Monday, November 14, 2005

Is Scott Adams an IDiot?

Say it ain't so, Scott!

Say it ain't so that you're an intelligent design apologist. How can someone so capable of mocking the follies of the tech industry be so credulous about pseudoscience?

Fortunately, PZ Myers does the takedown.

15 example(s) of insolence returned:


At 11/14/2005 11:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Scott Adams started as an engineer, right? Same old story with those engineers.

 

At 11/14/2005 12:57 PM, Anonymous Faithful Reader said...

See Edmund Wilson's new introduction to Darwin's books at http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/110518.html

 

At 11/14/2005 1:33 PM, Blogger RPM said...

He actually has a lot in common with Intelligent Design: both have engaged in crappy theology.

 

At 11/14/2005 4:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think you mislinked the takedown?
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/scott_adams_is_a_wally/,

- Adam V.
http://adamv.com/

 

At 11/14/2005 4:41 PM, Blogger Orac said...

Fixed.

Thanks.

 

At 11/14/2005 8:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Man, I still remember reading one of Adam's books where he had a whole chapter about Evil Skeptics.

Too bad he's turned out to be such a nutter.

 

At 11/14/2005 9:08 PM, Blogger Pierce Wetter said...

The problem with ID from my point of view is that what people think it means from the title isn't what it actually means...

That is, my friend who is the son of a minister is very Christian, but thinks evolution is perfectly reasonable. That's what ID should mean. "Genesis isn't literal".

But ID doesn't mean that, and hence the controversy.

I think Scott Adams is like my friend, and he thinks that's what ID is about, but of course it isn't.

Hence all the screaming.

 

At 11/15/2005 2:33 AM, Blogger Socialist Swine said...

The funny thing is that Adams talks about how the two sides of the debate don't understand their's or the other's position. Then he goes and gets the Darwinian position wrong. I can't think of anyone who argues that ID is wrong because of the Earth's age. Most people I know would argue that ID has no place in scientific discourse because it's a theological position or that it is an inferior view because it needlessly expands the ontology to include an intelligent designer.

-Socialist Swine

 

At 11/15/2005 8:14 AM, Anonymous DNRC-Duke of Normandy said...

Mr. Adams' opinion has been highly misrepresented by this blogger and that of PZ's. His essay was not even intended to favor either side, but to show that
"Both sides misrepresent the others’ position and then attack the misrepresentation. Therefore, neither side is credible."
Orac and PZ have obviously proven this true.

SA's followup response to these false attacks can be found at
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2005/11/intelligent_des_1.html

You may be surprised to find out that he is actually pro-evolution himself.

 

At 11/15/2005 9:32 AM, Blogger Orac said...

Give me a break. Adams started out by misrepresenting evolution and then piled fallacy atop fallacy.

Scientists who argue for evolution over intelligent design aren't credible because they "misrepresent" the position of the ID advocates? That's a load of crap. PZ nailed Adams to the wall because what he wrote was so full of creationist canards tarted up as "a pox on both your houses" fallacies regarding scientific evolution versus ID creationism, all cited as "evidence" that neither side is credible to the average person. Tellingly, however, he was unable to list a single valid, specific example of how PZ (or other scientists) "misrepresent" the ID position. (Scientists, on the other hand, can list literally dozens of ways that ID advocates misrepresent evolutionary theory.) He just says that they do and declares representatives of both sides "not credible."

So, I ask Scott: Tell us exactly: How does PZ "misrepresent" the position of ID advocates. Be specific and give specific examples.

I predict that he can't.

Also, his example of the "herd" mentality was quite specious. He presented a story of a fallacious idea that got started and continued to propagate through a corporation based on no evidence and word of mouth until it became dogma. The theory of evolution is based on enormous quantities of mutually supporting interlocking strands of evidence from diverse scientific fields.

Scientists may be prone to herd mentality, but it's usually in areas where the evidence is not so clear cut. Evolution is not one of those areas.

 

At 11/15/2005 10:04 AM, Blogger OutEast said...

SA: "What I’m denying is the existence of credible PEOPLE to inform me of [credible evidence for evolution]."

This is total gunk, no matter what SA thinks of PZ. If SA wished to seek out 'credible evidence for evolution' he could try reading some SCIENCE. What PZ is or is not like is irrelevant; whether PZ represents the IDiots correctly or not is irrelevant. SA appears to be appealing for some kind of Evolution Prophet, whereas the truth is that such is not merely unnecessary but would be undesireable. There's actual research out there, fella!

 

At 11/15/2005 10:18 AM, Blogger OutEast said...

Oh, and regardless of the post-hoc disclaimers that original post really was a load of lickspittle codswallop. I don't know where SA was doing his 'extensive' reading of the ID debate, but he manged to regurgitate an awful lot of nonsense.

Still, he's only a cartoonist.

 

At 11/15/2005 2:05 PM, Anonymous Mule said...

Swine - he has it wrong because the people who post any information on it are flamers. The truth isn't out there in an easily accessible format. ID is, the only probablem is that ID information is scientific.

 

At 11/16/2005 8:27 AM, Blogger Snotty McShot said...

DNRC-Duke of Normandy, I see your misrepresentation and I raise you complete fucking idiocy.

Adams is a knob.

 

At 12/07/2005 1:45 AM, Anonymous HCN said...

As an engineer that did work in offices that are strikingly similar than the Dilbert world...

Let me say that I am so very glad that Scott Adams was never a "real" engineer. He does not have a degree in engineering... he just worked in an engineering office.

I say that in my defense.

Of course... I was in an engineering office where I had to explain to OTHER engineer what I did (random vibration analysis) --- and that included telling one stress engineer how do create a BASIC finite element model (no, you do NOT just put nodes of the piping at just the attachments, but also in between, especially where they BEND!!!!!).

 

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Links to this insolence:

Create a Link

<< Home