Dilbert: Dan the Illogical Scientist

[lordultimus]

Comments

[beoweasel]

It's kind of hard for me to enjoy Dilbert strips now that I know that Scott Adams is a complete lunatic.

[mastermahan]

Ditto. I can't read these without remembering the author is a nutter, and one with a famously poor understanding of science.

[beoweasel]

Yeah, it's not all that different from how I find difficult to enjoy Disney's Hades now.

[rainspirit]

Wait, huh?

[thezmage]

Maybe don’t look at James Woods’ twitter feed if you want to keep liking his work

[rainspirit]

Well, that was certainly an Orpheus moment.

Now if only the actor would turn into a pillar of salt...

[beoweasel]

Hades is voiced by James Woods, who is also a Lunatic.

[lucean]

Yeah, having read those comment from Adams really makes me question what he is even poking fun at here.

[velacron]

I read it as a riff on smug Neil deGrasse Tyson types

[icon_uk]

Except Neil DeGrasse Tyson IS a trained and respected scientist in his field, and in terms of communicating science to non-scientists, he should be lauded.

[thezmage]

But in terms of talking about non-science stuff, he’s pretty dumb. Remember #rationalia?

This one is pretty stupid.

This is even dumber

[velacron]

But isn't that the point?
Being an expert on the subject of Pluto doesn't make one an omni-expert on everything. Being "a scientist" does not necessarily mean belonging to a smarter breed of people with more general knowledge, it means becoming an expert on a clearly defined field of science.

Nobody is doubting Neil deGrasse Tysons credentials as an astrophysicist, but this not make him a wise political mentor anymore than being a plumber or journalist would. Richard Dawkins undoubtedly is one of the most important evolutionary biologists of our time, but this does not necessarily make him an expert on matters of Christian theology, Islam or feminism (and if he were, he would be so in addition to his evolutionary biology skills, not because of it). Ben Carson on the other hand is one of the most acclaimed physicians of our time, but I wouldn't want him to teach evolution.

In terms of communicating science, I am not quite sure which accomplishments you refer to.
I am sadly under the impression that Neil deGrasse Tyson is more broadly known for his quasi-scientism and befuddling Twitter account these days.

[pyrrhocorax]

You...you can prove something can’t be done. It’s like, a whole thing? How much maths did Scott Adams do at school?

[locuatico]

If we go by the broadest of definition of "science" and if you are being technical (just like how Scott Adams is using the word "scientist" in such a vague way). yes, you can't show something CAN'T be done just like you can't be certain something IS true. It only means our understanding of the world at a certain points tell us that, for now, something is considered true.

However, even if you are generous enough to say that is what Scott Adams means... the ONE area of science were there are hard rules on what can and can't be "done" would be maths......

[lieut_kettch]

IKR? Isn't the null hypothesis the foundation of all scientific reasearch?

[wizardru]

So, like, this might be hard to believe, but once upon a time, Scott Adams was once both popular and considered funny. I know...I KNOW. But it'st true.

Now most of his 'jokes' are essentially 'Hello, I am a straw man! I am ridiculously clueless" "Yes, you are." "HA HA I DON'T REALIZE THAT I AM STUPID!" "At least you're not a hysterical woman."

[icon_uk]

I STILL like some of his early stuff



But yeah, i haven't read it in years and don't feel I've missed much by the lack thereof.