jump to navigation

xkcd pithily illustrates why Myers is an idiot March 30, 2007

Posted by Administrator in atheism, Cultural Pessimism, Humor, Idiots, Pharyngulism.


Myers then makes his own additions, claiming that he would use this instrument as a device of sadism (note to the humorless: YES I know he’s being silly. Yet isn’t it instructive that when Myers is silly he reverts to type? Sadism?).

But just look at the comic as posted above. The “scientist” must study the blazingly obvious. Anything that cannot be empirically confirmed is not true.

Yet, that “scientist” already knew to pull the lever means pain. Yet, in his arid, 3rd-act-of-the-mind-is-the-ONLY-way-to-the-truth cosmology, he yanks it again.

He’s an idiot for not seeing the obvious.

His name is PZ Myers.



1. BFD - March 30, 2007

“Yet, that ‘scientist’ already knew to pull the lever means pain.”

Really? How? That’s a nifty little thought experiment you’ve got yourself!

Do you get shocked every time you touch something metal? No. Why? Because it only happens under certain conditions. If you avoided touching something metal because of an experiment with n=1, you wouldn’t get very far.

2. Simen - March 30, 2007

I don’t see how this is supposed to be a valid criticism of anything, really. It comes off as a personal attack, nothing else. I don’t know what else you might have to say about PZ Myers and his opinions, but I sincerely hope this isn’t all of it. If you feel that someone is defending their views in a bad, invalid or immature way, is the solution really to revert to their level?

3. demolition65 - March 30, 2007

Oh, come now. The static electricity build-up is similar to the above? Really.

Simen, you have something. Guilty. Myers drives me nuts.

However. . .the cartoon does illustrate my point. Being curmedgeonly in my presentation does not invalidate my point.

4. Dana - April 3, 2007

If all scientists stuck to the measurable and observable as “hard science” and were willing to concede that there are certain questions that cannot be fully answered via the scientific method, I’d be a happy camper.

Drawing inferences and making hypotheses and all that is fine. But why creation has be be unscientific while whatever other theory for the origins of life is scientific purely because it is naturalistic in its essence is ridiculous. Neither is strictly “science” per se. Neither is observable nor measurable.

And curmudgeonly is a good word. When I’m old enough, I aspire to becoming a curmudgeon. Now, I’d just be annoying and that doesn’t come with the same class.

5. vargas - July 26, 2008

You’re right. PZ Meyers IS and idiot and a third-rate scientist as well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: