• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Tick tock motherfuckers!

Motto for the House: Flip 5 and lose none.

I did not have this on my fuck 2022 bingo card.

“Can i answer the question? No you can not!”

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

Only Democrats have agency, apparently.

The GOP is a fucking disgrace.

We still have time to mess this up!

It’s easy to sit in safety and prescribe what other people should be doing.

Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?

Insiders who complain to politico: please report to the white house office of shut the fuck up.

Seems like a complicated subject, have you tried yelling at it?

Republicans in disarray!

The GOP couldn’t organize an orgy in a whorehouse with a fist full of 50s.

Usually wrong but never in doubt

I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.

They love authoritarianism, but only when they get to be the authoritarians.

If you’re pissed about Biden’s speech, he was talking about you.

But frankly mr. cole, I’ll be happier when you get back to telling us to go fuck ourselves.

It’s the corruption, stupid.

Let’s not be the monsters we hate.

The cruelty is the point; the law be damned.

We’ve had enough carrots to last a lifetime. break out the sticks.

When do the post office & the dmv weigh in on the wuhan virus?

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Scott Adams Update

Scott Adams Update

by Tim F|  November 26, 200511:15 pm| 35 Comments

This post is in: Blogospheric Navel-Gazing

FacebookTweetEmail

I mentioned Scott Adams, creator of Dilbert and now blogger, in an earlier post. Now I learn, via Louise via Pharyngula, that Adams has decided to wade into the wrong side of the creation debate. Louise Pharyngula compares Adams to Wally, which doesn’t sound right to me. For my money Adams is more like the hyper-talented garbage man who knows how to fix every f-cking thing on the planet.

Have you ever gotten into it with the idiot savants behind six-sigma and hidden-planet conspiracy theories? I have. Don’t bother; there is no authority you can reference that they can’t find some obscure reason to doubt. These guys are often gifted engineers who’ve spent so long knowing practically everything about their particular specialty that it seems like a short leap to imagine that they know everything about everything. The same guys torment mathematicians and physicists tirelessly with inane theories of Everything.

Scott Adams was apparently a very good engineer and while I wouldn’t put him in the six sigma camp (which he has mocked), the same tendency lets him believe that he knows enough about evolution to stick it good to the people who spend their lives studying it. That’s not the sort of thing I’d expect Wally to do, but it would be right in character for the Good Will Hunting garbage guy.

That said, his blog is still funny and I still read Dilbert before doing practically anything else in the morning.

***Update***

Minor error fixed (sorry, Louise!). Also, Scott Adams not an engineer? There goes my damn theory. Next week remind me to share with you my expanded theory of EVERYTHING, hidden planets included.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « The Stupidest Aliens Since Cousin Balki
Next Post: WaPo Poll »

Reader Interactions

35Comments

  1. 1.

    Dave Ruddell

    November 26, 2005 at 11:58 pm

    Actually, Adams was never an engineer, I think he has an MBA. He certainly derived much enjoyment (not to mention cash) from observing engineers, but he isn’t one.

  2. 2.

    Patton

    November 27, 2005 at 12:57 am

    Having read through his postings on the matter, it’s not at all clear to me that he’s taken a position at all, let alone the wrong one.

    The commenters at Pharyngula, however, seem to have read different postings than the ones at Adams’ site presently.

  3. 3.

    Walker

    November 27, 2005 at 1:10 am

    But it would be right in character for the Good Will Hunting garbage guy.

    I cringe when I watch this movie. They needed a better mathematics advisor. The problems he solves at the beginning are adjacency matrices. I teach this stuff to freshmen — they have no problem with it. Plus the prof talks about fourier series in his opening lecture and then spends the rest of the movie on graph theory. I am unaware of any deep connection between the two, but it would certainly be worth a Fields medal if there was one.

    Of course it doesn’t hold a candle to Sneakers. The speech by the cryptographer is such a nonsensical mishmash of technical terms that it is hilarious. He delivers it well, however.

  4. 4.

    Zifnab

    November 27, 2005 at 1:15 am

    It’s the knee-jerk reaction to attack the side of the debate you think is “winning” when both sides look – at least on the surface – equally valid. Darwinian science is estabilished and possesses that Ivory Tower elitism unquestionable mystic. Intelligent Design is new and trendy. Sure the later is almost entirely baseless in fact. Sure the former was heralded by over a hundred years of previous scientific discovery. But by god this is America and we’ll be damned if we’re not allowed the freedom to doubt and doubt vigoriously, especially when it makes us the underdog.

    Give Scott Adams a book and a few hours to read up on the subject, and I’m sure he’ll come around.

  5. 5.

    RSA

    November 27, 2005 at 1:19 am

    I cringe when I watch [Good Will Hunting].

    I think it’s very seldom that movies or TV can come up with a convincing smart person. The only one who springs to mind immediately is Dana Scully from the X-Files (but that may just be wish-fulfillment.)

  6. 6.

    Zifnab

    November 27, 2005 at 1:23 am

    The only one who springs to mind immediately is Dana Scully from the X-Files (but that may just be wish-fulfillment.)

    She was totally hot.

  7. 7.

    Louise

    November 27, 2005 at 1:30 am

    Hey wait — *I* didn’t say he was a Wally! I still haven’t had time to read everything and figure out who’s ticked off about what. I just put the update there so I would remember to do that (It never occurs to me that someone else might read my blog!)

    I do thank you for pointing the way to SA’s blog, because he has some funny stuff there.

  8. 8.

    David Gillies

    November 27, 2005 at 2:08 am

    Actually, the lecture by the cryptographer in Sneakers wasn’t as goofy as you might think. Len Adleman of RSA fame was a technical consultant for the movie. I seem to recall the lecture being about elliptic curve methods, which is certainly not implausible. I haven’t seen the movie in years, though.

  9. 9.

    Walker

    November 27, 2005 at 2:21 am

    Actually, the lecture by the cryptographer in Sneakers wasn’t as goofy as you might think.

    I have to go back and watch it again; I saw it when I was an undergraduate. I remember at the time that he used all the right terms, but that what he was saying was pretty content-free. Which would be a reasonable thing for Len Adleman to get him to say.

  10. 10.

    Dave_Violence

    November 27, 2005 at 10:26 am

    Scott Adams is, by academic training, an economist. His ideas for Dilbert must’ve come from observing my company’s managers, though.

  11. 11.

    canuckistani

    November 27, 2005 at 11:01 am

    Scott’s opinion is that the ID supporters and the evolutionists need to listen to each other, rather than shouting past each other; this is, in the opinion of serious scientists, like telling astronomers and flat-earth theorists that they need to listen to each other.
    I was sufficiently upset by Scott’s giving credibility to the undeserving that I resigned my position in Dogbert’s New Ruling Class.
    -canuckistani

  12. 12.

    Battlepanda

    November 27, 2005 at 11:05 am

    Whether or not it applies to Scott Adams, the “they’re so darn smart they must know what they’re talking about” phenomenon John observes must explain how the giant dose of vitamin C will cure colds and flu theory gained so much traction — it was endorsed by legendary chemist Linus Pauling. It is also completely nuts.

  13. 13.

    Walker

    November 27, 2005 at 11:14 am

    Whether or not it applies to Scott Adams, the “they’re so darn smart they must know what they’re talking about” phenomenon John observes must explain how the giant dose of vitamin C will cure colds and flu theory gained so much traction—it was endorsed by legendary chemist Linus Pauling. It is also completely nuts.

    Horowitz is a little too Chicken Little for me, but one thing that he does have right is that there are several rockstar academics that use their properly earned authority in one area to “authoritatively” spot crap in an area that they know nothing about. Penrose and Emperor’s New Mind (verification versus discovery; it is a junior-level computer science concept, Penrose). Chomsky and, well, anything.

    I took several courses in graduate school from the logician Richard Platek. A genius when it comes to the lambda calculus and modal logics. Also mad as a hatter. In class one day he announced that he would rather his kids be hooked on heroine than dairy products — because heroine addiction is curable. Then he admitted to breaking down and going to Amsterdam for his cheese fix every once in a while.

    It was still a great math class so long as you filtered out these ticks. Oh, the stories.

  14. 14.

    RSA

    November 27, 2005 at 11:29 am

    It was still a great math class. . .

    It must have been your story, but I read this as, “It was still a great meth class. . .”

    Fred Hoyle, the astronomer, is another example of someone making a splash outside his area of expertise. On evolution: “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”

  15. 15.

    Louise

    November 27, 2005 at 11:56 am

    Thanks, Tim!

  16. 16.

    tzs

    November 27, 2005 at 12:30 pm

    I heard that the “Vitamin C cures colds” was a folk legend already at Caltech and Pauling just picked it up and put the force of his name behind it.

    Of course, some folk legends have something behind them–willow bark for fevers, for instance.

  17. 17.

    InsultComicDog

    November 27, 2005 at 1:02 pm

    Can’t you tell when a guy’s messing with you?

  18. 18.

    InsultComicDog

    November 27, 2005 at 1:04 pm

    As far as Pauling endorsing Vitamin C, his view was not accepted by hardly anyone in the scientific community even after he adopted it.

  19. 19.

    Andrew J. Lazarus

    November 27, 2005 at 3:59 pm

    Dunno, they did hire an MIT grad student to propose the problems in Good Will Hunting (I know, because a friend of mine really was MIT’s combinatorist at the time, and far from being a hotbed of combinatorics, MIT didn’t tenure him). I thought starting off with a straightforward problem (it was an eigenvalue problem, wasn’t it?) was meant as an inside joke.

    I didn’t notice (I only saw the movie once) that they moved from Fourier series to graph theory, but after looking at Nash’s use of the Brouwer Fixed Point Theorem in graph theory, I can only say, God may not exist, but beauty does.

    Did we ever figure out why every second reader of this blog is a mathematician?

  20. 20.

    David Gillies

    November 27, 2005 at 4:35 pm

    Assertion without proof. All we know is that an anomolously high fraction of commenters have some training in mathematical formalism :)

    There was this one movie I saw which actually had some quasi-interesting looking maths in it. Was it the one with Jeff Bridges and Barbra Streisand? If so, I think my extreme aversion to la Streisand kicked my mental censorship function into high gear and erased most of the memories associated with it. I seem to recall some plausible-looking commutative diagrams.

  21. 21.

    Walker

    November 27, 2005 at 5:12 pm

    Did we ever figure out why every second reader of this blog is a mathematician?

    I am a mathematician, but I never noticed this before.

    It was an eigenvalue problem, on an adjacency matrix, as far as I remember.

    There was this one movie I saw which actually had some quasi-interesting looking maths in it.

    The winner for most realistic mathematics in a movie is It’s My Turn. The opening scene is the female lead presenting a proof of the Snake Lemma.

  22. 22.

    demimondian

    November 27, 2005 at 7:04 pm

    The winner for most realistic mathematics in a movie is It’s My Turn. The opening scene is the female lead presenting a proof of the Snake Lemma.

    And they even placed it correctly — she was allegedly a professor at the University of Chicago.

  23. 23.

    Andrew J. Lazarus

    November 27, 2005 at 8:40 pm

    The actress in It’s My Turn was Jill Clayburgh. I used to know who they had tutor her in the role; it may have been Barry Mazur. If you look in Larry Washington’s fantastic book on Cyclotomic Fields, check out the citation where the Snake Lemma is used in a proof.

    [Aside to Walker: On another thread where I don’t remember your commenting, there were IIRC at least six posters who were ABD or better in math, including me, demimondian, and DougJ. And I do suspect we can add David Gillies to this list.]

  24. 24.

    Andrew J. Lazarus

    November 27, 2005 at 9:51 pm

    The self-correcting Internet. Clayburgh was coached by Benedict (Dick) Gross. Apologies for the error, but I went back to my original source.

  25. 25.

    demimondian

    November 27, 2005 at 10:59 pm

    I do suspect we can add David Gillies to this list

    Yeah, the “anomalously high number of posters” line had a certain “There is at least one sheep in Scotland which is black on at least one side.” quality to it.

  26. 26.

    Walker

    November 28, 2005 at 12:00 am

    [Aside to Walker: On another thread where I don’t remember your commenting, there were IIRC at least six posters who were ABD or better in math, including me, demimondian, and DougJ. And I do suspect we can add David Gillies to this list.]

    I found your entry in the Mathematics Genealogy Project. I cannot find David Gillies. Perhaps he is ABD.

    Search on my first name to find me in the project. I am the 2000 hit.

  27. 27.

    blogReeder

    November 28, 2005 at 1:17 am

    I cringed when I started going through these comments. I read the comments on Scott Adam’s blog during the big “smack down” the Pharyngula crowd was performing. And I have to say, It’s very civilized here. Whew, what a relief.

  28. 28.

    demimondian

    November 28, 2005 at 10:23 am

    I didn’t know about the genealogy site. That’s pretty cool!

    And there I am, a lonely leaf node in the 1986 University of Wisconsin crowd.

  29. 29.

    David Gillies

    November 28, 2005 at 10:42 am

    My first degree’s in Physics, then I moved to communications theory, cryptography and finally software engineering. I’m a very indifferent mathematician (I don’t even play one on TV).

  30. 30.

    Tim F.

    November 28, 2005 at 11:53 am

    I wish there was a geneaology for biologists. At my PhD defense I plan to surprise my advisor with an advising genealogy going back as far I can. So far I’ve traced back to my advisor’s advisor’s advisor’s advisor, but the trail runs cold in a diocese-affiliated research institution that doesn’t exist anymore. With persistence I hope I can at least make it back to the 19th century.

  31. 31.

    demimondian

    November 28, 2005 at 12:23 pm

    You know, I only know two generations of my academic genealogy, and I only know two generations of FDDD’s…and I only know one generation of my father’s, and I don’t even know my grandfather’s advisor’s name.

    So maybe it’s a generational thing.

  32. 32.

    Walker

    November 28, 2005 at 1:10 pm

    You know, I only know two generations of my academic genealogy,

    I knew four generations before I found the web site, but only because my advisor and his advisor are both famous, still active in the community, and their descendancy from Church & Rosser is often noted.

    Now with the web-site, I can trace my way through E. H. Moore back to Leibniz. Excellent.

  33. 33.

    demimondian

    November 28, 2005 at 1:47 pm

    Yeah, with the website, I can go back to Leibnitz as well. It looks like you and I are distant academic cousins — my genealogy goes me->Ken Kunen->Dana Scott->Alonzo Church (common ancestor).

  34. 34.

    Don

    November 28, 2005 at 4:42 pm

    Did we ever figure out why every second reader of this blog is a mathematician?

    No, for that we’d need a statistician.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. Balloon Juice says:
    December 2, 2005 at 4:01 pm

    […] You’ll remember that a few days ago I dropped the bomb that Scott Adams, Dilbert guy, had come out on the wrong side of the evolution “debate.” The next day Adams replied (to me? the ego likes to think so, but probably not) in his own cryptic way that he didn’t think any such thing, he was just complaining that the two “sides” of the “debate” don’t listen to what the other is saying. Then he tried to get evolution advocates to support using the word ‘god’ in the classroom via a convoluted thought experiment. I replied here, here and here. […]

Primary Sidebar

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Recent Comments

  • Mike in NC on Monday Afternoon Open Thread (Mar 20, 2023 @ 3:31pm)
  • dmsilev on Monday Afternoon Open Thread (Mar 20, 2023 @ 3:30pm)
  • different-church-lady on Monday Afternoon Open Thread (Mar 20, 2023 @ 3:30pm)
  • Kay on Their Own Private Idaho (Mar 20, 2023 @ 3:30pm)
  • Matt McIrvin on Their Own Private Idaho (Mar 20, 2023 @ 3:30pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Classified Documents: A Primer
State & Local Elections Discussion

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!