God's Debris
[NS]The-Republic
03-12-2005, 08:03
So I just got done reading this book by Scott Adams (that's right, the Dilbert guy) and was totally blown away. Granted, the theories in this book aren't perfect, but it's a great quick read that I'd recommend to anyone. Just wondering if any of you have read it, and if you have, what you thought about it.
For reference, here's the free .pdf download:
http://images.ucomics.com/images/pdfs/sadams/godsdebris.pdf
Rotovia-
03-12-2005, 08:10
His -though intentionally humorous- economic theories are currently taught at some colleges.
Scott Adams is a lot like what Michael Moore used to be. Facts wrapped in humour.
Instead of just loud and obnoxious.
Randomlittleisland
03-12-2005, 16:01
I've got to page 70 and so far I've had a mixed experience.
Some of his theories are very interesting and quite compelling but on other matters he shows himself to be ignorant and poorly informed. What I've read in the book about evolution was particuarly stupid and his faults there make me reluctant to assume the veracity of some of his other ideas.
An excellent read though, thank you for the link.
DrunkenDove
03-12-2005, 16:08
I was very intrigued by the start. He then makes a few mistakes in the evolution and science section, and then goes on a tangent about people. But very, very recommended. I couldn't stop reading.
[NS]The-Republic
03-12-2005, 21:46
In the introduction, Adams explains that these are not his personal views, and that he intentionally inserted some bad science into the old man's theories, which is what I assume the two of you picked up on.
Neo K first posted this several days ago, and the book is gold. Loved every page (even the pseudoscience was interesting, as a thought experiment).
Highly reccomended.
BTW, the "God exploded, we're putting it all back together again" thing is esoteric (secret) Tibetan teachings. Just replace the word God with Ylem, and you're spot on. Most people don't know that.
If you're interested in that view, check it out.
I was very intrigued by the start. He then makes a few mistakes in the evolution and science section, and then goes on a tangent about people. But very, very recommended. I couldn't stop reading.
The people complaining about this obviously don't read those pesky introductions. :rolleyes:
DrunkenDove
03-12-2005, 22:04
The people complaining about this obviously don't read those pesky introductions. :rolleyes:
It just seemed such a cop-out.
It just seemed such a cop-out.
Well, I guess, but the guy writes the Dilbert comics, not pieces in SciAm! :D
The purpose of the book is to get people to look at things differently, not to propose a replacement for general relativeity, quantum or string theory. ;)
[NS]The-Republic
03-12-2005, 22:29
It just seemed such a cop-out.
I disagree. If he were proposing his own views, then maybe, but he did say in the intro (and in the intro's of several Dilbert books) that the opinions presented were not his own. I believe he even said that he wanted to classify the book as fiction, but there was some sort of dispute about that. I don't see how bad science in a fictional story is a cop-out.
Nakatokia
03-12-2005, 23:05
The-Republic']I disagree. If he were proposing his own views, then maybe, but he did say in the intro (and in the intro's of several Dilbert books) that the opinions presented were not his own. I believe he even said that he wanted to classify the book as fiction, but there was some sort of dispute about that. I don't see how bad science in a fictional story is a cop-out.
It kinds of makes your points redundant if you use bad science in a debate about science though.
I just started reading the book thought so I havent got to that bit yet, maybe there is a point to it, i'll find out.