intent’ is false,” ANU said.

  7. Dhay says:

    In Lawrence Krauss’ ‘Response to the BuzzFeed Article of February 2018’ he tells us he an open, friendly guy whose openness and friendliness is could be, and presumably he’s saying it sometimes is, misinterpreted as a lack of respect. Here he’s writing about when he’s a Professor, teaching:

    … I am by nature informal, even in formal circumstances . This has often held me in good stead, because it can create an atmosphere of open and mutually respectful communication. Nevertheless, my familiar way of communicating could also be misinterpreted as a lack of respect.

    Let’s see: his “open and mutually respectful communication” [is] “misinterpreted“.

    And here he’s writing about social occasions:

    I am outgoing, friendly and joke with people during social occasions. My intentions have never been to demean anyone, objectify them, diminish their sense of self-worth, or discourage them from expressing themselves. For any occasion where my friendly and open demeanor caused discomfort, I apologize for my lack of sensitivity. It was certainly not my intention.

    Let’s see: he’s outgoing, friendly and joking; he’s friendly and [openly so?]; he wouldn’t dream of intentionally demeaning anyone, objectifying them, belittling them or silencing them; even when the recipient feels discomfort it’s because they’ve misinterpreted what’s actually a delightfully outgoing, friendly, joking, friendly open demeanor as intentionally demeaning, objectifying, belittling or silencing them (a misinterpretation) it’s their own fault, he seems to say, not his; his only fault is a mere lack of sensitivity to the possibility or actuality of their perception that they’ve been demeaned, objectified, belittled or silenced, is a disability like colour-blindness which has prevented him seeing the signs properly and which has prevented him perceiving their discomfort.

    On the other hand, this wonderfully outgoing, friendly etc etc slightly imperfect man openly declares that in public and private:

    I am also brash and outspoken, sometimes obnoxious, in public and private. It is clear that there have been times when my statements, designed to provoke discussion, have made people feel intimidated, uncomfortable, or unwelcome to openly voice their concerns. I apologize to anyone I made feel this way and I hope that those who interact with me in the future will feel free to speak out to let me know immediately if my remarks seem so. My chief priority in my own communications is and will be to create and maintain a safe atmosphere for open dialogue on any matter and to provoke that dialogue.

    Brash, outspoken, (sometimes) obnoxious; made people feel intimidated, uncomfortable, silenced. He apologises for what he obviously feels — or wishes to portray — was inadvertent and wholly unintentional: all he really wanted was to chat.

    Do I detect a man much misunderstood, a victim of other peoples’ misinterpretations?

    *

    That last quote reminds me again of Sam Harris, who, off the cuff at a book signing, asked about the gender disparity in atheism, said:

    “I think it may have to do with my person[al] slant as an author, being very critical of bad ideas. This can sound very angry to people… People just don’t like to have their ideas criticized. There’s something about that critical posture that is to some degree intrinsically male and more attractive to guys than to women,” he said. “The atheist variable just has this—it doesn’t obviously have this nurturing, coherence-building extra estrogen vibe that you would want by default if you wanted to attract as many women as men.”

    Ah yes, to be at the top in atheist circles you need an intrinsically male posture, one that is very angry and critical, non-nurturing and non-coherence-building (ie unfeminine). Harris doesn’t add that you also need to be brash, outspoken, obnoxious, overbearing (silencing others), angry, intimidating and dominating, but I rather think Krauss — also at the top in atheist circles — has declared he embodies these qualities; so I think we can safely add Krauss’ qualities to Harris’ list.

  8. Dhay says:

    Oops! I omitted “lacking sensitivity” from my list of Kraussian and atheist leader qualities.

    There’s also “lacking respect” — though “lacking respect” is a misinterpretation of his relaxed (“familiar”) but actually respectful behaviour, says Lawrence Krauss.

  9. stcordova says:

    ” But the Buzzfeed article contains another example of a subtle, yet significant misrepresentation:”

    I presume this was a misrepresentation by Krauss. I gotta credit you Mike, you pick up on things I miss. I’m easily swayed by what people say if they say. I suppose I take so much of what people say at face value because I think it natural for people to tell the truth and it’s hard for me to imagine people doing otherwise. I sure couldn’t live with myself doing otherwise. Unfortunately, my willingness to trust people at face value has occasionally burned me.

    As I said, the case of Richard Carrier is pretty easy to call. If Krauss is guilty, he’s doing a better job than Carrier with his public releases. In contrast, Carrier was boast about his fetishes and sexploits online.

  10. Michael says:

    I presume this was a misrepresentation by Krauss. I gotta credit you Mike, you pick up on things I miss. I’m easily swayed by what people say if they say. I suppose I take so much of what people say at face value because I think it natural for people to tell the truth and it’s hard for me to imagine people doing otherwise. I sure couldn’t live with myself doing otherwise. Unfortunately, my willingness to trust people at face value has occasionally burned me.

    I’ve been burned and stabbed in the back too many times to trust these days.

    Just focus on the facts. There are the facts about CWRU and that hurts Krauss. There is the fact that he misrepresented the findings of ASU and ANU, which speaks to his level of honesty about these matters.

    And then there is this fact – he invited a young women, who he barely knew, up to his hotel room in order to have sex with her. This is not gossip or rumor. The one and only point of dispute here revolves around consent. Everything else is agreed upon.

    Okay, let’s be charitable and take his version of the story.

    What does that tell us about Krauss? Two things.

    First, when it comes to sex, he has remarkably bad judgment. Being semi-famous at the time, he invited a young woman he barely knew to his room. It turns out, he tried to have sex with someone who appears to have some emotional or psychological issues if she, as he claims, interpreted their consensual acts as some form of intended rape.

    And look where that one bad decision got him. One could argue this decision is the decision that led to the implosion of his entire career. Because she apparently began to tell other atheist feminists her story after elevatorgate became hot. This played a key part of developing the whisper network. It bubbled to the surface briefly in 2012 on a couple of blogs (as part of elevatorgate), and Hensley found herself being targeted for harassment by a large group of atheist males. She claimed she suffered PTSD from this, making it even easier for the atheist men to mock and turn her into a meme. This must have infuriated her feminist sisters watching on the sidelines, who quietly networked and whispered to gather more examples. Along comes some willing journalists from Buzzfeed and the feminists dump a boatload of sources and allegations into their lap. If Krauss had never invited Hensley to his room that day, there’s a very good chance a Buzzfeed story never emerges.

    Secondly, he was married at the time. So, he was cheating. Meaning that his sexual encounter with the young make-up artist entailed lies and sneakiness. That speaks to a man’s core moral character.

    If you add up the problems at CWRU, the misrepresentation of ASU and ANU, the stupid decision to have sex with Hensley that would entail dishonesty/cheating, it’s just not that hard to believe Krauss did as he was alleged to have done elsewhere.

  11. stcordova says:

    Excellent analysis Mike. I suppose I was projecting a lot of my personal experiences into Kruass’s story and I was going by my stereotypes about Buzzfeed and the typical SJW. You’ve changed my mind about the state of affairs, especially the part about the whisper network.

    On a side note, I realized I actually have a hard time identifying liars. I see people on TV making denials only to later get caught and I total believed them.

    Again I project myself into the situations. I can’t control my physiological responses if I have to admit something embarrassing. If I tried to tell a lie, I’d probably start stuttering and clamming up. I wrong assume other people are like me. I don’t know how these liars can say the stuff they say with a straight face especially when someone is suffering from their dark deeds. From a physiological standpoint I just can’t pull it off as my something deeply ingrained will just shut me down. When I watched shows like Maury and Steve Wilkos, I was appalled how poorly I did in identifying people who failed the lie detector or DNA paternity tests. Unless I have facts, I just don’t seem to be able to read people very well who are liars.

  12. Dhay says:

    H/T Ophelia Benson, there’s a T-shirt logo which runs:

    GOVERNING WITH REASON
    LAWRENCE
    KRAUSS
    FOR PRESIDENT

    A SCIENTIFIC WORLD VIEW

    http://www.spreadshirt.com/lawrence+krauss+for+president-A12371747

    Can you imagine having someone like Krauss for president: someone who has an, er, intrinsically male posture; someone who is very angry and critical, non-nurturing and non-coherence-building (ie unfeminine); someone who is brash, outspoken, obnoxious, overbearing (silencing others), angry, intimidating and dominating; someone who is lacking sensitivity and lacking respect; someone who fondles breasts and thighs uninvited.

    It would be horrid to have a president like that.

  13. Dhay says:

    Has anybody noticed that the BuzzFeed article includes the account of anonymous woman ‘A’:

    … when she and other students walked into the bar at the same meeting in Des Moines, Iowa, A. recalled, Krauss pulled over a chair for her and started running his hand up her leg under the table.

    “I kind of shifted away,” A. said. “He put his hand on again. I crossed my legs. He put his hand on again. And eventually I had to like physically turn my entire body.”

    A. was shocked, but didn’t want to make a scene, she said. “The last thing I need to do is, you know, yell at Lawrence and then have to deal with any potential fallout.”

    Krauss denied A.’s account, and said that it was A. who had come on to him, inviting him to join her in the hotel’s hot tub. Robin Elisabeth Cornwell, a friend of Krauss’s and then executive director of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, was also there, and backed his account. A. denied mentioning the hot tub or flirting with Krauss. Benjamin Wurst, one of her student companions, told BuzzFeed News that, as they left the bar, A. told him Krauss had put his hand on her.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/peteraldhous/lawrence-krauss-sexual-harassment-allegations

    Lawrence Krauss seems to be a magnet for women who come on really strongly towards him then, when they don’t get the response their lust desires, invert the story 180 degrees as being Krauss who came on really strong towards them; women who then get revenge for the frustration of their lusts with outrageous false accusations towards this poor innocent wronged man.

    But the main reason why I’m responding is to point out that A’s account (supported by Wurst’s) is incompatible with that of Robin Elisabeth Cornwell: if Cornwell’s account (supported by Krauss) is true, A is a flagrant and outrageous liar; or if A’s account is true, Robin Elisabeth Cornwell — then head of the Richard Dawkins Foundation, now head of the Center for Inquiry also — would appear to be someone prepared to be a flagrant and outrageous liar shielding a shocking sexual pest.

    If the latter, the rot runs very deep indeed.

  14. Michael says:

    if Cornwell’s account (supported by Krauss) is true, A is a flagrant and outrageous liar; or if A’s account is true, Robin Elisabeth Cornwell — then head of the Richard Dawkins Foundation, now head of the Center for Inquiry also — would appear to be someone prepared to be a flagrant and outrageous liar shielding a shocking sexual pest.

    If the latter, the rot runs very deep indeed.

    Excellent point. Of course, Cornwell isn’t a very reliable witness about such matters, now is she?

    http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=45628&start=15#p1499651

  15. Dhay says:

    For those with the patience to scroll through the many pages of that thread (and pay particular attention to the responses of ‘lordpasternack’, it gets very interesting indeed; for example:

    http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=45628&start=45#p1501003
    and
    http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=45628&start=90#p1538194

  16. stcordova says:

    Dhay,

    I shouldn’t be spending time on this, but well I waded a few pages through your suggested links and found:

    “One significant part of my ongoing gripe with this issue is that RDF was quite explicitly and purposefully set up as a semi-corrupt organisation, right from the outset. Richard Dawkins had explicitly intended it to benefit his mistress directly. He could use the Foundation to fund their trysts, give her a salaried position, get her a “mistress flat” – and fold it all into the Foundation as “expenses”. In one of his emails, he even referred to his charity, charmingly, as “$RDF”…

    Of course he also had intentions to promote reason and science – or at least said he did… But if you follow the money, and the evidence – you’ll get a very stark picture of which agendas took ultimate priority to him.”

  17. TFBW says:

    Dawkins is now on the Australian leg of his solo (sans Krauss) tour, and was due to have an interview on a show called The Bolt Report. About an hour and a half ahead of the scheduled appearance, his publicist started sending various stipulations to The Bolt Report about what may and may not be asked during the interview. Don’t ask about Islam. Don’t ask about Lawrence Krauss. Don’t ask me to make a distinction between Islam and Christianity. Don’t associate me with the political Right.

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/on-richard-dawkins-telling-me-what-not-to-ask/news-story/e8947876558c0b435b2ca26bab92aa6a

    Dawkins has become weak and cowardly, trying to keep his head down lest he lose it. He should just fade away at this point. There will be no Passing the Torch.

  18. Dhay says:

    Looking around for any other potential or actual interviews, I found Richard Dawkins had been interviewed on TV earlier this month in New Zealand; I’ll quote a portion here, with the entirety available as transcript and video at the link:

    [Dawkins] told The Project that since Donald Trump took office, he’s become more and more attracted to the idea of living in New Zealand. And he thinks other people should think about moving here too.

    “America had just gone mad, and Britain had gone mad in a slightly less dramatic way with Brexit,” he says. “I thought about half the population of America and half the population of Britain would love to go to a country where intellect might be appreciated. So I thought New Zealand might be an ideal country, low population. I would love to be invited to New Zealand and to live here, and for others to live here too.”

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2018/05/prominent-atheist-richard-dawkins-wants-to-move-to-ideal-country-new-zealand.html

    Dawkins seems incoherent on several levels: for a start, however lovely New Zealand might be now, it is blindingly obvious it would be rather less of “an ideal, low population” place to live in if Dawkins’ “half the population of America and half the population of Britain” emigrated there; Dawkins is an intellectual?

    Why should “half the population of America and half the population of Britain” emigrate there? It’s not clear, not clear at all, though my bet would be that Dawkins thinks it’s his own intellect which might be appreciated, rather than the very dubious claim that half the populations of America and Britain are intellectuals.

    Which half of the population of America is it, and which half the population of Britain is it, who are clever enough or discerning enough to appreciate intellectuals like Dawkins? (And which half are not?) It’s of course possible that Richard “Dear Muslima” Dawkins is misogynistically deprecating the half-populations of America and Britain who are women; I note, however, that “half the population of America” voted for Donald Trump, that “half the population of Britain” voted for Brexit, and that Dawkins is anti-Trump and anti-Brexit, so I’ll expect it’s those groupings he’s deprecating. If so, he’s engaging in black-and-white thinking and stereotypes to condemn and sneer at half of two populations, many or most of whom thought they voted as they did for very good, thought-through reasons — their intellectual sin is to disagree with Dawkins; to put the matter more starkly, Dawkins apparently paints them, half of two populations, as intellectually thick on the slim and dubious grounds that they disagree with him: Dawkins is an intellectual?

    It could possibly read as “I thought about half the population of America and half the population of Britain would love to go to a country where their intellect might be appreciated,” but I very much doubt that Dawkins thinks half the population of Britain are intellectuals or suppose they are intellectuals, it’s not my experience and judgement and it won’t be his either: so he surely is referring to his own intellect. But the passage is unclear, confusing, confused, incoherent: Dawkins is an intellectual?

    *

    On a related note, this highlights why I much prefer written text to interviews and podcasts. I find it takes much less time to read through written words than to listen to the very same words delivered at typical speaking rates; I can find, go back over and study interesting passages in written words with but a quick glance or skim or a Ctrl-F, whereas locating a passage in a five minute interview, let alone an eighty minute Sam Harris podcast, is by comparison slow and laborious; I already have the exact text when pondering or quoting written words, instead of the error-prone task of transcription. And because the words are all there to be readily seen, analysed, understood and criticised I can much more easily discern when a writer is muddled and incoherent and writing nonsense than I can discern it from a drone of words which flash by into the mists of half-remembrance.

    On the other hand, if you are a Sam Harris, that could well be why you have switched to long, long spoken podcasts instead of the written word of blog posts and articles. Bullshit and bollocks is more likely to pass without adverse comment (or full comprehension, including the comprehension it is bullshit and bollocks) when expressed in a drone of spoken words.

  19. Michael says:

    On the other hand, if you are a Sam Harris, that could well be why you have switched to long, long spoken podcasts instead of the written word of blog posts and articles. Bullshit and bollocks is more likely to pass without adverse comment (or full comprehension, including the comprehension it is bullshit and bollocks) when expressed in a drone of spoken words.

    Exactly!

  20. Dhay says:

    The current latest news from BuzzFeed on Lawrence Krauss is that his five-year contract to head the ASU’s ‘Origins Project’ has not been renewed; “Lawrence Krauss, Celebrity Scientist, Is Replaced At Top University Job Amid Harassment Allegations”:

    In the most significant fallout from accusations of sexual harassment, first reported in BuzzFeed News, the prominent physicist and skeptic Lawrence Krauss is out as leader of the Origins Project, a prestigious science program that he founded.
    [Wasn’t the founder Paul Davies, who recruited Krauss to become its first head? — Dhay]

    Arizona State University, which oversees the program, confirmed that Krauss is no longer the director. Katie Paquet, a spokesperson for the school, told BuzzFeed News that Krauss, a tenured professor, remains on paid leave, which began in March as the accusations were investigated.

    She did not say whether the investigation had concluded or whether Krauss stepped down voluntarily. “It is the policy of the university not to comment on ongoing personnel matters,” Paquet said.

    Krauss did not respond to requests for comment. After this story was published, he tweeted a statement, noting: “The University decided not to renew my director appointment when my most recent 5 year appointment expired in July.”

    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/virginiahughes/lawrence-krauss-origins-project

    It looks clear to me that the investigation into the accusations of sexual harassment — those “ongoing personnel matters” — is still continuing.

  21. Dhay says:

    And the current latest latest news from BuzzFeed on Lawrence Krauss dated 03 August 2018 and entitled “Celebrity Scientist Lawrence Krauss Grabbed A Woman’s Breast, University Finds” is that Krauss has been found guilty on one count.

    Krauss is “currently traveling in Iceland” and ASU is still not commenting on “ongoing personnel matters”.

    This Science article is informative about the evidence against Krauss:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/08/university-finds-prominent-astrophysicist-lawrence-krauss-grabbed-woman-s-breast

    And Science links to the actual Determination (ie Investigative Report) (pdf), which is more informative again:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/Melanie%20Thomson%207.31.18.pdf

    *

    Call me a cynic, but I see that the primary accuser in that particular harassment incident was the witness “Melanie Thomson, a microbiologist … who is an outspoken advocate for women in science”, who was probably the one person involved with sufficient focus on principle, on acting on those principles, and sufficient academic reputation behind her to push the matter onwards to this eventual conclusion.

    Anyone else, Krauss would still be without a spot on his official reputation; and still harassing.

    *

    I was drily amused to find that the “annual Australian Skeptics Convention in Melbourne in November 2016” is described in the Determination as “an academic conference at which the Respondent, as a representative of the University, was a featured speaker.”

    Really, a Skeptics Conference — normally a gathering of atheists, few if any with a Physics practitioner or other connection to such frontiers of Physics as require a Krauss to explain — is an “academic conference”? What part of ‘Science and Reason’ told ASU, you and I, or anyone, that? Yeah, yeah.

    Why was Krauss sent, in ASU time and at ASU expense, not in his own time and at his own expense, to an atheist Convention; and to promote not Physics but atheism? Indeed, Krauss surely counts as an anti-religious New Atheist activist, that’s promoting New Atheism. Is ASU deliberately, as a matter of policy, going well out of its way to promote … New Atheism?

  22. Dhay says:

    “At the heart of quantum mechanics is a rule that sometimes governs politicians or CEOs— as long as no one is watching, anything goes.” ― Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing

    https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/4110325-at-the-heart-of-quantum-mechanics-is-a-rule-that

  23. unclesporkums says:

    I see what you did there..

  24. Kevin says:

    Haha!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.