Home > Little Green Footballs, LudwigVanQuixote > Dialog Between Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum

Dialog Between Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum

May 4, 2010

Grasshopper responds:

Someone please give those two a spaceship.

  1. Rodan
    May 4, 2010 at 6:50 pm | #1

    These are not the brightest of bulbs. They watch too much Sci Fi.

  2. snork
    May 4, 2010 at 7:46 pm | #2

    Feynman had a term for that. Something like freight religion?

    • May 6, 2010 at 6:56 pm | #3

      Cargo cult. That’s where a tribe builds an aeroport out of bamboo so as to trick the gods into sending cargo to them, like they’d been sending to the white man.

      But this discussion isn’t quite cargo-culty; at least, not for Ludwig. (Hoosier by saying “this is so, can’t prove it” disqualified himself from serious discussion.)

    • May 6, 2010 at 7:21 pm | #4

      It just occurred to me that you’ve likely heard that phrase “cargo cult” before and maybe everyone else around here has too… if so, I did not mean my response to be patronising.

      If so then consider my response a translation of your comment so that onlookers can look up the term in, say, Wikipedia. :^)

      I first heard the term in “the first messiah”, a book about the Righteous Teacher of the Dead Sea Scrolls community. It gets used a lot in software development as well. I have, personally, been put in charge of making cargo-cult code work. Since it was cargo-cult code that meant there was no real programming done in the first place; I had to REWRITE THE WHOLE DAMN THING. Frustration city!

      • snork
        May 6, 2010 at 7:53 pm | #5

        Just for your edification, the phrase was coined by Richard Feynman in his famous (as in for-the-ages) commencement speech to the graduating class of CalTech in 1964. Very famous speech, and absolutely brilliant. Should be required reading before anyone is allowed to take any science class.

  3. Overlook
    May 4, 2010 at 8:33 pm | #6

    Why would anyone seriously interested in math or science want to hold a discussion with LVQ – or anyone else – at that place?
    There is so much available on line (including “Dr. Carmac” ?) – and in real life – where the credentials of the experts are known and verifiable. Who the hell knows who or what LVQ is.

    • May 6, 2010 at 6:57 pm | #7

      Yeah. Ludwig has such baggage it’s hard to take him seriously. Not because of what he says, but because it’s him saying it…

  4. Grimcargo
    May 5, 2010 at 2:11 am | #8

    May I suggest Hoops and LVQeeq get a sledge hammer and hit yourselves right between the eyes. That will heal you.

  5. Speranza
    May 5, 2010 at 5:50 am | #9

    Good grief talk about two idiot savants!

    • snork
      May 5, 2010 at 8:12 am | #10

      Without the savant part.

    • Mashiki
      May 5, 2010 at 3:28 pm | #11

      A savant would make sense, idiots more like it. Besides, Einstein already proved energy is a constant in 3 dimensions, his theory fails at 4 dimensions because of … wait for it … gravity. Which has theoretically been shown to modify energy constants as fluxes increase.

      Go-go quantum mechanics.

      • May 6, 2010 at 6:53 pm | #12

        Energy is a constant? I thought Einstein showed that energy was an expression of mass and vice versa (E=mc2). It depends on what you are measuring.

        MINIMUM energy is a constant – but that’s Planck and Heisenberg, not Einstein. That’s the whole uncertainty-principle thing.

  6. May 6, 2010 at 7:02 pm | #13

    Okay, in my capacity as “blogmocracy (counter)troll” / public-enemy-2…

    In this thread linked above, they’re having a civil discussion over cosmic Inflation (a known fact) and to what extent this implies that the speed of light is, in fact, constant. (Assertion from Ludwig: it is.) This is the sort of talk that goes on in many science venues. I can’t claim to understand all of it myself, but the concepts discussed here are not string theory or some unfalsifiable rubbish like that. The two comments quoted here deal in the (observed) nature of the universe, of which string theory is but one way of explaining it.

    I do not think that “get these two a spaceship” is an appropriate response. Hoosier merits a “fail” for the reason I stated above (“I dispute; can’t prove it” – ugh); but Ludwig is at least trying to grapple with Hoosier’s ignorance. (And there’s nothing wrong with ignorance; just in persisting in ignorance, and still arguing, like a donkey.)

Comments are closed.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 694 other followers