| ||||||||||
|
|
Science Saturday: Time’s Arrow
How a philosopher of science spends his time (00:00:36-00:09:10)
David describes his run-in with the “What the Bleep!?” cultists (00:09:10-00:21:06) Is good science too disturbing to make good entertainment? (00:21:06-00:25:52) Sean and David take on John Horgan’s critique of string theory (00:25:52-00:36:46) String theory’s predictive power (or lack thereof) (00:36:46-00:42:50) Why is the past so different, in so many ways, from the future? (00:45:28-00:57:56)
   Bloggingheads wrote on 06/21/2008 at 10:07 AM
Science Saturday: Time’s Arrow AfterthoughtWe apologize for the occasional (and occasionally surreal) glitches in the audio-video synching of this diavlog. Taking a page from Sean Carroll, we have decided to blame the occurrence of these glitches on the Big Bang. Fortunately, aside from a cut that had to be made around 25:52, the conversation is mostly intact. thprop wrote on 06/21/2008 at 11:19 AM
What the #$*! Do We (K)now!? IMDB Entry
Official site with trailer
Plot synopses:"WHAT THE #$*! DO WE KNOW?!" is a radical departure from convention. It demands a freedom of view and greatness of thought so far unknown, indeed, not even dreamed of since Copernicus. It's a documentary. It's a story. It's mind-blowing special effects. This film plunges you into a world where quantum uncertainty is demonstrated - where neurological processes, and perceptual shifts are engaged and lived by its protagonist - where everything is alive, and reality is changed by every thought. Written by Anonymous Amanda, a divorced photographer, finds herself in a fantastic Alice-in-Wonderland experience when her daily, uninspired life literally begins to unravel, revealing the cellular, molecular and even quantum worlds which lie beneath. Guided by a Greek Chorus of leading scientists and mystics, she finds that if reality itself is not questionable, her notion of it certainly is. Stunning special effects plunge you into a world where quantum uncertainty is demonstrated - where Amanda's neurological processes, and perceptual shifts are engaged and lived - where everything is alive, and reality is changed by every thought. This film gives voice to the modern day radical souls of science, making them the true heroes of our day as they conquer and Bloggin' Noggin wrote on 06/21/2008 at 11:36 AM
Re: Afterthought I'm thrilled to see we've got a philosopher of science at last -- now if only I could get the diavlog to actually start running!!!
look wrote on 06/21/2008 at 11:48 AM
Is that a smoking jacket you're wearing? Well, please put it out.
bjkeefe wrote on 06/21/2008 at 01:37 PM
Random Afterthoughts Absolutely fantastic diavlog! I watched it straight through and then watched it straight through again.
Minor quibble 1: I admired the spirit of defending those who continue to work on, and believe in the potential of, string theory. It struck me as eminently sensible when David pointed out that sometimes, problems are hard, and should not be subjected to some arbitrary time limit to prove that they're worth working on. There is, however, the messiness of the real world, which among other things says that there is only so much money to go around, and that every dollar spent in pursuit of further string theory research is a dollar not given to some other line of inquiry. It also says that every bright young physics student who goes into that field because that's where the money and action are is a bright young student who is not working on another problem. I am not saying that we should completely stop spending money and time on string theory work; I just wish that Sean and David had acknowledged this.
Minor quibble 2: when David tried to argue about the entropy problem by giving
bjkeefe wrote on 06/21/2008 at 01:40 PM
Re: Is that a smoking jacket you're wearing? ... or are you just happy to have tenure?
bjkeefe wrote on 06/21/2008 at 03:25 PM
More Links You can read more about What the #$*! Do We (K)now!? on Salon. David is quoted on page 2 of this article. There's a good post about the movie on Skeptico, too.
look wrote on 06/21/2008 at 04:37 PM
Re: Is that a smoking jacket you're wearing? Quoting bjkeefe: ... or are you just happy to have tenure? 
(Dang the minimum message rule!)
AemJeff wrote on 06/21/2008 at 04:46 PM
Re: Random Afterthoughts Quoting bjkeefe: Minor quibble 1: I admired the spirit of defending those who continue to work on, and believe in the potential of, string theory. It struck me as eminently sensible when David pointed out that sometimes, problems are hard, and should not be subjected to some arbitrary time limit to prove that they're worth working on. There is, however, the messiness of the real world, which among other things says that there is only so much money to go around, and that every dollar spent in pursuit of further string theory research is a dollar not given to some other line of inquiry. It also says that every bright young physics student who goes into that field because that's where the money and action are is a bright young student who is not working on another problem. I am not saying that we should completely stop spending money and time on string theory work; I just wish that Sean and David had acknowledged this.I'm totally with you on how good this discussion was. I think I want to add a caveat to your caveat, here. I'm not sure on what other lines of bjkeefe wrote on 06/21/2008 at 05:35 PM
Re: Random Afterthoughts AemJeff:
First, who's to say what the upper limit to the difficulty of fundamental questions is going to be? As we continue to increase our theoretical resolution (if you will) toward the Planck scale, it would seem that the difficulty is going to increase exponentially - that's pretty obviously true in terms of the energy cost of doing empirical work - but there's no reason to assume that the theoretical problems aren't going to get a lot harder before we reach the end of that road.This is a worry I share. I was thinking during the diavlog of how many breakthroughs have been made in the past, in many branches of science but particularly theoretical physics, by individuals or small groups that needed very little funding to achieve real breakthroughs. I thought of Hawkings's line in A Brief History of Time, paraphrased: We have come so far in physics that we now have to spend a great deal of money to produce a result that we can't explain. I am not against string theory research or, say, the LHC, but I do sometimes wonder just how far down the slope of diminishing gains bjkeefe wrote on 06/21/2008 at 05:38 PM
Re: Is that a smoking jacket you're wearing? Quoting look: (Dang the minimum message rule!)Yeah, don't you hate that? I have used a new line consisting of multiple underscores in such situations, but there's something meta about what you used that I prefer. jhorgan wrote on 06/21/2008 at 06:13 PM
Re: Afterthought Sean and David, I’m flattered that among all the string critics out there you single out a humble journalist like me for rebuttal. But you neglect to address the serious problems posed by strings, so I'm obliged to remind the BHTV audience once again. One problem, which dates back to the origin of string theory, concerns empirical accessibility. Gaining the kind of experimental confirmation of strings that we have for, say, quarks would require accessing the Planck realm, which is more than 20 orders of magnitude beyond the reach of any accelerator. Stringers once hoped that, in lieu of empirical evidence, they would show mathematically that there is one logically inevitable and unalterable (as Steve Weinberg has put it) version of string theory that precisely describes our world. But this hope has recently been dashed by the so-called Alice’s Restaurant problem. String theory now comes in so many versions that it “predicts” virtually anything! Including universes with no gravity at all (and I say this of course because of David’s comment that string theory “predicts” gravity). These problems, not the “20 year statute of limitations” that you guys harp on (and of course it’s actually been
AemJeff wrote on 06/21/2008 at 06:25 PM
Re: Random Afterthoughts Quoting bjkeefe: AemJeff: This is a worry I share. I was thinking during the diavlog of how many breakthroughs have been made in the past, in many branches of science but particularly theoretical physics, by individuals or small groups that needed very little funding to achieve real breakthroughs. I thought of Hawkings's line in A Brief History of Time, paraphrased: We have come so far in physics that we now have to spend a great deal of money to produce a result that we can't explain. I am not against string theory research or, say, the LHC, but I do sometimes wonder just how far down the slope of diminishing gains we already are in in studying the very small. I'm not even talking about practical applications of the potential results; I'm just considering much more pure knowledge we're acquiring, and at what opportunity cost.Brendan, I don't really accept the premise that diminishing returns is a good model for the state of the art in theoretical physics. I think there's at least one more Newton/Einstein type of theoretical paradigmatic earthquake in store - the point of reconciliation between quantum mechanics and general relativity. If (I'm not optimistic) we can bjkeefe wrote on 06/21/2008 at 06:42 PM
Re: Random Afterthoughts AemJeff:
In many ways, I share your feelings. Certainly, I was hugely annoyed when the SSC was canceled, and I agree that further pursuit down any road almost inevitably yields unexpected spinoffs and benefits.
One quibble: When you say that you expect "at least one more Newton/Einstein type of theoretical paradigmatic earthquake," I can't help but point out that both of these were completely new things. Einstein's first relativity paper, IIRC, had zero footnotes, and even had they been used back in the 17th centure, I doubt the Principia would have any, either. While I think the effort to unify GR and quantum theory is certainly a laudable goal, it seems to me more of an incremental step. Maybe "incremental" is a little unfair, but there still remains a difference -- lots of people can envision the goal and have ideas about how to get there. The complete paradigmatic upsets produced by Newton and Einstein seem to me to be at a whole other level. They're the sort of thing that we intuitively expect sometime, but we can't at all predict when they will happen, or even in what direction they lie.
Bokonon wrote on 06/21/2008 at 07:25 PM
If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Sean's comment (my post title) begins an interesting short discussion here. It's this way of thinking that alienates me from science today, since it presupposes the kinds of "knowledge" that will be discovered. This, to me, is scientism, which Wikipedia (from the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy) defines as (among other things), "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry."
David's assertion that "it's a sad business" to try to assimilate what we're learning with what we think we already knew is itself a sad business in my opinion. I'll quote again from one of my favorite e.e. cummings poems (I cited this in another comment a few months ago):
who cares if some one-eyed son of a bitchinvents an instrument to measure spring with The analytical way of thinking kills something in the experience of reality. Science, for all its incredible insights and inventions, does not answer deep fundamental questions about life for many millions or billions of people. Materialists often assert that those questions have no validity, that people who ask those questions Freddie wrote on 06/21/2008 at 07:55 PM
Re: Afterthought I like how David Albert explores the studio space.
look wrote on 06/21/2008 at 09:16 PM
Re: Random Afterthoughts Quoting bjkeefe: Minor quibble 2: when David tried to argue about the entropy problem by giving the example of returning to his office and finding it cleaner (in a higher state of organization) then when he left it, he neglected to consider that this could easily be explained by realizing that additional energy had been added to the system (in the form of someone else coming into his office and doing work). But he did kind of pull this one back, which leads me to what might have been my favorite half-minute of the whole conversation.I think he realized that, so I wonder where he was going with that illustration, in trying to say why a picture would not necessarily demonstrate that time only goes forward...? look wrote on 06/21/2008 at 09:28 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting Bokonon:I was thinking a bit along those lines, except I think that it's cool that everyone can find something that fascinates them and then enjoy exploring it. I'm sure both diavloggers spend a lot of time in awe of the universe, too! Here's one of my favorite cummings poems: anyone lived in a pretty how town by: e.e. cummings anyone lived in a pretty how town (with up so floating many bells down) spring summer autumn winter he sang his didn't he danced his did Women and men(both little and small) cared for anyone not at all they sowed AemJeff wrote on 06/21/2008 at 09:31 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting Bokonon: Sean's comment (my post title) begins an interesting short discussion here. It's this way of thinking that alienates me from science today, since it presupposes the kinds of "knowledge" that will be discovered. This, to me, is scientism, which Wikipedia (from the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy) defines as (among other things), "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry." David's assertion that "it's a sad business" to try to assimilate what we're learning with what we think we already knew is itself a sad business in my opinion. I'll quote again from one of my favorite e.e. cummings poems (I cited this in another comment a few months ago): who cares if some one-eyed son of a bitch Eastwest wrote on 06/21/2008 at 09:58 PM
Afterthought: We're Being Strung Along by Strings... Quoting jhorgan: ....I'm obliged to remind the BHTV audience once again. One problem, which dates back to the origin of string theory, concerns empirical accessibility. .... String theory now comes in so many versions that it “predicts” virtually anything! ....David (also known as "Professor And-So-Forth-And-So-On" [100 times!?]) describes this so nicely himself (with a beautifully sputtering preamble) here. (This ain't quite "dingalink-of-the-week," but still, it does a fair job of pointing out a big problem.) "Everything Always Happens." Wow. Sounds like politics! But hey, Freudians are still hanging on decades after losing scientific respectability, so why not stringers?Amen. EW bjkeefe wrote on 06/21/2008 at 11:04 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Bokonon:
To my mind, it [science] cannot tell us "why," and it never will be able to.This is not a very meaningful accusation, because, as has been pointed out by many, science first began to make real progress when it stopped asking "Why?" and started asking "How?" Just because science can't answer every conceivable question is no reason to be down on it. The scientific method of inquiry is far and away the most fruitful approach we've ever come up with. There's no shame in it not being a complete panacea, and at the same time, there's no reason not to see just how far it can go. So, to accuse someone of "scientism" because his or her first approach is to ask Can this question be approached scientifically? seems like needless carping. Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't. But we won't know if we don't try, and it's hard to see how it hurts to try. Bokonon wrote on 06/21/2008 at 11:42 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting look: children guessed(but only a fewAnother of my favorite cummings poems. Thanks for quoting it. Bokonon wrote on 06/22/2008 at 12:05 AM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting AemJeff: "Scientism" to the extent that the term has a function, seems to be as an epithet used by those who don't like some scientific idea or other.You aren't responding to what I wrote; you're commenting on how others have used a term I used. I haven't criticized a single scientific idea explored by the diavloggers. Quoting AemJeff: as a direct means of understanding the world it [science] has no peer.I agree that science has no peer in understanding how the world works. Nor did my post suggest otherwise. Quoting AemJeff: Show me a religiously based civilization with one tenth of one-percent of the success of Western Civ since Galileo.Of course, that depends on what you define as success. If you mean the manipulation of physical reality (engineering), I certainly can't disagree. If you mean the ability to create weapons that terrify us, pose existential threats to the survival of the species, we're certainly "successful" there. If you mean the ability to poison our environment to the point where we threaten the survival of the species, again, I'm not arguing. Some of us, however, don't really believe that Western Civilization (if it can be called that at all) is terribly successful in Bokonon wrote on 06/22/2008 at 12:18 AM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting bjkeefe: Just because science can't answer every conceivable question is no reason to be down on it.BJ: Nowhere in my post did I criticize science, per se. What I criticized is the idea that science is the only way of acquiring knowledge. I'm not "down on science;" I find it fascinating. I find all of the theories these diavloggers discussed interesting. The problem, as I see it, is hubris; the overweaning pride exhibited by many scientists that theirs is the only valid way to acquire knowledge, and that only information thus obtained is truly knowledge. I think that's what David demonstrated in the snippet I included in my original post. Quoting bjkeefe: as has been pointed out by many, science first began to make real progress when it stopped asking "Why?" and started asking "How?"This is precisely my point. Science can't answer the question "why." Nevertheless, it is a breathtakingly important question. Therefore, we need other ways of knowing. Religious fundamentalism is a terrible one, in my opinion. But to dismiss the entire spiritual quest because it is not scientific, or because fundamentalists exist, is arrogant beyond belief. chrisn wrote on 06/22/2008 at 12:33 AM
As to Aemjeff: Science can not answer the when, why, what questions without referring to either metaphysics or religion. To ask such questions of science is probably to demand too much of it, and to misunderstand what it can and can't do (which happens all the time to scientists and non-scientists).
Of course deep metaphysical assertions fly thick and fast in science, but it provides a certain type of knowledge that neither metaphysics nor religion seem able to provide.
bjkeefe wrote on 06/22/2008 at 12:46 AM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting Bokonon: What I criticized is the idea that science is the only way of acquiring knowledge. [...] The problem, as I see it, is hubris; the overweaning pride exhibited by many scientists that theirs is the only valid way to acquire knowledge, and that only information thus obtained is truly knowledge. [...] This is precisely my point. Science can't answer the question "why." Nevertheless, it is a breathtakingly important question. Therefore, we need other ways of knowing. [...]All of this moves me to ask: o What other ways have you found that allow you to acquire knowledge? o How do you evaluate the worth of the knowledge acquired in these other ways? o Can you give some examples of "why?" questions that you have found answers to that show the power/effectiveness of these other forms of knowledge? I'm not looking to diss your religious beliefs or anything. I'm just curious about what non-scientific ways of seeking knowledge have worked for you. mvantony wrote on 06/22/2008 at 02:05 AM
Re: Afterthought Quoting jhorgan: These problems, not the “20 year statute of limitations” that you guys harp on (and of course it’s actually been 30 years), explain why string theory is widely viewed as a glorious, fascinating failure, a spectacular example of what Imre Lakatos called a regressive research program. But hey, Freudians are still hanging on decades after losing scientific respectability, so why not stringers?If I may jump in, John, I'd just make the following small point. Even if you're right that string theory would count as a regressive or degenerating research program by Lakatos' lights (and I'm not in a position now to say one way or the other), it's important to remember that Lakatos didn't think that anything followed about what scientists ought to do from the fact that a research program they're engaged in is degenerating. In particular, he didn't think it followed that scientists ought to abandon the research program. That's because Lakatos was well aware of the fact (partly due to Feyerabend's persistent hammering away at the point, presumably) that degenerating research programs sometimes "recover" and lead to the truth. Bokonon wrote on 06/22/2008 at 02:11 AM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting bjkeefe: I'm not looking to diss your religious beliefs or anything. I'm just curious about what non-scientific ways of seeking knowledge have worked for you.Brendan, This really isn't an environment where I'd feel free to talk about that stuff. Frankly, most of the time when I post comments regarding the Science Saturday diavlogs I'm just astonished at the responses I get. Time and again, people criticize points I've never made, assume things about me and my beliefs that have no basis in reality, or generally go off on some tangent that has nothing to do with my original comment. See my responses to the comments I've received on this post for example. I'm sure that some of the disconnect is because I'm not clear enough in what I've written. I'm doing these comments in order to learn how to express myself more clearly. I was a tech writer for years, but writing about my personal beliefs is very hard for me. Still, it seems to me that people here (not the other diavlogs, interestingly) just don't read carefully. If you mention the word spiritual, people immediately assume you're some kind of fundamentalist whacko. I suppose Bokonon wrote on 06/22/2008 at 02:23 AM
I will say this, however For me, Stevie Ray Vaughan is true, universally. So is Satchmo (Louis Armstrong), and Django Reinhardt / Stephane Grappelli, in their pre-war period. Grappelli maybe throughout his life. Kafka is true, as far as he want. e.e. cummings is true. Kurt Vonnegut, also, as you might be able to tell from my (badly chosen, perhaps) handle. Joseph Heller. Zen, in practice, and some forms of yoga and the Vedanta, as long as you're talking about practice and not worship / religion. Finally, for me A Course in Miracles (the Urtext) is true.
This is not exhaustive, and doesn't really answer your questions. I felt like I had to do better than my non-answer above, however.
bjkeefe wrote on 06/22/2008 at 03:17 AM
Re: I will say this, however Bokonon:
I understand your reluctance to talk in detail about these matters (although I do wonder: What part of posting under a pseudonym don't you understand? ;^) ).
I don't know about truth in music (and I certainly have no interest in trying to define what that might mean), but I would agree to this extent: there's definitely something there. Maybe the fundamental truth was expressed by the Duke: "If it sounds good, it is good."
I'd also say that there can be lots of truth in good fiction.
Religion/spirituality/Zen, as you might have guessed, I'm a little more dubious about. On the other hand, there is truth in the statement, "Whatever works for you." So, whether it provides peace of mind or helps one to get along better with neighbors or whatever, I guess I could go that far.
I do believe that at least some of any of the above is amenable to scientific inquiry, though. Some is already in existence. For example, neural scanning to see how the brain responds to pleasurable music or when in a spiritual state is beginning to some results. For another, we've long had automated ways to generate music that appeals to large groups of people. For another, statistical
AemJeff wrote on 06/22/2008 at 04:49 AM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right My post wasn't a refutation of yours, it was a comment regarding the word itself ("scientism") about which I do have deep problems, and an attempt to get you to clarify what you meant - it's my fault I wasn't clearer about that.
Of course, that depends on what you define as success. If you mean the manipulation of physical reality (engineering), I certainly can't disagree. If you mean the ability to create weapons that terrify us, pose existential threats to the survival of the species, we're certainly "successful" there. If you mean the ability to poison our environment to the point where we threaten the survival of the species, again, I'm not arguing. Some of us, however, don't really believe that Western Civilization (if it can be called that at all) is terribly successful in a spiritual sense. I'm not talking about religion here, which I generally find off-putting.Here, I'm not with you at all. Western Civ has its faults, and certainly doesn't address every sprirual need of its citizens. The "existential threats" are a consequence of its spectacular success in unraveling the deep mysteries of the world. If we can't learn to address these and other issues that flow Whatfur wrote on 06/22/2008 at 10:07 AM
A self-aggrandizing fraud??? I have always thought so, but it is nice to hear others who share the same sentiments...
Thank you Mr. Albert!
If this makes it in the dingilink frame of fame can it be called:
Gore in a NUTshell?
piscivorous wrote on 06/22/2008 at 11:03 AM
Re: A self-aggrandizing fraud??? Come on the models are more important than the actual (Warming On 11 Year Hiatus) data! You should know that by now.
bjkeefe wrote on 06/22/2008 at 06:02 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting AemJeff: [...]Good answer, AemJeff. bjkeefe wrote on 06/22/2008 at 06:08 PM
Re: A self-aggrandizing fraud??? Quoting Whatfur: [...]Thank you Mr. Albert! If this makes it in the dingilink frame of fame can it be called: Gore in a NUTshell?You and Pisc do realize that they weren't talking about An Inconvenient Truth there, I hope. Whatfur wrote on 06/22/2008 at 06:52 PM
Re: A self-aggrandizing fraud??? Quoting bjkeefe: You and Pisc do realize that they weren't talking about An Inconvenient Truth there, I hope.Keep hope alive...maybe they will change the 2000 election decision too. An expanded version... handle wrote on 06/22/2008 at 07:16 PM
Re: A self-aggrandizing fraud??? Quoting Whatfur: I have always thought so, but it is nice to hear others who share the same sentiments... Thank you Mr. Albert! If this makes it in the dingilink frame of fame can it be called: Gore in a NUTshell?You really should try to clarify this post. In spite of the vagueness of it, it appears to me as if you have taken the vlogger out of context, WHILE he is complaining about being taken out of context, in a movie that had nothing do do with Gore, but then you recommend it be falsely named, so as to be erroneously taken as a criticism of the Gore movie? Now I think I finally understand your aversion to empiricism. It's hard to like what you don't understand. Maybe I can help, just stick to the point that god made us, we made cars, cars run on gas, so if you hate gas, you hate god, and you will be sent to Gitmo!! (along with AL Gore) handle wrote on 06/22/2008 at 07:36 PM
Re: A self-aggrandizing fraud??? Quoting Whatfur: Keep hope alive...maybe they will change the 2000 election decision too. An expanded version...The supreme court, or the science community? Or MLK? Maybe you should avoid the science thing and stick to delusional politics. You might want to slow down a bit, you sound a little more unbalanced than usual. By the time you wingnuts lose the election, you will be certifiable. Wait! I get it! insanity defense! Brilliant! You must be up to your red white and baby blues in some dodgy ass shit. I won't mock your desperation anymore (much), but I WILL leave you with three words: swiss bank account handle wrote on 06/22/2008 at 08:22 PM
Re: A self-aggrandizing fraud??? Quoting bjkeefe: You and Pisc do realize that they weren't talking about An Inconvenient Truth there, I hope.I don't think so, and I don't think they will 'cause when Sean includes the Gore movie as an example of getting it right, and David says it's a good example, and then resumes talking about his involvement in "What the bleep.." the wingnuts will do what he is talking about, hear what they want. It would be nice if the vloggers themselves could clarify... bjkeefe wrote on 06/22/2008 at 08:42 PM
Re: A self-aggrandizing fraud??? Quoting handle: [...] It would be nice if the vloggers themselves could clarify...It is obvious from context what they're talking about. I suspect even if Sean or David checked in that Whatfur's response would still be some sort of willful denial. look wrote on 06/22/2008 at 08:43 PM
Re: A self-aggrandizing fraud??? Quoting Whatfur: Keep hope alive...maybe they will change the 2000 election decision too. An expanded version...Although it's unclear unless you listen all the way through, you'll hear beginning at about 2:45, that he's been talking about the 'bleep' movie, and then returns to the Gore movie as an example of a good format. http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/121...1:43&out=24:54 handle wrote on 06/22/2008 at 08:56 PM
Re: A self-aggrandizing fraud??? Quoting bjkeefe: It is obvious from context what they're talking about. I suspect even if Sean or David checked in that Whatfur's response would still be some sort of willful denial.Or, they could predictably attack the vloggers, accusing them of back-peddling. That's right righties! No need to chime in, we got you covered. Bokonon wrote on 06/22/2008 at 09:36 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right I'm really not interested in debating whether or not science has made progress. That's totally off topic from my original post, which all of your responses so far have been. The issue I raised in my post was about the arrogance of scientists who assert that only science can acquire knowledge, that science alone can determine whether something is true, and whether attempts to harmonize what we now "know" through science with what we thought we knew before is a "sad business."
I can understand and accept that you don't like the word "scientism." The fact that I didn't know it was a code word used by religious fundamentalist shows, I hope, that I don't spend any time listening to fundamentalists.
It's sad that David was lied to and manipulated by a film producer, but that surely doesn't indict all people who attempt to harmonize new and old knowledge. Any more than a professor ripping off his graduate students' work and presenting it as his own indicts all scientists. The fact that some religious people once believed that the earth is only 6,000 years old is no more an indictment of
look wrote on 06/22/2008 at 09:47 PM
Ohmmmm. Quoting Bokonon: Sean's comment (my post title) begins an interesting short discussion here. It's this way of thinking that alienates me from science today, since it presupposes the kinds of "knowledge" that will be discovered. This, to me, is scientism, which Wikipedia (from the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy) defines as (among other things), "the belief that the methods of natural science, or the categories and things recognized in natural science, form the only proper elements in any philosophical or other inquiry."David's tone is unfortuneately very dismissive of other avenues of thought. But I'd just like to say that the other day, when a diavlogger said that mathematics may turn out to be a tautology, I thought of the Buddhist concept of all being One. Whatfur wrote on 06/22/2008 at 09:55 PM
Re: A self-aggrandizing fraud??? Quoting look: Although it's unclear unless you listen all the way through, you'll hear beginning at about 2:45, that he's been talking about the 'bleep' movie, and then returns to the Gore movie as an example of a good format. http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/121...1:43&out=24:54I personally don't find it unclear at all, nor did Sean really say the Gore's movie was an example of a "good format"...he said "successful" and laughingly described it as a PowerPoint presentation. If y'all wish to delude yourselves that he had gone back to talking about bleep and was not commenting on Gore's piece of propaganda...feel free. look wrote on 06/22/2008 at 10:04 PM
Re: A self-aggrandizing fraud??? Quoting Whatfur: I personally don't find it unclear at all, nor did Sean really say the Gore's movie was an example of a "good format"...he said "successful" and laughingly described it as a PowerPoint presentation. If y'all wish to delude yourselves that he had gone back to talking about bleep and was not commenting on Gore's piece of propaganda...feel free.As one who thinks the Gore movie engages in fear-mongering, I was disposed to hear it as you hear it. Are you sure you're being objective? handle wrote on 06/22/2008 at 10:10 PM
Re: A self-aggrandizing fraud??? Quoting Whatfur: I personally don't find it unclear at all, nor did Sean really say the Gore's movie was an example of a "good format"...he said "successful" and laughingly described it as a PowerPoint presentation. If y'all wish to delude yourselves that he had gone back to talking about bleep and was not commenting on Gore's piece of propaganda...feel free.We were being kind, fur. this is, quite possibly, the most bone headed mistake you've made to date. He's laughing because the movie, is just a power point presentation, and still managed to be very successful. I know better than to argue the GW thing with you, 'cause it's literally your bread and butter, but I gotta ask what's really in it for the oil mongers? Nobody is "quitting" your product, and the more they cut back, the more you make by simply raising prices, so why care? Hold the phone! That last bit sounds JUST LIKE CIGARETTES! I get it, the more you trash the science, and buy anti-science, the more time you buy for record profits! You already know how this is going to turn out, and you are just buying time. Brilliant!!!! look wrote on 06/22/2008 at 10:16 PM
Just checking Quoting Whatfur: I personally don't find it unclear at all, nor did Sean really say the Gore's movie was an example of a "good format"...he said "successful" and laughingly described it as a PowerPoint presentation. If y'all wish to delude yourselves that he had gone back to talking about bleep and was not commenting on Gore's piece of propaganda...feel free.You did listen to the end of my dingalink, because it's longer than yours, and brings up the Gore movie again...start listening at about the 2:45 mark. Whatfur wrote on 06/22/2008 at 10:22 PM
Re: A self-aggrandizing fraud??? Quoting look: As one who thinks the Gore movie engages in fear-mongering, I was disposed to hear it as you hear it. Are you sure you're being objective?Ok, look at it another way, if Dr. Albert was not using the Gore movie as an example of the wrong way of going about things then why would he preface his whole statement with the question to himself of "how should I put this?" He has been talking about his involvement in the bleep movie for quite some time. Would it not be logical to conclude that he has had ample time and opportunity to formulate and express his opinion on their tactics? In other words, that story is straight. Why then would he say "how should I put this" when he would have obviously "put" the bleep story in context many times? Follow? handle wrote on 06/22/2008 at 10:27 PM
Re: A self-aggrandizing fraud??? Quoting Whatfur: Ok, look at it another way, if Dr. Albert was not using the Gore movie as an example of the wrong way of going about things then why would he preface his whole statement with the question to himself of "how should I put this?" He has been talking about his involvement in the bleep movie for quite some time. Would it not be logical to conclude that he has had ample time and opportunity to formulate and express his opinion on their tactics? In other words, that story is straight. Why then would he say "how should I put this" when he would have obviously "put" the bleep story in context many times? Follow?***No bjkeefe wrote on 06/22/2008 at 10:49 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Bokonon:
There's a little bit of a problem here, at least to me, in that you seem to be equating things we know thanks to scientific inquiry with things we know through other means.
I have already conceded that there are some things that we do in some sense know that seem non-scientific, such as the thought "this is a good piece of music." But in general, there are all sorts of things that we "know," or thought we knew, that are either utterly wrong or purely a matter of faith or are completely subjective.
To repeat, I am not saying something is only known if it is known scientifically, but it does seem that the overwhelming bulk of what we know came through that method. So, yes, scientists who think science is the only path can be a bit insufferable, but the way you respond seems too broad -- your implication, at least, is that science is quite limited.
handle wrote on 06/22/2008 at 10:50 PM
Re: A self-aggrandizing fraud??? Quoting Whatfur: Ok, look at it another way, if Dr. Albert was not using the Gore movie as an example of the wrong way of going about things then why would he preface his whole statement with the question to himself of "how should I put this?"Seriously, you think this is an argument? Can somebody explain how prefacing any comment with "how should I put this?" has any bearing on the context of the following comment? Pick your battles, fur, this one's a loser. Bokonon wrote on 06/22/2008 at 11:22 PM
Re: Ohmmmm. Quoting look: ...the other day, when a diavlogger said that mathematics may turn out to be a tautology, I thought of the Buddhist concept of all being One.That was George Johnson from last week's Science Saturday. That was one of my favorite moments from that conversation. I think that a lot of Buddhist and Vedantic wisdom will prove very compatible with modern physics and brain studies, despite David's disastrous experience with What the Bleep. As I said above, we shouldn't let one producer's dishonesty derail the entire enterprise of harmonizing different systems of knowledge. My complaint with David is that I don't think he believes there are different systems of knowledge; he seems to believe that only science can lead to truth. Bokonon wrote on 06/22/2008 at 11:54 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting bjkeefe: ...you seem to be equating things we know thanks to scientific inquiry with things we know through other means.This statement goes to the heart of what I'm saying in this thread: that many people believe scientific knowledge is somehow special, that science produces "knowing" as nothing else can. That surely is what David was asserting in my original clip, that science is a different epistemic endeavor than anything else. This, I believe is an astoundingly arrogant, parochial and naive belief, which is born out of ignorance of other ways of knowing. What I'm complaining about here is fundamentalism. We all know what we mean when we talk about religious fundamentalism, but I believe that term can and should be applied to practitioners in any field who proclaim that only they have the truth, that others are deluded in what they call the truth, and that to suggest otherwise is heresy. I don't have a dingalink for this, but Sean and David touched on the danger to graduate students if they wanted to pursue lines of inquiry that were verboten by the academic community, that were, in effect, heretical. As another example, the belief that fedorovingtonboop wrote on 06/23/2008 at 01:04 AM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right am i the only one who still can't get the thing to play?
anyway, Bokomon, you're way off because the thing that makes science so unique is that it's non-dogmatic. it, by definition, doesn't exclude anything unless it can be disproved. if someone provided evidence for god then science would immediately annex that evidence and it would be a part of science. it works so well because it's so flexible. religion and spiritualism are worthless because they are dogmatic....not to mention they don't require evidence!! and they're, obviously, totally made up. i bet if you got cancer you wouldn't go "looking for the answer" by praying. the reason why science buffs get arrogant is because spiritualists don't have anything worthwhile to offer, ever.that is why science is so special is because we're never saying we have "the truth" all we're saying is that my theory makes more sense than yours does as of right now....but if you come up with a better one then you win...but not permanently. finally, that fact that us science fans could let you spiritualists get away with this worthless moral equivalence is a total bjkeefe wrote on 06/23/2008 at 01:48 AM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Bokonon:
A lot to unpack there (polite way of saying I think you're conflating things in an unhelpful way).
Seems to me there are separate issues, or if they are all of a piece in your mind, they are at least amenable to separation for the purposes of discussion. Here are some representative excerpts:
First:
Second:...you seem to be equating things we know thanks to scientific inquiry with things we know through other means.This statement goes to the heart of what I'm saying in this thread: that many people believe scientific knowledge is somehow special, that science produces "knowing" as nothing else can. That surely is what David was asserting in my original clip, that science is a different epistemic endeavor than anything else. This, I believe is an astoundingly arrogant, parochial and naive belief, which is born out of ignorance of other ways of knowing. ... Sean and David touched on the danger to graduate students if they wanted to pursue lines of inquiry that were verboten by the academic community, that were, in effect, heretical. As another example, the belief that global warming is not real or not anthropogenic is a principal heresy today Bokonon wrote on 06/23/2008 at 03:15 AM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting fedorovingtonboop: religion and spiritualism are worthless because they are dogmatic....not to mention they don't require evidence!! and they're, obviously, totally made up.Q.E.D. Bokonon wrote on 06/23/2008 at 04:43 AM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting bjkeefe: ...I don't think you'll have much of a chance of getting me to change my mind.It's never been my intention get you to change your mind, Brendan. That's something only you can do. You'll do it, if and when you ever decide that you need another way of looking at things. If not, not and no worries. My goal, always, is simply to put ideas out into the air and let them go where they will. It's like blowing on a dandelion; who knows where the seeds will take root? Best wishes. bjkeefe wrote on 06/23/2008 at 06:16 AM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting Bokonon: It's never been my intention get you to change your mind, Brendan.I didn't like that last line when I wrote it, and now I really wish I hadn't. Sorry to have ended it that way. Whatfur wrote on 06/23/2008 at 06:34 AM
Re: Afterthought look,
I apologize...I actually hadn't listened to your 2:45 mark and I see your point. A couple things though...first maybe you all are not deluded (with one obvious exception)...second, my first post still stands as in my (and many others) eyes it was and is a perfect reflection of the Goracle...third, if Dr. Albert actually does hold the Inconvenient Truth up as a good example of how science should be reported then...well...he might as well cover his other points up with horse bleep.
TwinSwords wrote on 06/23/2008 at 07:20 AM
Re: A self-aggrandizing fraud??? Quoting Whatfur: he [..] laughingly described it as a PowerPoint presentation.Did you take that as a put down? Because Gore's movie was, in fact, a PowerPoint presentation. The movie evolved from a set of slides Gore presented on the lecture circuit. handle wrote on 06/23/2008 at 01:31 PM
Re: Afterthought Quoting Whatfur: look, I apologize...I actually hadn't listened to your 2:45 mark and I see your point. A couple things though...first maybe you all are not deluded (with one obvious exception)...second, my first post still stands as in my (and many others) eyes it was and is a perfect reflection of the Goracle...third, if Dr. Albert actually does hold the Inconvenient Truth up as a good example of how science should be reported then...well...he might as well cover his other points up with horse bleep.Nice to see Jack D. has left your building. Since I don't see the "obvious exception" I must conclude, by way of common sense (you've heard of it?) that you refer to me. Perfect! That means I can take exception to the fact that even in apologetic mode you never back off your initial misguided assertions. TRUE Bushy tendencies, that, in fact, I consider to be THE underlying theme of the Bush nightmare. NEVER admit you are, or ever were, bumbling, mistaken, misguided or just a drunken, arrogant, dumb-ass. So in the spirit of YOUR back-handed apology, I offer one of my own: I just want to apologize for my "little boy pics" comment the other day, but FYI I'm the pragmatic joker in the group. Or maybe you didn't like my Larry Craig look wrote on 06/23/2008 at 08:33 PM
Re: Afterthought Quoting Whatfur: look, I apologize...I actually hadn't listened to your 2:45 mark and I see your point. A couple things though...first maybe you all are not deluded (with one obvious exception)...second, my first post still stands as in my (and many others) eyes it was and is a perfect reflection of the Goracle...third, if Dr. Albert actually does hold the Inconvenient Truth up as a good example of how science should be reported then...well...he might as well cover his other points up with horse bleep.Here's an old diavlog you might find interesting: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/72?in=43:19&out=44:32 Whatfur wrote on 06/23/2008 at 10:09 PM
Re: Afterthought Quoting look: Here's an old diavlog you might find interesting:The dingalink was enough. Not interested really in continuing the debunking of Gore's film...that has been done thoroughly already. Bokonon wrote on 06/24/2008 at 03:02 AM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting bjkeefe: I didn't like that last line when I wrote it, and now I really wish I hadn't. Sorry to have ended it that way.No worries, mate. I've said it before and will repeat myself, you are an incredible asset to bhtv. I always read your comment threads, whether I participate or not, and I almost always learn something new and interesting from them. Thank you, Brendan for your wonderful community spirit. handle wrote on 06/24/2008 at 03:22 PM
Re: Afterthought Quoting Whatfur: The dingalink was enough. Not interested really in continuing the debunking of Gore's film...that has been done thoroughly already.in your mind bjkeefe wrote on 06/24/2008 at 04:05 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Bokonon:
Thank you for your kind words.
I hope they aren't foma. ;^)
bjkeefe wrote on 06/24/2008 at 04:06 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Yeah, I know I've made that joke before. Sue me.
Bokonon wrote on 06/25/2008 at 02:34 AM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting bjkeefe: Thank you for your kind words.LOL. When the site redesign happened, I couldn't access my original name anymore and couldn't get anyone here to help me log in. I had just finished re-reading Cat's Cradle and this handle leaped off my fingertips, so I switched identities. Harumph. This is probably a terrible name for me. Eschew Foma would be a good bumper sticker for me, I think. bjkeefe wrote on 06/25/2008 at 02:48 AM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting Bokonon: Eschew Foma would be a good bumper sticker for me, I think.But of course anyone who knew would suspect that the bumper sticker itself was nothing but foma. So maybe it would be better to have one that said Embrace Foma. Wonderment wrote on 06/25/2008 at 03:00 AM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right There is only one resolution of the bumper sticker paradox (and global warming):
Keep on ambulando
bjkeefe wrote on 06/25/2008 at 03:19 AM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting Wonderment: Keep on ambulandoIt always bothered me that the root word has to do with walking, and we even have the English word ambulatory, but we call the vehicle that carries those who can't walk an ambulance. Wonderment wrote on 06/25/2008 at 04:41 AM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Hmm, do I detect an autoantonym?
My favorites are sanctions and cleavage.
bjkeefe wrote on 06/25/2008 at 06:16 AM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Yes! I was thinking of cleave. But looking at that page -- clip never occurred to me.
Then there's flammable, which had to be created because too many people didn't know what inflammable meant -- words that sound like antonyms, but are actually synonyms.
uncle ebeneezer wrote on 06/25/2008 at 12:59 PM
Re: Science Saturday: Time’s Arrow Great diavlog. I think Sean Carroll is becoming one of my favorites for Sci Sat.
I really enjoyed the discussion of science/film potentiality. I remember when watching An Inconvenient Truth in a packed house "man, why can't somebody do a big-budget movie on Evolution". When I read "Evolution" by Carl Zimmer, I thought it would make a great screenplay for a documentary. Sadly though, i doubt that we will ever see the Gore phenomenon for something like Evolution or quantum physics etc. Though people have their strong opinions on such matters, there just isn't the same "practical" angle that global warming has on the population as a whole.
I get somehat lost when it comes to String Theory, but I love a good argument, so I enjoy the discussions. I think a Brian Greene/John Horgan steel cage match might be in order.
I remember my girlfriend renting "What the Bleep" because she knew how interested in science I can be, and about 5 minutes into it we were both looking at each other incredulously. It felt so New-Age-y that we turned it off after about 20 minutes.
Austen Brown wrote on 06/25/2008 at 02:39 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Bokonon,
i was so glad someone else picked this up that i had to create a profile to thank you.however, you seem to miss what i think is he crux of your argument: around twenty three minutes David says, (and he makes the point to tell you he says this a lot, to the press, to friends, to people asking him about "what the bleep",) that there are two "very distinct" ways of "coming at the world", a. "with the precondition that what you are going to find at the bottom of it is some flattering reassuring comfortable image of who you are" and b. "without such preconditions and with some kind of authentic curiosity and wonder etc" this is a dishonest presentation of a fundamental truth. the obvious truth is there are two ways of approaching these questions, a. with preconditions, b. without. whether those preconditions are for a flattering image, or a "disturbing" one makes no difference. Neither is scientific. And that is the problem that you are trying to point out. just as with most major religions after some period of success, christianity was no longer christian (i don't think i'll get any look wrote on 06/25/2008 at 02:55 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting Bokonon: LOL. When the site redesign happened, I couldn't access my original name anymore and couldn't get anyone here to help me log in. I had just finished re-reading Cat's Cradle and this handle leaped off my fingertips, so I switched identities. Harumph. This is probably a terrible name for me.Would you mind telling us your former name? piscivorous wrote on 06/25/2008 at 03:49 PM
Re: Afterthought As well as in court!
Wonderment wrote on 06/25/2008 at 04:13 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Then there's flammable, which had to be created because too many people didn't know what inflammable meant -- words that sound like antonyms, but are actually synonyms.Yeah, that's a tough one to figure out. They could have independent origins. Something can catch fire or go up IN flames. Or there could be a separate borrowing path from two different European source languages. Or it could be just redundancy. Speaking of which, have you noticed the annoying trend among politicians (Obama and Clinton both did it, as do a lot of TV journalists) to double their "is" in sentences like "What the issue is is that Bush refuses to raise taxes." I have also caught Hillary bigtime using the hypercorrective "Your support for my family and I...." Not to speak of the ubiquitous "Every person should get their chance to vote." Tsk, tsk. I could go on all day. handle wrote on 06/25/2008 at 04:30 PM
Re: Afterthought Quoting piscivorous: As well as in court!A UK court... and yes, they found inaccuracies, but many of the rebuttals were inaccurate. But if the baby AND the bathwater are toxic to your corporation, by all means, throw them out. I am happy to report, however, most people (75% according to Fox) aren't willing to help. bjkeefe wrote on 06/25/2008 at 05:10 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting Wonderment: Yeah, that's a tough one to figure out. They could have independent origins. Something can catch fire or go up IN flames. Or there could be a separate borrowing path from two different European source languages. Or it could be just redundancy.I have always understood that flammable was purposefully created for signs, relatively recently, by safety-management types who were concerned that too many people thought inflammable meant "won't burn." Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure this is one of those things my mother told me eons ago that I never had any reason to question, so I could be acting just like one of those annoying people who insist upon the correctness of their own pet explanation for the origin of the whole nine yards. (And don't get me started on people who say the whole ten yards.) Speaking of which, have you noticed the annoying trend among politicians (Obama and Clinton both did it, as do a lot of TV journalists) to double their "is" in sentences like "What the issue is is that Bush refuses to raise taxes."I notice that, but it doesn't bug me. I used to get teased about Wonderment wrote on 06/25/2008 at 05:21 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right What seems to be happening is that the sentence sort of comes out second half first.Yes, the syntax paints you into a corner. Also a capital offense -- punting on this issue by using myself.What about just using "myself" and "yourself" as cutesy markers in general? I'm fine. How about yourself? ... it takes a certain amount of obsessiveness to scrub such constructions completely out of one's speech.I'm down. At least as far as other people's speech is concerned. Speaking of which, when did "I'm up for that" become "I'm down for that." As opposed to the quickly passé, "That's a bad (good) jacket," down for seems to have some staying power. Really, the only thing that ever stops me is an awareness that the longer I go on, the more inconsistent I sound -- half the time I'm a Miss Thistlebottom, and the other half, I'm all, "It's a living language, dude."That's the fun part. __________________ bjkeefe wrote on 06/25/2008 at 05:33 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting Wonderment: What about just using "myself" and "yourself" as cutesy markers in general? I'm fine. How about yourself?Argh. Sounds as bad to me as people who utilize utilize when they should be using use. I'm down. At least as far as other people's speech is concerned. Speaking of which, when did "I'm up for that" become "I'm down for that." As opposed to the quickly passé, "That's a bad (good) jacket," down for seems to have some staying power.I usually think of it as I'm down with that, although the older put me down for that seems related. I hated bad meaning good when I was a kid and it was in vogue. It led to all kinds of irritating conversations like: -That's a bad jacket. -Do mean bad, or you know, bad? -Bad! Bad-ass solves the problem. Remember back in the 1990s when for a short time, shit meant good, as in He's the shit? I appreciated the irony, but I was happy to see that one go away. Bloggin' Noggin wrote on 06/25/2008 at 05:35 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting bjkeefe: I think this is one of those things that is forgivable in extemporaneous speech. What seems to be happening is that the sentence sort of comes out second half first. Given the pressure these days to avoid dead air and to provide rapid response lest ye be seen to be waffling, it seems entirely understandable.I once went off on a long rant about the double 'is'es here in the comments sewer. I never did it, so I find it very hard to be charitable about it. I don't agree with your explanation of it. I believe it to be a kind of conflation of two constructions: (a) The point is that grammatical mistakes are annoying. (b) The question is: Is this grammatical mistake annoying? The double "is" in (b) is correct, but somehow it gets imported into construction (a) where it makes absolutely no sense there. We can blame the English language for this one -- we lack a good gender-neutral singular pronoun. It used to be that the male pronoun was used in this way, and I am sympathetic to the argument against that. There are some sentences where one can use one, but that way lies pomposity and Wonderment wrote on 06/25/2008 at 05:51 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Remember back in the 1990s when for a short time, shit meant good, as in He's the shit? I appreciated the irony, but I was happy to see that one go away.No I didn't like "bitchin" either. I'm not a big fan of taboo words going mainstream. When I grew up, dork meant penis and "that sucks" was short for a common way of pleasuring a dork (When did pleasure become a verb, by the way?). Nowadays, even toddlers use "that sucks" as an innocuous expression of disappointment, and "don't be a dork" means "don't be silly." Words related to male genitals seem to make the easiest transition to mainstream. "Schmuck" also used to mean penis. And you have to wonder about even the original "jerk." I was always suspicious of "don't jerk me around; pull his chain," etc., especially when accompanied by masturbatory hand gestures. "Scumbag" meant condom when I was a kid. Now, Bill Clinton can call a reporter a scumbag, and only someone Clinton's age will know how nasty the metaphor is. bjkeefe wrote on 06/25/2008 at 05:53 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: I once went off on a long rant about the double 'is'es here in the comments sewer. I never did it, so I find it very hard to be charitable about it. I don't agree with your explanation of it. I believe it to be a kind of conflation of two constructions: (a) The point is that grammatical mistakes are annoying.You're entirely right, Bloggin', but for whatever reason, this one doesn't grate on my ears. I think it might be that the phrase The point is is atomic in some sense -- it's an uncuttable entity, which causes the speaker to think a verb needs to follow it. Often, when said aloud, the three words are slurred together, and then there's a pause, both of which are designed to grab attention for what follows. Or, the first phrase comes out, and it takes a moment to put the rest of the sentence together. We also hear this when someone is giving an unrehearsed explanation: What happened was, was that the ... So, yes: wrong, and something I wouldn't let pass as Wonderment wrote on 06/25/2008 at 05:56 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right I didn't used to be bothered by this one ...Thank you for not using "use to," which has been popping up all over the place. Grrrrrrr. Wonderment wrote on 06/25/2008 at 06:05 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right And really, why shouldn't "they" have a singular use? In German "Sie" can either be plural "you" or formal singular.Spanish handles the issue with "su," which is utterly ambigious. It can refer to his, her, your pl., your sing. or their. "Trae su libro" can mean "bring his book, bring her book, bring your book, bring you-all's book " or bring their book." Thus, you cover "A soldier always has to carry 'his' gun" runs into no gender problems because in all cases it will be "Un soldado tiene que llevar SU arma." look wrote on 06/25/2008 at 06:06 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting Wonderment: No I didn't like "bitchin" either. I'm not a big fan of taboo words going mainstream. When I grew up, dork meant penis and "that sucks" was short for a common way of pleasuring a dork (When did pleasure become a verb, by the way?). Nowadays, even toddlers use "that sucks" as an innocuous expression of disappointment, and "don't be a dork" means "don't be silly." Words related to male genitals seem to make the easiest transition to mainstream. "Schmuck" also used to mean penis. And you have to wonder about even the original "jerk." I was always suspicious of "don't jerk me around; pull his chain," etc., especially when accompanied by masturbatory hand gestures. "Scumbag" meant condom when I was a kid. Now, Bill Clinton can call a reporter a scumbag, and only someone Clinton's age will know how nasty the metaphor is.Thanks for the history lesson...I'm even more of a potty mouth than I knew. 'Sucks' bothers me, too, but everyone says it now. bjkeefe wrote on 06/25/2008 at 06:06 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Wonderment:
I didn't much care for bitchin', but more because it seemed to be an example of trying too hard -- I invariably associate this one with preppies trying to talk street.
I remember getting yelled at in sixth-grade gym class for saying "that sucks." (It was an innocent usage on my part.) Maybe because of that, or maybe for other reasons, I'm kind of glad that the term has lost its sense of obscenity.
And on a related note, though you're probably right about the phallic origin of all those slang words, I am not particularly bothered by them in their evolved senses, for whatever reason. Dork, in particular, is a good word in its current usage. I like to have it as a contrasting term, now that geek and nerd have become for the most part compliments.
The one that has surprised me lately is the use of douche as a pejorative directed almost exclusively at males. I remember a short while ago where it seemed as though there was an effort afoot to replace the insult douchebag with cobag (short for colostomy bag) in the interests of gender neutrality, but that seems to have
bjkeefe wrote on 06/25/2008 at 06:14 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting Wonderment: Thank you for not using "use to," which has been popping up all over the place. Grrrrrrr.When you see this, do you cool your anger with a nice glass of ice tea? bjkeefe wrote on 06/25/2008 at 06:16 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting Wonderment: "Scumbag" meant condom when I was a kid. Now, Bill Clinton can call a reporter a scumbag, and only someone Clinton's age will know how nasty the metaphor is.Meant to say before that I can't get past this one, either. It still jolts me when I hear it on TV. look wrote on 06/25/2008 at 06:16 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting bjkeefe: When you see this, do you cool your anger with a nice glass of ice tea?Is that ice tea 'first come, first serve?' bjkeefe wrote on 06/25/2008 at 06:18 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting look: Is that ice tea 'first come, first serve?'Nice. It's killing me that I can't come up with another one. Wonderment wrote on 06/25/2008 at 09:36 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Maybe those rightwing loons like Dr. Mrs. Ole Perfesser are right about the plague of emasculation.I don't know. "Cojones" and "stones" (chiefly British?) have become more popular, in spite of being grossly male chauvinistic. The liberalization of taboo terms is not unidirectional. It's also interesting that some terms go from acceptable to unacceptable. "Stuff," for example, now means genitals, and the ridiculous "woody" is rivaling the even more ridiculous "boner" to describe the aroused state of the dork. Also interesting is the fact that English and other Western languages have never decided if taboo vocabulary consists of "dirty words" (sex and bodily functions) or "curse words" (blasphemy and imprecations). The Spaniards have a charming one that mixes the two genres (fusion?): Me cago en dios (I shit on God). A variation -- now that I'm on a roll -- is the equally dignified "me cago en la leche de tu puta madre, which mingles sex, defecation and God in an awe-inspiring hat trick curse. bjkeefe wrote on 06/25/2008 at 09:52 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting Wonderment: I don't know. "Cojones" and "stones" (chiefly British?) have become more popular, in spite of being grossly male chauvinistic.Good point, although it could be argued that this is an advance for gender equality -- what was once seen as a male-only attribute is now also admitted to be possessed by (some) women. Chutzpah is a good word, and so is audaciousness, but neither fully captures what is meant by balls. Never heard that stones, in this usage, was chiefly British. Are you sure you're not mixing it up with the old British unit of weight? The liberalization of taboo terms is not unidirectional. It's also interesting that some terms go from acceptable to unacceptable. "Stuff," for example, now means genitals, and the ridiculous "woody" is rivaling the even more ridiculous "boner" to describe the aroused state of the dork.Yes. This direction is probably much older. We have been making up words for body parts and body functions since we've had language, as far as I can tell. Also interesting is the fact that English and other Western languages have never decided if taboo vocabulary consists of "dirty words" (sex and bodily functions) or "curse words" (blasphemy and imprecations).I don't know if I agree. I grant that Wonderment wrote on 06/25/2008 at 10:14 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Never heard that stones, in this usage, was chiefly British. Are you sure you're not mixing it up with the old British unit of weight?Could be. It may just be the modern emphasis on weight equalling degree of masculinity, although the weight ( el peso) of the stones has a different meaning (oddly) in Mexican Spanish. The expression "me pesan los huevos" in Mexican Spanish means "my balls (eggs, literally) are [too] heavy." It means I'm too lazy to do something, like work, for example. Also interesting in Mexican Spanish is that you can be a huevón (male) or a huevona (female), which means you have big heavy huevos; i.e., you're extremely lazy. "No seas huevona" is a very vulgar but also very common way of telling a woman not to be lazy. "Eggs" is also used for testicles in Hebrew (batzim). Yiddish borrows the Hebrew word, probably in order to keep the goyim and the children out of the comprehension loop. bjkeefe wrote on 06/25/2008 at 10:23 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Wonderment:
Interesting that big balls would be a euphemism for diminished capability in another language, when in English, it's anything but.
Blue ones, on the other hand ...
Wonderment wrote on 06/26/2008 at 02:25 AM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Back to the serious matters of string theory and the arrow of time, did you notice that Rosa Brooks said "screwing around" three times in the Frum conversation?
That would have got me (or gotten me) expelled immediately from grammar school for obscene language.
Does anyone besides me still call K-6 grammar school?
bjkeefe wrote on 06/26/2008 at 02:44 AM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting Wonderment: Back to the serious matters of string theory and the arrow of time, did you notice that Rosa Brooks said "screwing around" three times in the Frum conversation?I did not. That phrase is way below my threshold. Some would call this the coarsening of our language and culture. Others would thank Carlin that we're diminishing the unwarranted power of shock words. That would have got me (or gotten me) expelled immediately from grammar school for obscene language.Progress! Does anyone besides me still call K-6 grammar school?Hard to say. Doesn't sound archaic enough to me that I'd notice, but if I had to guess, I'd say I usually hear elementary school instead. look wrote on 06/26/2008 at 10:46 AM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting Wonderment: Does anyone besides me still call K-6 grammar school?Gee, Mister, you must be really old. It took me a long time to get used to 'middle school.' But remember, Shakespeare was considered rather vulgar in his day. I wonder how many years it will take before kindergarteners routinely say 'fuck?' Austen Brown wrote on 06/26/2008 at 12:52 PM
Really? seems a little dishonest. Am i wrong? around twenty three minutes David says, (and he makes the point to tell you he says this a lot, to the press, to friends, to people asking him about "what the bleep",) that there are two "very distinct" ways of "coming at the world",a. "with the precondition that what you are going to find at the bottom of it is some flattering reassuring comfortable image of who you are" and b. "without such preconditions and with some kind of authentic curiosity and wonder etc" this is a dishonest presentation of a fundamental truth. the obvious truth is there are two ways of approaching these questions, a. with preconditions, b. without. whether those preconditions are for a flattering image, or a "disturbing" one makes no difference. Neither is scientific. Wonderment wrote on 06/26/2008 at 03:49 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right But remember, Shakespeare was considered rather vulgar in his day. I wonder how many years it will take before kindergarteners routinely say 'fuck?'It's more like when they will say it and to whom. Setting, social class, age, gender all affect how formal, cautious, respectful or egalitarian we are with language. The taboo-language function is quite safe universally. It's hardwired as people with Tourette's often demonstrate. Linguists sometimes describe it as "what you say when you hit your thumb with the hammer." So kids may end up saying "that fuckin' sucks" as they pass almost imperceptibly from "friggin'" to the real f-word, but something else will likely replace fuck as the really, really, really taboo word. Democratization is a huge factor in loosening standards. Everyone becomes a peer. Honorifics like Mr. and Ms. fade in favor of first names, and secularization defuses religion as a control on speech. Gender equality means men and women can behave and talk more freely in each other's presence. Democratization also has the opposite effect of making words MORE taboo. You may, for example, say that "HIllary Clinton has more balls than a lot of guys I know" (some Southern governor made a comment to that effect during the look wrote on 06/27/2008 at 08:34 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting Wonderment: So kids may end up saying "that fuckin' sucks" as they pass almost imperceptibly from "friggin'" to the real f-word, but something else will likely replace fuck as the really, really, really taboo word.I tend to think by the time kindergarteners are free to say 'fuck' in most settings, that nothing more will come along, sex-wise. Things are just becoming very liberal. Democratization also has the opposite effect of making words MORE taboo. You may, for example, say that "HIllary Clinton has more balls than a lot of guys I know" (some Southern governor made a comment to that effect during the campaign), but it's unlikely you'd get away with "Obama needs to put that bitch in her place." McCain failed to object to the B-word from a questioner and did get in trouble, also during the campaign.Yes, it's a compliment to say a woman has balls, but bitch can be a compliment in the right context, as I'm sure you know. The N-word for blacks and the F-word for homosexuals are other examples of rising taboo level.Now that 'gay' is coming to mean silly or lame, or something, I'm confused. It's very prevalent on sit-coms, and I mention it to Wonderment wrote on 06/27/2008 at 10:32 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Now that 'gay' is coming to mean silly or lame, or something, I'm confused. It's very prevalent on sit-coms, and I mention it to my 16 year-old daughter, and she say's 'oh, Mom!'Yes, my girls went through that phase too. When we flipped out and gave long lectures on homophobia, they insisted it had nothing to do with THAT gay. I don't buy it; it's clearly residual homophobia, in the same way that "sucks" is. "That really sucks" is derivative of "you suck" which is short for "you suck you-know-what," which was originally another way for boys to say to other boys, "You're gay." Yes, THAT gay. bjkeefe wrote on 06/27/2008 at 10:48 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Wonderment:
It's good that you taught your daughters not to use "gay" as a blanket pejorative, but I do think, in general, that such a use is often innocent. When I was a kid, my sisters and I used "fag" and "faggy" without having the slightest idea what the words meant. To us, they were just another way of saying something or someone was excessively precious or twee or icky or a goody two-shoes.
The matter went sideways when one of us observed the company name on a toy in our dentist's waiting room -- a View-Master, made by GAF. We still say to each other things like, "That's a little viewmasterish."
But, to reaffirm, good for you for nipping that one in the bud, especially when there are so many other words available.
look wrote on 06/28/2008 at 10:58 AM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting Wonderment: Yes, my girls went through that phase too. When we flipped out and gave long lectures on homophobia, they insisted it had nothing to do with THAT gay. I don't buy it; it's clearly residual homophobia, in the same way that "sucks" is. "That really sucks" is derivative of "you suck" which is short for "you suck you-know-what," which was originally another way for boys to say to other boys, "You're gay." Yes, THAT gay.Yeah, it really blows. Wonderment wrote on 06/28/2008 at 04:03 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Yeah, it really blows.Which -- without going too much into the mechanics of fellatio -- brings us full circle to the beginning of this conversation on antiautonyms. Regardless and irregardless, I sure you could and couldn't care less. look wrote on 06/28/2008 at 06:26 PM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Quoting Wonderment: Which -- without going too much into the mechanics of fellatio -- brings us full circle to the beginning of this conversation on antiautonyms. Regardless and irregardless, I sure you could and couldn't care less.I care. Letters to Einstein wrote on 09/03/2008 at 10:55 AM
Re: If it's not disturbing, you're not doing it right Dear Bokonon, I just visited from your beautiful area of the country... pacific NW. Thank goodness there are thinkers like you who see value in accessing all of human's facilities, "logical" and otherwise. While I do not agree with your statement - - "the analytical way of thinking kills something in the experience of reality" - - as a blanket statement, I do think that relying solely on logical thinking does indeed limit our potential to understand reality fully. On those days when I'm a "one-eyed son of a bitch", I usually miss some very vital information that could help answer my (scientific) question. Recall August Kekulé's dream of the snakes joining in a circle that revealed the structure of benzene to him... and so forth. I'm so inspired by your e.e. cummings quote, that I'm elaborating on your post in my Letters to Einstein blog entry today. I'll try not to bash David Albert too badly... since I like him so much (and you, too, Sean). Carol
|
|
Is Tom purposely trying to steer interest away from his profession? Will formulates a scenario where the terrorists, literally, win! Hmmm, is Bob guilty of serious stereotyping? No, Bob. It’s not. Nothing ever is.
Lawrence Lessig knows a juice-boxer when he sees one. Matt is great, Matt is great—listen and repeat. Joel’s elegant refutation of Bob’s point. George Johnson, hopeless romantic! Robert Wright, Asteroid Cowboy. The joy of taking stuff out of context. Heather slaps the entire BhTV community. Can anyone find a case where this is not ultimately Mickey's advice to Dems? Bob steps outside himself here. George's response here was absolutely priceless. Bob takes Tom Jones down a peg. Entry for a video dictionary: "unflappable." Hooray: Jonah Goldberg dismisses the ticking time-bomb scenario. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Posted: June 21
collapse links
