He didn't seem arrogant to me from the Lex podcasts. He seems to have no problem admitting when he doesn't know something or when he was wrong. Maybe his overuse of the "I" pronoun gives the wrong impression?
More the overuse of his name to name other things and the fact he has been talking about revolutioning science for at least 2 facades without doing it.
I think it depends what you mean by arrogant. To me, naming things after yourself is a bit of vanity. But I also see the advantage of building a brand with a consistent meaning. You may not believe everything Wolfram has to say, but I think that the naming here conveys a clear meaning to users.
If the ideas are really all he claims they are, sure. If they're just a gloss on cellular automata and don't actually deliver anything new, then all that's left is the arrogance.
Arrogance is not a flaw as far as public perception is concerned. Look at actors, sports personalities, and musicians; however, in this case, we have someone who is working on his cockamamie theories without the support of the scientific community, and the arrogance just wraps everything up in an awful package.
It is a shame because Stephen Wolfram is immensely gifted and has already achieved what many of us in the tech world can only dream about. Mathematica, despite all its flaws, is a fantastic piece of software. Wolfram has no need to scream "I've revolutionized physics!" to the four winds. It's tragic to see an exceptional mind descend into madness.
