5 ms·
I think my favorite Simpsons gag is the episode where Lisa enlists a scientist (voiced by Stephen Jay Gould) to run tests to debunk some angel bones that were f
by klenwell 2y ago
I think my favorite Simpsons gag is the episode where Lisa enlists a scientist (voiced by Stephen Jay Gould) to run tests to debunk some angel bones that were found at a construction site.
In the middle of the episode, the scientist bicycles up to report, dramatically, that the tests "were inconclusive".
In the end, it's revealed that the bones were a fraud concocted by some mall developers to promote their new mall.
After this is revealed, Lisa asks the scientist about the tests. He shrugs:
"I'm not going to lie to you, Lisa. I never ran the tests."
It's funny on a few levels but what I find most amusing is that his incentive is left a mystery.
- fluoridation 2y agoWell, the incentive is that he didn't want to run the tests out of laziness (i.e. he lacked an incentive to run them). He ran to Lisa to give his anticlimactic report not to be deceptive, but rather he just happened to be cycling through that part of town and just needed to use the bathroom really badly.
- tedk-42 2y agoThe writers of these episodes were really on another level considering it was a cartoon. Lisa's first word is still a personal favourite of mine, especially now as a father.
- kenjackson 2y agoWhat's her first word?
- g4zj 2y agoApparently it was "Bart". I had to look it up because I was curious as well.
- 6LLvveMx2koXfwn 2y agoI guess GP is referring to the episode, rather than the actual word . . .
- gedy 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa's_First_Word https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa's_First_Word
- tedk-42 2y agoMore incentive to watch the 20min episode if you ever get the opportunity haha
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- fluoridation 2y agoTo be honest, it's difficult to tell if the subplot makes sense on purpose, or if the writers just wanted to make a joke and it just happened to end up making sense. I don't think I had ever put the three scenes together before now.
- nativeit 2y agoOne of the first things I learned in film school is _nothing_ in a production at that level is coincidence or serendipity. To get to the final script and storyboard, the writers would have gone through multiple drafts, and a great deal of material gets either cut, or retooled to reinforce thematic elements. To the extent that The Simpsons was a goofy cartoon, its writers’ room carried a great deal of intellectual and academic heft, and I don’t doubt for a moment that there was full intention with both the joke itself, and the choice to leave the character’s motivations ambiguous.
- jshdhehe 2y agoGoofy cartoon but I always thought it was very cleverly done in parts. The laugh followed by "fuck life is actually like that" aftertaste.
- vlovich123 2y agoThe entire writing room was Harvard grads and people who went on to accomplish impressive things in the industry (eg Conan O’Brien was a writer, David X Cohen was a writer and then went on to cocreate Futurama with Groening). The early writing team was one of the sharpest ever assembled and dismissing it as a “goofy cartoon” is missing the talent behind it just like if you dismissed Futurama in that way.
- sobkas 2y ago> One of the first things I learned in film school is _nothing_ in a production at that level is coincidence or serendipity. To get to the final script and storyboard, the writers would have gone through multiple drafts, and a great deal of material gets either cut, or retooled to reinforce thematic elements. To the extent that The Simpsons was a goofy cartoon, its writers’ room carried a great deal of intellectual and academic heft, and I don’t doubt for a moment that there was full intention with both the joke itself, and the choice to leave the character’s motivations ambiguous. Not everything, for example I read somewhere that chess "fight" in Tween Peaks was random and didn't adhere to chess rules because no one really paid attention to record or follow moves.
- garrettgarcia 2y agoI thought his incentive was to defend the idea of miracles/faith/angels/God.
- neycoda 2y agoMore often than not in scientific fraud I've seen the underlying motives be personal beliefs than financial. This is why science needs to be much stronger in weeding out the charlatans.
- belief-in-money 2y ago[citation needed] --- I conjecture the most common underlying motive is to embellish cv, and climb the academic ladder.
- NoPie 2y agoIt's actually quite clever from the part of the scientist. The incentive would be money, maybe the pay for doing this test was not good enough. Or maybe the scientist was motivated by thirst of discovering something good for humanity like cure for cancer and didn't want to get distracted by other things. Funding is also needed but angel bones are clearly impossibility. Why even spend time on disproving that? But if she had engaged in discussion with people clearly believing in this nonsense it would have taken too much time. Saying, the tests are inconclusive lets her be distanced from all this and allow people to leave her alone, mostly that the groups will continue their disputes among themselves.
- jongjong 2y agoThat's a good one. In my experience, corruption is almost always disguised as neglect and incompetence. Corrupt people meticulously cover their tracks by coming up with excuses to show neglect; some of them only accept bribes that they can explain away as neglect where they have plausible deniability. It doesn't take much brainpower to do well, just malicious intent and knowing the upper limits. IMO, Hanlon's razor "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" is a narrative which was created to condition the masses into accepting being conned repeatedly. On the topic, I subscribe to Grey's law "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice" so I see idiots as malicious. In the very best case, idiots in positions of power are malicious for accepting the position and thus preventing someone more competent from getting it. It really doesn't matter what their intent is. Deep down, stupid people know that they're stupid but they let their emotions get in the way, same emotions which prevent them from getting smarter.
- schmidtleonard 2y agoI wouldn't attribute malice to Hanlon's razor, but yes, even dogs and small children know how to play dumb and the children just keep getting better at it.
- chiefalchemist 2y agoTrue story: CEOs, cops,and politicians (and their appointees) are good at it as well.
- kenjackson 2y agoEhh... I think neglect and incompetence are super common. I have a sink full of dishes downstairs to prove it. I think corruption, while not rare, is still far rarer. Horses over zebras still (at least in the US).
- MichaelZuo 2y ago‘Sufficiently advanced’ is the key term, e.g. if your sink was located on the premises of 5 star hotel then that would probably be indistinguishable from malice.
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y agoReminds me of this quote: > "The most erroneous stories are those we think we know best -and therefore never scrutinize or question." -Stephen Jay Gould
- logifail 2y ago“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so. “ – Mark Twain
- pwatsonwailes 2y agoWhich he never said, making the not-quote doubly accurate
- ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet." - Abraham Lincoln Maybe relevant: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/11/18/know-trouble/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/11/18/know-trouble/
- starspangled 2y agoI think he didn't want to run tests or present results that might be contrary to the mob's dogma, for fear of retribution.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dmix 2y agoOr it was merely useful excuse for the narrative about flawed humans and anti science vs science arc