I few days ago I asked
Is Scott Adams an IDiot or does he just play one on TV?. Bill Dembski has now posted a link to Scott Adam's pathetic attempt to explain himself [
Dilbert vs. P. Z. Myers.]
I guess that answers the question. Scott Adams is an IDiot.
12 comments :
I would say that a working definition of an idiot is one who argues science with a cartoonist. In that, PZ qualifies.
What a lovely concept! So being a cartoonist immediately exempts one from all criticism, hmmm?
I can see all the IDists quickly scribbling out some bad panels so that if anyone dares to argue with them in the future, they can wave them around and say, "I'm a cartoonist! That makes you an idiot for arguing with me!"
Yeah PZ, good, sound, generalization. Very perceptive.
Maybe for an encore you could devote an entire month of your science blog to how Chuck Norris doesn't really understand the big bang model.
If Chuck Norris had a big audience reading his words, and he pronounced the big bang model nonsense, would it be wrong for PZ, Larry, or anyone else to loudly criticise him?
Doesn't seem wrong to me.
Poor David Heddle is also and IDiot. LOL.
Wow, Dembski has finally created his first answer to any question!
He can recognize IDiotic Design.
(I guess that is in his beloved math the operator (ID)D or ID^2. That would put him on the square to his Disco friends. :-)
"I'm a cartoonist! That makes you an idiot for arguing with me!"
Hmm, so likewise Dembski could use his fartist status.
Matthew,
"If Chuck Norris had a big audience reading his words, and he pronounced the big bang model nonsense, would it be wrong for PZ, Larry, or anyone else to loudly criticise him?"
It's a fair point, but there is a question of degree. Mentioning that a cartoonist or an actor is saying something nonsensical about science is one thing. Devoting multiple posts spanning over a year or two to refuting him is something else altogether. It should be somewhat obvious that people who actually look to a cartoonist for their science are beyond help and won't be influenced by what PZ, or I, or any other scientist writes. And anyone looking to PZ's blog to learn science won't devote more than an incredulous smirk to what anyone with no scientific credentials or training says or writes about evolution or cosmology. My guess is those who actually go to Pharyngula for the science (either a minority or a silent majority, based on the obnoxious comments) don't give a rat's ass about what Scott Adams has to say about evolution.
...people who actually look to a cartoonist for their science are beyond help and won't be influenced by what PZ, or I, or any other scientist writes.
Substitute "politician", "lawyer", "clergyman", "columnist" or some other profession for "cartoonist". Why wouldn't the same line of reasoning apply? Should scientists limit their responses to the statements of other scientists?
The point is that Scott Adams is someone whose success has given him a degree of prominence, a soapbox for spouting his opinions. Some of those opinions are merely stupid, but the ones that support ID are actively dangerous and should be countered. Who better to do so than someone who actually understands the science that Adams is trashing?
Jackd,
Actually, I would argue the same does apply to, say, politics. It’s ridiculous for a well known political commentator from either the right or left to devote much energy to what George Clooney or Barbara Streisand or Chuck Norris has to say. At yet there, at least, one could argue that a celebrity is no less qualified to discuss politics than a professional political commentator or even a political scientist—whatever that is. With science however, the situation is much different and makes what PZ is doing embarrassing or at least unseemly. Unlike politics, speaking with authority on science requires exhaustive training. Most people understand this. Any sensible person reading Scott Adams is looking for humor, not science education. For PZ to take him so seriously is simply absurd and, quite frankly, makes him look silly.
No, scientists shouldn't limit their responses exclusively to other scientists. But they should gauge their reactions. PZ's response over Scott Adams is purely Pavlovian.
You've done it now, Larry. Now that they've discovered this, the moronic Dildoid hordes will keep descending on you until you have to shut off comments on this post.
I would say that a working definition of an idiot is one who argues science with a cartoonist. In that, PZ qualifies.
Seeing as how Adams produces about as much science as Myers, it seems like a fair fight.
I'm pleased to see so unfunny and anti-worker a figure be in favour of I.D..
Post a Comment