Big Think:

https://youtu.be/S58vlJwhwDw

NdGT and writer/radio host Kurt Andersen on the threat of America's science denialism.

Naw. The US is a big diverse place. Not everyone does the same thing or behaves the same. Some people fail due to their ignorance and others don’t.

Maybe Mormonism could make a comeback.

Yes, it will be.

We landed on the moon when I was in Kindergarten. For all of my elementary years, kids said that they wanted to be a scientist, astronaut, firefighter, or policeman.

No kids want to be a scientist anymore.

I'm living in another country in Asia now. And my wife, who is local and has a PhD in physics, teaches the brightest and pretty much genius students of the country. Knowing that she is married to an American, more than once one has asked her, "Are there really Americans who think that the earth is flat?" And all the other kids laugh like it is preposterous.

Yup, and they hold their convention only in the U.S. Because that's where all the flat earthers are. Other countries still believe in science.

It's the only place I know where people think that jet contrails are poison. Where we have utterly failed at the pandemic. Lots of people are anti mask, and anti vaxers etc.

You can't stay at the top like that. While the rest of the world is still believing in science, building better cars, better electronics, and going to the moon.

We are behind, and rapidly getting further behind.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/11/2021 09:39PM by DNA.

in b 4 ~ the joke is on these genius students ~


LOL ~


the earth is whatever shape americans say it is ~

Well put.

Most kids probably just want to be "influencers"...whatever the **** that is...

Ron, I, too, lament what might have been, had we had these same internet opportunities.

We wouldn't have had to actually DO things, we could just have appeared to be DOING things!

My motto would have been, "Click till you can't click no more, homie!"

I believe.

Sometimes it's hard to deal with the knowledge that you have no "IN's" with a local deity.

I still try to avoid stepping on sidewalk cracks . . .

When you're watching Sky-9's helicopter coverage of a car chase, and it ends with a violent collision in an intersection, and you know that the innocent victim in the crash had ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA it was coming, doesn't it make you shiver?  And then we forget...

There was a story recently about an NFL football player driving drunk, at 120 mph, and he hit and killed an innocent motorist AND HER DOG!!  That's not an accident, which is why he faces criminal charges.

Here's the bumper sticker that covers all this: "Timing is Everything".

Yes.

As long as the mainland Chinese do not run out of powdered rhino horn, we don't stand a chance. We'll be so screwed...

I hear the best rhino horn comes in purple.

I agree with most of the comments in your link; particularly NdGT's comments about how science is reported by journalists who favor and report (usually by implication) sensationalist scientific speculations as genuine scientific 'discoveries.'

Note, however, that scientists themselves participate in this misrepresentation in order to elevate their own status, secure funding, etc., thereby encouraging science denial. Scientists constantly overreach in their own speculative conclusions, presenting them as nearly established facts. (Especially in the social sciences) Often, these conclusions are offensive to religious traditions, and so create a backlash from religious intellectuals that exposes this overreaching. The result is that within religious circles, science loses its credibility.

Here is a classic example of such over-reaching from theoretical physicist Sean Carroll's book, The Big Picture:

_________________________________________

"Right now we have a certain theory of particles and forces, the Core Theory, that seems indisputably accurate within a very wide domain of applicability. It includes everything going on within you, and me, and everything you see around you right this minute. And it will continue to be accurate. A thousand or a million years from now, whatever amazing discoveries science will have made, our descendants are not going to be saying "Ha-ha, those silly twenty-first-century scientists, believing in 'neutrons' and 'electromagnatism.' Hopefully by then we will have better, deeper concepts, but the concepts we're using now will still be legitimate in the appropriate domain.

And those concepts -- the tenets of the Core Theory, and the framework of quantum field theory on which it is based -- are enough to tell us that there are no psychic powers.

Many people still believe in psychic phenomena, but they are for the most part dismissed in respectable circles of thought. . . And there is no immaterial soul that could possibly survive the body. When we die, that's the end of us." (P. 156-157)

____________________________________________

I don't want to argue the substantive points here, but only point out that none of Carroll's claims as to established scientific fact are in fact established. In fact, the reality or non-reality of psychic phenomena, souls, life after death, etc. necessarily involve metaphysical assumptions beyond the realm of science. The vast majority of scientists would therefore refrain from making any comments on such matters, and would agree with me that Carroll's comments in this 'popular' book are irresponsible. (See, for example, the review by Arieh Ben-Naim, in *Best Sellers Selling Confusion*, Chapter 6)

Yet, such scientific over-reaching, and flat-out misrepresentations occur constantly, much of which is motivated not by science denial concerns as much as by anti-religion sentiments (like, Carroll and Dawkins)

So, scientists need to some extent look in the mirror when seeking an understanding of science denial. Moreover, I will remind the reader that science denial also has its roots in 20th century post-modernism--which was an intellectual, academic, tradition, not a religious one, and whose effects on culture remain potent.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree with most of the comments in your link;
> particularly NdGT's comments about how science is
> reported by journalists who favor and report
> (usually by implication) sensationalist scientific
> speculations as genuine scientific 'discoveries.'
>
> Note, however, that scientists themselves
> participate in this misrepresentation in order to
> elevate their own status, secure funding, etc.,
> thereby encouraging science denial. Scientists
> constantly overreach in their own speculative
> conclusions, presenting them as nearly established
> facts. (Especially in the social sciences) Often,
> these conclusions are offensive to religious
> traditions, and so create a backlash from
> religious intellectuals that exposes this
> overreaching. The result is that within religious
> circles, science loses its credibility.

I have said before (and will say again) that the United States is first and foremost a country of salesmen. Those who don't attempt to persuade others of the correctness of their thought are believed to have either no thoughts or to be incorrect in their thoughts. This, from an ideological perspective, is why scientists sometimes overreach.
>
> Here is a classic example of such over-reaching
> from theoretical physicist Sean Carroll's book,
> The Big Picture:
>
> _________________________________________
>
> "Right now we have a certain theory of particles
> and forces, the Core Theory, that seems
> indisputably accurate within a very wide domain of
> applicability. It includes everything going on
> within you, and me, and everything you see around
> you right this minute. And it will continue to be
> accurate. A thousand or a million years from now,
> whatever amazing discoveries science will have
> made, our descendants are not going to be saying
> "Ha-ha, those silly twenty-first-century
> scientists, believing in 'neutrons' and
> 'electromagnatism.' Hopefully by then we will
> have better, deeper concepts, but the concepts
> we're using now will still be legitimate in the
> appropriate domain.
>
> And those concepts -- the tenets of the Core
> Theory, and the framework of quantum field theory
> on which it is based -- are enough to tell us that
> there are no psychic powers.
>
> Many people still believe in psychic phenomena,
> but they are for the most part dismissed in
> respectable circles of thought. . . And there
> is no immaterial soul that could possibly survive
> the body. When we die, that's the end of us."
> (P. 156-157)
>
> ____________________________________________
>
> I don't want to argue the substantive points here,
> but only point out that none of Carroll's claims
> as to established scientific fact are in fact
> established. In fact, the reality or non-reality
> of psychic phenomena, souls, life after death,
> etc. necessarily involve metaphysical assumptions
> beyond the realm of science. The vast majority of
> scientists would therefore refrain from making any
> comments on such matters, and would agree with me
> that Carroll's comments in this 'popular' book are
> irresponsible. (See, for example, the review by
> Arieh Ben-Naim, in *Best Sellers Selling
> Confusion*, Chapter 6)
>
> Yet, such scientific over-reaching, and flat-out
> misrepresentations occur constantly, much of which
> is motivated not by science denial concerns as
> much as by anti-religion sentiments (like, Carroll
> and Dawkins)

You know, several years ago on this very site, I once read a response comment to someone else's post that said that the basic difference between religionists and scientists is how the two look at the void of information of an afterlife. Many scientists look at the void and say that since no evidence exists showing there to be anything in that void, then that void must be empty. Religionists counterargue that that void does hold something, a super being if you will, even though there is no physical evidence for such an existance. And while I strongly agree with the atheists, the fact remains that there is no definitive proof one way or the other about what lies within that void between life and death--it's all a matter of belief.
>
> So, scientists need to some extent look in the
> mirror when seeking an understanding of science
> denial. Moreover, I will remind the reader that
> science denial also has its roots in 20th century
> post-modernism--which was an intellectual,
> academic, tradition, not a religious one, and
> whose effects on culture remain potent.

Actually, science denialism started before the 20th century. Think of the Roman Catholic church's outcry against Galileo when he proved through the use of telescopes that the earth revolved around the sun and not vice versa. The whole truth is that the sciences have been encroaching on religious territory for a long time, and religionists are now fighting back against it. The problem for the religionists (as I noted in a response to atopic you wrote a long time ago) is that scientific evidence and advances have done a much better job of predicting the future than religious prophecies have. Religious prophecies have not predicted, for example, climate change or the current Coronavirus epidemic. However, the scientific community has broadly (with a few holdouts) been predicting climate change for the last 30 years and they are now being proven correct. And while the scientific community didn't predict COVID19 specifically, it was so concerned about the possibility of worldwide disease epidemics that it convinced former U.S. presidential administrations to make preparations for what to do in case such an epidemic occurred. Unfortunately, the last presidential administration threw those recommendations out the window partially because its predecessor had been working on them and partially because many religionists within that administration didn't believe that a worldwide disease epidemic would occur. The latter was proven wrong.

My point is that because scientists have proven to be more accurate in predicting the future than religionists have, the scales must be weighed much more heavily in their favor when determining the proper courses to pursue in many areas.

Thank you for your comments:

"I have said before (and will say again) that the United States is first and foremost a country of salesmen. Those who don't attempt to persuade others of the correctness of their thought are believed to have either no thoughts or to be incorrect in their thoughts. This, from an ideological perspective, is why scientists sometimes overreach."

COMMENT: It may indeed be true that we are all in some sense culturally programmed to be salesmen. It may be a part of the survival instinct of our human nature, or just part of the competitive instinct instilled by capitalism. After all, "sales" and "salesmen" traditionally involve a product and a profit motive. In any event, given the nature of science, I would expect higher standard of reason and veracity, and less 'sales' rhetoric.
____________________________________________

"You know, several years ago on this very site, I once read a response comment to someone else's post that said that the basic difference between religionists and scientists is how the two look at the void of information of an afterlife. Many scientists look at the void and say that since no evidence exists showing there to be anything in that void, then that void must be empty. Religionists counterargue that that void does hold something, a super being if you will, even though there is no physical evidence for such an existance. And while I strongly agree with the atheists, the fact remains that there is no definitive proof one way or the other about what lies within that void between life and death--it's all a matter of belief."

COMMENT: Well, one thing we know for sure is that there is a 'void' between the 'physical' parameters of science and ultimate reality. We also have some idea of one kind of 'thing' that is to be included in this mysterious void; specifically, consciousness, mind, subjective experience, mental cognition (thoughts, reasoning), etc. So, we are not totally ignorant of this scientific void, and what it minimally contains. Moreover, even though there is no 'proof' one way or the other as to the ultimate nature of things, or their governing laws, certain inferences can be reasonable made, even if speculative.

The inference of the scientific materialist is basically that whatever is in this void it must be 'physical.' (This would include whatever kinds of entities are prescribed by modern physics). Yet, this inference is already defeated, because, as indicated, we already know of phenomena that is NOT materialist in this sense, but nonetheless is part of reality. So, this scientific inference is little more than a reductionist 'hope and a prayer.' Religionists, on the other hand, postulate a superior intelligent consciousness; a Being that is at least expansive of properties that we already know exist. (consciousness and intelligence). But there is more: Religion (at its theological best) recognizes that from modern science, and outside of a speculative multiverse theory, life and intelligence are highly improbable. This suggests a reasonable inference to an intelligent agent. And, of course, scientists (mostly biologists) have not only denied such speculations, but deemed them to be 'anti-science' and worthy of ridicule. So, it is not simply that it is "all a matter of belief." It is a matter of belief within a context of human experience, science itself, and one's preferred worldview.
__________________________________________

"Actually, science denialism started before the 20th century. Think of the Roman Catholic church's outcry against Galileo when he proved through the use of telescopes that the earth revolved around the sun and not vice versa."

COMMENT: Well, yes, but I was talking about modern science denialism, as was the link in the OP.
___________________________________________

"The whole truth is that the sciences have been encroaching on religious territory for a long time, and religionists are now fighting back against it. The problem for the religionists (as I noted in a response to atopic you wrote a long time ago) is that scientific evidence and advances have done a much better job of predicting the future than religious prophecies have."

COMMENT: Yes. This is obviously true. And I would say it is because of the extreme over-reaching of religion from the beginning; that is, wanting to explain every mystery by appealing to God, and placing far too much legitimacy in 'divine revelation' as a source for truth; be it scripture or otherwise.
_________________________________________

"Religious prophecies have not predicted, for example, climate change or the current Coronavirus epidemic. However, the scientific community has broadly (with a few holdouts) been predicting climate change for the last 30 years and they are now being proven correct. And while the scientific community didn't predict COVID19 specifically, it was so concerned about the possibility of worldwide disease epidemics that it convinced former U.S. presidential administrations to make preparations for what to do in case such an epidemic occurred. Unfortunately, the last presidential administration threw those recommendations out the window partially because its predecessor had been working on them and partially because many religionists within that administration didn't believe that a worldwide disease epidemic would occur. The latter was proven wrong."

COMMENT: Yes, again this is obviously true. But the point is that modern science denial in contexts where science should be trusted, is not only the product of religious traditions, but also of profound secular influences, including the arrogance and over-reaching of science itself.
_______________________________________

"My point is that because scientists have proven to be more accurate in predicting the future than religionists have, the scales must be weighed much more heavily in their favor when determining the proper courses to pursue in many areas."

COMMENT: Indeed. Now, scientists arguably need to assist in combating science denial by recognizing when religion should and must be challenged in the face of public policy, and when such challenges should be left to theory and philosophy. But in any case, when scientific challenges to religion are made, they should engage religion with some degree of metaphysical humility.

Does China's suppression of extremist religion, in spite of the inherent negation of individual freedom, result in a cultural cohesion that gives them an advantage that the US can't match?

Does their single party rule, combined with their successes over the past three decades in taking advantage of markets to enrich the nation, allow them to focus resources where needed in a far more targeted and efficient way than the US can?

Humberto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does China's suppression of extremist religion, in
> spite of the inherent negation of individual
> freedom, result in a cultural cohesion that gives
> them an advantage that the US can't match?
>
> Does their single party rule, combined with their
> successes over the past three decades in taking
> advantage of markets to enrich the nation, allow
> them to focus resources where needed in a far more
> targeted and efficient way than the US can?

Isn’t China's state run religion kinda, well known as extreme?
They'll kill you if you don't believe! Try anything different and zap, you might disappear.

Enslaving children to make their rich, richer isn't quite as virtuous as where you might be trying to go.

Do you just hate MormØŽism so much China's propaganda has you buying it's reasonably nice over there?

Or are you smoking something whacked?
(joking heh)

Despite your desire to make it so, the CCP is not a religion.

Considering we spend 3 x’s more than China on military, means they get all of that extra savings to spend on infrastructure.
They get 200mph trains while our trains fly off the tracks before they hit 80.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Washington_train_derailment

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-military-spending-vs-other-top-countries/

I bet China's military pays less than half what our military pays for screw drives and toilet seats!!!

Try selling a screwdriver in China for more than it costs to buy one at Harbor Freight in America and you’ll do hard time breaking big rocks into small rocks.

I am assuming that your contention is that in China, the goings-on between military buyers and civilian suppliers is pure, chaste, and even holy.

While I don't stint in giving praise to the Chinese overlords, I cannot, and will not, ever believe that by and large, humans can resist temptation.

I will continue to believe, absent documentation, that graft, corruption, and outright thievery exist in all supply lines the world, civilian and military. Corruption is baked into the human genome; wanting more than you paid for is not only genetic, but it's taught as a way of life.

Or so I've raised myself to believe, even with my inferiority complex!

Yes, our passenger trains are horrible but our freight trains cannot be beat.

How much difference is there between politics and religions.

Perhaps religion can be defined as the politics of God/s

There is a huge difference. While the two can be intimately intertwined, they can also exist independently from one another. They're not the same thing.

The CCP is adamantly atheistic. Members of the party are forbidden from having religious beliefs.

How is Communism not a belief system. A yet to succeed belief system always seeking a community that can make it work for the first time.

Or not.
Believe what you want.

If I did not present facts all you have to offer is the successful Communist nation. Maybe China?!?

I can think of better ways to describe political ideologies than "belief systems". But let's go with that. Show me now that all "belief systems" are religions.

Nothing I wrote implies that I believe the CCP to be "virtuous".

Effective maybe, but not virtuous.

Humberto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Does China's suppression of extremist religion, in
> spite of the inherent negation of individual
> freedom, result in a cultural cohesion that gives
> them an advantage that the US can't match?
>
> Does their single party rule, combined with their
> successes over the past three decades in taking
> advantage of markets to enrich the nation, allow
> them to focus resources where needed in a far more
> targeted and efficient way than the US can?

While your question applies specifically to the People's Republic of China, a broader question has emerged: Do political dictatorships, either on the right or on the left, have an advantage when responding to disease and other threats detected by scientists. The answer appears to be "yes" in the short term (these countries don't have to worry about opposition to their policies as western democracies do) but "no" in the long term (because there is no, or very little, buy-in from the populations to whatever the dictatorship is doing).

The link in the OP is over a year old. Do you suppose people think differently now ?

...you're assuming everyone thinks?

Empires will always come and go. Being “at the top” may not be the “be all” and “end all” of existence. With a different mindset, “the end of its reign” could be seen as a welcomed change. Maybe then U.S. Americans could turn their attention back to interpersonal connections, and other things that actually matter more.

In general, I think this might be a good take, but it depends on the reason for decline.

What's being discussed here is the rise in the acceptability of ignorance. These days there is also an associated authoritarianism driven by the ignorant. In this case, the decline comes with what I consider too much negative impact to the quality of the US cultural and societal experience. International decline doesn't necessarily mean domestic improvement.

This is a fascinating youtube video that I remember watching a year ago. And now have watched it again. So I'll give my assement of what I think about Bill Nye the science quack (he's an engineer not a scientist) and the rest of them. First off I don't like that old lady towards the end who starts dissin' Americans for not believing in her version of climate change. Which is that us little people are killing this big beautiful Earth because we are magically responsible for global warming. Actually we haven't got any evidence that she's right. In fact Antarctica just recorded its coldest winter season in recorded history. A little known fact that the Tree-Huggers and propogandists are quietly hoping no one notices.

The old guy at the beginning had some good points that I can agree with. America was founded by people who were willing to believe anything. We are the place that has turned out most of the inventions, we created the computer right here in Salt Lake. From cars to airplanes, to medical devices, we are the awesomest group on the planet because we believe in the impossible. We try new things. And this is only the beginning!

    I say we all chip in to get Maca a personalized Utah, flag-waving, in ghawd we trust, license plate.

    Everybody say it with me: WOOOSH

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . . . her
> version of climate change. Which is that us little
> people are killing this big beautiful Earth
> because we are magically responsible for global
> warming. Actually we haven't got any evidence that
> she's right.

No evidence at all!


---------------------
> In fact Antarctica just recorded its
> coldest winter season in recorded history. A
> little known fact that the Tree-Huggers and
> propogandists are quietly hoping no one notices.

Damn propogandists!


----------------
> America was founded by
> people who were willing to believe anything.

The MLM data shows that Utahns will believe even more anything!


----------------
> We
> are the place that has turned out most of the
> inventions, we created the computer right here in
> Salt Lake.

You'd be surprised how many scientists and historians are unaware of that fact.


---------------
> . . . We are the awesomest group on the planet
> because we believe in the impossible. We try new
> things. And this is only the beginning!

Go, team, go!

>In fact Antarctica just recorded its coldest winter season in recorded history. A little known fact that the Tree-Huggers and propogandists are quietly hoping no one notices.

True, but... (not that I expect you to understand the difference)

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/09/weather/weather-record-cold-antarctica-climate-change/index.html

"It is important to understand weather is different from climate. Weather is what happens over shorter periods of time (days to months), such as the seven-day forecast. Climate is what happens over much longer periods of time, such as several years, or even entire generations.
"One such example is a cold snap, which can happen due to sudden changes in atmospheric circulation and may not be linked to climate change," says Tom Slater, Research Fellow at the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at the University of Leeds. "Texas is a good example of this; even though parts of it experienced extreme cold weather earlier this year when air from the Arctic was pushed south, looking at the long-term change in temperature tells us that Texas is 1.5 degrees warmer on average now than it was 100 years ago. That's climate."

"So, this recent winter stretch from June-August is definitely interesting from a research standpoint, but it doesn't necessarily reflect what Antarctica is doing in the long term.

One great example of this is while June-August of this year may have been quite cold, February of the previous year recorded the new all-time record high for the Antarctic continent. On February 6, 2020, the Esperanza Research Station recorded a high temperature of 18.3°C degrees (64.9°F). This broke the previous record for the Antarctic region (continental, including mainland and surrounding islands) of 17.5°C (63.5°F) recorded in March 2015 at the same station."

"What is happening at Earth's poles, does not mean it is happening across the globe equally.
"Although global temperatures have risen by about 1.1 degrees in the past 150 years on average, different parts of the globe have warmed at different rates due to natural variations in the climate system such as cloud cover, land cover and atmospheric circulation patterns," Slater said.
"Earth's poles have warmed faster than anywhere else, primarily due to melting ice and snow. Although Antarctica has had a cold winter this year, over the past few decades the most northerly parts of Antarctica have warmed five times faster than the global average -- that's faster than anywhere else in the Southern Hemisphere."

And how exactly does that disprove Manifest Destiny?

Where to start?

I assume by "the old guy at the beginning", you meant Kurt Andersen, and not Michael Shermer. Andersen has a number of notable accomplishments. He co-created Studio 360, which ran for 20 years on Public Radio International, and won a Peabody.

From his wikipedia article: In 2017, he published two books, Fantasyland: "How America Went Haywire: A 500-Year History", which explains American society's peculiar susceptibility to falsehoods and illusions (Random House, ISBN 978-1-4000-6721-3), and with Alec Baldwin You Can't Spell America Without Me: The Really Tremendous Inside Story of My Fantastic First Year As President (Penguin, ISBN 978-0-5255-2199-0), a parody Trump memoir. Excerpts from Fantasyland appeared as a cover story in The Atlantic,[9][10] and in Slate.[11][12] Both books were New York Times bestsellers, and Fantasyland, which the Times Book Review called "a great revisionist history of America,"[13] reached #3 on the nonfiction list.[14]

Fantasyland in particular might be useful in disabusing macaRomney's puppy love affair with all things (white) American. Subject for another thread.

"The old woman" is Margaret Atwood. She, along with everyone else in the video, was identified at their first appearance. Apparently the name did not ring a bell with you. She is definitely the most famous Canadian author in the world, and arguably one of the most famous authors in the world, period. She wrote Handmaids Tale. You may have heard of it. Or not. She also has several novels dealing with climate change, a topic on which she has done her homework.


Your fascination with American technical prowess is somewhat confounding, since you treat universities and the people who work there with such disdain. The American public university system, created mostly after the Civil War, was one of America's greatest achievements, and was responsible for much of the technological progress of which you seem so proud.

I am seriously curious about why you thing "the computer" was developed in Utah. That would be news to me.

Brazilians claim Santos Dumont conducted the first heavier than air plane flight, not the Wright Brothers. The first heart transplant in the world was in South Africa, not the US. The second was in Brazil. The wildly successful covid vaccine from Pfizer was developed by Turkish scientists who had immigrated to Germany.

Meanwhile, the US has far and away the highest incarceration rate of any industrialized nation. We have the second highest [covid] death rate per capita of any industrialized nation, beat only by Brazil, whose legislature is trying to charge their president with "crimes against humanity", for his deliberate obstruction of efforts to bring vaccines into Brazil. But I digress.

Yes, the US has accomplished a lot. It is hardly walking on water these days, however. It is entirely possible it will drop out of the top 25% of the world life expectancy. That's embarrassing.

Oh, and most of the complicated computer chips are no longer made in the US. They now come from Taiwan, Japan, Germany, and China. We make the simple chips.

Fantasyland.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2021 11:50AM by Brother Of Jerry.

But BoJ, they don't read Margaret Atwood in PE. And don't you know that is the only class of value? The only one that will prepare you for a REAL job.

You really can't make this stuff up.

::snort:: (or in Utahnese, ::snart::)

But ... but ... but what about American exceptionalism ?

Never heard of Utah taking credit for the computer, but it appears that accomplishment was already claimed by Pennsylvania.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/inventions/who-invented-the-computer.htm

Maybe he meant Philo, and the boob tube?



boob!






ETA:   And then she jumped out of the closet, wearing a Santa Hat and a big smile, and yelled, BOOBS!!!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2021 03:41PM by elderolddog.

Which (a) wasn't a computer, and (b) wasn't in Utah, though one could argue that Rigby, ID is the moral and cultural equivalent of being in Utah.

Far easier to just find something (random) to Believe.
- And more comforting.

natural selection always starts at the shallow end of the gene pool.

Sputnik I

OMGosh, that was 10/4/1957.

I think I was in 7th grade at Butler jr. high just north of the Seattle city limits. that property has be re-purposed to a high school.

I remember trying to tune a short-wave radio to try to hear the beeps beeps beeps...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2021 06:36PM by GNPE.

Oh, I remember all the hoopla regarding America falling to the Commie Menace because we were NOT keeping up!

Mrs. Taylor, my sixth grade teacher, doubled down on teaching us to diagram sentences!!

Just look at us now; not a dangling participle to seen as you scroll through online media!!!

You're right. Gazing over the board, dangling participles are nowhere to be seen!

     I've always assumed you were the type 'o gal to keep an eye out for danglers!   And good for you!

Observing the situation carefully, the participles were dangling right in front of EOD's eyes.

my post about sputnik elicited these latest posts???

W.T.F.?

The dangling participles, acknowledging your point, are definitely O/T.

But you have to admit they are definitely more sentient than most parts of speech.

ETA: I propose we blame EOD for this debacle and get back to our regularly scheduled discussion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2021 08:39PM by Lot's Wife.

GNPE Wrote:
--------------------------------
> my post about sputnik elicited
> these latest posts???
>
> W.T.F.?


I believe that upon reflection, and with the aid of Holy McGhost, you will agree that my first response was absolutely prim and proper.

We have the recondite Sis. Lot to thank for the descent into her award-winning, and patented, obtusity.

Se toute vrai, n'est pas?

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Se toute vrai, n'est pas?


noen er, noen ikke

Men mitt bidrag var definitivt!

So there!

كما هو الحال دائمًا ، أنت سبب المشكلة.

America's disregard for science is why French bread comes out of the toaster so damned hot.

A toaster?

That's not how I make French toast . . .

White people be weird!

When white people look "a little green around the gills," are they still white ?