Blake Stacey just asked me to pick on Scott Adams and the Dilbert blog some more—he wants practice taking potshots at fools. Well, Blake, I did a quick browse through the latest entries at the Dilbert blog, and I had a hard time finding anything with even a tiny germ of substance to attack. He spits up a lot of froth, you know, and there has to be at least a hint that he’s taking a stand on something in order to have an argument.
I did see that he is now calling what he does “philosotainment“, which I translate to mean “really stupid philosophy for the feeble-minded.” You might have more luck getting a philosopher like Wilkins to take umbrage at his diminution of a significant field of human endeavor. Or more likely, he’d refuse, as I do, on the grounds that it is impolite to interrupt someone in the middle of masturbation. Sorry.
Thank you for taking the time!
I mean that. Seriously. I can fully appreciate that there’s no sense in trying to “respond” or “reply” to what is essentially the verbal equivalent of white noise. So, if there’s nothing sensible to be said, then so be it.
It’s just that. . . well, if you’ll forgive me for being a trifle indelicate. . . it can get awfully tiresome to see such mental masturbation done in public, and with such a cosmic sense of self-importance that it expands to the scale of epic bukkake, with all of us as the schoolgirl.
Blake, that was incredibly indelicate. I don’t know which form of outrage to summon – simple grossed-out kind or my special brand of ‘outraged at you for exposing me to a real phenomenon that I would prefer didn’t exist.’
Wow. That’s a harsher response than I was hoping for. Note to self: don’t do that again. . . .
Me: “So, I guess this isn’t a good time to post a link to this Scientific American article on the psychology of paedophilia?”
Rest of Pharyngula community: “God damn it!”
“philosotainment”, heh. Nice to see to see my hypothesis about Adams confirmed from the horse’s mouth^H^H^H^H^H ass himself — that he doesn’t really “believe” any of his crap; it’s all just stream-of-conciousness spew, intended to supply hooks for lame-o jokes.
I think it is an entirely appropriate response to point out that Scott Adams seems to be a chronic public masturbator. And if you think that’s gross, take a look at the people who hang around his site and not only applaud him for it, but make up excuses about its significance.
You can politely interrupt someone who is masturbating if you offer to assist. This is the origin of the term “helping hand”.
Off topic (I hope!): Anyone else get a bit of scam-mail from Her Majesty’s Secret Intelligence Service? Supposedly the “Anti-Scam Department Team” of SIS wants me to send them a ton of personal information so that they can check whether I’m being taken advantage of. They want to help! (Maybe this isn’t so off-topic after all.)
philosotainment
So when does the “tainment” start?
The pseudo-SIS-phish message hasn’t shown up in my GMail spam box yet. I’ll be on tenterhooks until it arrives (although yesterday I did get a piece of spam with “fermion” in the subject line, which I thought was kind of cool).
(Hey, I just thought of a great phishing scheme. Why don’t we write to millions of people asking for their personal details so we can help them tune their psychic harmonic vibrations, radiate positive energy and generally emulate Oprah? I’m morbidly curious to see how many people might fall for such a ploy.)
Too many, Blake, too many. Your Gmail box would overflow. (This is not a sly reference to Blake’s first post.)
I’m surprised that Adams is copping so much flak here, after posting things like this ultra-sarcastic screed on atheism and ethics:
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/01/atheists_in_jai.html
Maybe we could talk about this instead:
Tails tell us we’ve evolved
Even though it seems humans born with tails would throw a kink in evolutionary theory, they’re the exception that proves the rule.
February 15, 2007 [L.A. Times]
HUMAN BABIES BORN with tails? That may sound like a headline from the Weekly World News, but it was the respected New Scientist magazine that recently published a cover story about the phenomenon of evolution “running backward.” Entertainment value aside, the article represents a new twist in the politically charged debate about evolution.
The author of “The Ancestor Within,” Michael Le Page, cited the babies with tails as a likely example of atavism, a phenomenon in which ancestral traits suddenly reappear after thousands or even millions of years. Another example, one remarked on by Charles Darwin, is the appearance in some human mouths of large, ape-like canine teeth. (Stephen King, call your office.) [continues]
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-tails15feb15,0,283979.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail
Scott Adams writes comics for a living. His job is to entertain people. That’s what he does in his blog, too. He wrote some stupid things about evolution and ID, sure. So what? He’s not a scientific authority on anything and I’m sure he’ll be the first to admit that. He’s the Dilbert guy, for chrissakes. Your repeated harping on him, on the other hand, makes you look like a stuck-up pompous ass with no sense of humor whatsoever.
And come on, making a separate post about how you seriously considered a fanboy’s ass-kissing request of what amounts to “please, master, give this worthless excuse of a human being another sound thrashing so we can all admire you even more”? Do you seriously not understand how incredibly pathetic that is?
You made me look, you bastard. No, we shouldn’t respond to the incredibly dumb…
Someone above asked when the ‘tainment started. I wonder when the philoso’ starts.
It’s philosophy for the sole purpose of entertainment, not enlightenment. And it doesn’t try to be right, or further our understanding of reality.
You know, this would fall under Harry Frankfurt’s philosophical definition of “bullshit”.
philosophy for the feeble minded
That’s one of the funniest things I’ve ever read
I’ve never been to the Scott Adams blog until tonight, but seriously, isn’t everything he’s posting just snark? The little bit I read made me think he was just trying to be funny, sarcastic and irreverent about pretty much everything, and I’m one of the biggest anti-religiosity pro-evolution hominids of which I am aware. But I am willing to laugh at myself (in hopes of beating others to it!).
Did I miss something where he actually impugns my beliefs and lack thereof and meant it?
Maybe today’s David Brooks column would be a better target, then? Arthur Silber’s already dealt with the philosophy but Brooks’ appeal to what “science” tells us about “human nature” might could use some words from an actual scientist …
Jim Flannery:
For a refreshingly empirical view of human nature which pokes big holes in David Brooks’s non-logic, try Altemeyer’s The Authoritarians.
I love Blake Stacey’s comments, but because there are now Mollies on the line, I need to point out that I was the first Pharyngula commenter to tie Scott Adams to Oprah. (Comment #99)
;-)
I stopped reading after “I love Blake Stacey’s comments”. . . kidding! I hereby acknowledge Sonja’s priority and reaffirm her sagacity. This part of her comment I found particularly nice:
Is it possible that Scott Adams is one of those really immature people that find it impossible to admit it when they were wrong, even after they themselved have discarded their previous positions? Could the following possibly be read as the beginning of his contrition?:
….naaahhhh!
Blake @19:
LOL. I had just spent a chunk of the afternoon on chapter 4, actually.
I gotta rant for just a minute. Please bear with…
Abuse of philosophy has become less popular in modern days as science has long replaced philosophy as the pinnacle of human intellectual achievement (and I’m a philosophy student, not a scientist, so I’m not just saying that out of hubris. It’s just a simple fact).
But philosophy is still very often abused, and philosophy abuse can be just as big a rip-off as abuse of science. PZ’s Oprah post points out an excellent example of how some jackasses can make up a bunch of gibberish off the top of their heads, spew it to the public, and then christen themselves philosophers and metaphysicians. And in the process they rip off the public for God knows how much money, all in the name of “philosophy”.
The bullshit that passes for “philosophy” in some circles irks me as much as the bullshit that passes for “science” in some other circles irks scientists. Pseudophilosophers can be just as bad as pseudoscientists. People like Scott Adams seem to think that philosophy consists of nothing more than just making stuff up, and that any old jackass who’s never even cracked a volume of Aristotle or Descartes or Nietzsche can claim to be a philosopher. And the sad part is that they make tons of money selling this garbage.
As Socrates pointed out millenia ago, a sophist who does “philosophy” just to make money or get attention is no real philosopher. “Philosotainment” is philosophy about as much as D. James Kennedy’s “Darwin and Hitler” movie is science.
Wes,
Well said. I’m a philosopher by trade, and it’s astonishing what people think philosophy is. At a party not too long ago, someone started questioning me about why the number 4 was unlucky (not why it was *perceived* as unlucky, why it WAS unlucky), and was quite puzzled by my insistence that I didn’t spend my days pondering the luckiness of numbers.
Too many people think that ‘philosophy’ consists of pulling new-age drivel out of one’s arse.
‘Philosotainment’ is as annoying to me as the idea that Intelligent Design belongs in a philosophy class.
(Actually, I do cover creationism in my Critical Thinking class, as an example of pseudoscience and fallacious reasoning, but I’m pretty sure that’s not what they had in mind).
Well, I don’t actually see the point of all the Scott Adams angst, but as someone who has made some of my money as an academic philosopher, and some of it as a professional (fiction) writer, I can certainly understand those of you who are snarky about ignorant people who imagine that what you do is easy. It annoys me, too.
Everyone (it sometimes seems) assumes that she is capable of producing reputable philosophy by some process of introspection or inspiration, and everyone (likewise) thinks he can dash off a few publishable novels and stories. It never occurs to them that these are rigorous crafts requiring advanced skills to practise even competently, and that the skills are supported by a difficult-to-acquire base of specialised tacit and explicit knowledge.
Well, I don’t actually see the point of all the Scott Adams angst, but as someone who has made some of my money as an academic philosopher, and some of it as a professional (fiction) writer, I can certainly understand those of you who are snarky about ignorant people who imagine that what you do is easy. It annoys me, too.
Everyone (it sometimes seems) assumes that she is capable of producing reputable philosophy by some process of introspection or inspiration, and everyone (likewise) thinks he can dash off a few publishable novels and stories. It never occurs to them that these are rigorous crafts requiring advanced skills to practise even competently, and that the skills are supported by a difficult-to-acquire base of specialised tacit and explicit knowledge.
Grrrr, I hate it when I get a double post like that. :(
Hence why I think we should refer to him as ScotAdams.
I can understand the fustration of the philosophers – it’s much the same fustration that economists and social scientists feel when people butcher their fields. Outside the creationist camps (and global warming denialists), most people at least acknowledge that science takes work to learn, and that all opinions are not equal.
In economics and social sciences it seems that most people believe that their odd idea of how things works are easily as good as the models made by the experts – after all, they base it on their own observations…..
If I had a nickel for every time someone on the internet thought they could do “philosophy” by stringing together pretentious-sounding words I would be one wealthy bastard.
Errm, he has not admitted that he was wrong in his stupid things about evolution–in fact, he’s made excuses for them.
It’s also weird that you object to someone criticizing. The guy posts essays in public, where anyone can read them, and he has comments where hundreds of people comment…and you get bent out of shape because someone in a corner of the internet also has the temerity to comment on them? Get real.
This is another similarity to masturbation. The person gets all embarrassed and tries to hide when you catch him at it.
“Well, I don’t actually see the point of all the Scott Adams angst… ”
Mostly that a lot of us did like his strip for a long time, and maybe even parts of his books. But then he started opening his mouth sans editor, and now we’re embarrassed about having liked his work before.
The problem with being the first person to do something is that the thing you’re doing has no name – at least not one that has any meaning.
Oh, it’s got a name Scott…
PZ, I think you’re being unfair to Scott Adams. He may be uniquely qualified to comment on intelligent design.
Item 1. The ID folks insist that life is the product of intelligent design.
Item 2. Item 1 is at odds with the Genesis account(s), which depict life as the product of a series of commands beginning “Let there be …” These commands are notably lacking in design specifications.
Items 1 & 2 imply that ID and biblical literalism are incompatible. So it’s a bit puzzling that they are so strongly correlated. However:
Item 3. To the extent that life may have been designed, the inefficient and ad hoc nature of many biological mechanisms implies design by a committee.
Item 4. The existence of such a committee is further implied in the Genesis account(s) by the god’s use of the first person plural, e.g., “Let us make man in our own image.”
By this irrefutable chain of circumstantial evidence, we conclude that if the ID folks and the Genesis account(s) are both correct, then life was designed by a committee at the rather vague command of an authority figure.
That is, God is no bearded white dude in the sky; he’s a pointy-haired boss in the sky. That Scott Adams should comment is perfectly natural.
Errm, he has not admitted that he was wrong in his stupid things about evolution–in fact, he’s made excuses for them.
Yeah. He was totally wrong there. So? If you noticed, he’s not coming back to this point again and again. He didn’t dedicate this blog to pushing his wrongheaded ideas on evolution. His blog is light, amusing entertainment, sometimes thought-provoking, sometimes even profound, sometimes silly or stupid. He must’ve written about twenty totally different topics since then and never gave it another thought.
But think how ridiculous it is that you felt compelled to go back, skim the last entries of some blog you don’t even read, of a blog not devoted to evolution in any sense, written by a comic artist… just so you could maybe find something worth attacking (!). Sheesh, PZ, try to look at it objectively and notice how weird (OK, I’ll tone it down from “pathetic”) that is. He’s not THE ENEMY. He’s not Borg or Darth Vader. Not a Discovery Institute fellow. He’s just this comic artist guy writing light pieces on whatever he feels like, occassionally getting something totally wrong. He doesn’t spend his days thinking of new ways he could ridicule that PZ fellow. Why should you?
So of course you have a right to criticize him, and so does everyone. I’m not disputing that. I’m saying that to anyone
looking at it objectively, this entry of yours speaks volumes about your shortcomings, not Scott Adams’s.
Nope, sorry, you’re nuts.
He’s out there, his writings are popular and spread far and wide. Anyone can tear into them at any time. Basically what you are trying to do is demand some special privilege for him — because he’s a cartoonist, because he’s not a DI fellow, he gets to say whatever he wants and everyone should get annoyed if someone publicly disagrees with him. That’s BS.
And what makes you think I spend my days thinking of new ways to ridicule him? Because I put up two posts in a month, I must be obsessed? Adams is good for a laugh. I ignore 99% of what he writes, and if I should feel like poking at a tiny fraction of the stupidity he puts out, some people get defensive. Too bad.
Really now, if this is just an uber-geek drama queen tiff, that’s cool, but it’s unbecoming.
I’ll wager neither of you is winning any points from other dual-readership folks like me.
Imagine, for a moment, that we HADN’T already picked the creationist ‘argument’ to pieces. It has no defensible stance in fact.
Now. The exercise of arriving at that point would be quite an insightful journey. Sometimes re-inventing the wheel is the only way to understand.
Scott provides, purposely, learning tools for his readership- you can either figure out why he’s full of crap and learn from it, or you can post long rants and spin your wheels.
Don’t forget- you are a brilliant scientist. You have years of special learning and focused thought processes not accessible to most people.
Scott is delivering to the slobbering masses an opportunity to walk away just as dumb as they were before, or, possibly, maybe, they will latch on to the idea of dis-assembling his arguments and learn from the process.
Some of us have to stubbornly take that long road before we’ll see, and if anyone should understand that, I think it should be a teacher.