I have heard claimed that all bits of humor have a grain of truth to them. As is claimed about stereotypes. But humor strikes me as akin to gazing in a funhouse mirror. Sure, there must be something there you recognize. But just as the large nose can be distorted to hilarious proportions, so can the small. So what is the truth about the nose?
As for the following cartoons, I find in them the theme, "It's the dogma, stupid." To me that is often the issue at stake when atheists and theists clash: Backwards dogma and a dogmatic clinging to preconceived notions. And yes, it is possible to be dogmatic without being religious.
Here's the cartoon that got me thinking about it (and a couple others that fit the theme in some way):
[cartoon thanks to atheistcartoons.com]
[cartoon thanks to jesusandmo.net]
[click to enlarge, cartoon thanks to xkcd.com]
Could Dadaism be used as an antidote for dogmatism?
"Why are my bones so small?" Ha! I think that's going to be the new Zen koan I work on.
Arthur Clarke once wrote,
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
Allow me to rephrase that:
Any sufficiently advanced technology will befuddle an individual and make him/her suspect supernatural influence and/or alien presence.
Had I been exposed to the following NASA images very early in my life -- prior to being better educated -- I very well may have been befuddled. And who knows what I would have done in reaction to that befuddlement.
(particle collidor)
(shuttle cockpit)
(unmanned explorer on Mars)
P.S. I am currently still on semi-hiatus, doing a ton of non-writing work and attempting to convert my latest book from one type of code into another type of code suitable to Kindle devices. Again, decades ago I may have suspected that my potential readers and their non-paper 'books' were from out-of-this world. Or at least "out of MY world."
It seems to me that science and salesmanship belong on opposite ends of a spectrum (the precise use of language spectrum?) To be an effective salesman (woman) you grandstand, you exaggerate, you paint with a broad brush, you aim to incite passion. The scientist actively behaving like a scientist, on the other extreme, sticks to the facts and appeals to the intellect. You can't trust passion.
That is why I find it a little perplexing when arguments are made for scientists to be better communicators of science -- some even scold them for not preaching their word better (religion and sales seem more naturally compatible, in my book).
But wait! No responsibility is given to the dumb audience that demands emotional pyrotechnics to spice up all intellectual insights they attempt to consume. And so, we are told, "Dumb down the science."
Bullocks. Sure, cultural change is more difficult and slow. And yes, there may be a middle ground. But still. Let's not ask scientists to be salesmen and saleswomen.
With that said, here is a cartoon by treelobsters.com that got me thinking about the topic. It is so spot-on it deserves to be singled out. Well done!
I'm almost back from my blogging hiatus. When I do return, I'll be easing my way into it. What have I been up to? Glad you asked. First and foremost, working. Not writing-working, but working working. I'm ankle deep in renovating/refurbishing a house. (This week's goal: replace all the plumbing fixtures and shut-off values.) Although I am many, many days away from completion, I am now feeling less mentally overwhelmed: like I've been asked to juggle one ball too many.
Otherwise, I've also been on vacation. My wife and I recently turned the big 5-0 within 3 days of one another. To celebrate (run away and hide?), we made a trip to New Mexico, where we rented a small house in the middle of a gorgeous nowhere. It was awesome. Maybe the best week of my life. So far.
Anyway . . .
Do biological patterns originate in basic, chemical properties? To what degree have they been naturally 'selected' and for what: regularity and efficiency?
Recent Comments