Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. WE HAVE KILLED HIM - you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, foreward, in all direction? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light candles in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.
[Friedrich Nietzsche]
PZ Myers' Own Original, Cosmic, and Eccentric Analogy for How the Genome Works -OR- High Geekology
Pycnogonid tagmosis and echoes of the Cambrian
I think I despise anti-environmentalists as much as I do anti-evolutionists
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« Historical contingency in the evolution of E. coli | Main | Pointless poll or serious survey? »
Category: Humor
Posted on: June 11, 2008 8:55 AM, by PZ Myers
Something is wrong on the internet.
It should be "complexity", not "purity", and the arrow should point to the left. And obviously it should be arranged so that the biologist is on top — the others don't have a cephalopod.
Comments
The psychologist looks a bit like Richard Wiseman.
Posted by: Brendon Brewer | June 11, 2008 8:57 AM
I think it's a wonderful thing that Biologist has become synonymous with "has a cephalopod" in popular culture. Way to leave your mark PZ!
Posted by: HumanisticJones | June 11, 2008 8:59 AM
Says the photo comment.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 11, 2008 9:00 AM
And that's not even how you hold an octopus! Everyone knows you grab it by the scruff of it's neck... just like the mothers do to the babies. Duh.
Posted by: mlf | June 11, 2008 9:09 AM
Y'know, I actually just read a book describing how the humanities go off on the left.
Posted by: Robin Z | June 11, 2008 9:15 AM
Ha! Except that when biology needs to really get to grips with the details of complexity it turns itself into mathematics - and then only usually stuff happening in finite dimensional spaces (pfft trivial). Face it biologists, we own your squid-hugging arses.
Posted by: Matt Heath | June 11, 2008 9:20 AM
As a hopeful-physicist, I must say this puts into comic form exactly how I always thought.
*runs*
Posted by: Nick Tacik | June 11, 2008 9:21 AM
Could be a bit more discriminating among the mathematicians - after all, a proof theorist or category theorist isn't going to dirty their hands with actual numbers!
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 11, 2008 9:24 AM
I love XKCD. This is one of my favorites: http://xkcd.com/327/ :)
Posted by: Richbank | June 11, 2008 9:25 AM
By the way, if you hover your mouse over the comic, you get a little extra
Posted by: Richbank | June 11, 2008 9:26 AM
Engineers should be at the bottom, we are the true bastard children.
Posted by: Raymond | June 11, 2008 9:27 AM
Whoo, XKCD! Now I've seen that one twice in the same day!
(Yes, I'm a fanboy...)
Posted by: vitaminbook | June 11, 2008 9:28 AM
Looks about right to us mathematicians. If I had any friends I'd send a copy to the ones who are sociologists.
Thank goodness none of those dirty-handed applied mathematicians slipped in there!
Posted by: Zeno | June 11, 2008 9:28 AM
Nick Gotts @#8 Well if they can get away with number theorist avoid mentioning SPECIFIC numbers. Category theory has the problem of leaking into computer-sciencey usefulness.
Posted by: Matt Heath | June 11, 2008 9:31 AM
I particularly enjoy (and am representitive of)
http://xkcd.com/386/
Posted by: Brendan S | June 11, 2008 9:32 AM
Posted by: Xerxes | June 11, 2008 9:33 AM
#16 wins.
Thread over.
Posted by: Brendan S | June 11, 2008 9:34 AM
This is just the kind of thing my engineer brother always says to taunt my biologist self. My Mom once shot back with, "Fine. Next time you get sick, I'm taking your ass to a physicist, since they're so much better."
That, and he's always emailing me for aquarium advice. Couldn't he just apply some of his physics?
Posted by: DeNatured | June 11, 2008 9:38 AM
And fiction is just applied sociology.
Lit majors rule!
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 11, 2008 9:39 AM
@#19: Dammit! Maths is applied fiction: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics/
x is applied y isn't transitive!
Posted by: Matt Heath | June 11, 2008 9:42 AM
Shouldn't the thread title be "Someone is wrong on the internet" ?
http://xkcd.com/386/
Posted by: Chief | June 11, 2008 9:43 AM
Richbank wrote:
Hey, that's my favorite! Information security is my field.Posted by: Wicked Lad | June 11, 2008 9:46 AM
No cephalopods, you say?
Well, that's not *entirely* true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQUID
Posted by: Ast | June 11, 2008 9:49 AM
It's disgusting that Engineers are left out. It's all very well being a theorist, but unless Engineers put the theory to practice, human society would still effectively be in the Middle Ages.
There, that felt better.
Posted by: Richard Harris | June 11, 2008 9:49 AM
I love irony. The Google Ads that are embedded in some webpages are too perfect.
At the freedictionary webpage for SIWOTI (http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/Someone+Is+Wrong+on+the+Internet+(PZ+Myers)), the first two ads are for "Proof for Creation: 301 Startling Proofs and Prophecies Proving that God Exists" and "Creation Science: Visual PowerPoint presentations proving Earth was Created by God"
Yes indeed, someone is wrong on the internet.
Posted by: Chief | June 11, 2008 9:51 AM
Sorry PZ, Randall has it right again, just like in http://xkcd.com/242/
Posted by: Nicole | June 11, 2008 9:52 AM
intriguing.
Posted by: alex | June 11, 2008 9:53 AM
I'm with Zeno on this. And also with PZ. Anything to wind up those damn physicists - they even had a go at Charles Darwin.
Posted by: Bob O'H | June 11, 2008 9:54 AM
I had a mathematician friend who always told me that statistics is just the bastard child of probability theory.... I think we biologists always get the short end of the stick.
Posted by: katie | June 11, 2008 9:54 AM
Engineers may at the the bottom of that ladder, but keep in mind how the rest of them starve and freeze to death without us ;)
Posted by: alcari | June 11, 2008 9:55 AM
Looking at the chart....fuck all y'all.
[/grumpy sociologist]
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 11, 2008 9:56 AM
Note the sociologist ignoring them all entirely. She clearly has more important things to do :).
Posted by: SC | June 11, 2008 9:56 AM
Heehee! As a mathematics & physics student, I wholeheartedly agree with every aspect of this comic. ;)
And, there's a difference between Fictionalism and Fiction, #20. Fictionalism is, IMO, crackheaded anyway because it assumes that mathematical ideas must be tangible. (Look ma, look at that 4!) Well, not really. But it just seems like a big cult of mathematicians who try to screw up the rules of math by claiming that since it's a set of abstract principles, it cannot exist in this universe.
Posted by: Chironex | June 11, 2008 9:57 AM
As a pure mathematician, I can not find any fault with the cartoon...except maybe they should have put an applied mathematician next to the physicist.
Biologist may have cephalopods, but topologically cephalopods are just spheres, which are kind of boring.
Posted by: Mobius | June 11, 2008 9:57 AM
If you drew a bell curve over the line, you'd have a pretty accurate representation of popularity at parties.
Posted by: InnerBrat | June 11, 2008 9:58 AM
Matt Heath@14. *Sigh* True. Surely there must be some branch of mathematics which has no applications whatever? Ah! I have a proof!
Define uselessness theory as the branch of mathematics which studies the relationships between all those branches of mathematics that have no application. Then:
(1) Assume there are no branches of mathematics which have no applications whatever.
(2) Then uselessness theory has nothing to study
(3) Hence uselessness theory has no applications whatever, contradicting (1).
(4) Therefore (1) is false, since assuming it leads to a contradiction.
(5) Therefore there is some branch of mathematics which has no applications whatever, QED.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 11, 2008 10:03 AM
Nicole, I'd been looking for that one for a while, I just didn't have the patience to go through all of them - thanks!
Posted by: Richbank | June 11, 2008 10:06 AM
I always thought it was:
sociology is practical psychology,
psychology is practical biology,
biology is practical chemistry,
chemistry is practical physics,
physics is practical maths,
maths is practical philosophy
and philosophy is bullshit.
But as a geologist, I can pretty much add time and sit at any point on the line. My chosen point is next to the chemist.
#35: So being a geochemist makes me especially popular at parties :)
Posted by: Chris | June 11, 2008 10:08 AM
If you drew a bell curve over the line, you'd have a pretty accurate representation of popularity at parties.
Provided popularity is maximized with the cephalopod, I can get behind that. (Why does Firefox think "cephalopod" is a spelling error?)
Posted by: DeNatured | June 11, 2008 10:10 AM
Interesting. When I was in college there was a steam tunnel system that could be used to get between some of the buildings. In one of the larger sections on the floor was a similar reduction. I believe it actually started "Anthropology is applied sociology" and continued along as this one did but added two more after math. "Mathematics is applied philosophy" and "Philosophy is applied b***s***".
Take from that what you want. 8^)
Posted by: JackU | June 11, 2008 10:12 AM
If you drew a bell curve over the line, you'd have a pretty accurate representation of popularity at parties.
Yes, I understand that those naughty chemists can be quite popular party guests....
Posted by: Peter Ashby | June 11, 2008 10:12 AM
Chironex@#33: Honestly, I just wanted to make a joke about transitivity. I like jokes about transitivity.
Posted by: Matt Heath | June 11, 2008 10:13 AM
Pshaw! Clearly, since geology uses elements of biology, chemistry, physics, math, and (if you're into hazard management or public outreach) sociology and psychology, we're so far beyond the mathematicians that we're off the screen. :)
Posted by: Tuff Cookie | June 11, 2008 10:14 AM
I studied meteorology and atmospheric chemistry in grad school, so I guess that would have put me somewhere between the chemist and the physicist.
Now I just write about scientists, so I don't know where I sit now...
Posted by: astroande | June 11, 2008 10:18 AM
@#36,
But then #2 is false, and the whole thing falls apart anyway. Good example of the Liar's Paradox :)
And for all you haters, I like my Applied Math.
Posted by: Numerical Thief | June 11, 2008 10:18 AM
@Tuff Cookie #43: Nah, we're completely mixed up, using everything, so therefore landing us at the exact median point and therefore making us the life of the party (#35). Our science does, after all, rock by definition.
Posted by: Chris | June 11, 2008 10:18 AM
Chemists have unfair advantages at partying.
Unless you're one of those perverts who get high on non-manifold spaces.
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | June 11, 2008 10:21 AM
Argh, now I just write about science, though I suppose that includes writing about scientists too...
Posted by: astroande | June 11, 2008 10:21 AM
Russell and you are BOTH right, PZ. With the arrow pointing right and the label being Purity, or the arrow pointing left and the label being Complexity, either way the characters are lined up correctly.
Posted by: David | June 11, 2008 10:24 AM
Attributed to Dave Barry:
"Psychology is really biology, biology is really chemistry, chemistry is really physics, physics is really math, and math is really hard."
Don't you at least want to start with a torus? Mollusks have a through gut.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 11, 2008 10:25 AM
If you drew a bell curve over the line, you'd have a pretty accurate representation of popularity at parties.
What are parties?
Posted by: Richard Harris | June 11, 2008 10:26 AM
#45: Actually in the form of proof I don't think that matters because 2 only appears as a consequence of 1. It is indeed the usual form of a proof by contradiction.
So I don't think it's a Liar's Paradox. It's more like the proof that there is something interesting about each natural number; it fails to hold because it refers to things which aren't well defined in set theory.
Posted by: Matt Heath | June 11, 2008 10:28 AM
@Nick #36
No, your #3 could be, Thus uselessness theory does not actually exist.
It doesn't exist just because you defined it.
Oops, there I go being all applied-math again. O well, I am in InfoSec and 327 is the best XKCD of all time, yes.
Posted by: David | June 11, 2008 10:29 AM
Nah. Anthropology is a branch of biology.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 11, 2008 10:29 AM
The problem is there's a lot of scientific/theoretical disciplines that don't fit on the scale. This is an emotionally painful subject to us linguists, because most people would group us with the sociologists, when really we have more math than most biologists (which is arguable, but we certainly have a better logical foundation than psychologists, by my experience with cross-listed classes). And then there's natural language processing...
Maybe it shouldn't be a scale, but a loop, like the horseshoe they tell you about in high school history: extreme fascism and extreme socialism bend around to be nearly the same thing. Sociology would be at the wishy-washy bottom, hanging off the horseshoe, and the side opposite the current scale would step through anthropology, speech & hearing, linguistics, speech & language processing, computer science, and finally computer engineering looping back to depend on physics. Other disciplines could be added in the third dimension.
Posted by: anon | June 11, 2008 10:31 AM
@45 - Not so! It is (1) that leads to the contradiction, so (1) is false and from this it follows that (2) is false, but everything fits if we assume that there is some branch of mathematics for uselessness theory to study other than itself.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | June 11, 2008 10:34 AM
I thought about emailing this to you when I saw it this morning, but I figured you'd already have received it about 16,201 times. I'll have to wait till PZ references pop up in the more obscure web-comics I read.
Posted by: Discgrace | June 11, 2008 10:35 AM
Pshaw! Clearly, since geology uses elements of biology, chemistry, physics, math, and (if you're into hazard management or public outreach) sociology and psychology, we're so far beyond the mathematicians that we're off the screen. :)
uhm...YES
(and of course we could go into the fact that the biology that we deal with in paleontology has been mucked around with and...well it goes on)
Posted by: Josh | June 11, 2008 10:35 AM
@#52
You're right, it is a proof by contradiction, but I think it's also a form of the Liar's Paradox in a sense because it's self-referencing (since Uselessness Theory is a branch of Mathematics). But it's a bit tangled and I could be wrong. It's happened before.
Posted by: Numerical Thief | June 11, 2008 10:38 AM
Well, I'm not sure that complexity would order things in exactly reverse order. Humans aren't necessarily any more complex than other species, and the study of the human brain itself is not necessarily more complex than the study of how humans interact with society.
However, if you used "increasing bias" to order them, the order would be exactly reversed from "purity". I've become pretty convinced that the closer we get to studying how humans interact with one another, it becomes more and more difficult to remove our biases that have been built into us by millions of years of evolution. My argument is thus: because evolution doesn't care that what we think is accurate, but instead only cares that the actions that we perform lead to reproductive success, it only makes sense that some of the time, we will have evolved to see things not as they are, but in a way that improves our reproductive success.
For example, consider this: there is no such thing as free will. And yet, we consider criminals as having chosen their actions, and find excuses if we think that their actions were somehow unchosen. This is a really good evolutionary trick, as it means that we are likely to be angry at people that are likely to be repeat offenders. But it isn't really true: free will is simply an illusion. This belief, though a good trick for reproductive success, is simply incorrect.
Because of this and other examples, I'm convinced that our own evolution has made it really, really difficult for people studying human behavior, in particular, to remove their own biases. It becomes easier as things get further and further from humans, and more and more abstract.
Posted by: Jason Dick | June 11, 2008 10:38 AM
What's the joke? What's so funny about a bunch of nerds standing in a field?
And why are they standing on those soybean rows?
Posted by: Farmer Joe | June 11, 2008 10:40 AM
If the mathematician in the village does the calculations for everyone who doesn't do his own calculations, then who does the mathematician's calculations? Is that useless enough?
Posted by: Richard Harris | June 11, 2008 10:41 AM
@ #56
Ah, now you've gone and fixed it all up! Now what I am gonna argue about on the internet when I should be doing solving equations for my adviser!
Posted by: Numerical Thief | June 11, 2008 10:41 AM
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | June 11, 2008 10:42 AM
I'm pretty sure an amendment to Godwin's Law was passed outlawing the use if the phrase "stamp collecting" when discussing academic disciplines.
Posted by: Matt Heath | June 11, 2008 10:45 AM
@#62
The engineer.
Posted by: Numerical Thief | June 11, 2008 10:45 AM
XKCD doesn't like when someone is wrong on the internet:
http://xkcd.com/386/
Posted by: Beth | June 11, 2008 10:52 AM
I'd guess applied mathematicians aren't visible because they --- the fools! --- went a-playing with i (the imaginary unit, not I) and are now located three feet behind the head of whoever's looking at the picture.
Approximately, that is.
Just a thought from the right side of the scale.
Posted by: Masks of Eris | June 11, 2008 10:56 AM
@65, What, now we can't talk of anything other than physics eh? Well that suits me just fine hehe.
Posted by: Coriolis | June 11, 2008 10:58 AM
"We sat on a crate of oranges and thought what good men most biologists are, the tenors of the scientific world -- temperamental, moody, lecherous, loud-laughing, and healthy. Once in a while one comes on the other kind -- what used in the university to be called a "dry-ball" -- but such men are not really biologists." ... "Your true biologist will sing you a song as loud and off-key as will a blacksmith, for he knows that morals are too often diagnostic of prostatitis and stomach ulcers. Sometimes he may proliferate a little too much in all directions, but he is as easy to kill as any other organism, and meanwhile he is very good company, and at least he does not confuse a low hormone productivity with moral ethics."
Posted by: windy | June 11, 2008 11:01 AM
The truth is, geologists don't care about purity. They care where the beer is. So the reason they're 'off the scale' is that they're in the kitchen, raiding the fridge.
Posted by: Chris Rowan | June 11, 2008 11:05 AM
Chris Rowan said:
. . . only to trip over the unconcious paleontologists who got there first!
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | June 11, 2008 11:10 AM
Notice that the Sociologist is looking left at someone.... an Economist, perhaps?
Posted by: Nick | June 11, 2008 11:11 AM
People, please. There is no need to argue.
Psychology is the supreme science from which to base an accurate understanding of reality. If you don't understand how people think and percieve the world, how can you be sure they are coming up with accurate representatons of the universe?
Mathematicians use their cognitive ability to...do whatever the hell it is they do. Psychology, as the study of cognition, is therefore superior, as it enables you to discern how exactly it is that mathemeticians use their brains to fiddle with numbers. :-)
Posted by: R | June 11, 2008 11:15 AM
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | June 11, 2008 11:16 AM
#68: Hmm some of the people to the left of the picture will be getting all Lacanian over "playing with i".
Posted by: Matt Heath | June 11, 2008 11:16 AM
Joke:
So this British civil servant who has held the same job for over a decade finally storms red-faced and trembling into his supervisor's office. "That's IT!" he cries, "I am filing a grievance!! My career has been held back because, when I filled out my employment papers, I put my political affiliation as 'socialist!'"
His supervisor looks at him in horror, and finally stammers out, "Oh. Dear. There has been a terrible mistake. We thought you said 'sociologist'!"
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 11, 2008 11:25 AM
Note to self: found field of cephalosociology.
Posted by: Steve in MI | June 11, 2008 11:26 AM
The truth is, geologists don't care about purity. They care where the beer is. So the reason they're 'off the scale' is that they're in the kitchen, raiding the fridge.
Chris, shut up...
Don't remind them that we control the beer...there is hardly enough for us.
Posted by: Josh | June 11, 2008 11:28 AM
Of course many would say that philosophy is prior to all of those. Which is why psychology and biology count with respect to math and physics (good philosophy takes account of our being animals), as well.
Regardless of all that, it would seem to me that the DI IDiots would mostly approve of the cartoon. Dembski seems to think that math without biological data really should dictate what biology does. Some IDiots would agree with what I said about philosophy as well, although I'd count their philosophy as little more than ancient gibberish, the stuff we studied primarily to understand what was wrong with philosophy in the past (and we studied Heidegger to find out what is wrong with so much present philosophy--the profs didn't present it that way, though).
It would be nice if sociology and psychology were just applied biology, as they'd be more exact that way. Not yet.
But biology is hardly just chemistry (anybody who recognizes the importance of evolution should know that), as huge as that is. It's physics in the region of the electromagnetic force, with some gravity thrown in. Applied physics it may be, yet physicists are finding the application of physics to biology more intriguing as time goes by. To be fair, that's partly because physics per se is not at all in its most interesting time period.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 11, 2008 11:30 AM
This is the funniest xkcd for a while, and ah loves it!
I'd say reversing the direction of the arrow and labelling it as complexity doesn't work - why, for anything supposedly more complex than maths (no imaginary unit jokes, honest), just model it mathematically and by gum, you've got something just as "complex" however, you want to define it.
(...can you tell I'm a mathematician?)
Posted by: geb | June 11, 2008 11:32 AM
Well, without artists there's be no damned cartoon! Yay for artists! We rule!
Posted by: AndyD | June 11, 2008 11:35 AM
@ #72 (and 71): We science journalist would've already gotten hammered, passed out, woken up with the hangover, and reaching for the beer the beer to stop the pounding in our heads.
Posted by: astroande | June 11, 2008 11:36 AM
'doesn't have a cephalopod': ha! It's the new 'hasn't got a clue' 'doesn't know his arse from his elbow' or 'doesn't know where his towel is.'
Posted by: Peter Mc | June 11, 2008 11:37 AM
Dangit, #38 beat me to it - I came here specifically to point out that mathematics is merely applied philosophy.
(Mathematicians sure as smug about that tautological language[1] they spend their time studying, aren't they?...)
[1] (Wait, is "tautological language" redundant? Is there such a thing as a non-tautological language?)
Posted by: Epicanis | June 11, 2008 11:43 AM
Of course Biologists should be on top, as obviously if you did not have Biology you would not have the others.
Posted by: Holbach | June 11, 2008 11:49 AM
windy (#70), would you mind sourcing those quotes? My first two guesses are Steinbeck and Carr.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 11, 2008 11:49 AM
I'm surprised at how mathematically inclined people are hanging out on a biology website.
@#80,
I would agree with your point about physics. Anecdotally, a good number of the physicists I know work on or around biological phenomena. I'm currently sitting in the physics building (I'm a Math Student) in my office staring at a paper on the evolution of the ICK that I used in a group talk last week.
As for Dembski, well, good Math is never wrong, but garbage in gets garbage out.
Posted by: Numerical Thief | June 11, 2008 11:53 AM
I was hoping someone would take a crack at it... You got it, it's Steinbeck! In The Log from the Sea of Cortez.
Posted by: windy | June 11, 2008 11:54 AM
That's not an Octopus, it's a chicken. No doubt the biologist can kill, gut, draw, pluck, quarter and fry the little capon before you could say "ontology recapitualtes gynocology". Or something like that.
Posted by: Mooser, Bummertown | June 11, 2008 12:12 PM
... And logic is underneath them all digging a hole.
Posted by: Spinoza | June 11, 2008 12:14 PM
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 11, 2008 12:18 PM
"And fiction is just applied sociology."
No, that would be Economics.
Posted by: JJR | June 11, 2008 12:25 PM
Where do the theoretical biologists go? Are they just a probability distribution of impurity?
Posted by: frog | June 11, 2008 12:28 PM
I like mark pilgrim's take on this:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2008/06/11/purity
Posted by: John | June 11, 2008 12:29 PM
Josh:
Don't worry, Josh. Make friends with a microbiologist, we can make more beer!
Posted by: MikeG | June 11, 2008 12:29 PM
Sven #87:
http://xkcd.com/285/
Posted by: OrchidGrowinMan | June 11, 2008 12:32 PM
What's so great about being on top, PZ? Maybe you should ask your wife; or your daughter...
Posted by: Kimpatsu | June 11, 2008 12:43 PM
Do all of you beer swillers imagine the horse shit gets shoveled onto the hops vines by rocket scientists? ;)
Posted by: Patricia | June 11, 2008 12:49 PM
What, no geologists?
Then again, I guess we use EVERYTHING else. OK, maybe not psychology.
Posted by: octopod | June 11, 2008 1:03 PM
Business analyst. I'm gettin out'a here!
Posted by: Tom | June 11, 2008 1:08 PM
Don't worry, Josh. Make friends with a microbiologist, we can make more beer!
*extends hand*
Hi, Mike. I'm Josh. I do rocks and dead shit.
Posted by: Josh | June 11, 2008 1:09 PM
I feel slighted. There's no linguist!
Posted by: