Udayana,
What a disappointing thread, reminds me of the Python sketch where a chap pays for an argument then has to argue about whether he is having an argument or not, then whether it is good argument ...
How could it be other than disappointing given what it is – a slur by association?
The original Buzzfeed article has more information than the Times article linked in the OP. To my mind, it lays out the issues:
The behaviour of Krauss and/or other atheist/sceptic campaigners undermines their arguments that the scientific method can provide a basis for morality and that “Science itself overcomes misogyny and prejudice and bias”.
First, how does the behaviour of someone making an argument undermine the merits of the argument? Would a murderer who argues, “murder is wrong” invalidate his argument because he’s a murderer?
Second, who argues that “Science itself overcomes misogyny and prejudice and bias” in any case, and how?
These types of behaviour and attitudes he is accused of bring science itself into disrepute and fosters distrust and ridicule of it.
Only if people are stupid or unpleasant enough to conflate the science with the people doing it (see the OP for an example of the eror). Does great music for example somehow become less great if you find out the composer was a proto nazi?
On the other hand: Maybe it is all fine, and we can continue with the long tradition of "science" conferences arranged to allow prominent figures to hook up with younger hopefuls?
That’s as grotesque a distortion as Vlad’s OP. First, they’re just science conferences, not “science” conferences as you slyly imply; second, “hooking up with younger hopefuls” as you put it is an entirely stand alone matter from the science, and indeed from conferences in general.
Shame on you.
