May 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

« Your Lying Shadow | Main | Almost Worth Doing »



TC, many christians would rather prefer evolution to be wrong than them to be right.

Rather like SA's continued search for An Alternative.

I think Scott's simian side is in the ascencdance and is feeling the funky beat...


Yes, Scott, you're always right.

Hey, it's your blog after all and I can't be arsed arguing with someone who believes something isn't true.


Scott, you're right on the money in calling yourself on that one

I used to perform a redio program and The Computer Answer Guy. ( One day I run into the guy who owned the station out of which the broadcast originated and he tells me that someone he ran into that week had described me as thus:

"It sounds like he's mostly entertaining himself when he's one the air."

Frankly, I took it as a compliment. And I think even the mighty dad-o'-Dilbert has the right to do the same.

Jeff Yablon
President & CEO


I think you're right that a lot of (most?) people can't conceive of the fact that every point of view is based on the person's perception of the truth which may be limited in scope. Take quantum physics or some of your more controversial subjects as examples. Based on a limited scope of perceivable "facts", Man defines the rules that lead to the observed behavior. The more constant and more predictable the behavior, the more confident and less controversial the "fact". Imagine some astonomical object that resulted in a "coin flip" event every 1000 years and imagine in the last 2000 years it happened to roll heads twice in a row. Any amount of scientific and historical evidence going as far back as records existed would confirm that it is a "fact" that the observable behavior only has one value - heads. A Scott Adams blog that suggested the unfathomable notion that tails is a possible outcome would be met with anger, skepticism, and ridicule. The truth/rule/law/science would continue to be true until the day when the roll comes up tails.

Everything we're certain to be true is true ... until the day when its proven false. It happens less and less as we get older, but its always a possibility.


I can't even imagine not being able to imagine being wrong!


Long time reader, rare commentor.

Your worst post ever is followed by your best idea ever - a course on imagination. Excellent. Tie it in to physical activity which is proven to grease the wheels of imagination and perhaps the flood gates of innovation will open.

LA Clay

Whatever Aristotle and all of philosophy might say, there is nothing to equal tobacco; it is the passion of honest people, and he who lives without tobacco is not worthy of living. Not only does it rejuvenate and purge the human brain, but it also instructs the soul on virtue and teaches one to become an honest man. - Molière ("Don Juan," ca. 1665)


So many people.
So angry.
So self-righteous.

But, yet, they anxiously await Scott's next post instead of doing us the favor of writing their OWN blogs which would, of course, inform us of the REAL truth....

In other words - GET A LIFE, PEOPLE.

At least Scott has the balls to muse in public about what's on his mind however incomplete the though. And the GIGANTIC balls to do it in front of a bunch of nit-picking nitwits that need to prove that they are smarter, more pious or more enlightened than he is.

And, to the ones who have posted thoughtfully, please ignore the above, and thanks - I enjoyed your comments.


Wow, excellent job Scott. The monkeys were getting very boring there for a while. You've got the pirouetting primates back in excellent form over the last couple of days. Hats off to you.


If it's possible to draw a three dimensional object onto two dimensions (piece of paper), is it possible to draw a 4 dimensional object onto three dimensions?

Wow. Imagination is fun.

yo yo

I don't think you can be wrong about a perception at all. A perception is whatever you view the world to be, so a perception cannot be right or wrong, it just is what it is, another perception.

I understand your analogy of a 3rd dimensional world representing a 4th dimensional 2 time place, replaced with evolution. However, I'd say the two are so unrelated, they only appear to be an analogy, when they really don't relate at all. I'm pretty sure, evolution is a simplified form of whatever is going on, however we could probably comprehend those interactions, but we just haven't the resources to discover them yet. I don't think we can every truly understand this multi dimensional realm, even those physicists who 'discovered' it.

A Wart

Perhaps it's our lack of imagination that keep's us reading this blog, we are mostly engineers Dweebs and geeks, we like to think we are better and more inteligent the the average oik ( and perhaps we are). My children (yes I am geek who has kissed a woman and made kids!)are in the UK school system where they are taught facts and not taught how to think, more emphasis is put on passing tests at a young age than thinking of ways to climb a tree or fall in streams and get muddy. This is also partly my fault because I have been brainwashed into thinking there is a "Peadophile, Terorist, bad person" you choose around every corner, so not only are schools not allowing imagination and free thinking it's me as a parent as well, however I always encourage reading and thinking especailly if they come up with a good idea not to do homework. Also homework and pressures at school just make my kids pissed off and not want to go, schools should teach how to think and how much fun it is to make something work, or write something that makes someone cry with joy or sadness, and not how to fill in pointless forms, thats for when they beacome us at our desks wiating for the next funny blog.

Keep it up it makes my lunch time more fun.
Dweeb Evans


I may be able to imagine being wrong about a major perception, but that is only going to be fired by an interesting hypothesis on a solid base. Picking up on an interesting hypothesis and then focussing on one scarcely relevant point in a desperate attempt to prove a totally unfounded idea that's been rammed down my throat time and time again isn't.

I'd say yesterday used to be your worst blog post.


I find it interesting that the majority of people to complain about the last 2 blogs were pro-evolutionists, and not Judeo-Christians. I am an avid Dilbert fan, own all of the "office" books you have written, read your blog daily, and am a conservative Christian.

Yet, I find it strange that the Christian/Jews that read this aren't complaining, when the theories could potentially threaten their religious beliefs and their eternal destination. Instead, the people that agree with the Hypothesis of Evolution are sharpening the pitchforks and lighting their torches, and the only thing they stand to lose is a scientific theory, which are often invalidated on a daily, if not hourly, basis!

For myself, I was raised that the Bible is true (Truth, actually :) ), and that questioning is good. Since I am secure in my beliefs, I have no problem with any cold, hard facts science can produce, because I know that they will ultimately only prove that which I already know: everything in the Bible is true and accurate, to the smallest detail.

The evolutionists don't seem to have this same kind of trust in science, though. It makes me wonder, given the rather harsh comments you get any time you vaguely hint at evolution being proved wrong: Whose beliefs are really the more radical? If evolutionists are secure that evolution is correct, then they wouldn't be getting riled about someone questioning it. But if their faith is in the theory and not in the science behind the theory, then doesn't that qualify them as a religion; ie, they believe that their convictions are accurate, no matter what other facts science produces?

Just some food for thought; mostly for you, Scott. Feel free to let me know what you think about it all...


can someone please wake me when scott is done trashing his readers, celebrating his own superiority, making his 'monkeys' dance, and reprimanding his commenters for not getting the 'right' answer to his inane musings. seriously, dude, we've all had these thoughts. we just don't all think we're unique for having them.

when scott's back to analyzing humor, give me a buzz.


Scott, it may seem at first sight that fundamentalist Islamic terrorists have too much imagination about the afterlife, but they're actually suffering from the same problem: not enough imagination. For example, the necessary imagination to consider the possibility of being wrong.

Seriously, how much imagination does it take for a guy to come up with the idea of 72 virgins? Any beer-addled Neanderthal could come up with that.


"... we are only equipped to deal with the world we perceive, and within that world, evolution is the best model we have.”

You've got to be kidding -- creation fits the data way better. I know at this point you're thinking "gaps in the fossil record, blah, blah, blah". But that's the data, and at some point you evolutionists have to deal with it, although with violating the 2nd law of thermodunamics, etc, etc.

Oh, wait, I forgot evolution is a religious choice. Sorry, I respect your faith.


Tom Gao


These topics often start as curious flights of fancy and end up as WWII. I think your energy can be better spent doing something worthwhile, like getting a (paying) job or having sex with [INSERT NOUN].

Debating over anything non-consensual is akin to banging one's head against the wall for it being a wall.

Countless lives have already been lost. Let us spare those whom may yet have a chance to get by the day without some idiot striking up conversation about the outcome of Darwin vs. Jesus. In sudden death match. Wrestle-mania style. Let us imagine SA never EVER mention any of these taboos again.

Amen. RIP


Hey Scott - if you have passion for imaginative education why not call up the folks at Simon Fraser and offer to Keynote next years conference? I bet that would increase the profile of the conference and go a long way to adding more programs in imagination for kids...

The call for papers for the 2008 conference is closed - but I bet they'd make an exception in your case...


Scott: If you want thoughful answers stop baiting your readers - you get what you ask for. Try encouraging thoughtful imagination in a way that doesn't feel like someone saying "pull my finger"....

You may be encouraged to know that this year was the *fifth* annual conference for Imaginative Education.

It's still not a "required" course but it's not uncommon either.


First I'll apologize for not having read any of the other comments. What I say may already have been said, or refuted.

That said, my objection to yesterday's post (which I did not make at that time) is not that what you say is or might be untrue, but its relevance to evolution. If indeed all we can see is shadows, then that affects everything we think we know about everything. You might as well have argued that the Holocaust may never have happened for the same reasons. You wisely chose not to go that way, but focused rather arbitrarily on another piece of human 'knowledge', the theory of evolution. This adds nothing to the discussion about evolution, safe for a very general notion that everything we know might be wrong, including this. Which just makes me go 'meh'.


Imaginary ducks don’t cast shadows.
Anyone who bases there whole outlook on life on the belief that imaginary ducks cast shadows needs to get a grip.
Come on Scott, get with the program.


I'm bored of people missing the point about evolution so I'm going to miss the point about something else instead.

Here goes...

Scott. Have you even ever read a book on interior design? What makes you think people who go to lots of different houses are better at it than say, someone who is qualified to choose curtains, duh. When will you stop making out you know anything about colour co-ordination and living space and leave it to the people who have a clue. If you check out this link below I think you'll learn a lot:

This is the worst blog post you’ve ever written. I’m not even sure why I come to this website and read it everyday it’s so bad. I hope you one day grow up Scott, you idiot.


Most people can't imagine what the world would be like if evolution was false because most people don't understand evolutionary theory at all.

For instance, I know several people who do believe in evolution and think that the X-Men existence (in the comics) can be explained by an appeal to evolutionary mechanics.

If you ask me, I'd say that the existence of an X-Men would falsify evolution (it's just not possible under our modern understanding of the theory).


This is someone eles post from another blogg.. but i knew Scott would enjoy it, it sums up the readers here well.

"This is why this comment section has to go. I read a perfectly good comedy article, which I accept as purely as the comediec observations of a writer who is widely agreed to be a funny guy, then, just when I’m cheered up enough to go to work, I get a load of pedants flexing their geek muscles at each other. Instead of reading this article and going ‘haha, flame thrower arms. That Wong is crazy’ you pople feel the obsessive need to show that, actually, you know a lot about computers. Its not even just this article, the same thing happened with the steriod article and the starwars article, the comments were just filled with depressing nerds trying to prove they knew more than the writer. Get rid of the comments, please! Or at least move ‘em somewhere where they’re not right in your face. Its seriously harming my enjoyment of this site."

The comments to this entry are closed.