…and this is a 
I try to be patient with all the email I get, I really do, and usually the greatest forebearance I can offer is to simply set a piece of email aside and go on. There simply is not enough time to answer everything, especially when my correspondent is better off going to the library, and most especially when the only reply I'm inspired to give is to snarl, "Go away, kid, you bother me."
So let me introduce you to young Mr Rosenberg. He has written me twice, the first time with a fairly routine set of questions that I politely set aside because I get a few hundred of these every week, and because he was asking the wrong person, and the second time with a pushy rude letter that prompts me to now be impolite and actually answer him. Here's his first letter, in which he introduces himself, and as is so common in these things, tells me how smart he is. Well, if you're so clever, Mr Rosenberg, why are you asking me the questions?
Questions on the Universe
Hi Professor Myers,
My name is Andrew Rosenberg, I am 18 years old and I live in Racine Wisconsin. I have been raised in the Lutheran Church since I was born and view myself as a Christian. Recently I have been pondering the universe, especially the existence of God in general. I have the belief that if God exists, then Christianity makes the most sense for me to follow. But that brings up the question...does God exist? I am an intelligent individual, whose thoughts go beyond the typical 2010 senior's tangents. I graduated valedictorian of my class, and so I thoughtI would like to contact another intelligent individual, such as yourself, who has conflicting viewpoints from me. After all, if you surround yourself with the same types of people all your life, then you will never learn anything or make your own decisions.
My first question for you is this: Christianity aside, what makes you an atheist? I know I could probably find the answer deep in your blog, but to me, atheism is just ignorant of the universe around us. Existence....just the simple existence of a hydrogen atom gives me the thought that something had to, and I hate to say this, create it. With something to create, how could the materials and fabrications that make up the universe--atoms, protons, neautrons, electrons--come to be? What cause the theories such as the big bang? Put the universe's energy into action. As easy as it is to say that a God does not exist, its just as easy to say that one (multiples?) does.
On the topic of evolution, I have further questions-- I fully believe in micro evolution, whether it be by mutation of natural selection...but how can the existence of the world's first bacterium be? How can proteins and other chemicals come together to make an organism? For if you take that same organism apart and puts its pieces back into a jar of water, it will never come back to life or reassemble itself. So how did such a thing happen in the beggining of time?
The bottom line for me is, yes the existence of some supernatural being who has divine powers seems very far fetched. But the non-existence of such a being seems far less plausible to me. How can we be without a supernatural beggining at some point in the univeral timeline? Something, from nothing. Its a supernatural question in itself that puzzles me, but makes me view atheists as ignorant. No God, yet countless molecules and building blocks that just....appeared? No, it doesn't make sense.
Please explain any view point or answer that you have to my questions. I am not afraid to be proven wrong.
Andrew Rosenberg
"atheism is just ignorant of the universe around us"…well, la-de-da, says the high school student who hasn't bothered to look up anything in basic physics, and is demanding that a biologist explain it all to him in an email message.
First strike against him: I am a biologist. It says so right up there at the top left, under my picture. I am not a physicist. As a biologist, I'm even more narrowly specialized than that: ask me about the evolution of multicellular animals, ask me about development, ask me about various bits and pieces of molecular evolution in the last half billion years, and I can probably give you a decent answer, and I might even talk your socks off for an hour. Ask me about physics, the big bang, and cosmology and…I'm a well-informed layman, nothing more. A literate 18-year-old could be just as current on the topic, if not more so, by going down to the library or bookstore and picking up a few texts and, you know, reading them. This isn't hard.
Go read a book by Brian Greene, Lawrence Krauss, or Sean Carroll; Scientific American has a primer on cosmology, even. If you can work your way through Steven Weinberg's Cosmology, you'll be much, much smarter than I am. But pestering random biologists with misspelled missives demanding that they explain particles to them? Dumb.
It's often part of a cunning ploy, of course, not that I know that this is the case with Mr Rosenberg. I've noticed that, after many of my more detailed talks on biology, some clueless creationist will raise their hand and ask me to explain what existed before the Big Bang, completely ignoring the topic I've just explained to them. I've also compared notes with a few physicists; they'll give talks on the origin of the universe, and afterwards be asked to explain the evolution of the eye. I think they know better than to ask a question in which they may get a deep and knowledgeable answer, because they don't want an answer.
I would just have to give a very general answer that we know that heavier atoms are assembled by processes in stellar evolution, that many complex molecules are constructed by natural processes (formaldehyde forms in space, for instance), and that fundamental particles arose in the Big Bang; that physicists I have talked to, like Lawrence Krauss, have pointed out that stuff spontaneously forms all the time, and that there is no such thing as empty space. Try this on for size.
I can say why I'm an atheist, though, and I've talked about it numerous times. Here's a short, succinct image that explains it all.
Mr Rosenberg has not explained why I should believe in his Christian deity at all, and his only explanation for why he believes in his peculiar god is a self-confessed complete lack of knowledge and imagination, which given that he's the clueless fellow asking a biologist to explain physics to him in 200 words or less, is not at all impressive.
But now, today, I get another message from him. I get these all the time, too, demands from ignorant jerks who are so infused with a sense of entitlement that they think they can demand that I spoonfeed them. "Christian humility" is just an ironic phrase for arrogant insincerity.
A Few Questions for an Atheist.
Hello PZ Myers,
My name is Andrew Rosenberg. Last week I sent you an email talking about why I believe in a creator. You did not respond. I would really like to hear your opinion on what I sent you. I also have another concern about you. I have been following your blog and youtube videos for a little while. I think that it is extremely rude of you to constantly criticize religeous groups on your blog. You do it everyday. I don't know if lashing out at people gives you confidence because your followers laugh at your witty, little remarks, but I certainly think its rude. Especially when you get in person and you are just a little man with a quiet voice. Yet on the internet you spew forth brash criticisms like a volcano.
But besides those opinions of mine, I would really like to hear your take on my question of existence itself that I sent you.
Andrew
Hey, Andy — GET STUFFED.
You're a perfect example of why I am rude — I am really tired of pretentious twits who've barely got a high school education, which isn't much to begin with, and who think they're brilliant because they can answer everything with "goddidit." Am I rude? You bet. It's not going to change, either.
But then you exhibit typical inconsistency: I'm a "little man with a quiet voice." Would I have more authority if I glopped on some pomade and bellowed at you? Do you even listen to what I say in those videos? It's nothing different from what I write — it's just that my presentation is different than the howling protestations you get from televangelists.
I will remember what you expect, Andrew Rosenberg of Racine, Wisconsin. If we ever meet, I'll make a special effort to yell rudely at you and just you, and do my best to send your know-nothing pious butt away crying. And don't bother writing to me again.
Comments
Posted by: eeanm
|
June 10, 2010 1:12 PM
Hopefully this gets the guy through his Freshmen-know-it-all phase faster. Maybe you just did his roommate a favor. But probably we should just feel really sorry for the future roommate.
Posted by: tdcourtney
|
June 10, 2010 1:18 PM
Why? That's what first started me on the path to atheism, how are its myths any better than Hindu myths? That's a pretty glaring chink in is armor if he wants to ask why atheism?
Posted by: bonze blayk
|
June 10, 2010 1:19 PM
Dear Mr. Dr. Prof. Myers:
How come giant squid do not rule the earth?
Or...
Is it in fact the case that they pretty much do?
Yours in puzzlement,
Fervently awaiting an answer,
Prepared to blow stack if not placated,
Color me...
"clueless"
Posted by: Dr. Bob
|
June 10, 2010 1:19 PM
PZ,
Your witty, little remarks made me laugh. Thanks.
Posted by: Mystyk
|
June 10, 2010 1:19 PM
Look on the bright side, PZ: he spelled your name right!
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
June 10, 2010 1:21 PM
Somehow, I don't believe your words will sink in to the ignorance of Andrew Rosenberg of Racine, Wisconsin.
As you stated, PZ, the answers are all over the place if he attempted to learn them.
Posted by: gryphontiger
|
June 10, 2010 1:23 PM
“I have been raised in the Lutheran Church since I was born…”
Ha! If he were a REAL Christian, he’d have been one BEFORE he was born! Don’t these people even read their own anti-choice bumper stickers? Hmpf!
^..^
Posted by: eeanm
|
June 10, 2010 1:24 PM
And oh yea, I really like that graphic. It's a good reminder to atheists as well, sometimes non-believers forget that the issue of evil in the world actually isn't really an issue at all. Reminds me of how you said that atheist conventions used to be a bunch of guys analyzing the bible, lol.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
June 10, 2010 1:24 PM
So the general message is that only the tall and loud have any right to criticize religeous groups?
I was also unaware that volcanoes were all that judgemental. Damn volcanoes.
Posted by: blindfaithiness
|
June 10, 2010 1:26 PM
I second what PZ said, Andy R.
Grrr!!
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
June 10, 2010 1:27 PM
Can't you do as Dan Savage and link us to his Facebook page?
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 10, 2010 1:27 PM
Why bother with insane religious morons who will not use reason to figure out their chance existence? The Universe is unaware of their presence, as so should we. My only awareness of their existence is constant ridicule and contempt for a mind deadened by religion.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 10, 2010 1:29 PM
Sorry Mr. Rosenberg, you have to prove yourself right. With solid scientific evidence. We are waiting for you to do so. You see, the null hypothesis in your case is that your deity doesn't exist, and that your holy book is a book of mythology/fiction. That is your starting point. You need to start providing solid evidence otherwise. And remember, the burden of proof is always on you...Posted by: sasqwatch
|
June 10, 2010 1:29 PM
Valedictorian? (walks away muttering, shaking head)
Posted by: blindfaithiness
|
June 10, 2010 1:29 PM
Will I get in trouble if I post a photo of Andrew titled 'Andrew J. Rosenberg: Cadaver dissection'?
Posted by: Larry
|
June 10, 2010 1:32 PM
Mommy! PZ is being rude again! Make him stop it.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk8OXe4QLH9T3aEU-3gCukSRBV5NYevTek
|
June 10, 2010 1:32 PM
Ah the arrogance of ignorance. Glad PZ didn't spare the rod in that case.
That is one seriously deluded brat.
@bonze
And I, for one, welcome our new cephalopod overlords.
Posted by: frisbeetarian
|
June 10, 2010 1:33 PM
He probably visualizes you screaming at the keyboard as you type so when he sees you on a video he can't explain the discrepancy. These people do seem to live in their own made-up world in the head and often seem shocked when they get a glimpse of reality. As we all know, 'Reality has a liberal bias'.
Posted by: Chris
|
June 10, 2010 1:33 PM
Having been raised in a similar (albeit Pietism,which is worse) surrounding, I can certainly assure you that your words will not sink in.
Those Protestant Lunatics flirtatiously look at Creationists and Young Earthers.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
June 10, 2010 1:34 PM
Until fairly recently, I thought that Lutherans were sort of mainstream protestants. Between Michelle Bachman, my nature education coworker who needs to "do more research" to determine that the world is more than 6000 years old, and now this mook, I think I need to reexamine my placement of lutherans on the more to less loony spectrum.
Also, is there a name for the fallacy, common to religious types, that proceeds from the human experience of awe at the natural world to the existence of god? It seems like that particular version (awe? therefore god) deserves its own name. I await the instruction of those more skilled in formal logic.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
June 10, 2010 1:35 PM
Well... it was either him or his brother, the Salutatorian.
Posted by: stevieinthecity#9dac9
|
June 10, 2010 1:35 PM
Why doesn't Adam comment?
Smarmy little brat.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
June 10, 2010 1:36 PM
They have Lutheran high schools?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 1:37 PM
Well, Andrew, if you have so many burning questions, rather than pestering Prof. Myers, why don't you dive into the comments here? Why this thread is all about you, so what better place to show up and ask your questions? There is a caveat, however: listening to the answers is a necessary part of the exchange. Now, either grow up and get the answers you're looking for* or be a polite young idiot and shut up.
*This presumes you are actually being honest when you say you want answers. Most theists aren't honest and say this sort thing when all they are looking for is a way to preach or pretend their arguments for god are good ones.
Posted by: stitzelj
|
June 10, 2010 1:37 PM
I remember being exactly that type of arrogant, twitty, little know-it-all Christian when I was that age and through the first two or three years of my college education (at a Christian college, no less). And then I engaged my brain and started to figure things out for myself and realized how much hogwash religion is. I've been where Mr. Rosenberg is right now, so here's hoping the kid can get his head screwed on straight.
Posted by: SoSayethTheSpider
|
June 10, 2010 1:37 PM
This kid was the valedictorian like I was the star quarterback for the football team! I'd hate to see a letter written by a C student from his undoubtedly prestigious institution.
Posted by: destlund
|
June 10, 2010 1:38 PM
Another fantastic post. But PZ, I'm concerned about your tone. After all the kid was just asking questions. The origin of hydrogen is controversial, and he just wants you to understand alternative theories. I mean, after all, what IS the optimal temperature of the planet?
Posted by: Holytape
|
June 10, 2010 1:38 PM
More than likely he'll go to UW-Madison for college, which is den of godless dirty hippies. By his junior year he will have forgotten all about God and soap. Beer......
Noah and the dinosaurs
Posted by: stevieinthecity#9dac9
|
June 10, 2010 1:38 PM
Sorry. I mean Andrew.
Posted by: o-p-e
|
June 10, 2010 1:41 PM
Ooh, ooh I was valedictorian of my highschool class too, you may all bow down before my brilliant magnificence.
Honestly, I never really viewed it as a terribly impressive accomplishment. That and 2 bucks will buy you a cup of coffee. I probably shouldn't say anymore though, because while I do have a fairly loud voice I don't think I meet the height requirement.
Posted by: mikelatiolais
|
June 10, 2010 1:41 PM
Well, you can see an "in-depth" interview with this winner here: http://journaltimes.com/congrats/article_139e77ac-7038-11df-aacc-001cc4c03286.html
Law or business? is anyone shocked he's not trying for a science degree?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
June 10, 2010 1:41 PM
Also, Dr. Myers, you such a big talker and all so smart and all that, how do gosh-darned magnets work, Sir?
Posted by: woozy
|
June 10, 2010 1:42 PM
Hmmm, dunno... Andrew seems like an niave and ignorant but sincere young man to me. Not sure I'd lump him into the hopeless troll pile just yet. 'course I don't get hundreds of inane e-mail a day... then again, on face value, Andrew's mere youth makes him unaware of just how overwhelming and irritating his attitude are...
Well, phooey.
Were I to answer him sincerely, (which I'd probably give up doing after day 2 and 1/2 if I ran a blog like this) I'd point out:
The something from nothing argument, as mind boggling as a lack of first cause may seem, must also be applied to the super-natural God. If a scientist is to study and question the universe, then any object or hypothesis s/he introduces must also be scrutinized. If said hypothesis is God (or anything else), then God must also be scrutinized and studied. At the very least, God must be well-defined. (What is the nature of God and how would one quantify his creative force?) And there you have it; In studying and observing God, he just doesn't seem to be there.
Yes, I realize lack of first causes seems mind-boggling, (some physicists have explainations but I confess they go over my head) but putting in a "God did it" doesn't resolve anything because 1) now we have to figure out how God did it (or at least define what this "it" it is that God supposedly did) and 2) we have to figure out who did God.
(*snicker* I said "who did God" *snicker*)
Posted by: Big Boppa
|
June 10, 2010 1:42 PM
Home schooled?
Posted by: Qwerty
|
June 10, 2010 1:43 PM
"Something, from nothing. Its a supernatural question in itself that puzzles me, but makes me view atheists as ignorant. "
Something tells me he's been reading or listening to Ray Comfort.
Posted by: blindfaithiness
|
June 10, 2010 1:44 PM
Yes, I'm leaning toward GodDidIt unless you can explain all of the mysteries of time and space right here/right now. You have one minute. GO!
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
June 10, 2010 1:44 PM
Oh, my, yes...
Several.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 1:46 PM
blindfaithiness:
:snortle: Andrew in a nutshell.
Posted by: grudgedk
|
June 10, 2010 1:46 PM
Dear Master Rosenberg,
You're 18, huh? That's nice. You realize the person you're writing e-mails to has held a university degree for longer than you've been alive. right? Let me break this to you as gently as I possibly can. You don't know anything about the world. Not because you're Christian, not because you didn't study hard at school. You don't know anything because you haven't lived long enough to accumulate sufficient knowledge and experience!
Proteins and other chemicals can come together to make an organism, because that's what organisms are. You say the universe must have a creator. It must have come from something or someone. Well if that's the case, where did this supernatural force come from? You can imagine a supernatural being, spontaneously poofing into existence, then subsequently poofing the universe into existence, but for some reason the idea that the whole universe poofing into existence on it's own, or even better, through some natural process we might not fully understand, seems a bit far fetched?
Think about it. If we accept that things can spontaneously poof into existence, why is it more likely that a supernatural deity, who demands our worship, and cannot be perceived, was created, rather than the world we live and breathe in? If you truly believe that something can come from nothing, isn't it more likely that it was the universe, rather than god?
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 10, 2010 1:47 PM
I don't know, I think he might be more or less sincere. And these people do tend to think that evolution, the Big Bang, etc., are attempts to get around the "necessity of God." That evolution is a very limited explanation does not occur to them.
I know that, I was essentially raised to be like Andy, but got into science and began to recognize what it answers and how. I'm sure he thinks that his abiogenesis poser is a serious problem for evolution, even though it is not (abiogenesis is not wholly separate from evolution, nor is it part and parcel of it -- above all, if evolution were to rest on abiogenesis , then evolution should be able to prove abiogenesis, in which case it does (not that I think things are so simple as that)).
At the heart of Andrew's misapprehensions is that he thinks that saying something like God exists is equivalent to saying that God does not exist. No, sorry, "God" explains nothing unless you have some observations that God exists, and that God does things like set the Big Bang in motion. Andrew has no such observations, and so, like leprechauns in the flower garden, may be said not to exist, at least in any sense that we can mean by "exist."
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Ben Goren
|
June 10, 2010 1:48 PM
Andrew Rosenberg of Racine, Wisconsin, I rather suspect you’re reading these words. And I have two challenges for you.
First, one of the pivotal stories of the Gospels describes Thomas Didymus not believing in the risen Christ until after he had, shall we say, fondled Jesus’s intestines through the spear-hole in his side. I’m assuming you believe that really happened. So: why on Earth would you knowingly, lovingly, devote your life to a zombie indistinguishable from those in a horror movie?
Second, I’m also assuming you believe that many of the other fantastic events of the Gospels actually happened — especially that the graves in Jerusalem opened up, spilling zombie hordes to wander the streets much to the “amazement” of the inhabitants (Matthew 27:52); or that a zombie publicly and shamefully executed for preaching allegedly-controversial subjects continued, for 40 days after said execution, to do exactly that which had gotten him executed in the first place. Can you account for the fact that none of the extant contemporary accounts of the time (especially that of Philo of Alexandria) make mention of these events?
Cheers,
b&
--
EAC Memographer
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
``All but God can prove this sentence true.''
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/2Cpr09BisvAGE8xTLScKqHa9oE8qMtok#e64de
|
June 10, 2010 1:48 PM
I love posts like this because it illustrates what NOT to do if you're a Christian.
Seriously, what a pompous little nut bag thinking that PZ has the time to respond to every twit with an e-mail account.
I especially like the bit, "I am an intelligent individual, whose thoughts go beyond the typical 2010 senior's tangents..." and yet he can't do a little research. His thoughts haven't gone beyond what his parent taught him.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
June 10, 2010 1:49 PM
'Kay. This is all lovely...
But re that graphic: wait, what? Being an atheist is cool?
I mean, I'm good with this 'n all, but no one told me, see...
So: when did this happen? And, more importantly, when do I get my groupies?
(/Alternative version: I'm not an atheist because it's cool. Being an atheist is cool because I'm one.)
Posted by: superwishin
|
June 10, 2010 1:50 PM
Being from Racine, WI originally, I feel I must stick up for my town. Years ago a local freethinker/humanist group started putting up a display during the holiday season next to the manger scene in the downtown Memorial Square. But not without a tiff. The local x-tians thought it was a horrible idea to show there might be any other viewpoints on the subject of morality, magic babies, or Six Flags in the sky when you die. All is not lost in good ole Racine, or WI in general.
Posted by: Chris
|
June 10, 2010 1:50 PM
Until fairly recently, I thought that Lutherans were sort of mainstream protestants.
Boy, are you wrong there. Lutherans are kinda like the Catholics of the Protestants. Ultra-conservative and usually take the bible literally. When they call themselves Pietists, they are like the Spanish Inquisition of the Lutherans.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
June 10, 2010 1:51 PM
Don't they teach probability in highschool? Even Lutheran ones? The probability that God exists and the probability that God doesn't exist must sum to one. They can't both be very low. Even an appeal to the principle of indifference would assign both a prior of 50%...both can't be "far-fetched".
Craptacular.
Posted by: loocas
|
June 10, 2010 1:52 PM
His exchange with you is basically the exchange I had with God when I abandoned my faith during high school:
"Dear God,
WTF."
"Hey kid,
GET STUFFED."
Realized that I was asking the wrong person.
Posted by: Teshi
|
June 10, 2010 1:54 PM
Oh no destlund (#27)! You mentioned the t-word! Run! Run for your liiiiiife!
Andrew, this is how your email reads:
I don't think that was an effective tactic.
That said, here's something to help you get started, Andrew-of-Racine-Wisconsin.
Posted by: LinzeeBinzee
|
June 10, 2010 1:54 PM
I feel bad for him that his name is now attached to these thoughts in such a public forum...Did you have to post his name?
I would hate if my 18-year-old thoughts were preserved on a blog with millions of hits...now when anyone Googles his name they'll always end up on a blog that makes fun of him.
I hate to be this person, but PZ has a disclaimer saying he'll post names and contacts of people who make violent threats, but nothing about posting full names of regular emailers. When I send an email I assume it's a private exchange between two people, and that it won't be shared with anyone without my permission. Considering that this is young, naive person who was brainwashed into a religion since birth, it might have been nice of PZ to just use the first name so that their name doesn't have to be associated with these thoughts forever.
Now tell me why I'm wrong...
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 1:55 PM
AJ Milne OM:
No. Being an atheist is hadocool.
Posted by: Mike in Ontario, NY
|
June 10, 2010 1:55 PM
Andrew, if you're reading this blog entry, go to youtube and check out every video from user "Evid3nc3". Seriously. Watch them in chronological order.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/CGWty1lslPBt7EBwUpQ4_z6osBtpb6fIMKot#2ec45
|
June 10, 2010 1:55 PM
I'm still trying to get my head around the idea of some sufficiently religious to email arguably one of the nation's most prominent atheists and ask him to defend his view, but not sufficiently religious as to be able to properly spell "religious." I mean, he sent this in an email, and when I type in "religeous," my browser underlines the word "religeous" in red to tell me that it's misspelled.
His choices are business and law. I recommend business. Spelling is rather important for law students.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnXstPuvYMCXA8_0FBeZXUCruIJBFUL384
|
June 10, 2010 1:55 PM
...whose thoughts go beyond the typical 2010 senior's tangents
I don't think our class valedictorian thought she was so much better than the rest of us. She was smarter than most of us yes, but had a hell of a lot more humility than this punk.
Let's see, Racine Lutheran high school has 247 kids in all 4 grades. So he's smartest out of about 60 kids? Wow that is sure something to brag about.
Posted by: Nemo
|
June 10, 2010 1:57 PM
There's little of substance in his messages to even address, but on the point about bacteria, his error is in thinking of them as the most primitive form of life -- instead of what they actually are, the end product of a billion years of evolution.
Posted by: johnlil#0a224
|
June 10, 2010 1:57 PM
My wife was her high school valedictorian, and she has no clue how our toaster works.
Why doesn't this kid take a few bucks to the nearest (secular) bookstore and buy "The God Delusion," rather than pester you?
Surely he's aware the book exists, and surely he can make his way through it. After all, he's a highly intelligent individual, just like PZ.
Posted by: jidashdee
|
June 10, 2010 1:58 PM
Andrew,
grudgedk beat me to the punch and said exactly what I would have said to you. Let me try to boil it down a little more:
You have to believe in the all-knowing, all-powerful something with a vindictive, jealous personality, who loves you, but who will also send you to hell for eternity, that existed before there was anything, and that created everything.
Now take my personal hypothesis that the universe was formed by the separation of matter and antimatter (as happens continuously and spontaneously even in a vacuum).
Then all I have to believe is that 0 = 1 - 1.
My hypothesis seems like less of a reach, wouldn't you say?
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
June 10, 2010 1:59 PM
What are you driving at? Are you saying it's no big deal I was valedictorian, just because there were only 4 people in my graduating class?
Sir, you cut me to the quick!
Posted by: toomanytribbles
|
June 10, 2010 1:59 PM
pssst, valedictorian: it's b-e-g-i-n-n-i-n-g
both emails were aggravating, but it was the bad spelling that made me snap.
Posted by: woozy
|
June 10, 2010 2:00 PM
Also, Dr. Myers, you such a big talker and all so smart and all that, how do gosh-darned magnets work, Sir?
Is this a reference to Insane Clown Posse?
Um, what am I missing that everyone else sees that I feel PZ went a little overboard on this dumb kid? I mean naive ignorance and self-importance are hallmarks of being high-school seniors, isn't it? I mean, weren't we *all* ignorant little twerps when we were 18?
It never would have occured to me to ever write to a college professor at his age. If it had I'd have written asking how do people know trisecting an angle or squaring a circle is impossible (I heard that Martin Gardner and other mathematicians had a no-trisect-angle mail policy and it made sense because I knew crackpots must outnumber true geniuses a thousand to one but I didn't know how anyone could know it was impossible ... I do now... sorta). I shudder to think what would have happened if I had.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 10, 2010 2:00 PM
From his interview:
Oh oh, Andy, what are you going to do in court, bring in God whenever answers aren't apparent?
The Salem witch trials are in the past, Mr. Rosenberg. Neither in law nor in science is "magic did it" allowed, nor is "revelation" credited. You can't invoke God just because you don't know that the burden of "proof" rests upon the person making the assertion that such an entity exists.
Coming up with real answers is work. Both in law and in science you'll just have to come up with actual answers, not the simple expedient of assuming magic's effectiveness.
And honestly, Andrew, if you came here with honest questions and little arrogance, you'd be hit by disrespectful responses, but also with many respectful and helpful explanations of how science -- and law -- can come to appropriate conclusions. "God did it" is never a sufficient answer.
Glen Davidson
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 2:03 PM
LinzeeBinzee:
Andrew, while young, is of legal age. If you're going to pester someone with no sign of stopping, you should be prepared for consequence. This is an important life lesson. If someone wishes to put themselves out as a twit, you take your chances.
Andrew was attempting to come off as superior, and thought he could school a biology professor. This was a bad move. Andrew will now have learned that lesson. If Andrew ever develops thinking skills of the critical kind, he'll recognize this and take it as a valuable life lesson. If he continues to be god soaked to point of being brain pickled, it won't matter anyway, he'll continue to be an insufferable twit.
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
June 10, 2010 2:04 PM
Hello, PZ Myers;
I'm writing to you in the hopes of learning how to fashion my own underpants and build my very first Special Rocket Ship. Please teach me these things.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/2Cpr09BisvAGE8xTLScKqHa9oE8qMtok#e64de
|
June 10, 2010 2:05 PM
Congratz... except for the fact its high school. I had a 4.2 and was 52 in my class.
Who thinks that a few more As than Bs the person next to you qualifies you to question as grudgedk put it, "has held a university degree for longer than you've been alive?"
Okay... now that that's out of the way, I need to ask everyone a very serious question...
Who read this...
... and now really wants to see PZ in a zoot suit saying that line in a video on YouTube so we can just link it when some religious dunder-head stubbles into the forums here and thinks they can lead us back to God with logical fallacies and false promises?
-Kemanorel
Posted by: Robert Thille
|
June 10, 2010 2:06 PM
Speaking of The God Delusion... I bought 10 copies awhile ago to give out, and still have some left. Andrew (or anyone else), if you want a copy, email me at web-scienceblogs-tgd@rangat.org, and I'll mail you one.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
June 10, 2010 2:06 PM
is it?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
June 10, 2010 2:07 PM
I have a sneaking suspicion he may have been put up to this...
Just sayin'...
Posted by: Chris
|
June 10, 2010 2:08 PM
"God did it" is never a sufficient answer.
Assuming you're not fluent in German, their word for "god" is "Gott" and you're wrong. God did it.
Posted by: snurp
|
June 10, 2010 2:08 PM
o-p-e @30
You can stand on my shoulders, o-p-e, and together we can be the obnoxiously loud, ten-foot tall* polar bear of a valedictorian** he sought in PZ.
*Assuming you are at least five feet tall.
**I used my valediction to talk about Batman. There was a great deal of intellectual accomplishment on display that day.
Posted by: nonsensemachine
|
June 10, 2010 2:09 PM
"Hello, my name is Andrew Rosenberg. I'm 18, not jewish, and intellectually lazy. I've decided to go with Christianity as my world view without actually reading anything about science or facts or other religions or anything. It's okay, though, because I'm a valedictorian. Trust me, where I'm from we spell it 'beggining.' Since I've predetermined that science is baloney and your blog popped up when I googled evolution, tell me now how the universe began, in the beggining. Kthxbai."
Posted by: McWaffle
|
June 10, 2010 2:10 PM
Hopefully he does get into Madison, our patented Libro-Sphere protects us from the rest of the state.
Posted by: CJO
|
June 10, 2010 2:11 PM
that a zombie publicly and shamefully executed for preaching allegedly-controversial subjects continued, for 40 days after said execution, to do exactly that which had gotten him executed in the first place. Can you account for the fact that none of the extant contemporary accounts of the time (especially that of Philo of Alexandria) make mention of these events?
Or how about the apparent fact that the followers of this zombie were allowed to operate in the zombie's name with impunity, for years, in the very city where the attempted execution took place? Or that in the later trials of apostles (Stephen, Paul) before the Romans, as recounted in Acts, the disposition of the (missing) body of this supposedly executed dissident is never an issue? The implacable Roman military-judicial machine appears to have quite uncharacteristically dropped the ball on this one.
Posted by: crookedshoes
|
June 10, 2010 2:12 PM
PZ (et al),
I deal with this young man (in stereotype) all day, every day. I am a high school Biology teacher who specializes in Evolution. As a result I am the target of a club (cult?) on campus called "young life" where religion is jammed down the throats of kids with low self esteem. Anyway these kids are given some catch phrases and speaking points and sent in to sabotage my lectures. I (like you, PZ) have become efficient at answering their inane "questions".
I am going to borrow some of your "terminology" here and just say : "I'll make a special effort to yell rudely at you and just you, and do my best to send your know-nothing pious butt away crying." I was laughing outloud and thank you for it.
Posted by: stephanie.keating
|
June 10, 2010 2:12 PM
I agree that the emails come off as a little arrogant, but I think there's still a chance that he was genuinely looking for guidance and answers. While I'm sure PZ gets more of these than he can answer, I'm not sure that it warrants such an angry blog post.
Personally, I would refer this young man to the books mentioned in the post and in the comments, perhaps a couple of informative websites, and the excellent YouTube series about deconversion from Christianity.
I was once a young (probably arrogant) Catholic, and I was convinced I was right. It was, in part, due to my conversations with people on the internet who held different views, that I came to appreciate the irrationality of my beliefs. It's sentences like this: "After all, if you surround yourself with the same types of people all your life, then you will never learn anything or make your own decisions," that make me think this young man might, in fact, be asking in earnest.
Posted by: Teshi
|
June 10, 2010 2:13 PM
Hm. I do agree with LinzeeBinzee that perhaps if people are still in high school they do deserve protection from their own ignorance.
However, this young man is eighteen. In the eyes of the law, he is an adult. In four months he'll be in college, hopefully taking BIO101 and PHY101.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/ad_astra_va#89a60
|
June 10, 2010 2:15 PM
Regarding the fact that he is Lutheran, it is important to note that there are at least three different groups of Lutherans in the USA. Mr. Rosenberg's school is affiliated with Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod(LCMS), one of the more conservative branches of Lutheranism.
The largest branch,the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), is significantly more liberal (e.g. no biblical literalism), which is ironic considering that it has "evangelical" in the name.
This is why sometimes you hear about Lutheran church groups that are crazy conservative and other groups that are mainstream liberal. When referring to Lutheran, one should usually specify the denomination as well so as to avoid confusion.
Posted by: abb3w
|
June 10, 2010 2:15 PM
To be slightly nice to the kid, his questions on "the world's first bacterium" would be within PZ's competence to address. However, PZ's justly irritated, and this sort of question gets answered here repeatedly; so, I'll give a few pointers.
The technical term for this topic is "Abiogenesis"; knowing that should help make a literature search easier. I'd suggest the best place to start would be to ask a reference librarian at the local university library for help with a search; even if he doesn't learn about the origin of life, learning how a literature search is done will doubtless help him later in college. (One at the local public library might be adequate, but less likely.)
Via tinyurl.com/nzd9rb a decent outline can be found covering most of the current models; there's also several articles on the topic over at the TalkOrigins.com website. I'd personally also recommend a couple technical papers: (doi:10.1098/rspa.2008.0178), (doi:10.1039/a803602k), (doi:10.1073/pnas.0806714105), (doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.1136), (doi:10.1126/science.1167856), (doi:10.1038/nature07749). To translate doi references, see DOI.org.
Expect to have to deal with considerable biochemistry and thermodynamics (including statistical thermodynamics), and a lot of heavy duty math.
Posted by: crookedshoes
|
June 10, 2010 2:17 PM
Oh, and valedictorian of summer school counts as valedictorian????
"I AM THE SMARTEST DUMBASS" he proclaimed in a LOUD voice.
Hey Andy, right is right and confused is confused. There is no shame in being confused HOWEVER to be right you have to work and read and think and ask and doubt and and and well all those things that you are not asked to do in your religion class. All you do there is ACCEPT. I do not accept anything without proof and that is the fundamental reason I am a scientist. Also, BTW the main reason I am an atheist...
Posted by: nonsensemachine
|
June 10, 2010 2:19 PM
When people like this use the quote about surrounding yourself with like-minded people, they're usually just praising themselves for actually talking to (or more correctly, talking at) someone they disagree with. They then spend the time validating their beliefs by setting you up so that you can never satisfy their criteria, and their point of view wins by default. It's arrogance, plain and simple.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 2:20 PM
stephanie.keating:
If that were the case, Andrew would not have shown himself to be an insufferable twit. The signs of twitdom are littered all over his e-mails, they are unmistakable. If he was truly looking for answers, a simple e-mail along the lines of:
"Prof. Myers, I am an 18 year old Christian who is curious about both atheism and science. I have many questions, primarily about these subjects: xxxxx.
I know you don't have time to address all my questions, but I was hoping you could recommend books and websites I could read and perhaps a forum where I could discuss these issues."
Thank you for your time, etc., yada yada yada.
Now that would have read as sincere and wouldn't have been tossed out for derision. As I said in #61, Andrew was attempting to come off as superior, and thought he could school a biology professor. There is zero sincerity in his missives.
Posted by: Glenn G
|
June 10, 2010 2:20 PM
@12: The universe shouldn't care and neither should we. Yet we're so damn outspoken.
Well, for me at least, the main reason I am so outspoken about how religion is a load of bull is because of how much influence religion has in government. If we let an ancient religion have influence over our policies we are going to be fighting an uphill battle to further society. Look at the abortion debate, look at the fight against contraceptives. In fact, in some states, weren't contraceptives banned at one point?
Aside from that, I'm just an outspoken kind of guy and hopefully that never changes.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
June 10, 2010 2:21 PM
I feel bad for him that his name is now attached to these thoughts in such a public forum...Did you have to post his name?
You don't come around here much, do you?
The kid is an adult now. He makes remarks as an adult, he gets challenged like an adult. Welcome to reality.
Yes, you publish his name, like you do the name of any moron who thinks he can be such an obnoxious twit.
I would hate if my 18-year-old thoughts were preserved on a blog with millions of hits...now when anyone Googles his name they'll always end up on a blog that makes fun of him.
I'm sorry you were raised by wolves rather than a parent who taught you that if you say something, you can't pretend you didn't say it, no matter how many people heard it, or that you got a special pass if you were young, braindead and naive. The only way you stop being young is to be lucky enough to keep breathing; the only way to overcome braindead and naive is to have your ideals challenged. He's an adult now. He'll have to realize that he can't spew bullshit unchallenged, or he can keep getting his ass handed to him. It's his choice.
I hate to be this person, but PZ has a disclaimer saying he'll post names and contacts of people who make violent threats, but nothing about posting full names of regular emailers. When I send an email I assume it's a private exchange between two people, and that it won't be shared with anyone without my permission.
That's what you get for assuming. When you send an email, it's not just yours. It becomes the property of the person who received it, too, and ultimately to a greater degree possession 9/10ths of the law, and all that. Don't want writing something stupid shown to the world? Think before you write.
Considering that this is young, naive person who was brainwashed into a religion since birth, it might have been nice of PZ to just use the first name so that their name doesn't have to be associated with these thoughts forever.
One more time: He's an adult now. He gets to learn what that means. Quit pampering the little ass, and he might get some brains. You're not helping.
Now tell me why I'm wrong...
Beyond using an ellipses in a ridiculous way?
Because it's not your fucking blog.
It's really that simple.
Posted by: woozy
|
June 10, 2010 2:21 PM
Okay, I gotta admit it. I'm just *not* seeing the ignorant arrogance and rudeness that all the rest of you are seeing. All I'm seeing is ignorant niavite.
You're 18, huh? That's nice. You realize the person you're writing e-mails to has held a university degree for longer than you've been alive. right?
Um, yeah. That's probably why he thought the person could answer questions he might sincerely have had.
I'd hate to send a message to that people only deserve to ask question to people who are *dumber* than they are.
Then all I have to believe is that 0 = 1 - 1. My hypothesis seems like less of a reach, wouldn't you say?
Not really, because you still have to believe there is a number that doesn't equal zero and that returns to the mind buggling question where the hell does that one come from? Of course one has to ask where the hell does God come from too.
Now I admit I've never understood why some folks seem utterly comfortable with a concept that God would somehow be exempt from this "everythingsgottacomefromsomewhere" rule. But I guess there's a comfort to figuring if a rule has clearly been broken then there must be an exemption.
I realize that the 1 and the negative 1 have to exist in potential in the zero but it's still mind boggling.
Posted by: o-p-e
|
June 10, 2010 2:22 PM
Snurp @ 68
I am 5'9" so we would reach ten feet. Of course now I am picturing some sort of cap and gown wearing voltron style valedictobot.
I cribbed the final line from Bilbo's farewell speech in Fellowship in my address. It achieved excatly what I wanted, few uncertain laughs and many blank stares.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 10, 2010 2:22 PM
That, unfortunately, is a rather naive viewpoint. I hope that you do not continue to operate on those assumptions.
I don't know, I'm kind of conflicted on the matter. Let's suppose that PZ had responded as these people like to imagine, with a "Gee, I don't know, those are profound and provocative issues that I really hadn't considered." What would Andy do with such an email? I'm guessing he'd post it somewhere on the net.
It's not always bad to just slug the challenger, to let him know what he's up against.
That said, you can see PZ taking out his frustrations with being asked the same worthless questions that are taught across the country in religious schools out on young Andrew. Should he have to take the brunt of the attack on naivete/stupidity, just because so many are so poorly educated?
I don't know, maybe it should have been just his first name used. OTOH, don't worry about Mr. Rosenberg always being remembered for such a pathetic defense of theism. Just because it's on the web doesn't mean that anyone cares, and I bet almost no one does in five years.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/2Cpr09BisvAGE8xTLScKqHa9oE8qMtok#e64de
|
June 10, 2010 2:24 PM
Yeah... he has thought waaaaay beyond that of a normal senior... football, music, drama, and prom. Who'd've thought a high schooler was thinking about that?!
Spider identification fail:
And this kid was valedictorian?
Posted by: Matrim
|
June 10, 2010 2:26 PM
#19> Pietism? I didn't know there was a religion based around Admiral Piett...huh, you learn something new every day.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
June 10, 2010 2:30 PM
Really? You think the existence of non-zero numbers is something that has to be taken on faith?Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
June 10, 2010 2:31 PM
"I think that it is extremely rude of you to constantly criticize religeous groups on your blog."
Hey, at least you actually have to seek out criticism of your religion. Us godless folks deal with our lack of religion being criticized pretty much any time we actually admit it to someone.
Posted by: El Bastardo
|
June 10, 2010 2:33 PM
Can anyone point out any time P.Z. was actually rude? There's a world of difference between someone being overtly offensive and someone being offended.
It is rude to call a spade, a spade? A cretin, a cretin?
Apparently it's "rude" to point out reality to the deluded, sheesh.
Posted by: Larry
|
June 10, 2010 2:34 PM
So, Andy. How's the playing in the deep end of the pool?
Posted by: Not Guilty
|
June 10, 2010 2:34 PM
Why do people operate under the assumption that you have to be nice to them? I'd really love an answer for that. Listen up folks: you do not have the right to not be offended. If reading the blog hurts your feelings, don't read it. Also, love that picture explaining why you are atheist. Same applies to me. Only problem is when I present that argument I get a response along the lines of (a) we are proof enough, or (b) who says science has cornered the market on correctness? At that stage, I walk away. I also do not have the patience to deal with people.
Posted by: Mike in Ontario, NY
|
June 10, 2010 2:34 PM
I thought Pietism was the worship of fruit tarts. Dang...I thought I'd finally found the answer to all of my spiritual longings.
Posted by: Galahad Threepwood
|
June 10, 2010 2:35 PM
How do you get to be valedictorian of your high school class without learning how to spell beginning properly? I understand typos, but he did it twice.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 10, 2010 2:36 PM
Oh, thanks. Thanks for the reminder.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
June 10, 2010 2:36 PM
And when we don't. There's nothing like the experience of listening to someone who doesn't know you're an atheist as they go off about how unbelievers don't deserve to live in this country.Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
June 10, 2010 2:37 PM
Answer, young Jedi: entropy
That's it -- it's all about counting. The rest of science is just commentary.
Your reading list -- the last 10k years of literature. Come back after that with any questions you may have (in written form of course).
Posted by: randydudek
|
June 10, 2010 2:38 PM
Woozy@82,
Even if you do think that the first email was a legitimate line of questions from someone looking for answers (a viewpoint I disagree with, but can at least see), how can you possibly read the second email as anything other than a young punkass trying to pick a fight with PeeZee?
Posted by: snurp
|
June 10, 2010 2:38 PM
@o-p-e
We need to collect only three more people for a full sentai team. I am dibsing "The Lancer" here and now.
Also, I'm going to imagine that there was a trap door or other method of rapid disappearance on your stage.
Posted by: jidashdee
|
June 10, 2010 2:38 PM
Yes it is. If I had a satisfactory answer for why they would separate in sufficient quantity to accrete and form universes then I'd show up at your door with a signed picture of me receiving the Nobel Prize while wearing a hat upon which would be mounted my Nobel Prize and a t-shirt on which would be written "I Won the Nobel Prize".
As a math grad I'm led to believe that if there ever was nothing then there must still, on average, be nothing. I'm totally fine with 0=a-a but 0=1 makes my skin crawl.
For now, I'm comfortable not really knowing the mechanics of it.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
June 10, 2010 2:38 PM
It's true, really, I think, as a practical matter. Insofar as there's so much of that noise in the world right now, his particular stupid will generally wind up buried in it all. There is an advantage to being a member of a shambling horde of undead (or worshippers of the undead), after all.
(/And I mean: I could try to start a meme where a particularly risibly poor defense of a given theology became to be known as a 'Rosenberg', but I rather think the guy trying to get it called a 'Comfort' would completely blow my effort out of the water.)
Posted by: SaintStephen
|
June 10, 2010 2:39 PM
You're always the perfect gentleman, Professor Myers. So please... allow me to assist in this matter:
Hey Andrew Rosenberg:
Go FUCK YOURSELF, you pernicious little twit. I was a 4.0 valedictorian also, and a Stanford University graduate with Distinction in mechanical engineering. You are making a total ASS of yourself, you ignorant little dweeb. Furthermore, on this particular blog, you're virtually naked, surrounded by minds that make your best thinking look like a game of Tic-Tac-Toe.
Get the fuck out, you sad example of education-gone-awry. Please take PZ's advice and OPEN UP A FUCKING SCIENCE BOOK, "valedictorian".
(Ah, what a great way to start the morning!)
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 10, 2010 2:40 PM
First letter, yes. Just naive. That's why I let it go. Second letter, no: that's when he gets all pissy about me not replying to his first, and starts whinging about how rude I am.
There isn't one person in the entire world who I feel is obligated to answer any question I might send them. Mr Rosenberg seems to feel he can demand replies from me.
No, he can't.
Posted by: DesertHedgehog
|
June 10, 2010 2:41 PM
I hate to see anyone do anything to discourage people at this kid's age from writing to ask questions. At 16-18 I went through a phase of writing authors to ask questions about things I'd found in their books that I didn't understand or was interested in knowing more about. Michael Crichton sent a pleasant brief note telling me that the articles in a bibliography at one of his novels was 100% fabricated, but that he wished that a couple of the citations were real, just because the topics were interesting. J.G. Ballard sent a very nice 2-page letter about Max Ernst. A couple of other writers sent book recommendations and advice. So I really do hate seeing anyone made skittish about writing to ask questions. You may not always--- or even very often ---get a response, but you shouldn't have to feel afraid to ask.
Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 10, 2010 2:43 PM
PZ-
Seriously?!
I can't think of a single thing I would find in a library that I couldn't find on the internet, directly or indirectly.
Can it be that PZ has never heard of ebook readers?
The paper medium has become completely obsolete for quite some time now...I thought that PZ was an environmentalist.
Posted by: DesertHedgehog
|
June 10, 2010 2:43 PM
I hate to see anyone do anything to discourage people at this kid's age from writing to ask questions. At 16-18 I went through a phase of writing authors to ask questions about things I'd found in their books that I didn't understand or was interested in knowing more about. Michael Crichton sent a pleasant brief note telling me that the articles in a bibliography at one of his novels were 100% fabricated, but that he wished that a couple of the citations were real, just because the topics were interesting. J.G. Ballard sent a very nice 2-page letter about Max Ernst. A couple of other writers sent book recommendations and advice. So I really do hate seeing anyone made skittish about writing to ask questions. You may not always--- or even very often ---get a response, but you shouldn't have to feel afraid to ask.
Posted by: randydudek
|
June 10, 2010 2:44 PM
@103, But did you ever send a petulant crybaby of a letter to any of the authors who did not respond to your requests?
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
June 10, 2010 2:45 PM
If I may offer some advice from the Holy Book of Pixar:
Well, with counseling, I think you'll come to forgive me. - Mr. Incredible
Posted by: Aquaria
|
June 10, 2010 2:47 PM
You're 18, huh? That's nice. You realize the person you're writing e-mails to has held a university degree for longer than you've been alive. right?
Um, yeah. That's probably why he thought the person could answer questions he might sincerely have had.
Sincere. Uh huh.
Its a supernatural question in itself that puzzles me, but makes me view atheists as ignorant.
That right there sent up warnings in a 10 megawatt red bulb that this pious little fraud wasn't really interested in learning; his "asking questions" is a common ruse theotards use trying to play "gotcha" with an atheist later. They seem sincere, but, if you wait long enough, they'll give themselves away as the lying scumbags they are.
Like this guy did.
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 10, 2010 2:48 PM
Glen G @ 80
Just to clarify my remark @ 12, my contempt is for Andrew and his religious ilk, not any apathy for religion and its insidious insinuations into everyday life and its consequences. Trust me, for I am always ready and able to give religion its due, in the form of abject invective and ever present examples of its stupidity and insane defense of its insane principles. Like yourself, I will always be outspoken against this pox on reason. I relish the battle, for no matter what is thrown against it, reason will always prevail.
Posted by: Shala
|
June 10, 2010 2:50 PM
What's with all the concern trolls in this thread?
Andrew Rosenberg is getting a taste of reality. Even a year ago I might have asked PZ the same types of ridiculous questions, and the only way for me to wake up and smell the ashes would be if I got smacked down hard for it. Back when I was 18? I shudder to think of how deluded I was.
I think PZ's taught him a valuable lesson, if he takes the time to see it. I wish I had someone 3 years ago who would have been willing to give me such good advice.
Granted, Rosenberg may not be the type to respond well to criticism. But given how aggressive he was with his 2nd email, he should be fully able to take it if he can dish it.
It would actually be a nice change of pace if he came to this thread and apologized for acting stupidly. He is young and it'd be a waste to see his mind stay so warped.
Posted by: Roger
|
June 10, 2010 2:51 PM
The first email was annoying. The second email was downright stupid, brattish, and arrogant. He invited ridicule and scorn with his condescending little fit. It reveals his own "agenda"--he first tries to "bait" a considerably more mature adult into a "conversation" (no doubt a tactic he learned at his little "religeous" indoctrination meetings); failing that, he gets angry. The good professor has not deigned to respond to Master Rosenberg's well-crafted invitation to conversation! The nerve! So then, Master Rosenberg takes off his glove and slaps the good professor across the face: he thinks the good professor is RUDE! He thinks that his "followers" like witty remarks! But in real life, the good professor is a "little man with a quiet voice"! Take that, PZ Myers!
Frankly, PZ was kinder to him than I might have been had I gotten that second email. Of course, whatever we "followers" say and whatever PZ says will only confirm to Master Rosenberg that he's right and that his imaginary sky friend has blessed him to be "persecuted" for his cause...despite the fact that he is the effective cause of the ridicule he's receiving. Apparently, no one taught Master Rosenberg, high school valedictorian, the aphorism, "Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
Posted by: nonsensemachine
|
June 10, 2010 2:51 PM
Some of you are missing Andrew's intention entirely. He simply is not asking for actual science facts or theories. He only wants to provoke an insufficient response (as any response would be to the willfully ignorant) so that he can confirm his irrational beliefs. He wants to see for himself that the other side has nothing on him, especially coming from a prominent and outspoken "evolutionist." It's a form of trolling, nothing more.
Remember, "as easy as it is to say that a God does not exist, its just as easy to say that one (multiples?) does," and saying something exists is as good as any proof.
Posted by: woozy
|
June 10, 2010 2:52 PM
Is this a reference to Insane Clown Posse?
is it?
I dunno. I read somewhere they have a song with lyrics about wondering how magnets work.
Let's suppose that PZ had responded as these people like to imagine, with a "Gee, I don't know, those are profound and provocative issues that I really hadn't considered."
I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he was expecting an answer that might point out what was wrong with his understanding.
I mean, here's a thought excercise. If I go back to myself as a naive and ignorant high school student that I was and imagine the letter I never wrote to an arbitrary math professor:
"I'm fascinated with the idea of non-Euclidean Geometry and was intrigued to hear that in attempting to prove Euclid's fifth postulate (given a line and a point not on it there is one and only one line parallel containing the point --- in it's simplest version) by assuming it isn't true and discovering the resulting geometries are equally valid. I tried applying Cartesian coordinates and stumbled what seemed to be a proof that the fifth postulate *is* true. (Man, I can't believe I was ever dumb enough not to realize the error in that, but, alas, I was) Is there an error in my proof?
"Also, I heard you dismiss all claims of succeeding in trisecting an angle. I understand that cranks claiming to do so must outnumber legitimate letters by the thousand but you claim that trisecting an angle is impossible. I'd like to know how one can know that something is impossible. I trust that all the people claiming to have done so are probably cranks, but how can one know that something will never be possible?"
Would such a letter (incrediably dumb I know but were *you* smart when you were 18) have been equally rude? (Gulp. I can take it... I'm not 18 any more.) If not, why not?
(Bear in mind, I'd have assumed I probably wouldn't get an answer but I ... well, I wouldn't have expected public ridicule either.)
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
June 10, 2010 2:52 PM
A few years ago I went back to college to finish up my BS. I needed science credits so I thought I'd learn more about biology. I took a class called Principles of Biology. Next to me in class was a Lutheran (IIRC). He informed me that when he found out we would be studying evolution, it "pissed [him] off." He also believes that every idea in your head is placed there by either God or the Devil. If you step in the street and see a bus coming at you, it's Jesus that puts the thought in your head to move out of the way. My jaw dropped at that point and the conversation ended.
Posted by: Shala
|
June 10, 2010 2:52 PM
I can't think of a single thing I would find in a library that I couldn't find on the internet, directly or indirectly.
Can it be that PZ has never heard of ebook readers?
The paper medium has become completely obsolete for quite some time now...I thought that PZ was an environmentalist.
Speaking personally I find it much more comfortable and enjoyable to read from a book than from a computer screen.
Posted by: Shala
|
June 10, 2010 2:54 PM
I hate italics.
Posted by: Heaventree
|
June 10, 2010 2:55 PM
I think he should be referred to John Kwok for all his answers. Kwok is an alum of Stuyvesant Fucking High, ya know.
Posted by: robinsrule
|
June 10, 2010 2:55 PM
I'm six foot five and I eat punks like you for breakfast
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
June 10, 2010 2:56 PM
Dreadnought:
You need a better class of library: mine will supply materials in electronic as well as paper form.
Or maybe I need a richer library: mine can't afford to supply all its users with ebook readers, and in fact is worrying that budget cuts will affect hours and the ability to buy new materials.
Posted by: Glenn G
|
June 10, 2010 2:57 PM
@109:
Ah, I thought you were arguing that we should ignore them.
Reason will always prevail? I disagree, and my reason for doing so is the number of religious people on the planet and the success of pseudoscientific industries like homeopathy.
Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 10, 2010 3:01 PM
so sad that people don't know that these things exist
Posted by: Skepticat
|
June 10, 2010 3:01 PM
I have no doubt that this young man is sincere. He reminds me very much of myself when I was younger and struggling with my faith.
I was born into a religious family and indoctrinated heavily. Even at age 18, I did not understand how to think logically about these things and I wasn't always sure how to ask the questions I had. I didn't really understand how the world worked. I was a total mess really.
When I discovered atheist forums and blogs in my 20s, I learned very quickly not to post anything. People were not at all helpful and were so quick to condemn me for my errors. So I lurked for about 10 years and just read as much as I possibly could. I studied and studied until I came to understand things better and learned to think logically.
I fear that I am the exception and not the rule. So many come to us with questions (yes, the same old tired questions) and we turn them away with accusations and harsh words. I understand the temptation to do this. I share it often - why can they not just go study up on this stuff like I did? But I wonder if our general approach serves us well. How many do we lose without even knowing it? Do we care?
I'm not advocating that we take in every stray and treat them with kid gloves. Our time and resources are valuable. Certainly, PZ doesn't have time to molly-coddle these people and neither do we. But I do wonder if some of us tend to forget that we were once just as bad and we trotted out the same junk because we really didn't know any other way to approach it.
Whatever the case, I hope Andrew will continue his search for truth. Having to pull oneself up by the bootstraps is a painful but productive way to get the job done.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/2Cpr09BisvAGE8xTLScKqHa9oE8qMtok#e64de
|
June 10, 2010 3:02 PM
It's not because he's asking questions. It's because he's asking stupid creationist questions not even suited to the person he's asking them to.
PZ explains this quite distinctily... right up top there in the post.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 10, 2010 3:02 PM
I've actually given Rosenberg a very serious and very good answer to his question up there: I listed and linked to books he ought to be reading.
As for this:
I am really, really amused. That's a really stupid comment. There are huge numbers of books that are not available in ebook format, and it's also extremely useful (and cheaper!) to have a library at hand. One of the deep, dark secrets to science blogging -- and it may be a terrible mistake to reveal it here -- is to have many more resources available than just what you read on the internet or even in ebooks. I look stuff up all the time in the piles of books that usually end up surrounding me anywhere I stop and sit for a few hours.
Posted by: gettingfree
|
June 10, 2010 3:04 PM
Andy,
Something, from nothing = where the god you claim exists would have come from
Who created your god if EVERYthing must have a creator, hmmm? How does he magically get out of this requirement?
Sorry, he doesn't. If you can think that god had no creator. Then, alternatively, you would be able to get your mind around the possibility that the matter in the universe had no creator. It's pretty straightforward.
------------------------
(I live not far from Racine and so the stupid is burning me particularly badly from this one...)
Posted by: Perspexo
|
June 10, 2010 3:05 PM
@Woozy
No I don't think your first letter would've been rude, a tad presumptuous maybe but not rude. However if you had followed up your first letter with a second one insulting the professor whose opinion you'd canvassed and then demanded he answered you, that'd be rude.
Posted by: Kraid
|
June 10, 2010 3:06 PM
o-p-e #83:
I was a valedictorian too, so can I be one of the arms? Also, 3/4 valedictorians agree that Andrew is an ignorant dillweed, or something to that effect.More seriously, he's 18 (explains his tone, at least in part), ignorant (also explained partly by his age, partly by being raised in Jesusland, USA), and he's insecure about his beliefs. If he's really as interested in questions of cosmology and evolution as he claims, he has time yet to grow into a more mature agnostic or atheist. Or he might remain a trollish godbot forever. Choose your own adventure, pal!
Posted by: jidashdee
|
June 10, 2010 3:07 PM
@121
Count me among the Luddites. I just have to have the sense of accomplishment granted by holding more paper down with my left thumb than with my right. I also demand the sacred right of throwing a book across the room if it pisses me off. Monkey angry! Book bad!
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
June 10, 2010 3:08 PM
Get off your goddamned high horse, Dreadnought. Your concern about paper vs. pixels is noted and judged self-indulgent.
The real problem with young people like Andrew is that they really, literally, do not understand how to do research, or how to discriminate between sources of information. They don't understand that actual, published books and journals exist, and that there is (not always, but often), a marked difference in quality between these and any old random claim on the intertubes.
The problem isn't the medium, it's the message. Science, whether read on paper or on a Kindle, is different in kind from Betty's Butterchurn Boutique Emporium and Blog. And yes, talking to an actual librarian, at an actual library, will increase your chances of learning how to choose quality sources, regardless of the medium.
Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 10, 2010 3:08 PM
Oh, I see, you only count books that you can "officially" buy.
It's not like there is no scanner and anyone can't digitize anything, and you can't download from torrents. Of course not.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
June 10, 2010 3:09 PM
PZ: First letter, yes. Just naive. That's why I let it go.
Clearly, you misinterpreted the first letter. It's just as arrogant and dickish as the second -- just a bit more subtle.
Woozy: "...Euclid.."
You honestly don't see the difference? Your "example" maybe lacks humility, but it's a specific question about someone's area of expertise. The recipient either responds or throws it out as not worth her time -- but I see little reason for her to be offended.
Andrew, on the other hand, is picking a fight. "Explain the universe to me, bitch" is a full translation of the first letter. It's not specific questions that have been researched (as opposed to sending a proof) but a grab bag of phrases.
You're tone deaf, Woozy. There's a difference between "I think A, or why B" and "You're a fuckin' idjit".
Just take these lines:
How can proteins and other chemicals come together to make an organism? For if you take that same organism apart and puts its pieces back into a jar of water, it will never come back to life or reassemble itself. So how did such a thing happen in the beggining of time?
No God, yet countless molecules and building blocks that just....appeared? No, it doesn't make sense.
Those aren't specific questions, but tendentious, rhetorical questions. When did you stop beating your wife?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 3:10 PM
DreadIdiot:
Sure, he's heard of them. So have I. I, however don't own one. A lot of people don't own one. It's downright stupid to assume someone does.
I realize you're being your usual dipshit self, but been in a bookstore lately? No, I suppose not. Reading never was your strong suit. Books are all over the place, including my home. Hundreds of 'em. Working on thousands of 'em. If you ever bothered to crack a book (if you could deal with your abysmal comprehension level), you might get above dipshit status.
As with Shala, I prefer books to e-readers or a computer screen; it's easier on my eyes.
Posted by: woozy
|
June 10, 2010 3:10 PM
First letter, yes. Just naive. That's why I let it go. Second letter, no: that's when he gets all pissy about me not replying to his first,
Maybe. He said you didn't answer and he hoped you would. He implied he was disappointed but he didn't actually say he felt he was entitled to a response.
and starts whinging about how rude I am.
Well, you are rude. And proud of it.
But you're right. He did take it upon himself to go one on one with you about said rudeness and thus should be prepared to take what he dishes out.
I guess, I feel a tinge of empathy for his utter naivite and misplaced idealism. I think when I was 18 I thought I'd be able to out-debate Ronald Reagan (I mean it was *sooo* obvious he was wrong and I was right) I shudder to think what would have happened if I'd been dumb enough to try.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 10, 2010 3:13 PM
If Mr. Rosenberg is really interested in learning, UW Parkside is between Racine and Kenosha, right in his backyard so to speak. They have a library with real science books.
Posted by: Shala
|
June 10, 2010 3:14 PM
and you can't download from torrents.
yo dawg i heard you like piracy, so we put some pirates in your boat so you can yohohoho while you sail.
Posted by: Roger
|
June 10, 2010 3:16 PM
Skepticat, if we who were at one time religious approached an older, more educated atheist with the level of idiocy and outright rudeness that this little pisher Rosenberg did, we would have deserved the same level of scorn and derision. Further, I don't think he's on a search for truth--he was trying to start some shit with an older, more educated atheist. As PZ pointed out, he could have taken his fool ass to a library and read book. And if he couldn't be arsed to do that, he could have googled those questions and found a number of reputable, well-reasoned scientific responses. Again, his second letter to PZ is where the sheep's clothing comes right off...and reveals a whelp in need of a good caning.
Posted by: naddyfive
|
June 10, 2010 3:19 PM
I don't get why these types believe that simply stating "stuff, therefore God" explains where stuff comes from. Positing a supernatural creator of stuff just moves the problem of "why something and not nothing" back a step, to what's frankly an even more complex and puzzling set of existential parameters. "Why God and not nothing?" is no easier to answer than "why something and not nothing?"...
This is bad and sloppy thinking even if you like metaphysics.
Posted by: Peter H
|
June 10, 2010 3:20 PM
If Andrew were to learn Hebrew, Aramaic & Greek, he could than study the bases for his religious precepts in their (more or less) original form. He might then see value in laying his Lutheranism to one side. He might also be a tad better educated & less ready to tilt at the world scene. The "Question everything" dictum should not be taken as license to make a damn fool of yourself.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
June 10, 2010 3:20 PM
As a freshman in college, I fancied myself a great writer even before I turned in my first paper. When I turned in said paper to my advisor, I couldn't wait to get a glowing pat on the head.
Ms. P returned it to me. Covered in red ink. Not neutral, self-esteem-nurturing purple ink. Red ink. Her comments went along these lines:
"Spelling and grammatical errors are not acceptable at the college level, and neither is laziness."
"Learn the difference between 'their,' 'there,' and 'their'."
"Your thesis is provocative, but you don't have enough support for it. Being witty isn't good enough - you must back your ideas up."
"You're a bright young man, but you will not be allowed to skate by simply because of that, or because I'm fond of you. You can do better."
I was humiliated. Beyond mortified. And I resolved never to disappoint her or another professor again. That lesson made me into a harsher critic of my work than any instructor, and I excelled because of it. I'm thankful Ms. P took the time to cut me down to size so I was forced to do the hard work necessary to live up to my potential.
Posted by: SteveM
|
June 10, 2010 3:20 PM
re 93:
How do you get to be valedictorian of your high school class without learning how to spell beginning properly? I understand typos, but he did it twice.
Valedictorian does not mean one is smart, just that your GPA was better than everyone else. The smartest students don't always get the best grades.
As for his spelling, I am seriously "beggining" to "beleive" that it just is not a requirement of education anymore.
re woozy:
Okay, I gotta admit it. I'm just *not* seeing the ignorant arrogance and rudeness that all the rest of you are seeing. All I'm seeing is ignorant [naivete].
When your first question is "Why are you an atheist? I could try to find it in your blog but that would take too much effort and I think atheism is just ignorance of the universe", you are not asking an innocent, naive question but making an arrogant assertion. You are not "seeking wisdom from an elder". And then to follow up with "I think you are very rude in your blog and demand you answer my questions about life the universe and everything", deserves just the smackdown PZ gave him.
Posted by: Glenn G
|
June 10, 2010 3:22 PM
@139
"Learn the difference between 'their,' 'there,' and 'their'."
lol
also I went through something like this, I guess most people do, but I never thought I was a decent writer.
Posted by: Gadfly47
|
June 10, 2010 3:23 PM
I googled Mr. Rosenberg of Racine, Wisconsin. (I know, I should have better things to do.) He attended Racine Lutheran Christian High School. The curriculum requires two whole credits of science, but four credits of theology to graduate. I couldn't find confirmation of Mr. Rosenberg's claim to be class valedictorian, but looking at where he has received his education I kind of understand his combination of ignorance and arrogance.
Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 10, 2010 3:23 PM
Why are you saying this like it's a good thing, you should be shocked and disgusted at the wastefulness and impracticality of it when this technology has existed for so long.
Seriously people, you make no sense here.
Posted by: Sal Bro
|
June 10, 2010 3:25 PM
This is when I wrote him off:
i.e., "I just graduated from high school and have far too many important things to do this summer (like weightlifting, screwing around, parties, and Sarah) to bother actually looking for the answers to my questions on your blog. Moreover, I'm sure whatever time you have left over from being a university professor, prolific blogger, and atheist extraordinaire is abundant and much less important than my time."
It oozes entitlement. Actually, no--he has built up so much internal pressure from entitlement that it's threatening to blow him to smithereens. Humiliation is definitely a tough way to learn a lesson, but if he's as smart as he thinks he is, he'll have learned quite a lot* from this.
* Lesson cliff notes:
(1) Don't ask someone to spend a lot of time on you if you aren't willing to do the same, particularly if s/he doesn't have much extra time to begin with.
(2) If you violate rule #1, at least be painfully polite about it. Compensation in some other form--e.g., a batch of oatmeal cookies--would be a nice and perhaps noticeable gesture.
(3) If your real motivation is to get a big university professor to notice how smart you are and to praise your brilliance--which surely falls within the furthest reaches of the normal distribution (on the smart side)--at the very least, request to talk to him or her over coffee or lunch (your treat).
(4) Even after following rules 1-3, realize that your request is a bit unreasonable given that demand for university professor's time far exceeds supply. Accept a priori that rejection is likely. Still be painfully polite about it and sincerely thank him/her. At the very least, you will likely be recognized as a thoughtful person, if not downright smart--many people prefer thoughtful, anyhow.
Posted by: Roger
|
June 10, 2010 3:25 PM
@woozy...are you fucking serious? Did you read the second email? His second email is FULL of entitlement--he gets pissed that PZ didn't respond to him and then HE (Rosenberg) gets his little britches in a bunch and is, to use his word, rude. You're trying to cut this little rude shit some slack--for what? An 18 year old is supposed to know how to address people with more experience and authority with some kind of respect, which was what his follow up letter was CLEARLY lacking. The tone of the second letter combined with the false humility of the first reveals his intentions--he's not seeking information, he's trying to start something. As folks I know say, "Don't start none, won't be none"; it's a way of saying, "If you don't start something, there won't be anything to respond to." Rosenberg should have taken the non-response as a response and moved the fuck on.
Posted by: woozy
|
June 10, 2010 3:26 PM
You're tone deaf, Woozy. There's a difference between "I think A, or why B" and "You're a fuckin' idjit".
Maybe. I prefer to think of it as even-handedness. Maybe to a fault.
How can proteins and other chemicals come together to make an organism? For if you take that same organism apart and puts its pieces back into a jar of water, it will never come back to life or reassemble itself. So how did such a thing happen in the beggining of time?...No God, yet countless molecules and building blocks that just....appeared? No, it doesn't make sense.
See... I can interpret that as "It just doesn't make sense to me; can you explain why it not only makes sense to you but makes more sense then a simpler, and to me not contradictory, explaination of a creator".
Okay, I confess, I'm probably being much more leniant in my judgement than I should be.
I maybe I squirm in pain when I see such naked naivite. It's like seeing a hairless baby rabbit on a freeway.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
June 10, 2010 3:26 PM
Hey Andrew, PZ doesn't even answer emails from people who post regularly on his blog. The man has an actual day job and does a shitload of extracurricular activities. Plus he has the TrophyWife&trade and some Spawn. So if we don't get all bent out of shape, you really have no standing to do so.
Speaking of 18 year old idiots, I was one. I was 17 and in college when EO Wilson's Sociobiology came out, and without even reading it decided that Wilson was an evil horrible bad misogynistic rape apologist. Then I grew up a bit and learned some stuff and he became, no kidding, one of our family's inspiring figures. I listened to his memoir on tape with the Spawn, and when SonSpawn became a Boy Scout, he came home from his first meeting announcing "I'm going to be an Eagle Scout, just like Edward O. Wilson."
A few years ago Wilson came to DC to a book signing and I got to meet him briefly. I explained that I'd been a rabidly ignorant sociobiology critic as a teen, but wanted to apologize for my ignorance and thank him for his insight and inspiration. He said, very gently, that we're all allowed to be idiots at eighteen and was glad that I had seen the light.
I can only hope that young Mr. Rosenberg has the same opportunity when PZ is 78.
Posted by: Marek14
|
June 10, 2010 3:27 PM
OK, something from nothing: if I understand it correctly, the current opinion is that there realy IS nothing, it's just structured nothing. Simply said, there's matter, and then there's gravity. Energy of gravitational field of a certain lump of matter is exactly the same as the energy bound in the mass of that lump, but opposite. So, any piece of matter is literally nothing - positive energy of matter plus negative energy of gravitational field. Applied to universe, the total amount of energy is, apparently, zero.
As for separation of matter and anti-matter, there's one problem with that idea, and that is we don't see any anti-matter out there. True, we wouldn't necessarily know it if we saw it (the radiation would be the same as from normal matter), but if matter and anti-matter interacted anywhere in the observable universe, the gamma radiation would be detectable.
The current theory is something like this: The symmetry of matter and anti-matter is not absolute, so the early universe produced a billion and one proton for each billion antiprotons. We are built from the one in a billion-and-one protons that survived the resulting carnage. The rest annihilated and are part of microwave background.
Am I talking rubbish anywhere? I'm a layman as well, but with a penchant for devouring popular science books.
Sometimes I even read them before :)
Posted by: flyonthewall
|
June 10, 2010 3:27 PM
My response to these types of questions is to just say.
if you wanted to know the answer to these questions you could have goggled and found them in less time than it took for you to send me this.
I can only conclude that you don't want to know.
The answers are available, and thanks to science the answers are at your fingertips. You just have to want to find them. Now go away I'm not your personal tutor.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
June 10, 2010 3:28 PM
@122
So they got you to shut up and read instead of posting obnoxious religious nonsense that everyone has heard a bazillion times and serves only to frustrate, and the end result was that you came to your senses?
Those PRICKS.
Why do you assume you are unique in this regard?
Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 10, 2010 3:28 PM
Are people here really that stupid as to contest the progress of being able to carry a library in your pocket and being able to read it without recharging for 2 weeks??
Holy fuck.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 10, 2010 3:30 PM
There is. There's being told atheists have no objective morality, so why aren't they robbing, raping, and murdering everyone.
To which I always respond "You're right; now gimme your fucking wallet!"
(Works well in restaurants. Christians are notoriously poor tippers, so they've usually got a few bills on them.)
I'm not particularly irritated by Andy here (imagine what a snotty jerk I was at 18) though I do think it's funny that he thinks he's somehow entitled to a free lecture from PZ because he sent an email. My response would be something along the lines of "Thank you for your email. I will be delighted to respond to your inquiry just as soon as my schedule permits, likely mid-2012. Further, my fees are $XX/hour, payable by Paypal..."
Posted by: Gadfly47
|
June 10, 2010 3:31 PM
@139 That's a great story.
Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 10, 2010 3:32 PM
Not to mention the enormous spatial requirements of paper books, its environmental cost, the impractical awkwardness of holding a paper book(especially in bed), the degradation and mutilation of paper books by previous readers, and so on and so on...
Posted by: Roger
|
June 10, 2010 3:32 PM
What in the hell is your problem, "Dreadnought"--I mean, other than being a sanctimonious technoprick?
Posted by: Gus Snarp
|
June 10, 2010 3:33 PM
What I would suggest to this poor deluded boy is the following: Since you were the valedictorian of your (home school?) class, even though that class (home school?) appears to have been sorely lacking in biology and physics classes, or at least somehow you avoided taking them, you might still have good enough grades to get into the University of Minnesota, Morris. There you can enroll in some biology classes, taught by one PZ Myers, some of which will no doubt discuss evolution, at which point he will likely feel some obligation to answer your questions since you(r parents) are paying his salary. As it stands, PZ is not here to answer all your personal questions, particularly that the answers, as you suggest, could be found by perusing this blog a bit more. I imagine that if there were money in it PZ could make a career out of answering the questions that show up in his email. You might also consider taking some physics classes at the same time. Apparently you can easily register for five classes a semester at most Universities, and a valedictorian should have no problem with that course load. Alternatively, if your high school was not a home school and had adequate academic standards, then you as valedictorian should be quite able to get into a prestigious Ivy League university, or the best state school in your state might even give you a scholarship. I'm certain there are physics and biology professors there just as qualified as, if less notorious than, PZ.
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
June 10, 2010 3:35 PM
Rosenberg should have taken the non-response as a response and moved the fuck on.
On the plus side he DID get a pretty detailed answer. It was gift wrapped in a planetwide public humiliation, which takes a little of the shine off, but it's not a bad outcome. Silver lining and all that.
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
June 10, 2010 3:37 PM
@dreadnaught
You were the one calling books obsolete. Nobody here said eBooks were a bad thing, only that they prefer books in some (or all) cases. You seem to think every book and journal article that might be relevant is available electronically. You are wrong. Your argument about libraries being a waste of paper (when they collect, store, and share materials indefinitely) is silly. give it up.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
June 10, 2010 3:38 PM
I feel creepy for having seen his face.
*backing out from the thread now*
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
June 10, 2010 3:42 PM
When ereaders and ebooks are as cheap as a library card we'll talk.Posted by: And-U-Say
|
June 10, 2010 3:43 PM
So I am wondering... where is Andy after all this? He says he peruses this blog. Where is he?
I've been on a lot of different blogs/forums over the years on both the creationism and the christian questions. It has been my experience that 90+% of christians and creationists are afraid to actually defend/debate their beliefs and tend to run once the return questions start to filter in. Is that what is going to happen here yet again? Is that your stance, Andy? You have to wonder, what good is a position if it's holders run at the first sign of intelligent disagreement?
Posted by: Larry
|
June 10, 2010 3:43 PM
Many people, myself included, don't like to read off of video screens for sustained periods of time, dreadnought. You got a fucking problem with that?
Christ, if you're going to pick a battle, pick one that means something.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 10, 2010 3:44 PM
Here's a question that maybe PZ or Andrew can put their heads together to answer: why are you such a fucking idiot, Dreadnought? Of all the fucking things on this blog, your issue is that people aren't universally recognising the obvious superiority of eBook readers? Are you capable of having a conversation with someone, or do you stop and bang your head with your hands when you notice they're wearing mismatching socks?
"Library? WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!"
I hope the drag queens maul you on Pride Week, asshat.
Posted by: snurp
|
June 10, 2010 3:44 PM
Kraid, I am all for you being one of our eight arms, so long as I get one of the two tentacles. (which I guess means we're no longer a sentai team. I'm still the lancer)
I nominate robinsrule for the role of Eversly, to carry our complex circus performance of a Valedictron around.
To make this a legitimate post on the main topic:
Arrogant is an understatement. Based on the contents of his letter I suspect his academic performance may be more a sign of adult-pleasing urges and rule-loving conventionality than any capacity for thought. I'm fairly sure that was a good 90% of my own GPA, so I may well be projecting.
If that is the case, I've met those kids and been that kid, and the idea of him sitting smug in his "intellectual superiority" because he did the reading and doesn't come in high to class (perhaps a sign of moderately better than average decision-making skills, perhaps the desire for praise or fear of punishment, but mental muscle? meh.) makes me want to time travel and punch myself as a teenager. He's probably fixable, though, so good luck to his future friends, associates, professors, and the random strangers he'll interact with throughout his maturation process.
Posted by: Gus Snarp
|
June 10, 2010 3:44 PM
@Dreadnought,
Actually, a book in a library, or kept on one's personal bookshelves for a lifetime, and perhaps handed down to one's children is a major boon to the environment. Paper production is generally from farm raised trees that grow relatively quickly and are replanted. Were that land not a tree farm, then the land would likely be deforested and used for some other purpose. Let us consider the best case scenario: A book is made from the maximum reasonable recycled content, the rest is from a tree farm that otherwise would be a giant industrial hog farm. The paper is non-chlorine bleached and non-toxic inks are used. The book is a long term carbon sink. The trees absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, store it, and are used to make paper, some of which is recycled into new paper, and it all goes into a book that is stored for generations. Otherwise there would be no trees there absorbing carbon, but instead hogs consuming corn grown elsewhere with a massive carbon footprint in fertilizers and pesticides, plus runoff, the corn is trucked to our hog farm and fed to the pigs who promptly produce massive amounts of methane gas from the carbon in the corn and release it to the atmosphere, meanwhile the liquid pigshit runs off and changes the chemical composition of local fresh water sources, killing aquatic organisms. Meanwhile we're all buying new ebook readers every two years, which are chock full of toxic materials that are rarely properly disposed of, and which had to be mined at a large environmental cost.
No thanks, I'll take books.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 3:44 PM
Roger:
He's hard of thinking. I know him from two forums, and he wasn't much liked at either, didn't get much attention, which is what he likes. So I'll take my own advice here and ignore him, which is what I did before.
Posted by: woozy
|
June 10, 2010 3:45 PM
Steve M #140 and Sal Bro One # 144
Okay, you too have convinced me that I'm being too lenient on the guy.
I guess I just hate to see people get slapped for asking questions or made to feel stupid for asking them. Even when the asker is an asshole.
Posted by: arensb
|
June 10, 2010 3:45 PM
To quote someone on The Atheist Experience, "are you really looking for answers, or are you just playing Stump the Atheist?"
Posted by: gettingfree
|
June 10, 2010 3:50 PM
@ #144
Sure hope he's not having premarital sex with Sarah? That would make his magical creator of the universe very mad.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 10, 2010 3:51 PM
I own a kindle right now, and will be getting an iPad. No one is contesting the virtues of these devices, but we are rolling our eyes at the idiocy of claiming that the technology is so complete that our libraries are obsolete right now. They aren't. I don't know if they ever will be. There's an awful lot of stuff out there that is not in a digital format.
Posted by: F
|
June 10, 2010 3:51 PM
"Like a volcano!" Well, OK then, you have me convinced. GOATS ON FIRE!
Posted by: Gus Snarp
|
June 10, 2010 3:55 PM
And lets not forget that a library is the only way to see most of this stuff for free that is also legal. But hey, why should the poor have access to information?
Posted by: Sal Bro
|
June 10, 2010 3:56 PM
woozy, with a few exceptions, he's not being slapped for the questions he's asking. He's being slapped for the thinly veiled claims that he's making about his own intelligence and entitlement. Hopefully the comments have helped him make that distinction.
I do see your point, though, and I also feel a little bad for him. Seeing too many similarly annoying college freshmen made me realize, though, that egos are like weeds--it's better to beat the piss out of them while they're young, before they become well established and start raining little ego-weed-seeds all over the fucking place.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 3:57 PM
PZ:
I'm pretty sure there's a Nook in my future, but I probably won't get one until winter sets in. I'm one of those people who has to read in bed, otherwise I can't sleep. I imagine they are especially nice for that.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
June 10, 2010 3:58 PM
There is deep irony when a commentator going by the name of Dreadnought gets on people's asses for not totally committing to a new technology and leaving an old system in the dust.
By the way, asshole, I never had to recharge a book.
Posted by: minimalist
|
June 10, 2010 3:59 PM
I think a lot of people are missing another possible motivation for Andy's tantrum: he feels threatened, and this is his defensive response.
The pissiness, entitlement and impatience are the feeble sticks he's using to prop up the crumbling wall of his faith. If he could bait PZ into a "rude" tone of response, that alone would be sufficient to justify the kid's bigotry (regardless of the substance of PZ's response), reinforcing the belief (however tenuously) for another day.
I've been there, believe me. I was even in the LCMS and everything, and this is what they get taught about atheists in their religion classes.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 4:00 PM
Janine, She Wolf of Pharyngula, OM:
QFT.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
June 10, 2010 4:04 PM
woozy: See... I can interpret that as "It just doesn't make sense to me; can you explain why it not only makes sense to you but makes more sense then a simpler, and to me not contradictory, explaination of a creator".
No -- you're not interpreting, you're rationalizing. Your interpretation would be correct if it was 3 in the morning in a smog-fest. Context and tone are crucial for interpretation -- going to a stranger who has never contacted you, and saying "No God, yet countless molecules and building blocks that just....appeared? No, it doesn't make sense" is not a question, but an attack, whoever they are. It's like knocking on a stranger's door at 11 on a Sunday to convert them --- only a prick would do it.
And it's not even handed to treat them as it were. Even handed means giving a rational balance to each argument -- being "fair". Rationalizing someone's statements to make them more comforting for you is -- well, your private business, shall we say?
The young'uns should ask questions and challenge their elders -- you're right about that. But they have to be well-founded challenges in the right context. Folks should ask gutsy questions at seminars, journal clubs, in the lab, etc. But they should be relevant and thoughtful as well. They should be sincere questions, and not just picking a fight.
But you shouldn't run into someone in a hallway and start telling them how they're entire research program is idiotic and a waste of taxpayer money. That's not a sincere attempt at a dialectic.
Posted by: Robert H
|
June 10, 2010 4:09 PM
Imagine the thrill of pulling that ol' eBook reader off Grandpa's shelf and thumbing through a few chapters of his favorite author. Oh wait! The damned thing broke and the last repairman died thirty years ago. Drat... No bother, you can always jack-in and download the Library of Congress directly into your brain! While you're at it, don't forget your date with the Orgasmatron. Gotta keep up with that technology!
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 10, 2010 4:10 PM
ditto; but in my case that's probably because German protestantism is almost exclusively Lutheran, and they're harmless-ish. unfortunately, I totally believe that he was Valedictorian, especially considering the size of his school. OTOH, if he's honest and really is questioning his faith, than that's actually a sort of achievement for someone who got stuck into a religious school... all High-School Graduation speeches need to include that paragraph :-p what do you want to bet he uses some old version of IE, which does not do this glorious thing called spellcheck? sure, I'm just not sure that we all felt entitled to a question-and-answer session with a famous person of our choice... not bloody likely, since neither are prerequisites for either law or business; though I'd very much hope that Andrew is honest about his desire to learn more and therefore will actually use his gen-ed requirements to actually learn something, rather than just breeze thru by picking the simplest, most meaningless courses (have seen a lot of that, especially from business and IT students)... well, not really. we already know how things can pop into existence out of absolutely nowhere, for absolutely no reason, and without cause. it happens all the time; almost mundanely so. not until ebooks come in an universally readable format, thus ending vendor lock-in; oh, and not until a book I buy actually belongs to me, rather than be rented out for limited usage. Death to EULA's.Fucking hate arrogant, ignorant technophiles talking out their ass.
QFT surefire way to have nothing of value published ever again. stealing crap is one thing; stealing things that are valuable OTOH will discourage people from writing it, at least as long as we live in a Capitalist society and people need to earn a living. Pay for the books you read, you pathetic leech (or donate to the authors directly; but feed those who provide you with information for a living, or they'll stop). because e-readers are made of rainbows and unicorn piss instead of highly toxic and non-renewable resources... QFTPosted by: snurp
|
June 10, 2010 4:11 PM
Brownian @152
On my first date in college, with a terrifically confused bisexual Southern Baptist girl from the chem class, ten minutes into the date she asked me what I was doing for spring break. I was going on some sort of school service trip.
"Why?"
"Uh, well, I'm from the gulf, so I want to help out with the clean up and all-"
"I mean, aren't you an atheist?"
That was really not where I expected that conversation to go. Further investigation indicated that she had gone out with me partially to make her ex-girlfriend jealous, and partially because she assumed that I would, as an unsaved sensualist, inevitably be easy (?!).
Posted by: gr8hands
|
June 10, 2010 4:14 PM
Dreadnought, books are made of paper, which grows on trees -- a constantly renewable resource.
As PZ points out, there are many many books that have not been scanned and put into digital form. I own a number of them. I also treasure ones that are signed by the author (a scanned signature wouldn't mean much to me).
I do, on the other hand, love the Kindle DX and the iPad for their book features as a portable device for reading on the train. But I definitely prefer holding a book in my hand, feeling the heft and wondrous tactile sensations that stimulate the body as the words stimulate the mind. I've never had that experience with an electronic book.
My high school class had 6 valedictorians. I don't excuse his arrogance/ignorance due to his age. I was extremely respectful at his age, but then I had a proper upbringing.
And even in Idaho we were taught about evolution. We even did experiments combining chemicals into our own primordial ooze and zapping them to produce proteins. Perhaps Wisconsin is not as advanced as Idaho.
Doesn't everyone have their email system check the spelling prior to mailing? I thought that was the default setting nowadays.
Aquaria #81, you are confused about how an ellipsis can be used. The usage was correct.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
June 10, 2010 4:17 PM
@Jadehawk:
Is this the same person who was complaining that I didn't pirate audiobooks online on the endless thread a while back? And said if I felt so strongly about it, I should just send the author a dollar? I hate leeches and people who assume that leeching has no cost to actual people.
Posted by: jidashdee
|
June 10, 2010 4:18 PM
@Marek14#148
No, I don't think you're talking rubbish at all. I'm not at all married to the matter/antimatter separation part of my own attempt to make sense of the "something rather than nothing" question. If it can be shown that there is a better working hypothesis then I'm all over it. Got any book book recommendations on the gravity vs. matter stuff?
Now to clarify my own crackpot hypothesis... Yes, the symmetry, in terms of quantity, of matter and antimatter in our observable universe is very, very far from perfect. I demand symmetry from my physics. It's a point of dogma that I'm not willing to give up. I think that if we can't observe the symmetry then that's our fault, not the overall observed system's fault. As mentioned in Frank Close's book "Antimatter" it's been observed by physicists that antimatter can be viewed as matter existing in negative time. So now, (and here's the real crackpot part) what if the Big Bang were an explosion, not just in three dimensions, but also in time, with antimatter dominating in one direction and matter in the other? I know it sounds half-baked and it is. I'm comfortable with that. Every time I sit down and try to think about it I get into an interminable muddle trying to keep time in its place and trying to square it all with what we know about relativity.
The only two things that I'm sure of at this point are that there is a perfectly rational materialistic explanation for the universe as we see it and that across the whole system we will find that everything totals nicely to zero.
Posted by: jamesbond1217
|
June 10, 2010 4:21 PM
For anyone that wants his facebook page as I saw one commenter, the link follows:
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1223542378&ref=search
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
June 10, 2010 4:21 PM
Honestly. I can understand having a point of view on this topic, but you really come off as being disturbingly obsessed on this point. Did a book flash its dust-jacket at you pruriently when you were a child, leaving you forever scarred?
Posted by: Tmax01
|
June 10, 2010 4:22 PM
Whenever I see this kind of existential confusion that Mr. Twit displays, I'm reminded that it isn't really Darwin (or Netwon) that these people are ranting against; it is William of Occam.
Posted by: Kraid
|
June 10, 2010 4:23 PM
Dreadnought -> trollin'
The argument about having one's whole library at their fingertips is kind of a silly boast. I don't intend to read hundreds of books on any given airplane or bus ride.
Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 10, 2010 4:24 PM
Libraries are just centralized depositories.
Internet is a decentralized depository. And probably every book ever written has already been scanned/ digitized.
The reason internet depositories haven't been centralized is due to legalities of copyright. But many sites already exist that circumvent that in form of P2P and torrents.
Stop being so fucking lazy and viewing piracy as stealing cars.
Posted by: Robert H
|
June 10, 2010 4:24 PM
No, some of us had older brothers who "counseled" us on this error from an early age. Others, as teenagers, upon meeting the word hubris pondered, and then internalized its lessons. Although it isn't the norm, adolescent insight into the human condition is not uncommon.Posted by: Rincewind'smuse
|
June 10, 2010 4:26 PM
If by this you mean that your thinking is more tangential than the average senior, then yes, you are on your way to great faith. I'm inclined to agree with Caine, fact-finding correspondence isn't usually preceded by "I find atheists are ignorant" especially when writing to an atheist.Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 10, 2010 4:26 PM
i don't remember that conversation, other than that it was about annoying restrictions on borrowed material.see, I'm not against pirating stuff per se, because sometimes the alternative is a massive pain in the ass and not worth it (and needs to die out); however, punishing the creative mind behind the song/book/whatever is counterproductive. so: if you're not going to buy it for some reason, punish those who make buying it a pain in the ass, not those who have created this thing you want. It's my solution to a lot of the DRM crapola going around.
Posted by: Shala
|
June 10, 2010 4:27 PM
...
Thank you, Dreadnought, for going incredibly off-topic about this subject.
Stop being so fucking lazy and viewing piracy as stealing cars.
Way to stick it to the man brosef.
Posted by: woozy
|
June 10, 2010 4:28 PM
Sal Bro On: Seeing too many similarly annoying college freshmen made me realize, though, that egos are like weeds--it's better to beat the piss out of them while they're young, before they become well established and start raining little ego-weed-seeds all over the fucking place.
Ha! Ha! Good one!
Maybe that's my problem. When I was 18 I had utterly no ego!
The young'uns should ask questions and challenge their elders -- you're right about that. But they have to be well-founded challenges in the right context. Folks should ask gutsy questions at seminars, journal clubs, in the lab, etc. But they should be relevant and thoughtful as well.
Well, I guess part of me is still hoping to meet the elusive theist who sincerely wishes to discuss and entertain discussion. "Everything has to come from somewhere so there I believe there must be a creator for them to come from" could be a sincere (albeit, painfully naive and trivially refutable) question as would "but what was there before the big bang" (which I can easily imagine an athiest finding confusing-- much as I'm sure there are countless Christian children who've gotten their knuckles wrapped for asking sincerely "what do God do all that time before he created the heaven and the earth"). Also part of me wants to equally ask this elusive theist "Do you really believe that" and "No, it just doesn't make any sense to me". (I'm not an atheist just because there's no evidence for God, at least; I'm *primarily* an atheist because God just doesn't make any sense.)
Posted by: weez
|
June 10, 2010 4:28 PM
At least summer-school valedictorian Andy-Pandy didn't use the old xian standby "I will take your lack of response to mean that I am correct and all your rude godhating is sufficiently disproven. Nyaaah."
Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 10, 2010 4:29 PM
There are a lot of books on this subject, one was on the Colbert show, I can't recall its title right now.
Posted by: abb3w
|
June 10, 2010 4:29 PM
PZ: I've actually given Rosenberg a very serious and very good answer to his question up there: I listed and linked to books he ought to be reading.
Only on the cosmology questions, not so much on the question of abiogenesis. An actual biologist might be able to recommend something better, but poking Amazon a bit readily turns upThe Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology from 2006. It looks like it would be a decent book, and also includes a list of earlier books on the topic. There's been further progress since 2006, but it might be enough to get up to speed on the recent technical literature.
Posted by: butterflyfish.heidi
|
June 10, 2010 4:29 PM
Holy FSM, Dreadnought is annoying! Damn. He's got Andrew beat by a mile at least.
@Andrew: Regarding your questions about astrophysics, start here: http://www.hawking.org.uk/ He knows the answer you're looking for. Buy his books. Go ahead and send him an e-mail if you like. I hear he's a nice guy. Maybe he'll respond. As long as your don't act like a little punkass or something. Ask nicely. And whether you're sincere or not at this point, keep asking questions. But do listen to the answers honestly.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 10, 2010 4:29 PM
wrong. tell me, what are the creators of the material you're pirating going to do for a living, if it can't be writing, since you're refusing to pay them for their work? libraries pay authors, at least.you really are a simplemninded idiot.
Posted by: coughlanbrianm
|
June 10, 2010 4:30 PM
The argument about having one's whole library at their fingertips is kind of a silly boast. I don't intend to read hundreds of books on any given airplane or bus ride.
What DO you do with the time?
Posted by: Screechy_Monkey
|
June 10, 2010 4:30 PM
"I think he should be referred to John Kw[REDACTED] for all his answers. "
I'll go one better. All of the people in this thread who are defending this brat as some genuinely curious kid should email PZ their address. In the future, PZ will forward all similar inquiries to them and/or any of the other concern trolls, accomodationists, and faitheists so that they can write the patient, thoughtful, polite responses that they criticize PZ for not doing. It's win-win!
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/1z4fCCIqg5ciyPSRxYpRxfv8tvX5aoDzh.FNq7FCY90Iq7I-#801b5
|
June 10, 2010 4:31 PM
If PZ gets such ostensibly-questioning emails all the time, perhaps a canned response would be in order.
However, it shouldn't be a canned response answering a/b/c, but a response that assesses the questioner's commitment to objectively exploring the debate. This would manifest as "points to consider" and references to classic experiments. If the person is willing to actually look these up and respond to them, they might actually be interested in (and worthy of) debate, and you should engage with enthusiasm. If they ignore or bluster, as did Mr. Schlafly, then they're not really interested in debate and are not worth the time.
A couple of possibilities:
1. Consider "y=1/x;x=0" apply this to the ideal gas law. Apply this to general relativity.
(Yes, I know it's a gross oversimplification.)
2. Review the Miller-Urey experiment.
3. Toss in a well-known, low-level, evo/devo reference, such as HOX genes or the commonality of core biochemistry throughout all (terrestrial) life.
Since Darwin's writings are heresy, that can be saved for later.
Posted by: legistech
|
June 10, 2010 4:31 PM
He should go into law. "Evidence" does indeed have a different meaning in law than in science, and some creationists try to use this difference to claim that they do have evidence of god.
However, there are many, many flaws to this characterization. Studying law would help him understand these.
I suspect he's already on his way to becoming an atheist, whether he realizes it or not.
I wonder if he's noticed that those "brash criticisms" are almost always about real pain, death, and outright lies that religions have inflicted and are currently inflicting?
Posted by: lynxreign
|
June 10, 2010 4:34 PM
Dreadnought @104
From what I've seen of your posts, you don't tend to think of very much at all. Try going to a library some day, you'll be very surprised.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
June 10, 2010 4:39 PM
Dreadnought, why are you named for a technology that was obsolete by WW II.
Posted by: Marek14
|
June 10, 2010 4:41 PM
#jidashdee
I think that the concept of antimatter as matter with reversed time has the same problem - it would require that there is the same amount of matter and antimatter in the universe, which doesn't seem to be true. Plus, all the pesky problems with the arrow of time it would lead to -- see Sean Carroll's From Eternity to Here (for gravity, I think something was in John Gribbin's In Search of the Multiverse).
This idea was proposed to answer the question why all the little electrons look exactly the same - that it could be the SAME electron, threading in time forwards and backwards. This is not actually possible: imagine a photon giving birth to an electron-positron pair, which then annihilate. Even if positrons WERE reverse-time electrons, this would describe an electron with closed worldline, which therefore cannot be the eternal threading electron/positron -> so what would force it to be the same?
Personally, I think that the reason why electrons are all the same is simply that there is not that many options open for them. No need to evoke time reversals.
Posted by: Peter H
|
June 10, 2010 4:41 PM
"...And probably every book ever written has already been scanned/ digitized." As wild an assertion as I've encountered this week.
(And some that have been have been scanned in image format rather than as text making casual searches nearly impossible.)
And when e-books will permit marginalia . . . .
Posted by: daveau
|
June 10, 2010 4:44 PM
...I work in a lumber mill there...
Posted by: jidashdee
|
June 10, 2010 4:44 PM
The nice lady in the big brown truck just dropped off one of these silly, old-fashioned, paper books at the door to my cave. Now I'm going to go grind some roasted beans and run hot water through them while I engage in the apparently silly act of turning physical pages while ascribing meaning to ink patterns.
Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 10, 2010 4:46 PM
Sorry dumbass but I found all books from Daniel Dennett, Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Stenger and many other philosophical and scientific books on the internet.
All for free!
And guess what, I couldn't find single one of them in my local library or in my capital city library, you freaking idiot!!!
And even if they had those books in libraries, how many copies do they have, so you have to reserve them and wait??, you freaking moron!!!!
Jesus, what a dumbass.
Posted by: conelrad
|
June 10, 2010 4:48 PM
Andy has received lots of good advice & numerous book recommendations. I will add two titles, both by Victor Stenger: God: the Failed Hypothesis & The New Atheism. Here's an apposite quotation from Dr. Stenger:
Posted by: rippingrich
|
June 10, 2010 4:48 PM
Single child.. Ahhh.. that explains valedictorian....The only competition for the title was a sheep...
Posted by: boozinsusan
|
June 10, 2010 4:50 PM
He graduated valedictorian without taking writing 101?
Posted by: Timothy
|
June 10, 2010 4:51 PM
That Lawrence Krauss talk makes me want to go back to school and study physics.
Posted by: lynxreign
|
June 10, 2010 4:52 PM
For those of you like jidashdee @99, wondering about a physics explanation for the beginning of the universe, there's a great explanation right here on Science Blogs: Starts with a Bang. I've linked to the most recent entry in the series because he has links to all 9 previous posts right at the top. Start with #1 and by the time you're done, you won't be wondering about things like why all matter didn't annihilate at the beginning.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
June 10, 2010 4:53 PM
Dreadnought has convinced me. I'm switching back to Firefox just so I can have a killfile.
Posted by: articulett
|
June 10, 2010 4:53 PM
Young Buck Gets Rammed!
(I do so love nature shows.)
As a former Valedictorian of a class of 534 people, I want to add my vote to the "Andrew is a dillweed" category.
I think those theotard questions might sound clever to a faith-addled brain, but we all know they are questions that are not really designed to be answered... they are questions that allow the daft to conclude, "science can't explain it; therefore, god." (And, how can you educate someone who believes that their salvation depends on faith in a certain unbelievable story? Would any evidence be enough to convince a person with such a meme infection?)
Andrew, --I don't believe in your magic story for the same reason you don't believe in Scientology's magic story. And I don't see any reason why a scientist would give your smarmy questions any more attention than we'd give theirs. (Pssst --growing up should be about leaving magical thinking behind. Reality doesn't care about your opinions or strongly held beliefs.)
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
June 10, 2010 4:55 PM
This is actually really familiar.
One sec...
Ah, yes, here it is. Yeah, this is something every marginalized or otherwise non-dominant group ends up at. The whole "I DEMAND you educate me NOW" thing. I mean, it's a good tactic to ask people more knowledgable about something you don't really know. And if they have the patience they can try to lead you to some sort of knowledge in varying amounts of hand-holding.
But people are people and no one owes someone else their time and infinite patience, especially if the marginalized person fully expects you aren't actually intending to listen to the argument but rather to use it to attempt an ignorant nit-picking in order to justify to themselves why it's okay to dismiss the marginalized group.
I say marginalized group, because atheism is still a marginalized group and it comes into play more often when there is a cultural power differential between asker and answerer.
It can be a symptom of privilege. A sort of unconscious "hey, you're the one rocking the status quo so explain yourself" or a simple unthinking of the value of the time of the person you are asking the question of.
It can also be part of an attempt to self-rationalize their own privilege or untenable position because the person they asked was rude or didn't go through all 300 of their ignorant side-argument hoops, etc...
Posted by: SteveM
|
June 10, 2010 4:56 PM
re 167:
guess I just hate to see people get slapped for asking questions or made to feel stupid for asking them. Even when the asker is an asshole.
I do too, honestly. I also honestly do not see Andrew's emails as just "asking questions". Maybe I'm just a grumpy old geezer but I still believe that when you ask a question you don't tell the person you are asking that they are wrong before they even answer. That is, if you are sincere in wanting to know the answer rather than just trying to make a rhetorical point. It's like writing to Stephen Hawking and asking "why is the speed of light a constant, you'd have to be an idiot to think that", does that really deserve an answer? OTOH, a question like, "I am having a really hard time understanding how the speed of light could be the same no matter fast you are moving, can you explain it to me?", I think would warrant an equally polite response, even if only a book recommendation.
Maybe I'm outdated and Andrew's "tone" is now just normal writing style and I'm out of line to be offended, but that's how I see it.
Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 10, 2010 4:56 PM
Not to mention the additional obstacle of having to wait for the inferior translation of books, which I don't have to do because my english vocabulary is greater than that of an above-averagely educated american.
Please think before you post.
Posted by: Danu
|
June 10, 2010 4:56 PM
His grandiosity (telling you how wonderful he is, being valectorian and all, despite it being irrelevant) and his sense of entitlement (demanding that you answer him, and baldly saying he knows you've answered it in the blog but he's too important to read through it to find it) sound totally narcissistic to me.
Posted by: gryphontiger
|
June 10, 2010 4:57 PM
I have a new name for pests like Dreadnought: The Everyone-Must-Think-Like-Me-tard.
^..^
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
June 10, 2010 4:58 PM
I was in one of my local libraries and guess what I found; e-books and down loadable audio books.
Also, I can reserve and renew by books online.
Yeah, the people involved with libraries avoid the latest technologies.
Posted by: yamipirogoeth
|
June 10, 2010 5:00 PM
Wow, somewhat intelligent (notice I said somewhat) emails...granted he's got a LONG way to go for them to be considered truly intelligent (like finding a physics professor who's atheist). But at least he can form complete sentences. I get the religutards who can't even write a complete AND coherent sentence...and then they just copy and paste en masse to all my posts.
BTW, should you ever meet Andy, PZ, I would pay to see you yelling at him and making him cry!
Posted by: AdamK
|
June 10, 2010 5:00 PM
*sputter sputter*
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 10, 2010 5:01 PM
Andy wasn't homeschooled, he went to Racine Lutheran High School in Racine, Wisconsin.
Posted by: o-p-e
|
June 10, 2010 5:02 PM
Articulett
Would you care to join me, snurp, and Kraid in constructing the Valedictron?
Back on point I think college will humble Andrew pretty quick, it put me in my place pretty fast.
Nice attitude Dreadnaught, fuck those authors, its not like they deserve to get paid for their work, particularly if it means you have to wait a few days to get a book from a library. /sarcasm
Posted by: Poor Wandering One
|
June 10, 2010 5:04 PM
@ Dreadnaught.
Everything is on line is it? Well how about what I was reading in my local library yesterday. Find me a complete run of the Strand magazine online. I stipulate only that it has to be legally downloadable in the USA. Heck a full run may be a bit difficult so I'll just ask for any single issue from say 1891.
~will
Posted by: SteveM
|
June 10, 2010 5:05 PM
re 200:
If you can read hundreds of books on a single flight, then I applaud you.
Posted by: amphiox
|
June 10, 2010 5:05 PM
Hmm, while we're still devoting neural resources to this crazy library meme, I would like to point out that, far from being a waste of space/resources or whatever, a library, particularly one of the big old ones that devote themselves to holding and maintaining lots of really old books, is actually a carbon sink!!
Not that different from an old-growth forest, actually.
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
June 10, 2010 5:07 PM
I am an AGW skeptic for one simple reason:
THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES WITH BELIEVERS IN AGW.
If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in defense of its existence. Otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you. What's that, you're a biologist not a Climate Scientist?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 5:08 PM
DreadIdiot:
:snortle: :falls over laughing: I just checked, you haven't been banned at TalkRats, but you certainly gave up early over there, only 65 posts. It seemed like much, much more at the time. Why not go back and pester them some more, I'm sure they'd love to see your stupid ass posting again.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 10, 2010 5:08 PM
I think Andrew Rosenberg and Dreadnought must be related: exactly the same smug, arrogant ignorance. Dreadnought:
1) Learn what a modern library and its staff can do for you. Hint: it's not just a heap of old books.
2) Read The Myth of the Paperless Office (2002) by Abigail J. Sellen and Richard H.R. Harper. Drawing on cognitive psychology and ethnography, it explains why, in the era of digital information technology, use of paper and sales of books have increased enormously. Some important activities are quicker and easier with paper than with any existing or near-future digital technology alone: navigating through documents, cross-referencing multiple documents, annotation, interweaving reading and writing. Oh, and a book doesn't need a battery.
Posted by: Robert H
|
June 10, 2010 5:09 PM
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
June 10, 2010 5:10 PM
Quirky, you dumbass, you're not listening to the fucking climate scientsts, is the point.
Posted by: jidashdee
|
June 10, 2010 5:13 PM
@Marek
Yeah, clearly all of the positrons in our observable universe are traveling forward in time along with everything else. Otherwise their movement away from their point of emission doesn't make much sense. I'm not disputing the mechanics of what we observe here, just hypothesizing a mirror image to it all and trying to square that with our apparent inability to observe it.
As for all electrons being the exact same electron, well... I think that's wackier than anything I've said here. Especially in light of the fact that we can observe electron/positron annihilation. I don't feel so bad about displaying my crackpotitudinousness now.
Like I said, I'm totally willing to go with a better hypothesis. I just haven't heard one yet, possibly due to a lack of available time to investigate. I'm still working my way through Susskind's "The Black Hole Wars" as time allows. It's a fascinating read, but I'm just not bright enough to blast my way through it and understand the whole thing in one go. It's going to take me a while to really get a good handle on the whole thing.
Posted by: Robert H
|
June 10, 2010 5:14 PM
Quirky-do you disagree with the GW part of AGW, or just the A?
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
June 10, 2010 5:14 PM
I see Dreadnought has given up the environment argument and has moved on to the pirating argument. How delightful.
Do they sell coffee-table-sized eReaders? I figure that book on American pinup art that I got from B&N wouldn't be much fun on a Nook.
Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian
|
June 10, 2010 5:16 PM
Jeebus! Now wirky's here too.
This thread seems to be attracting all the moron in the interverse.
Troll Magnets. How do they work?
Posted by: Shala
|
June 10, 2010 5:16 PM
I am an AGW skeptic for one simple reason:
THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES WITH BELIEVERS IN AGW.
You know, I'm sorry guys. Rosenberg's no longer so bad in my eyes. Al B. Quirky and Dreadnought far surpass him in stupidity.
Posted by: articulett
|
June 10, 2010 5:17 PM
o-p-e at 227,
Count me in! (I always knew my Valedictatorship would be worth something!!)
If I had to do my little Valedictorian speech again, I'd add something like: "faith and feelings are not paths to truth-- and don't trust anyone who tries to convince you they are." (Of course this perfectly secular statement would probably not have been allowed, though praising god is. Go figure.)
Posted by: lynxreign
|
June 10, 2010 5:18 PM
Dreadnought @189
HA!
Allow me to repeat:
HA!
You have no idea of the scale of the task, do you? From that comment you must think there are ten thousand or so books out there and that people are busy scanning away. I'd bet I can find in my personal library, dozens, if not hundreds of books that are unavailable electronically in any form.
Libraries are just centralized depositories.
They are far more than that, which you'd know if you ever set foor in one. They aren't "centralized" for one thing and they are more than "depositories" for another.
Posted by: russ.ingram
|
June 10, 2010 5:19 PM
Jeeze PZ, I can't believe this moron, Andrew, got under your skin. He does not deserve any of your attention.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
June 10, 2010 5:19 PM
"I feel creepy for having seen his face."
Yeah, me too. What's the deal with all the internet detective-ing on this kid?
Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian
|
June 10, 2010 5:19 PM
(Me #239)
Sigh.
Wonders if the Preview and Submit buttons can be moved further apart.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 5:20 PM
Rey Fox:
That's an idea, coffee table e-readers. I have a lot of coffee table books. Besides, you'd be able to change the look of your coffee table as you wished, I think I'd like that.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 10, 2010 5:20 PM
Try the peer reviewed scientific literature assclam fuckwit. It's been proven by hundreds of papers in agreement, and a concensus amongst the researchers in the field has been reached. Now it is up you to disprove. We are still waiting for your scientific evidence, from the peer reviewed scientific literature, showing you are right. What an idjit loser, who just loves showin his ignornace and losership ad nauseum. Must be a character or moral defect...Posted by: Rick Miller
|
June 10, 2010 5:20 PM
Mr. Meyers,
I wish to apologize for the nonsense coming from a student of the school district of Racine, Wisconsin. They have a reputation for poor academic performance and the proximity of a fundamentalist broadcasting network may be somewhat to blame.
Please don't assume that all Wisconsinites are like him.
Well, okay, I'm actually from Indiana. Nevertheless, I know that there are *some* Wisconsinites who don't buy the idea of a big Daddy in the Sky. It's just that there are so few of us that we can all meet for lunch by simply pushing a few tables together. :(
Posted by: Rincewind'smuse
|
June 10, 2010 5:23 PM
@ #163,
"Library? WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?!"
I hope the drag queens maul you on Pride Week, asshat.
Heh,Heh.......the eminently quotable Brownian....Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 10, 2010 5:23 PM
Hm, wth is wrong with you?
You just listed the main features of ebook readers which are their main advantages over paper books.
How can you be so obtuse?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 5:24 PM
Rick Miller:
Mr. Myers. Yeesh.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 10, 2010 5:27 PM
Al B. Quirky #231
To quote Bill Maher on AGW:
Posted by: daveau
|
June 10, 2010 5:27 PM
Racine Lutheran High School. The homeschool for families with money and lazy parents. I bet you can buy your grades like that Catholic school from yesterday.
Posted by: SteveM
|
June 10, 2010 5:28 PM
THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES WITH BELIEVERS IN AGW.
Yes, yes it is. And they are providing the evidence and the science behind their conclusions. I have yet to hear ANY AGW advocate just assert their conclusion and say "prove me wrong", like the crackpots do.
Posted by: Manny Calavera
|
June 10, 2010 5:29 PM
Ah, the beautiful hubris of youth. Go easy on the kid. Unless you're over 25 (21 if you want to be harsh) I'd like to think you get something of a free pass on the arrogant certainty. While I was never really a theist of any stripe Buddha only knows the amount of times I read something and decided I'd found the be all and end all solution to all of the mysteries of the Universe and was now fully educated enough to argue with the big boys.
Now I think about it, the main thing that shook me out of this phase of leaping from one arrogant certainty to another is having my ass publicly handed to me many times by people far smarter than I. What the hey, give him hell. A little hell is good for ya.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 10, 2010 5:29 PM
THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES WITH BELIEVERS IN AGW. - Al B. Fuckwit
True; and of course, as practically all qualified experts agree, that burden has been discharged to the extent that mandates urgent action to combat this dire threat.
It's kind of Al B. Fuckwit to remind us that there are people much more stupid, arrogant and ignorant than Andrew Rosenberg.
Posted by: lynxreign
|
June 10, 2010 5:32 PM
Dreadnought @210
Good for you. You can use the internet! I'm so proud!
Free because the authors made them free or because you stole them? You know how much the library charges you? Nothing, which would also make them free. So far, you got nothing.
Oh, I may have spoken too soon earlier when I said you could use the internet. As you likely didn't actually go to the library, you're either just making shit up (likely considering most of your posts) or you tried to use the on-line library interface and couldn't figure it out.
Ah, glorious "capital city" I've spent many a day in their fine library.
"Even if they had", you mean you don't actually know if they do? Or were you trying to say "Even if they did have"? You don't have to reserve books often at a library. You do sometimes if what you're looking for is really popular at the moment, but if you NEED to read it so badly, you can go to another branch, have them get it for you from another branch or just go to a bookstore and buy it. Of course, it is harder to steal from a physical bookstore, so you'd actually have to pay for something instead of using your favored method of acquiring reading material.Tell you what, why don't you post the list of books you can't find at the library, I'll post a list of books you can't get on-line and we'll see if I can find yours in a library and you'll see if you can find mine on-line. We can even compare who's list is longer if you'd like.
Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 10, 2010 5:33 PM
No.
Posted by: blutgens
|
June 10, 2010 5:35 PM
Glorious! Very well said, I get so sick of these believer types who claim its up to us godless heathens to prove something doesn't exist.
I applaud your rudeness, especially in this case!
Posted by: amphiox
|
June 10, 2010 5:36 PM
Ah, yes. Paper and pencil.
Two mature technologies that will in all likelihood never be surpassed, and never replaced.
Enhanced? Sure. Complemented? Definitely. Supplemented. Absolutely.
Replaced? Nope.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton
|
June 10, 2010 5:38 PM
Robert @237,
do you disagree with the GW part of AGW, or just the A?
Be fair, now. Give him time to check with his Republican masters to see which he is supposed to believe this week.
Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian
|
June 10, 2010 5:38 PM
I've got a copy of The Expedition of H. R. H. the Duke of the Abruzzi to the Karakoram Himalayas by Filippo de Filippi. It is accompanied by a box of 360 degree panoramic photos, taken in 1907.
I can fold some of them into a circle, stick my head inside, and see the view from 17,000 foot on the Baltoro Glacier in 1907.
Can Thinknought please lend me his flexible ebook with a 6 foot screen?
Posted by: Zoot Capri
|
June 10, 2010 5:39 PM
What frightens me the most about these know it all religiosios, is in their complete confidence that they have the "answer" is they don't even contemplate that there may be another way of looking, thinking about things, concepts. They really don't know that they don't know. Ignorance is bliss for them. If they would eat just a little humble pie, and crack open that cranium to just a few knew concepts, the world would make so much more sense to them. The attitude this kid has is just the same attitude that causes ethnic cleansing, war, religious bigotry, terrorism, of course, in the extreme. So I am frightened when I hear such arrogance from such a young man. I think with another upbringing, he could have been a skin head or an Islamic terrorist....
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
June 10, 2010 5:41 PM
Gee, and I was going by the real world definition of Dreadnought.
Posted by: Qwerty
|
June 10, 2010 5:41 PM
From Dreadnought:
"Not to mention the additional obstacle of having to wait for the inferior translation of books, which I don't have to do because my english vocabulary is greater than that of an above-averagely educated american.
Please think before you post."
How does an English (which should have been capitalized) vocabulary help you read in German? Or Russian? Or French?
Posted by: Peter H
|
June 10, 2010 5:41 PM
So find me an online copy of The Aroostook Woods, Charles C. West, 1892 - for free or for fee. You won't. It's much sought after - in print - by historians & collectors. The local library does have it in their rare books collection.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 10, 2010 5:45 PM
Again someone's using God as a placeholder for human ignorance. We can't explain X therefore God.
Posted by: SteveM
|
June 10, 2010 5:48 PM
Two mature technologies that will in all likelihood never be surpassed, and never replaced.
QFT. In all likelihood, the modern age reliance on electronic media and away from the physical will result in future historians looking back on this time as yet another "Dark Age" where all the information has been lost because it was not in any kind of permanent form. Acid free paper properly cared for can last thousands of years, try reading those 8 inch floppies from just 20 years ago. You know all those hard drives we're putting our books on? Those magnetic bits only have an average lifetime of about 20 years or so. Archeologists digging up even 200 year old disks are going to retrieve almost no information off them at all.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 10, 2010 5:51 PM
You just listed the main features of ebook readers which are their main advantages over paper books. Dreadnought
I have to conclude that you don't actually do any of the activities listed (flexible navigation, cross-referencing, annotation, interweaving reading and writing) - or at least, not very well. I often spread several books or documents out on my desk, each with one or more page-markers. I will often use my PC at the same time, but trying to work without the use of paper, even when all the sources are on the PC and I have two sizeable screens, is simply much slower and more difficult. Tell me, are you actually being paid to boost e-books? Because if so, your employers should fire you.
Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 10, 2010 5:54 PM
Nonsense as usual.
Firstly, no one is putting it on floppies and hard drives but on archive-grade DVDs with many backups.
Secondly, the technology of digital storage is increasing exponentially, as well the transfer speed, so even those archive-grade DVD will be transferred to even more durable mediums.
Thirdly, because of 1. and 2. you can have an infinite amount of copies, which you can search in an infinite number of ways.
You are really dumb.
Posted by: sarah.moglia
|
June 10, 2010 5:54 PM
Oh Andrew, I hope you take the time to read these comments.
If you're going to 1) email someone with a far more advanced degree than you will ever obtain and 2) constantly refer to how intelligent you are, please spell things correctly ("religeous") and use the proper form of words ("I certainly think its rude").
I graduated pretty high in my school school class a few years back, but at least I knew that nothing from high school meant anything the minute you step off that graduation stage.
For a little bit, I was worried you were sincere and PZ had scared you away from asking questions. Then I realize that on your facebook, you proclaim how you "DONT GIVE A FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!" and how you "LAUGH YOUR ASS OFFFFFFFF when your ex DOWNGRADES TO THE MAX!" ...and yet you claim that PZ is "rude?" Um, okay. You'd better check your ego at the door when you get to college, or you're just going to be another one of those High School All-Stars who gains 40 pounds by sophomore year and whose glory days are over by the time they're 20.
Go get yourself a copy of the God Delusion and crank your ego down about 50 notches...and if you decide to go to UW-Milwaukee, as you probably will, we can discuss this on my home turf and I'll knock that ego out of you (and by a girl! Oh my, what would the Bible say about a woman speaking like that to a man!?).
Posted by: Stan Pak
|
June 10, 2010 5:55 PM
I think that Mr Rosenberg is from Dembski class and these emails are his homework.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 10, 2010 6:01 PM
Interesting hypothesis. Is this backed up by empirical evidence for the existence of God, or merely an expression of one's own personal incredulity that all they can do is appeal to a giant man in the sky to make sense of it?Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 10, 2010 6:03 PM
HMS Dreadnought
HMS Dreadnought profile plan
Posted by: SteveM
|
June 10, 2010 6:04 PM
Firstly, no one is putting it on floppies and hard drives but on archive-grade DVDs with many backups.
Archival grade DVD's, ooh 50 yr lifetimes instead of 10. And the number of backups is irrelevant when they stop being made. Yes, everything is fine as long as their is no interruption in the refresh cycle, but when there is, then all that data will be lost.
Secondly, the technology of digital storage is increasing exponentially, as well the transfer speed, so even those archive-grade DVD will be transferred to even more durable mediums.
Wrong. If anything the newer storage mediums are even more vulnerable, not more durable. The advance of technology is to cram more data into smaller space. That is what makes it less robust.
Posted by: lucidish
|
June 10, 2010 6:05 PM
I think this post was an incredibly inappropriate and disproportionate response to a naive and slightly snotty email. I also think that the people who have gone out of their way to look up his information, photo, etc., ought to be ashamed of themselves.
This may not be Crackergate for their side, but with every new post it's getting closer and closer. Get a grip, people.
Posted by: otrame
|
June 10, 2010 6:06 PM
Haven't finished reading them all yet, but I gotta say I loved Madison when I was there back in the early 14th century (well, actually the early 70s). What a wild and crazy town.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
June 10, 2010 6:07 PM
Wow, dreadnaught is one of the more boring trolls in a while. Empty arguments, weak insults that are a disgrace to flaming, and insanely repetitive. Responses are always off the point. It's like an e-book religidiot.
I vote off the thread.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton
|
June 10, 2010 6:07 PM
@85,
To be scrupulouly fair, young master Rosenberg is likely confusing leg spread with body length. A big American Hogna sp. might reach five inches of leg spread, stretched out as far as possible without triggering autotomy. Well; actually maybe not quite; but the exaggeration would be minor, not massive.
Posted by: gettingfree
|
June 10, 2010 6:08 PM
@ lucidish #276
Yawwnnnnn.....
By the way, "intelligent" people should know that people will look you up when you put yourself out on the internet.
Posted by: Roger
|
June 10, 2010 6:09 PM
OMG. You guys, lucidish is concerned!
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
June 10, 2010 6:12 PM
I should have known better, but I googled Hogna anyway. Now I'll be twitching for a while.
Posted by: gr8hands
|
June 10, 2010 6:12 PM
Poor Wandering One, you could try:
http://www.lulu.com/product/ebook/the-strand-vol-2---july-december-1891/4989405
But it isn't free. Although perhaps Dreadnought knows a site where you can acquire a stolen copy.
For Peter H, try:
http://kobobooks.com/ebook/Sketches-camp-life-wilds-Aroostook/book-SCZJOkrxX0WjFiuwKdbujQ/page1.html
But I'm a HUGE library fan!
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/6RBjsz4HsZx_jxDjOTAyms_CG8xZDfiNIWWXSg--#b33f0
|
June 10, 2010 6:12 PM
So a troll named after a type of offensive spaceship in a fantasy game is berating us for not agreeing with their apparent position that all books are available on the internet and are being backed up to DVD's. Oddly enough they've provided no evidence that is the case, and seem willing to steal from all authors everywhere. They've not mentioned any way of paying back said authors, and desire to take over this thread by preaching at people.
Mock away, everyone, if you can be bothered.
Posted by: Athena
|
June 10, 2010 6:14 PM
To continue the books vs e-reader theme: Isaac Asimov wrote an essay on why books won't become obsolete. He talked about portability, no energy use, underlining and marginalia, ease of storage, and the wonderful smell of ink on new paper.
If books didn't exist, my house would be empty. Livingroom: 6 bookcases, library: 7 bookcases, bedroom: 5 bookcases, and stair landing, sewingroom and kitchen: 1 each. Forget decorating styles like French Provincial...mine is Early Library.
Not only do books not need recharging, they recharge us. Who here hasn't gotten high from a new viewpoint or fascinating piece of information?
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 10, 2010 6:15 PM
lucidish,
Your concern is noted and stupid.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 6:16 PM
SteveM:
50 years, gosh! And here I have silly books published in the 1700s and 1800s, first editions and in very good condition. Yeah, no point to books at all.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 10, 2010 6:19 PM
lucidish, your inane and misplace concern is noted and rejected. After all, anyone with any knowledge of this blog knows, be stupid at Pharyngula or with e-mails to PZ, and expect your idiocy to be exposed to the world. If you don't want that, STFU.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 6:20 PM
Roger:
Oh dear! Get the smelling salts and fainting couch, stat! They'll be needed after lucidish is told to gently fuck him/herself sideways with a Leica Rangefinder.
Posted by: Peter Ashby
|
June 10, 2010 6:24 PM
Thanks for the Lawrence Krauss video PZ. I just watched it through and even though I didn't learn anything much it was nice to have my view of the universe gleaned from disparate sources confirmed in such an entertaining and well informed way.
I agree that it is okay to be rude to the religious for the simple reason that it is so very easy to appear rude to them by simply having the sheer temerity to disagree with them. If you are not going to agree with them AND they ask you why not how can you be honest and not offend them? Thin skinned people will be offended by anything and that is not a problem for the rest of us.
Posted by: Qwerty
|
June 10, 2010 6:24 PM
Yes, Caine, and I am sure lucidish is clutching some pearls!
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 10, 2010 6:32 PM
silly, don't you know that everything worth reading has been written in English? QFT. Even if we finally get around to inventing those super-durable storage devices, the knowledge of how it was encrypted and the technology for reading them will not live forever. It's very possible that archaic formats will become unreadable simply for lack of technology; we lose technology all the time and are unable to replicate past efforts. Believing that our own civilization is immune from that is naive, at best.Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 6:38 PM
Qwerty:
Strangling in them, no doubt.
Posted by: woozy
|
June 10, 2010 6:43 PM
>>>Mr. Meyers
>>Mr. Myers. Yeesh.
Actually it's Dr. Myers. I'm Mr. Meyers. (Seriously, I am.) My eyeball does a double take when I see "Mr. Meyers" on these pages.
Again someone's using God as a placeholder for human ignorance. We can't explain X therefore God.
Yeah. But if you go back to when the theist is young enough and sincere enough, there may be a time when s/he truly doesn't see the fallacy of this. It makes a tiny bit of sense in a "when you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left is the truth" sort of way: --It's inconcievable that something come of nothing, ergo it was created from something else.
That always struck me as flagrantly illogical even when I was six. What we have instead is two impossible things and nothing remaning. Hence we should apply the "impossible is impossible" lemma that when all you can have are impossibles then one or more must not be impossible after all. (1:Something came from nothing-- impossible. 2:Something was created from nothing by something outside the nothing-- impossible. 3:Something has existed without beginning-- impossible. 4:Nothing ever existed-- impossible. And that's all I've got... As a six year old, I'd have figured something existing without beginning would be the least improbable. Does seem I was wrong though. [Although, it seems "always" "begin" and "nothing" are misleading terms and, I suppose, I called argue that 1 and 3 are both semantically incorrect and when correcte are compatible-- and both correct])
I think theists simply don't see god the way we do. They seem to incorporate him into their null hypotheses some how. Kinda like ether to light's wave-form; without an alternative explaination we must assume that a wave requires a medium hence we must assume an ether <==> without an alternative expanation we must assume a creative force. It's kinda weird and I don't get it.
Actually, I thought I had a pretty good critique back in post #33
If a scientist is to study and question the universe, then any object or hypothesis s/he introduces must also be scrutinized. If said hypothesis is God (or anything else), then God must also be scrutinized and studied. At the very least, God must be defined.
(I was actually hoping someone might like that and compliment me on it. Ah, the arrogance of middle-age.)
Back in its day, ether was scrutinized and found ... wrong. God, as nothing more than a question-begging device, is even ... wronger.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 10, 2010 6:51 PM
I have a first edition of Adam Smith's An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (generally referred to as The Wealth of Nations) published in 1776. It's in excellent condition. As long as it's treated well it should be good for another few hundred years.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
June 10, 2010 6:55 PM
Is "Valedictorian" like Dux, ie., official top at academics? (Cause if so, hey, join the club.) Or is it one of those all-rounder or sporting or popularity things? I know they give speeches at the graduations, but not how they are selected. What's a Salutatorian?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 7:00 PM
'Tis, I have about a dozen books published in the 1700s and 1800s. The oldest is 228 years old. My favourite is my youngest, though, at a mere 113 years old, a first edition of Dracula by Bram Stoker. I got it from my mother, who bought it at a garage sale for 25 cents.
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
June 10, 2010 7:02 PM
I'm not suggesting that PZ do other than he did since the man is running a cool website and doing real science on the side... ;)
I personally cut Andy a little slack, though. Boy-o is only 18 and I can remember being a little thick at the same age. I think I feel sorry for him because a person can tell in his text that he's basically writing from what he's been taught in school. There's a very obvious lack of skill in finding and codifying information himself. Like PZ said, the guy needs to be spoon-fed because his education is deficient in going to a library, finding books on subjects and using critical and comparative thinking to sort out what it all means.
The mere fact that he has to question the big bang or evolution is another sign of deficiencies in the education system. These are pretty common questions from kids and yet there are hysterical morons who insist that this stuff shouldn't be taught at grade school level because it doesn't mesh with some idiotic world view better presented to thirteenth-century BCE Beduin. The Texas textbook controversy just underlines the need for a complete overhaul in what and how kids are being exposed to in grade school.
And a Lutheran kid's parents shouldn't be so hard-assed about religion that he would need to question the way he does. Lutheranism is one of the most common boxes checked by Scandinavians when they bother to answer polls on religious belief, yet these people have the highest acceptance of evolution on the planet. I'm willing to bet that his beliefs are being coloured more by that repugnant over-the-top American fundamentalist bullshit than genuine Lutheran-light dogma. These people have this overwhelming degree of cognitive dissonance and always side (erroneously) with some inane belief that science is completely at odds with a belief in a deity or afterlife. Biblical literalists are their own worst enemy because they preclude an option of having a comfortable philosophy about religion that doesn't push away what logic and reason (essentially, almost anything science comes up with) tell them should be real also.
Don't come down too hard on Andy, he's a victim of a crappy education system and exposure to amazingly crappy fall-on-your-knees-and-babble Sunday televangelist hysterical religion. I few months in a decent college with real science professors will get him in the right direction. In a few years time he will be typing out a similar missive as this one to yet another poor kid who has his mind screwed up by a barrage of misinformation and superstitious drivel.
Posted by: Eggnostriva
|
June 10, 2010 7:03 PM
I am an athiest, and have always been. If this kid is for real. He just needs some answers, and not shouting at. He doesnt threaten you or your (lack of) beliefs. Attacking this boy is like shooting fish in a barrel, and I thought you were above that.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 7:06 PM
Cath, valedictorian is the same as dux. Salutorian:
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 7:09 PM
Eggnostriva:
FFS, go clutch your pearls elsewhere.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 10, 2010 7:12 PM
To repeat a phrase that is so overused but so appropriate in these situations,
Your concern is noted
Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 10, 2010 7:14 PM
Why do you continue to be obtuse and disingenuous?
Even cellphones can be recharged with portable solar powered chargers, let alone ebook readers which don't have to be recharged for 2 weeks at least.
Your stupidity, obfuscation, evasion and dishonesty amazes me.
Posted by: stevieinthecity#9dac9
|
June 10, 2010 7:18 PM
PZ ignored him. Then the kid got snotty... snottier. The kid needed to be put in his place. He's no different than the other religious nutbags that think they are playing a game of gotcha with PZ.
He's 18. He'll learn sooner or later. Sooner is better for him.
Posted by: Anonymous
|
June 10, 2010 7:23 PM
I knew I had heard about all the different Lutherans described in #75 before, finally figured it out. Cheers (5 minute mark).
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
June 10, 2010 7:25 PM
Thanks Sin-sister Caine, and especially for not linking to LMGTFY. (You may recall me as Cajela/Hecaterin)
Posted by: salavant
|
June 10, 2010 7:26 PM
Wow. I... I've been reading Pharyngula for like 3, 4 years? Never commented, but a lurker. And what prompts me to actually post? Some eejit tech-head (who doesn't even know that the Imperial Guard are WAY superior to the big ol' Space Marines).
Dreadnought's posts read like what would happen if Skynet arose in the form of a Kindle. I mean, seriously, dude, what. Books are good. Internet is good. Non-mutually exclusive. But there's a reason why my shelves are filled with books from my childhood all the way through to my handy shelf of cool maths books.
Books are special. They feel, like an ITEM, a thing with a value, a thing with history and thought and intimacy. I find reading physical books, (and learning stuff from them), a lot easier for this reason: they feel /there/, in a way that ebook readers haven't yet captured. Plus, as others have pointed out, we are nowhere near having the entire literary output of mankind all nicely digitized. It's not a straight choice, and it shouldn't be.
On the ACTUAL topic: man, it's hard to know if Andrew was sincere or not. But it doesn't quite matter. If he was, well, he was still kinda wrong. It's a bit embarrassing for him, and I hope he doesn't run the wrong way as a result, but hey. Might be good for him.
And, of course, if he wasn't sincere, I doubt anything PZ has said will matter to him.
Posted by: woozy
|
June 10, 2010 7:27 PM
I think this post was an incredibly inappropriate and disproportionate response to a naive and slightly snotty email.
I thought so at first, as did a few others, as well. However where I and the others differed (although although I've changed my mind since), is rather than just tsk-tsking and shaming PZ we offered, or at least attempted to, explanations of why we thought so.
(Even though I've changed my mind, there I still have a scary sense of there but for the grace of time and the internet [and the different orientation of my values] go I.)
I also think that the people who have gone out of their way to look up his information, photo, etc., ought to be ashamed of themselves.
This I don't get. His information is on the Internet! Hence it's public. Had I thought of it, I'd have looked him up to try to determine whether I believed his questions were sincere or whether he was merely dogma-baiting. This determination ought to pivotal to any concern one may have.
Nerd: lucidish, your inane and misplace concern is noted and rejected.
This is why I kinda don't like Nerd. Such statements just sound like immediate knee-jerk dismissal to me. At least scathing ridicule represents response. Also, Nerd isn't the referree here...
anyone with any knowledge of this blog knows, be stupid at Pharyngula or with e-mails to PZ, and expect your idiocy to be exposed to the world.
...but I agree with that. It's just common sense...
If you don't want that, STFU.
...except, I'd say be willing to back up your claims. I did. And others did. But then the anti-Andy claims (some) were more persusive.
Posted by: Betelgeuse
|
June 10, 2010 7:27 PM
@299
I don't think this is about anybody stooping to any levels.
Its about- 'if you're going to say something, think about whether it really holds ground. If not, don't say anything because you're going to get questioned in a way that shows you know nothing- in public- and then its too late to backtrack.
And the smart thing to do would be to go and do your homework, and then come back with an argument. In which case even if a majority disagree, but you have something to back you up, you might well make an alternative point that no one really saw before.'
It may not seem 'fair' to you or some others, but I suppose that's how it works around here and it helps with the 'get off your cloud' syndrome. I tried it rather naively with Truthmachine once. Learnt my lesson lets just say.
And this entire subject has wayyy too much debate and alternative explanatory text on it already, for someone to be a young ass, try to be smart and not get taken down for it.
Its a wierd sort of relief that sometimes sweeps over, when I look back at when I was 18, reassess current situation, and marvel at how wrong I was and how happy to be corrected I am now, not many years since.
Posted by: CJO
|
June 10, 2010 7:28 PM
Your stupidity, obfuscation, evasion and dishonesty amazes me.
The fact that you can muster this kind of overwrought outrage over some people who disagree with you about the relative merits of a given piece of digital technology, the modest utility of which nobody has denied, is not just amazing; it's kind of sad. Did you come here to make a fool of yourself? If so, well done, sir. Hats off. If not, go back to whatever (no doubt pirated e-book saturated) dunce's corner of the internet you lurched in from and let the grownups talk.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 7:31 PM
Cath:
Hecaterin! Thank you for letting me know! I feel all warm and fuzzy now. :)
Sinister Caine
Posted by: Guy Incognito
|
June 10, 2010 7:31 PM
I am an athiest, and have always been.
It is my experience that "athiests" are rarely atheists. THAT particular typo is always a big red flag.
Posted by: Betelgeuse
|
June 10, 2010 7:32 PM
Of course when I mean 'happy', I mean usually post passionate argument and silly rhetoric, before the sense sometimes sets in.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 7:39 PM
Woozy:
At this point, I'll say you're welcome to fuck off. Nerd wasn't the only one, by far, to say this to the Pearl Clutcher&trade and if you don't know what that is, then shut up. The regulars here have a history with certain types of trolls and the Tone Brigade doesn' get anywhere with us. No one is attempting to "referee" and you're beginning to look damn foolish.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 10, 2010 7:43 PM
Guy Incognito #312
At least half the time I make that typo when writing "atheist." Fortunately for me, unlike Mr. Rosenberg I have a spell checker which flags the typo for me. And I guaran-damn-tee you I'm a genuwhine atheist or athiest as the case may be.
The comment that sets me off is when some goddist, inevitably of the most evangelical and fundamentalist flavor, announces "I used to be an atheist." My reaction is "another Liar for Jebus™."
Posted by: VRAlbany
|
June 10, 2010 7:43 PM
Love the logical acrobatics going on.
Rough summary of his inquiry:
"I demand that you indulge me and reaffirm how smart and well-rounded everyone tells me I am by explaining your belief system which is different from mine.
But first, let me tell you how your belief system is ignorant, while I demonstrate how my ignorance of astrophysics leads me to the conclusion of a creator, somehow making me not ignorant and a god damn genius among lutherans."
Fool.
Posted by: Kraid
|
June 10, 2010 7:44 PM
I suspect that a library may have killed Dreadnought's parents. That or a paper-and-ink book rejected his amorous advances. It would explain so much.
Posted by: Betelgeuse
|
June 10, 2010 7:46 PM
Also, why do I get the feeling that Dreadnought is trying to wind up unsuspecting people to get them to debate him, while he sits smug in a corner, smirk and all, repeatedly saying the same thing over and over again and getting some wierd satisfaction from it all?
He could even have the 'oiled back hair' look to go with the theme.. *imagines*
Personally, I'm waiting until I've got enough spare money hanging around so I can convert my prized digital possessions like photographs, to print so that they may someday have a larger chance of being found than if they were on a 'ooh I shook it, Ooh it broke' disk. I'd have the satisfaction of knowing that maybe someone would react with the same satisfaction to them, as I do to realllllly old sepia.
Plus, books all the way. The real things. I saved all my Enid Blytons and everything. If I hadn't I'd be an intolerable mess.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk8OXe4QLH9T3aEU-3gCukSRBV5NYevTek
|
June 10, 2010 7:46 PM
LOL! Or a library landed on his sister?Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 7:49 PM
Betelgeuse:
As I've said, I know him from other forums. He's stupid.
Posted by: pixelfish
|
June 10, 2010 7:52 PM
I have the belief that if God exists, then Christianity makes the most sense for me to follow.
Okay, I don't believe that God exists, but if I DID believe, I don't see any rationale for worshipping said deity or doing what they say. Why jump straight to the act of following? I feel that worship is inherently mentally unhealthy for the worshipper and the worshippee, regardless of supposed divinity.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 10, 2010 7:56 PM
Read the post again, it's full of recommendations of where to go for particular knowledge.Posted by: Skepticat
|
June 10, 2010 8:00 PM
Roger@136:
Having read the rest of Andrew's emails, I agree with you. I would not have taken that tone with someone I was trying to have a respectful dialog with and I doubt any sincere person would.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384
|
June 10, 2010 8:05 PM
He's still been a bit of a dick, though, hasn't he?Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 10, 2010 8:06 PM
So, you resort to ad hominems after I systematically dismantled every single one of your arguments...nice.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk8OXe4QLH9T3aEU-3gCukSRBV5NYevTek
|
June 10, 2010 8:08 PM
An electronic book "loses its edges and dissolves into the vast, rolling waters of the Net." (John Updike) Yes. My eyes slip. (Roger Ebert)
Posted by: Guy Incognito
|
June 10, 2010 8:08 PM
@315: The comment that sets me off is when some goddist, inevitably of the most evangelical and fundamentalist flavor, announces "I used to be an atheist."
Hey! Among Urban Dictionary's definitions of "athiest":
Posted by: sqlrob
|
June 10, 2010 8:10 PM
With advantages like this who can't help but see the point of readnaught?
Posted by: Robert H
|
June 10, 2010 8:17 PM
Nobody is arguing eBooks' utility but there are, at least potentially, qualities inherent in books that are (perhaps for the time being) totally lacking in eBooks. There is an aesthetic aspect that can be stunning, including everything from the quality of the paper, to the formulation of the ink, to the binding. I am loth to totally abandon that sensual aspect, forged by craftspeople in a tradition preserved for almost six centuries, for the anonymity of modern digital methods.
As objects, books are handed down from friend to friend and from generation to generation. I have one book with an ancestor's name inscribed in it from 1816-that type of continuity helps ground me. I have four children's books designed by Walter Crane somewhere in the late 1800s, that four generations of children in my family have enjoyed and passed on (not quite the same as swapping data files...), and that in retrospect influenced my sense of design. I trust my children will pass these books on as well. I appreciate the continuity, illusory though it might be.
I must admit all of this kerfuffle about books vs eBooks is starkly incongruous on a thread related to a trigger-happy 18 year old but then that's just part of the fun of hanging around Pharyngula: one never knows what odd bit of non-linear pomposity will rise up and get the beasts that dwell within to rattle their cages.
Posted by: woozy
|
June 10, 2010 8:20 PM
The regulars here have a history with certain types of trolls and the Tone Brigade doesn' get anywhere with us.
Actually, I've been here a lot longer than Nerd has. My comment wasn't about tone. I was just agreeing with a long-time nemesis for a change.
Speaking of tone: PZ's gotten bad mouthed You're not helping again. They failed to make their point and the last three paragraphs seems unnescessarily nasty.
Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 10, 2010 8:23 PM
I never mentioned Kindle or Amazon once, not a single time, just Sony PRS 700 and torrents.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 8:24 PM
sqlrob:
Interesting. I recently re-read 1984. My book is in my shelves, where it will always be available to me.
Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED
|
June 10, 2010 8:25 PM
Dreadnought, allow me to say this as one 40k geek to another.
You are like Eldrad.
A dick.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 8:27 PM
woozy:
Then stop being a fucking twit.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 10, 2010 8:27 PM
I see Woozy is still clutching his pearls too. I'm no referee. Just not partial to tone trolls.I simply call it like I see it. And I've been here long enough to see and call the same-old same-old before others. Mr. Rosenberg's first e-mail set off alarm bells confirmed by his second e-mail. He was obviously attempting to pick a fight with PZ under conditions where PZ must defend his atheism against the presupposition that a deity exists. I commented on how it should go, with Mr. Rosenberg presenting his thesis that his deity exists and defending it with real evidence. Woozy was, and still is, still to woozy to understand the full the full implications of the combined e-mails. The implications I saw long, long ago before my first post on this thread. Thinking good of such folks doesn't make Woozy an authority by any means. Just another concerned citizen clutching his pearls.
Tone trolls, who worry about the rest of us giving offense, give offense with their posts. Like theists saying they will pray for us, which really means "fuck you". So I return the favor, with a little more direct vocabulary.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 8:33 PM
Woozy:
No one gives a damn about The Intersection Vapours Crew. It sounds like you're getting a dirty little thrill from them though, perhaps they're more your sort of crowd.
Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 10, 2010 8:36 PM
All that nonsensical sentimental symbolic crap in your head goes away when:
-you hold the ebook reader in your hand instead of those awful awkward clumsy paper books where you have to hold it with 2 hands, continually pressing it on each side so you can see the text
-total uniformity, reliability and readability of text, no more faded pages, broken pages, twisted pages, darkened pages, scribbled on pages
-searchability of the book, it is impossible to search a paper book, and if it is it takes ages, ebooks bring hyperlinkability and interactivity of text where it was always needed the most
-spatial requirements eliminated, no more rooms full of dusty dirty old books which you have to physically handle and search through, now with a few flicks of a finger you can access any book any time anywhere
-resource wastefulness eliminated, one gadget for all books, instead of forests for a shelves of books
There are more reasons, but these are quite enough to expose you as sentimental and irrational idiots.
Posted by: Robert H
|
June 10, 2010 8:38 PM
All your base are belong to us! You have no chance to survive make your time.
We quail before your overmastering power and are blinded by the luminosity of your intellect (yawn).
Posted by: Fred
|
June 10, 2010 8:40 PM
You people just don't know how to deal with 18-year-olds:
Dear Andrew,
Give atheism a try. You get to have sex before marriage, and it's sooooooo much better without the guilt.
Yours without sin,
Fred
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk8OXe4QLH9T3aEU-3gCukSRBV5NYevTek
|
June 10, 2010 8:41 PM
Why books are better than the intertoobz:
The helpful local librarianatrix!
'nuff said.
Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 10, 2010 8:42 PM
Oh, and did I mention that ebook readers use e-ink technology which means you only use battery when changing the pages, which even then is negligible so you can go for weeks without recharging...
This is what is truly revolutionary about ebook readers, it is stupid to compare it to iPad which has to be frequently recharged like a cellphone.
Posted by: C_Ford
|
June 10, 2010 8:43 PM
Andrew had just done me a huge servus. I now know that PZ has youtube videos. On my way over there now.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
June 10, 2010 8:51 PM
No, you haven't. What's your response to:
1. The fact that only a small portion of the world's literature has been archived in digital format. Seriously, it hasn't. Especially when it comes to really old scientific literature, which many of us are particularly needful of. Sure, the Royal Society of London archived theirs, but they're not the only game in town. And even relatively new journals from the mid-1900s aren't digitally archived because they were published by small organizations without a lot of money and manpower.
2. The fact that every single electronic technology becomes obsolete within less than 20 years. Do you have lots of data on 5 1/2" floppies? Looked at any of those lately? And 50 years is a really short time for robustness of data storage, and it's about the max that can be gotten from anything digital.
3. The fact that ebooks are limited to people of a particular socioeconomic class. I'm a college professor, and I can't afford one. So that would limit knowledge to people with a lot of disposable income.
4. Speaking of income, the methods you advocate would leave all writers without any source of income. Therefore, no more writers, no more material.
Now, tell me how those four points are sentimental and irrational? Or hey, STFU until you answer the completely pragmatic objections to your odd Nook masturbatory fantasies.
Posted by: Robert H
|
June 10, 2010 8:53 PM
Hey Dreaddy! I cop to being sentimental. I trust under that scarred carapace you drag around in the hopes of intimidating others you have some areas where you are sentimental as well (hint: the word derives from the same word as sentient, and it means "to feel").
As far as being irrational-I have had my moments and am probably capable of another outburst or two if you're up to it. Are you? How about invective at ten paces? Throwing large objects around? You go first.
Idiot? Poor dear... The word comes from idios, Greek for own, or private. You seem to have self-defined yourself into that one.
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos
|
June 10, 2010 8:54 PM
I disagree with those who say he was earnest and sincere in looking for answers. If so, why ask questions about cosmology and physics to a biologist? A good start would be for him to do his homework. Next, he could go to a library or look up the answers online. He didn't, or if he did he dismissed the answers outright because he was brought up to believe something else. Sending these questions to PZ he hoped to stump him or something, but he failed to take into account that there are people smarter and more educated than him.
Posted by: woozy
|
June 10, 2010 9:01 PM
I simply call it like I see it.
As do I.
I commented on how it should go, with Mr. Rosenberg presenting his thesis that his deity exists and defending it with real evidence.
And I commend you for it.
Woozy was, and still is, still to woozy to understand the full the full implications of the combined e-mails.
At the very best he's a sincere naive twit. At the very worst he's a troll naive twit. I'm not sure what implications you see other than a stupid 18 year old PZ can, and did handle with one hand behind his back.
Tone trolls, who worry about the rest of us giving offense
I don't worry about giving offense.
So I return the favor, with a little more direct vocabulary.
Well, that's the thing. "Your concern is noted and rejected" is neither direct nor a return of the favor. Sorry. It's not your viewpoint or tone. It's you. Sometime. A minority of the time. But sometime none-the-less.
Then stop being a fucking twit.
What? Because I personally dislike one particular member here? Sometimes. Do you like every member here? All the time. He doesn't like me either but his stating so doesn't make him a twit.
Posted by: SteveM
|
June 10, 2010 9:05 PM
If you never turn the page, ie actually read the books.
Geeze, yes ebooks are wonderful, it would be great to have one to save weight on a vacation, no question. But it ain't going to completely replace the paper book. They are not mutually exclusive, why the hell can't you see that? No one is saying your ebook is useless, just that it has its place and that is NOT to supplant the book but to supplement it.
And all this because PZ told Andrew to go to a fucking library? What the hell is up your ass? Tell someone to go someplace where they can read thousands of books for free as opposed to telling them to go out and buy a $200 piece of technology and then spend uncountable hours downloading content for it? I just don't see what your frikkin problem is.
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
June 10, 2010 9:05 PM
A paper-and-ink book can still give you its contents if the power goes out, needs no batteries to be recharged, and won't suffer electronic failure; also, newer technology doesn't make its contents suddenly unavailable. Plus, a sufficient mass of them, shelved around the walls of your home, provide valuable insulation. Keep a book out of fires and liquids, and it'll stay useful for a long, long time.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
June 10, 2010 9:05 PM
Hrm... I was gonna get a new e-book reader...
But then there's this guy I knew who bought one, and, umm...
Well, it's kinda embarrassing, but shortly after he got that thing, he started randomly breaking into people's homes and interrupting their presumably entirely unrelated dinner conversations with shouted tirades on how paper and ink are obsolete...
It was sad. He wound up in and out of jail, in the end. It'd get to trial, the judge would often let it pass on a 'technophilia-related insanity' plea or somesuch... Or he'd get like 30 days, y'know. But it wasn't enough to scare him straight, I guess...
He spent some time in and out of mental wards, too, but they couldn't cure him, either... Weird syndrome, it was: he used to insist he could get any book in the world on the thing--including ones that hadn't actually been written yet... He'd argue at random with folk he felt were not properly worshipful of his reader, insist loudly they were Luddites... Heaven help anyone so foolish as to merely to murmur something noncommittal like 'Yes, I suppose that's nice enough' when he shoved the thing in their face at the lunch counter. It could get ugly...
Finally, he tried to burn down the Library of Congress by shorting out the thing's batteries in the rare books room. They never quite worked out why, but one theory was it had something to do with his not being able to get Catcher in the Rye in a compatible format... Anyway...
Anyway. I think he's still serving time for that particular incident... Or maybe he's out*... Not sure... Kinda lost track, I guess.
My point: sure: it's a decent technology. But I tells ya: they're covering up those nasty side effects, they are. Somethin' they put in the casing material, I bet.
(*/Totally unrelated question: do federal penitentiaries have internet access? Just wondering...)
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
June 10, 2010 9:06 PM
I'm actually quite keen on getting an ebook reader sometime, when the technology settles a little more. I'm a mid to late adopter; I figure I'll just let other people pay the high prices for the buggy version. I'm intending to get an iPhone this year!
The main reason for this is that I have run out of walls that my bloke will let me put bookshelves on. We have one entire wall, floor to ceiling, plus eight 2m tall free standing bookshelves, with the books packed mostly 2 deep. I gave away 7 boxes of books to Lifeline last year and it didn't make a noticeable dent.
Posted by: Shala
|
June 10, 2010 9:09 PM
'Tis, I have about a dozen books published in the 1700s and 1800s. The oldest is 228 years old. My favourite is my youngest, though, at a mere 113 years old, a first edition of Dracula by Bram Stoker.
my jealousy is unbelievable right now
i literally just finished reading my copy of it
Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 10, 2010 9:11 PM
Any literature deserving of being saved will be saved/digitized. Why?
Because anyone can do it, most printers by default have a scanner, and standalone they cost less than the cheapest cellphone. Any individual can within a few hours digitize any book.
This is complete nonsense, even now we have free emulation software and converters for every single software/format there was and as to physical storage you wouldn't be worried in the slightest if you keep track of new technologies in this area.
Even in countries less developed than US, goverments are frequently giving out laptops to children, and lift taxes for for certain products, a specific product like ebook reader is a prime candidate for such measures.
Microtransactions, MMOs are doing perfectly fine with them, and so do facebook games and online newspapers.
For a college professor you are astonishingly ill-informed.
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
June 10, 2010 9:11 PM
And when they get the bugs worked out of it, it'll be glorious.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
June 10, 2010 9:14 PM
And you, one-note Johnny, are among the most abrasive and stupid commenters I've run into here recently. Is this the way you argue a point with your meatspace friends? How's that workin' out for ya?
Posted by: Shala
|
June 10, 2010 9:21 PM
dreadnought could you please fucking shill for your e-books somewhere else
you are incredibly annoying
Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian
|
June 10, 2010 9:21 PM
And luckily, everyone on the planet can afford an ebook, and has electricity so that they can recharge it.Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 10, 2010 9:22 PM
Don't be lazy, I addressed every single argument(even solar powered chargers people now use for cellphones), read my posts.
The only single thing that prevents paper books from becoming utterly obsolete is habit, pure old mindless habit, nothing else. Paper books are at total disadvantage in every imaginable aspect and people like you are perpetuating the wastefulness of paper books and preventing greater dissemination of knowledge because if ebooks where accepted en masse even even marginal economic issues would evaporate.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 10, 2010 9:24 PM
Comment by Dreadnought blocked. [unkill] [show comment]
Sic semper trollus!
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
June 10, 2010 9:24 PM
Any literature deserving of being saved will be saved/digitized.
If a book is not digitized, it was not worth saving.
For a self aggrandizing asshole, you are astonishingly self aggrandizing.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 9:25 PM
Shala:
I first read it when I was 10 years old (back when my mom still owned it). It's the only book that ever gave me a nightmare. A related book (which I no longer have, thanks to being stupid enough to lend it out) was the wonderful The Annotated Dracula by Leonard Wolf is a terrific way to re-read it. I really have to buy another copy of that one of these days, if I can track one down.
Posted by: Kirk
|
June 10, 2010 9:27 PM
Arriving late and there are already over 350 posts. It's always interesting to see which of PZ's articles get a bunch of posts, and which don't.
The beautiful picture of Botanical Wednesday: Cross-phylum canoodling, something over 20 posts.
The article of the doofus with inane questions, over 350.
Maybe it was the reference to valedictorian that put the blood in the water, and then naturally you get a feeding frenzy.
The only valedictorian I could respect would be one who never mentioned it, and if somebody else mentioned it, the valedictorian would say, "but it really doesn't mean anything."
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk8OXe4QLH9T3aEU-3gCukSRBV5NYevTek
|
June 10, 2010 9:28 PM
Books.
Great for those who can't afford expensive computers and crappy overpriced e-book readers.
Democracy works.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
June 10, 2010 9:30 PM
Dreadnought reminds me of the people I used to engage in flame wars with in the early days of digital photography. The digistas were so fanatically devoted to spreading the pixellated gospel, they'd start screaming in all caps if you dared point out any advantages of film. They'd flat out lie and say ridiculous things that were clearly not true (claiming all sorts of technical benefits or infinite resolution, when manufacturer specs showed they were wrong, for example).
They couldn't tolerate anyone who expressed an aesthetic preference for film either. Didn't matter if you were reasonable, and noted there were things digital was great for, but other things film was good for. Nope. You were a Luddite, a retard, a lazy hold-over, a dinosaur, and just incomprensibly stupid.
I've always found it odd that matters of technology - the medium through which content is conveyed - could inspire that level of frothing irrationality.
Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 10, 2010 9:31 PM
Why are you being obtuse again?
If people can't afford an ebook, even when it is so mass produced that it is cheap as the cheapest cellpones right now, or don't even have an electricity then they can't afford A book, period.
You are starting to annoy me with your easily dismissed inanity.
Posted by: Dorkman
|
June 10, 2010 9:33 PM
I own a Kindle, an iPad, and a house full of paper books. I like to read and I don't particularly care how as long as the information is the same (although I had some frustrations with getting abridged versions of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland that did not indicate they were abridged).
Arguing ebook vs. real book is like arguing hardcover vs. paperback. They both have pros and cons and if you have nothing better to do than form a strong quasi-religious ideological fixation on one or the other, then there isn't a superlative strong enough for the kind of twat you are.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
June 10, 2010 9:33 PM
"The fact that every single electronic technology becomes obsolete within less than 20 years."
And then it's off to the landfill with all that plastic and heavy metals.
"Paper production is generally from farm raised trees that grow relatively quickly and are replanted."
And imagine if we could go over to using hemp instead!
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
June 10, 2010 9:35 PM
And you are astonishingly provincial. Everything you are claiming is valid only for well-off people in developed countries, and in particular well-off people who have no interest in reading anything but the New York Times best-seller list.
Provided they have the access and time to do so. Most people don't have lots of spare hours, and most institutions that have a vested interest in arcane information are barely scraping to get by and can't afford to pay people to sit around digitizing information. And "any book" isn't in question, it's hundreds of years' worth of material from all over the globe. You seem to have an amazing inability to comprehend the scope of published material that is in existence.
Which is why we never, ever hear about data transfer and storage problems and degradation of information.
I'll be sure to tell my colleagues in Honduras that they can expect their free e-readers from their government any day now. I'm sure that's on the top of the priority list.
Most academic information works like shit with microtransactions. That's why it costs so damn much to access articles - there are only a certain number of people in the world who are interested in the latest information on Pleistocene vole teeth from the Carpathian mountains, and it's a lot fewer than the number of people who play Farmville.
You're arguing that digital information is good - seriously, nobody is arguing with you there. I was in college through the transition from using the physical set of Biological Abstracts, to using a database under strict supervision from a librarian who mapped out the search ahead of time because we had to pay $50 an hour to use the service, to getting to download pdfs from the database right to my laptop any time I want.
But in terms of libraries, we are nowhere NEAR the time where they are not absolutely crucial. And even when it gets to the point of everyone on the planet having an ebook and unlimited data account to download every bit of knowledge in the world while they ride their unicorns over rainbows to visit the Lucky Charm leprechaun, librarians themselves will still be needed, because as smart as you think you are, you still know nothing about data searching and retrieval compared to someone with a master's degree in library science.
Posted by: Shala
|
June 10, 2010 9:37 PM
It's the only book that ever gave me a nightmare.
It may sound kind of silly, but the part that really frightened me is rather early on when a group of wolves surround the count's wagon.
It was really surreal for me.
Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED
|
June 10, 2010 9:37 PM
Tell me, Dreadnought. Can an E-book survive being dropped from a tree onto a hard rock ten feet below?
A book can, and with little to no damage.
Can an E-book survive being soaked in a tub with only moderate damage?
A book can, and a few of mine have.
Can an E-book be used, in extremis, to fulfill such arcane duties as levelling washing machines and pressing flowers?
Books can.
Can an E-book be personally signed by an author?
Books can.
Can an E-book be said to have 'soul'?
Books can.
Can you write "To our son, on his eighteenth birthday. We're so proud' on the inside cover of an E-book?
You can with a book.
Posted by: rcaseybouch
|
June 10, 2010 9:37 PM
That "atheist" jpeg is epic...and that e-mail is whiny and reeks of episode 2 Anakin...
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
June 10, 2010 9:40 PM
"Any individual can within a few hours digitize any book."
Are we talking about scanning every individual page and then proofreading to make sure no characters were misread and properly formatting footnotes and cutting hyphens from line breaks out and such? I mean, this is just stuff off the top of my head, I would bet that digitizing a book takes way longer than a few hours.
Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 10, 2010 9:41 PM
Yep, after systematic addressing of every argument about ebook readers here I find it odd too that some people would still cling to their irrationality.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 9:42 PM
Shala:
Doesn't sound silly at all. Stoker's over the top writing was definitely atmospheric and it was scenes like the one with the wolves which provided that wonderfully creepy atmosphere. I remember that scene well, it was one of my favourites.
Posted by: Roger
|
June 10, 2010 9:42 PM
@rcasey: LOL! Yep, I think you got Master Rosenberg in one. He should be a powerful Jedi! He should be the most powerful Valedictorian EVER!
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
June 10, 2010 9:43 PM
Cheapest cellphone available: $15
Electric service: min. $30/month, every month
Cheapest book I've bought: 5 cents
You were saying?
Posted by: Shala
|
June 10, 2010 9:44 PM
episode 2 Anakin...
FFFFFFFFFFFF
Doesn't sound silly at all. Stoker's over the top writing was definitely atmospheric and it was scenes like the one with the wolves which provided that wonderfully creepy atmosphere. I remember that scene well, it was one of my favourites.
Agreed. My only complaint with the book at all is that the guys in it are a little...oblivious to what the Count does.
Speaking of old books, I have Frankenstein lurking around here. I need to give that a go.
Posted by: Roger
|
June 10, 2010 9:47 PM
Um, Dreadnought? I have a question:
What does your...crusade about e-books have to do with the topic of PZ's post?
Posted by: Shala
|
June 10, 2010 9:48 PM
I can't help but think of a terrible Half-Life expansion whenever I read the emailer's name.
Valve has ruined me!
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 9:49 PM
Carlie:
Heh, I don't own a cellphone. I've never even used one. So, no cost there. My electric service is very cheap but even so, there have been plenty of times in my life I've been seriously broke. Even then, there's never been a time I couldn't afford a book - just had to hit thrift stores or garage sales.
Here in my tiny rural area, you can get books for free - the Ladies Association in New Salem has boxes and boxes of old books free for the taking. I brought home about 10 or 12 boxes of them last year.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
June 10, 2010 9:50 PM
Yep, after systematic addressing of every argument about ebook readers here I find it odd too that some people would still cling to their irrationality.
It help if you read his words with a Dudley Manlove voice.
You stupid humans with your stupid brains! Stupid! Stupid!
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 10, 2010 9:52 PM
My mother was unable to read Dracula. For her, the killer scene was the early bit where Harker spies Dracula creeping up a wall carrying a squirming baby in a sack.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
June 10, 2010 9:53 PM
Addressing =/= refuting.
Tell you what; you go ahead and read your ebook to your heart's content, and leave us to our silly world literature. You can sit in happy superiority, perusing the latest Dan Brown novel and Glenn Beck's autobiography off of your ereader, while we get actual work done in the library. Ok?
Jeez, from the attitude you'd think Dreadnought was actually Andrew Rosenberg trying to get us to change the subject or something. Hey, wait a minute...
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 9:53 PM
Shala:
More than a little. ;) The sexual subtext is not subtle at all. Those being virtuous men though, they weren't supposed to think about women that way, ya know.
Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian
|
June 10, 2010 9:57 PM
'Tis, Saysnoughtworthreading has now gone on my killfile list too.
I ran out of toilet paper recently (actually my housemate used it all, can't believe how much he gets through, a roll lasts me weeks).
Just before Xmas someone left a bible (in French! Wtf?) on my garden path (Wtf?).
I wouldn't like to wipe my arse with an iPad.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 10, 2010 9:58 PM
After my father died my two brothers and I divided up his personal effects. I got the ties, my twin got the pictures on the walls, and my younger brother got the computer. Took less than three minutes to sort that out. We then spent the next two hours fighting, with our mother in the thick of the fray, over who got which book.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 10:00 PM
Shala:
The first thing I thought of was Love at First Bite. "Rrrosenberg!"
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 10, 2010 10:00 PM
you're a clueless moron with delusions of adequacy, no doubt brought on by superficially reading those millions of "worthwhile" stolen literature.Those "free laptop" initiatives looks superficially sniny, but are actually a total failure in many places, since the donations only happen once and then when something breaks the teachers & students are stuck with less and less hardware to work with, and no other resources, since repeairs and replacements are prohibitively expensive. It also limits the flexibility of what can be taught and how, to what can be found on the computers/donated by others, which isn't cheap.
No such problems or limitations to paper/ink learning materials. They also get stolen less often.
Seriously, learn something about the reality of your precious new gadgets before you spout off about how they're saving the world. Because they fucking aren't, and Bill Gates and buddies don't even want them to: they just want more customers dependent on them for basic things that they previously could have accomplished cheaper, more reliably, and more locally.
Posted by: Shala
|
June 10, 2010 10:01 PM
For her, the killer scene was the early bit where Harker spies Dracula creeping up a wall carrying a squirming baby in a sack.
Dracula? An atheist? Quel horreur!
Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 10, 2010 10:03 PM
@Carlie, you are contradicting yourself a lot because you are not paying attention to the big picture.
Well, it should be, how much money would parents and the state save for not printing thousands of paper books which are devastated each school year? How much money would the state save if it made a contract to buy e-reader en masse, thus reducing the price of each unit + the PR bonus for the company involved which could additionally reduce the price?
Sorry, but you pulled this out of your ass, my experience with it and of everyone I socialize with has been exactly opposite to what you are saying.
Also, there are text scanners and specialized software that does the work automatically, did you seriously think that a product like perfect money counter can exist but not the automatic textual scanner?
Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 10, 2010 10:07 PM
*sigh*, another idiot comparing laptop, which is a full blown computer, to an e-reader which doesn't even have an active screen...and he calls me deluded.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 10, 2010 10:07 PM
which brings us back to public libraries, which are 100% free. And legally so, to boot. And have copies of books you condescending ass consider "unworthy" because no one has digitized them. And exist even in extremely impoverished countries, and can easily be replenished after wars and disasters.Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian
|
June 10, 2010 10:08 PM
'Tis
There are two of you?
Awesome.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
June 10, 2010 10:11 PM
But Jadehawk, those books are not worth saving.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 10, 2010 10:13 PM
the worlds most awesome herbal encyclopedias are those with real samples stuck between the pages :-)Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 10, 2010 10:15 PM
We've already been over the library nonsense, most libraries in the entire world will not contain a fraction of books that exist, and those that are in libraries, in most countries will first have to be approved.
How the hell did you get such an idiotic idea that people across the world can go to nearest public library and just pick up any book, you are completely delusional!
I live in a moderately developed and urbanized country and I gave up on finding books in my public library(I check on-line from time to time) a long time ago because it doesn't have shit!
That is the whole fucking point of ebooks!
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
June 10, 2010 10:16 PM
And you and everyone you socialize with represent all of humanity? Listen, dipshit, I am telling you that I personally work in a field that heavily uses texts that are not now and might not ever be digitized in a widely available format, and that the basic foundational information in many fields is chock-full of that exact kind of information. I would love, love, love to be able to instantly call up a paper from an 1896 journal with crisp, faithfully rendered plates, but it isn't happening any time soon. Maybe 50 years from now, but it's not there yet, and it's ridiculous to act as if it is. Do you also believe that climate change is no problem because the technological solutions are all there already? And that we'll be living to 150 years old in your lifetime because of technical advances? Seriously, there's early adopter, and there's insane. You're pretty far towards the latter.
Wait, do you think that people read a book once and then throw it away? I...think I'm starting to see part of your problem here.
Posted by: ageofdeception
|
June 10, 2010 10:16 PM
Nicely handled PZ!
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 10, 2010 10:22 PM
Dreadnought: You are an obsessed kook who has effectively derailed the thread.
Keep it up. You'll be banned. That's your only warning.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
June 10, 2010 10:23 PM
Yeah! It's much more likely that everyone across the world can go buy an ereader, then buy and download all the books they wanted to get! Because they all have electricity and high-speed internet! Duh!
It's called "interlibrary loan". And "asking the librarian". Try it sometime!
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
June 10, 2010 10:25 PM
Oh, sorry PZ. I cross-posted. Will stop rising to the bait now.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 10:28 PM
Carlie:
High-speed internet, something else I don't have. That's yet one more reason to delay getting an e-reader. Not much point until I get a satellite connection.
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
June 10, 2010 10:29 PM
(Though if anyone knows where I can get an e-reader that will allow for life-sized, full-color, as-good-as-having-the-original perusal of the Book of Kells, and the appropriate input, well....)
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 10, 2010 10:29 PM
IOW, you don't actually know how to use a library properly. good to know.Posted by: lynxreign
|
June 10, 2010 10:29 PM
OK, now I'm certain. Dreadnought is either trolling, quite stupid or most likely both. Has no arguments, no consistency in those arguments and says completely inane things that seem designed to get people to respond to tell him he's an idiot, like his comment about having superior English skills.
I suppose it should be heartening that the internet has become so easy to use that even someone like him can post comments.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
June 10, 2010 10:30 PM
We did Dracula as a read-aloud when the Spawn were about 11. Even they got the weird sex bits, and the recollections have only gotten funnier as they've gotten older. I really love hearing various very conservative christian homeschooling acquaintances talk about doing Dracula as a family read-aloud. They are astonishingly clueless.
Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 10, 2010 10:33 PM
OK, I will stop posting now, but I just want to say that PZ calling me an "obsessed kook" is pretty silly, since that kind of terminology is reserved for irrationality.
I guess he knows this, but he didn't bother to come up with anything else and such words were at the top of his mind anyway, so it was a matter of convenience.
Posted by: Teshi
|
June 10, 2010 10:33 PM
Dreadnought, as it presently stands, there are plenty of books that would be difficult to get digital copies of but would be quite easy to get second-hand copies of-- or copies from the library.
Aside from this, a lot of people prefer the aesthetic look and feel of a "real book". It's irrational the same way people wear nice clothes rather than wearing the same tan jumpsuit every day. They like the cover art, the weight, they like the way a book can be written on, can look in a row on a shelf.
I like going to the physical library and wandering the shelves. I like finding obscure books that nobody ever reads or has read for fifty years. I like being able to take a book out with me and not be worried someone's going to steal it because it's an expensive piece of equipment. I like knowing that, barring fire or shark attack, my books will never break, become erased or become corrupted because of an error.
Physical books I can lend to other people without having to lose my other books. I can give my books away if I want to and I can buy them second hand from other people.
To deny the incredible power aesthetic appeal is to deny the aspect of human nature that likes beauty. To deny the practicality of books is simply to ignore the fact that different people value different things. There's nothing wrong with you enjoying digitized books and I'm sure you can get most of the books you want to read digitally, but not everyone has your taste in books or your digital ability or inclination-- or your wealth.
Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 10, 2010 10:37 PM
Why doesn't PZ ban blatantly lying disingenuous trolls like lynxreign?
Posted by: CherryBombSim
|
June 10, 2010 10:37 PM
Usually, I do not put comments on this blog, because of its hateful tone, but when I saw this one, I could not restrain myself. Disclaimer: I am a geologist, and what most Christian people would consider a pagan.
To me, this guy seems like he is really reaching out for answers, and to dismiss him like this as "stupid" seems unnecessary, unproductive, and just plain rude. People can be wrong, for sure. Scientists are often wrong, so get off your high horse and engage them. If you cannot distill your knowledge gained from years of study and communicate this to someone, it is useless to that person, and it will just bounce off of him.
Posted by: Teshi
|
June 10, 2010 10:39 PM
Oh gosh, I was a post too late.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 10, 2010 10:40 PM
Compared to a grade A troll like you? Say something intelligent. Goodbye is a start, then follow up by fading into the bandwidth...Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 10, 2010 10:41 PM
Yes, because we all know that ebooks are like DVDs,
5MB per book vs 4300MB per DVD
, it's all the same, each one requires high-speed internet!
*sigh*
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
June 10, 2010 10:41 PM
You mean distill that knowledge and communicate it by doing something like, oh, writing a blog? For several years? With an easy to find and use search box, and all of the posts categorized so that they are easy to browse by topic as well? Yeah, he ought to try doing that sometime.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 10:43 PM
CherryBombSin:
Why don't you get off your fucking high horse and bother to read the thread, where it is explained, over and over by various people why Andrew wasn't a dewy-eyed innocent looking for answers. He got more advice than he deserved with this, complete with convenient links:
Now why don't you remove your sainted self from this oh so hateful place? You don't want to get tainted.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 10:46 PM
DreadIdiot:
A pertinent question would be why he's so patient with idiotic trolls such as yourself. Please keep digging until you hit the banhammer.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 10, 2010 10:47 PM
In short, bullshit! Perhaps there are some who have sentimental reasons for buying books, just as there are those who still prefer records or buy CDs instead of getting digital copies of music. For me personally, whenever I buy a CD the first thing I do is rip it to MP3. The CD then sits on the shelf where it takes up space.Now my use of music is fully digital. I listen to music either on my computer or a portable MP3-playing device. In that sense, my collection is portable in a way CDs aren't. I can take my full collection of music anywhere I go and have instant access. I can even share with friends at the drop of a hat. In short, the technology fits the use.
There are indeed conveniences of having a portable library wherever I go. I catch public transport a lot, so I read on it. I enjoy being able to read on buses. When I saw the eBook readers being first talked about 15 years ago I was excited for the technology. It's fantastic! It would be great to be able to carry around an entire library, even now I'm looking forward to being able to do that.
But going from analogue to digital is a greater problem than going from digital to digital. The collection of books I have accumulated over the years would take me months to scan, and even then the best I have is an OCR'd version of print I already have. And books are already portable, doing so offers me no functional advantage - just a voluminous one.
For that reason alone, it shows that books aren't dead. Hundreds of years of refined craftmenship has made the modern book into what an eBook reader offers in terms of portability. For books to become obsolete, eBooks (and more importantly eBook readers) need to offer something beyond what one can do with a book.
The difference between books and music (or even video) is that for music and video, the information and the delivery system are two separate things. Books on the other hand are both the information and delivery system rolled into one. A digital copy of a book is only as good as the format in which its displayed, meanwhile the book itself is good until it falls apart.
Right now I still buy books even when there are ebook equivalents for the same price (surely it should be cheaper), it's not out of habit but because the book is currently the optimum format for the medium. eBooks would require me to invest in a further device in order to use them, something that is right now unnecessary.
Is the paperless office not an actualised dream out of habit? Hardly! It's because the office functionality has not yet surpassed the usefulness of paper. There's been some decline in paper use (since 2000), certain paper roles are now purely electronic, but paper is not gone. Even young professionals still use paper for some things that are still more convenient to do on paper.
eBooks must offer something more, a reduced product in some ways that has some advantages in other ways is hardly grounds to trumpet the demise of the book. But to decry those who stick with the book over the eBook as doing so purely out of habit is so fallacious that it gets to the point of being insulting. It's missing a core part of understanding that goes beyond a behaviourist approach, not to mention a lack of understanding the relationship of the technology.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
June 10, 2010 10:53 PM
If you can't get a pop-up book on e-readers then they're totally worthless for me.
Posted by: Dreadnought
|
June 10, 2010 10:57 PM
lrdy ddrssd ths, nd hw s tht nt bvs wtht m ddrssng t nywy?
Cn y srch kywrd thrgh yr pprbk?
D y hv n nstntly vlbl dctnry n yr pprbk whr y jst hghlght th wrd nd thr t s?
Ds yr pprbk rd wrds t y? f wld cm vry hndy f y wr t b blnd!
Cn y wrt pgs nd pgs f nts n vry sngl pg nd wrd f yr pprbk wtht mkng ttl mss nd mtltng th bk?
nd s n nd s n...y rlly lck cmmn sns hr pl.
[Just couldn't leave it be, could you, O Obsessed and Rather Stupid Nerd? --pzm]
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 10, 2010 10:57 PM
You know what you missed in your haste to castigate this blog, its author, and its commenters, CherryBombSim?
An opportunity to get off your high horse and engage Andrew.
Having experience in both subjects, I can say with some authority that geologists are in a much better position to succinctly explain the physical reality of our universe than biologists.
So, go ahead: show us how it's done.
Posted by: Roger
|
June 10, 2010 10:57 PM
Oh, but you guys! CherryBomb made certain to let us all know that he/she normally doesn't comment because you guys are so damned hateful and what not. CherryBomb is here to speak for that little guy who just wanted to know why the Big Bang is supposed to be the effective cause of all existence; all he did was ask a little question...and then turn into a little shit when he didn't get a response. And all Cherry Bomb is doing is ignoring the tens of posts that have, over and over and over again, explained why that little guy was a little shit from the get-go.
CherryBomb, either read the post and the thread and get some damn reading comprehension, or have a nice cup of STFU.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
June 10, 2010 10:58 PM
It is funny that someone is arguing so vociferously for the supremacy of e-information on a thread where the original post itself is about someone who condescendingly refuses to avail himself of any of that electronically available information.
Wait, there's another reason that physical books are better. You can, literally, hit someone over the head with the information they need. ;)
Posted by: Horse-Pheathers
|
June 10, 2010 10:58 PM
Regarding Andrew-Rosenberg-of-Racine-Wisconsin, twenty some odd years ago that could've been me writing those letters. I got better! ;)
Hopefully he'll see past the form of PZ's reply and to the substance, and maybe learn something in the process. (If nothing else, learning to sort the wheat from the chaff would be a step up!)
Regarding the e-book vs tree-book discussion....both are useful in their own ways. E-books are flexible and searchable and you can carry around a whole library in one reader. Lovely for quick reference but not ideal for long term study or a good sequential read because of user interface and display issues (which I am sure will improve hugely in time). Also, as the recent debacle with Amazon using DRM to render certain books on the reader useless demonstrates, e-books have impermanence issues; it becomes possible for Animal-Farm-esque revision of a work to take place with the push of a few buttons (in the worst case scenario), or positively Orwellian world-wide purge of a work down the Memory Hole.
Dead-tree books are durable, have the simplest interface imaginable, and are hard to improve on for serial access to information. High contrast, high resolution, vivid color range, they are exceedingly easy on the eyes compared to the current crop of e-book readers. Dead tree books operate even when the power is out, they can't be taken down by a firmware glitch, and the cannot be retroactively blocked through DRM. These books can't be edited or deleted over the network -- if some authority wishes to restrict access to a give dead-tree book, they need to physically find it and take it away.
As things stand, the e-book is wonderful for transient text like news and the weather. It's great for quick references that benefit from their search capabilities and might also benefit from automated updates to stay current. They are a boon when you are on-the-go in a developed nation with a reliable power grid to keep them charged. And the dead-tree book is king of the archive because of their durability, graceful degradation with time, and resistance to retroactive revision and deletion by an outside party. They are also king of sequential access, ideal for stories and texts to be studied.
Both have their place (and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future).
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
June 10, 2010 11:01 PM
'index'
uh...well, I have a, you know, dictionary, if that's what you mean. (?)
I'm not blind yet.
I...don't know...should I? I have a, you know. 'notebook'.
Posted by: Shala
|
June 10, 2010 11:02 PM
I already addressed this, and how is that not obvious without me addressing it anyway?
didn't you say you were going to leave already
please
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
June 10, 2010 11:09 PM
I too would like to ignore the topic of the article and have an argument about e-readers. Do they have extra links to Pharyngula at terminals at ADD clinics or something?
Posted by: Horse-Pheathers
|
June 10, 2010 11:15 PM
Naw, there's just a razor's edge of difference separating the merely geeky and sufferers of Asperger's, as anyone that's ever witnessed a nerd-fight probably knows.
Give us a minute and we'll be arguing over why a d12 is included in the standard set of gaming dice at all.....
Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye
|
June 10, 2010 11:26 PM
Carlie @ 382 last sentence, spot on.
Though you give both too much credit.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
June 10, 2010 11:27 PM
PZ's carrier just sunk Dreadnought's dreadnought.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 10, 2010 11:32 PM
Janine, She Wolf of Pharyngula, OM:
Excellent.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 10, 2010 11:33 PM
*Sheds a crockaduck tear*Posted by: Capital Dan
|
June 10, 2010 11:39 PM
Thanks for showing me when the letter "y" is and is not a vowel, PZ. :)
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 10, 2010 11:47 PM
Is that a necessary feature for reading? When I read a novel, I don't need to search for keywords. I read from start to finish. Having keyword search in a paperbook is in most cases unnecessary. Say for a non-fiction book or a textbook, there's such thing as an index. While searching for words or phrases might be useful, it's only a slight modification of information that's already there.Again, the conjecture is not that eBooks might be useful and advantageous in some ways, but that those ways are significant enough in order to spell the death of the printed book. I don't think it is for the reasons I outlined above. The reading experience is not aided enough by technology in order to replace the conventional means. I'm not arguing for what is best, just shooting down your misguided conjecture.
The blind market isn't one to read in the first place, nor does it matter for most people. Besides, heard of audiobook? I can already get books read to me, and in natural voices rather than computer generated.Again, you're not offering good reasons why the book will become obsolete. Minor features that don't touch on the reading experience for most people most of the time.
I wasn't aware this was a necessary part of the experience of reading Ender's Game. Again, the conjecture is that books will become obsolete, to which you are offerring little in the way of reasons that touch on the reading experience. I would have thought the best case would be in the convenience of distribution, as is being now seen in other digital resources. But no, you're trumpeting features that only apply to a small subset of books and the reading experience, and not addressing the problems associated with such a move.Posted by: Peter H
|
June 10, 2010 11:56 PM
"Thirdly, because of 1. and 2. you can have an infinite amount of copies, which you can search in an infinite number of ways."
I've already mentioned waaaaayyyy above that if said works are scanned in image format rather than text format, ANY search (other than by visual page-by-page, which we've had in hand for several centuries now) is quite impossible. Were it not for potential infringement, I could upload to you any number of scanned historical or genealogical works which are of great potential value to me but I MUST go through them page-by-page to glean any data pertinent to my own needs relative to the periods the works cover.
The all-digital universe is not quite yet.
Posted by: DaveWTC
|
June 11, 2010 12:09 AM
@#409 Cherry ..., Agree 100%. Poorly done for someone purporting to call himself "educator". And, Caine, who are you to invite anyone else to leave this site?
Posted by: Rincewind'smuse
|
June 11, 2010 12:19 AM
I'm looking forward to eventually owning an ebook for certain situations; that said, why do people go to plays? It's stoopid,'cause you can just download movies off Itunes...Why do some people prefer the sound of lp's to cd's? As someone who hears the difference it's an aesthetic choice. You seem to not be able to see the issue as anything other than an absolute right and wrong answer(you're an idiot) or you are intent on getting a rise out of everyone(you're an asshole). Iwasn't going to respond to this one because of the pure inanity of your responses, but I'm one of thse strange people who has to go to bookstores to feel a well made book in my hands, feel the texture of the paper; it's not just the contained information, it's the whole package, the way it's presented, the printed artwork,the cover.I don't blame you for not understanding this or feeling the same way, but you really are a short sighted dick if you think that everyone who disagrees with you is stoopid.Pitiful, really.
Posted by: Kamaka
|
June 11, 2010 12:19 AM
Thanks, banned-one, for making it clear to me why I should never trust or rely upon e-books.
"Market forces", read: "Big Brother", can change the content of electronic books at a whim. Why, the book could be disemvoweled while I'm reading it!
Mark Twain is seriously in need of some revision, the liberal, gawd-insulting smart-ass. Dawkins the Damned...delete...delete...
Victor Stenger could use some softening, too.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
June 11, 2010 12:20 AM
DaveWCT, how about I demand that you answer my question? And if you ignore my ignorant missives, I take that as a reason to get snotty.
Or you can read what PZ wrote. The first e-mail is common, it is a typical self deluded foll who thinks he has a GOTCHA question for PZ. There is no reason for him to waste his time. If Andrew is too lazy to investigate his question, that is Andrew's problem, not PZ's.
Also, you are formally invited to get the fuck out of here.
Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official
|
June 11, 2010 12:23 AM
Janine:
Well, thank fuck. That went on way too long. What a tool.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 11, 2010 12:36 AM
DaveWCT:
I'm a regular commenter here, you beetle-headed witling. Take your pearls, dear, and clutch them tight: please, go fuck yourself sideways with the rust implement of your choice. Have a nice night now!
Josh, Official SpokesGay:
One good thing came out of it for me - I was reminded to update my LibraryThing.
Posted by: Rincewind'smuse
|
June 11, 2010 12:38 AM
Cherrybombsim, you seem reasonable enough, but I think you're wrong. How many honest seekers of information imbed old hackneyed creationist arguments couched in what I'm sure he thought was a subtle insult? Seemed plausible to consider him to be a creationist troll, they're famous for their faux civility and oh-so-"subtle" mockery. I'm sure he wouldn't have been treated with kid gloves, but I think if his tone had been different more people would have taken him at face value.Posted by: skepticmatt
|
June 11, 2010 12:40 AM
Hi Professor Myers,
I am a barely literate child from a backwater school. Recently I have been pondering the universe. It's confusing. Could you explain it all to me please? Really loudly, because I don't trust soft spoken people.
Also, I have the belief that if God exists, then Pastafarianism makes the most sense for me to follow. But that brings up the question...does the FSM exist? Could you explain that too?
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
June 11, 2010 12:44 AM
Horse-Pheathers/#426: d12s? I think you're mixing up ADD clinics with AD&D clinics. I haven't played a version of that game since it was just called Dungeons and Dragons - no edition number after. Maybe that's what poor Andy (remember him? the guy who wrote the e-mail to PZ?) needs. Something to fire up his imagination. What was it Victor Hugo said? Something about imagination being intelligence with an erection? PZ, tell Andrew to start gaming and give himself a BRAIN WOODY! Maybe he'll even find a use for that d12. Once he's well immersed in geekdom the details of cosmogeny and phylogenies will flow into him like the Force on meth.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 11, 2010 12:44 AM
Rincewind'smuse:
You're far from alone on that front. I love bookstores and everything else you noted.
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
June 11, 2010 1:07 AM
Of all the things to be banned for, taking an eBook vs. paper book debate too seriously?! That's just pathetic.
Posted by: Peter H
|
June 11, 2010 1:17 AM
", most printers by default have a scanner, and standalone they cost less [per printed page? per millennium?] than the cheapest cellphone."
One must first have the data which is to be scanned.
I can buy a pre-paid cell phone for about ½ the cost of a throwaway printer but unobtainable material remains unobtainable.
@gr8hands #283:
This is a most valuable link to a douwnload, but guess what? It's in digital format & I'll have to print 2 pages at a time. So much for "any kind of" search.
Posted by: UncleDuke
|
June 11, 2010 1:18 AM
"And I, for one, welcome our new cephalopod overlords. "
It's in Revelations people!
Posted by: Peter H
|
June 11, 2010 1:19 AM
sceptic matt:
stuffit.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 11, 2010 1:28 AM
Peter H:
Peter, your sarcasm detector is malfunctioning.
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos
|
June 11, 2010 1:35 AM
Why are people getting upset about ebook readers? It just means you get one more way to store your library and one more way to read the books in it. Paper books replaced clay tablets and papyrus scrolls, mostly because of information density and that they are easier to read. To have one device on which you can store thousands of books and read them must surely be an amazing step forward. The big drawback is that they are too expensive and that some of them are locked to a certain online store. Just open all ebook readers and all online stores, and do it now. It's the only way that makes sense.
Will ebooks replace paperbooks? Not yet, and possibly never entirely. But it must be cheaper in the long run to sell ebooks online rather than set up a physical shop where you can never stock as many titles. One way to compete is to do what some bookstores have started to do, which is to set up a terminal in the store where the customers themselves can search for a book they want, order it directly and have it shipped to the store or to their home. But that might turn out to be a temporary solution. If you wish to offer theoretically every book ever written, the only way to do that is to either have an enormous bookstore available to few, or a digital store open for many.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
June 11, 2010 1:36 AM
Can your digital book readers give you a hug when you're feeling blue?
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos
|
June 11, 2010 1:38 AM
Oh, just delete my last post. Sorry for keeping up the derail.
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
June 11, 2010 2:50 AM
The thing that kind of boggles my mind is where do people get this perception that you can just write a letter to a complete stranger with expectations at some sort of cordial discussion of religion or politics, or a field the person doesn't even teach? Being the class vegetarian, Andy should have been at least vaguely aware of the idea of the work load a professor would have, especially one that runs a major interwebz blog and does personal appearances around the world. I think I'll ring up Jerry Coyne or Donald Prothero tomorrow and ask them if they think Jesus makes the planets maintain their orbits.
Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com
|
June 11, 2010 3:57 AM
Try these:Quantum fluctuations
Vacuum energy
Zero-point energy
Concerning atom formation:
Nucleosynthesis
It is such a pity that Andrew Rosenberg hasn't bothered to look for answers to his own questions.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnb-E55g7vrnvH-3L1M6d7QuDYWoM_IDEM
|
June 11, 2010 3:59 AM
Posted by: Larry
You mis-spelled "Mooney"
Posted by: mikee
|
June 11, 2010 4:00 AM
Andrew Rosenberg, I'm impressed. You have taken arguing from ignorance to a whole new level.
Posted by: woozy
|
June 11, 2010 4:04 AM
Woozy@82, Even if you do think that the first email was a legitimate line of questions from someone looking for answers (a viewpoint I disagree with, but can at least see), how can you possibly read the second email as anything other than a young punkass trying to pick a fight with PeeZee?
Well, since you ask... pure naivite really ... Say you're in his naive little world were nice little christians keep to themselves and believe one thing that is reasonable and atheists believe something else that is weird and doesn't seem to make any sense but what the hay. So there's a site of a famous athiest athiest and he's posting about this wingnut here and that asshat there and these people he's criticizing seem perfectly normal to you and you don't get what's wrong. So being a naive little twerp you decide to call him on it.
Yes, I know I'm almost certainly wrong as there's the petulence here and the strawmen argument there so he was almost certainly goading PZ, and even if he wasn't his naivite makes him wrong and misguided and...
well, honestly I've just gotten into a habit of bending over backwards to view arguments I disagree with to view it from the others' eyes. The more I disagree with the argument the more I bend over. This began decades ago as way to keep me honest with myself but at this point it's become just a reflexive habit (albeit kind of a weird one that frequently pisses people off). Also it's just not in my personality be comfortable with judging. Perhaps if I'd ever actually lived somewhere where theists were common and had any influence at all I'd have a tougher skin. Instead I'm kind of incredulous that these people outnumber us and actually believe these weird things. "Do they really not see the logical fallacy of introducing a creator from nothing to answer how things come from nothing? They really don't?! But that's so weird! How can they not see it??? That must be facinating."
Really? You think the existence of non-zero numbers is something that has to be taken on faith?
Well, thisn't really relevent. But no, non-zero numbers, like matter, obviously exist. But to a non-physicist the perplexing question is "where did they come from". To answer that 0 = 1 - 1 so the lump sum is zero so they didn't come from anywhere, although apparently correct it seems, doesn't actually do anything to assuage perplexion. A distribution with a net sum of zero but a measurable variation isn't the same thing as "nothing". So it's still perplexing as to "where it (the distribution) came from". It's still eons more plausible then "Since something can't come from nothing then there must be a creator who did come from nothing" which simply doesn't MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE!!! but it's not nescessarily simpler.
Why are people getting upset about ebook readers? It just means you get one more way to store your library and one more way to read the books in it.
Because it's an arbitrary and weird thing to get passionate, emotional, and adamently judgemental over. It's a new technology that's still imperfect at this time and printed books while not having the "miraculous" aspects of ebooks are a far cry from "immoral". So to get upset that PZ mentioned a library rather than ebooks and to be indignantly "shocked" that people are still using them is simply bizzare.
Or at least seems to be... aw, crap. There I go again... bending over backwards.
Posted by: secularguy
|
June 11, 2010 4:25 AM
How to digitize a book using a circular saw (Black & Decker).
Posted by: TimKO,,.,,
|
June 11, 2010 4:44 AM
Andrew Rosenberg,
I'm not one to go hating on you. In fact it looks like you're on a journey - one entailing the examination of beliefs in which you were indoctrinated. There are plenty of people around (such as here on this board) that had the same questions as you but not until much later in life.
I don't hold you to the standards of somebody 10 or 20 years older. Keep up the search and:
1.Answer this. Why xtianity? Have you studied and compared to other religions yet? Study the religions of other cultures and their methods of indoctrination and then ask yourself: if you were born in another time/place, what would your beliefs be?
2. Go to a public school UW-Mad is a great choice. Major in science or engineering. A bachelors is nothing. Get a Masters at least. Go back and re-read those emails from 2010.
Posted by: Colin C
|
June 11, 2010 5:06 AM
Zoot Capri back at #263:
How do you know that Dreadnought is so young? Or even that he's a "he"?
(Hang on... Dreadnought... OK, definitely male.)
You were talking about Dreadnought, weren't you?
Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian
|
June 11, 2010 5:44 AM
(Before being distracted by a troll, I meant to ask - ) Who says he's a Valedictorian?
Oh yes, a dishonest fool who doesn't think that fact is worth including in his list of the highlights of his high school year. (But who boasts that he caught a spider).
Posted by: CobraCom
|
June 11, 2010 6:16 AM
Not sure I understand the negative reaction.
This kid may be just some ideological douchebag, and I can only imagine the number of emails PZ gets that seem innocent but are really ideologically driven (just being a professor usually means more emails per week than dollars you make per year, easily, plus the fact that PZ is an especially high profile dude). However, we aren't talking about some 40-something pastor here. We're talking about someone who is just a kid, doesn't have the knowledge of his elders, and certainly hasn't had the time to get advanced degrees in his short life thus far. It's a fair possibility that he is 1. sincere about learning and 2. doesn't quite know how to express himself in cogent or intelligent fashion. In other words, he knows what he is asking, but asks in a fashion that could be taken as offensive or ignorant or just plain annoying. It happens, especially at that age.
My real confusion, though, is that as a professor, PZ is willing to jump to the less favorable conclusion. Especially considering this kid is a recent HS grad and probably considering his college career. I thought professors were all about answering stupid questions from young and immature people with the hopes that they will learns something. After all, aren't these the people you lecture to every day? Hell, I remember going to UMM and asking lots of stupid questions, but none-the-less getting intelligent answers, without dismissal, and through that I learned a hell of a lot. It was a transformative experience at Morris, thanks to my kickass professors who could put up with my immaturity and still bestow some quality learning. It was the best and most valuable experience of my young life.
And I have no doubt that PZ is different from that, in his "heart." Morris, in my experience, usually doesn't hire ivory tower egomaniacs; they hire the most knowledgeable people who turn that knowledge to pure teaching. That's why we're one of the best schools in Minnesota, and possibly even the nation. And just talking to PZ (I remember meeting you, even if you don't remember me) one knows he's the ideal Morris professor to keep that tradition.
So, why the negative response? As an atheist, I understand the urge. Further, I understand the impetus to put such an unrelated question in the "don't have the expertise, don't have the time, can't give a full answer" pile. Even as a BA grad, I've gotten several of those unanswerable questions myself (because they're totally from left field; not because we can't intellectually answer). You explained as much in your post, and sufficiently I think. But, you had the time to make an entire blog post about it rather than answer simply and privately via email. What's with that? I kinda lose sympathy there. If you have time to make a blog post like this, then you have time to form an intelligent answer. Am I missing something?
Bottom line: this kid isn't challenging your expertise, not questioning your qualifications as a learned scholar, not challenging you in any regard. He just doesn't know. Chances are, it's some kid who's been told all his life by parents, preachers, etc. that atheists consider all theists stupid. Now, he realizes, "huh, I've done all the things people consider 'smart' [i.e. graduate with high marks], yet I still have theistic urges." So, the natural question is, "Am I missing something/not as smart as I think? Or, have I been lied to all my life by the people who are supposed to love me?" Can anyone really blame him for starting with the first possibility?
(btw, coming from an atheist who lost his faith at 18, and also got a bit of a reputation for constantly challenging his professors at Morris, an overwhelmingly positive one in fact. For whatever that means)
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
June 11, 2010 6:26 AM
Shame Rosenberg never turned up to defend himself. Mind you this is a guy who emailed a colege professor properly checking out his webpage apparently.
I tried an ebook reader, the DRM was a national pain, I had to waste time looking through endless menus before I could even start the book, the graphic was blocky black and white. The menus and page turning were sloooow and then it crashed halfway through the book and the reset didn't do anything.
I was left severely unimpressed. I also wonder how many books I could print for the energy cost of shipping all the components, plastic modelling etc... necessary to create one e-book reader that can't probably be recycled.
The tech will start as e-book readers, then you will get a touchscreen keyboard in the next version, then colour, then it will start doing phone calls and games. Just like all the other all-in-one devices that we already have and which already display text now.
Posted by: Snoof
|
June 11, 2010 6:27 AM
Why? WHY?! Because it's a Platonic solid, that's why! If you left it out, the set would be incomplete, and thus mathematically unacceptable.Now, getting rid of that filthy non-Platonic d10, _that_ I can get behind...
:P
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 11, 2010 6:38 AM
DRM is a reason not to use such readers. With a physical book, it's a bit hard for a book to be banned. With something DRM'd, all they have to do is deny access to the decoder and its effectively deleted. It's putting way too much power in those distributing the information.Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
June 11, 2010 6:41 AM
Snoof: I was going to mention the perfect solids for the d12, but they remind me of that sequence in 'Cosmos' where Galileo gets frustrated trying to build his model universe and I just don't want to bring myself down over a stupid game die. Anyone that plays games based on a percentile system will now become irrationally angry with you for dissing the d10 and that argument will rage on until it circles back round somehow to eBooks. Better appease the d10 people now before total Hell breaks out on Pharyngula.
Posted by: Philip Legge
|
June 11, 2010 6:44 AM
<unlurk> The disemvowelling and banning of the tiresomely one-note Dreadnought is not before time: I was merely going to taunt him with one of the "books" I was reading this morning, suffering from hay-fevered insomnia. I've been re-reading Clarke's Space Odyssey novels, and to get more fully into the mood pulled out my full score of György Ligeti's Requiem (the second movement of which is usually associated with the appearance of the monolith in the film) and fired up the recording to have a listen.
The full score only measures 56 centimetres by 28 centimetres in dimensions – and is already as small as it could possibly be made practically, given that some of the pages are typeset at the limit of legibility. "Reading it" therefore presents something of a challenge which no eBook reader is yet able to make a convincing attempt at – not until the manufacturers can cheaply make and market 600dpi, A3-sized Kindles or iPads.
Some musical notation on the other hand works quite well in eBook format (and can be augmented with the advantage of embedded sound recording, matching what's on the page), so while the Ligeti Requiem is admittedly an extreme example, music isn't the only type of material found in "books" that is totally unsuited to the small form-factor medium of the current eBooks (and which makes me laugh at the naïveté of idiots like Dreadnought).
Posted by: Stephen Wells
|
June 11, 2010 6:48 AM
I thought the reason for the d12 is that with a base of 12 you can easily get odds of 1 in 2, 1 in 3, 1 in 4 and 1 in 6; much as the old shilling was divided into 12 pence. The old pound (twenty shillings) was exactly divisible into three portions of six and eightpence each. In your face, decimal currency!
Re. books as physical objects: a few years ago in Tubingen I passed one of those tiny little second-hand bookshops, the sort with a transdimensional vortex in the back, and picked up an eighteen seventy-something edition of Pickwick Papers for five euros. In the flyleaf there is a signature of a Professor somebody from a nearby town who owned the book in 1892. One day I will go again, check the university records, and find out who it was.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 11, 2010 6:53 AM
Where have you been?Posted by: AJS
|
June 11, 2010 6:55 AM
A caveman armed with only a simple stone axe probably couldn't assemble a television set from its component parts. What does that prove?Our inability to recreate abiogenesis (which we know for sure is possible, because it has already happened) is merely a limitation of the tools at our disposal.
Posted by: Philip Legge
|
June 11, 2010 7:04 AM
Good question! I've been fairly busy in real life – I've also been suffering from a distinct lack of motivation when getting to some threads late in the day and confronted with 400+ posts already, and all the good jokes or clever comments have already been made :-)
To get back on topic: I'm disappointed the 18-year-old in question hasn't put in an appearance. If Andrew Rosenberg had the courage of his convictions he ought to respond to the blog (presumably he doesn't).
Posted by: Cygnus Tygger
|
June 11, 2010 7:10 AM
Why? WHY?! Because it's a Platonic solid, that's why!
Wouldn't you rather have a friends-with-benefits solid?
But it's a dodecahedron! That's gotta be the funnest nerd word to say. Dodecahedron!
I thought the reason for the d12 is that with a base of 12 you can easily get odds of 1 in 2, 1 in 3, 1 in 4 and 1 in 6; much as the old shilling was divided into 12 pence. The old pound (twenty shillings) was exactly divisible into three portions of six and eightpence each. In your face, decimal currency!
THANK YOU!!
And to say nothing about feet and yards. So dividing *any* distance into halfs, thirds, quarters, or sixths (But not fifths. But why the hell would any one need to divide something into fifths anyway????) is ridiculously easy. Five feet into quarters? Well, a quarter of a foot is three inches so 15 inches. Easy peasy!
a few years ago in Tubingen I passed one of those tiny little second-hand bookshops, the sort with a transdimensional vortex in the back, and picked up an eighteen seventy-something edition of Pickwick Papers for five euros. In the flyleaf there is a signature of a Professor somebody from a nearby town who owned the book in 1892.
Holy Fuck! My knees are wobbling.
Posted by: DLC
|
June 11, 2010 7:38 AM
If you have an invisible dragon in your garage, it's up to you to bring me some scales, casts of dragon footprints, samples of dragon breath, or something. It's no use pointing to a house down the street that burned down and telling me that your invisible dragon set it on fire.
As for Cosmology... Gee, start with some simple works and work up. a high school physics text will be dry as old bones, but it will also likely contain a couple starting points ... as long as it wasn't written by the disco 'tute.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
June 11, 2010 7:40 AM
Without paper based books, what will happen to second hand bookshops ?
Am I alone in finding second hand bookshops a brilliant way of wasting an hour or so ?
Posted by: Orion
|
June 11, 2010 7:48 AM
The tone of Andrew Rosenberg's initial email was very familiar. Start off by claiming to be on the same intellectual level as the target, pretend to be reasonable, ask a series of idiotic questions, pretend to really care about the answers, end with some prosetylisation. It's pointless replying, they'll just ignore whatever you say and come back with more of the same.
I often wonder what the source of this format of email is.
Have a read at http://creationtheory.org/HateMail/ for some more entertaining examples.
Posted by: Cygnus Tygger
|
June 11, 2010 7:58 AM
Am I alone in finding second hand bookshops a brilliant way of wasting an hour or so?
If you are, I hope you won't be for long. Finding second hand bookshops alone is fine, but I'm sure in this bibliophile crowd someone will want to join you soon.
Posted by: Ray Moscow
|
June 11, 2010 8:00 AM
Even I was high-school valedictorian, and I graduated knowing practically nothing. And look at me now! On the internets and everything!
Geez, this poor arrogant kid just got his first lesson in why "you don't tug on Superman's cape". Let's hope he really is smart enough to learn from the experience.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 11, 2010 8:04 AM
Our inability to recreate abiogenesis (which we know for sure is possible, because it has already happened) is merely a limitation of the tools at our disposal. - AJS
Also of not knowing just how it happened (where? nucleic acids or semi-permeable membranes first, etc.); but progress here seems to be rapid - look at the work of Jack Shostak (Szostak? - I can never remember and google seems to be unavailable at present) and George Church, for example. Of course, even if a fully functioning bacterium were assembled from individual atoms, the likes of Rosenberg would just say this proves intelligence is required - ignoring the fact that a few hundred million years on an already structurally and chemically complex planet allow for a "search" through a lot of possibilities.
Bottom line: this kid isn't challenging your expertise, not questioning your qualifications as a learned scholar, not challenging you in any regard. - CobraCom
What utter crap. Rosenberg is a clearly a self-satisfied arsehole, he's demanding an answer to his stupid rhetorical questions, he already considers atheists "ignorant", his second email is plain rude.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 11, 2010 8:08 AM
Am I alone in finding second hand bookshops a brilliant way of wasting an hour or so ? - Matt Penfold
My problem is getting out again without acquiring half their stock!
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
June 11, 2010 8:09 AM
PZ is right to knock this kid down - otherwise he might get eaten.
Posted by: Ray Moscow
|
June 11, 2010 8:14 AM
I am reminded of a creationist who frequents sciencey discussion boards to seek out actual scientists to debate him. Of course, when the scientists actually bothered to answer him, he lost badly. But he always came back for more.
I figure he's well-known in his creationist circles for his indepth "debates" with scientists, but these debates are generally just ass-kickings. It's like climbing into the ring with a champion boxer, getting KO'd in 2 seconds, and spending the rest of your life bragging on how "I fought the champ".
Posted by: Teshi
|
June 11, 2010 8:15 AM
I have to say, I hope this kid reads this whole thread. Tangents included, I think we got the whole range of reactions here. But it will be tough for him to read.
One thing about PZ's response is that it was a genuine one. From what I've seen of him, this guy isn't a wimp-- he came in with guns blazing and I should hope that he can take a proportional, legitimate response. If you come in making it clear you expect to be treated as an equal you should not be surprised to be treated like one.
Posted by: Gus Snarp
|
June 11, 2010 8:23 AM
@Matt Penfold - My problem with second hand book shops has always been that I left with more than I brought in.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 11, 2010 8:24 AM
OK, I will stop posting now, but I just want to say that PZ calling me an "obsessed kook" is pretty silly, since that kind of terminology is reserved for irrationality. - Dreadnought
Priceless!
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
June 11, 2010 8:27 AM
Gus Snarp:
KnockGoats:
I have the same problem, as anyone who comes to my house will testify. I have run out of shelving space!
Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED
|
June 11, 2010 8:31 AM
Luv...
I think it's yours that buggering up.
Posted by: crookedshoes
|
June 11, 2010 8:35 AM
I just read all that has been posted since my #77 post yesterday. WOW...you all have been busy! Andy has tasted lots of opinion and even, I dare say, spurred meaningful dialog... In a weird way -- way to go Andy!!!
A story:
I was brought down to the principal's office in the high school where I work as a Biology teacher. There, evidently was an irate parent wanting to confront me and make a mark on my record....diss me in front of the principal... can you visualize the scenario? When i walked in, she attacked me..."You made my daughter feel STUPID"
I asked how I did such a thing. Well, it turns out that this 16 year old girl and I had an "argument" as to whether penguins were birds. She insisted that they weren't because they did not fly. I explained to her that they were, in fact birds. Evidently this made her feel "stupid". I was so infuriated by the total wasting of my time that said to the mother..."I made her feel stupid? If she weighed 600 pounds would I make her feel fat?"
I stormed out of the office and later was in the doghouse with my boss. For all the postings here about how this "boy" may be sincerely looking for answers and "why so harsh"???? kind of posts, the answer relates to my story, this is how you get schooled. By being wrong and growing. Hope this helped Andy grow.
Posted by: Alice Bluegown
|
June 11, 2010 8:39 AM
Matt Penfold @ #73 - a recent trawl of secondhand bookshops in Suffolk yielded tomes on tramcars, Victorian erotica and vintage airliners, all for chump change (and I'll wager none of them have been, or ever will be digitized). Books are not only organic, they have a totemic power that makes you hang onto them your entire life.
ON TOPIC: Master Rosenberg is either one of those insufferable teen types who believes the world owes him knowledge, or it's a DI-style drive-by points scoring attempt. Either way - meh.
Posted by: Alice Bluegown
|
June 11, 2010 8:42 AM
Oops - lost a digit. That should have been #473..
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 11, 2010 8:45 AM
I think you're on to something
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
June 11, 2010 8:51 AM
Fixed that for you, Chimp.
Posted by: elronxenu
|
June 11, 2010 8:53 AM
I've seen that kind of thing before. There's some pretense at asking a sincere question, but followed with some arguments from ignorance and then asserting that "atheists are ignorant". It's a ruse, a bait.
Sometimes it's fun to have a good argument with the religious, and sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's fun to point out the inherent dishonesty of their arguments - as demonstrated in that first email.
Posted by: aufwuch
|
June 11, 2010 8:55 AM
Heaventree for the win today. Heaventree said "...John Kwok." Can't stop giggling..Kwok, Kwok,Kwok.
Posted by: speedweasel
|
June 11, 2010 9:00 AM
Hehe, Dreadnought. I love it when the fruitloops claim that they will stop posting or that they have made their point and are leaving, then 10 posts later they are still going strong, pumping out the angry. Its a clear sign that they aren't even in control of themselves.
With respect to Sir Teenage Dicksalot from middle-town USA; typical cocksure, opening gambit from a deluded kid too mis-educated to realise he is embarrassing himself with his own ignorance. I'll bet he honestly thought he was going to rock PZ's world with his bullshit 101 routine. Pffft... Outclassed and unaware of it. Reminds me of that scene in Good Will Hunting.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119217/quotes?qt0408105
PZ was right to make an example of this cretin. He'll either learn or he'll serve as an example to others.
Posted by: Larrylayback
|
June 11, 2010 9:08 AM
Wow the arogance just pores out of the brainwashed.
Reading Andrew rant made me sign up to comment.
18yo and allready know everthing!alls thats left is to die and meet your sky fairy. Good luck with that.
Posted by: aufwuch
|
June 11, 2010 9:11 AM
Heaventree for the win today. Heaventree said "...John Kwok." Can't stop giggling..Kwok, Kwok,Kwok. giggle giggle
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
June 11, 2010 9:14 AM
Amen.
There are other issues, as well. For instance, most of our knowledge of the ancient past comes from paper or paper-like sources. Digital media rarely lasts 20 years, let alone 2000. Bits are transient. While paper seems flimsy and temporary, it has a much greater shelf-life than bits.
Gregory Bendford's Deep Time is an excellent and fascinating look at this.
I used to enjoy looking over the libraries of people I know. You can learn a lot about a person by their books and CDs. With the advent of digital media, those physical libraries are disappearing, taking one more bit of shared culture with them.
It's a little unfair of me posting this, since Dreadnaught has been prohibited from posting on the subject (and it's completely off-topic anyway). But, while I embrace new technology (and the iPad is an excellent ebook reader -- thanks to all its Project Gutenberg texts, I have quite a few of the John Carter of Mars books with me at all times), I believe there are quite a few advantages to old-school paper books. They are convenient, relatively long-lasting, and great cultural artifacts.
And they are something you can cherish. I still have my original copies of Where the Wild Things Are, The Hacker's Dictionary and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (among many, many others), all of which changed my life in different ways.
You can't say the same about an ebook.
Posted by: aufwuch
|
June 11, 2010 9:18 AM
Heaventree for the win today. Heaventree said "...John Kwok." Can't stop giggling..Kwok, Kwok,Kwok. giggle giggle
Posted by: aufwuch
|
June 11, 2010 9:23 AM
Heaventree for the win today. Heaventree said "...John Kwok." Can't stop giggling..Kwok, Kwok,Kwok. giggle giggle
Posted by: aufwuch
|
June 11, 2010 9:26 AM
Sorry for the multiple posts...really! Either HTML or the pain meds.
sorry
Posted by: aufwuch
|
June 11, 2010 9:30 AM
It's the pain meds. Going to nap now
Posted by: CobraCom
|
June 11, 2010 9:36 AM
Yeah, fuck all those undergrads and their presumptuous questions. I'm so glad that when I was in grad school that whenever an undergrad asked me a question, I'd dismiss them for their imbicillic nonsense. Glad I did that instead of creating friendships and lasting relationships which resulted in good arguments, sharing of knowledge, and (if I may say so) some successful debates. After all, as a teacher, there's no possible way I could learn from my stupid ass students! (*sarcasm intended*)
I'm all for the uncompromising, anti-athiest-apologism stuff PZ stands for: in my experience, no one respects you unless you STAND for something, and full on. If the morons come and seek an audience, stand up to YOUR standards and rules, and see if they can hang with that. If not, knock them down like the 97/98 Bulls. You wanna hang with us? Sure, let's see what you got (ass-whooping commences). But, if you can't beat someone on your own rules, if you have to be dismissive for bullshit reasons ("I don't have time to respond, so I'll just make a big blog post about it...") then what good are you? When did Jordan call in sick and say, "well, it's a win for me, so you lose."
PZ is better than this, and IMO can be forgiven for the fact that he has to deal with disingenous motherfuckers all the time. It's well more than enough that he has a blog for use to read (And IMO andy-whoever should get a bit of respect for what profs have to go through). But that doesn't mean we can't take professors to task a few times here and there. To the rest of you yes-men... please. Glad I wasn't like that at Morris: half the professors who loved me would have hated me, and half the professors who hated me would have despised me more. I knew people who agreed with everything the prof said in class. They never remembered those people's names. I tugged on "superman's cape" any chance logic supported me. Those profs not only remembered my name, but wrote me letters of recomendation.
It gets hard for me to disrespect someone who is trying to do the same thing, just in a less experienced and more sophmoric manner than myself. I was there too. It's a critical time in the mind, and to turn it off so rudely could mean to doom it to a life of ideological conformity. To reach one's hand out for knowledge, however feebly, and to have it smacked back - thus begins a new dark age of the mind.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
June 11, 2010 9:37 AM
Damnit. Benford, not Bendford. Don't know how I fucked that up.
Posted by: duckphup
|
June 11, 2010 9:40 AM
Kel, OM @267...
This may be perceived by some as a semantic quibble, but I think it's actually an important distinction: God isn't a place-holder for 'ignorance'... God is a place-holder for future 'knowledge'. Said another way... God is a symbol for ignorance.
Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED
|
June 11, 2010 9:41 AM
He wasn't holding out a hand, Cobracom. He was baring his buttocks at P.Z.'s face and shouting "Behold, I question thee most stringently!"
Posted by: ric.s.baker
|
June 11, 2010 9:46 AM
Goddamn it. I see 500-some posts on this thread, and I figure Rosenberg has shown up to get shredded by the troll-slayers. But no, it's just some idiot arguing that ebooks are better than paper. I hate you all.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
June 11, 2010 9:47 AM
Oh fuck off you self-righteous wanker.
Andrew Rosenberg was not reaching out for knowledge. He was seeking to claim moral and intellectual superiority for his religious views over science.
Rosenberg is supposed to be 18, and one of the top students in his school. The answers to the questions he asked can be found in books that are readily available. Indeed, to be considered a top student he should already know the answers, either having been taught in class or through background reading.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 11, 2010 9:49 AM
CobraCom,
You're assuming that the author of those emails actually gives a shit about PZ's answers. To me his email reads exactly like every other backhanded email and comment we see from creationists / christians all the time.
They "ask" the question to come off like they are really interested in the answer but the truth is it's just a way to get their foot in the door so they can start lecturing you on exactly how much they know about the wrongness of evolution, atheism and [insert common blah blahing point here]. Hence the title of this very post, arrogant insincerity edition.
PZ actually pointed him in the direction of answers along with tipping his hat to the obvious true motive of Andrew's, to show off his big bad creationist brain.
Oh please, do fuck off. You aren't the first person to make such an ignorant and easily refuted comment.
Posted by: co
|
June 11, 2010 9:51 AM
Bingo. I guarantee that more than just Andrew learned something. I hope he learned a little humility, and to do a bit of research before god-bothering people. I learned that PZ's chitinous beak is a lot sharper than it might first appear. Strange to find those in teddy bears.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 11, 2010 9:56 AM
Are you suggesting that PZ is an Owlbear?
Or maybe something like a Squidbear?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
June 11, 2010 10:00 AM
if it's chitinous, it's a cephalopod--owl beaks being, of course, keratinous
Posted by: co
|
June 11, 2010 10:02 AM
I wasn't suggesting I've ever thought he was a big, cuddly, godless, killing-machine. I'm picturing a bit of steampunk Kraken, actually. With frikkin' laser beams and a beard.
Posted by: Shala
|
June 11, 2010 10:04 AM
Are you suggesting that PZ is an Owlbear?
But of course.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
June 11, 2010 10:10 AM
The kid was being an asshat. "You are rude, but you must answer me!" is not designed to engage someone in debate, and is no sign for a desire for enlightenment. It is the mark of an arrogant twit.
Also, the kid has his own teachers. This is far different from answering questions posed by students at your own institution. Cold-emailing some other teacher and being arrogant is not something done by one who wishes an education. You can't demand time from someone who has limited free time, and with whom you have no relationship, and expect anything but a rude response.
Seriously. If the kid were sincere about getting an education on this, he would either self-educate, or he would attend a university that offered these sorts of classes and get a university professor of his own.
That's how it's done. There's a reason it's done that way. It works, mostly.
As with everything, practice makes perfect. It gets easier as time goes on.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 11, 2010 10:18 AM
....
damn know it alls always knowing it all *grumble grumble
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 11, 2010 10:20 AM
Yeah, fuck all those undergrads and their presumptuous questions. - Cobracom
No, fuck all those tone trolls like CobraCom, who can't tell arrogant religidiot arseholes from genuine seekers after knowledge.
Posted by: Alice Bluegown
|
June 11, 2010 10:22 AM
co @ #511 - "a steampunk Kraken" - that would be the Nautilus from 'League of Extraordinary Gentlemen' [book not film, I hasten to add]
Posted by: CobraCom
|
June 11, 2010 10:38 AM
So, where is the evidence that he is rude and trying to disrespect PZ? Are you reading into his comments like an ametuer or reading out of it like someone with logical sense?
Andrew said he considered it rude that PZ often criticizes religionists. This is a fair an understandable point, with an equally fair and undderstandable answer: religionists most ignorant and moronic have the loudest voices, and therefore ought to be the main target of criticism. Why is this such a hard thing to say? Why is it better to tell someone less than half your age to "get stuffed?"
Other than that, what is insincere about the emails, given what is written? Based on the little evidence given, how do you demonstrate ideological deceit?
And as far as having that oh-so-negative "presumption" of cold emailing professors - well, I'm glad I never did that, never cold-called english profs at Morris about modern or historical literature, because I definitely did not get good recomendations for Ursala K. LeGuin or the norse Sagas because of them. Fuck that. I made it a habit of cold-calling people at the U, even the administration (esp. the registrar), and it made my college experience ever so smooth. These people dedicated their lives to students and learning - not defending their status or satisfying their nerd-rage.
You don't know something, you ask. That's how shit works. And if it's not your specialty, you still give the best answer you can. I've encountered those questions many times, both as a teacher and a student. I don't tell the asker to "get stuffed," I try to answer as best I can, and if I have some sources, I'll site them as best as my memory allows. That, btw, is a practice I learned from my excellent profs - they might scoff at my silly questions, but always gave me an honest and full answer to the best of their abilities, complete with book recomendations to the best of their memories. I remember many times getting a good book list in school; I don't ever remember being told to get stuffed.
So in the end, let me ask you this: How does it feel to pick on someone half your age? Does it make you feel big and special? Or does it make you feel a bit pathetic? Personally, at 28, I'm old enough to know why, but young enough to know better.
Posted by: faisons
|
June 11, 2010 10:39 AM
Dude, as a high school valedictorian who's also had an additional twelve years of living experience (and it ain't the age, it's the mileage), I've got to say this much...
This is a kid who COULD be reasoned with.
No, PZ doesn't have time to coddle every little childish twat who wants to be hand-held through the murky realms of philosophy and raw science. However, this is a kid who is ABOUT to leave home (we hope), go off to college, and maybe have his first real chance to challenge is preconceptions. If this kid was raised religious, it takes some time and separation and serious thinking for some of these kids to come around and reconcile the fact that their myths, fairy tales, and bible stories are slight variations on the same fiction.
While his spelling skills might leave something to be desired, PERHAPS he's actually rather intelligent underneath it all. I know that for some people who leave religion, one of the initial "pushes" is that they find the people who pedal religion to be rude, obnoxious, and spiteful. While it would be NICE if people could put aside their emotional whims, and make their decisions based on reason alone, but most folks can't.
So... while I agree that this kid needed a sharp wake-up call... maybe this was the wrong approach.
Posted by: Ewan R
|
June 11, 2010 10:44 AM
The second email where he essentially says "you're a dick, a short quiet dick, but can you please answer my questions anyway?"
Posted by: Adam_the_k
|
June 11, 2010 10:46 AM
CobraCom @517:
Quoth:
Yeah, the first email is just naive, but how is it hard to see this as disrespectful?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 11, 2010 10:52 AM
Patterns and history. It reads exactly like the hundreds or thousands of comments we've seen before where the intent isn't to learn but to suck the responder into answering so the author can show them just how damn wrong they are about everything and just how much he knows usually with tactics such as the Gish Gallop. He's just got the horse up to a trot, it won't take long to get to full speed.
It's as if he was following a script.
Plus PZ pointed him to answers.
Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold
|
June 11, 2010 10:54 AM
The emails.
The first shows a lack of respect by expecting PZ to do all the hard work.
The second gives the game away. The first email was not what it first appeared to be. It was an attempt to embarrass PZ by asking him questions the writer does not think he can answer.
Rosenberg was using an old creationist trick, and you fell for it.
Posted by: duckphup
|
June 11, 2010 11:01 AM
Andrew Rosenberg said...
Swell. Bob Heinlein said...
It's also worth mentioning that Andrew's statements (even though he didn't mention 'logic') reveal him to be one of those benighted individuals for whom 'logic' has more to do with ego than with rules for establishing the truth-value of a proposition. For folks like that: "That makes sense to me," or "I thunk that up all by myself, in my own pointed little head"; THEREFORE... it is 'logical'.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
June 11, 2010 11:13 AM
Right. You ask someone you know. You ask someone who actually knows the answer. You ask someone who has offered to answer your questions. You don't write someone you don't know, and expect them to answer!
And when you do write them, and they don't reply, you don't get all snitty, write shit, and then demand an answer. That's just offensive.
Whether or not the kid is sincere, he went about it in a completely incorrect manner. Hell, if the kid were sincere, there are dozens of places on the internet he could go to get some of his answers. The never-ending thread here, or the Rational Response Squad, the talk.origins archive, and so on.
That doesn't include his local library, local universities -- or just waiting a couple of months until he's at his chosen university, where he'll have options for classes, or lectures, or special-interest groups, and so on.
He has plenty of resources. There was no call to demand a response from anyone. If you don't get a response, move on to another source. How hard can that be?
Posted by: Qwerty
|
June 11, 2010 11:18 AM
McCthulhu @ #452:
"Being the class vegetarian"
Thanks for the laugh.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
June 11, 2010 11:30 AM
CobraCom is ignoring a few facts. Andrew is not a student at Morris. Andrew is not enrolled in one of PZ Myer's classes.PZ Myers is not paid to answer his questions. PZ Myers has no professional obligation to respond at all.
Andrew's biggest problem isn't ingnorance, although he is certainly ignorant. Most people Andrew's age are, and that's why they go to college. Ignorance is entirely treatable. Andrew's problem is one of entitlement; when Andrew sends an e-mail, regardless of how insulting or meaningless, he expects a prompt and kindly reply. Why should he spend time at the library reading about cosmic origins*, when professors exist to answer all of his obtuse questions with the urgency that precious Andrew requires?
I get the same whiff of entitlement from CobraCom...someone else is obligated to do the intellectual lifting for you simply because they have a degree and you feel that you are owed coddling and respect. Anyone who has anything better to do with their time than answer every stupid question in every e-mail from every entitled jackass must not be dedicated to their role as an educator.
Plug this into your selective memory: Get stuffed**.
*Assuming that he actually cared at all.
**This is rarely a tone that I take, but I hear this kind of nonsense all the time, and it makes me want to join a monastery.
Posted by: tutone21
|
June 11, 2010 11:41 AM
It's as if some template exists for emailing prominent atheists and asking them for answers, only in an attempt to bait some sort of mentally draining debate.
Hey...Andrew Fuckhead. How about you google "atheist literature." Then, read some shit and if you still have a question then google that. It's called research. I was a C student in high school and I can figure it out so your huge brain should have no problems.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
June 11, 2010 11:57 AM
Aquaria #81, you are confused about how an ellipsis can be used. The usage was correct.
Fuck off.
It was used in a stupid and pretentious manner, asswipe. There's a way to use it there, and that wasn't it.
Without paper based books, what will happen to second hand bookshops ?
Am I alone in finding second hand bookshops a brilliant way of wasting an hour or so ?
No.
I know where every used bookstore is in San Antonio, and I'll go on my rounds, as Mr A calls it, to look for what's come in lately. Or I did when I had a car. Now... :(
I happened to be at one of my favorites when the clerk was bringing out dozens of Nora Roberts' Silhouette Romance books. I grabbed them all, 50+ books @ $1 per. My mercenary heart had zero desire to read them.
I made $750+ when I sold them on eBay, after the fees. Then again, I knew what they were worth when I bought them, having seen them in other, fancier stores with outrageous sticker prices.
Posted by: Aquaria
|
June 11, 2010 12:00 PM
Goddammit--my computer sent that without me touching it.
I've gotta take this back. It's doing stuff like this all the time now.
Posted by: Robert H
|
June 11, 2010 12:21 PM
Matt @473
Not to quibble, but how could one waste any time at all in a second-hand bookshop? When I was a college brat there was one in Oakland (CA), Holmes Books, which was cavernous and overflowing with treasures of any and all sorts-two hours was a common length of time and even then my rational side (perhaps Dreadnought was right about irrationality...) had to pull the other part out of the store, kicking and screaming. Which makes me think about the upthread debacle: I imagine browsing is way easier with hardcopy than with data files. Even if not, it has to be more fun than sifting through data files.
Anybody check the Racine papers to make sure Andrew le Valedictorian is ok? If he was checking the comments it must not have been an enjoyable time for the youngster. Reminds me of a few years back when some clown (not professionally trained at that) decided to jump into the tiger cage at the SF zoo. Oops...
Posted by: CobraCom
|
June 11, 2010 12:22 PM
And so one major point is revealed. First it was, "look how uneducated this person is, how dare he ask a question," and then it turned to "oh, you're educated, but still, how dare you ask a question." It's feeble nonsense. I came to atheism by asking questions, as did many people like me. Apparently, you're not allowed to ask a question unless you are a PhD in everything, or something beyond that if that doesn't work for you, until no one is allowed to question.
Questions are for everyone, from Corky to Einstein, and are the sign of an enlightened mind. And BTW, questions lead to atheism pretty consistantly.
As far as little boy not being a Morris student, so what? Why does one have to be an alumni of that university to ask a question? Asking is the first step, and leads to greater things (college acceptance, grad school acceptance, etc., or perhaps I just imagined all that shit...).
And about cold-calling people you don't know - yeah, I've done that quite a few times. It's called social networking. A ton of my knowledge has come from people I've never met face-to-face, but took the time out of their busy schedules (they were all professors) to answer my queries. For fuck's sake, I owe a significant portion of my senior thesis to someone I've only conversed with via email, never met face to face (yet he turned my on to some fantastic sources). But I suppose I imagined all that too. After all, it's far more important to insult some kid we don't know than to admit to reality.
And responding to "where's the evidence" by saying "the emails" is pathetic. What about the emails? What quotes? Why is that the correct interpretation? Shit, I'm glad I didn't take that mentality as valid, or I never would have graduated. "What's your evidence for your thesis?" "Um, read a book. I win." That is not the way to get your degree.
"Oh, he should have bothered to read some books." Sure. I tell that to my students all the time (ESL teacher). "Damn, why are you asking me what that word means? If you just bothered to read a book you'd know. What a pain in the ass you are." I'm fairly used to saying that, sure...
I'm not seeing the presumption or the disrespect, and saying "duhhh, read the emails" is meaningless. Quote me some evidence and explain logically why it is what it is. This isn't hard, it's basic interpretation - we do it all the time when we read anything. The main point is this: are we reading INTO a piece of evidence, or are we reading OUT OF the evidence. The latter is how real scholars work, while the former is the province of armchair musers who think that their expertise in x or y somehow translates to knowledge of z (and why these people often make the shittiest social scientists).
I get shit questions all the time, and I always answer the best I can. If the answer is best expressed in other words (usual occurance), then I cite my sources by name of author and book. By the way, so did all my professors, so really I'm just emulating what they did for me (my buddies and I called it the "book hammer": ask a question, the prof gets excited and hammers you with about 100 books). If I don't know, then I say I don't know. If someone said it better, I cite the source. That's it. I don't didle my dick and pretend I'm some important motherfucker who has to belittle kids to make himself feel like a man.
Atheism means non-belief, it is true. But I'd rather focus on the positive aspects, like rationality, evidence, and especially doubt. My doubt is for everyone: beleivers and non-believers alike. We're all practiced in beating up the retards of religion; they're easy fodder, and they are the most vocal. But turn that against the self. Show me your mettle, or join the ranks of fallen believers and fools.
Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau
|
June 11, 2010 12:31 PM
Late to the derail, but I LOVE books. Used to run an online shop selling antique, odd, out of print, and especially obscure history books (and gothic clothing but whatev).
Had a knack at estate sales and what not for it, and I'm a bit of a book collector.
Book collectors, like record collectors, value the object as much as what's in it.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 11, 2010 12:39 PM
Show me your mettle, or join the ranks of fallen believers and fools. - CobraCom
Be afraid. Be very afraid. You will be judged and found wanting by the great CobraCom.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
June 11, 2010 12:40 PM
You seriously don't see the difference between working with an (I'm assuming) expert in the field to finish a thesis, and writing a professor/researcher with questions that aren't even part of his/her expertise? Questions that are of the "ten questions to stump your biology teacher!" variety, even. Questions which are easily answered via a quick google search.
In your case, if the person you wrote to did not respond, would you then call them rude, and demand a response? Or would you seek out a more amenable expert?
I've done quite a bit of software development with people I've never met, using only email and source code management systems. However, I would never think of emailing one of them and saying something like, "I really don't write software, but I'm interested in learning. You use C++. I don't see how C++ is such a great language. Objective-C is so much better, because that's what's used on Macs. And you're rude on the mailing lists. Tell me how processors are designed."
Whether or not it is naive, it is also offensive. That is, in essence, what the young man was doing.
You might very well have been nice, and responded to the young man's first message. That does not mean everyone else is obligated to allocate their time in this manner.
Posted by: marc1warner
|
June 11, 2010 12:51 PM
Wow, that's way overboard.
This kid is wrong and a bit pretentious, but that's no reason to publicly eviscerate him. Two emails isn't a campaign of hate that justifies this sort of response. This kid won't realise that you get hundreds of these sort of emails. Even if he did, he might reasonably expect that all that experience would lead you to deal with his in a decent manner (it's fine to just ignore the second email as well).
I think you should apologise to this kid. You're completely right about the facts, but the tone and personal attack is so completely unnecessary. If someone badgers you, over a period of weeks or months, or threatens you in any way, then I can understand this sort of response; but that's not what happened.
I'm also surprised that there are so many comments defending this. I like that this community prides itself on not taking any crap, but we should hold ourselves to high moral standards. Every so often PZ will make a mistake - fortunately we aren't commanded from on high to agree with him - let's try to make the most of that.
Posted by: snurp
|
June 11, 2010 1:01 PM
CobraCom:
Here are some quotes, all from the first email.
Here is my interpretation of that quote: "I have access to this information but I would prefer a spoon-feeding. I have indicated that I have made no effort in reading your very public point of view but I am going to accuse you of being the intellectually lazy and dishonest one here." What is your interpretation of that quote? "My questions are rhetorical. My ellipses are dramatic."I'm not going to bother copying the entire introductory paragraph, but it's right up there. My translation of that one was "I am an anal haberdasher."
Second letter: "I am a tone troll and you owe me an answer."
Which parts do you think indicated a question in good faith? And if you're going to be so concerned about PZ's tone, how about Andrew's? If he wants responses to his future totally genuine requests for help, he might want to learn not to start by wrenching his arm out of its socket patting himself on the back and finish by insulting the recipient of the letter. He's eighteen, not eight.
Rev BigDumbChimp @509
How about an Owlbear with those Lords of Madness aberrant blood feats that give you tentacles? I think that's a reasonable compromise.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 11, 2010 1:02 PM
CobraCom the Obtuse
This isn't a leading statement? Essentially saying PZ is ignorant of the evidence?Asking a physics question to a biology Professor? Not a leading question? It is part of the creationist gottcha. Ask physics questions to biologists, and biological questions to physicists is the SOP.Now, under evolution, the abiogenesis question, even if abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Not a leading question? Standard creobot SOP gottcha.Now a statement of faith, presupposipossing his imaginary deity. Not a leading statement? From creobot SOP for gottcha questions.Now the typical creobot SOP statement that I am right until you prove me wrong. Never mind that in science, the burden of proof is upon those making the claims, in this case the imaginary deity. Not a leading statement?Hard evidence from the idjits own words. Which you could have read. That is what those of us who are used to this inane method see. We see leading gottcha questions. Where is your evidence that all is innocent and proper, and asked of the right person?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec
|
June 11, 2010 1:14 PM
I have absofuckenlutly nothing to add to the comments or "The Professor's" reply to the original E-mail.
To the subject of e-books and e-readers I can add some comments.
The e-reader, e-book is here but no one is really using it to any of its strengths or differences yet. There is not much sense in translating one art from in to an other just because you have a new media. You can film a stage play and there is nothing wrong with that it is good but a filmed play is very different thing compared to the experience of a filmed story done well with all the effects and abilities of film. Novels tell stories differently than the stories as told by Homer or the Icelandic Sagas. .
those older forms are meant to be spoken out loud and the poetic meter lends it to memorization. We do not write novels like that today.
The new digital media has its own strengths there is no need to copy old forms, There is no need to be constrained by linearity to tell a story or discuss ideas nor by text alone the ability to use images both still and moving and audio in unlimited combination and to interact with the "material" has never been possible before.
Paper Books will not go away what the new media of "e-books" will look like I do not know yet but I doubt that being an electronic scroll will be the best it can do.
uncle frogy
besides they as they are today they are too expensive as are the "e-books"
Posted by: tutone21
|
June 11, 2010 1:18 PM
CobrCom @531
What are you talking about? This is an 18 year old kid with a delusion that he should ask PZ on where to start. Would it be appropriate to ask the CEO of NBC questions if your some intern schlepp that is supposed to follow the Key Grip around? Fuck no! And if you did do it then EVERYONE should give you shit for it. Not to mention that this kid is only doing it to bait him into an argument. And, this kid could use a lesson in humility (just like a lot of other 18 year old kids).
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 11, 2010 1:21 PM
Every so often PZ will make a mistake - fortunately we aren't commanded from on high to agree with him - marc1warner
We know that, dolt. Simply, most of us agree with him on this occasion.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
June 11, 2010 1:26 PM
The other thing is that Andrew isn't a child. He's old enough to vote FFS. The consequence of his action is minor; at worst, he'll feel embarassed. Big deal. He ought to be embarassed for behaving like such an entitled precious baby. Maybe he'll learn to quit doing that.
Kind of circumvents the point of doing a senior thesis, unless significant portion is hyperbolic.
Posted by: woozy
|
June 11, 2010 2:07 PM
PZ: There isn't one person in the entire world who I feel is obligated to answer any question I might send them. Mr Rosenberg seems to feel he can demand replies from me.
Well, I can one up you. Years ago I worked at a game company and we recieved a letter from this guy. All his life he had loved playing video games and always dreamed of working for a game company. So the day he graduated from high school, he hopped in his car and headed across country to start his new life. A week later he pulled up to our company and presented himself to the front desk. Nobody would even give him the time for an interview. Now here he is in San Francisco, a strange city where he doesn't know anyone, he doesn't have a job, everything is really expensive, and he's disappointed and disillussioned. The least we can do is reimburse him for his gas.
I really had to wrap my brain around that one.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 11, 2010 2:11 PM
Posted by: CobraCom
|
June 11, 2010 2:23 PM
"Be afraid. Be very afraid. You will be judged and found wanting by the great CobraCom."
I like that. Adds a bit of fire and brimstone that Christians know how to use to such great effect. Tends to add a bit of fire for truth rather than parroting nonsense like bullshit believers who hide behind their nerd-rage.
As for the legit responses:
1. Yes, I can tell the difference between credentialed responders and uncredentialed responders. I can also understand that the person I received advice from was not at all degreed in anything related to my field, but through his own personal interest, was able to turn me on to some great sources, which my credentialed professors ate up and lauded as original and so forth. Yep, that's right: sometimes you don't need a university to tell you that you know shit in this or that field. It's what you've learned and know, and you can shove your fancy paper up your ass. Or, more comfortably, do what I did and just forget about it. Knowledge isn't a pissing contest, it's what is.
But, nigel does make a good point about the return email. No, I would not remark about a non-response in such a rude manner. This is definitely the best point I've seen, but I would also like to point out that this is a kid, after all, and kids tend not to have much perspective of the world around them ("what, you dare not pay attention to me?" That's more of a teen attitude than specifically a religious attitude. Strange coincidence how religions and immaturity tend to follow the same patterns...). And, let's also recognize the missed opportunity with an impressionable youngster. Insults and nonsense are a good way to deal with beyond-hope idiologs, but even the two emails together don't suggest to me that this kid was beyond hope. Teens are typically very annoying, but shutting them down misses an opportunity for learning. Sometimes you have to suck it up and be a man.
And yes, I've dealt with the "ten questions to stump" political bullshit. I am, by education, a specialist in Middle Eastern history, and that's a crop of shit that makes the creationism vs. evolution faux debate look like a doddle. I've had to answer all sorts of retarded questions, even from "smart" people, who always inevitably ask laughably nonsensical questions like "Is Islam really a religion of peace?" or "Is Islam really a religion of war?" 1. I don't study Islam, I study history 2. That's like asking if a knife is a cutting tool or a cutting weapon. I've answered these inane questions before, sometimes in an abrassive and irratated manner, because they often come from war hawk republicans (hence why I understand PZ's position), but I've tried to answer them honestly and without presumption: after all, they simply don't know any better, and at least they're trying, however pathetically and feebly, they're reaching out to somebody (why me, and atheist student of history, should explain a religion he hates is beyond me, but it comes up all the time).
The best strategy I found, though, is to give a simple and honest answer, completely neutral in all judgment. Those who are disingenuous and want an ideological reaction get really pissed at this soundness of mind, which I thus consider a win. Those who are genuine tend to learn something, so also a win. If I'm snarky, on the other hand, either I confirm their intended ideal (such and such is a jerk, and I fall into that trap), or I offend someone who really could understand to the point where I close his mind. In other words, it's a snarky and insulting = lose/lose, while uncompromising honesty = win/win.
Seems a pretty obvious conclusion to me which method to choose.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 11, 2010 2:52 PM
CobraCon, your concern is noted but rejected. We have found creobots to be willfully obtuse idjits, unwilling to learn something, who only want to proselytize to us about their imaginary deity and mythical holy book. They don't want honest discussion, but they hide behind a veil of pretense of engaging in one. They never look up references we offer, and have no understanding of science and the scientific process. Those of us with enough cogency and experience can see behind the veil, just like knowing certain code phrases are used in the political processes sound innocuous, but aren't.
Your experience with teach politics is irrelevant to us. As you have noticed, we don't consider tone a priority, and we are rather rude to those who think it is important. Why? To change someone's mind, you first have to get their attention. That is what we do with our tone here, we get peoples attention by being brutally honest that they won't get their way. Some Pearlclutchers™ think we are too brutal, but we actually respond in kind. We help those who show a willingness to learn, and scorn those, like Mr. Rosenberg, who only wish to preach. We did get his attention.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 11, 2010 3:35 PM
CobraCom,
Did you notice that PZ actually did tell Rosenberg where to find the answers to his questions?
Your concern is noted, tone troll.
Posted by: Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism.
|
June 11, 2010 4:16 PM
@544
This crossed my mind as well; both letters reek of "arrogant kid". The question is, if this guy really wanted answers about science and atheism from an atheist who would be respectful and take him seriously, then why the hell did he go to PZ? Why pick one who is well known for the kind of bluntness he complains about in the second letter, when he could have simply googled "atheist" and found the local chapter of CFI or something? I think its more likely that this kid figured he could get a debate going, where he would either make PZ see "the truth" and convert him, or make him look stupid.
See, he knows he could probably find the answer to why PZ is an atheist "deep in the blog somewhere" (and he could definitely answer his other questions with wikipedia) but he asks for an interactive discussion, and implies that atheists just haven't had the relevant experiences to properly understand the world around them. His limited experience as valedictorian of a small town high school class probably leads him to believe he is one of the smartest people in the world, and a match for any atheist out there. I think he wanted to educate PZ and not the other way around.
Posted by: Qwerty
|
June 11, 2010 5:32 PM
Hurin @ # 544:
"I think he wanted to educate PZ and not the other way around."
I would agree with this assessment.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec
|
June 11, 2010 7:34 PM
Thanks PZ for scaring out another "person" who is concerned about how some body else answers unsolicited questions, the thread have been kind of slow of late. again thanks
Posted by: cmflyer
|
June 11, 2010 9:47 PM
The kid's writing reminds me of some Asperger's kids I've had in class.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
June 11, 2010 9:59 PM
Is it possible to have any discussion on a person who is an ass without someone claiming they have Asperger's? Christ on a stick, that gets annoying.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 11, 2010 10:09 PM
totally
Posted by: DaveWTC
|
June 11, 2010 10:45 PM
@#437 (Janine, She ..., oh for christ's sake, whatever) and #439 (Caine, Morve au nez - go look that up, shit-for-brains).
Wow! A simple, and I would say not unreasonable, comment/question and you two assholes run yourselves off the rails. You sound an awful lot like the rednecks who tell us to get the fuck out of 'merica if we don't like the way things is - no criticism allowed. You are the same superior, smug, arrogant, ignorant fucks who burned witches and "heretics" way back when. Caine, what the fuck does "beetle-headed witling" mean - really, I want to know so I can put it on my CV; come now bitch/prick/whatever you are, you're just makin' shit up out there in Assfuck, North Dakota, yeah? How do you carry the weight of that chip around on your shoulder? And Janine, I have no idea what your "ignorant missive" is because you are too much of a moron to include a simple reference, as I have referenced your slop above, and I am not inclined to slog through all the crap to find it. Besides, you admit it's "ignorant" so why would I bother?
Here's the point, dipshits: the kid is 18 fucking years old!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And you, Caine, Pile du merde, previously went after a 17-year-old whose only crime was to be brought up in an environment of religious ignorance. There needs to be another honorific here: OS, Order of the Smug.
I'm with Cherry: I don't usually comment here or read the comments because there is a group of you "regulars" (read: 'we have no fucking lives' and which does not imply any ownership of these here proceedings) who, if you aren't sitting around engaged in a circle-jerk, are at the ready to attack anyone, like a pack of snarling, drooling hyenas. No Christian meat to chew on today? No problem, let's go after (essentially) one of our own. You are miserable excuses for freethinkers. I'd defect but there's nowhere to go. And, it's DaveWTC, get it right.
PZ Myers - is this the caliber of discourse (#437 & #439, and to which I've now succumbed in anger) to which you award your OM? Or does OM now mean "Official Moron"?
Posted by: DaveWTC
|
June 11, 2010 10:48 PM
@#553 Caine, sorry, I have to apologize. It should have been "Pile de la merde".
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 11, 2010 10:50 PM
So fucking what? He can vote, in my day be drafted, and in some states, drink. Young, but should know how to address his elders with respect, which he didn't do, and not be an asshole, which he didn't do.That would be you tone troll, not us. Look in the mirror before your next post.Posted by: scott.hagaman
|
June 12, 2010 1:52 AM
I've responded to this post here:
http://scottishnous.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/06/pzmyers_cites_some_of_his_poor_reasons_for_being_an_atheist.html
Posted by: boygenius
|
June 12, 2010 5:22 AM
@ scott.hagaman,
You responded to this post in a tangential, trollish and blogwhoring manner.
Keep up the philosophical wanking. Everyone needs a hobby.
Posted by: sian
|
June 12, 2010 9:16 AM
My son seems to think PZ Myers is God. I think he is just a very rude and arrogant bastard. Why anyone would admire the views of a man so obnoxious I cannot fathom.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 12, 2010 9:36 AM
PZ is a mild mannered professor. But, he will get in folks face if they are rude to him on his own blog. Always look for where the other person was rude first. Unless, of course, we uppity atheists are rude for just existing, and making our existence known to the PearlClutching™ populace.Another BORING tone troll. Yawn. I almost think we are being tag-teamed, or a lot of morphing is going on.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
June 12, 2010 9:38 AM
sian - would you prefer for your son to be like Andrew, a condescending snot who writes emails to strangers berating them for not paying enough attention to him while he insults them?
Posted by: sian
|
June 12, 2010 8:21 PM
My son, much as I love him, can be equally obnoxious when arguing about many things, including religion. I found the link to this article on his Facebook page and was so dismayed by the views expressed I wanted to comment. We are not a religious family, we do not attend church and none of my children are christened. I was married in a garden by a celebrant. We do not say grace before we eat. Andrew's letters did not seem rude to me and, however misguided his beliefs he is entitled to them. One could say there is a burden of proof on scientists to explain how everything was created from nothing, or clearly explain how there has never been nothing. Either way, I accept there are some things that I will never fully understood. FYI I have three science related degrees (including a Masters) so am not a complete idiot.
Posted by: Tigger_the_Wing
|
June 12, 2010 8:56 PM
Indeed.
Well put, Carlie.
I'm seriously glad my offspring and grandkids are not tied up in knots by adherence to religious faith as I was. It's none of my business whether the three older ones even know of the existence of PZ (the youngest two do), let alone admire him; but he's a jolly good role model and they could do worse. A lot worse.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 12, 2010 8:58 PM
Sorry but education doesn't necessarily fix idiocy. You are a prime example of this. You're an idiot for whining about tone. You don't get to decide how somebody else runs his blog.
However your concern is noted.
Posted by: sian
|
June 12, 2010 9:10 PM
Be as obnoxious as you like. It's your blog.
Posted by: Tigger_the_Wing
|
June 12, 2010 9:15 PM
sian - this is what first struck me as incredibly rude.
Andrew asks a question. So far so good. He also knows he could read what Dr. Myers has already written; but he is certain that
(a) he has a right to PZ's time; and
(b) he already knows that the answer is that PZ is ignorant.
Pray, tell me, what is polite about that? Any of my offspring would get a clip around the ear for such blatant disrespect and certainly learnt their lessons long before the age of eighteen.
And don't pull the "I'm a scientist, but…" card. I used to use that one before I realised how stupid that made me sound. It merely showed that, whatever I may have 'learned' about science was merely parrot-learning; my brain hadn't yet engaged. I wasn't doing science if I wasn't thinking scientifically, I was in a great big bubble of fail.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 12, 2010 9:29 PM
sian wrote:
One could, but one would be wrong to do so. Scientists aren't making the claim the way you are insinuating they are; they're claiming that that's what all the evidence so far indicates, and no-one has, as yet, provided any evidence to the contrary.
Thinking otherwise is what's called the 'God of the gaps' argument. If a scientist responds to any question with 'I don't know', many religious people respond with, 'Aha! Then God must be responsible then, mustn't He?' - despite the fact there's never been any evidence to support the existence of any god either - just sociocultural tradition.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
June 12, 2010 9:29 PM
DaveWTC:
Beetle-headed means stupid; witling means a person of little wit. So, basically, a stupid halfwit. You could have found that out for yourself with a simple search.
Increasing your vocabulary may help you with your screeds, Dave. They lack flair and you rely on way too many clichéd stereotypes.
Posted by: sian
|
June 12, 2010 10:32 PM
I assure you, dear Tigger, I think very scientifically despite my level of education. I also make no claim for the existence of any god. I simply note that no one - theist or atheist - can properly explain how life, the universe and everything, began. For this reason I can understand it being a fundamental issue for young Andrew. The appropriateness of an immature, ignorant young man wasting the time of someone as busy and important as PZ Myers is another matter altogether. As an observer, and occasional non-passionate participant, I find the athiest v theist debate ugly and strident at the extremes of views. At times it is almost enough to drive a person back to church!!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 12, 2010 10:53 PM
Your opinion doesn't count. You don't have the experience we do. That makes you wrong.Sorry, as a 30+ year practitioner of science, you are wrong again. Batting wrong seems to be your specialty. Keep going.Posted by: sian
|
June 12, 2010 11:37 PM
Fuckwit.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 12, 2010 11:50 PM
Oh, dear. Manners!
I feel a swoon coming on.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 12, 2010 11:56 PM
Oh no, swear words. Call the Pullet Patrol™ to apprehend the curser.
*decides to go to bed instead of swooning*
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 13, 2010 12:12 AM
sian wrote:
If you are honestly of the opinion the nature of reality can be determined by politeness - which is, essentially, what you're saying by making this statement - you're an idiot.
Posted by: sian
|
June 13, 2010 12:39 AM
I do not detect evidence of much intellect in many of the responses to my postings. WowBagger, I certainly do not believe the nature of reality can be determined by politeness, but I am faintly suspicious of people who rely on abuse and ridicule to make their points rather than trusting the validity of their arguments. It fascinates me that vocal atheists such as yourselves feel the need to be so abusive. There are so many strong and convincing arguments to be made - why do so many of you rely on insults and stridency? The response to my tongue in cheek comment about being driven back to church is evidence that some of you also have no sense of humour either.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
June 13, 2010 1:30 AM
Here's hoping that the child surpasses the parent.
And I am not joking.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
June 13, 2010 1:41 AM
Aww, Janine, it's all good...
I mean, someday, we'll all look back on this and laugh.
(/Like when the kid scores the Nobel, writes his autobiography, and starts it out with 'Honestly, I think I'm just gonna pass on mentioning my mom...')
Posted by: scott.hagaman
|
June 13, 2010 1:59 AM
>>You responded to this post in a tangential, trollish and blogwhoring manner. Keep up the philosophical wanking. Everyone needs a hobby. -boygenius
Your vocabulary is impressive. +2 points.
Posted by: sian
|
June 13, 2010 2:05 AM
I am still waiting for some level of intellectual response. Personal attacks are really not very clever or very useful.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
June 13, 2010 2:09 AM
... also, if you keep making that face, it'll freeze that way...
Posted by: sian
|
June 13, 2010 2:18 AM
Scott, I feel my comments ARE relevant since much of the criticism directed at Andrew Rosenberg in this blog targets his alleged rudeness towards PZ Myers with his second email. Paradoxically the rudeness directed at suspected trolls (such as myself) in the above responses is ignored and seems to be deemed acceptable. I am a legitimate poster with my own reasonable and considered personal views, but it is clear that many of you mistakenly believe I fit a definition in the Dungeon and am here to cause mischief. If this is the way you treat your 'allies' I would hate to be on the 'enemy' side. PS It's girlgenius to you. That does, of course, make wanking a bit difficult but I'll try.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 13, 2010 2:48 AM
Two simultaneous threads with a discussion on the merits of tone. Overload!
So I don't repeat myself, see here and here.Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 13, 2010 2:53 AM
#558:
#570:
#574:
Your hypocrisy is noted.
#578:
Your confession of foolishness and insipidity is noted.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 13, 2010 3:03 AM
sian wrote:
Perhaps that says more about your ability to detect it than it does about the posters' ability to employ it.
Here's the important point, one which you keep on missing: patient, polite rationality simply does not work with some people; their minds are closed.
When one has tried - on several occasions - to convey an argument to someone who has failed to engage with it, it is hardly unreasonable for one to stop bothering and switch to ridicule.
Once again this says far more about you than it does about us. It's really shouldn't be all that fascinating to anyone who's thought about it for more than a few seconds.
Would I be correct in assuming you're new to the internet? Because, as I noted above, these points have been made and have gone, not only unrefuted but unacknowledged, time and time again. If, once you realise there's no changing a closed mind, you might as well convey your distaste for such behaviour.
If you haven't realised that insults can be conveyed for the dual purpose of a cathartic venting of frustration and the amusement of other, like-minded onlookers then you're hardly one to criticise anyone else's sense of humour.
Not to mention it displayed a profound ignorance of other tone-trolls who make - in all seriousness - that exact argument.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
June 13, 2010 3:04 AM
Sian,
I would like you to consider something. First, I hope you will agree that all communities have rules, and that these rules, if they fulfill their purpose, lend to the orderly functioning of the group.
Now I don't know how much you hang out on the Intertubes, but this is not the only place where people come in for abuse. There are lots of trolls who derive satisfaction from derailing orderly functioning. In most cases, fairly strict moderation is needed to keep the blog functioning at all.
Science blogs seem to be especially prone to drawing trolls, especially when they involve a topic that is controversial among nonscientists, such as evolution or climate change.
Pharyngula stands very nearly alone in allowing unmoderated posting AND maintaining an environment where people can discuss matters rationally an learn. I would contend that at least in part, this is because of the tone of the blog. It gets very uncomfortable very quickly for trolls and other idjits.
What is more, I disagree that abuse of trolls is necessarily a non-intellectual activity. Some of the posters here have razor-sharp wits. Razors cut, so if you're sensitive, this might not be the place for you. That's fine, there are lots of moderated discussion boards where you will be spared profanity and abuse, along with wit and substance.
Whatever you may think of the tone, Pharyngula works, and before you fuck with a working system, you damn well better understand it.
Posted by: Owlmirror
|
June 13, 2010 3:06 AM
#568:
Are you educated enough to know what an argument from ignorance is? Do you know what parsimony, falsifiability, and burden of proof are?
#568:
Fixed that for you.
#568:
Because churches are never "ugly and strident at the extremes of views"?
#574:
There is no evidence of any intellect whatsoever in your postings.
--------
#580:
*Facepalm*.
Do you realize that you're responding to a comment that was addressed to someone else called "boygenius", which included a mangled citation of what boygenius wrote, and boygenius was addressing Scott to begin with?
Really, -500 points for not paying attention AT ALL.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 13, 2010 3:34 AM
I'd defect but there's nowhere to go. - DaveWTC
On the contrary, you'd be very happy with your fellow-whiners at "You're not helping" (I can't be bothered to look for it for you, but someone's linked to it here). And we'd be very happy not to have you around any more. Win-win!
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
June 13, 2010 3:37 AM
Sian, quickly, half-seriously, before I finally have to succumb to the realities of my time zone: for what my opinion is worth, as a parent and a former child of parents (recovering), take that minor misstep as a teachable moment.
That wasn't even about you. You got that, right?
Now: very probably, your son's divergent opinions from your own on whatever the hell subject has got the bee in your bonnet, here, aren't so much, either.
Now sure, I don't so much know the situation, obviously. I'm a random commenter on the internet messing with you for his own sadistic amusement, do let's both remember...
But for what the dimestore standard advice is worth, again, half-seriously, and very broadly: he's your kid, not your clone. He's gonna think stuff you don't. It happens.
... But, that said, on the off-chance he is actually worshipping PZ, and that wasn't hyperbole on your part, tell him to stop that. On my behalf. Absolutely. That's just wrong.
(/As it's just the wrong dogma. Here, we worship only His Beard.)
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 13, 2010 3:39 AM
FYI I have three science related degrees (including a Masters) so am not a complete idiot. - sian the complete idiot
If you weren't a complete idiot, you'd know that it is possible to be a complete idiot however many degrees you have. But you are a complete idiot, so you don't.
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 13, 2010 3:51 AM
As it's just the wrong dogma. Here, we worship only His Beard. - AJ Milne
Heretic! Blasphemer! It is His Invisible and Intangible Tentacles that are the correct objects of worship! (See, I proved it using upper-case initial letters.)
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 13, 2010 3:55 AM
Knockgoats wrote:
I was amazed to find that there were those who considered the folks at The Intersection too intellectually honest for their liking and had to start their own site for the purposes of disingenuously bleating and shrieking about how mean PZ and other atheist bloggers and commenters are and lying about and misrepresenting their goals and intentions.
That they reference all authorship with 'we' - as in the majestic plural - rather than 'I' is as hilarious as it is sickening.
Careful KG - you'll make sian's head explode.
Posted by: scott.hagaman
|
June 13, 2010 4:24 AM
>>which included a mangled citation of what boygenius wrote -Owlmirror
How did I mangle the citation?
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
June 13, 2010 4:28 AM
Wait, what?The Intersection, the Pharyngula-reject support group where people can pretend how kind and tolerant they are by spending time bagging all those they perceive as getting in the way of being kind and tolerant, you've just got to call it framing and somehow it's justified to be total hypocrites. It does seem odd when one is preaching working together that they would be willing to cast their allies as the out-group to attack. It seems a really odd reflection of human behaviour that different tactics for the same goal is of greater offence than those seeking to destroy that goal. Splitters!
But back to what you were saying, what's this whole phangyulhate love-in thing?
Posted by: Knockgoats
|
June 13, 2010 5:03 AM
Careful KG - you'll make sian's head explode. - Wowbagger
And the downside of that would be...?
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 13, 2010 5:12 AM
probably just means you didn't blockquote it properly, for easier reading. style mangling, IOWPosted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 13, 2010 5:23 AM
Well, there's...er, no not that; how about - no, not that either; but there's always...
Okay, you got me.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
June 13, 2010 5:24 AM
By no means the only thing that's sickening about that particular
blogpack of fleas.FTW !
Posted by: CobraCom
|
June 13, 2010 6:18 AM
I think I have a better idea where people are coming from with this, and thanks to those who bothered to list what was particularly significant to them. Personally, I'd still react much differently (and have in the past, without giving an inch of my convictions, and yet without being rude, to great success). But, I'm coming to understand the negativity, and there have been some good points in that regard (I already mentioned nigel's post, but a few others have had good answers too). I could argue some of the points, but it would be useless hair-splitting when I've been convinced of the basic prepositions.
I just hope that the kiddo doesn't believe too fiercely, nor use his rejection as a gird for his ignorance. A mind that age is still maleable, and still amenable to fact over fiction. It'd be a shame if the door were closed, if the opportunity missed. I still stand by my urge to err on the side of principle, even if in this case it likely was an err. And, I'm still a bit surprised that a teacher would do any less. As mentioned before: I'm used to stupid fucking questions. I guess they just don't bother me as much anymore. Plus, I have a few standardized responses saved to word files which have served me well.
Posted by: CobraCom
|
June 13, 2010 6:39 AM
Oh, and if this kid were my son, I'd still have patience with him (especially if he were my own son - I've had far more with my own religious nutjob relatives). But, it would be a task of teaching and leading by rational example, not simply MAKING an example, for no real purpose. And I tend to approach most situations that way: perhaps it's an aspect of my overactive "empathy," or more likely I'm just rationalizing (a more powerful human instinct), but in any case, that's the way this bullshit life and body work. The most decision we have is to consider it for the worse or for the better, or just a waste of fucking time. In my limited experience, it's always been for the better. But that's just a drop in the greater bucket of humanity. Though, it is still a drop.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 13, 2010 7:34 AM
There was a purpose here. Which you, and the other tone trolls are oblivious to. But I understood PZ's point immediately. PZ gets hundreds of e-mails per day. Some are worthy of his attention as they contain ideas for threads, some are from admirers just thanking him for the job he does. Others, like Mr. Rosenberg's, are from theist attempting to make inane points. The latter unnecessarily clog his inbox, making it difficult for him to find the messages of interest to him. So, PZ is stating to the world 1) he doesn't have time to personally respond to every e-mail. Don't consider him rude if he doesn't respond. 2) If you play creobot/godbot "gotcha" games, you will be ignored. 3) If you persist in trying the play the creobot/godbot "gotcha" games, you may find yourself humiliated in public since you are harassing him.CobraCom, your inane opinions are noted and rejected. We don't care what you think, as you can't see the full picture with cogency and experience. Until you understand that religious idjits play games with atheists on a regular basis, but never, ever, present any real evidence for their imaginary deity or mythical holy book, you haven't grasped the total picture.
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
June 13, 2010 9:22 AM
sian, I don't see how you can think that Andrew's letters were not rude. If so, I'm very glad that I'll never have you over to my house for dinner, as you sound like you'd be a boor.
Again, here's a list of Andrew's comments:
"I know you've already written the answer, but tell me specifically again since your time in writing to me is less valuable than the time it would take me to use the search box. Also, I find your worldview to be ignorant."
"I challenge you to a duel!"
Too terribly insulting on its own? No, which is why PZ did nothing about it. And for which Andrew might have logically concluded that PZ's volume of mail is such that his simply doesn't allow for fast responses to random questions. But then he followed with:
"Since you have not responded to me in the time I deem appropriate, I will now start to insult you. First, I will call you rude."
"Next, I will call your remarks little and claim that you get all of your self-confidence from the adoration of other people. And call you rude again."
"And now I will belittle your stature. And you probably also have a small penis."
Honestly, sian, you would think it perfectly ok for your son to be introduced to an adult of any sort, whether older and more educated than him or not, and have him call the adult a rude, ignorant little person? Using those exact words? Heck, not an adult even, I wouldn't want him talking to kids that way either. I just can't wrap my brain around the concept that you don't think Andrew was being rude, especially since he had absolutely no impetus other than that PZ did not reply to his cold-call email in less than a week.
Posted by: sian
|
June 13, 2010 9:47 AM
Zzzzzzzz
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
June 13, 2010 10:21 AM
sian - so your answer is "Yes, I am an incredibly rude person and am training my child to be the same way."
Good to know.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
June 13, 2010 10:41 AM
At #600, Carlie gives a very detailed post about how Andrew's e-mail were rude. Sian, who complained that no said anything of any intelligence, could bother to contest a thing Carlie said. This saiys a lot about the character and motive of Sian, none of them good.
You are worthy of only the most dismissive and rather thoughtless statement, fuck you.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 13, 2010 10:51 AM
I see sian still has nothing cogent to say, making his/her opinion even more worthless to us. He/she needs to earn our respect. He/she is moving backwards on doing just that. We don't have to convince such an idjit with delusions of adequacy, he/she has to convince us that they are right. So far, zzzzzzzz. Boring.
Posted by: Thunderbird 5
|
June 13, 2010 10:53 AM
Sian's probably off following more of her son's internet history.
Here come the Mom Chan memes in 3..2..
Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives
|
June 13, 2010 11:01 AM
For the record, my 10 year old Aspie has much better manners than that. (for all the "he's so socially inept he must have Asperger's" crowd)
Posted by: bastion of sass
|
June 13, 2010 4:27 PM
Carlie, Don't know what your experiences have been, but I probably know more Aspies than the average person does, and although I've had a few of them sometimes say tactless things to me, I have never had the experience of any one of them going out of their way to deliberately bait and insult me like Andrew has PZ.
Posted by: Tigger_the_Wing
|
June 13, 2010 6:35 PM
bastion of sass @ #607 I agree with you that Asperger's has nothing whatever to do with good manners; quite a lot of people here (like me) are Aspies. I think that what a lot of NTs mistake as bad manners from an Aspie are silly things like a failure to withhold the truth when a lie would make the other person feel better because the Aspie would prefer to have the truth in that situation. Or a failure to notice/recognise the signs of hierarchy/authority and display proper deference.
That failure of empathy works both ways. I've long since lost count of the number of times that I have been upset by finding out that I was lied to when I would have preferred the truth (because the NT would have preferred a lie) and my demeanor must be strange to NTs as I tend to get addressed as if I'm a child by people twenty or thirty years younger than me.
What you generally won't get from Aspies is the sort of manipulation Andrew displays in his emails. None of the dozens of Aspies I know ever try to catch other people out like that.
To sum up; Aspies can be perceived as rude because we are generally blunt and honest, even in situations where the majority would prefer we weren't, and we tend to treat everyone else as equals when they would prefer we didn't. It isn't usually intentional rudeness. Andrew was rude because (a) he was attempting to play mind-games and get some kind of advantage over PZ (something that makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever) and (b) when PZ refused to join in the game, Andrew insulted him.
The thing that a lot of people seem to think indicates Asperger's is Andrew's lack of subtlety in the original baiting email, but I think that is down to his age and lack of experience rather than Asperger's. The intention behind the email (trying to play 'gotcha!') isn't one that would usually appeal to an Aspie. What is the point?
Posted by: Classical Cipher
|
June 14, 2010 1:48 PM
I've been gone for a few days, but I am trying to read through the threads to catch up, and let me just say that this thread is one of the most inane and frustrating I've ever had the displeasure of encountering here on Pharyngula. Between the crazed e-book fundie and the insipid kvetching about tone, it's a wonder any of the regulars had the patience to wade through the shit and respond, but much thanks to you all for doing so. (Carlie, thanks especially to you, as I think every single post you've made in this thread has been spot-on.) PZ, I support your skewering of idiots, and frankly I think this smackdown was needed. Hope the kid takes it to heart. (I say "kid" somewhat lightly, as he's only a few years younger than I am.)
Posted by: Bone Oboe
|
June 28, 2010 1:36 PM
*drive-by*
So, I mean, that's nice that you haven't smashed your children in the head with a champagne bottle and then pushed them off a quay into the sea.
I sense an error of tense. Hence, I dispense and for no recompense (pro bonobo?) a wince. For your thrice eminence in science? I shall sit, on the fence. */drove-by*