Our love of Stephen Hawking isn't scientific

On March 14, Stephen Hawking passed away. He received a lot of attention on social media, complete with lots of praise for what he accomplished. Hawking was a theoretical physicist who studied black holes and time. He was famous for applying Einstein’s theory of relativity and quantum mechanics to the beginnings of time, which he predicted was a singularity that exploded (in other words: the Big Bang). He was also famous for his work on the nature of black holes.

When I saw Hawking died, I had to research what his scientific field was to know what he had accomplished. I knew he had written “A Brief History of Time,” though I’ve never read it. Science does not come naturally to me. Although it sounds fascinating, when I begin to read it, my mind becomes foggy.

However, from what I can tell, Hawking’s theoretical physics and his celebrity status didn’t seem to be the most natural pairing. Hawking struggled with ALS for most of his life and was confined to a wheelchair. In that respect, he became a symbol of triumph — of overcoming one’s limitations. This I can understand. He somehow was able to continue his work, have a family and keep a devilish sense of humor while at the same time fighting ALS. Hawking was an inspiration to us all.

I was wondering, as I read some of my Facebook friends’ posts and saw some of the tributes, if people generally were familiar with what Hawking did — with his work on time and black holes. If they were, why was it of celebrity caliber? If they weren’t, why was Hawking a celebrity?

Maybe Hawking was a cultural icon because of his personality. He was very funny and had been on a few episodes of "The Simpsons" and "The Big Bang Theory." His life was a compelling story, as “The Theory of Everything” demonstrated. Maybe Hawking as a person was more important to us than his work.

I think most of my friends who grieved him were in the same position as I was: They were part of the scientific lay people who can only digest science through entertaining videos and shows, like “Planet Earth” or “Cosmos.”

I doubt most people outside of the scientific community understood what Hawking did and the significance of his work; even after some research, I still don’t understand it.

What our culture admires is often strange to me. We love science; we’re an empirical era who won’t believe something unless there’s facts and figures to back it up, so we say. But if we had sat down before Hawking sadly died and asked him to explain (without dressing it up) some of what he did, a lot of us would have fallen asleep or been utterly lost. What we love is not science per say but popular science, which can be a very helpful thing in its own right. Neil deGrasse Tyson, the host of “Cosmos,” has dedicated himself to making science capable of being digested by the public. That is an admirable thing to me.

Our love of science, though, is different to me than our love of sports or entertainment. We can understand the basics of basketball or what an actor does without straining our minds. Science is not like that. It is its own academic discipline with its own method and language that most of us do not understand or speak. What we think is science is only a popular, digestible expression of what science truly is.

This is fascinating to me. We revere something we struggle to comprehend. We revered Hawking, though his work can only be truly understood by fellow theoretical physicists and scientists. Maybe we revered him not for his work but for him as a person. There’s plenty to celebrate on both sides.

Regardless, our love of science seems to not be so scientific.

Scott Stinson is a UF English Junior. His column focuses on popular culture.