SMART Grant Update

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. -Napoleon Bonaparte

Great quote, J.G. One can, however, see how the natural assumption of malice was made in this case, considering the past track record for this administration.

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. -Napoleon Bonaparte

I always associate a slight variant of this quotation with Linus van Pelt, but googling around seems to favor somebody named "Hanson".

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" is a homily commonly known as Hanlon's Razor, being a variant of the other, older, more commonly cited "razor."

The quote is known as "Hanlon's Razor" (or "law"). Nobody knows who "Hanlon" was, but it's possible it's a corruption of "Heinlein", refering to Robert Heinlein, the science fiction author, who said something similar in one of his early works. This would mesh nicely with references to "Hanlon's Law" first appearing in sci-fi fandom, but less well with the idea that anyone reasonably aware of sci-fi literature could mangle Heinlein's name so badly (it would be a bit like a biologist not knowing who Darwin was).

But if nobody knows who came up with THAT formulation of the idea, quotes abound from different people expressing the same concept. I've never heard it attributed to Napoleon before, though.

See also Sturgeon's revelation: "Ninety percent of everything is crud."

Ah, but to paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke, any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from evil...

The misunderstanding occurred as the result of a draft document that omitted evolutionary biology from a list of majors put forth for use by colleges.

— David Dunn, Chief of Staff for U.S. Department of Education

I'd still like to know how it was left out, though. Incompetence is all very well, and if it had been something like polymer chemistry or solid-state physics, that might be fair enough. But when the only omission in the science subjects was a subject the administration doesn't like, I'd be interested in knowing how that happened.

This phrase or very similar statements have also been attributed to William James, Napoleon Bonaparte, Richard Feynman (who might well have quoted it) and others. # Similar statements have been made by Goethe, and indeed, Robert Heinlein:

I suspect that a low level political appointee, a young Republican fresh from bible college, took the inititative to white out evolutionary biology.

For what its worth, they didn't mess with atmospheric sciences, another source of ire for the administration.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" is a homily commonly known as Hanlon's Razor, being a variant of the other, older, more commonly cited "razor."

"Ah, but to paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke, any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from evil..."

Entropy is the 'lake of fire' or 'second death' resulting in ignoring the obvious flip-side to thermodynamic laws, which clearly show that the universe is always dying.

The flip-side being of course the continual rebirth of the universe, in direct violation of thermodynamics.

THe advanced stupidity might be this glaring blind-spot in post-modern thought processes.

I read that three times Collin, and it still makes no sense whatsoever.

CAN you clarify that, or should i even bother to ask?

I'm with Reed on this, that "...a low level political appointee, a young Republican fresh from bible college, took the inititative to white out evolutionary biology." I can't forget the monkeying with language done by that low level PR officer, who claimed a degree from Texas A & M, at the EPA (I think it was at the EPA). Bush has larded the Federal bureaucracy with a raft of low and high level appointees with a oversize sense of importance, who just follow their leader and do what their god tells them to.

Goodly Sir Jam of Toe,

Evolutionary Biology is really the study of the phenomena of adaptability. I do not think anyone would disagree with this.

The term 'evolution' however is founded on the apologete darwinian narrative of 'gradualism'.

Gradualism is the theory of reverse-engineered adaptation back to some primordial goo as a bio-genesis. It has never been proven, or even observed.

In fact, the fossil record does not support gradualism, but rather clearly reveals new life forms being created in evolution-defying periods of time like the pre-cambrian explosion.

Post-modern thought places the laws of thermodynamics in the unlikely position of bio-genesis. Gradualism is an artficact of entropy, ie the universe is gradually moving towards an entropic state (lake of fire, if you please). Ergo, everything, including life, is subject to gradualism by this reasoning.

Evolutionary biology then seeks to explain life by the laws of thermodynamics, which are the laws of decay and death.

This, I believe is the crux of the problem. Are the laws of decay (death) also the laws of growth (life)? Certainly thermodynamics plays a role in adaptability: death (RM+NS pressure) is exactly what life seeks to overcome.

It is exactly these 'Laws of Life' that the post modernist is blind to, favouring rather a single unified theory based soley on thermodynamics.

At the risk sounding trollish, there is a direct parallel here between monism and dualism, but I will stop here, lest I spend enternity cleaning the little panda's room.

Urrgh.

I can't follow Collin's actual train of thought, since whatever train he's driving apparently long since Casey Jones'd itself into Sir Toe's metaphorical trainwreck.

But, peering past said smoking wreckage, the inanity of a creationist using the "flip side" of the Law of Thermodynamics to argue for creation instead of using the Law itself to argue against evolution is, ah, breathtaking, to see the least.

Collin, would you be interested in backing up your claims on your very own After the Bar Closes thread?

Now that I think about it, maybe this is another of those it's-been-boring-around-here sock-puppett leg-pulling things:

Collin DuCrance = Callin' the Cranks?

I see here again is a place to encourage reading "Into the Cool" which does a very nice job of explaining the role of biology WITHIN the framework of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics.

CRASH! (That's the trainwreck...)

This thread is about why the Fed has a problem with funding something called "Evolutionary Biology"

I should think that possible explanations might be welcome. If however, this is thread is just a pissing contest, to see who can most cleverly malign the establishment, then I fully understand the above responses.

I would have thought however that such contests would be reserved for the Bathroom Wall, after the bar closes.

Collin, your comments aren't on topic for this thread, but they are fresh, so I started an After the Bar Closes thread exclusively for them:

Collin DuCrane's Thermodynamics of Evolution.

Feel free to come over there and discuss the topic to your heart's content.

This thread is about why the Fed has a problem with funding something called "Evolutionary Biology"

— Troll of the week

"I see here again is a place to encourage reading "Into the Cool" which does a very nice job of explaining the role of biology WITHIN the framework of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics."

'Into the Cool' is exactly the kind of monist 'Unified Theory' material I was referring to.

"Into the Cool is a scientific tour de force showing how evolution, ecology, economics and life itself are organized by energy flow and the laws of thermodynamics" - www.intothecool.com

If you go back to my post #122404 you will see the dreaded Von Haekel parallel:

"He extrapolated a new religion or philosophy called monism from evolutionary science. In monism, which postulates that all aspects of the world form an essential unity, all economics, politics, and ethics are reduced to "applied biology". " - wikipedia (kw:haekel)

This might be a possible reason the Fed is being so cagey.

My observation regarding low-level civil servants, especially within the beltway, is that they are not terribly competent. Hence please reread the first comment on this thread, #122678.

There were at least three errors in the draft document. One hopes that even within the beltway these will (eventually) be fixed. After all, we need to have SMART air conditioning engineers, don't we?

Permit me to refine Reed Cartwright's hypothesis:

I suspect that a low level political appointee, possibly a young Republican named Collin DuCrane fresh from Bible college, took the initiative to white out evolutionary biology.

[Hanlon's Razor] implicitly assumes that no one is ever stupid AND malicious.

the above statement is total ingenuous coverup

Casey Jones'd itself into Sir Toe's metaphorical trainwreck.

Myself, I enjoy mixed metaphors. But that's a horse of a different drum.

Speaking of George Deutche (me assume that's who was implied), what's he up to nowadays?

"I suspect that a low level political appointee, a young Republican fresh from bible college, took the inititative to white out evolutionary biology."
- Reed A. Cartwright

Actually, its my girlfriend who is the seminarian.

All joking aside, if you think the fed is tough on evolutionists, you should maybe think about what happened to the national socialists.

Yesterday, monism came to power in Europe, to its destruction. Today, it seeks to control the world. Eerie, ain't it?

I only resist that control. Only the annointed one can defeat it.

Okay, sober now.

"Only the annointed one can defeat it"

Actually, now not so sure.

soon, I suppose, ingenuous and disingenuous will be synonyms.

OK, Collin's one-chord band is boring now.

OK, Collin's one-chord band is boring now.

Yeah, he's ....monotonous

Yesterday, monism came to power in Europe, to its destruction. Today, it seeks to control the world. Eerie, ain't it?

Europe? Doesn't the US own that?