4 ms·
He has some odd ideas about science. The end of his book "The Dilbert Future" calls for "new ways of looking at existing things." And then claims that all of s
by muaddirac 12y ago
He has some odd ideas about science.
The end of his book "The Dilbert Future" calls for "new ways of looking at existing things." And then claims that all of science is just "looking at things" which, he points out, is pretty unreliable, and that we need to improve our ability to perceive the universe in order to move forward in science. Of note is that he doesn't consider technologies which enhance our perception to be actually doing that (microscopes, telescopes, and other types of sensors are just more forms of "seeing" to him, and are lacking).
He then rather poorly explains double slit experiment and suggests that the arrow of time might just be a figment of your imagination, as well as the motion of objects in general, and gravity.
He skirts around the idea that looking at existing ideas in new ways can be important (who would deny that?) but then devolves into useless examples, claiming that instead of gravity "existing", everything in the universe could just be expanding at just the right rate to create the illusion of gravity. He questions causal relationships and posits something no better than leibniz's monads.
I've derailed a bit here, but man, that book irked me.
- mcfunley 12y agoI'm glad someone else has noticed the profound weirdness of "The Dilbert Future." I stopped taking Scott Adams seriously a few minutes after reading it. I haven't looked at it since high school (in the 90's -- eek), but IIRC he also believes that his thoughts control the direction of the universe if he writes down affirmations in a notebook daily.
- npsimons 12y agoAnd then claims that all of science is just "looking at things" Well, at least he got one thing correct. Mostly. Science is a system for generating a model of the world. It just also happens to be the best one we have, insofar as it has generated the most accurate model of the universe to date. Is it perfect? No. Should it be criticized? Yes, otherwise it won't improve. Should we throw it out altogether? Perhaps that question should be put to the literally billions of people whose lives have been saved and improved by the results of science. Or not. Those same billions are probably very badly informed about science, which is what Adams should be railing against, not science itself.
- muaddirac 12y agoI agree with you say but I just want to emphasize how much that is NOT what Adams says in his book. In the book, he dismisses science because it's just looking at things and our eyes can deceive us (he uses the example of thinking the earth was flat). At the same time, he calls for expanding our "perception" of the world. But the many, many ways in which science/technology have legitimately expanded our perception of the universe are dismissed by him, because it's all "just looking at things." A readout of a signal from a radio telescope is just looking at things with our fallible eyes. A measurement of the voltage of a battery is just looking at a readout of a voltmeter. That is what is supremely frustrating with his view of science.