Comments on: Scott Adams on PZ Myers

By: Spannerotoole

Spannerotoole — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:50:59 +0000

Scott adams once actually said that Dogbert is his alter-ego, i.e that he can make a dog say stuff thats controversial if he said it, but because it comes from a dog, it’s acceptable, because people will think that it’s cute.

Scott Adams knows more than anyone here or anyone posting on Scotts own Blog can ever imagine. Remember also that scott also said he never posts his own real thoughts online or in a newspaper, (never do this unless you want to very unpopular),
As Far as evolution is concerned, it’s a crock anyway, for evolution to have actually started, a simple one-celled organism would have to be able to think “I want to have a pair of eyes so I can see” but this is not possible, at least scientifically, what is more likely, is that everything was actually created, humans have been around, apes have been around, dogs have been around, fish have been around ad infinitum, The seven creative days mentioned in scripture are not literal days as the hebrew word for day is an unspecified period of time. but alas some poeple don’t actually look at this,
examples of modern day usage of this term include “Back in my fathers day”
and “In my Day” and so forth.

To conclude, If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all otherwise wars get started

By: gsb

gsb — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 09:52:08 +0000

This sort of post-modernist “reality is purely subjective anyway” argument indicates to me that Adams knows he’s lost. He even admits that the TOE accords with perceived reality. He’s now onto actually denying the existence of objective reality, which is as far as you can go before falling off the logical abyss.

It’s almost the converse of the logical end-game of the more intelligent believers who end up arguing themselves into a vague, laissez-faire, deist god because ultimately it’s the only one they can shoehorn into the observed universe and still cling to Belief.

I do still love Dilbert, though. Sometimes I think it is written entirely about my company. Adams should stick with that.

By: Calladus

Calladus — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 01:06:28 +0000

I read Dilbert – as a guy in a cube, sometimes his stuff strikes close. But not as much as it used to. These days I think he just phones it in half the time.

I don’t read Scott Adams. I’ve tried, but he very quickly pegs his stupidity meter so I move on.

For those who want a better geek comic I’d recommend XKCD.

By: Greta Christina

Greta Christina — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 00:56:52 +0000

“Evolution can’t be true because if it were true it means we evolved through natural selection, yet there can’t be a selection pressure for having access to epistemic truths, so therefore if evolution were true it is highly unlikely that we’d have access to any truth.”

Does someone really say that?

Seriously?

Wow.

I would have to say that “being eaten by tigers” versus “not being eaten by tigers” is a pretty powerful selection pressure for having access to epistemic truths. Epistemic truths about tigers, anyway.

By: Saint Gasoline

Saint Gasoline — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 23:47:24 +0000

I wonder how Adams thinks physicists will “demonstrate” that our perception of reality has no connection to reality. Wouldn’t any demonstration be just another “perception”? Isn’t this the ultimate in unconfirmable twaddle?

Yes, maybe we are in the Matrix, Scott, but frankly we have no reason to believe this is true. And only an idiot would think it is “likely” that physicists will demonstrate the impossible!

Also, this has to be the silliest criticism of evolution I’ve ever heard. It’s on par in idiocy with Alvin Plantinga’s “Evolution can’t be true because if it were true it means we evolved through natural selection, yet there can’t be a selection pressure for having access to epistemic truths, so therefore if evolution were true it is highly unlikely that we’d have access to any truth” argument.

By: miller

miller — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 22:47:21 +0000

I think he's just joking, but to quote PZ... (link)

If any of his defenders want to claim that "hey, he's just being funny!" that's fine, as long as you're willing to admit that his chosen style of humor is to pretend to be a colossal boob...

By: grazatt

grazatt — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 22:01:33 +0000

I think he is what would be called a contrarian with delusions of intellectual grandeur!

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:13:50 +0000

Adams is a classic example of a shallow thinker masquerading as a deep thinker. Watching him use the tools of argument is a little like watching a baby play with pots on the kitchen floor — he thinks he’s found a use for them, but it’s almost certainly not the use for which they were intended.

He seems to think that a half-baked opinion is a substitute for genuine expertise, but he doesn’t have even the minimum knowledge to appreciate the scientific method or knowledge theory.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:52:44 +0000

Oh, for the love of Mike. The gadfly fallacy. “Geniuses throughout history have gotten under people’s skin and made them angry. I get under people’s skin and make them angry. Therefore, I must be a genius.”

So you’re saying Scott Adams is a pretentious high schooler and/or a 4chan troll. I’d have to agree.

By: Siamang

Siamang — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 17:48:20 +0000

Scott Adams passes all the tests of science to be treated as if he really exists. But if physicists someday demonstrate that our perception of reality has no connection to actual reality, which I consider likely, then Scott Adams is just an illusion, albeit an annoying one.

My main criticism of Scott Adams has to do with the way he is presented to the public as actually existing. And beyond that, I enjoy yanking the chain of people who think they believe people actually exist for actual reasons as opposed to taking a side.

I am agnostic on the existence of Scott Adams, unless and until he can prove to me that reality is reality.