Oh wow! That was so wonderfully funny. I began to suspect it was a Discovery Channel promo when I saw what appeared to be Mike Rowe from “Dirty Jobs”. Of course, it had to have those crazy Mythbusters (not that I don’t love them), but my favorite bit had to be the appearance of Stephen Hawking — Boom-dee-addah!
Mister Myers, you have made my day. Thank you. And now, I’m off to the theater to watch “Get Smart”. It just doesn’t get much better than this!
chancelikelysays
Not having a TV, I read the xkcd comic before seeing that commercial.
Complete with a shout-out to our friends the giant squids, as well. ;)
Carliesays
Oh, I hadn’t read the xkcd yet for today, so that was an extra bit of goodness. But what was with the guy blowing the house up in the middle there? That didn’t seem to fit.
Scott Msays
Boom de yada.
Colin Msays
+1 for making today’s xkcd make sense. (No TV here either.)
They showed Bear Grylls but no Les Stroud (SurvivorMan)? :(
Gussays
Can PZ be an xkcd reader?! I hope so.
Dereksays
The video would be a lot cooler if they actually applied “The World is Just Awesome” in their programming selections. There are times when you could confuse the Discovery channel for the Discovery Institute.
Dereksays
ThirdMonkey,
I’m fairly confident it’s Les Stroud with the camera in the beginning that says, “I love the whole world.”
Sir Jebbingtonsays
Wonderful.
Amplexussays
We are stardust
We are golden
We are billion year old carbon
Julie K, the guy blowing up a house is the host of Discovery Channels “Future Weapons” show, which is all about blowing up things with, well, Future Weapons like smart bombs, or new and bigger (therefore better) guns, or whatever else they can get their hands on.
But what was with the guy blowing the house up in the middle there?
Most of the shots of individuals in there were from the Discovery Channel’s shows. The guy with the big gun that blows up the house is the host of a show called “Future Weapons”.
Julie Ksays
Halcy @#23
I was answering Carlie @#8.
Sacoglossansays
@22
Nah, I think that was indeed a great white, the color patterns match perfectly. By the way, if you look super close you can actually see a rather unlucky seal in its mouth! I think that exact shot came from an Attenborough special, forget which one
Raikosays
THANK you! After being stuck in the 40km “Germany: Drunk trucker crashes and spills gallons of acid on autobahn” traffic jam, this makes it all better. And it has squids and Egyptian kings!
THANK you! After being stuck in the 40km “Germany: Drunk trucker crashes and spills gallons of acid on autobahn” traffic jam, this makes it all better. And it has squids and Egyptian kings!
Yep. Acid’ll have you seeing squids and Egyptian kings all right.
Fizikersays
Amazing. The only fault is that I don’t think that was a real giant squid. But what do you expect, it’s the Discovery Channel, they have great stuff but they’re in the habit of putting on untrue stuff if it gets people watching.
Ragutissays
Great series of commercials. And that tune sticks in your head.
I love that clip, and the pale blue dot one. Both are linked to from my tribe account.
It is nice to have something that is inspiring to most people regardless of religion or ideology.
Doogsays
Yeah, it looks like an octopus. But last I checked, we only had photos of giant squid, so I can see why they used footage of an octopus. But then again, why didn’t they use footage of Humboldt squid? Those are pretty big.
Chiefsays
Thank Goodness!!
Usually it’s the math or science of XKCD that leaves me baffled, and not the esoteric nature of the joke.
dogheavensays
Boomdeeadda, Boomdeeadda, Boomdeeadda, I love CURIOSITY.
Thanks for this little happy moment.
Claudiasays
That was really quite lovely and uplifting…
cattasays
That was wonderful. Just what I needed, big wonderful things in contrast to all the not-so-great little things. (Oh, and I second… third… oh, who’s counting… the “ooooh now I get it” xkcd sentiment).
Ok, I get that it was one of the Discovery shows, but it still doesn’t seem to fit the theme of beauty and exploration of the world. I love the earth…so I want to blow it up! It just seemed jarring in there.
David Marjanović, OMsays
Can PZ be an xkcd reader?! I hope so.
He has cited it several times. Where have you been?
Marksays
I love that commercial, but is it just me, or does the clip form a show celebrating “future weapons” kind of put a damper on the spirit of it?
brnofeatherssays
Truely wonderful – THAT is what it’s all about! With the world of reality being so damned cool, how the heck could anyone need or want anything else! Love it!
I don’t think the Future Weapons clip diminishes the commercial at all. There’s a certain appeal to blowing stuff up. If there wasn’t then action movies wouldn’t make so much money.
Alexsays
“…or does the clip form a show celebrating “future weapons” kind of put a damper on the spirit of it?”
Not if it involves light-sabers.
Julie Ksays
I love that commercial, but is it just me, or does the clip form a show celebrating “future weapons” kind of put a damper on the spirit of it?
The world is awesome.
And so are big explosions.
Boom de yada.
Alexsays
“If there wasn’t then action movies wouldn’t make so much money.”
Then they should call it “Future Movie Weapons”.
Yes war sucks. Fighting sucks. But it’s science and technology that enable (certain) advantages in adversarial force conflict. Point being, if you want to play pretend with your make-believe deities, fine. Just don’t go pick a fight with those who actually apply themselves in learning the finer points of how Nature works and use that understanding to craft weaponry. If all you got is wishful thinking, incantations, and imaginary sky-lords, you’ll get your ass handed to you.
CrypticLifesays
My son didn’t have half the interest he has in chemistry until I mentioned a lot of chemists go into the field because they want to make explosions.
Explosions are fun. It’s the application you need to worry about.
Marksays
Yeah, I love that commercial. It doesn’t even begin to make up for the Discovery Channel’s promotion of idiotic superstition in “Ghost Hunters” et al., however.
Patriciasays
Thanks PZ, I needed that!
I love to twirl…boom deyada!
truth machinesays
I think Sagan said it better
Carl made me cry.
I think I’ve seen 99% of those movie scenes; I can’t identify them all, but it was nice to see TPBD end with my favorite scene in all of filmdom (it’s all the more remarkable because Gene Kelly was feverish with the flu at the time).
Bride of Shreksays
We actually had this discussion about this ad on a previous thread but it was determined, by the man who knows all the fishy stuff, Ichthyic, that it is indeed a Great White flying about in the air doing acrobatics. Makes you think twice about taking out that 12 foot dinghy for a quite spot of fishing in the bay, doesn’t it?
Gussays
@ David Marjanović (#45)
I hope that you can forgive a reader who hasn’t QUITE been here as long as you oh great one :/
Bride of Shreksays
..or even a “quiet spot”. Yes, thankyou I’m aware I’m an idiot, but I’m YOUR idiot and that makes me more loveable.
Gussays
@ #54
Isnt Ghost Hunters the SciFi channel NOT Discovery?
truth machinesays
With the world of reality being so damned cool, how the heck could anyone need or want anything else!
The first time I ever heard this expressed was in 1984, from Linus Pauling appearing with Jack LaLanne on the Phil Donahue show. The audience was loving them both until Donahue asked Pauling if he was an atheist and Pauling assented — some in the audience booed. Pauling (83 at the time, with palsy), avuncularly laughed it off and said that he was in awe of the universe and its workings, and that the notion of a magical God trivializes it.
Crudely Wrottsays
There ain’t no place
Anything like this place
Anywhere near this place.
SOOOooooo,
This must be the place!
How ’bout a little Harry Nilsson?
“The most beautiful world in the world,
And though there are times when I doubt you;
I just couldn’t stay here without you.”
Thanks for pointing this out, PZ. Makes me grin. :->
Isnt Ghost Hunters the SciFi channel NOT Discovery?
Since the “g” key on your keyboard clearly isn’t broken, you should be able to google it and discover that there are two different shows, “Ghost Hunters” (SciFi) and “Ghosthunters” (Discovery).
SCsays
Bah. Yet another show about thunting ghoses. You’d think Discovery could come up with something more original.
Patriciasays
#59 – Ah, but a slutty idiot.
There, all better. :)
MiddleO'Nowheresays
I had actually just finished watching the clip on Youtube before I came over to check Scienceblogs. And here it is again.
It makes me smile every time I see it and reminds me why I am becoming/became a scientist.
Patriciasays
Hey…how come w00+ and Etha are both missing at the same time?
truth machinesays
Just don’t go pick a fight with those who actually apply themselves in learning the finer points of how Nature works and use that understanding to craft weaponry.
At the very top of the DailyKos front page at the moment is this quote from George Carlin:
The very existence of flame-throwers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, Y’know, I want to set those people over there on fire but I’m just not close enough to get the job done.
The other Carlin quotes posted there:
Viruses, mold, mildew, maggots, fungus, weeds, the e-coli bacteria, the crabs…nothing sacred about those things. So, at best, the sanctity of life is kind of a selective thing. We get to choose which forms of life we feel are sacred, and we get to kill the rest. Pretty neat deal, huh? You know how we got it? We made the whole fucking thing up!
–
Human beings are kind of interesting from birth until they reach the age of a year and a half. Then they are boring until they reach fifty. By that time they’re either completely defeated and fucked up, which makes them interesting again, or they’ve learned how to beat the game, and that makes them interesting too.
–
If crime fighters fight crime and firefighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight? They never mention that part to us, do they?
–
I distinguish between maniacs and crazy people. A maniac will beat nine people to death with a steel dildo. A crazy person will beat nine people to death with a steel dildo, but he’ll be wearing a Bugs Bunny suit at the time.
–
If God had intended us not to masturbate he would’ve made our arms shorter.
–
Some see the glass as half-empty, some see the glass as half-full. I see the glass as too big.
–
If you love someone, set them free; if they come home, set them on fire.
–
We’re all fucked. It helps to remember that.
–
One tequila, two tequila, three tequila, floor.
–
Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck.
John Moralessays
Carlie,
Ok, I get that it was one of the Discovery shows, but it still doesn’t seem to fit the theme of beauty and exploration of the world. I love the earth…so I want to blow it up! It just seemed jarring in there.
Blowing up the Earth? What a weird connection to make.
More like explosions are fun, or humans make and use weapons on each other. Technology may be amazing and people combative, but I’m pretty sure no-one wants to blow up Earth.
And for a sense of perspective regarding the explosion, consider the volcano or tornado snippets.
truth machinesays
And for a sense of perspective regarding the explosion, consider the volcano or tornado snippets.
It’s also useful to think about how those astronauts got out there.
Evil geniuses and apocalyptic nuts may want to blow up Earth, but most of us hopefully don’t. Even if we like explosions.
Jack Rawlinsonsays
I have to say, I hate that ad. I hate the stupid tune, I hate the crassness of it, I hate the gee-wow corniness of it and most of all I hate the way they include a shot of some military dude blowing up a building with all of the natural wonders. It makes me cringe with embarrassment.
Helioprogenussays
Now that’s an ear worm I don’t quite mind. Great commercial. I just have to say, it’s a wonderful planet with wonderful creatures, and unfortunately, it’s also populated by certain hightly intelligent hominids using their advanced reasoning abilities for entirely imaginary notions liks religion, spirituality, supernatural phenomenon, etc. Can’t these people just look at the planet and enjoy it for all it is, without having to inject some idiotic notion of a creator or an intelligence? Beauty can exist without intelligence…
wow. A few weeks back i posted that same commercial in a bulletin on MySpace. I’m so glad i’m not the only one that nerdy.
Alexsays
“Can’t these people just look at the planet and enjoy it for all it is, without having to inject some idiotic notion of a creator or an intelligence?”
It’s all about looking for answers. It’s what drives us. What the superstitionists succumb to is the shear magnitude of effort of the learning required, along with the absolute comfort of “knowing”. Our imaginations cause us to look beyond the here and now. Imagination drives science and learning. But it can also make us long for things our emotions are not able to process in a healthy way. For them, simply imagining the “truth” makes it truthful. It’s a tricky game to balance self-worth and truth when fear one’s mortality becomes the centerpiece of existence.
Patriciasays
The ones wishing to blow up the Earth wrote about it in several places in their bible. The fact that they are the stupidist bastards on the planet, and are praying for their own destruction as well as mine, is completely lost on them.
Oh and then there’s the – blow up someone else AND yourself and get 72 virgins in paradise crowd. Seems like a a plague of blowing up, or stupidity.
Maybe Boy George will write a new version of his song – “People Are Stupid” – “Religion Is Stupid”.
negentropyeatersays
A quick look at this week’s programme ;
Forensic Detectives
Mythmusters – special James Bond
Crimes that shook the world
My shocking story
Extreme engineering
American chopper
The garage
Kings of construction
FBI Files
Chop Shop : London Garage
Custom my ride
So, yes indeed it’s a “nice” commercial, but as usual with commercials, it’s hiding the truth, discovery channel is also very much about car tuning and detective stuff, and is only a farce of a real educational documentary channel. Maybe only 20 or 30% of its programmes fit the commercial.
A good message, just have to forget for who it’s for.
Alexsays
“…blow up someone else AND yourself…”
Now Patricia, don’t get hysterical. That’s not what it says. The other person (better yet, people, and lots of ’em) needs to be an infidel (yet another meaningless word fabricated to dress-up unreal causes)!Not just anyone will do.
jfatzsays
Bah! Admit it, PZ… You wouldn’t care about this at all without the gratuitous squid reference.
truth machinesays
OK, good point.
I didn’t really mean it to be … Dr. Evil and people like him are entirely fictional.
JamesRsays
Thanks man
I needed that
Carliesays
Technology may be amazing and people combative, but I’m pretty sure no-one wants to blow up Earth.
Well, I didn’t mean the WHOLE earth, just parts of it. Eh, we’ll just disagree on it. To me explosions like the one shown are an example of humans asserting their will on something, destroying just for the sake of the big boom and because they can. The rest of the commercial was experiencing joy and discovery at nature, which is something quite different. But really, it’s just a commercial for a channel that has very few shows I like to watch anyway, so I’m not really invested in it. As neg noted, that channel lost its claim on being science/nature-based a long, long time ago.
Patriciasays
Oh pleeeeze Alex, let me be hysterical… if I can’t spend half my time being hysterical I’ll have to be full on engaged in Strumpetry. For that I have to sail to Singapore… you see the BOTHER factor here.
Alexsays
Oh. Well. I knew all that, except, I just assumed you were already in Singapore. My bad. I apologize.
Keanussays
I’m waiting for an idiot to show up and say it’s all god’s work.
truth machinesays
an example of humans asserting their will on something
I’m translating what they say to spanish. Can someone spell out the chorus for me? Any chance I can get this into my ring tone? :D
truth machinesays
To clarify my last post: science, and a major motivation for doing it, is not just about “experiencing joy and discovery at nature”, it’s about affecting the world, changing our environment, changing outcomes. It’s about power and control and, to a considerable degree, the illusion of mastering mortality (see Ernest Becker’s “Fear of Death” for the role that plays in human violence). Without those motivations, there would not be science.
There is no such thing as a gratuitous squid reference.
truth machinesays
I love the earth…so I want to blow it up! It just seemed jarring in there.
It says “I love the WHOLE world” — including “when great whites fly” (chomp!) — “and all its craziness” … “tornadoes” (in the process of destroying a chunk of human endeavor) …
Remember that Darwin wrote “I cannot persuade myself that a benificent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars.” If you’re looking for a sweet frilly world without people blowing stuff up, you’re looking for a fantasy. The real thing is what it is, so you might as well savor it.
Alexsays
“There is no such thing as a gratuitous squid reference.”
…perhaps so…but it seems there are gratuitous PZ references.
mandrakesays
I can see where it’s corny, but here’s the thing –
it’s saying look, here we all are, we’re all humans together on this cool planet… but they don’t say *anything* metaphysical about it.
No religious “All God’s Creatures,” no spiritual “Interconnected Lives,” no Gaia theory. No “I’d like to teach the world to sing.” We’re all we’ve got on this pale blue dot and that’s enough.
It’s nice to see that.
“It’s not actually an acronym. It’s just a word with no phonetic pronunciation. It stands for the comic and everything the comic stands for!”
Patriciasays
…there are no gratuitous,
Strumpterionius, remarks in… this-
squidtonious wooorld!
Boom de yada, boom de yada!…
Oh hell, I better drink somemore hysterical sangria and go lay an egg. Nighty, y’ll. P ;)
SCsays
But then again, it’s not like the only application of explosions is hurting people.
No, but the show (which I’ve never seen) is called “Future Weapons,” so I imagine that’s the application of interest to them.
Rey Foxsays
“but the show (which I’ve never seen) is called “Future Weapons”
Sheesh. Modern weapons depress me enough. Even old weapons don’t hold me in the thrall that they seem to hold some other people in (whenever I start hearing fantasy or general nerds discussing swords and other stuff and mention their own personal collections, I always start slowly backing away, even when I’m on the computer).
truth machinesays
Actually, the primary purpose of weapons is to coerce people; hurting them is usually a means, not a goal. When two parties are intent on coercing each other, the result is that the weapons are employed, moving coercion from threat to actual damage.
Mystyksays
The song wasn’t that great, but you’re right about the theme. The message saves the medium.
And it’s all worth it for the Hawking cameo.
SCsays
truth machine,
You seem to be ignoring all of the cases of one-sided use of weaponry with purely destructive intent – when the aggressors don’t want to coerce others but simply to eliminate them.
Ah, the joys of context. The sorrows of having basic cable, thus, no more Discovery Channel.
johnsays
don’t you know that christians HATE the world because it’s “run by satan the devil” – my Jehovah’s Witness parents do – I happen to love the world, I’m glad I’m here, and I just wish people wouldn’t waste this life in leu of some afterlife that doesn’t exist
truth machinesays
You seem to be ignoring all of the cases of one-sided use of weaponry with purely destructive intent – when the aggressors don’t want to coerce others but simply to eliminate them.
Y’know, I’ve appreciated the quality of your thinking, but not here. I said “primarily” and “usually”, and I stand by that as a proper characterization of the totality of cases, those that fit (the majority, by my understanding) and those that don’t (the minority, by my understanding).
truth machinesays
P.S. In the great majority of cases where the aggressors want to eliminate others, they want to do so in order to seize their resources or to eliminate them as a threat. Were the targets of the aggression to simply leave, they would generally not be pursued. Thus, the goal is only rarely “simply to eliminate them” — although we do see a lot of that in TV and movie fiction.
Jeff Arnoldsays
AH!!! The xkcd post makes SENSE now! This commercial makes me smile..
mandrakesays
P.S. In the great majority of cases where the aggressors want to eliminate others, they want to do so in order to seize their resources or to eliminate them as a threat. Were the targets of the aggression to simply leave, they would generally not be pursued. Thus, the goal is only rarely “simply to eliminate them” — although we do see a lot of that in TV and movie fiction.
This is true, but politically it seems to work better to demonize the enemy. That makes it shade into the emotional “eliminate them” territory.
SCsays
I don’t think there’s any way the various motivations can be distinguished well enough to draw firm conclusions here. But I’m not convinced that the “primary” purpose of weapons use in human history (or recent history in particular) has been coercion and not destruction.
truth machinesays
P.P.S. The seizing of resources was a major objective even in that most infamous case of elimination, the Holocaust. The dehumanization of the Jews was a very intentional program with political goals, it was not simply a matter of raw hatred, although that that was fomented and harnessed. (Some other cases of bigotry fostered for the sake of seizure of resources : the interned Japanese, the Palestinians.)
mandrakesays
Sometimes destruction is used as coercion, yes? difficult to separate them.
truth machinesays
I don’t think there’s any way the various motivations can be distinguished well enough to draw firm conclusions here.
I do, after considering the matter carefully.
I’m not convinced that the “primary” purpose of weapons use in human history (or recent history in particular) has been coercion and not destruction.
You don’t have to be convinced, you don’t even have to be wrong, for your charge that I “seem” to be ignoring cases to be unreasoned.
truth machinesays
mandrake, our posts are overlapping — I think we basically agree.
SCsays
P.P.S. The seizing of resources was a major objective even in that most infamous case of elimination, the Holocaust.
The destruction of the Jews was pursued at the end of the war even when it was profoundly irrational in economic terms (see, for example, Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Willing Executioners).
truth machinesays
you don’t even have to be wrong
Although, without your providing some argumentation that supports your view, in light of the entire body of military science, history, sociology, anthropology, criminology, policing methods … that details how force and threat of force are used coercively, it’s hard to see how you’re not.
SCsays
I do, after considering the matter carefully.
“Considering the matter carefully” is not the same as providing empirical evidence to support your claims. When I mentioned making these distinctions, I meant for the purpose of empirical study. I think mandrake is pointing to basically the same problems, so I don’t understand the distinction you’re making between his/her posts and mine.
truth machinesays
The destruction of the Jews was pursued at the end of the war even when it was profoundly irrational in economic terms
Hitler opening up two fronts was also profoundly irrational. Irrationality doesn’t make your case, especially since, as I noted, hatreds were harnessed, and such hatreds take on a life of their own.
SCsays
hatreds were harnessed, and such hatreds take on a life of their own.
They already had a life of their own. And they were by no menas a secondary factor.
This complexity and blending of motives across cases is precisely what makes it difficult to support generalizations about the “primary” purpose of weapons use or warfare.
truth machinesays
I don’t understand the distinction you’re making between his/her posts and mine.
You claimed, quite erroneously, that I “seem” to be ignoring cases, even though I said “primarily” and “usually”, which comparitive terms don’t warrant your inference. If that isn’t clear to you, so be it.
As for the greater issue, you might want to take a look at some literature on police and military methods, and the anthropology of competition for resources. I’m not about to lay out the whole thing here, any more than I would lay out the supporting evidence for the theory of evolution.
Bye now.
SCsays
What would constitute evidence of “primary” purposes?
– How weapons users justify their use to various “outsiders”?
– How they talk about it amongst themselves or in their diaries/journals?
– How much gratuitous violence and destruction they engage in? (And how is “gratuitous” to be defined?)
– Works of art or other cultural artifacts related to warfare?
truth machinesays
Just one more thing:
I don’t understand the distinction you’re making between his/her posts and mine.
mandrake said, in response to my post,
“This is true, but politically it seems to work better to demonize the enemy.”
That is, we agree both about the goal and about the harnessing of emotion to achieve the goal. And mandrake said
“Sometimes destruction is used as coercion, yes? difficult to separate them.”
That is, the goal of some cases of destruction is coercion, undermining any claim that destruction is an end in itself, again agreeing with me.
maakuzsays
This is, hands down, THE best commercial I have ever seen.
Boom-de-yada!
truth machinesays
What would constitute evidence of “primary” purposes?
I suggest consulting “the entire body of military science, history, sociology, anthropology, criminology, policing methods … that details how force and threat of force are used coercively”. There’s a lot of it, too much to fit into this little edit box.
Ok, now I really must go.
Cheezitssays
I have to say, I hate that ad. I hate the stupid tune, I hate the crassness of it…
I hate the whole ad
I hate the corniness
Boomdeyada boomdeyada
Boomdeyada boomdeyada
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
SCsays
Evidently our posts crossed. OK, I acknowledge that you said “primary” and “usually” (although your next sentence, as I read it, implied a more sweeping claim – but I may have misinterpreted it).
Half of my dissertation concerned the history/sociology of state security and policing. It’s an area in which I’m quite well-informed, so there’s no need for you to lay anything out for me.
It’s a fascinating world out there. It’s breathtaking to see all that wonder together. Other folks express that wonder better than I can; it’s hard to describe, but it’s an absolutely vital part of our humanity. I feel… uplifted, seeing that. Makes me want to go take up science.
truth machinesays
Argh, I can’t help myself:
They already had a life of their own.
And how did that happen? Think inquisition, tsarist Russia, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. These enmities don’t just exist free floating, they have economic roots, just like attitudes towards blacks and women have economic roots.
truth machinesays
aEvidently our posts crossed. OK, I acknowledge that you said “primary” and “usually” (although your next sentence, as I read it, implied a more sweeping claim – but I may have misinterpreted it).
Frankly, I find that bizarre on several counts. Oh well.
Half of my dissertation concerned the history/sociology of state security and policing. It’s an area in which I’m quite well-informed, so there’s no need for you to lay anything out for me.
The latter does not follow from the former.
Bye.
Ta ta.
SCsays
Argh, I can’t help myself:
You should really try, if you’re just going to create strawmen. I never denied the role or importance of material motivations. It’s the “taking on a life of their own” part that you’re dismissing too lightly, I believe.
I don’t have cable tv so I had not seen that before, since I’m shortly heading to bed I am reasonably sure that song will still be stuck in my head in the morning. That is quite as good as my favorite song full of fun references (La Vie Boheme from Rent) but it mentions squid, Egyptian mummies, and has Stephen Hawking so it comes a close second.
“I love the Giant Squid!”
SCsays
Frankly, I find that bizarre on several counts.
I can’t imagine why. Your next sentence was:
When two parties are intent on coercing each other, the result is that the weapons are employed, moving coercion from threat to actual damage.
This implied that the history of the use of weapons involved co-combatants with equivalent coercive intent, and that weapons have been used solely as a means to attain non-destructive ends. This sentence was not qualified by “usually,” “in some cases,” etc.
The latter does not follow from the former.
Huh?
mandrakesays
You know, now that I think about it – would the gas chambers of Nazi Germany be considered a weapon solely of destruction? Anti-Semitism could easily have started with an us/them competition (they believe differently then us, they should go away so that we hold the power here), and then was solidified into religious hatred (they are evil).
During WWII, though I think there isn’t proof of a specific “eliminate all the Jews” dictate, it seems clear that they considered the elimination of “undesirables” as something that would increase the “health” of the state.
One could say that this was a form of coercion to keep such types out of the country, but in that case why not just expel them?
SCsays
Yes, that seems to be what it’s about.
That was a useless comment. By the way, I often write “it seems,” “it appears,” “if I’m reading you correctly,”I believe” or the like when I’m arguing with someone. This is because I allow for the possibility that I may not be understanding his or her point fully, either through a failure to communicate it well or through my own misreading. I consider this benefit of the doubt and its expression a matter of respect for my interlocutor. Someone else here has attributed it to an alleged tendency on my part to engage in “polite lies,” which is incorrect. If I think you’re wrong, I say so.
Just letting you know, so you don’t get too hung up on it in the future.
andyosays
I gotta admit, the weapon there also seemed to me a little out of place, I had a small “WTF?” episode. I mean let’s not kid ourselves, explosions are fun, but that wasn’t exactly a New Year’s fireworks display. Weapons are weapons. Might be a necessary thing, but it’s not really pretty.
About the shark. I am pretty sure that’s a scene from Planet Earth as are some other scenes there too.
And I also was in the dark with the xkcd thing until now.
andyosays
I think Sagan said it better
Carl made me cry.
I think I’ve seen 99% of those movie scenes; I can’t identify them all, but it was nice to see TPBD end with my favorite scene in all of filmdom (it’s all the more remarkable because Gene Kelly was feverish with the flu at the time).
Posted by: truth machine | June 27, 2008 7:50 PM
I love that video, it’s also one of my favorite passages of any book, though I haven’t read the whole book yet. I even translated that from the book to Spanish with the relevant picture to post on my dummy Hi5 site so my “friends” could at least see something when browsing the dummy profile page (I only set up an account to check up on my friends, I actually dislike those sites).
But the video has some special impact if you’ve seen the movies, doesn’t it?
SCsays
During WWII, though I think there isn’t proof of a specific “eliminate all the Jews” dictate,
You’re wrong. (See, TM?)
Please see my recommendation @ #120 (not a perfect book by any means, but worthwhile in this context).
truth machinesays
This sentence was not qualified by “usually,” “in some cases,” etc.
No, it was qualified by the word “when”. Honestly, you are being incredibly thick.
mandrakesays
The men were presented with a plan for killing all the Jews in Europe, including 330,000 Jews in England and 4,000 in Ireland,[152] although the minutes taken by Eichmann refer to this only through euphemisms, such as ” … emigration has now been replaced by evacuation to the East. This operation should be regarded only as a provisional option, though in view of the coming final solution of the Jewish question it is already supplying practical experience of vital importance.”(The Wannsee conference)
SC-
I remember things like this, but was it ever explicitly stated? I suppose it doesn’t matter, as people would have to be blind to not see what they really meant.
truth machinesays
That was a useless comment
No, it isn’t. Walk into a gun store and ask why people buy weapons (aside from hunting). Go to a target range. Ask someone on the street. google “what are weapons for”. Watch the James Burke series on the history of weaponry. Read anything on the military, police methods, anthropology. Your position is prima facie absurd and you have offered no reason to discard the null hypothesis other than that you don’t “believe” it. Ditto when you blithely wave away the well established history of anti-semitism, or racial prejudice or sexism, simply because you “believe” that I’m “dismissing too lightly” the “taking on a life of their own” part. But I’m the one who brought it up; I don’t dismiss it, I understand it, noting that these things don’t just arise by magic, they have causes. But your explanation is … [chirp]. So really you have nothing to offer.
truth machinesays
You’re wrong. (See, TM?)
Those are your words, not mine. Mine were “you don’t even have to be wrong” — meaning, you could be right. But perhaps that too you misinterpreted, as you seem to have misinterpreted so much else.
SCsays
Here the sentences are together:
Actually, the primary purpose of weapons is to coerce people; hurting them is usually a means, not a goal. When two parties are intent on coercing each other, the result is that the weapons are employed, moving coercion from threat to actual damage.
In that context, I didn’t read “when” as a qualification or limiting term, but as a generalizing, transhistoricizing term of the sort “When people are angry…,” “When countries are at war…,” “When crowds form…” etc. But I now understand what you were saying.
truth machinesays
My other words were
Although, without your providing some argumentation that supports your view, in light of the entire body of military science, history, sociology, anthropology, criminology, policing methods … that details how force and threat of force are used coercively, it’s hard to see how you’re not.
And indeed I still don’t see that, given no reason to.
SCsays
Good grief – I was referring to my own previous statement
“If I think you’re wrong, I say so.”
not to anything you said.
truth machinesays
And among more support for the hypothesis, there’s
A weapon is a tool employed to gain a tactical advantage over an adversary, usually by injury, defeat, or destruction, or the threat of these.[1][2]
Weapons may be used to attack or threaten – but also to defend and protect. There are a huge variety of weapons, which all have different means of coercion.
Does a section of a Wikipedia article prove anything? No, of course not. The point is simply that there’s a vast wealth of references and literature to draw on describing the use of weapons (other than hunting) for coercion. (There’s a mention of destruction in what I quoted, but it’s consistent with my previous comment about destruction not being an end in itself). By virtually every reference, that’s the primary use. Does that prove that it really is the primary use? No. But to reject it one needs reasons, not just [chirp].
SCsays
Although, without your providing some argumentation that supports your view, in light of the entire body of military science, history, sociology, anthropology, criminology, policing methods … that details how force and threat of force are used coercively, it’s hard to see how you’re not.
And as I’ve been patiently trying to explain to you, social scientists, in order to study “primary purposes” or “root causes,” need to operationalize these concepts concretely. Pointing me to various bodies of literature does nothing to support your case.
And you are the one who made the original claim. You are the one who needs to substantiate it. I merely suggested that I was unconvinced. And I pointed out that providing evidentiary support for such a claim would be axtraordinarily difficult, given the complexity of human motivation and the lack of a commonly-accepted form of evidence.
truth machinesays
In that context, I didn’t read “when” as a qualification or limiting term, but as a generalizing, transhistoricizing term of the sort “When people are angry…,” “When countries are at war…,” “When crowds form…” etc.
Huh? “When people are angry” only applies to cases where people are angry. “When countries are at war” only applies where countries are warring. “When two parties are intent on coercing each other” only applies where two parties are intent on coercing each other. To say the word is not a qualification or limiting term is utterly nonsensical.
I’m sorry, but you simply are being thick, so thick that discussion with you is pointless.
truth machinesays
Pointing me to various bodies of literature does nothing to support your case.
Only a very dishonest and foolish person would say so. It’s exactly what we do with the theory of evolution or any other body of knowledge.
I merely suggested that I was unconvinced.
This is dishonest bullshit. You did much more than that. As I said early on, “You don’t have to be convinced”. Your being convinced isn’t my concern. Only fools seek or demand to be convinced in discussions like these. As I have said, there are extensive reasons backing my position, but you have offered nothing. One can do with that what they wish.
Feh.
John Moralessays
Yikes!
I go do stuff, come back and see the thread is still about weapons and killing and such. One tiny element of the presentation dominates.
I hate to say this, but perhaps Carlie has a point, based on this evidence.
truth machinesays
given the complexity of human motivation
One doesn’t even need to consider human motivation, just how weapons are actually used.
Thick. So thick.
truth machinesays
I hate to say this, but perhaps Carlie has a point, based on this evidence.
It’s Carlie who put the focus there. And as I pointed out in another thread, there are far more ways to disagree than to agree, thus disagreements dominate these discussions.
(Perhaps our social scientist can “operationalize these concepts concretely”, heh heh.)
SCsays
Does a section of a Wikipedia article prove anything? No, of course not.
Well, there you go.
The point is simply that there’s a vast wealth of references and literature to draw on describing the use of weapons (other than hunting) for coercion.
No one has claimed that weapons have not been used for coercion.
(There’s a mention of destruction in what I quoted, but it’s consistent with my previous comment about destruction not being an end in itself).
Not really: “tactical advantage…usually by injury, defeat, or destruction, or the threat of these.” (It’s a silly source anyway, but it’s also not the strongest thing you could have presented.) You’re also simplifying something more complex here. If someone bombing a village doesn’t care how many people die, this doesn’t mean destruction is an end in itself, but it also doesn’t mean that the bombing is a tool of coercion.
By virtually every reference, that’s the primary use.
Italics are not evidence.
Does that prove that it really is the primary use? No. But to reject it one needs reasons, not just [chirp].
No, I need reasons (evidence) to accept it.
SCsays
Your original claim was:
Actually, the primary purpose of weapons is to coerce people; hurting them is usually a means, not a goal.
Are you now suggesting that goals and purposes can be entirely inferred by observing actions? You could drive a truck through the holes in that. (How weapons are used in action is, though, one of the possible ways to measure this – in combination with others, of course.)
John Moralessays
TM:
It’s Carlie who put the focus there.
Well, yeah, but there it has remained. Would it have if her contention were baseless?
truth machinesays
Italics are not evidence.
Neither does [chirp]. But in fact I didn’t offer italics as evidence, oh dishonest one.
Not really:
I’m coming to think that you just can’t process English. What you offer after that colon in no way supports your claim.
No, I need reasons (evidence) to accept it.
You apparently with no concept of the empirical principle of inference to the best explanation. “social science” indeed. Whatever, it’s your loss. Again, it’s no concern of mine what you accept or are convinced of.
truth machinesays
Well, yeah, but there it has remained.
And I just explained why.
Would it have if her contention were baseless?
Her contention is that it was out of place in the ad; that depends on what the ad was about, not what effect it had on this thread.
But in any case I don’t think anyone is getting any joy, or much of anything else good, out of this, so I’m going to try to quit it. Good bye again.
SCsays
As I have said, there are extensive reasons backing my position, but you have offered nothing. One can do with that what they wish.
Again, your claim to “extensive reasons” proves nothing.
Why you are so unwilling to grasp that I don’t think this is a subject about which claims can be proven other than on a case-by-case basis in which what is evidence for “primary purposes” and “root causes” is clearly specified and this evidence presented, I don’t understand. [Please try to refrain from quotemining these last three words.]
Only a very dishonest and foolish person would say so. It’s exactly what we do with the theory of evolution or any other body of knowledge.
How ridiculous. Example: God exists. In support of this argument, I point you to the vast literature on quantum mechanics.
John Moralessays
Good night TM.
And may I say that I think your last comment was appropriately mechanically truthful, BTW :)
—
Before I too go, I want to make it clear I too find the promo inspiring, expecially coming to it cold (this post was my first exposure), and raher enjoyed it.
Nice post!
SCsays
Huh? “When people are angry” only applies to cases where people are angry. “When countries are at war” only applies where countries are warring. “When two parties are intent on coercing each other” only applies where two parties are intent on coercing each other. To say the word is not a qualification or limiting term is utterly nonsensical.
I’ve already stated that I now understand better what you meant. But consider this:
“The primary cause of war is human emotion. It’s usually difficult to control our anger. When people get angry, this escalates into organized violence.”
But in any case I don’t think anyone is getting any joy, or much of anything else good, out of this, so I’m going to try to quit it. Good bye again.
On this, we can agree. Good night.
MikeMsays
Attention All Canadian Readers:
I went to see Wall-E tonight.
If you need to go see a movie this weekend, make sure it’s Wall-E instead of some irrelevant movie wherein it is implied that scientists are Nazis.
That is all.
andyosays
I SO want to check out Wall-E. They say it’s as good sci-fi flick as much as a great animation movie. Love the Pixar geeks. People who even mention Pixar in the same sentence as all the other animated idiotic movies like Shrek and Ice Age have no clue what makes Pixar special.
Bride of Shreksays
Hey
I love Shrek
andyosays
Whoops!
But of course, you’re biased.
On the other hand, I don’t think I’d like to invoke your wrath.
Good times.
andyosays
By the way, if you love Shrek so much, why don’t you marry him?
Get it… GET IT???
…um, hello?
raikosays
Yep. Acid’ll have you seeing squids and Egyptian kings all right.
*laugh* Luckily, I did not get that close. I fled the 40km traffic jam after being stuck in it for a while.
Nick Gottssays
What Jack Rawlinson@74 said.
Point being, if you want to play pretend with your make-believe deities, fine. Just don’t go pick a fight with those who actually apply themselves in learning the finer points of how Nature works and use that understanding to craft weaponry. If all you got is wishful thinking, incantations, and imaginary sky-lords, you’ll get your ass handed to you. – Alex
True, but a big problem at the moment is that the most powerful weapons are under the control of a man who, if we are to believe him, not only believes in a sky-lord, but thinks he gets direct instructions from him.
The ones wishing to blow up the Earth wrote about it in several places in their bible. The fact that they are the stupidist bastards on the planet, and are praying for their own destruction as well as mine, is completely lost on them. – Patricia
Indeed.
On weapon use for coercion or destruction, the balance between the two shifts with circumstances, and also with whether we’re considering those giving the orders, or those carrying them out. Individual or small-group conflicts using weapons may aim at either destruction or coercion, depending on both individual motivation and social norms – and of course even large-scale wars include multiple instances of such conflicts. Between non-state social formations, wars were often fought to seize resources – land, food stores or women (who would of course be coerced to prevent their escape). In these wars it was rational to kill as many of the opposing force as possible, rather than let them escape – if they are dead, they can’t retaliate later – so I’d say these are primarily wars of destruction. Once states arose, there was much more potential to either enslave, enlist or otherwise exploit enemy warriors and children, so the balance shifted, but there are still many cases approaching pure destruction, particularly when nomad forces attacked settled societies or vice versa. The destruction still had, at command level, a rational motive – control of land – but often the slaughter commanded went far beyond what was necessary to coerce the victims into leaving: the Mongol conquerors of the 13th century often killed all the inhabitants of a city, as did Timur when he took Delhi, even though it had surrendered on terms.
Incidentally, why is it that truth machine so often resorts, when arguing with someone, first to accusations of stupidity, then of dishonesty? Many (including me) sometimes do so, and sometimes unfairly, but at least make some effort to do so only in retaliation or when these qualities are manifest, not simply because another commenter disagrees. It’s as if truth machine actually believes (s)he really is a “truth machine”, guaranteed to be right, so honest and intelligent disagreement with anything (s)he says is impossible – in other words, that (s)he is an omniscient deity. Assuming for the moment TM is male, Disraeli’s description of Bright seems apposite: “A self-made man who worships his creator.”
negentropyeatersays
Well yeah, the world is just awesome, it’s just too bad we’re not taking good care of it.
I’m not so sure how this message is supposed to be interpreted, is this an optimistic message, I really don’t think it’s the kind of message we need right now, it’s just so tame.
Is that really what science is about, is it just about observing how awesome the world is ? I don’t think so. It’s also very much about trying to find the best way to exploit its resources whilst keeping it an awesome place.
I’m sorry but I can’t seem to forget that this message is sponsored by a channel that is entirely driven by selling advertising and stimulating more consumption, and doesn’t really give a shit about science and nature. The only thing they care about is finding programmes that are the most entertaining to their target audiences so that they can sell more advertisements. And because that’s pricipally the average 25 to 54 yold male, you get a clear focus on car tuning, criminal investigation, industrial construction, and all sorts of things that have absolutely nothing to do with “the world is just awesome”.
It’s just “powder in the eyes” as we say in french, let’s just keep everybody happy and sell more commercials.
And what about the religious folks, all these good things, the world is just awesome, it’s all thanks to God of course !
Bride of Shreksays
Andyo @ #170
5 years,3 kids and counting, I’ve been the Bride of Shrek. The movie itself we really couldn’t care about ( I’ve only ever seen it once) but, weirdly , my husband has a strange resemblance to the big green ogre. Seriously he looks like Shrek,has got a flat top haircut ( against my nagging on a monthly basis) and a strange shaped head. His friends had the nickname for him before I met him and I suspect it’ll stick for life. However he’s a gorgeous man with a heart of gold and I think he’s a total spunk. I adore the fact I’m Bride of Shrek.
Bride of Shreksays
..and Andyo. You’d never invoke my wrath. I think you’re a big sweetie. I keep my excruciatingly nasty shittiness for trolls such as the late Kenny and the current Stan.
.. although now Truth Machine is back I feel I can rest a bit easier on my laurels. The trolls are soooooo going to get reamed now he’s back.
Carliesays
Well, I feel bad for starting such a row. Neg’s right, the real theme of the commercial is “watch our shows”, therefore it all fits. It’s the stated theme of “we love the world and the world is wonderful” that the explosions don’t fit. Regardless of the purpose of weaponry, it’s technology, and the rest of the examples were along the lines of basic science. People can debate the intersections of science and technology all day (please don’t), but they aren’t the same thing. Throwing an American Choppers clip in there would have been just as incongruous. Using explosions as the example of the technology just made it more weird, since you can’t explore/research/discover much about something if you blow it up.
negentropyeatersays
Nick #172,
True, but a big problem at the moment is that the most powerful weapons are under the control of a man who, if we are to believe him, not only believes in a sky-lord, but thinks he gets direct instructions from him.
Ah well, I’ve never been able to tell what’s real from what’s just beeing said for electoral purposes.
All I know is that there is a very high likelihood that before this election is over, an Israel / Iran conflict takes place, and that our dear president might either use this as a way to declare a state of national emergency and stay longer in office, or make sure that the next president is an old supposedely experience war hero. Afterall, fabricating nightmares is his speciality.
negentropyeatersays
Nick #172,
True, but a big problem at the moment is that the most powerful weapons are under the control of a man who, if we are to believe him, not only believes in a sky-lord, but thinks he gets direct instructions from him.
Ah well, I’ve never been able to tell what’s real from what’s just beeing said for electoral purposes.
All I know is that there is a very high likelihood that before this election is over, an Israel / Iran conflict takes place, and that our dear president might either use this as a way to declare a state of national emergency and stay longer in office, or make sure that the next president is an old supposedely “experienced war hero”.
Afterall, fabricating nightmares is our dear president’s speciality.
negentropyeatersays
sorry for the double post
Nick Gottssays
All I know is that there is a very high likelihood that before this election is over, an Israel / Iran conflict takes place – negentropyeater@178
That likelihood is beginning to keep me awake at night – which reminds me, since the immediate effect would be an oil supply crisis, I should stock up on tinned food etc. I doubt Bush would try to stay in office, even if McCain lost after such an “October surprise” – he would probably rely on Obama finding it impossible to withdraw from the Middle East, hold back Israel, or embark on “divisive” domestic measures at a time of emergency.
negentropyeatersays
Nick #180,
I doubt Bush would try to stay in office, even if McCain lost after such an “October surprise”
Well, if the middle east gets in fire and oil prices surge above 250$, I’m not so sure how the American folk would react in the middle of an election. As far as I’ve seen, there’s not much evidence that they would react in the most rational way.
Julie Ksays
Didn’t anyone else just get a laugh over how the firing of the RPG and the explosion were synched to the ‘boom’? I guess not.
If I were to nitpick this delightful little ad to death, I’d go along the lines of it’s rather depressing geocentric nature. Even the astronauts are looking inward. There’s a whole lot more if one looks outward. I love exploding stars, I love black holes, I love colliding galaxies, boom de yada, boom de yada.
Nick Gottssays
negentropyeater@181 – No, I’m not sure how the electorate would react. But if the Israeli attack happens, it will surely be before the election, in an attempt to sway it for McCain. That might work – but it might not. If it doesn’t, I still don’t think Bush would try to stay on.
truth machinesays
Why you are so unwilling to grasp that I don’t think this is a subject about which claims can be proven other than on a case-by-case basis in which what is evidence for “primary purposes” and “root causes” is clearly specified and this evidence presented, I don’t understand.
This isn’t something I don’t, or am not willing to grasp — what an incredibly stupid formulation. Rather, what you don’t grasp — despite my having repeated it — is that I don’t give a flying fuck what you think, or believe, or accept, or are convinced of; these are your personal mental states, of no interest or concern to me. What is of concern is reasons to think things, and you have provided none that are in any way persuasive. All you have is an unwarranted skepticism, apparently grounded in some sort of cargo cult “social science”, about the plain, massive, evidence of the purposes and goals of weapons. But I reject that skepticism, because I understand that empirical epistemology doesn’t rest on “acceptance” or being “convinced”, but rather on inference to the best explanation.
SCsays
So many good points made while I slept!: Nick Gotts @ #172, negentropyeater @ #173, Carlie @ #176, Julie K @ #182.
Incidentally, why is it that truth machine so often resorts, when arguing with someone, first to accusations of stupidity, then of dishonesty?
Because he uses his rhetorical weapons to attempt not to persuade but to destroy? :P
truth machinesays
It’s the stated theme of “we love the world and the world is wonderful” that the explosions don’t fit.
Again, it says the WHOLE world. If you think that the explosions don’t fit, that simply means that you disagree that the WHOLE world is wonderful. You seem to think that it would only be wonderful if it were frilly and sweet and kind and without weapons.
Holydustsays
I cheerfully watch this commercial every time it comes on. And as everyone else has mentioned, I think of you every time the “giant squid” part comes up, P.Z.! <3
truth machinesays
Incidentally, why is it that truth machine so often resorts, when arguing with someone, first to accusations of stupidity, then of dishonesty?
Why is it that you’re a liar? The first thing I said of SC was that I’ve appreciated the quality of her thinking. I only accuse people of stupidity and dishonesty when they display it — but, as you just demonstrated, there is a lot of it. Most people indulge in the sort of blatant hyperbole you just did without a care, and then will lie and lie and lie about having done so or trot out the most incredibly dishonest rationalizations.
SCsays
But I reject that skepticism, because I understand that empirical epistemology doesn’t rest on “acceptance” or being “convinced”, but rather on inference to the best explanation.
Argumentum ex culo. You’ve offered no set of agreed-upon facts as the basis for such an inference. You’ve simply made a claim and then declared it to be the best explanation, and therefore not in need of empirical support. It’s a transparent ploy.
Holydustsays
P.S. A lot of bellyaching in this thread. Quit bitching and enjoy it for what it is. I find it uplifting.
truth machine, OMsays
Because he uses his rhetorical weapons to attempt not to persuade but to destroy? :P
There are quite a few people around here whom I have persuaded on quite a number of occasions. Perhaps I should add that silly OM to my moniker to counter off these sneaky mischaracterizations of me. Sure, what the hell.
Julie Ksays
Using explosions as the example of the technology just made it more weird, since you can’t explore/research/discover much about something if you blow it up.
I’d be willing to bet that the construction of the bridge seen early in the ad involved a bit of explosive work.
I’m reminded of the Project Orion study which involved using a series of atomic bombs to propel a spacecraft around the solar system. It’s amazing to me to think of a large manned spacecraft that could have gone to Jupiter or Saturn and returned within 60 days. Granted there were a lot of very good reasons why we would not fly such a spacecraft today, but I’d say this at least shows that in some cases very large explosions might indeed aid exploration and discovery.
SCsays
Incidentally, why is it that truth machine so often resorts, when arguing with someone, first to accusations of stupidity, then of dishonesty?
Why is it that you’re a liar?
:o. At least he varied the order!
The first thing I said of SC was that I’ve appreciated the quality of her thinking.
Thank you for that, by the way.
truth machine, OMsays
You’ve simply made a claim and then declared it to be the best explanation
I have done no such thing, oh dense one. I’m telling you why I don’t find your skepticism persuasive.
It’s a transparent ploy.
You silly self-centered twit. There’s no ploy; I don’t care whether you accept it. I’m not trying to convince you, as I have said repeatedly. Again, you have not convinced me to adopt your skepticism in the face of the plain and massive evidence. If you don’t “accept” the plain and massive evidence, that’s simply not my concern. As I said, it’s your loss.
truth machine, OMsays
At least he varied the order!
You see, this is the sort of immense dishonesty I comment on. You dishonest assholes will just sit here and reinforce each other in your stupid little game.
SCsays
There are quite a few people around here whom I have persuaded on quite a number of occasions.
No doubt. I was speculating as to your motives/purposes (which are no doubt complex – it was a joke), not to the alleged effects of your comments.
truth machine, OMsays
.. although now Truth Machine is back I feel I can rest a bit easier on my laurels. The trolls are soooooo going to get reamed now he’s back.
Well, BoS, I don’t really have time for this nonsense, so your efforts will still be needed.
SCsays
Again, you have not convinced me to adopt your skepticism in the face of the plain and massive evidence.
Taking a page from the theist playbook, I see.
truth machine, OMsays
I was speculating as to your motives/purposes (which are no doubt complex – it was a joke), not to the alleged effects of your comments.
This is where you show your failure — you don’t seem to grasp how motive can be inferred from actions or their consequences, as with inferring the goals of weapons users from how they use weapons. Like I said, you’ve got a cargo cult version of science — you go through the motions of reasoning, but you miss the essence. Of course you’re not likely to accept that claim, but I don’t care — I’m just making an observation; your loss if you fail to appreciate it.
SCsays
Well, BoS, I don’t really have time for this nonsense,
Especially if you’re wasting that limited hurling insults at people like me and Nick Gotts.
SCsays
that limited time
truth machine, OMsays
Taking a page from the theist playbook, I see.
You really are a fool. It could just as well be a page out of the evolutionist’s book — there’s massive evidence of evolution, despite the creationist’s skepticism. Same for global warming, and many other subjects. You’re doing cargo cult thinking — you look at the form, but fail to grasp that it’s the content that matters. What a waste of my time … and yours. Everything of relevance was said back in #118, where I didn’t challenge what you think but noted that I thought otherwise, didn’t challenge your not being convinced, and accepted that you could be right. I actually thought that was enough, sigh. But your cargo cult constructions are like molasses, to mix a metaphor.
The real world beckons. Good bye yet again.
truth machine, OMsays
Especially if you’re wasting that limited hurling insults at people like me and Nick Gotts.
You’re a stupid fucking hypocrite, and that’s the truth.
SCsays
This is where you show your failure — you don’t seem to grasp how motive can be inferred from actions or their consequences, as with inferring the goals of weapons users from how they use weapons.
I grasp this fully. It’s to some extent what I was doing in my little joke. I was inferring from the fact that you often attack first and ask questions later, if at all, and pepper your arguments with gratuitous insults that there were motives at work other than the mere desire to persuade. I was doing the same thing in response to your suggestion that economic motives predominated in the Holocaust – pointing out that the evidence of their actions (pursuing the policy of destruction when this was contrary to their economic and strategic interests) suggests that this was not the case. (I’m not saying not important, but trumped in action by a rabidly eliminationist ideology.)
My point is that the actions themselves are only part of the evidence needed to determine “primary purposes” or goals or root causes. They have to be interpreted in light of other evidence.
negentropyeatersays
Nick,
If it doesn’t, I still don’t think Bush would try to stay on.
I don’t know. There’s no evidence that he wouldn’t try. There’s actually quite some evidence that he’s prepared everything so that he could stay on.
I would like to remind you that the National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51) signed into law by our dear president on May 9, 2007 has been precisely worded for this particular case, in order to call for the necessary requirement to ensure “continuity” of the national security policies which obviously would be at risk if a certain Mr Obama were to take office.
This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes “National Essential Functions,” prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.
So it seems it’s a risk people are willing to take. We’ll see.
I think people tend to underestimate him. They tend to understimate how serious the situation already is, the mess that he’s created without an Israel/Iran conflict. So they tend to also underestimate how serious the situation would be if that happened on top of it.
Just a question, what do many people do in the middle of a gigantic fuck up when others are pointing fingers to them ? Do they just give up and leave or do they get more obstinate and if others let them stay on try to prove that they can clean up the mess their own way ?
SCsays
there’s massive evidence of evolution, despite the creationist’s skepticism.
I will note that tm has produced none in support of his assertion concerning the primary purpose of weapons use.
Hal in Howell MI (not far from Hell, MI)says
Back on topic, the Discovery Channel promo is a good one. The channel has had a series of good promotions (a couple of years ago Discovery had a similar promo with an oblique reference to “Lawnchair Larry.”) Coming out of the broadcast business, it is interesting to note that Discovery Channel spends more money on one good quality promo than PBS (actually PBS’ producing stations) spend on an entire program. I like the Discovery Channel when it is “on message”, but hate it when it descends into woo-woo with programs as “A Haunting”, etc.
negentropyeatersays
Holydust #190,
P.S. A lot of bellyaching in this thread. Quit bitching and enjoy it for what it is. I find it uplifting.
I’m sorry I can’t enjoy it. I’ve explained why in my post #173. Believe me, there’s many things about the world I truely enjoy, but having Discovery Channel’s hypocrisy being shuffled up my face doesn’t belong to this, especially at a time when I don’t particularly think it’s helpful to felicitate ourselves for how awesome the world is.
Would you say I should just be a good sport and enjoy things just for the sake of enjoyment ?
Carliesays
You seem to think that it would only be wonderful if it were frilly and sweet and kind and without weapons.
Good lord. I like parasites, I like hurricanes, I like carnivores. They’re amazing examples of nature. I even like explosions, when they’re used for things like removing rickety dangerous structures that can fall down and hurt people. My feelings on weapons one way or the other don’t matter to my point, which was that the blow-upy part was a clip that was not like the others. Technology does not equal science, blowing things up does not equal discovery and exploration, saying “Ooo” at a big man-made bang does not equal saying “Ooo” at a creation of nature.
Fernando Magyarsays
Stomapoda! Boooooom Deeee Yaaada!
Weapons were not exactly invented invented by humans. I mean this is a biology blog right?
* Spearers are armed with spiny appendages topped with barbed tips, used to stab and snag prey.
* Smashers, on the other hand, possess a much more developed club and a more rudimentary spear (which is nevertheless quite sharp and still used in fights between their own kind); the club is used to bludgeon and smash their meals apart. The “punch” delivered has roughly the acceleration of a .22 caliber pistol.[5] The inner aspect of the dactyl (the terminal portion of the appendage) can also possess a sharp edge, with which the animal can cut prey while it swims.
Peace on earth to creatures of good will. Oh, and make sure not to place your hands into creavices inhabited by Mantis Shrimp unless you like having your fingers crushed.
Nick Gottssays
Why is it that you’re a liar? The first thing I said of SC was that I’ve appreciated the quality of her thinking.
I didn’t say you didn’t do anything else. What I said is the simple truth. If you can’t recognise it, fine, I didn’t expect you to, given your evident psychopathology.
SCsays
The “punch” delivered has roughly the acceleration of a .22 caliber pistol.
I’m not sure whose position I’m supporting if I say that that’s really amazing and cool.
Nick Gottssays
negentropyeater@205
I wasn’t aware of that directive – at least, I think I’d heard of it, but hadn’t read it. I haven’t had time to go through it line-by-line, but on a first reading it doesn’t seem as sinister to me as it does to you – I don’t see anything in it that says “in an emergency, the President’s term of office may be extended” – do correct me here if I’m wrong. It does clearly make sense to provide for unexpected emergencies, and indeed from point 22 it looks as though this is replacing an existing directive rather than being entirely new.
I agree Bush is widely underestimated – he’s not stupid, and has considerable political nous. As to having fucked up, I don’t think he thinks he has fucked up, nor do I think he’s expecting any comeback in terms of criminal charges or whatever after he leaves office. Rather, I’m sure he’s expecting to be vindicated by “history”, and probably within his own lifetime. I’m very sceptical about whether Obama will actually pull out of Iraq (let alone Afghanistan), and I’d guess Bush and his advisors are too – especially if, as we agree is likely, Israel attacks Iran and the US gets involved. Even if Bush doesn’t get to appoint another Supreme Court member, the liberal-conservative balance is unlikely to change much in 4 years, and if he wins, Obama may well end up a 1-term President, as it’s clear a fairly serious recession, at the least, is underway. So all in all, I think Bush and the neocons will think they can afford to wait, and devote themselves to sabotaging Obama’s Presidency if the worst (from their point of view) happens.
Reginald Selkirksays
When they sing, “I love when great whites fly,” why do they show footage of an orca rather than a great white shark?
Paul W.says
You’re a stupid fucking hypocrite, and that’s the truth.
You’re a flaming asshole, truth machine, and that’s the truth.
Even when I agree with you, as I often do, I find that you do tend to start calling people stupid and dishonest way, way too much. It gets really wearing, and pretty soon I don’t care if you’re right. It’s all about you strutting and posturing, and the bottom line is that it’s not justified.
Not every disagreement needs to turn into an eye-gouging insult fest, and I liked Pharyngula much better when you were gone for a while.
A lot of us are very tired of hearing you call a person such as Nick or SC stupid or dishonest or hypocritical.
It distracts mightily from what you thing is wrong with the specific argument from that they’re making, and raises the issue of whether you’re right to condemn the person flatly for what might in fact be a mistake of some sort. And suddenly the main issue is you—whether you’re an insufferable prick.
Over and over and over again.
Maybe you’re as smart as you think you are, and people like SC or Nick or me are utterly stupid by comparison. I don’t really care.
I’m pretty fucking sure that SC and Nick are smart enough, and right enough often enough, to be worth arguing with civilly.
If there’s anybody here who fits the stereotype of the “angry atheist” asshole, it’d have to be you. It’s kind of embarrasing, and very tedious.
negentropyeatersays
Nick,
I agree that it’s all not very clear. You can find an analysis here of the NSPD51 which defends the view that Bush could try to prolongate his term in office with this directive because of this conflict ; http://www.concordbridge.net/NSPD-51.htm
All in all, what interests me the most is the fact that if such a conflict were to take place in the middle of the elections, it would be a) not coïncidental b) what would be the consequences c) how do we avoid all this when there seems to be little effort made in alerting public opinion about the huge risks that are involved ?
It almost seems as if yet again, as with the Iraq conflict, the media and the dems are not playing their roles of alerting people. Are they waiting for a fait-accompli ?
Nick Gottssays
Paul W. – Thanks, much appreciated. Obviously, on a blog like this, you are going to get name-calling and insults, and no-one who’s got too thin a skin should be here – but there is a point at which it becomes plain nasty. In the few months I’ve been posting here, I think my own comments have moved in that direction rather more than I like, and I’m going to try to be more restrained myself. So: my apologies to truth machine and J for my part in escalating flame wars with them on other threads.
SCsays
Thanks, Paul W.
Nick, I think you‘ve been extremely polite even when dealing with some exasperating people. It’s to your credit that you engage with them at all. And I’m hardly taking the moral highground by refusing to argue directly with people like J if I’m repeatedly poking them with long rhetorical sticks. It may be worse, in fact. I’ll try to stop, or at least cut back.
I don’t know about you guys, but I think that’s the best commercial I’ve ever seen. It evoked memories of Paul Kurtz’s inspirational messages for humanity.
That made me laugh. Knowing Spanish I got it without having heard it before. Shouldn’t it be culus though?
And now for something completely different (and actually to do with the ad itself)…
The best criticism in my opinion:
If I were to nitpick this delightful little ad to death, I’d go along the lines of it’s rather depressing geocentric nature. Even the astronauts are looking inward. There’s a whole lot more if one looks outward. I love exploding stars, I love black holes, I love colliding galaxies, boom de yada, boom de yada.
Posted by: Julie K | June 28, 2008 7:53 AM
I agree!
Nick Gottssays
negentropyeater@216,
I certainly agree with your main point! Must see if I can get the local anti-war group active again. After all, how could Bush and Olmert launch an attack on Iran if they knew Aberdeen Stop the War Coalition was against them ;-)
SCsays
Hmm, since we’re talking about XKCD.
Aw. I liked that.
That made me laugh. Knowing Spanish I got it without having heard it before. Shouldn’t it be culus though?
I’m afraid I can’t claim credit. Someone else here (or elsewhere on Sb) used it recently. Yeah, in the heat of battle, I didn’t bother to research the proper term (I also just like the sound of culo). But I do want to know. It may be some special form like cule or something. I’m waiting for David M to show up and settle the matter. :)
Culo simply means “ass” in Spanish. “Argument from the ass” I guess. But it comes from the latin culus. Actually I found an entry on it in RationalWiki, but it didn’t mention etymology and it also used “culo.”
SCsays
Make that Brian X.
SCsays
andyo,
Yes, I know. I’m just concerned that the “ex” might change the form, and I want to have it right if I use it again.
Paging David Marjanović to the thread. David Marjanović to the thread, please.
negentropyeatersays
I think (my latin is dates to a long time ago), the correct form would be,
“argumentum ad culum”
culus is ass, but its dative so culum
negentropyeatersays
which would mean “appeal to the ass”
instead of for example
argumentum ad populum
“appeal to the people”
argumentum ad numerum
“appeal to the number”
argumentum ad culum
“appeal to the ass”
SCsays
neg,
It’s “argument from the ass” that I’m going for. Funny thing – looking at ex Deo and ex dolo malo, I’m thinking it may be ex culo after all!
themadlolscientistsays
This commercial is almost enough to lift the Boomdeyada song out of the “Bottom Ten Worst Campfire Songs Ever.” :-) The guy jumping into the sinkhole is great:
Over at XKCD: “I put on my robe and wizard hat” FTW!
windysays
Carlie:
Technology does not equal science, blowing things up does not equal discovery and exploration, saying “Ooo” at a big man-made bang does not equal saying “Ooo” at a creation of nature.
“Big bridges” was also mentioned in the ad, and they showed a city, human rituals, astronauts, a guy driving whatever-that-was… I don’t think Discovery Channel claims to be only about natural things, or only about science.
Reginald:
When they sing, “I love when great whites fly,” why do they show footage of an orca rather than a great white shark?
I’ve heard of many squids, including the Giant Squid, the Vampire Squid, the Glass Squid, Grimaldi’s Scaled Squid, the Rhomboid Squid, Joubin’s Squid, the Calamares en su tinto, the Sharpear Enope Squid, and even the Land Squid and the Curious Squid. But the Gratuitous Squid?
SCsays
“Dr. Myers’ squid is an artful squid”
“Dr. Myers’ squid is a bellicose squid”
“Dr. Myers’ squid is a curious squid”…
Hjaltisays
Yes, the future weapons guy ruined a great video. :(
andyosays
This commercial is almost enough to lift the Boomdeyada song out of the “Bottom Ten Worst Campfire Songs Ever.” :-) The guy jumping into the sinkhole is great:
Over at XKCD: “I put on my robe and wizard hat” FTW!
Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 28, 2008 2:46 PM
That’s another of the Planet Earth scenes that I could identify. Of course, in the original there’s no Boom-de-ya-da whatsoever, which made me think if they didn’t also overdub other bits like the Hawking one. If he himself didn’t “say” the boom-de-ya-da, it was a pretty perverse thing to do (though still kinda funny, the guy does have a great sense of humor).
Kseniyasays
Thanks for that like, Andyo. I found this page to be of some interest, too.
Ksays
(Thanks for that link.)
Rey Foxsays
“This commercial is almost enough to lift the Boomdeyada song out of the “Bottom Ten Worst Campfire Songs Ever.””
So they didn’t write that tune or make up the “boom de yada” thing? Well, that redeems them somewhat. :) As far as the Hawking clip goes, I was annoyed because the next clip steps on it. I wouldn’t have even noticed Hawking unless someone had pointed him out.
andyosays
Hawking also did a bit with Carrey on Conan (late-night talk show for those not in the U.S.). It was priceless. He called the audience P-branes! (Get it???) I think Carrey really is interested in science and reads at least the popular science books, he’s talked about it several times.
Unfortunately with all the copyright bullying in the internets I can’t find any video available.
Heh, I don’t have audio right now, but from reading the link, I probably spoke too soon. He’s talked about being fascinated with quantum mechanics though, and from my personal experience being interested in what fundamental physics has to say does not give us any insight into biology or other medical sciences, we have to read specifically about those too!
But I don’t think he’s a stupid man though. I still think he’s a rather smart clown (and I say it in the best possible way) for a comedian. I don’t think the influence of Playboy girl there is to be dismissed either.
But I now wonder what he thinks about quantum-quack Chopra and his ilk.
Hah. I used to sing that “Boom-dee-yadda” song in Girl Scouts, and as I recall we did it in rounds sometimes. ISTR some encouragement to solo with our own lyrics for a stanza, too, but as that was some 50 years ago, my ISTR gets fuzzier and fuzzier lately.
I love the mountains
And the daffodils;
I love the rippling brooks
And the rolling hills;
I love to live,
To live to love
All these wonderful things
Boomdeyada boomdeyada boomdeyada boo-oom…
What we see here is of course the insidious influence of Camp Chickiewee on North American culture. Like Bohemian Grove, but squeakier. And we had sit-upons.
I’d been feeling horribly depressed all weekend, then I saw that and got cheered up – remembered that “The World is Awesome” and as a bonus finally understood the xkcd cartoon. Yay!! Boom-de-yada, boom-de-yada…
Then I started reading this thread. About halfway down I realized what a mistake that was. I should have stuck with the video and the cartoon. Between the weapons-aren’t-cool PC-ness and the quibbles about taxonomy and the kvetching about the Discovery Channel program guide, the joy just got sucked right out of the moment.
I think I’d better go to bed now, before I’m tempted to kill myself or get religion or something.
Owlmirrorsays
I think I’d better go to bed now, before I’m tempted to kill myself or get religion or something.
Did you watch the Carl Sagan youtube video of “The Pale Blue Dot” at #20?
It’s very moving. It might not cheer you up, but it might improve how you feel about being miserable…
andyosays
I agree that weapons can be cool for some people (and I think like that sometimes), but come on, calling it “PC”? I allow the possibility of people really disliking weapons (and I think like that some other times too), and they’re not just being PC.
And as I said before, that video of Sagan’s voiceover and the movie clips is my favorite as well. Go see it, it really puts things in perspective. Also, that S. Hawking link Kseniya brought up a few posts above is a pretty good read.
Good old Earth, for good and bad, it’s all we have, and only the Universe had a hand in it!
I love that commercial. Boom de yada.
Have you been reading xkcd?
Guess what my msn display message is.
Oh wow! That was so wonderfully funny. I began to suspect it was a Discovery Channel promo when I saw what appeared to be Mike Rowe from “Dirty Jobs”. Of course, it had to have those crazy Mythbusters (not that I don’t love them), but my favorite bit had to be the appearance of Stephen Hawking — Boom-dee-addah!
Mister Myers, you have made my day. Thank you. And now, I’m off to the theater to watch “Get Smart”. It just doesn’t get much better than this!
Not having a TV, I read the xkcd comic before seeing that commercial.
Makes a bit more sense now.
Not such a difficult concept is it?
We are all made of star(dust)s.
Boom de yada.
Complete with a shout-out to our friends the giant squids, as well. ;)
Oh, I hadn’t read the xkcd yet for today, so that was an extra bit of goodness. But what was with the guy blowing the house up in the middle there? That didn’t seem to fit.
Boom de yada.
+1 for making today’s xkcd make sense. (No TV here either.)
So I’m not the only one who loved that series of commercials!
It’s that attitude that endears Discovery Channel (NOT related to the horrible Institute) to me.
But what was with the guy blowing the house up in the middle there?
BOOM de yada!
I love the giant squids! Boom de yada!
Today’s XKCD makes so much more sense now…
Carlie – That was the host of “FutureWeapons”.
They showed Bear Grylls but no Les Stroud (SurvivorMan)? :(
Can PZ be an xkcd reader?! I hope so.
The video would be a lot cooler if they actually applied “The World is Just Awesome” in their programming selections. There are times when you could confuse the Discovery channel for the Discovery Institute.
ThirdMonkey,
I’m fairly confident it’s Les Stroud with the camera in the beginning that says, “I love the whole world.”
Wonderful.
We are stardust
We are golden
We are billion year old carbon
Hm, yeah, XKCD does make a lot more sense now…
… but I think Sagan said it better than Discovery Channel.
fantastic! I loved the guy who said “Boom de Yada” as he fired a grenade launcher. “The earth is awesome”. Yes, yes it is.
Wasn’t the ” Great White” actually an Orca?
Julie K, the guy blowing up a house is the host of Discovery Channels “Future Weapons” show, which is all about blowing up things with, well, Future Weapons like smart bombs, or new and bigger (therefore better) guns, or whatever else they can get their hands on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Weapons
But what was with the guy blowing the house up in the middle there?
Most of the shots of individuals in there were from the Discovery Channel’s shows. The guy with the big gun that blows up the house is the host of a show called “Future Weapons”.
Halcy @#23
I was answering Carlie @#8.
@22
Nah, I think that was indeed a great white, the color patterns match perfectly. By the way, if you look super close you can actually see a rather unlucky seal in its mouth! I think that exact shot came from an Attenborough special, forget which one
THANK you! After being stuck in the 40km “Germany: Drunk trucker crashes and spills gallons of acid on autobahn” traffic jam, this makes it all better. And it has squids and Egyptian kings!
Too bad it’s pretty much a man’s world….
PZ, I’m no expert, but isn’t that an octopus?
Amplexus @ 19 I like that! Has a nice “Universal” touch to it!
Hawking cameos always make me smile.
Derek #17 –
I couldn’t tell if it was or not, but I think you might be right. Les is way cooler then Bear any day.
Definitely a Great White and an Octpus.
Yep. Acid’ll have you seeing squids and Egyptian kings all right.
Amazing. The only fault is that I don’t think that was a real giant squid. But what do you expect, it’s the Discovery Channel, they have great stuff but they’re in the habit of putting on untrue stuff if it gets people watching.
Great series of commercials. And that tune sticks in your head.
I love that clip, and the pale blue dot one. Both are linked to from my tribe account.
It is nice to have something that is inspiring to most people regardless of religion or ideology.
Yeah, it looks like an octopus. But last I checked, we only had photos of giant squid, so I can see why they used footage of an octopus. But then again, why didn’t they use footage of Humboldt squid? Those are pretty big.
Thank Goodness!!
Usually it’s the math or science of XKCD that leaves me baffled, and not the esoteric nature of the joke.
Boomdeeadda, Boomdeeadda, Boomdeeadda, I love CURIOSITY.
Thanks for this little happy moment.
That was really quite lovely and uplifting…
That was wonderful. Just what I needed, big wonderful things in contrast to all the not-so-great little things. (Oh, and I second… third… oh, who’s counting… the “ooooh now I get it” xkcd sentiment).
Barack me Obamadeus! (reference to the xkcd.com)
Boom de yada.
Ok, I get that it was one of the Discovery shows, but it still doesn’t seem to fit the theme of beauty and exploration of the world. I love the earth…so I want to blow it up! It just seemed jarring in there.
He has cited it several times. Where have you been?
I love that commercial, but is it just me, or does the clip form a show celebrating “future weapons” kind of put a damper on the spirit of it?
Truely wonderful – THAT is what it’s all about! With the world of reality being so damned cool, how the heck could anyone need or want anything else! Love it!
Indeed.
I don’t think the Future Weapons clip diminishes the commercial at all. There’s a certain appeal to blowing stuff up. If there wasn’t then action movies wouldn’t make so much money.
“…or does the clip form a show celebrating “future weapons” kind of put a damper on the spirit of it?”
Not if it involves light-sabers.
I love that commercial, but is it just me, or does the clip form a show celebrating “future weapons” kind of put a damper on the spirit of it?
The world is awesome.
And so are big explosions.
Boom de yada.
“If there wasn’t then action movies wouldn’t make so much money.”
Then they should call it “Future Movie Weapons”.
Yes war sucks. Fighting sucks. But it’s science and technology that enable (certain) advantages in adversarial force conflict. Point being, if you want to play pretend with your make-believe deities, fine. Just don’t go pick a fight with those who actually apply themselves in learning the finer points of how Nature works and use that understanding to craft weaponry. If all you got is wishful thinking, incantations, and imaginary sky-lords, you’ll get your ass handed to you.
My son didn’t have half the interest he has in chemistry until I mentioned a lot of chemists go into the field because they want to make explosions.
Explosions are fun. It’s the application you need to worry about.
Yeah, I love that commercial. It doesn’t even begin to make up for the Discovery Channel’s promotion of idiotic superstition in “Ghost Hunters” et al., however.
Thanks PZ, I needed that!
I love to twirl…boom deyada!
I think Sagan said it better
Carl made me cry.
I think I’ve seen 99% of those movie scenes; I can’t identify them all, but it was nice to see TPBD end with my favorite scene in all of filmdom (it’s all the more remarkable because Gene Kelly was feverish with the flu at the time).
We actually had this discussion about this ad on a previous thread but it was determined, by the man who knows all the fishy stuff, Ichthyic, that it is indeed a Great White flying about in the air doing acrobatics. Makes you think twice about taking out that 12 foot dinghy for a quite spot of fishing in the bay, doesn’t it?
@ David Marjanović (#45)
I hope that you can forgive a reader who hasn’t QUITE been here as long as you oh great one :/
..or even a “quiet spot”. Yes, thankyou I’m aware I’m an idiot, but I’m YOUR idiot and that makes me more loveable.
@ #54
Isnt Ghost Hunters the SciFi channel NOT Discovery?
With the world of reality being so damned cool, how the heck could anyone need or want anything else!
The first time I ever heard this expressed was in 1984, from Linus Pauling appearing with Jack LaLanne on the Phil Donahue show. The audience was loving them both until Donahue asked Pauling if he was an atheist and Pauling assented — some in the audience booed. Pauling (83 at the time, with palsy), avuncularly laughed it off and said that he was in awe of the universe and its workings, and that the notion of a magical God trivializes it.
There ain’t no place
Anything like this place
Anywhere near this place.
SOOOooooo,
This must be the place!
How ’bout a little Harry Nilsson?
“The most beautiful world in the world,
And though there are times when I doubt you;
I just couldn’t stay here without you.”
Thanks for pointing this out, PZ. Makes me grin. :->
E Pluribus Unum
Big smile here. :)
Isnt Ghost Hunters the SciFi channel NOT Discovery?
Since the “g” key on your keyboard clearly isn’t broken, you should be able to google it and discover that there are two different shows, “Ghost Hunters” (SciFi) and “Ghosthunters” (Discovery).
Bah. Yet another show about thunting ghoses. You’d think Discovery could come up with something more original.
#59 – Ah, but a slutty idiot.
There, all better. :)
I had actually just finished watching the clip on Youtube before I came over to check Scienceblogs. And here it is again.
It makes me smile every time I see it and reminds me why I am becoming/became a scientist.
Hey…how come w00+ and Etha are both missing at the same time?
Just don’t go pick a fight with those who actually apply themselves in learning the finer points of how Nature works and use that understanding to craft weaponry.
At the very top of the DailyKos front page at the moment is this quote from George Carlin:
The other Carlin quotes posted there:
Carlie,
And for a sense of perspective regarding the explosion, consider the volcano or tornado snippets.
It’s also useful to think about how those astronauts got out there.
I’m pretty sure no-one wants to blow up Earth.
Not even
http://www.solarnavigator.net/films_movies_actors/film_images/Austin_Powers_Mike_Myers_as_Dr_Evil.jpg
?
OK, good point.
Evil geniuses and apocalyptic nuts may want to blow up Earth, but most of us hopefully don’t. Even if we like explosions.
I have to say, I hate that ad. I hate the stupid tune, I hate the crassness of it, I hate the gee-wow corniness of it and most of all I hate the way they include a shot of some military dude blowing up a building with all of the natural wonders. It makes me cringe with embarrassment.
Now that’s an ear worm I don’t quite mind. Great commercial. I just have to say, it’s a wonderful planet with wonderful creatures, and unfortunately, it’s also populated by certain hightly intelligent hominids using their advanced reasoning abilities for entirely imaginary notions liks religion, spirituality, supernatural phenomenon, etc. Can’t these people just look at the planet and enjoy it for all it is, without having to inject some idiotic notion of a creator or an intelligence? Beauty can exist without intelligence…
wow. A few weeks back i posted that same commercial in a bulletin on MySpace. I’m so glad i’m not the only one that nerdy.
“Can’t these people just look at the planet and enjoy it for all it is, without having to inject some idiotic notion of a creator or an intelligence?”
It’s all about looking for answers. It’s what drives us. What the superstitionists succumb to is the shear magnitude of effort of the learning required, along with the absolute comfort of “knowing”. Our imaginations cause us to look beyond the here and now. Imagination drives science and learning. But it can also make us long for things our emotions are not able to process in a healthy way. For them, simply imagining the “truth” makes it truthful. It’s a tricky game to balance self-worth and truth when fear one’s mortality becomes the centerpiece of existence.
The ones wishing to blow up the Earth wrote about it in several places in their bible. The fact that they are the stupidist bastards on the planet, and are praying for their own destruction as well as mine, is completely lost on them.
Oh and then there’s the – blow up someone else AND yourself and get 72 virgins in paradise crowd. Seems like a a plague of blowing up, or stupidity.
Maybe Boy George will write a new version of his song – “People Are Stupid” – “Religion Is Stupid”.
A quick look at this week’s programme ;
Forensic Detectives
Mythmusters – special James Bond
Crimes that shook the world
My shocking story
Extreme engineering
American chopper
The garage
Kings of construction
FBI Files
Chop Shop : London Garage
Custom my ride
So, yes indeed it’s a “nice” commercial, but as usual with commercials, it’s hiding the truth, discovery channel is also very much about car tuning and detective stuff, and is only a farce of a real educational documentary channel. Maybe only 20 or 30% of its programmes fit the commercial.
A good message, just have to forget for who it’s for.
“…blow up someone else AND yourself…”
Now Patricia, don’t get hysterical. That’s not what it says. The other person (better yet, people, and lots of ’em) needs to be an infidel (yet another meaningless word fabricated to dress-up unreal causes)!Not just anyone will do.
Bah! Admit it, PZ… You wouldn’t care about this at all without the gratuitous squid reference.
OK, good point.
I didn’t really mean it to be … Dr. Evil and people like him are entirely fictional.
Thanks man
I needed that
Technology may be amazing and people combative, but I’m pretty sure no-one wants to blow up Earth.
Well, I didn’t mean the WHOLE earth, just parts of it. Eh, we’ll just disagree on it. To me explosions like the one shown are an example of humans asserting their will on something, destroying just for the sake of the big boom and because they can. The rest of the commercial was experiencing joy and discovery at nature, which is something quite different. But really, it’s just a commercial for a channel that has very few shows I like to watch anyway, so I’m not really invested in it. As neg noted, that channel lost its claim on being science/nature-based a long, long time ago.
Oh pleeeeze Alex, let me be hysterical… if I can’t spend half my time being hysterical I’ll have to be full on engaged in Strumpetry. For that I have to sail to Singapore… you see the BOTHER factor here.
Oh. Well. I knew all that, except, I just assumed you were already in Singapore. My bad. I apologize.
I’m waiting for an idiot to show up and say it’s all god’s work.
an example of humans asserting their will on something
Um, this is a science blog, right?
Awesome!
I’m translating what they say to spanish. Can someone spell out the chorus for me? Any chance I can get this into my ring tone? :D
To clarify my last post: science, and a major motivation for doing it, is not just about “experiencing joy and discovery at nature”, it’s about affecting the world, changing our environment, changing outcomes. It’s about power and control and, to a considerable degree, the illusion of mastering mortality (see Ernest Becker’s “Fear of Death” for the role that plays in human violence). Without those motivations, there would not be science.
There is no such thing as a gratuitous squid reference.
I love the earth…so I want to blow it up! It just seemed jarring in there.
It says “I love the WHOLE world” — including “when great whites fly” (chomp!) — “and all its craziness” … “tornadoes” (in the process of destroying a chunk of human endeavor) …
Remember that Darwin wrote “I cannot persuade myself that a benificent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars.” If you’re looking for a sweet frilly world without people blowing stuff up, you’re looking for a fantasy. The real thing is what it is, so you might as well savor it.
“There is no such thing as a gratuitous squid reference.”
…perhaps so…but it seems there are gratuitous PZ references.
I can see where it’s corny, but here’s the thing –
it’s saying look, here we all are, we’re all humans together on this cool planet… but they don’t say *anything* metaphysical about it.
No religious “All God’s Creatures,” no spiritual “Interconnected Lives,” no Gaia theory. No “I’d like to teach the world to sing.” We’re all we’ve got on this pale blue dot and that’s enough.
It’s nice to see that.
Does “xkcd” stand for anything?
http://www.geocities.com/youth4sa/war-ecology.html
The ecological consequences of modern warfare would make a good subject for a Discovery-Channel series.
Monado,
http://xkcd.com/
No, that’s how you frame science. Take that Nisbet & Mooney.
I thought the explosion part was out of place too. But then again, it’s not like the only application of explosions is hurting people.
“I hate the stupid tune, I hate the crassness of it, I hate the gee-wow corniness of it ”
If you think that’s bad, then don’t look up that xckjpdq strip that references it. Ugh, blecch.
That should be:
Now, that’s how you frame science. Damn that post button.
I’m pretty sure no-one wants to blow up Earth.
But some people have been willing to risk it; consider Fermi’s bets that the atomic test at Trinity would ignite the atmosphere, at page 6 of
http://books.google.com/books?id=dl6kWs-T8osC&printsec=frontcover&dq=fermi+bet+bomb&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0
Does “xkcd” stand for anything?
“It’s not actually an acronym. It’s just a word with no phonetic pronunciation. It stands for the comic and everything the comic stands for!”
…there are no gratuitous,
Strumpterionius, remarks in… this-
squidtonious wooorld!
Boom de yada, boom de yada!…
Oh hell, I better drink somemore hysterical sangria and go lay an egg. Nighty, y’ll. P ;)
No, but the show (which I’ve never seen) is called “Future Weapons,” so I imagine that’s the application of interest to them.
“but the show (which I’ve never seen) is called “Future Weapons”
Sheesh. Modern weapons depress me enough. Even old weapons don’t hold me in the thrall that they seem to hold some other people in (whenever I start hearing fantasy or general nerds discussing swords and other stuff and mention their own personal collections, I always start slowly backing away, even when I’m on the computer).
Actually, the primary purpose of weapons is to coerce people; hurting them is usually a means, not a goal. When two parties are intent on coercing each other, the result is that the weapons are employed, moving coercion from threat to actual damage.
The song wasn’t that great, but you’re right about the theme. The message saves the medium.
And it’s all worth it for the Hawking cameo.
truth machine,
You seem to be ignoring all of the cases of one-sided use of weaponry with purely destructive intent – when the aggressors don’t want to coerce others but simply to eliminate them.
Ah, the joys of context. The sorrows of having basic cable, thus, no more Discovery Channel.
don’t you know that christians HATE the world because it’s “run by satan the devil” – my Jehovah’s Witness parents do – I happen to love the world, I’m glad I’m here, and I just wish people wouldn’t waste this life in leu of some afterlife that doesn’t exist
You seem to be ignoring all of the cases of one-sided use of weaponry with purely destructive intent – when the aggressors don’t want to coerce others but simply to eliminate them.
Y’know, I’ve appreciated the quality of your thinking, but not here. I said “primarily” and “usually”, and I stand by that as a proper characterization of the totality of cases, those that fit (the majority, by my understanding) and those that don’t (the minority, by my understanding).
P.S. In the great majority of cases where the aggressors want to eliminate others, they want to do so in order to seize their resources or to eliminate them as a threat. Were the targets of the aggression to simply leave, they would generally not be pursued. Thus, the goal is only rarely “simply to eliminate them” — although we do see a lot of that in TV and movie fiction.
AH!!! The xkcd post makes SENSE now! This commercial makes me smile..
This is true, but politically it seems to work better to demonize the enemy. That makes it shade into the emotional “eliminate them” territory.
I don’t think there’s any way the various motivations can be distinguished well enough to draw firm conclusions here. But I’m not convinced that the “primary” purpose of weapons use in human history (or recent history in particular) has been coercion and not destruction.
P.P.S. The seizing of resources was a major objective even in that most infamous case of elimination, the Holocaust. The dehumanization of the Jews was a very intentional program with political goals, it was not simply a matter of raw hatred, although that that was fomented and harnessed. (Some other cases of bigotry fostered for the sake of seizure of resources : the interned Japanese, the Palestinians.)
Sometimes destruction is used as coercion, yes? difficult to separate them.
I don’t think there’s any way the various motivations can be distinguished well enough to draw firm conclusions here.
I do, after considering the matter carefully.
I’m not convinced that the “primary” purpose of weapons use in human history (or recent history in particular) has been coercion and not destruction.
You don’t have to be convinced, you don’t even have to be wrong, for your charge that I “seem” to be ignoring cases to be unreasoned.
mandrake, our posts are overlapping — I think we basically agree.
The destruction of the Jews was pursued at the end of the war even when it was profoundly irrational in economic terms (see, for example, Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Willing Executioners).
you don’t even have to be wrong
Although, without your providing some argumentation that supports your view, in light of the entire body of military science, history, sociology, anthropology, criminology, policing methods … that details how force and threat of force are used coercively, it’s hard to see how you’re not.
I do, after considering the matter carefully.
“Considering the matter carefully” is not the same as providing empirical evidence to support your claims. When I mentioned making these distinctions, I meant for the purpose of empirical study. I think mandrake is pointing to basically the same problems, so I don’t understand the distinction you’re making between his/her posts and mine.
The destruction of the Jews was pursued at the end of the war even when it was profoundly irrational in economic terms
Hitler opening up two fronts was also profoundly irrational. Irrationality doesn’t make your case, especially since, as I noted, hatreds were harnessed, and such hatreds take on a life of their own.
hatreds were harnessed, and such hatreds take on a life of their own.
They already had a life of their own. And they were by no menas a secondary factor.
This complexity and blending of motives across cases is precisely what makes it difficult to support generalizations about the “primary” purpose of weapons use or warfare.
I don’t understand the distinction you’re making between his/her posts and mine.
You claimed, quite erroneously, that I “seem” to be ignoring cases, even though I said “primarily” and “usually”, which comparitive terms don’t warrant your inference. If that isn’t clear to you, so be it.
As for the greater issue, you might want to take a look at some literature on police and military methods, and the anthropology of competition for resources. I’m not about to lay out the whole thing here, any more than I would lay out the supporting evidence for the theory of evolution.
Bye now.
What would constitute evidence of “primary” purposes?
– How weapons users justify their use to various “outsiders”?
– How they talk about it amongst themselves or in their diaries/journals?
– How much gratuitous violence and destruction they engage in? (And how is “gratuitous” to be defined?)
– Works of art or other cultural artifacts related to warfare?
Just one more thing:
I don’t understand the distinction you’re making between his/her posts and mine.
mandrake said, in response to my post,
“This is true, but politically it seems to work better to demonize the enemy.”
That is, we agree both about the goal and about the harnessing of emotion to achieve the goal. And mandrake said
“Sometimes destruction is used as coercion, yes? difficult to separate them.”
That is, the goal of some cases of destruction is coercion, undermining any claim that destruction is an end in itself, again agreeing with me.
This is, hands down, THE best commercial I have ever seen.
Boom-de-yada!
What would constitute evidence of “primary” purposes?
I suggest consulting “the entire body of military science, history, sociology, anthropology, criminology, policing methods … that details how force and threat of force are used coercively”. There’s a lot of it, too much to fit into this little edit box.
Ok, now I really must go.
I have to say, I hate that ad. I hate the stupid tune, I hate the crassness of it…
I hate the whole ad
I hate the corniness
Boomdeyada boomdeyada
Boomdeyada boomdeyada
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Evidently our posts crossed. OK, I acknowledge that you said “primary” and “usually” (although your next sentence, as I read it, implied a more sweeping claim – but I may have misinterpreted it).
Half of my dissertation concerned the history/sociology of state security and policing. It’s an area in which I’m quite well-informed, so there’s no need for you to lay anything out for me.
Bye.
It’s a fascinating world out there. It’s breathtaking to see all that wonder together. Other folks express that wonder better than I can; it’s hard to describe, but it’s an absolutely vital part of our humanity. I feel… uplifted, seeing that. Makes me want to go take up science.
Argh, I can’t help myself:
They already had a life of their own.
And how did that happen? Think inquisition, tsarist Russia, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. These enmities don’t just exist free floating, they have economic roots, just like attitudes towards blacks and women have economic roots.
aEvidently our posts crossed. OK, I acknowledge that you said “primary” and “usually” (although your next sentence, as I read it, implied a more sweeping claim – but I may have misinterpreted it).
Frankly, I find that bizarre on several counts. Oh well.
Half of my dissertation concerned the history/sociology of state security and policing. It’s an area in which I’m quite well-informed, so there’s no need for you to lay anything out for me.
The latter does not follow from the former.
Bye.
Ta ta.
You should really try, if you’re just going to create strawmen. I never denied the role or importance of material motivations. It’s the “taking on a life of their own” part that you’re dismissing too lightly, I believe.
I believe.
Yes, that seems to be what it’s about.
I don’t have cable tv so I had not seen that before, since I’m shortly heading to bed I am reasonably sure that song will still be stuck in my head in the morning. That is quite as good as my favorite song full of fun references (La Vie Boheme from Rent) but it mentions squid, Egyptian mummies, and has Stephen Hawking so it comes a close second.
“I love the Giant Squid!”
I can’t imagine why. Your next sentence was:
This implied that the history of the use of weapons involved co-combatants with equivalent coercive intent, and that weapons have been used solely as a means to attain non-destructive ends. This sentence was not qualified by “usually,” “in some cases,” etc.
Huh?
You know, now that I think about it – would the gas chambers of Nazi Germany be considered a weapon solely of destruction? Anti-Semitism could easily have started with an us/them competition (they believe differently then us, they should go away so that we hold the power here), and then was solidified into religious hatred (they are evil).
During WWII, though I think there isn’t proof of a specific “eliminate all the Jews” dictate, it seems clear that they considered the elimination of “undesirables” as something that would increase the “health” of the state.
One could say that this was a form of coercion to keep such types out of the country, but in that case why not just expel them?
That was a useless comment. By the way, I often write “it seems,” “it appears,” “if I’m reading you correctly,”I believe” or the like when I’m arguing with someone. This is because I allow for the possibility that I may not be understanding his or her point fully, either through a failure to communicate it well or through my own misreading. I consider this benefit of the doubt and its expression a matter of respect for my interlocutor. Someone else here has attributed it to an alleged tendency on my part to engage in “polite lies,” which is incorrect. If I think you’re wrong, I say so.
Just letting you know, so you don’t get too hung up on it in the future.
I gotta admit, the weapon there also seemed to me a little out of place, I had a small “WTF?” episode. I mean let’s not kid ourselves, explosions are fun, but that wasn’t exactly a New Year’s fireworks display. Weapons are weapons. Might be a necessary thing, but it’s not really pretty.
About the shark. I am pretty sure that’s a scene from Planet Earth as are some other scenes there too.
And I also was in the dark with the xkcd thing until now.
I love that video, it’s also one of my favorite passages of any book, though I haven’t read the whole book yet. I even translated that from the book to Spanish with the relevant picture to post on my dummy Hi5 site so my “friends” could at least see something when browsing the dummy profile page (I only set up an account to check up on my friends, I actually dislike those sites).
But the video has some special impact if you’ve seen the movies, doesn’t it?
You’re wrong. (See, TM?)
Please see my recommendation @ #120 (not a perfect book by any means, but worthwhile in this context).
This sentence was not qualified by “usually,” “in some cases,” etc.
No, it was qualified by the word “when”. Honestly, you are being incredibly thick.
SC-
I remember things like this, but was it ever explicitly stated? I suppose it doesn’t matter, as people would have to be blind to not see what they really meant.
That was a useless comment
No, it isn’t. Walk into a gun store and ask why people buy weapons (aside from hunting). Go to a target range. Ask someone on the street. google “what are weapons for”. Watch the James Burke series on the history of weaponry. Read anything on the military, police methods, anthropology. Your position is prima facie absurd and you have offered no reason to discard the null hypothesis other than that you don’t “believe” it. Ditto when you blithely wave away the well established history of anti-semitism, or racial prejudice or sexism, simply because you “believe” that I’m “dismissing too lightly” the “taking on a life of their own” part. But I’m the one who brought it up; I don’t dismiss it, I understand it, noting that these things don’t just arise by magic, they have causes. But your explanation is … [chirp]. So really you have nothing to offer.
You’re wrong. (See, TM?)
Those are your words, not mine. Mine were “you don’t even have to be wrong” — meaning, you could be right. But perhaps that too you misinterpreted, as you seem to have misinterpreted so much else.
Here the sentences are together:
In that context, I didn’t read “when” as a qualification or limiting term, but as a generalizing, transhistoricizing term of the sort “When people are angry…,” “When countries are at war…,” “When crowds form…” etc. But I now understand what you were saying.
My other words were
Although, without your providing some argumentation that supports your view, in light of the entire body of military science, history, sociology, anthropology, criminology, policing methods … that details how force and threat of force are used coercively, it’s hard to see how you’re not.
And indeed I still don’t see that, given no reason to.
Good grief – I was referring to my own previous statement
“If I think you’re wrong, I say so.”
not to anything you said.
And among more support for the hypothesis, there’s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon
Does a section of a Wikipedia article prove anything? No, of course not. The point is simply that there’s a vast wealth of references and literature to draw on describing the use of weapons (other than hunting) for coercion. (There’s a mention of destruction in what I quoted, but it’s consistent with my previous comment about destruction not being an end in itself). By virtually every reference, that’s the primary use. Does that prove that it really is the primary use? No. But to reject it one needs reasons, not just [chirp].
And as I’ve been patiently trying to explain to you, social scientists, in order to study “primary purposes” or “root causes,” need to operationalize these concepts concretely. Pointing me to various bodies of literature does nothing to support your case.
And you are the one who made the original claim. You are the one who needs to substantiate it. I merely suggested that I was unconvinced. And I pointed out that providing evidentiary support for such a claim would be axtraordinarily difficult, given the complexity of human motivation and the lack of a commonly-accepted form of evidence.
In that context, I didn’t read “when” as a qualification or limiting term, but as a generalizing, transhistoricizing term of the sort “When people are angry…,” “When countries are at war…,” “When crowds form…” etc.
Huh? “When people are angry” only applies to cases where people are angry. “When countries are at war” only applies where countries are warring. “When two parties are intent on coercing each other” only applies where two parties are intent on coercing each other. To say the word is not a qualification or limiting term is utterly nonsensical.
I’m sorry, but you simply are being thick, so thick that discussion with you is pointless.
Pointing me to various bodies of literature does nothing to support your case.
Only a very dishonest and foolish person would say so. It’s exactly what we do with the theory of evolution or any other body of knowledge.
I merely suggested that I was unconvinced.
This is dishonest bullshit. You did much more than that. As I said early on, “You don’t have to be convinced”. Your being convinced isn’t my concern. Only fools seek or demand to be convinced in discussions like these. As I have said, there are extensive reasons backing my position, but you have offered nothing. One can do with that what they wish.
Feh.
Yikes!
I go do stuff, come back and see the thread is still about weapons and killing and such. One tiny element of the presentation dominates.
I hate to say this, but perhaps Carlie has a point, based on this evidence.
given the complexity of human motivation
One doesn’t even need to consider human motivation, just how weapons are actually used.
Thick. So thick.
I hate to say this, but perhaps Carlie has a point, based on this evidence.
It’s Carlie who put the focus there. And as I pointed out in another thread, there are far more ways to disagree than to agree, thus disagreements dominate these discussions.
(Perhaps our social scientist can “operationalize these concepts concretely”, heh heh.)
Well, there you go.
No one has claimed that weapons have not been used for coercion.
Not really: “tactical advantage…usually by injury, defeat, or destruction, or the threat of these.” (It’s a silly source anyway, but it’s also not the strongest thing you could have presented.) You’re also simplifying something more complex here. If someone bombing a village doesn’t care how many people die, this doesn’t mean destruction is an end in itself, but it also doesn’t mean that the bombing is a tool of coercion.
Italics are not evidence.
No, I need reasons (evidence) to accept it.
Your original claim was:
Are you now suggesting that goals and purposes can be entirely inferred by observing actions? You could drive a truck through the holes in that. (How weapons are used in action is, though, one of the possible ways to measure this – in combination with others, of course.)
TM:
Well, yeah, but there it has remained. Would it have if her contention were baseless?
Italics are not evidence.
Neither does [chirp]. But in fact I didn’t offer italics as evidence, oh dishonest one.
Not really:
I’m coming to think that you just can’t process English. What you offer after that colon in no way supports your claim.
No, I need reasons (evidence) to accept it.
You apparently with no concept of the empirical principle of inference to the best explanation. “social science” indeed. Whatever, it’s your loss. Again, it’s no concern of mine what you accept or are convinced of.
Well, yeah, but there it has remained.
And I just explained why.
Would it have if her contention were baseless?
Her contention is that it was out of place in the ad; that depends on what the ad was about, not what effect it had on this thread.
But in any case I don’t think anyone is getting any joy, or much of anything else good, out of this, so I’m going to try to quit it. Good bye again.
Again, your claim to “extensive reasons” proves nothing.
Why you are so unwilling to grasp that I don’t think this is a subject about which claims can be proven other than on a case-by-case basis in which what is evidence for “primary purposes” and “root causes” is clearly specified and this evidence presented, I don’t understand. [Please try to refrain from quotemining these last three words.]
How ridiculous. Example: God exists. In support of this argument, I point you to the vast literature on quantum mechanics.
Good night TM.
And may I say that I think your last comment was appropriately mechanically truthful, BTW :)
—
Before I too go, I want to make it clear I too find the promo inspiring, expecially coming to it cold (this post was my first exposure), and raher enjoyed it.
Nice post!
I’ve already stated that I now understand better what you meant. But consider this:
“The primary cause of war is human emotion. It’s usually difficult to control our anger. When people get angry, this escalates into organized violence.”
On this, we can agree. Good night.
Attention All Canadian Readers:
I went to see Wall-E tonight.
If you need to go see a movie this weekend, make sure it’s Wall-E instead of some irrelevant movie wherein it is implied that scientists are Nazis.
That is all.
I SO want to check out Wall-E. They say it’s as good sci-fi flick as much as a great animation movie. Love the Pixar geeks. People who even mention Pixar in the same sentence as all the other animated idiotic movies like Shrek and Ice Age have no clue what makes Pixar special.
Hey
I love Shrek
Whoops!
But of course, you’re biased.
On the other hand, I don’t think I’d like to invoke your wrath.
Good times.
By the way, if you love Shrek so much, why don’t you marry him?
Get it… GET IT???
…um, hello?
*laugh* Luckily, I did not get that close. I fled the 40km traffic jam after being stuck in it for a while.
What Jack Rawlinson@74 said.
Point being, if you want to play pretend with your make-believe deities, fine. Just don’t go pick a fight with those who actually apply themselves in learning the finer points of how Nature works and use that understanding to craft weaponry. If all you got is wishful thinking, incantations, and imaginary sky-lords, you’ll get your ass handed to you. – Alex
True, but a big problem at the moment is that the most powerful weapons are under the control of a man who, if we are to believe him, not only believes in a sky-lord, but thinks he gets direct instructions from him.
The ones wishing to blow up the Earth wrote about it in several places in their bible. The fact that they are the stupidist bastards on the planet, and are praying for their own destruction as well as mine, is completely lost on them. – Patricia
Indeed.
On weapon use for coercion or destruction, the balance between the two shifts with circumstances, and also with whether we’re considering those giving the orders, or those carrying them out. Individual or small-group conflicts using weapons may aim at either destruction or coercion, depending on both individual motivation and social norms – and of course even large-scale wars include multiple instances of such conflicts. Between non-state social formations, wars were often fought to seize resources – land, food stores or women (who would of course be coerced to prevent their escape). In these wars it was rational to kill as many of the opposing force as possible, rather than let them escape – if they are dead, they can’t retaliate later – so I’d say these are primarily wars of destruction. Once states arose, there was much more potential to either enslave, enlist or otherwise exploit enemy warriors and children, so the balance shifted, but there are still many cases approaching pure destruction, particularly when nomad forces attacked settled societies or vice versa. The destruction still had, at command level, a rational motive – control of land – but often the slaughter commanded went far beyond what was necessary to coerce the victims into leaving: the Mongol conquerors of the 13th century often killed all the inhabitants of a city, as did Timur when he took Delhi, even though it had surrendered on terms.
Incidentally, why is it that truth machine so often resorts, when arguing with someone, first to accusations of stupidity, then of dishonesty? Many (including me) sometimes do so, and sometimes unfairly, but at least make some effort to do so only in retaliation or when these qualities are manifest, not simply because another commenter disagrees. It’s as if truth machine actually believes (s)he really is a “truth machine”, guaranteed to be right, so honest and intelligent disagreement with anything (s)he says is impossible – in other words, that (s)he is an omniscient deity. Assuming for the moment TM is male, Disraeli’s description of Bright seems apposite: “A self-made man who worships his creator.”
Well yeah, the world is just awesome, it’s just too bad we’re not taking good care of it.
I’m not so sure how this message is supposed to be interpreted, is this an optimistic message, I really don’t think it’s the kind of message we need right now, it’s just so tame.
Is that really what science is about, is it just about observing how awesome the world is ? I don’t think so. It’s also very much about trying to find the best way to exploit its resources whilst keeping it an awesome place.
I’m sorry but I can’t seem to forget that this message is sponsored by a channel that is entirely driven by selling advertising and stimulating more consumption, and doesn’t really give a shit about science and nature. The only thing they care about is finding programmes that are the most entertaining to their target audiences so that they can sell more advertisements. And because that’s pricipally the average 25 to 54 yold male, you get a clear focus on car tuning, criminal investigation, industrial construction, and all sorts of things that have absolutely nothing to do with “the world is just awesome”.
It’s just “powder in the eyes” as we say in french, let’s just keep everybody happy and sell more commercials.
And what about the religious folks, all these good things, the world is just awesome, it’s all thanks to God of course !
Andyo @ #170
5 years,3 kids and counting, I’ve been the Bride of Shrek. The movie itself we really couldn’t care about ( I’ve only ever seen it once) but, weirdly , my husband has a strange resemblance to the big green ogre. Seriously he looks like Shrek,has got a flat top haircut ( against my nagging on a monthly basis) and a strange shaped head. His friends had the nickname for him before I met him and I suspect it’ll stick for life. However he’s a gorgeous man with a heart of gold and I think he’s a total spunk. I adore the fact I’m Bride of Shrek.
..and Andyo. You’d never invoke my wrath. I think you’re a big sweetie. I keep my excruciatingly nasty shittiness for trolls such as the late Kenny and the current Stan.
.. although now Truth Machine is back I feel I can rest a bit easier on my laurels. The trolls are soooooo going to get reamed now he’s back.
Well, I feel bad for starting such a row. Neg’s right, the real theme of the commercial is “watch our shows”, therefore it all fits. It’s the stated theme of “we love the world and the world is wonderful” that the explosions don’t fit. Regardless of the purpose of weaponry, it’s technology, and the rest of the examples were along the lines of basic science. People can debate the intersections of science and technology all day (please don’t), but they aren’t the same thing. Throwing an American Choppers clip in there would have been just as incongruous. Using explosions as the example of the technology just made it more weird, since you can’t explore/research/discover much about something if you blow it up.
Nick #172,
Ah well, I’ve never been able to tell what’s real from what’s just beeing said for electoral purposes.
All I know is that there is a very high likelihood that before this election is over, an Israel / Iran conflict takes place, and that our dear president might either use this as a way to declare a state of national emergency and stay longer in office, or make sure that the next president is an old supposedely experience war hero. Afterall, fabricating nightmares is his speciality.
Nick #172,
Ah well, I’ve never been able to tell what’s real from what’s just beeing said for electoral purposes.
All I know is that there is a very high likelihood that before this election is over, an Israel / Iran conflict takes place, and that our dear president might either use this as a way to declare a state of national emergency and stay longer in office, or make sure that the next president is an old supposedely “experienced war hero”.
Afterall, fabricating nightmares is our dear president’s speciality.
sorry for the double post
All I know is that there is a very high likelihood that before this election is over, an Israel / Iran conflict takes place – negentropyeater@178
That likelihood is beginning to keep me awake at night – which reminds me, since the immediate effect would be an oil supply crisis, I should stock up on tinned food etc. I doubt Bush would try to stay in office, even if McCain lost after such an “October surprise” – he would probably rely on Obama finding it impossible to withdraw from the Middle East, hold back Israel, or embark on “divisive” domestic measures at a time of emergency.
Nick #180,
Well, if the middle east gets in fire and oil prices surge above 250$, I’m not so sure how the American folk would react in the middle of an election. As far as I’ve seen, there’s not much evidence that they would react in the most rational way.
Didn’t anyone else just get a laugh over how the firing of the RPG and the explosion were synched to the ‘boom’? I guess not.
If I were to nitpick this delightful little ad to death, I’d go along the lines of it’s rather depressing geocentric nature. Even the astronauts are looking inward. There’s a whole lot more if one looks outward. I love exploding stars, I love black holes, I love colliding galaxies, boom de yada, boom de yada.
negentropyeater@181 – No, I’m not sure how the electorate would react. But if the Israeli attack happens, it will surely be before the election, in an attempt to sway it for McCain. That might work – but it might not. If it doesn’t, I still don’t think Bush would try to stay on.
Why you are so unwilling to grasp that I don’t think this is a subject about which claims can be proven other than on a case-by-case basis in which what is evidence for “primary purposes” and “root causes” is clearly specified and this evidence presented, I don’t understand.
This isn’t something I don’t, or am not willing to grasp — what an incredibly stupid formulation. Rather, what you don’t grasp — despite my having repeated it — is that I don’t give a flying fuck what you think, or believe, or accept, or are convinced of; these are your personal mental states, of no interest or concern to me. What is of concern is reasons to think things, and you have provided none that are in any way persuasive. All you have is an unwarranted skepticism, apparently grounded in some sort of cargo cult “social science”, about the plain, massive, evidence of the purposes and goals of weapons. But I reject that skepticism, because I understand that empirical epistemology doesn’t rest on “acceptance” or being “convinced”, but rather on inference to the best explanation.
So many good points made while I slept!: Nick Gotts @ #172, negentropyeater @ #173, Carlie @ #176, Julie K @ #182.
Because he uses his rhetorical weapons to attempt not to persuade but to destroy? :P
It’s the stated theme of “we love the world and the world is wonderful” that the explosions don’t fit.
Again, it says the WHOLE world. If you think that the explosions don’t fit, that simply means that you disagree that the WHOLE world is wonderful. You seem to think that it would only be wonderful if it were frilly and sweet and kind and without weapons.
I cheerfully watch this commercial every time it comes on. And as everyone else has mentioned, I think of you every time the “giant squid” part comes up, P.Z.! <3
Incidentally, why is it that truth machine so often resorts, when arguing with someone, first to accusations of stupidity, then of dishonesty?
Why is it that you’re a liar? The first thing I said of SC was that I’ve appreciated the quality of her thinking. I only accuse people of stupidity and dishonesty when they display it — but, as you just demonstrated, there is a lot of it. Most people indulge in the sort of blatant hyperbole you just did without a care, and then will lie and lie and lie about having done so or trot out the most incredibly dishonest rationalizations.
Argumentum ex culo. You’ve offered no set of agreed-upon facts as the basis for such an inference. You’ve simply made a claim and then declared it to be the best explanation, and therefore not in need of empirical support. It’s a transparent ploy.
P.S. A lot of bellyaching in this thread. Quit bitching and enjoy it for what it is. I find it uplifting.
Because he uses his rhetorical weapons to attempt not to persuade but to destroy? :P
There are quite a few people around here whom I have persuaded on quite a number of occasions. Perhaps I should add that silly OM to my moniker to counter off these sneaky mischaracterizations of me. Sure, what the hell.
Using explosions as the example of the technology just made it more weird, since you can’t explore/research/discover much about something if you blow it up.
I’d be willing to bet that the construction of the bridge seen early in the ad involved a bit of explosive work.
I’m reminded of the Project Orion study which involved using a series of atomic bombs to propel a spacecraft around the solar system. It’s amazing to me to think of a large manned spacecraft that could have gone to Jupiter or Saturn and returned within 60 days. Granted there were a lot of very good reasons why we would not fly such a spacecraft today, but I’d say this at least shows that in some cases very large explosions might indeed aid exploration and discovery.
:o. At least he varied the order!
Thank you for that, by the way.
You’ve simply made a claim and then declared it to be the best explanation
I have done no such thing, oh dense one. I’m telling you why I don’t find your skepticism persuasive.
It’s a transparent ploy.
You silly self-centered twit. There’s no ploy; I don’t care whether you accept it. I’m not trying to convince you, as I have said repeatedly. Again, you have not convinced me to adopt your skepticism in the face of the plain and massive evidence. If you don’t “accept” the plain and massive evidence, that’s simply not my concern. As I said, it’s your loss.
At least he varied the order!
You see, this is the sort of immense dishonesty I comment on. You dishonest assholes will just sit here and reinforce each other in your stupid little game.
No doubt. I was speculating as to your motives/purposes (which are no doubt complex – it was a joke), not to the alleged effects of your comments.
.. although now Truth Machine is back I feel I can rest a bit easier on my laurels. The trolls are soooooo going to get reamed now he’s back.
Well, BoS, I don’t really have time for this nonsense, so your efforts will still be needed.
Taking a page from the theist playbook, I see.
I was speculating as to your motives/purposes (which are no doubt complex – it was a joke), not to the alleged effects of your comments.
This is where you show your failure — you don’t seem to grasp how motive can be inferred from actions or their consequences, as with inferring the goals of weapons users from how they use weapons. Like I said, you’ve got a cargo cult version of science — you go through the motions of reasoning, but you miss the essence. Of course you’re not likely to accept that claim, but I don’t care — I’m just making an observation; your loss if you fail to appreciate it.
Especially if you’re wasting that limited hurling insults at people like me and Nick Gotts.
that limited time
Taking a page from the theist playbook, I see.
You really are a fool. It could just as well be a page out of the evolutionist’s book — there’s massive evidence of evolution, despite the creationist’s skepticism. Same for global warming, and many other subjects. You’re doing cargo cult thinking — you look at the form, but fail to grasp that it’s the content that matters. What a waste of my time … and yours. Everything of relevance was said back in #118, where I didn’t challenge what you think but noted that I thought otherwise, didn’t challenge your not being convinced, and accepted that you could be right. I actually thought that was enough, sigh. But your cargo cult constructions are like molasses, to mix a metaphor.
The real world beckons. Good bye yet again.
Especially if you’re wasting that limited hurling insults at people like me and Nick Gotts.
You’re a stupid fucking hypocrite, and that’s the truth.
I grasp this fully. It’s to some extent what I was doing in my little joke. I was inferring from the fact that you often attack first and ask questions later, if at all, and pepper your arguments with gratuitous insults that there were motives at work other than the mere desire to persuade. I was doing the same thing in response to your suggestion that economic motives predominated in the Holocaust – pointing out that the evidence of their actions (pursuing the policy of destruction when this was contrary to their economic and strategic interests) suggests that this was not the case. (I’m not saying not important, but trumped in action by a rabidly eliminationist ideology.)
My point is that the actions themselves are only part of the evidence needed to determine “primary purposes” or goals or root causes. They have to be interpreted in light of other evidence.
Nick,
I don’t know. There’s no evidence that he wouldn’t try. There’s actually quite some evidence that he’s prepared everything so that he could stay on.
I would like to remind you that the National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51) signed into law by our dear president on May 9, 2007 has been precisely worded for this particular case, in order to call for the necessary requirement to ensure “continuity” of the national security policies which obviously would be at risk if a certain Mr Obama were to take office.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html
So it seems it’s a risk people are willing to take. We’ll see.
I think people tend to underestimate him. They tend to understimate how serious the situation already is, the mess that he’s created without an Israel/Iran conflict. So they tend to also underestimate how serious the situation would be if that happened on top of it.
Just a question, what do many people do in the middle of a gigantic fuck up when others are pointing fingers to them ? Do they just give up and leave or do they get more obstinate and if others let them stay on try to prove that they can clean up the mess their own way ?
I will note that tm has produced none in support of his assertion concerning the primary purpose of weapons use.
Back on topic, the Discovery Channel promo is a good one. The channel has had a series of good promotions (a couple of years ago Discovery had a similar promo with an oblique reference to “Lawnchair Larry.”) Coming out of the broadcast business, it is interesting to note that Discovery Channel spends more money on one good quality promo than PBS (actually PBS’ producing stations) spend on an entire program. I like the Discovery Channel when it is “on message”, but hate it when it descends into woo-woo with programs as “A Haunting”, etc.
Holydust #190,
I’m sorry I can’t enjoy it. I’ve explained why in my post #173. Believe me, there’s many things about the world I truely enjoy, but having Discovery Channel’s hypocrisy being shuffled up my face doesn’t belong to this, especially at a time when I don’t particularly think it’s helpful to felicitate ourselves for how awesome the world is.
Would you say I should just be a good sport and enjoy things just for the sake of enjoyment ?
You seem to think that it would only be wonderful if it were frilly and sweet and kind and without weapons.
Good lord. I like parasites, I like hurricanes, I like carnivores. They’re amazing examples of nature. I even like explosions, when they’re used for things like removing rickety dangerous structures that can fall down and hurt people. My feelings on weapons one way or the other don’t matter to my point, which was that the blow-upy part was a clip that was not like the others. Technology does not equal science, blowing things up does not equal discovery and exploration, saying “Ooo” at a big man-made bang does not equal saying “Ooo” at a creation of nature.
Stomapoda! Boooooom Deeee Yaaada!
Weapons were not exactly invented invented by humans. I mean this is a biology blog right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplocarida
* Spearers are armed with spiny appendages topped with barbed tips, used to stab and snag prey.
* Smashers, on the other hand, possess a much more developed club and a more rudimentary spear (which is nevertheless quite sharp and still used in fights between their own kind); the club is used to bludgeon and smash their meals apart. The “punch” delivered has roughly the acceleration of a .22 caliber pistol.[5] The inner aspect of the dactyl (the terminal portion of the appendage) can also possess a sharp edge, with which the animal can cut prey while it swims.
Peace on earth to creatures of good will. Oh, and make sure not to place your hands into creavices inhabited by Mantis Shrimp unless you like having your fingers crushed.
Why is it that you’re a liar? The first thing I said of SC was that I’ve appreciated the quality of her thinking.
I didn’t say you didn’t do anything else. What I said is the simple truth. If you can’t recognise it, fine, I didn’t expect you to, given your evident psychopathology.
I’m not sure whose position I’m supporting if I say that that’s really amazing and cool.
negentropyeater@205
I wasn’t aware of that directive – at least, I think I’d heard of it, but hadn’t read it. I haven’t had time to go through it line-by-line, but on a first reading it doesn’t seem as sinister to me as it does to you – I don’t see anything in it that says “in an emergency, the President’s term of office may be extended” – do correct me here if I’m wrong. It does clearly make sense to provide for unexpected emergencies, and indeed from point 22 it looks as though this is replacing an existing directive rather than being entirely new.
I agree Bush is widely underestimated – he’s not stupid, and has considerable political nous. As to having fucked up, I don’t think he thinks he has fucked up, nor do I think he’s expecting any comeback in terms of criminal charges or whatever after he leaves office. Rather, I’m sure he’s expecting to be vindicated by “history”, and probably within his own lifetime. I’m very sceptical about whether Obama will actually pull out of Iraq (let alone Afghanistan), and I’d guess Bush and his advisors are too – especially if, as we agree is likely, Israel attacks Iran and the US gets involved. Even if Bush doesn’t get to appoint another Supreme Court member, the liberal-conservative balance is unlikely to change much in 4 years, and if he wins, Obama may well end up a 1-term President, as it’s clear a fairly serious recession, at the least, is underway. So all in all, I think Bush and the neocons will think they can afford to wait, and devote themselves to sabotaging Obama’s Presidency if the worst (from their point of view) happens.
When they sing, “I love when great whites fly,” why do they show footage of an orca rather than a great white shark?
You’re a flaming asshole, truth machine, and that’s the truth.
Even when I agree with you, as I often do, I find that you do tend to start calling people stupid and dishonest way, way too much. It gets really wearing, and pretty soon I don’t care if you’re right. It’s all about you strutting and posturing, and the bottom line is that it’s not justified.
Not every disagreement needs to turn into an eye-gouging insult fest, and I liked Pharyngula much better when you were gone for a while.
A lot of us are very tired of hearing you call a person such as Nick or SC stupid or dishonest or hypocritical.
It distracts mightily from what you thing is wrong with the specific argument from that they’re making, and raises the issue of whether you’re right to condemn the person flatly for what might in fact be a mistake of some sort. And suddenly the main issue is you—whether you’re an insufferable prick.
Over and over and over again.
Maybe you’re as smart as you think you are, and people like SC or Nick or me are utterly stupid by comparison. I don’t really care.
I’m pretty fucking sure that SC and Nick are smart enough, and right enough often enough, to be worth arguing with civilly.
If there’s anybody here who fits the stereotype of the “angry atheist” asshole, it’d have to be you. It’s kind of embarrasing, and very tedious.
Nick,
I agree that it’s all not very clear. You can find an analysis here of the NSPD51 which defends the view that Bush could try to prolongate his term in office with this directive because of this conflict ;
http://www.concordbridge.net/NSPD-51.htm
All in all, what interests me the most is the fact that if such a conflict were to take place in the middle of the elections, it would be a) not coïncidental b) what would be the consequences c) how do we avoid all this when there seems to be little effort made in alerting public opinion about the huge risks that are involved ?
It almost seems as if yet again, as with the Iraq conflict, the media and the dems are not playing their roles of alerting people. Are they waiting for a fait-accompli ?
Paul W. – Thanks, much appreciated. Obviously, on a blog like this, you are going to get name-calling and insults, and no-one who’s got too thin a skin should be here – but there is a point at which it becomes plain nasty. In the few months I’ve been posting here, I think my own comments have moved in that direction rather more than I like, and I’m going to try to be more restrained myself. So: my apologies to truth machine and J for my part in escalating flame wars with them on other threads.
Thanks, Paul W.
Nick, I think you‘ve been extremely polite even when dealing with some exasperating people. It’s to your credit that you engage with them at all. And I’m hardly taking the moral highground by refusing to argue directly with people like J if I’m repeatedly poking them with long rhetorical sticks. It may be worse, in fact. I’ll try to stop, or at least cut back.
I don’t know about you guys, but I think that’s the best commercial I’ve ever seen. It evoked memories of Paul Kurtz’s inspirational messages for humanity.
Hmm, since we’re talking about XKCD.
And SC:
That made me laugh. Knowing Spanish I got it without having heard it before. Shouldn’t it be culus though?
And now for something completely different (and actually to do with the ad itself)…
The best criticism in my opinion:
I agree!
negentropyeater@216,
I certainly agree with your main point! Must see if I can get the local anti-war group active again. After all, how could Bush and Olmert launch an attack on Iran if they knew Aberdeen Stop the War Coalition was against them ;-)
Aw. I liked that.
I’m afraid I can’t claim credit. Someone else here (or elsewhere on Sb) used it recently. Yeah, in the heat of battle, I didn’t bother to research the proper term (I also just like the sound of culo). But I do want to know. It may be some special form like cule or something. I’m waiting for David M to show up and settle the matter. :)
Found it:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/06/wow_is_this_stupid_or_what.php#comment-917234
Credit to BrianX
Culo simply means “ass” in Spanish. “Argument from the ass” I guess. But it comes from the latin culus. Actually I found an entry on it in RationalWiki, but it didn’t mention etymology and it also used “culo.”
Make that Brian X.
andyo,
Yes, I know. I’m just concerned that the “ex” might change the form, and I want to have it right if I use it again.
Paging David Marjanović to the thread. David Marjanović to the thread, please.
I think (my latin is dates to a long time ago), the correct form would be,
“argumentum ad culum”
culus is ass, but its dative so culum
which would mean “appeal to the ass”
instead of for example
argumentum ad populum
“appeal to the people”
argumentum ad numerum
“appeal to the number”
argumentum ad culum
“appeal to the ass”
neg,
It’s “argument from the ass” that I’m going for. Funny thing – looking at ex Deo and ex dolo malo, I’m thinking it may be ex culo after all!
This commercial is almost enough to lift the Boomdeyada song out of the “Bottom Ten Worst Campfire Songs Ever.” :-) The guy jumping into the sinkhole is great:
“Boomdeyadaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!111!!!!!”
Over at XKCD: “I put on my robe and wizard hat” FTW!
Carlie:
“Big bridges” was also mentioned in the ad, and they showed a city, human rituals, astronauts, a guy driving whatever-that-was… I don’t think Discovery Channel claims to be only about natural things, or only about science.
Reginald:
They don’t. Compare with this video
Maybe that’s right after all, SC.
I’ve heard of many squids, including the Giant Squid, the Vampire Squid, the Glass Squid, Grimaldi’s Scaled Squid, the Rhomboid Squid, Joubin’s Squid, the Calamares en su tinto, the Sharpear Enope Squid, and even the Land Squid and the Curious Squid. But the Gratuitous Squid?
“Dr. Myers’ squid is an artful squid”
“Dr. Myers’ squid is a bellicose squid”
“Dr. Myers’ squid is a curious squid”…
Yes, the future weapons guy ruined a great video. :(
That’s another of the Planet Earth scenes that I could identify. Of course, in the original there’s no Boom-de-ya-da whatsoever, which made me think if they didn’t also overdub other bits like the Hawking one. If he himself didn’t “say” the boom-de-ya-da, it was a pretty perverse thing to do (though still kinda funny, the guy does have a great sense of humor).
Thanks for that like, Andyo. I found this page to be of some interest, too.
(Thanks for that link.)
“This commercial is almost enough to lift the Boomdeyada song out of the “Bottom Ten Worst Campfire Songs Ever.””
So they didn’t write that tune or make up the “boom de yada” thing? Well, that redeems them somewhat. :) As far as the Hawking clip goes, I was annoyed because the next clip steps on it. I wouldn’t have even noticed Hawking unless someone had pointed him out.
Hawking also did a bit with Carrey on Conan (late-night talk show for those not in the U.S.). It was priceless. He called the audience P-branes! (Get it???) I think Carrey really is interested in science and reads at least the popular science books, he’s talked about it several times.
Unfortunately with all the copyright bullying in the internets I can’t find any video available.
Incongruously, though,
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/06/green_our_vaccines_celebrity_antivaccina.php
Heh, I don’t have audio right now, but from reading the link, I probably spoke too soon. He’s talked about being fascinated with quantum mechanics though, and from my personal experience being interested in what fundamental physics has to say does not give us any insight into biology or other medical sciences, we have to read specifically about those too!
But I don’t think he’s a stupid man though. I still think he’s a rather smart clown (and I say it in the best possible way) for a comedian. I don’t think the influence of Playboy girl there is to be dismissed either.
But I now wonder what he thinks about quantum-quack Chopra and his ilk.
Hah. I used to sing that “Boom-dee-yadda” song in Girl Scouts, and as I recall we did it in rounds sometimes. ISTR some encouragement to solo with our own lyrics for a stanza, too, but as that was some 50 years ago, my ISTR gets fuzzier and fuzzier lately.
I love the mountains
And the daffodils;
I love the rippling brooks
And the rolling hills;
I love to live,
To live to love
All these wonderful things
Boomdeyada boomdeyada boomdeyada boo-oom…
What we see here is of course the insidious influence of Camp Chickiewee on North American culture. Like Bohemian Grove, but squeakier. And we had sit-upons.
I’d been feeling horribly depressed all weekend, then I saw that and got cheered up – remembered that “The World is Awesome” and as a bonus finally understood the xkcd cartoon. Yay!! Boom-de-yada, boom-de-yada…
Then I started reading this thread. About halfway down I realized what a mistake that was. I should have stuck with the video and the cartoon. Between the weapons-aren’t-cool PC-ness and the quibbles about taxonomy and the kvetching about the Discovery Channel program guide, the joy just got sucked right out of the moment.
I think I’d better go to bed now, before I’m tempted to kill myself or get religion or something.
Did you watch the Carl Sagan youtube video of “The Pale Blue Dot” at #20?
It’s very moving. It might not cheer you up, but it might improve how you feel about being miserable…
I agree that weapons can be cool for some people (and I think like that sometimes), but come on, calling it “PC”? I allow the possibility of people really disliking weapons (and I think like that some other times too), and they’re not just being PC.
And as I said before, that video of Sagan’s voiceover and the movie clips is my favorite as well. Go see it, it really puts things in perspective. Also, that S. Hawking link Kseniya brought up a few posts above is a pretty good read.