RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3900Goal: $6000

Talk:Luboš Motl

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

It's clear someone needs to write a Motl quote generator. Or indeed, a quote generator generator - David Gerard (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm on the case. And I will try to learn the linking and footnoting convention -- it's much cleaner the way it is now. --Jre (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This article sucks because it repeats "raging asshole" too often. Does someone have a small penis to grind here? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
You've evidently never encountered his winning ways online - David Gerard (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Also sucks because there are no footnotes in the insults section. IE, the lead. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
This isn't Wikipedia, where the word "is" requires citation. Read his blog - David Gerard (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Still, the lede is a little too Encylopedia Dramatica for my liking. I'm not saying "add balance" or that the guy isn't a prick, I'd just like to know why he's a dick when the article calls him a dick, and not have to wait. I'm still not clear, apart from being a scientist with a dislike of the sillier humanities (I'm not a massive fan of "womens studies" either, hell most of the students of womens studies that I know aren't that impressed by it) and having some politicised views on AGW, I can't see it. Being a dick is more than being wrong, or disagreeing, or being a crackpot. I have no qualms with calling a dick a dick, but lets see the actual size of the cock first! Scarlet A.pngpathetic 11:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Not being a theoretical physicist, I haven't encountered the brunt of it. But he's renowned in the physics blogosphere for his abusiveness toward anyone who he thinks might disagree with him. People actually fear him showing up in person. (I think he's unlikely to be a physical threat, but I'm not the subject of his tender attentions.) i.e., it needs someone he's really pissed off to document it thoroughly. However, I'm confident what the article says is accurate. And "raging asshole" is way more accurate than "a bit of a prick" - David Gerard (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I have no doubt it's true, I just want to see it in action while expending as little effort as possible. Character0005.gif Scarlet A.pngpathetic 12:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Now, I'm not saying I'm Facebook stalking the guy, but this one is good "They can bend him but not break him - because he's spineless. It may actually be good if this immoral snake is kept at the top of the IPCC so that almost everyone will be able see that it is a thoroughly corrupt, untrustworthy, corrupt, dishonest, and pornographic organization." I assume "pornographic" is just lost in translation. He seems relatively normal otherwise. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 12:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
About "pornographic" - see wp:Rajendra_K._Pachauri#Other_Interests, especially the Telegraph article in the footnotes.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
A collection of quotes compiled by Sabine Hossenfelder of Backreaction: Best of Lubos (DOC file). Sample: A group of people, in this case blacks, whose mean IQ is 1.1 standard deviations below the average of another group, in this case whites, simply cannot be expected to have a proportional representation in the Academia. It's not exhaustive, and it gets repetitive after the first two pages. --ZooGuard (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

He is very much like me[edit]

Well, maybe not the climate change thing.... but you are just fucking pussies who don't even know what reason is. Make a rationalwiki quote generator instead. --Idiot number 57 (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Quote[edit]

Sorry, Greek reader who lives outside the reality, but an average Greek surely doesn't deserve and shouldn't have money for a "good German car". It's just your fantasy. The real question is how many millions of Greeks should starve to death and not which good German car they should buy. Motl
--85.78.172.31 (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

NPOV??[edit]

Good grief! I know this isn't Wikipedia, but do its Neutral Point Of View nor Biography Of Living Persons protocols mean nothing here? This article is simply disgraceful and doesn't belong on something with "rational" in its name.— Unsigned, by: 70.112.147.196 / talk / contribs 22:59, 29 January 2015‎ (UTC)

It would help if he wasn't a climate crank - David Gerard (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Of course those "protocols" mean nothing here -- this site is based on facts, not protocols. And it's you who are disgraceful, unable to offer any substantive criticism. This article is largely a collection of quotations and citations that make it clear that Motl is a racist, misogynist, dishonest, vile, sociopathic fecal stain on humanity. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Glaring omission[edit]

The article states that his science is good within his sphere of competency. I beg to differ. The author of that sentence has clearly never read Motl's explosive counter-reaction to the idea that entropy determines the arrow of time. His blog developed a nonsensical argument that every disagreeing physicist is a cretinous imbecile because the reason for the arrow of time is so self evident (so much so, in fact, that he never bothers to mention it in his writings). ThVa (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It says that his science is "generally" good, meaning mostly or usually. The problem is that Motl is a raging ideologue whose intellectual dishonesty and bad faith are deep and fundamental to his psyche, so he's completely unreliable. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

What is Motl so angry about? Does he have some undiagnosed mental disorder? For real, the vitriol with which he attacks people who disagree with him are unbecoming of a scientist. It's embarrassing, frankly. 82.69.2.57 (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2018 (UTC)