Pharyngula

Posted by: IAMB | June 27, 2008 5:28 PM

I love that commercial. Boom de yada.

Posted by: Joe Z. | June 27, 2008 5:29 PM

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!

Posted by: Steve_C | June 27, 2008 5:30 PM

Not such a difficult concept is it?

We are all made of star(dust)s.

Boom de yada.

Posted by: Carlie | June 27, 2008 5:39 PM

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.

Posted by: Colin M | June 27, 2008 5:42 PM

+1 for making today's xkcd make sense. (No TV here either.)

Posted by: Julie K | June 27, 2008 5:48 PM

But what was with the guy blowing the house up in the middle there?

BOOM de yada!

Posted by: ThirdMonkey | June 27, 2008 5:53 PM

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)? :(

Posted by: Derek | June 27, 2008 5:55 PM

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.

Posted by: Sir Jebbington | June 27, 2008 5:58 PM

Wonderful.

Posted by: Jesse | June 27, 2008 5:59 PM

Hm, yeah, XKCD does make a lot more sense now...

... but I think Sagan said it better than Discovery Channel.

Posted by: steve8282 | June 27, 2008 6:05 PM

Wasn't the " Great White" actually an Orca?

Posted by: Jon Voisey (the Angry Astronomer) | June 27, 2008 6:08 PM

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".

Posted by: Sacoglossan | June 27, 2008 6:16 PM

@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

Posted by: Rosie Redfield | June 27, 2008 6:20 PM

Too bad it's pretty much a man's world....

Posted by: Holbach | June 27, 2008 6:23 PM

Amplexus @ 19 I like that! Has a nice "Universal" touch to it!

Posted by: ThirdMonkey | June 27, 2008 6:25 PM

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.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | June 27, 2008 6:28 PM

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.

Posted by: Ragutis | June 27, 2008 6:30 PM

Great series of commercials. And that tune sticks in your head.

Posted by: Doog | June 27, 2008 6:35 PM

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.

Posted by: dogheaven | June 27, 2008 6:37 PM

Boomdeeadda, Boomdeeadda, Boomdeeadda, I love CURIOSITY.
Thanks for this little happy moment.

Posted by: catta | June 27, 2008 6:45 PM

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).

Posted by: Carlie | June 27, 2008 6:56 PM

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.

Posted by: Mark | June 27, 2008 7:03 PM

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?

Posted by: Kel | June 27, 2008 7:22 PM

The world is just awesome

Posted by: Alex | June 27, 2008 7:25 PM

"...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.

Posted by: Alex | June 27, 2008 7:32 PM

"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.

Posted by: Mark | June 27, 2008 7:46 PM

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.

Posted by: truth machine | June 27, 2008 7:50 PM

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: Gus | June 27, 2008 7:51 PM

@ David Marjanović (#45)
I hope that you can forgive a reader who hasn't QUITE been here as long as you oh great one :/

Posted by: Gus | June 27, 2008 7:56 PM

@ #54

Isnt Ghost Hunters the SciFi channel NOT Discovery?

Posted by: Crudely Wrott | June 27, 2008 8:01 PM

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

Posted by: truth machine | June 27, 2008 8:09 PM

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).

Posted by: Patricia | June 27, 2008 8:17 PM

#59 - Ah, but a slutty idiot.
There, all better. :)

Posted by: Patricia | June 27, 2008 8:24 PM

Hey...how come w00+ and Etha are both missing at the same time?

Posted by: John Morales | June 27, 2008 8:28 PM

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.

Posted by: truth machine | June 27, 2008 8:35 PM

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
?

Posted by: Jack Rawlinson | June 27, 2008 8:41 PM

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.

Posted by: Brian W. | June 27, 2008 8:44 PM

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.

Posted by: Patricia | June 27, 2008 8:56 PM

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".

Posted by: Alex | June 27, 2008 9:02 PM

"...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.

Posted by: truth machine | June 27, 2008 9:07 PM

OK, good point.

I didn't really mean it to be ... Dr. Evil and people like him are entirely fictional.

Posted by: Carlie | June 27, 2008 9:14 PM

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.

Posted by: Alex | June 27, 2008 9:32 PM

Oh. Well. I knew all that, except, I just assumed you were already in Singapore. My bad. I apologize.

Posted by: truth machine | June 27, 2008 9:40 PM

an example of humans asserting their will on something

Um, this is a science blog, right?

Posted by: truth machine | June 27, 2008 9:49 PM

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.

Posted by: truth machine | June 27, 2008 10:03 PM

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.

Posted by: mandrake | June 27, 2008 10:11 PM

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.

Posted by: SC | June 27, 2008 10:13 PM

http://www.geocities.com/youth4sa/war-ecology.html

The ecological consequences of modern warfare would make a good subject for a Discovery-Channel series.

Posted by: Anna lemma | June 27, 2008 10:17 PM

No, that's how you frame science. Take that Nisbet & Mooney.

Posted by: Anna Lemma | June 27, 2008 10:19 PM

That should be:
Now, that's how you frame science. Damn that post button.

Posted by: truth machine | June 27, 2008 10:23 PM

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!"

Posted by: SC | June 27, 2008 10:40 PM

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.

Posted by: truth machine | June 27, 2008 10:53 PM

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.

Posted by: SC | June 27, 2008 11:05 PM

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.

Posted by: john | June 27, 2008 11:12 PM

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

Posted by: truth machine | June 27, 2008 11:21 PM

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.

Posted by: mandrake | June 27, 2008 11:26 PM

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.

Posted by: truth machine | June 27, 2008 11:28 PM

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.)

Posted by: truth machine | June 27, 2008 11:32 PM

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.

Posted by: SC | June 27, 2008 11:37 PM

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).

Posted by: SC | June 27, 2008 11:42 PM

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.

Posted by: SC | June 27, 2008 11:51 PM

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.

Posted by: SC | June 27, 2008 11:58 PM

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?

Posted by: maakuz | June 28, 2008 12:02 AM

This is, hands down, THE best commercial I have ever seen.
Boom-de-yada!

Posted by: Cheezits | June 28, 2008 12:05 AM

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.

Posted by: grendelkhan | June 28, 2008 12:09 AM

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.

Posted by: truth machine | June 28, 2008 12:17 AM

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.

Posted by: truth machine | June 28, 2008 12:30 AM

I believe.

Yes, that seems to be what it's about.

Posted by: SC | June 28, 2008 12:43 AM

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?

Posted by: SC | June 28, 2008 12:56 AM

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.

Posted by: andyo | June 28, 2008 1:02 AM

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?

Posted by: truth machine | June 28, 2008 1:09 AM

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.

Posted by: truth machine | June 28, 2008 1:21 AM

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.

Posted by: SC | June 28, 2008 1:28 AM

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.

Posted by: SC | June 28, 2008 1:32 AM

Good grief - I was referring to my own previous statement

"If I think you're wrong, I say so."

not to anything you said.

Posted by: SC | June 28, 2008 1:41 AM

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.

Posted by: truth machine | June 28, 2008 1:49 AM

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.

Posted by: truth machine | June 28, 2008 1:56 AM

given the complexity of human motivation

One doesn't even need to consider human motivation, just how weapons are actually used.

Thick. So thick.

Posted by: SC | June 28, 2008 1:59 AM

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.

Posted by: John Morales | June 28, 2008 2:06 AM

TM:

It's Carlie who put the focus there.

Well, yeah, but there it has remained. Would it have if her contention were baseless?

Posted by: truth machine | June 28, 2008 2:17 AM

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.

Posted by: John Morales | June 28, 2008 2:26 AM

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!

Posted by: MikeM | June 28, 2008 3:13 AM

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.

Posted by: Bride of Shrek | June 28, 2008 4:42 AM

Hey

I love Shrek

Posted by: andyo | June 28, 2008 4:52 AM

By the way, if you love Shrek so much, why don't you marry him?

Get it... GET IT???

...um, hello?

Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 28, 2008 5:47 AM

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."

Posted by: Bride of Shrek | June 28, 2008 6:53 AM

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.

Posted by: Carlie | June 28, 2008 7:10 AM

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.

Posted by: negentropyeater | June 28, 2008 7:32 AM

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.

Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 28, 2008 7:40 AM

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.

Posted by: Julie K | June 28, 2008 7:53 AM

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.

Posted by: truth machine | June 28, 2008 8:05 AM

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.

Posted by: truth machine | June 28, 2008 8:11 AM

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.

Posted by: truth machine | June 28, 2008 8:16 AM

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.

Posted by: Holydust | June 28, 2008 8:19 AM

P.S. A lot of bellyaching in this thread. Quit bitching and enjoy it for what it is. I find it uplifting.

Posted by: Julie K | June 28, 2008 8:21 AM

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.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | June 28, 2008 8:28 AM

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.

Posted by: SC | June 28, 2008 8:32 AM

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.

Posted by: SC | June 28, 2008 8:39 AM

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.

Posted by: SC | June 28, 2008 8:45 AM

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.

Posted by: truth machine, OM | June 28, 2008 8:55 AM

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.

Posted by: SC | June 28, 2008 8:58 AM

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.

Posted by: SC | June 28, 2008 9:04 AM

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.

Posted by: negentropyeater | June 28, 2008 9:29 AM

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 ?

Posted by: Fernando Magyar | June 28, 2008 9:56 AM

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.

Posted by: SC | June 28, 2008 10:14 AM

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.

Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | June 28, 2008 10:38 AM

When they sing, "I love when great whites fly," why do they show footage of an orca rather than a great white shark?

Posted by: negentropyeater | June 28, 2008 11:42 AM

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 ?

Posted by: SC | June 28, 2008 12:16 PM

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.

Posted by: andyo | June 28, 2008 1:09 PM

Hmm, since we're talking about XKCD.

And SC:

Argumentum ex culo.

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!

Posted by: SC | June 28, 2008 1:29 PM

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. :)

Posted by: andyo | June 28, 2008 1:51 PM

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."

Posted by: SC | June 28, 2008 2:06 PM

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.

Posted by: negentropyeater | June 28, 2008 2:18 PM

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"

Posted by: themadlolscientist | June 28, 2008 2:46 PM

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!

Posted by: andyo | June 28, 2008 3:05 PM

Maybe that's right after all, SC.

Posted by: SC | June 28, 2008 3:30 PM

"Dr. Myers' squid is an artful squid"
"Dr. Myers' squid is a bellicose squid"
"Dr. Myers' squid is a curious squid"...

Posted by: andyo | June 28, 2008 9:55 PM

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!

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).

Posted by: K | June 29, 2008 1:31 AM

(Thanks for that link.)

Posted by: andyo | June 29, 2008 2:28 AM

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.

Posted by: andyo | June 29, 2008 3:26 AM

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.

Posted by: BT Murtagh | June 29, 2008 11:54 PM

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.

Posted by: andyo | June 30, 2008 2:39 AM

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.