…and this is a 
Barbara Bradley Hagerty has lately been polluting NPR with a series of superficial fluff pieces on religion — I've just groaned and turned the radio off when she comes on. She also has a book out, Fingerprints of God: The Search for the Science of Spirituality, and just the title is sufficient to tell you it's noise to avoid. If that's not enough, though, you can also read a revealing review of the book.
That is why the work of a religion writer is different than that of a science reporter or a sportswriter. Most journalists — or at least most good journalists — are supposed to question everything. They are supposed to write about facts.
Religion writers, on the other hand, could care less about the facts - or at least about the basic facts. They write about faith, not facts.
Heh. Yes. Exactly.
And the conclusion of her book?
Nevertheless, Hagerty concludes by erring on the side of amorphous belief, concluding that "the language of our genes, the chemistry of our bodies, and the wiring of our brains - these are the handiwork of One who longs to be known."
If he longs to be known, why not just come out and say howdy? Is this god shy or something? Otherwise, this is just the standard Intelligent Design creationist malarkey: something that is complex has the appearance of design because a) people conflate complexity with intent, and b) people have brains that have evolved to explain the world in terms of agency, therefore it must be designed by an intelligent agent for a purpose.
It's a good review. It convinced me that I don't need to read the book, ever.
Comments
Posted by: Vole | June 19, 2009 8:39 AM
Why do Americans say "could care less" when they mean "couldn't care less"? It's very confusing for more logical people, like us Brits.
Posted by: Felix | June 19, 2009 8:41 AM
couln't care less as in could NOT care less.
dammit.
I'm not even a native speaker and I easily see that it makes no sense to write 'could care less' when meaning the opposite.
Now, about 'inflammable'... :)
Posted by: Ranson | June 19, 2009 8:42 AM
I've been having the same reaction when those segments come up. I think I actually beeped my horn while sitting at a light the other day because I needed to beat the stupid back out of my head, and the steering wheel was the only tool available.
Posted by: Dr.Woody
|
June 19, 2009 8:43 AM
Babs Hagg is such a trembling slag.
You wouldn't need anything more than the name and a passing familiarity with the feculence that flows therefrom to know it would be worth ignoring...
Has she been interviewed on NPR yet? That's one I'm gonna miss...
Posted by: Felix | June 19, 2009 8:44 AM
and of course I had a typo in a post correcting someone's grammar. it's the rule of teh internets. *sigh*
Posted by: Ron | June 19, 2009 8:50 AM
Somehow, this pisses me off more than the blatant BS going down at Liberty U. or the Creationist museum. Erring on the side of woo. Let's take a journey together - and conclude in the end that it need not change who we are. Let's dig in our heels and pray away the cognitive dissonance.
:headdesk:
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 19, 2009 8:57 AM
Religion writers, on the other hand, could care less about the facts
No, they don't care at all now, so they really, really couldn't. (Yes I know others have already pointed out the idiocy of "could care less", but we just have to keep pointing and laughing at Americans until they drop this particular piece of nonsense.)
Posted by: Chris Hughes | June 19, 2009 8:57 AM
Why does she (and many other Americans) say that she 'could care less about...' when what she means is that she couldn't care less?
Beats me...
Posted by: Carlie | June 19, 2009 8:59 AM
*also raises hand*
I've tried to ease up on the blood pressure spiking with bad grammar, but "could care less" is still one that makes me see red.
Posted by: Hypocee | June 19, 2009 9:07 AM
I'm American and I don't - it's always bugged me too.
Posted by: tsg | June 19, 2009 9:09 AM
re "could care less": You knew what he meant, so what's the problem?
Posted by: Zeno | June 19, 2009 9:10 AM
I saw the review in the San Francisco Chronicle and grimaced at the conclusion, in which Hagerty is seen scuttling for cover as she concludes that religion deserves special deference and, despite a complete lack of evidence, accepts that a deity of some sort must be lurking amidst the incense and candles (it's a smoke and light show, lady!). I'll admit, though, that the line about "the handiwork of One who longs to be known" gave me an excellent laugh. God longs for us to recognize him, but is obviously incompetent. (How about a quick magic trick?)
Posted by: SC, OM | June 19, 2009 9:13 AM
That a fact, Hagerty?
@ #4:
Possibly a new record.
Posted by: Aquaria | June 19, 2009 9:14 AM
Babs is notorious for being the stupidest "personality" on NPR. A few years ago, her idea of a representative sample of Catholics was to go to a weekday mass, and ask who those people were voting for. Worse still, the three she interviewed were well-known right wing RC activists.
She also belongs (or belonged--don't know if it's still true) ) to the World Journalism Institute, an organization that has this as its mission statement:
In other words, she's a Liar for Jebus. Never trust a word she says, and anytime she's on. complain, complain, complain to NPR about what a bigoted lying moron she is.
Posted by: JJR | June 19, 2009 9:22 AM
The last person I dated didn't go to church or believe in the biblical god, but still clung to a vague idea of a just and beneficent god, and as she explained it to me, basically her thinking followed the "god of the gaps" style of argument. I tried to explain to her the illogical nature of that position, and further explained that where she posited a "God" I called "grounds for further research". Saying "I don't know" is being honest. Saying "god-did-it", isn't.
Actually accepting "God-did-it" as an answer is intellectual suicide.
Posted by: Aquaria | June 19, 2009 9:22 AM
Argh. I just remembered where I read about Haggerty, and saw that I didn't get the WJI affiliation right. She didn't belong to it, but she "taught a class" there. I suppose one could teach a class to a bunch of bible thumpers playing at Clark Kent without realizing what they were about, but, somehow, that seems a bit...unlikely.
Here's the posting that discusses Haggerty's shoddy journalism: Babs the Hag
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 19, 2009 9:25 AM
re "could care less": You knew what he meant, so what's the problem? - tsg
a) It's just fucking stupid.
b) The first several times I came across it, I didn't know what was meant. Initially I assumed it was just a typo. Then I was looking for some interpretation of the context that would make it make sense as written. Then I realised (a).
Posted by: Tony | June 19, 2009 9:25 AM
No, PZ,you really mustn't suggest that God might be shy. For advice on appropriate attributes for God, look here.
Posted by: a lurker | June 19, 2009 9:26 AM
PZ are you claiming that the reviewer is including Hagerty with the following comment?: "Religion writers, on the other hand, could care less about the facts - or at least about the basic facts. They write about faith, not facts." He is clearly saying that Hagerty is an exception. I really doubt that Hagerty is an exception, but that is not the view of the person you quoted.
It is also clear that the "religion writers" referred to are of the newspaper (or other secular media) variety: those who are not allowed to offend any of the countless denominations and sects they cover. The reviewer was not aiming at those who are allowed to inject their personal beliefs and do risk offending by saying that someone is wrong. And this hardly restricted to religion writers.
When I what you quoted I was going to make this quote a killer Fark, etc. headline, but ethics prevent me from quoting in a way that I would consider to be out-of-context.
Posted by: JackC
|
June 19, 2009 9:27 AM
My local(ish) station took something really good off the air to replace it with this trash. Now I am forced - FORCED, I tells ya! - to listen to "Only a Game" on the other local(ish) stations.
It's a travesty of immense proportions. I really do not care for sports.
Either that, or I could just get out of bed on Saturdays.
Nah.
JC
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | June 19, 2009 9:30 AM
The relevant philosophical question, I think, is:
Can God create a universe where the evidence for him is so slim that not even he can believe in himself?
Posted by: Becca | June 19, 2009 9:36 AM
I love how both the first comment here and at the article are about the "could care less" phrase. It is certainly an error, probably becuase in some parts of the US, we sort of swallow n's an t's so "couldn't" sounds a lot like "could(un)" which is easily misheard as "could."
Anyway, her NPR segments have ruined my commute more than once. blech...
Posted by: jasper
|
June 19, 2009 9:37 AM
Vole (#1)
This American agrees completely.
This is one of my pet peves as a matter of fact. That and when people say "lie-berry" for the building that checks out books to the general public.
Posted by: 01jack | June 19, 2009 9:39 AM
@JC #20, who doesn't care for sports:
But Only a Game is a sports show for people who don't care for sports! Keep listening; its quirkiness will grow on you.
Re: Caring less:
Y'all that try to stand athwart language tilting at idioms look kinda foolish to the rest of us.
Posted by: Brother Sport | June 19, 2009 9:41 AM
Vole, Felix, Knockgoats, Chris, Carlie, Hypocee, I love you all. “I could care less” has pissed me off for years. I’m so happy I’m not the only one.
Posted by: Becca | June 19, 2009 9:41 AM
I love how both the first comment here and at the article are about the "could care less" phrase. It is certainly an error, probably becuase in some parts of the US, we sort of swallow n's an t's so "couldn't" sounds a lot like "could(un)" which is easily misheard as "could."
Anyway, her NPR segments have ruined my commute more than once. blech...
Posted by: tsg | June 19, 2009 9:43 AM
@Knockgoats, #17
Ah, I see. Well, you've certainly convinced me: it's stupid because Knockgoats says so. Thanks for clearing that up. :rolleyes:
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 19, 2009 9:46 AM
My wife and I lament the dumbing down of NPR. It started under Bush I when they started havin token "conservatives"--really libertarian wingnuts and religious ideologues give commentaries. I haven't even heard Kevin Phillips on there in years. He is a conservative who at least recognizes the existence of physical reality.
Now NPR is trying to embrace the latest gadgets and music and trends. It's kind of like going over to grandma's house and having her show you her new sexy back tatoo!
Posted by: Aquaria | June 19, 2009 9:47 AM
No, lurker, the problem is with the conclusion, which sort of supports the initial quote. Babs goes through all that stuff, questioning stuff, trying to be journalism-y, and ends up not relying on the facts at all. Her conclusion has zero to do with the facts.
That's why she's a hack and why she reveals herself as a Liar for Jebus.
FYI--Did anyone notice this from the review:
(Emphasis mine).
Need I say more about what this woman is, and why she cannot be trusted as a "reporter"--ever?
Posted by: jake | June 19, 2009 9:48 AM
Poor emo diety, he longs for attentions...
Posted by: Virgil | June 19, 2009 9:51 AM
Her website is truly puke-worthy. All kinds of fluffy crap about the "emerging science of spirituality" - WTF?
Anyway, Haggerty is the least of NPRs religious crimes. The much bigger issue is the show that's been destroying my Sunday mornings for years - "speaking of faith" with that dufus Krista Tippet. Now if they could just replace it with atheists talk radio (or CarTalk, or Priarie Home, or anything else) I'd be a happy camper.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 19, 2009 9:51 AM
Why is "could care less" dumb?
Well, how about because in the interest of saving a single syllable, it winds up stating the opposite of what the speaker actually means to say.
Compare to:
I wouldn't like to stick my hand into a Cuisinart.
vs.
I would like to stick my hand into a Cuisinart.
OR
I couldn't jump out of that window and fly.
vs.
I could jump out that window and fly.
Clearer?
Posted by: tsg | June 19, 2009 9:55 AM
Yeah, because we don't ever do that in the English language.
Posted by: Agoraphobic Kleptomanaic | June 19, 2009 9:58 AM
A few weeks back, on All things Considered, they did a week of "Science AND religion", featuring Hagg as the main reporter, recounting a story from her book each day.
It. Was. Awful.
I didn't catch all of them, but the jist of the stories would be something like: "Praying for 7 hours a day leads to increased brain activity in this area of the brain, which makes one feel more spiritual... Therefore, God."
Variations of this theme seemed to be what each story was. Buddhist Monks Meditating, Religious zealots praying for hours on end... you get the point.
Oh, and anecdotes. OH THE ANECDOTES they burns us.
One that stood out was about a woman on an operating table who had an "out of body experience" who heard the sounds around her that were going on, Like a "sawing sound" and the Eagles "Hotel California". The funniest part about this anecdote though, was Hagg interviwed the doctor doing the operation, and he said HE DIDN'T REMEMBER THE SPECIFICS and couldn't verify that Hotel California was actually playing while the lady was under!! However, the story was portrayed as "plausible".
This sort of garbage, along with Krista Tippits "Speaking of Faith" should be featured on The 700 Club, where it belongs.
Posted by: David Wiener
|
June 19, 2009 10:03 AM
I am quickly coming to the conclusion that the terms liberal and conservative are less and less important. The more critical divide is rational and irrational. I had thought that the Democrats and liberals, in general, were more in the rational camp.
Recent events (see Obama & Co.) are making me think otherwise. Religion has really infested both the democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives.
From now on I'm just a (hopefully) rational atheist. If a Democrat or liberal is woo-infested, then he/she won't have my support.
Posted by: Eli | June 19, 2009 10:04 AM
I just have to share this :
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/05/feds_sink_teeth_into_dentist.html
It's hilarious
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 19, 2009 10:04 AM
tsg@27,
How is it not stupid - other than sarcastically - to say the exact opposite of what you mean? Anyhow, I gave you the real reason - because it is a barrier to understanding for those whose first language is not American English.
tsg@33,
What is your point? You seem to be saying here that because something is done, it cannot be stupid. Which is... pretty stupid.
Posted by: tsg | June 19, 2009 10:05 AM
This sounds an awful lot like Reader's Digest article I saw a few years ago titled, "New Proof! Prayer Works!" that would have been more accurately titled "Yet More Anectdotes! People Think Prayer Works!"
Posted by: simplicio | June 19, 2009 10:05 AM
pet peeve alert:
"Religion writers, on the other hand, could care less about the facts - or at least about the basic facts. They write about faith, not facts."
It's COULDN'T care less.
Posted by: Epikt
|
June 19, 2009 10:05 AM
From the review:
and, later:
So--she suffers greatly from illness, then medicates, in direct violation of her religious dogma. Her health improves. She concludes that religion has a real, positive effect on physical health.
Marvelous.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 19, 2009 10:07 AM
tsg says, "Yeah, because we don't ever do that in the English language."
Well, intelligent people who care about being understood don't, regardless of what language they speak.
Posted by: Invigilator
|
June 19, 2009 10:12 AM
To all the prescriptivists (@1, 2, 7, 8, etc.)exercised about "I could care less": the phrase is mostly peculiar to North American English, and is indeed illogical, but it's an idiom, for heaven's sake, and is understood instantly to mean the opposite of its literal meaning, at least in North America.
Wouldn't think to find such a lot of literalists hanging out here.
Posted by: tsg | June 19, 2009 10:13 AM
@37
Your assertion, you back it up.
Shall we go through the list of idioms (American, British and others) that aren't immediately obvious unless you know the context?
No, just that if it's not dumb in other cases, what makes it dumb in this one?
Posted by: The pelagic argosy sights land
|
June 19, 2009 10:15 AM
I find it interesting that Bradley Hagerty cites "psychedelic drugs" as one of the ways by which we can achieve "mystical states". We can certainly reach a "state" of some kind by such means, but, having not, at a certain point in my life, shrugged off the woo, it was one of these states which enabled me to see with utter clarity what a load of bollocks teh woo and mysticism really is. To quote Ken Kesey, I "discovered new ways to think", and they certainly didn't involve the "One who longs to be known" or his, her or its handiwork. (I suppose it was a bit like C S Lewis's motorcycle trip which he, allegedly, began as an atheist and completed as a Christian, but in reverse, and on a very different vehicle.)
Posted by: tsg | June 19, 2009 10:19 AM
@41: irony
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 19, 2009 10:19 AM
Actually, I agree that the meaning of "could care less" is obvious. It means that what the speaker is saying is not of enough value that they care about communicating it clearly.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 19, 2009 10:22 AM
TSG, irony would be saying something like, "Well, I suppose I COULD care less."
The way it is typically used is not ironic, but lazy.
Posted by: tsg | June 19, 2009 10:25 AM
@47
The "irony" comment was in reference to my sarcasm at #33, which you clearly missed.
But, whatever. Prescriptivists are rarely rational.
Posted by: Richard Eis | June 19, 2009 10:27 AM
Wouldn't think to find such a lot of literalists hanging out here.
You must be joking this happens everytime around here!!! I practically could comment about how i don't like that phrase for all the people that beat me to it.
Posted by: fcaccin | June 19, 2009 10:35 AM
"I could care less, but it would take some effort."
Dr. Perry Cox.
That's the whole point.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 19, 2009 10:36 AM
No, just that if it's not dumb in other cases, what makes it dumb in this one? - tsg
If it reduces clarity in other cases as it does in this, it's stupid. If it shows the speaker hasn't really thought about what they are saying as it does in this case, it's stupid. If it raises an unnecessary barrier to communication as it does in this case, it's stupid.
I'm a "prescriptivist" only in the sense that I consider clarity important - as, clearly, you don't. Someone brought up the case of "inflammable" earlier. This was a case in which the lack of clarity of current (and in this case etymologically justifiable and historically well-established) usage was unclear - and indeed, dangerous. So it was right - and much more important than in the current case - to change that usage.
Posted by: tsg | June 19, 2009 10:39 AM
@51
Whatever you have to tell yourself to make you feel better than other people....
Posted by: JHS
|
June 19, 2009 10:42 AM
"these are the handiwork of One who longs to be known"
We really haven't come that far from our ancestors who anthropomorphized the sunrise, the rain, the movement of the stars, etc, have we? What must this person make of the combustion engine? The computer on which she typed such drivel? The technology used to map the genetic information and body chemistry that, to her, merely suggests a godhead crying out for attention like a five year old?
Even though I rationally know that my laptop was made purely by human hands, the product of several generations of technological ingenuity and innovation, at a certain point, I don't understand everything about its making, not being a computer engineer. So by her own, er, "logic," I should assume that anything more complex than my very limited technological knowledge can readily explain should be attributed to God (or in her case, probably something a little more hippy-dippy like "all-pervading life force")? I doubt that the raving Pharyngulite hordes are the only ones rolling their eyes at this nonsense when it comes up on NPR.
Posted by: Groat Legume | June 19, 2009 10:42 AM
#42 (Invigilator) -is exactly right. It is
a peculiar idiom used by some native
speakers of English. Around these
parts (Boston) you can hear the
following:
Tom: I like ice cream.
Fred: So don't I! (meaning, "So do I!",
or more like "Who doesn't?")
Posted by: stogoe | June 19, 2009 10:42 AM
Yeah, you can fuck off and die, now, all you fucking grammar pedants.
"Why do all those crazy Spanish speakers say 'uno' when they mean 'one'? Don't they know that they should be 'working', instead of 'trabajando'?"
Fuck fuck fucking fuck.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 19, 2009 10:42 AM
Ugh - I have fallen victim to the law of internet corrections - "unclear" in my #51 should of course be "clear".
Posted by: Lynna | June 19, 2009 10:46 AM
@50: Yeah, that's the way I always interpreted the phrase as well. As in, "I care so very little that I can't even be bothered to quantify how little I care." It's "I could care less" followed by an ironic shrug.
Of course, if you have already determined exactly how much you care, then you'd be more accurate saying, "I couldn't care less."
Posted by: SteveM
|
June 19, 2009 10:49 AM
I thought Brits were the masters of satire and sarcasm. "I could care less" is sarcasm.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 19, 2009 10:52 AM
Thanks for your support and good wishes, stogoe! I know that when you say "fuck off and die", you mean "Well said, I completely agree with you".
And now, that's not my last word on the subject!
Posted by: Lynna | June 19, 2009 10:56 AM
My local NPR station is run by BYUI (Brigham Young University Idaho). Their license/agreement with NPR was recently reviewed and the renewal was in question because they broadcast Mormon "Devotionals" frequently and regularly. The decision was that they could continue to broadcast the devotionals if they also added some more secular content. This is the station that interrupted NPR's coverage of 9/11 to broadcast a devotional. It'll be interesting to see what sort of content they add as secular balance.
This NPR station also preempts all regular NPR news to broadcast instead the LDS Conference -- twice a year, I think.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | June 19, 2009 10:59 AM
All this talk of the problems with NPR make me very thankful for Radio 4.
Posted by: Qwerty
|
June 19, 2009 11:00 AM
Wow! There's like whole articles on the intertubes about the "could care less" versus "couldn't care less" conundrum.
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-ico1.htm
Posted by: Lynna | June 19, 2009 11:13 AM
There's an easy way around problems with local NPR stations (though not a guarantee you won't hear Barbara Hagarty). Use iTunes and the option, then to come up with a list of public radio stations all over, including some that broadcast in languages other than English. You can switch to an NPR station (or other public radio station) that broadcasts news when you want to hear it (sleep in on Saturdays? try a west coast station); or choose one that broadcasts BBC news, and so forth.
There's also an iPhone "Public Radio" app that will search for the NPR stations closest to you and give you a few choices for listening.
At least you won't be forced to listen to Mormon devotionals and the like.
Posted by: Just passing through | June 19, 2009 11:15 AM
Goddamn you're a pompous asshole tsg.
"Whatever you have to tell yourself to make you feel better than other people...."
Your posts reek of arrogance and condescension. I largely agree with you about the inanity of nitpicking certain contradictions, but you come off like a real jerk.
Cheers bro
Posted by: tsg | June 19, 2009 11:19 AM
@64
Try reading it in context.
Or shut the fuck up. Either way....
Posted by: Alt Numlock | June 19, 2009 11:20 AM
Consider two eternal epitaphs, each applying to a different eternal outcome of the great debate you are constantly engaged in.
The first epitaph, in the event that the Theist is right:
"Like a Fool, he fought for Glory. And found It. His opponents, in their Surpassing Genius fought for...Nothing. But that's not what they found."
The second epitaph, in the event that the Atheist is right, well there wouldn't be one, would there?
Is there not something unmanly--to say nothing of irrational--in giving the benefit of the doubt to a philosophy (atheist materialism) that, as a matter of logical necessity, offers no prospect of the experience of eternal vindication?
A Haiku:
Nothingness abides
Fight hard for it then, Brave Knights!
Seize! The Crown of Vict-
Cast your gaze upon that victorious atheist, with no eternal witnesses to his victory, least of all, himself.
Contemplate that victorious theist, relishing his victory in the sight of his conquered opponents.
Given these possibilities, who but the tragically ball-less would willfully cultivate an attitude of knee-jerk, hair-trigger contemptuous dismissal of any theistic idea/argument/person while at the same time cultivating an attitude of bovine slack-jawed credulity toward any atheistic idea/argument/person? Who, indeed, if they have balls and a real thirst for victory?
And yet, this is precisely what the atheist does. It is to an absolutely minimal extent that he actively seeks out any decent theistic arguments in the first place; no, our atheist Brave Knight instead satisfies himself with gleefully "making sport" of the weakest arguments he can find (or, as is more generally and more passively the case, the ones shown to him by others, because he himself is not putting the slightest effort into the search), or "making sport" of mere capsule summaries of arguments, or of second-hand versions as presented by other atheists.
He does all this while whooping triumphantly over such sophistries as "Who designed the designer?" as if millenia of philosophy had never thought of the question, or "God is even less probable than unguided evolution!" as if there were some giant God-generating roulette wheel spinning away somewhere. Or, he does this while making pontifical announcements that there is so much evil in the world that either God is evil or does not exist, as if theism asserts that the world is all rainbows and skittles. Last, but not least, our Brave Knight employs theological statements to bolster his scientific beliefs ("No competent god would ever do things this way, therefore unguided evolution." "God is so absurd as a concept that he can't possibly exist, therefore unguided evolution."), while disparaging any other theological statements as beyond the pale since theology is not science!
Yes, dammit, our atheist Brave Knight is bloody well going to stack the deck in his own favor, because such a big and glorious prize awaits! Can you visualize that shimmering prize just over the horizon, Brave Knight? Should you be so lucky, Nothing awaits you!
No doubt, at this point, half of you have already triumphantly dug out Richard Carrier's "refutation" of Pascal's Wager in order to lull yourselves back to sleep. But there are some pretty good critiques of Carrier, even if inelegantly or informally expressed: link and link.
Examine your immediate reactions to these. Instantaneous hairsplitting contempt? I thought so. After all, what could possibly be worse than a defense of the idea that there may actually be a real prize to be had? Instead, go with Carrier. He'll help you get your Nothing. With any luck, you'll have plenty of time to personally thank him later. Perhaps you'll also be able to use that time to think even more about such clever things as teapots in orbit around Saturn or invisible pink unicorns, or Thor, or sky faeries, or the FSM.
Let the abuse and uncomprehending beside-the-point nitpicking begin, gentlemen. I can't really blame such attitudes coming from atheists. For really, why shouldn't an atheist be angry? He does after all, via an attitude of highly selective hyperskepticism, cut himself off from any philosophy which would offer the prospect of experiencing that eternal vindication. If I were stuck in some kind of rut, playing a game that couldn't possibly result in a Big Win, I guess I'd be pretty ticked off, too.
The hardcore misotheists among you are now triumphantly pleading through their crocodile tears: "But this is all so mercenary! What about the love of God?" We must crawl before we can walk, gentlemen. For you right now, just the simple act of refraining from being a total dick about the God question, would be a profound act of love for God. I hope that addresses your "concern".
The root question, once again, is quite simple: Do you intend to fight for a prize that endures, or are you just faking it, all of your ranting and raving adding up--at best!--to so much temporary sound and fury, signifying nothing?
The answer: No balls, no glory!
Man up!
If you atheists are right, it doesn't ultimately matter in the slightest. If you're wrong, it matters. Immensely. So focus those skepticism goggles and tune those BS detectors with great care, gentlemen. Considering where the calculus of reward/peril seems to point, it is beyond me why you take such reckless satisfaction in only aiming these things away from yourselves.
I would far rather celebrate victory with each of you rather than over each of you, but either way, I'm goin' for it.
That is all, gentleman.
Au revoir, and Godspeed.
Posted by: Lynna | June 19, 2009 11:20 AM
Well, crap. Apparently one cannot enclose anything in greater-than and less-than symbols without it causing all kinds of havoc in a post. See my apparently incoherent attempt @63. Truly, what you see @63 is not what I wrote.
I was trying to say that one could launch the iTunes application, then choose "Radio," then "Public" on the (long) list. Within the "Public" radio list there are many NPR stations, plus a lot of other options.
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
June 19, 2009 11:21 AM
Groat Legume at #54:
I love hearing about regional colloquialisms! When I lived in Chicago, I used to hear this one often:
"I'm going to get some ice cream. Wanna come with?"
. . . which abbreviation of "come with me/us" was a peculiar construction to my ears (it may be used elsewhere, I don't know). And in Texas, one hears the following frequently:
"I'm fixin' to drive to my brother's house," where "fixin'" (fixing) replaces "preparing" or "getting ready." It's especially amusing when it's used with "getting ready." "I'm fixin' to get ready to go to the office." :)
Living in the Boston area, you're probably familiar with an expression I used to hear in Maine: "He was down to the store the other day," or similar.
Fun stuff.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: tsg | June 19, 2009 11:24 AM
@66
Two and a half pages to say "Pascal's Wager". Fail.
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
June 19, 2009 11:27 AM
Post #66
Yay! Pascal's Wager!
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Lynna | June 19, 2009 11:28 AM
Desert Son @68: I'm fond of the local descriptions for cars, trucks, etc. The most common is "outfit," as in "my wife's outfit has that turbo diesel." An "outfit" can also include a vehicle plus whatever one tows behind it. You get style points for an outfit consisting of a matching vehicle and tow-behind trailer/boat/whatever.
If your outfit is a "rig" it is probably a truck of some kind.
Of course, you also get points for having a vintage outfit.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
June 19, 2009 11:31 AM
Why, because you don't like it that others don't like it?
Good point.
Nothing like an apposite analogy.
I'm not sure that the definition of Prescriptivism should extend to include forming a consensus on the meaning of words and phrases. Like it or not, could care less is confusing and appears erroneous, if not to many American English speakers, then certainly to non-American English speakers.
The argument that it is an ironic usage is fairly feeble, because the words fail to convey irony. It may be that this coinage becomes generally understood, but before that point, you can't really raise objections to others who don't like the phrase because it lacks clarity.
Posted by: Aquaria | June 19, 2009 11:31 AM
#68
The one that freaks out most of the people who move to East Texas is the question, "Will you carry me to the store (or wherever)?"
In East Texas-speak, that's "Will you give me a ride to the store in a car?" Newbies often think they're being asked to literally carry the person to the store.
Posted by: Bodach | June 19, 2009 11:32 AM
She was on our local station (KUOW) yesterday. It is a call in show and I reached for the phone a few times but only after flinging myself around the room, screaming incoherently. So wrong in so many places. "Research" at the Noetic Science Institute, out of body experiences, quantum entanglement. Where do you begin with someone like this?
Posted by: Lynna | June 19, 2009 11:32 AM
@66: Good for a big LOL. You have equated not believing in god with being "tragically ball-less." Too much, too much!
Posted by: Lynna | June 19, 2009 11:35 AM
Whoops, meant to refer to Desert Son's post @66, (not to @68).
Where is Janine when we need a comment on being "tragically ball-less."
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
June 19, 2009 11:37 AM
Lynna,
"Outfit" is a fun one, thanks!
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: Lynna | June 19, 2009 11:38 AM
Going for more coffee. This is ridiculous. I can't get anything right this morning. I must have offended the tragically heavy balls of God.
Posted by: Shaggy Maniac | June 19, 2009 11:38 AM
@Desert Son #68
"I'm going to get some ice cream. Wanna come with?"
That turn of phrase is regularly heard in Minnesota, so perhaps it is an upper Midwest thing; especially, the ice cream part.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
June 19, 2009 11:40 AM
Wait. All women are atheists? All atheists are women?
Atheist men aren't macho? I'm an atheist, so I must have smooth nub, just like Action Man (G.I. Joe)? But, Action Man is really macho!? I'm confused.
...What are these two things, down here?... excuse me, I have to go somewhere, er, else...
Posted by: Lynna | June 19, 2009 11:42 AM
Bernard @72 (and others earlier): Okay, I'm convinced regarding the ineffectiveness of trying to convey irony or sarcasm with "I could care less." I'll try to change my habit and switch to "I couldn't care less" when appropriate. Fuckin' A.
Posted by: Lynna | June 19, 2009 11:45 AM
@66: I do like the idea of God with a roulette wheel.
Now that makes some sense,
considering the evidence.
Posted by: pdferguson
|
June 19, 2009 11:45 AM
Wow, the language Nazis have come out of the woodwork today. I for one LOVE the phrase "could care less", because it expresses a sense of tedium by omission--something that doesn't even deserve expending the energy to add the n't.
Of course, that's just my opinion. You're free to claim I'm wrong, that accuracy is more important than expressiveness, but honestly, I could care less...
Posted by: Aquaria | June 19, 2009 11:47 AM
The problem with could care less is that people who use it don't typically use it ironically, or with sarcasm. They use it as is, and think it means what they want it to mean.
My best guess for why it's seen an uptick in usage is that Idiot America got it from a popular TV show or movie (entertainment media being a particularly ripe ground for language abuse, and teh stoopid in general). Wherever it started, it probably was done ironically, but the viewer just thought it was "cool" or a good put-down, without understanding how it was supposed to work.
Posted by: varlo | June 19, 2009 11:48 AM
You may as well get used to gritting your teeth over 'could care less' because it is now so prevalent that it has really become an idiom. It grates far less on me than the inability, even among so many of the supposedly educated, to distinguish between the transitive 'lay' and intransitive 'lie.'
Posted by: AC | June 19, 2009 11:53 AM
Atheists don't believe in your "ultimate mattering". So, do you care if your beliefs are accurate? That matters in the world we share, here and now. Immensely.
Posted by: Lynna | June 19, 2009 11:57 AM
varlo @85: When someone says, "I was laying in the grass when I got those mosquito bites," just imagine/him/her in sexual congress in the grass and all will be well.
Posted by: Kraid | June 19, 2009 12:01 PM
When people "could care less," don't send them this image:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/MastahCrushed/caring.png
People who don't use the phrase "I could care less" always deliver it sarcastically, so I think they can't hide behind that excuse. But whatever... language doesn't evolve, idioms never emerge, and they always have to make sense. Hell, everyone speaks classical Latin anymore.
Posted by: Kraid | June 19, 2009 12:03 PM
When people "could care less," don't send them this image:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v233/MastahCrushed/caring.png
People who don't use the phrase "I could care less" always deliver it sarcastically, so I think they can't hide behind that excuse. But whatever... language doesn't evolve, idioms never emerge, and they always have to make sense. Hell, everyone speaks classical Latin anymore.
Posted by: tsg | June 19, 2009 12:07 PM
If we're going to eliminate phrases from the language that are "confusing and appear erroneous" until you know what they mean, there's going to be precious little left. And the people who objected to it knew what it meant.
I particularly like the irony of British-English speakers complaining about the lack of clarity in an American idiom when British-English, to Americans, is almost an entirely other language. Shall we start complaining about the usage of, say, "Bob's your uncle" because Americans find it confusing? In fact, my uncle's name is Mike so shouldn't it really be "Mike's your uncle"?
But they did know what it meant. That much was obvious by the speed with which it was corrected.
I don't particularly like the phrase either and tend to say "couldn't care less", but I don't pretend that it's anything other than personal preference.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
June 19, 2009 12:07 PM
Don't get me wrong, I love colloquial language. I'm a big fan of American literature, and also many regional British writers. Richness of colloquialisms offers a good measure of the health of a language. But it is much easier to understand given a narrative context.
Being careful to avoid conversational idioms in formal writing, such as a book review, is probably a good idea. Moreover, it is always a poor argument to prefer neologisms on the basis of personal bias against prescriptivism; language is built upon consensus. Failure to convey meaning is not helpful. There are contexts in which more formal language is appropriate; one of those is in Newspaper articles. If not, then where?
If the usage is in transition from pure colloquialism to popular usage, then surely part of that process involves people deciding (consciously or not) whether they like the new sense of phrase? Language doesn't evolve simply by individuals, or even significant groups, adopting neologisms. The scale is much larger.
Calling people pedants because they have an opinion on a matter as yet undecided is hardly fair.
Posted by: Rick R | June 19, 2009 12:10 PM
I always got that "could care less" wasn't the proper meaning, but I adopted it with a bit of added rhetorical insult at the end (to highlight an inane statement or argument)-
"I COULD care less.....but.......why? What would be the point?"
Posted by: tsg | June 19, 2009 12:15 PM
Except that every single person who objected to it understood what it meant.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
June 19, 2009 12:20 PM
Yes, they did. However, there were two reasons they objected; personal preference; predicated upon the lack of clarity of the newer usage.
I'm not sure that many people would argue for stict Prescriptivism (outside of the French Academy). This is simply a matter of context; if somebody complains because I drop a colloquialism into conversational English, then I'll respond with immediate and overwhelming irrational violence, to the point of horrendous murder including sexual monstrosity. But, in a formal context, I try to avoid using lazy colloquialisms.
Everyone should complain about that.
Really, I wouldn't use it conversation with someone used to a different form of spoken English.
Yes. But the root of the objection lies in a sense of correctness stemming from the need to understand and be understood.
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
June 19, 2009 12:23 PM
Aquaria at #73:
Oh, that one's excellent! lol "He ain't heavy, he's my brother!"
Shaggy Maniac,
Thanks, I didn't know that about it being heard often in Minnesota, too. Growing up, carbonated beverages were referred to in my home as "sodas" or generalized as "cokes." It was a surprise to me when I got to the Midwest and heard carbonated beverages frequently invoked as "pop," though it made sense as a derivative of "soda pop."
Fun stuff, thanks all!
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: tsg | June 19, 2009 12:26 PM
Oh, horseshit. It's intellectual elitism based on the idea that not conforming to some arbitrary rules of grammar means the person is either "lazy" or "fucking stupid". If you scroll up, you will note that at least two of the people who complained about the usage used those exact words to describe it.
Posted by: Bizarro #1 | June 19, 2009 12:29 PM
Me could care less.
Posted by: Teh Merkin | June 19, 2009 12:53 PM
If I remember correctly, this is how you would say it in Danish. (Any competent Danish speakers able to confirm or deny?) Perhaps the largely Scandinavian-derived population of Minnesota is why you hear that particular phrase.
Teh Merkin
Posted by: GilbertNSullivan
|
June 19, 2009 1:04 PM
@tsg
You'll note that the majority of respondents saying it sounds sloppy and/or unclear to them are English. I am and it does to me too.You're free to imagine that we're all snobs if you like, but it isn't true: it just sounds lazy to us because we speak a different variant of English than you do.
It's no more intellectually arrogant to get irked at bad grammar than at bad spelling, the rules for which are far more arbitrary.
Posted by: kamaka | June 19, 2009 1:08 PM
Here's another one for you, Robert.
In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a drinking fountain is called a bubbler.
It's the only place I've ever heard the term used that way.
Posted by: Bizarro #1 | June 19, 2009 1:14 PM
tsg am smartest poster here!
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 19, 2009 1:18 PM
It's German: Willst du mitkommen?
("Do you want to come with me/us" would be willst du mit mir/uns mitkommen; that's considered unnecessary because the verb prefix already says it all.)
The prefix moves to the end in conjugation: ich komme mit = "I come along [with someone]".
I've also been told that "go with" exists in Minnesota or wherever. German again: mitgehen.
Of course not. It's a computer. Everything between < and > is interpreted as HTML code, and if it's not an allowed HTML tag, the Sb software removes it. (And if no > sign ever follows, everything from the first < sign on is cast into outer darkness.)
To get those signs into this comment, I had to write "<" and ">". And to write that, I had to use "&"… :-)
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | June 19, 2009 1:18 PM
I've heard Connecticut Yankees use the term "bubbler" as well, although not in several decades.
As for Barbara Hagerty's conclusions: Why would an omnipotent deity be stuck "longing for" anything?
Posted by: folderol | June 19, 2009 1:20 PM
"Could care less" or "couldn't care less." Meh.
Makes no nevermind to me.
Posted by: Groat Legume | June 19, 2009 1:22 PM
Mom: Where's your brother?
Me: He's down cellar. [that is, he's in the basement.]
& for pronunciation oddities, we have:
Caddy: Whose clubs are these?
Fernwood: The iron is mine.
[pronounced: The AYE-in is MY-in.]
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 19, 2009 1:22 PM
Not necessarily – I don't speak any Scandinavian language!
Posted by: tsg | June 19, 2009 1:33 PM
Yes, it takes great leaps of imagination to interpret any of this as being snobbish:
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 19, 2009 1:37 PM
Alt Numlock,
If the choice is between nothingness, and spending eternity with a smug, stupid, sexist turd like you, I'll take nothingness every time.
Posted by: slpage | June 19, 2009 1:41 PM
Hagerty is worthless. I reached that conclusion when she did a piece on the 'Sternberg affair' in which she only talked to Sternberg and essentially parrotted all his 'look what they did to me' talking points.
With 'liberals' like her, who needs conservatives?
Posted by: Savvy11 | June 19, 2009 1:46 PM
Wow, the macho blather of all the comments is like getting a strong whiff of manure from the cow pasture. You folks must really really despise Hagerty and the book. Which is suspicious to me, because why such a strong reaction to a book where the author has been willing to open up and be vulnerable to sharing about important spiritual experiences in her life (even if you disagree)?
Or, as I suspect -- haven't you read it?
And, if you haven't, you have no real cred to spill about it, right? I would assume so, in a science blog. Unless vile, unsupported blather is what it's all about?
Just asking.
Posted by: Lynna | June 19, 2009 1:50 PM
@102: Thanks, David, for the explanation. I did head-desk as soon as I realized I had used HTML tags. Sigh, but despite years of experience with said computer, I still fall into the trap of expecting it to know what I intend to do as opposed to what I actually do.
On another note, I'm grateful to Alt Numlock this morning for putting the image of God's balls into my head.
Posted by: Miranda Hale | June 19, 2009 1:54 PM
I am so fed up with her pieces. I had to turn the radio off during the most recent one, because it was making me so crabby. I really wish that they wouldn't give her airtime. Sigh.
Posted by: Roger
|
June 19, 2009 1:55 PM
I doubt Alt Numbskull will post a reply...he/she seems like a drive-by godtroll.
Posted by: Steve_C | June 19, 2009 1:57 PM
Who needs to read the book when we have such good reviews. Or did you go see Snakes on a mutha fuckin Plane, just to find out for yourself?
Posted by: Stu
|
June 19, 2009 1:58 PM
On "want come with":
Dutch allows you to be even more minimalist.
"Ik ga naar de winkel. Wil je mee?"
"I'm going to the store. Want you with?"
Posted by: Roger
|
June 19, 2009 2:02 PM
@110: Oh, noes, people iz being mean on teh intarwebs! Did you read the comments? I mean, do you possess reading comprehension? Did you miss the salient point that the posters were referencing Hagerty's commentary on NPR and that, by extension, her book is probably a reflection of the woo-addled nonsense she peddles on the radio?
Posted by: Anri | June 19, 2009 2:08 PM
Alt Numlock sez (before emulating Sir Robin and bravely running away, buggering out, etc...):
"Contemplate that victorious theist, relishing his victory in the sight of his conquered opponents."
..as he closes his eyes, his thumb depressing the plunger wired to the dynamite strapped to his body...
.
.
.
What, that's not what he was saying?
Oh.
Wow, I totally misread that one.
Posted by: kamaka | June 19, 2009 2:16 PM
the author has been willing to open up and be vulnerable to sharing about important spiritual experiences in her life
Yah, I'm about as interested in that as someone telling me the plot to a tv show they watched.
I did pay attention to her series on NPR, it was worthless drivel.
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 19, 2009 2:16 PM
Speaking of colloquialisms, NPR recently had a segment about the Dictionary of American Regional English:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105134163
The DARE project, for those interested in that sort of thing:
http://dare.wisc.edu/
ObTaunt: Creationists worship a hookem-snivey God.
Posted by: June | June 19, 2009 2:32 PM
Alt Numlock @66, you are partly correct, because it only matters here and now
- if one wants to ignore the suffering religion imposed on atheists over millennia
- if one wants to waste half one's short life kissing an imaginary God's ass
- if one wants to waste the other half running scared of unreal demons
- if one wants to trade the truths of modern science for ancient legends
As to those theistic arguments, let's see what I remember:
- Someone has to be perfect - ergo God exists (my favorite).
- Watches are made by people - ergo God.
- Everything was designed - ergo God.
- Everything had a parent - ergo God.
- Everything had a maker - ergo God.
- Everything had a start - ergo God.
- Every peg fits a hole - ergo God.
- Everything exists - ergo God.
Did I miss any?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 19, 2009 2:35 PM
Because there are exactly two possibilities. In general, as everyone knows, each and every question has exactly two possible answers.
You're off to a great start, you know?
Where does fighting even enter the question???
This is so stupid, I don't know where to begin. [The following is supposed to be two nested lists. No list at all showed up in preview, but then preview committed more obvious sillinesses as well. I hope this works.]
I disagree with all four premises. If you had ever explicitly thought your argumentation through, you'd see why.
Why fight?
Here's the argument from consequences again.
Contemplate the almost victorious theist, burning in hell for eternity because he worshipped the wrong god!
Contemplate the other almost victorious theist, living in the cold, dark, moist, depressing underworld, being depressed and eating mud for eternity like everyone else regardless of faith, works, words, divine ancestry, anything, because the Sumerians had it right!
Contemplate your embarrassingly pathetic lack of imagination, Alt Numlock. Contemplate the stupidity necessary to make an argument from personal lack of imagination. Compare the argument from personal incredulity ("I can't believe it, so it's wrong")…
I don't know, you know… I don't actually find it tragic that half of humanity exhibits a complete lack of balls. :-}
You don't have a thirst for victory. You have a ridiculous fear of being considered ballless. What, pray tell, can we do but point and laugh?
Then bring us some decent arguments already. We've been waiting since about 600 BCE.
("Thousands of assholes"? Year in Latin is annum.)
They have thought about it, we know. They've just never come up with a satisfactory answer.
You see, there isn't a giant evolution-generating roulette wheel spinning away anywhere either.
<sigh> Yet another moron who doesn't notice it's called "theory of evolution by natural selection. Once you have mutation, inheritance, and an environment, selection inevitably happens. There's no way around it.
Oh, we know full well it doesn't. Instead, the versions you think of simply assert that God is ineffable, which is short for "unknowable, with no effects on the world, and thus a useless speculation".
(Most other versions, on the other hand, say that most or all gods simply aren't omnibenevolent, making this argument useless against them.)
Some of us, you know, believe in life before death… you seem to forget about it altogether… :-)
(Links removed to avoid triggering the spam filter – I have two more links at the bottom of this comment.)
What do I care about "inelegantly or informally expressed"? They just miss the point. The first one assumes that there's a correct religion (the lottery analogy: there is a winning number) and then simply states that a large collection of two to four big religions, consisting of tens of thousands of denominations that prescribe entirely different ways to go to heaven, is the singular correct one (quote: "If you are abstaining because he MIGHT exist, then you are making a wager on a dog with a gimp leg. There are better choices to 'maybe' with. Jehovah is the best one." – never mind that "Jehovah" is the consonants of Yahwe combined with the vowels of Eloha and the silent h, which is just there to indicate that these words end in a vowel, of both.
Really, if you're too stupid to notice that the argument from assertion is a logical fallacy, you're beyond help.
Ooooh, here come the arguments: "If you choose Jehovah, since He not only has the most adherants [sic], but we have eyewitness testimony and we have a historically authentic figure named Jesus who claimed to be the Son of God etc." – how stupid: there is no eyewitness testimony whatsoever, the very existence of Jesus is highly doubtful, no saying can be with any confidence attributed to that figure even if he existed, and millions of people (up to a billion depending on how you count) worship Yahwe but flat-out claim he never had a son.
The stupid! It burns!
On to the second link. It says:
How does he know? How does Scott Adams know that picking a religion that promises salvation improves your odds? Does he know what the gods (of whom we don't even know the number!) want? If so, how? Where did he get that information?
Why shouldn't I call bullshit?
(Well, actually, I don't call bullshit. I call parody. Keep reading.)
I think you've been had, Alt Numlock. I further think you don't even read the pages you link to.
<Nelson_Muntz>Hhhhhaha!</Nelson_Muntz>
Laughter.
Then why do you did you ever start playing thermodynamics? After all, you can't win (1st Law), you can't break even (2nd Law), and you can't get out of the game (3rd Law)!
I'm trying to get across that you're making the argument from consequences again. It doesn't matter if you're ticked off or not – it doesn't change anything!
To hate a god, you first have to believe he exists. Or do you hate Lex Luthor? Maybe you hate the omnibenevolent Superman instead? No?
You are the one here who's fighting – against his fear that his genitals could be too small. Not all of us, you see, have that problem.
First win, then go to battle.
– Sunzi
The Georgian word for "hello" literally means "victorious". Learn Georgian. You'll like it. (And we'll be sadly, sadly, sadly bereft of your useless presence for many, many years.)
Posted by: fubar | June 19, 2009 2:37 PM
Speaking of fluff on religion, and since so many pharynguloids love a good poll hack, I thought you might like to have a chuckle at my latest handiwork:
http://www.wretchedradio.com/poll_results.cfm?pid=4
Was the election of Barack Obama:
Out of 8389 people surveyed:
22% said: A) God's ordained plan?
78% said: B) Thwarting God's perfect plan? <muAHhaha>
0% said: C) A shock to God?
(As you can imagine, it used to be 90% A.)
Posted by: Cannabinaceae | June 19, 2009 2:38 PM
I'm with tsg.
Unless the conspicuous haters of "could care less" never use any idioms themselves, their conspicuous self-righteousness addiction should be an embarrassment. Nome say'n?
I'm a pedant, and never use that particular one myself, but I'm not a moron, so I actually do pick things up from context. I also don't like the "axe" for "ask" mutation that seems to be happening in English, but I don't stroke myself in public about how smart I think I am about how it's wrong whenever it appears. I mean, that's like pretending to mentally masturbate.
Note, if you are a conspicuous "could care less" hater AND you now think I'm calling you a moron, then you may actually be a moron, since I'm actually not.
Posted by: SC, OM | June 19, 2009 2:40 PM
*directs Feynmaniac's attention to this thread*
:)
Posted by: Uncephalized
|
June 19, 2009 2:40 PM
"I could care less" is incorrect, unless you are speaking ironically. Period. Just because some people are so unaware of the words that come out of their mouths that they can not make a simple distinction between the meanings of "could" and "could not" (which, I notice, are not up for debate anywhere else in our language) does not mean I am obligated to recognize it as acceptable. The phrase simply does not make sense and directly contradicts its own intended meaning.
And no, "you understood what he meant" does not pass muster either, any more than if I used the phrase "does not pass mustard" instead (and yes I have heard people say that). I only understand what people mean by "could care less" because I have had it explained to me that they mean "couldn't". The first time I heard it I assumed they meant what they actually said, which I suppose was a foolish assumption to make.
Posted by: savvy11 | June 19, 2009 2:45 PM
Sorry, holds no water, Roger: it's all blather if you haven't read it. Just as anything I would say to you about, say, quantum theory, would be blather if I hadn't studied it at least a bit.
Otherwise, it is all interwebs cow flatulence, guys.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 19, 2009 2:47 PM
Awww, man. I should have thought of this one myself.
Why didn't you push option C, actually?
So does German, by dropping the "want" part and simply asking "do you come with me" (gehst/kommst du mit).
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 19, 2009 2:54 PM
*Ahem*. Ovaries (which are, after all, as ovoid as testicles) are not missing; they are merely concealed.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 19, 2009 2:55 PM
That's called the "recency illusion" – this particular doublet goes back at least all the way to Chaucer.
And "make" once meant "knead" or something like that… and German uses "make" all the time where English would use "do" instead…
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 19, 2009 2:58 PM
Fine, but they're never called "balls", are they?
Posted by: tsg | June 19, 2009 3:02 PM
Exhibit "G".
Posted by: stoat100 | June 19, 2009 3:03 PM
I am profoundly excited by the 'could / could not care' issue.
I strongly suggest that fellow enthusiasts subscribe to the UK periodical 'Private Eye': it has a section called "Pedant'''''s'''''" Corner (sic). :)
Posted by: fubar | June 19, 2009 3:03 PM
I thought about it. But come on, thwarting? Who can resist that? ;^)
Posted by: Roger
|
June 19, 2009 3:11 PM
Well, savvy11, you know there are other websites where you can go be a pestilence. Otherwise, you're contributing to the blather with your...blather.
Posted by: Stu
|
June 19, 2009 3:13 PM
kommst du mit
Ah, yes, that works in Dutch as well ("Kom je mee?")
My German is far too rusty to know if "Willst du mit?" works.
Posted by: tsg | June 19, 2009 3:17 PM
Somehow I missed this the first time around:
That, in itself, is a pretty snobbish attitude.
The Southern-American accent sounds uneducated and low-brow to me. But I at least have the intelligence to realize that it's only my perception and that it isn't true. I certainly don't go posting on blogs asking "when are these Southerners going to stop saying 'y'all' because it sounds ridiculous."
But no, your perception that the American version of English is "lazy" is entirely different and not at all snobbish.
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 19, 2009 3:20 PM
June @ 120 How about this:
Nothing existed before the Big Bang, therefore no god.
gods existed when humans came on the scene, therefore humans created gods. gods were created by humans, therefore they must exist.
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
June 19, 2009 3:31 PM
David Marjanović, OM at #121:
That OM is well-awarded. That post was, as I have sometimes read it said on the World Wide Internets, made of win.
Also thanks for the linguistic information you all have provided. It seems highly plausible to me that, given the extensive immigration of Scandinavian and Germanic speakers to the upper Midwestern United States, a phrase like "Want to come with" would arise! :)
kamaka and Julie Stalhut,
"Bubbler!" I'd forgotten that one! Worked with someone from Wisconsin for a couple of years when I lived in Chicago, and she mentioned bubbler. I like bubbler alot - in addition to the word itself as a descriptor, it's got a fun onomotopaeic quality to it.
Savvy11 at #110,
I'm o.k. with hearing about people opening up and risking vulnerability about personal experience. The issue here is that the author in question is doing so from the standpoint of religious and/or "spiritual" expression, with which many of us recognize as lacking evidence (and many of us belonged, at one time or another, to some variety of belief system espousing such religious/spiritual notions).
I'd be happy to hear more about the author's psychological insights, observations, and research, for example, that might represent examples of desires among some (many, even) humans to imagine some esoteric and ineffable being that "longs to be known." I imagine those kinds of thing myself when I read science fiction or fantasy literature, or play video- or role-playing games, or go to science fiction films, etc. Psychologically, I recognize different aspects about doing so, like the release and fun of fantasy, the importance (to me) of creative imagination, and the recognition that I can enjoy these artistic imaginations while understanding that they are not reality.
But as for the being itself, we're still waiting on the evidence. Having not seen any, time and time again, many of us are less likely to jump at yet one more chance to hear about the being-without-evidence, and thus are less likely to react with overt deference to the author's premise and conclusion.
As an aside, the world of reviewing is rarely kind. At their best, reviews are honest and explicit: here's the good parts and why, here's the bad parts and why, here's the recommendation for or against. Authors, like anyone who puts their work out for scrutiny (including reviewers), need thick skins, because not everyone is going to like your work, and that's fine, because art is a great place to find all kinds of different work. The best attitude folks can take, in my opinion, is to not take criticism personally. Find what's helpful in the criticism, incorporate it next project if desired, and move on.
There's an adjunct to that, though, with scientific writing (which the book in question purports to be). If the work makes proposals that can be validated or debunked via evidence, then over time, someone who is just ignoring evidence is not going to be taken seriously.
On a final note: I haven't read any writings by Joseph Stalin. Does that disqualify me from suggesting the man was a vicious autocrat party to vast crimes against humanity? I presume you keep all opinions of things you've not read or otherwise personally encountered un-uttered?
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: pdferguson
|
June 19, 2009 4:01 PM
Alt Numbnuts#66:
Goin' for what exactly, child? All it appears you're "goin' for" is well-deserved ridicule for being just another sanctimonious jackass; your pathetic little diatribe is as ridiculous as it is predictable. Believe me when I say we've heard it all before, you bring nothing new to the table.
Au revoir, gopher...
Posted by: RedGreenInBlue | June 19, 2009 4:09 PM
tsg,
If distinguishing between "could" and "couldn't" (or positive and negative generally) is an "arbitrary rule of grammar", adherence to which is "intellectual elitism", then no wonder there's so much misunderstanding and conflict in the world.
Posted by: Steve_C | June 19, 2009 4:36 PM
Hey Savvy, maybe you've heard of the Courtier's Reply... maybe not.
You're using it. It doesn't hold water, not a drop.
I don't need to read every "personal experience of demons and ghosts" to know that it's complete nonsense.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 19, 2009 8:02 PM
SC, OM
?
(Well, at least it worked)
Posted by: SC, OM | June 19, 2009 8:12 PM
Just thought the "could care less" argument might put my little crescendo squabble in perspective.
:)
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | June 19, 2009 8:23 PM
And I thought bubbler was an Australianism! Cool.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | June 19, 2009 9:06 PM
SC, OM
Ah. Well in the interest of not resurrecting the "could care less" argument, the crescendo argument, or the argument about the crescendo argument I'll stay quiet.
Posted by: Monado | June 19, 2009 10:40 PM
Re "I could care less," I thought it was a Yiddishism or perhaps dry humor, in the sense of "I could care less, but not very much." However, it's probably just careless usage that looks like other Yiddishe phrases, e.g. "I should be so lucky." Think of it as irony: "I could care less (NOT)"--which I thought of as a modern perversion, but appeared in a Lord Peter Wimsey novel from the 1920-30s.
Posted by: GilbertNSullivan
|
June 19, 2009 10:51 PM
No it isn't. It's saying that the phrasing elicits a different reaction in a UK audience because it isn't a part of our vernacular. Nothing more than that. So let me get this straight: you think Southerners sound "uneducated and low-brow" because of their accent (but you make allowances for them) and you're calling me a snob? I'd be insulted if it weren't so funny. (I particularly like the bit where you give yourself a pat on the back for being "intelligent" enough to see that you're being a twat). I think no such thing (happily, since my wife is one of those Southerners you condescend to) and as you've conclusively demonstrated, the accusation of snobbery is projection on a cosmic scale. I do think you're an arsehole though.Posted by: GilbertNSullivan
|
June 19, 2009 10:56 PM
Bollocks... I didn't direct my comment to its intended recipient.
@tsg: #147 is for you. Prick.
Posted by: Monado | June 19, 2009 11:04 PM
Some of the arguments being reviewed here remind me of a comment from Methuselah's Children by Robert Heinlein: "He's reached his dotage. Wants what he wants when he wants it and think that constitutes a natural law."
Posted by: fizzyb | June 20, 2009 5:12 AM
Uh oh. Am I going to have to drum up some indignation for someone who doesn't like my southern accent? *crickets chirping* Nah, I'm too tired. Indignation has failed to ignite.
In related news, the article gave me a good laugh and reminded me of why I stopped listening to NPR years ago.
Posted by: chub | June 20, 2009 5:25 AM
The phrase "could/couldn't care less" is actually a sanitized, media friendly version of the phrase "could/couldn't give a shit." And I think we can all agree that the Americans, who are willing (figuratively, at least) to drop a steaming turd on the object of their derision, win this grammar debate.
Posted by: Jim | June 20, 2009 7:53 AM
PZ Myers: "...this is just the standard Intelligent Design creationist malarkey: something that is complex has the appearance of design because a) people conflate complexity with intent, and b) people have brains that have evolved to explain the world in terms of agency, therefore it must be designed by an intelligent agent for a purpose."
ID theorists say none of these things, PZ, but by contending that they do, you demonstrate one of the following:
1) You're ignorant of the arguments that design theorists actually make, either because you've never read those arguments or you lack the wit to understand them, or
2) You know and understand the arguments that are actually made by design theorists, but lack the integrity to honestly represent those arguments.
(A hint to help you understand where you've gone wrong: No one in the ID camp thinks that complexity signifies intent. The pattern of leaves on your lawn on a fall day, for example, is incredibly complex, but no one would think that the pattern was intended. If, on the other hand, the pattern spelled out "Time to get out the rake, PZ," you would instantly [and correctly] infer that the pattern was intended, that is to say, it was designed. Why? Because the pattern exhibits SPECIFIED complexity, which is a reliable indicator of design.)
Posted by: Robin | June 20, 2009 8:47 AM
tsg: If we're going to eliminate phrases from the language that are "confusing and appear erroneous" until you know what they mean, there's going to be precious little left.
I think it's reasonable to expect people not to use phrases that they don't know the meaning of, yes. If you're thinking so little about what you say that you accidentally say the opposite of what you mean, it's obvious that you couldn't care less about what you're saying.
Posted by: astrounit | June 20, 2009 10:02 AM
Ugh. I'm with Monado. The Heinlein quote from his "Methusalah's Children" is well tapped.
And I could not care less that a "journalist" hasn't yet acquired a suitable appreciation of the distinction between what phrases actually say and what the writer intends to say, but I'll not read any further beyond something like, "religion writers could care less" about ANYTHING before dropping it as crap.
She should submit material to Huffington Post. They'll get wowed by her over there.
I do not believe I could possibly care any less.
Posted by: Lilith | June 20, 2009 2:11 PM
kamaka @#100 & Cath @#144
Drinking fountains are definitely called bubblers in some parts of Australia (and yes, Cath, Canberra is one of them).
On "want to come with":
I have heard it a lot on TV in shows set in NYC.
As for the great 'care less' debate, I can only say 'Care Factor: Zero'.
English is contantly changing as regionalisms and slang are spread around the world, and new words and phrases are coined to describe changes in technology, etc. It's the nature of the beast. And as someone who used to make dictionaries for a living, I say that so long as you can be understood in context, it's all good.
Posted by: Steve_C | June 20, 2009 2:33 PM
Jim. Who's the designer?
Posted by: Jim | June 20, 2009 5:14 PM
Steve_C: "Who's the designer?"
As a theist, I'd say that God is the designer. Design theorists who are also theists say the same thing, but it's a claim made outside of ID theory, not within it. ID theory itself takes no position on the identity of the designer implicated by biological design. As design theorists repeatedly write, biological data can support design inferences, but the data do not provide any inferential trails leading to the identity of the designer. That question, they contend, belongs to philosophers and theologians, not scientists.
Posted by: Sophist FCD | June 21, 2009 1:59 AM
Everyone who has used the phrase seems to be pretty clear about what was meant, so I fail to see how this is relevent.
Wait, you use words like 'you're' and 'it's'? If you have so little interest in what you are saying that you will just lazily slur you words together, than you are clearly not saying anything worth hearing.
Posted by: Jim | June 21, 2009 7:44 AM
PZ Myers: "If (God) longs to be known, why not just come out and say howdy?"
He did. Suggested reading: The New Testament of the Bible.
Posted by: GilbertNSullivan
|
June 21, 2009 3:31 PM
And since then? One minute he's loving us so that he sends his only begotten son to die for our sins, then 2009 years pass (depending on which gospel isn't utterly wrong) without a squeak?Serious question: when was the last time you saw a physical manifestation of divine influence*?
*Contest rules:
Points are awarded for burning bushes that talk, seas that part, the transmogrification of liquids and sticks into alcohol and snakes (respectively). Encounters with the physical incarnation of any recognisable deity count double, with an extra bonus for ones you don't believe in. Other phenomena accepted on their merits.
Posted by: Rik G | June 22, 2009 7:37 PM
I could care less. I couldn't care less. I could give a flying fuck. I couldn't give a flying fuck.
I guess Friday, June 19th must have been International I've Got A Stick Up My Ass Day!
Yeesh!!!!!!
Posted by: Badger3k | June 22, 2009 10:13 PM
I skimmed the last 30-40 posts, but I didn't see "irregardless" as a pet peeve. Bueller?
Posted by: Will Warren | June 23, 2009 6:54 AM
I read Babs' book because I had nothing better to do. It was like when the Nazis looked at the ark in Indiana Jones. I thought it would be fun to tear her book apart. There ended up being nothing to tear apart. There was just a steaming pile of crap!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 23, 2009 7:11 AM
Strange he's decided to remain silent for so long.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 23, 2009 7:14 AM
Who are these "design theorists" of whom you speak, and where can I see their theories explicated and tested in the peer-reviewed scientific literature? I've never heard of them. Now cdesign proponentsists, on the other hand, we're all quite familiar with.
Posted by: Kel | June 23, 2009 7:16 AM
And I suppose the Koran was really handed down by the Archangel Gabriel to Muhammad in the desert too...Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 23, 2009 7:18 AM
Can you state the Theory of Intelligent Design?