Stephen Hawking and the Big Brain fallacy

Stephen Hawking and the Big Brain fallacy

Posted 04-25-2008 by Daniel Pendick

StarChild learning center/NASA.gov Yesterday on the Daily Galaxy blog, I read something about renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking that reminded me of the bewitching power of scientific expertise. Just check this out:

At an event marking the 50th anniversary of NASA on Monday, Stephen Hawking, Newton's heir as the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge, answered the question, “Are we alone?” His answer is short and simple: probably not!

Next question: How does Hawking know that and why should I care what he thinks about it?

Last time I checked, Hawking is a physicist who has made important contributions to the understanding of black holes. He is not an expert in astrobiology.

But he does have one important asset: a big brain. Having a big brain must mean he knows, well, everything.

Albert Einstein, upon whose tall shoulders Hawking’s career rests, was put in a similar position by the press early in the 20th century. Being unable to fathom what Einstein’s scientific papers meant, reporters simply asked for his opinion on things — world peace, for example. This isn’t a bad thing, because celebrity’s can use their notoriety to do good in the world.

But in Hawking’s case, I’m a little dubious. Astrobiology is highly developed, with a rich body of literature by organic chemists and REAL experts on DNA who could have provided a much more authoritative opinion on whether we are alone in the universe.

Here is where the lack of expertise, despite the big brain, may be showing a little:

Alien abductions, in Hawking’s view, are nothing more than claims made by “weirdos,” but we should be careful if we ever happen upon an alien. Because alien life may not have DNA like ours, Hawking warns "Watch out if you would meet an alien. You could be infected with a disease with which you have no resistance."

I’m no expert in DNA either, but I do wonder how shaking hands with an alien could give you a bad case of the astro-flu. Pathogens and parasites evolve to be compatible with their hosts. The odds seem astronomically low that an alien would just happen to harbor a pathogen that could survive in the human body.

But I’m not saying that’s the case, because what do I know about diseases and evolution? If I were a theoretical physicist, I would still know as little as I do now about diseases and evolution.

No disrespect to Hawking, but I would be much more interested in his views on astrophysics than astrobiology.

Comments (7) | Tags: Daniel Pendick

Comments

To comment on the blog, you must be registered and logged into Astronomy.com. To register, click here.

skydoc said:

If you are not a creationist you should beleive him. Mathematic probablities are what he deals in.

Hawkings is simply stating that the universe, as he understands it, is sufficiently large to allow multiple random occurances of the conditions required for life and civilization to arise.

I think Hawkings is better qualified than most to comment on the size of the universe.

April 25, 2008 10:42 AM
Daniel Pendick said:

Well, I suppose they could have called you or me and asked the same question, and we would have been equally entitled to say "We are probably not alone in the universe."

If asked why we thought that, we could only say that based on the huge size of the universe, it is reasonable to assume conditions for life must exist beyond Earth.

See? Doesn't take a theoretical physicist to figure that one out. And Stephen Hawking's opinion on this isn't any more valid than mine, despite his giant brain, because neither of us are astrobiologists--or Frank Drake, for that matter!

My basic point is pretty simple: Why are we always asking famous scientists what they think about things they have no expertise in?

Answer: because it makes for a good news story. Einstein experienced the same thing.

April 25, 2008 2:03 PM
annsid said:

Astrobiologists today are like cosmologists were before, when there were no actual observations of the universe. In other words, astrobiologists today devote themselves to wild speculations about something that no one has seen and no one knows anything about.

Astrobiologists are extremely knowledgable about life on Earth, no doubt. But like the rest of us, astrobiologists don't know a thing about *how* life arose on Earth. They don't have a clue how non-living material suddenly (or gradually) turned into life. Armed with their impressive knowledge of present-day life on Earth, plus their total ignorance about how life arose on Earth, they make grand statements about life on other planets, given the fact that our most extensive search for extraterrestrial life so far has turned up absolutely nothing.

Is Stephen Hawking an expert on extraterrestrial life? Obviosly not. Are astrobiologists experts on extraterrestrial life? In my opinion, they are not.

Ann Sidbrant, Sweden

April 26, 2008 3:53 AM
annsid said:

In my opinion, the idea that anyone can be an expert on extraterrestrial life is absurd. How can you be an expert on something that hasn't been shown to exist? If we don't even know if alien life forms exist in the first place, and we don't, then how can we possibly know what these life forms are like and how common they are?

So called astrobiologists are, in my opinion, not much better than theologists or priests, who are also experts on something that hasn't been proved to exist. Yes, astrobiologists are undoubtedly experts on life on present-day life on Earth, and they may know a lot about fossilized but extinct earthly life forms, too. But they know nothing about how life arose on Earth in the first place. What made it happen? Was it something that was bound to happen because of the presence of water on Earth, or was it an unbelievable fluke? No one knows. How, then, can anyone be an expert on how common it is that life arises on other planets?

So far, all we know about extraterrestrial life is that we have found no trace of it. We have no proof that it exists. It is anybody's guess if it exists or not. And therefore, Stephen Hawking's guess is as good as anyone else's!

Ann Sidbrant, Sweden

April 26, 2008 10:24 AM
Antitax said:

True, famous scientists are often assumed to have good judgement in all matters. But they can fail naïvely outside their field. Einstein proposed a worldwide government to foster world peace. But a quick reality check easily shows that living under the same administration does not guarantee peace. The Yugoslavians, the Soviets, the Somalis, and countless other populations shared the same government but fought civil wars anyway. Only decent education makes people respect each other. Envy, greed and lack of compassion would still exist and cause conflicts in a worldwide nation. That's a no-brainer that the big brain did not see. (Provided Einstein really wanted that. Some do-gooders might have made up this Einstein's one-world utopia to reinforce their own credibility with his').

April 27, 2008 6:21 AM
Bravo33 said:

I believe the question was phrased in a philosphical way. In this regard, I see Mr. Hawking as immensely qualified to answer that question, as well as many others completely unassociated with astro-physics. I can imagine a world where "Magic 8-Balls" had the insight Mr. Hawking has, or Mr. Einstein had. I would own one. Who wouldn't?

April 27, 2008 7:28 PM
variable said:

There is indeed a tendency to assume that someone who is brilliant in one field is able to speak with authority on just about everything else. On the website for the film 'The 11th Hour' (about the state of the environment and what we can do about it) Stephen Hawking is in the list of experts, under 'Environment and Ecoliteracy'. When I saw this, I wondered if this was so. I would not be surprised to hear that Prof Hawking is concerned and well-informed about the problem of global warming, but an expert? I think the film makers are using his name and fame to add extra credibility to the film. No doubt he lends his collaboration because he sincerely feels that people need to be urged to action, but I still think it probably gives a false impression of his 'expertise' to the general public. Unless, of course, he really is an expert in environment and ecoliteracy... but I wasn't aware of it.

May 1, 2008 1:31 PM