OK. Obviously, I am not the fictional character Sheldon from the TV show The Big Bang Theory. Nor am I claiming to be one of the writers for the show. That said, I started watching the show because a coworker repeatedly called me Sheldon. After watching the show a number of times, I can only say that I take it as a huge compliment to be considered similar to Sheldon. Personally, I do not claim to be as smart as the Sheldon character is portrayed, nor do I think my social skills are quite that bad.
Please note before going on with this post that I do like the show, the song, and the lyrics. This post will really be about picking a few choice nits and giving credit where the lyrics are correct. So, why bother?
On this type of show, even as a comedy, I think they should avoid making scientific errors to the best of their ability; I am the type of asshole to point them out. Also, there are a few scientific errors in the song that are worth highlighting and may be more than mere nits, especially if you listen to the entire song beyond just the first stanza played in the opening credits. I will not post the actual lyrics here due to the risk of copyright violation. Instead, you may wish to open this link in another tab or window to follow the lyrics along with this post.
Barenaked Ladies – The Big Bang Theory Lyrics @ LyricsTime.com
Certainly, at the singularity before the big bang, hot and dense does indeed describe the state of the universe, so we’re off to a good start on the song. Nearly fourteen billion years probably is close enough, especially considering that 13.73 billion years plus or minus 120 million years would be extremely difficult to fit into song lyrics. So, even Sheldon will have to call this line a good one.
That said, I have to add, isn’t it totally freakin’ awesome that we now know the age of the universe to within less than 1 percent? Thanks WMAP!!
Skipping ahead a bit over 9 billion years to the formation of the earth is a bit of a leap, though not technically wrong. However, it’s a very human and earth centric thing to do and should be noted as such, especially since more human and earth centric viewpoints are yet to come.
Autotrophs are a really nice addition to the song. Most people have not heard the term before. I had to look it up for an accurate definition. However, the idea that they drool is a bit odd. I’ve personally never been aware of any plant or algae species that actually drools. With so many such species, perhaps there are some that do. Or, perhaps some of the extremophiles at volcanic vents on the ocean floor drool. I wouldn’t bet on it though. More likely the lyricist simply needed something to rhyme with cool. I’m not sure I could do better. Still though, drooling plants? I think not.
On to neanderthals, certainly they had tools. This line is a bit strange though since many other hominids had tools before neanderthals and other great apes also have tools. In fact, chimps were recently observed hunting with spears. Damn! Spear-wielding chimps. Who expected that one? Even crows make tools in the wild and cache particularly good ones for later reuse. Crows are particularly smart birds, of course. However, these facts make one wonder why the choice of neanderthals over homo habilis, erectus, and ergaster, all of whom came earlier and had stone tools that lasted long enough to later be found by us. Poetic license again? Perhaps. Neanderthals was probably just the right number of syllables.
All of that said, skipping ahead over 3 billion years to get to a hominid is another fairly human-centric way to view the world. Why is that hominid worthy of mention when species that have survived for several hundred million years (versus our mere 200,000 years) were not worth mentioning.
Pyramids and walls. Presumably, the song refers to the Great Wall of China and the Egyptian Pyramids, being the most famous wall and pyramids. If so, these are out of order in the song with the wall beginning around 500 BCE and the pyramids dating to about 2600 BCE.
Regarding the amount of time required for the formation of elements and galaxies, here’s a serious timeline of the universe for reference. Pick your preferred resolution for viewing it.
Given that stars first began to form 400 million years after the bang, I’m having a really hard time imagining someone taking so long to sing this song that not only the stars could form, but galaxies could as well. Sorry Barenaked Ladies. You’re way off on this one.
Regarding the formation of atoms, this PDF file from NASA states:
Eventually, the universe cooled sufficiently that protons and electrons could combine to form neutral hydrogen. This was thought to occur roughly 400,000 years after the Big Bang when the universe was about one eleven hundredth its present size. Cosmic microwave background photons interact very weakly with neutral hydrogen.
So, I’m going to have to say that a fraction of a second to make the elements is way off. Further, the only elements created directly from the big bang were hydrogen and helium. So, the bulk of the elements had to wait for the formation of stars that form the heavier elements inside them by nuclear fusion. That our planet is littered with such elements is evidence that our planet was formed out of the remnants of a supernova that released the elements from the star in which they formed. Given that heavier elements are required to make human beings, and indeed all life with which we are familiar, we can honestly say, “we are star barf.” Though, the point here is really that the elements and stars took much longer to form than the song states.
Dinosaurs. This is a huge point that is just glaringly wrong in the song.
Extant (living) dinosaur species still outnumber extant mammal species by a factor of around 2 to 1. There are over 10,000 living dinosaur species in the world, according to my Birds of the World checklist and only about 5,000 living mammal species. Since birds are dinosaurs through direct descent and for the same reason that humans are mammals, the dinosaurs most certainly were not late for their leap. Nor did they freeze their asses off. Even if one is discussing the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs, the cause is actually still a heated topic for debate. The comet that caused the Chixulub crater is probably still the dominant theory. Though there is strong evidence that numbers were declining prior to that. Either way, the likelihood of animals with such impressive gigantothermy and possibly warm-blooded enormous animals at that, freezing their asses off when chickadees do just fine through a cold winter seems quite unlikely.
Further, ignoring the existing dinosaurs and making it sound as if the extinct dinosaurs were somehow inferior is another example of a human-centric world view. We would be doing amazingly well if we could survive for a couple of hundred million years. The way things look today, we may not make it for another couple of hundred years.
By far, the biggest factual error in the song is the statement that the universe will at some time in the future contract back to a singularity in what is often termed a big crunch or, as Douglas Adams called it in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, a gnab gib. It has been known for more than a decade that not only will this not happen in our particular universe but that the accelerated expansion of the universe guarantees that our universe will end with a cold entropy death or, as suggested by dark energy, a big rip. Regardless of whether our universe undergoes heat death or a big rip, it has been known to be an open universe for quite some time. The song, written in 2007, posits a closed universe, which is by far not the dominant theory today, nor was it at the time the song was written.
As a final point, mythology and astrology are only products of the big bang to the extent that our imagination is. Certainly, there is nothing in physical observations to confirm either one. So, to put these in the list is to imply that the tooth fairy is equally a product of the big bang. It’s not wholly false, but really shouldn’t be included in a list of things created by the big bang, but rather that they are created by our own delusional minds, which, yes, are a creation of the big bang. So, a more accurate statement would be that our imagination is the result of the big bang. The delusions we dream up are still just that, delusions.
I’m sure the rest of the debate, if one occurs, will center on my prior paragraph. If so, this will be unfortunate as I already acknowledged that our imagination is the result of the big bang. So, if you choose to interpret all of our imaginary creations as creations of the big bang, fine. I understand and respect that opinion, though I somewhat disagree with it in the sense that it makes our imagination’s creations far more real than they actually are.
Just as a parting note, I am forwarding this to a PhD String Theorist I know for verification. I may make changes as a result. [editor's note 2/22/2010: I just received confirmation of the physics portions of this from said string theorist, though he declined to confirm or deny anything outside of physics, such as evolutionary biology.]
For any readers who can actually tell the difference between science and nonscience (nonsense?), please also feel free to correct me. I realize I am far from infallible. To any fundamentalist readers in the crowd who cannot distinguish science from nonsense, please consider posting on one of my many anti-religion threads rather than this one. Not that I mind the debate, just that it is seriously off-topic here.
Here’s a YouTube video of the song in its entirety with lyrics.
The first sentence in this post (“OK, obviously, I am not the fictional character Sheldon from the TV show The Big Bang Theory.”) is a complete and utter lie. Only the actual real fictional character Sheldon would have posted something containing the very content we see in this post. Furthermore, it is perfectly acceptable for a timeline focusing on Earth and people to be both geocentric and anthropocentric. (What did we expect, a Geico commercial?) And these are the very sorts of quibbles the real artificial snuggie-wearing Sheldon would and in fact did make right here. Misanthropic Scott === Sheldon. (I would have used FOUR equal signs were there a known scientific convention on the usage of such a sequence, and doubtless if there is Sheldon will tell us shortly.)
Thanks for the compliment Sviergn, despite your obvious Snuggie obsession.
Damn!! I can’t believe I missed this in my original post.
Australopithecus is generally not considered to have ever left Africa, though I think I have heard some mention of a few scientists who think that Homo Floresiensis may actually be an australopithecine, which would change that. This is certainly far from mainstream thinking on the subject though.
Further, the only deer species to inhabit Africa, and only in one small area, is the Red Deer.
Where am I going with this? Well, there’s a line in the song about Australopithecus hunting deer. This should probably have been antelope. Or, it is even possible that australopithecines didn’t hunt big game. Their fossilized skeletons often turn up in a jumble similar to the jumble of bones that fall out of a tree after a leopard kill. This would seem to indicate that the australopithecines did not have advanced enough weaponry to fend off leopards and likely not advanced enough for regular hunting of medium to large prey, in my opinion.
Regardless of the size of game though, antelope are not deer. And deer were not present in most or all of the australopitecine home range.
The English word “deer” derives from the German “Tier” meaning simply animal, so arguably it could have been an archaism. That is to say, “deer” when originally borrowed from German referred to a wild animal.
Yep. You are Sheldon alright.
Thank you.
Hello. Just wanted to comment on the paragraph you said would get you the comments… It is my opinion that the mention of mythology and astrology in the song serves to remind the listener of the creationist vs scientific viewpoints being propagated in mainstream media of late, and hopefully to skew the viewpoints of the public towards this point of view.
Nice post and high Google ratings for a search for the lyrics of the song!
jess,
Interesting point. I hadn’t considered the possibility of a political agenda in the song.
Oh, Please!
Everyone knows that Red Deer isn’t in Africa, it’s in Alberta! Clearly, as Canadians, the Bare Naked Ladies are aware of this fact.
Also, the whole Creationist/Evolutionist thing is probably a nod to Sheldon’s mother. After all, she is a Fundamentalist.
My course called Evolutionary Science Since Darwin begins in two weeks. My students, in our learning in retirement program, 114 persons with a wide range of academic and professional backgrounds, will hear the Bare Naked Ladies BIg Bang Theory song as the introduction to the course. As an ice breaker, I’m planning to ask them to point out as many errors in the song as they can. Thanks for your extensive list.
P.S. They’ve already had two quarters of pre-Darwinian and Darwinian evolution.
Callinectes,
Thank you!! That is high praise indeed. I have read a lot on evolution but do not qualify as an evolutionary biologist by any stretch of the imagination. Thank you for confirming (implicitly at least) that I got this mostly correct. As you are a teacher of evolutionary science, I truly appreciate this confirmation.
Few things with this. First being that there’s no reason to go gung ho on correcting a song. If you analyze every song, what would be the point of them anymore? Secondly, “given that heavier elements are required to make human beings, and indeed all life with which we are familiar…” is now making humans seem like the top species and appears to give you that “human centric” view you complained about several times. My last comment to you is your statement about the universe. Yes, they believe it will expand ever outward until it has only red dwarves left with minimal light, but they believe that the universe will, in fact, collapse back in on itself. On top of that, it’s believed that this ISN’T the first big bang. It’s believed that there have been multiple ones before this and that we’re actually not the only universe. With each bang, pieces of the universes break off and fly out, essentially creating other universes we have no idea about. Quite interesting what we don’t know.
Hi Regina,
I’m not going to defend my action in “going gung ho” on correcting a song. I started by saying that this level of anal-retentiveness is why a coworker called me Sheldon. Had the song specifically been written for the series, I would then defend my action by stating that there is very good fact checking for everything else on the show. Since it was not originally written for the show (I believe), my action is solely because I’m anal-retentive.
Re: heavy elements required to make humans …
Excellent point!! Touche! You caught me at my own game. You’re absolutely correct. Heavy elements are indeed required for all life as we know it on planet earth. I sit corrected. I should not have been so human-centric.
Re: Universe collapsing. No. Current theory does not allow for the universe to re-collapse this time. Hypotheses about whether the universe has done so before have somewhat of a following, but at present, no evidence. Such hypotheses regarding the formation of the universe are quite interesting. But, to say that it is believed that this is the case in the scientific community would be to claim that there is some evidence of what came before the big bang. There isn’t. Not yet.
Also regarding any other universes or even about what may be beyond the observable boundaries of our universe, all hypotheses are quite speculative and without evidence at present.
There was an hypothesis put forth by Lee Smolin in the 1990s that the universe “evolved” through natural selective forces similar to those that exert pressure on life forms. He hypothesized that universes that were long lived and had lots of black holes would pass on these traits to other universes created at the point of each black hole. That an entire universe as large and interesting as our own could be created at the point of a black hole is allowed by current knowledge of relativity and quantum mechanics. These are not bits of this universe being lost. They are merely whole new universes being hypothesized as created at each black hole. Nothing is lost to this universe.
However, Smolin’s hypothesis made testable predictions. He challenged experimental physicists (he is a theoretical physicist) to perform experiments to confirm or disprove his predictions.
I should state that I really liked that hypothesis a lot. I really wanted it to be true. I assume Smolin did as well. Though, he felt actual scientific truth was far more important. He sounded very excited about his hypothesis when I heard him lecture at the American Museum of Natural History.
More than a decade later, I had the opportunity to hear him lecture again. He stated in no uncertain terms that the experiments had indeed been carried out and his hypothesis had been disproved.
Thank you. I have been wondering if I was the only one on the planet bugged by the inaccuracy of the song’s lyrics! Anal retentive or not, I notice it every time I hear it played!
Glad you like the post. Is anal retentiveness really a bad quality? At least as a computer programmer, I always considered it a positive.
Honestly, science would have hit a brick wall a long time ago and those who complain about it would have much more difficult lives ending in horrible, now treatable diseases, had it not been for a healthy dose of anal retentiveness. Thank you for your camaraderie.
The note about mythology and astrology being created by the big bang is definitely a direct dig against those who believe such cockamamie things; the science that you disbelieve can describe the origins of what you do believe (incidentally, it can also describe the reasons why you believe it).
I have been back and forth on my love for and frustration with this show and the song we now dissect and I must say that just as with science, you can’t expect perfection the first go around. That people are trying and doing and it is being aired in such a public forum is a truly beautiful thing.
I want to thank Chuck Forre, Bill Prady and Bare Naked Ladies for their efforts in appealing to those of us who have been left out of popular culture for so long. It’s looking more and more like my children may not have to grow up in the same type of world that I and the fictional characters of this show found so difficult.
Excellent point. Neuroscientists in particular are actually studying the reasons for our belief in nonsense and non-science. One hypothesis is that ascribing will to inanimate objects, the beginnings of some forms of spirituality and even religion, may be due to hyperactive agency detection. In the wild, so to speak, humans would have had an advantage to assuming that any movement is actually a live agent, such as a lion. False positives have little or no ill effect. By contrast, false negatives could get one killed. So, such belief that everything that happens has a conscious agent behind it, would have given some survival advantage.
Similarly, humans cannot afford the risk of questioning what their parents tell them at every step of the way. This becomes increasingly true with advanced technology, but was likely true even with the advent of fire and the taming of animals. If mom and dad tell you that putting things in electrical sockets is dangerous or that walking behind the horse is dangerous or that playing with the fire is dangerous, and a child does not take these things on faith without question, that child could end up dead. So, if mom and dad tell you that you must worship some invisible personages in the sky, perhaps that would be taken on faith as well.
I think there is still a long way to go in understanding the reasons for our failure to tell fact from fiction. But, science is the only way to find the answer. Religion will never provide answers. It only blocks the asking of questions.
Religious folk will not believe this obvious statement, of course.
For those religious people reading this blog who think that they are aloud to question religion, ask yourself this basic question. If the cause and effect argument that is the strongest (though still failed) argument for the existence of god applies, i.e. if there must be a prime mover, then ask yourself, why is it never the religious folk who question where god came from? Why is it always asked from non-belief rather than from belief? If you believe in god, don’t you want to know where this god character came from? Wouldn’t that bring you closer to understanding your god? If there must be a creator, mustn’t there be a creator creator? and creator creator creator?
Why does religion reject the possibility of asking such questions?
Perhaps it’s good to note here that you are using “anal retentiveness” in the same manor that religious folks use the term “theory”, the conversational meaning as opposed to the scientific meaning.
So Bibi, are you stating that you don’t believe psychology is a science? I certainly wouldn’t list it among the hard sciences like physics. But, for studying the way the mind works, there is neuroscience for the physical aspect and psychology for the so called higher order brain functions. It may be harder to perform scientific experiments on human behavior because people are (rightfully) a bit squeamish about things like raising children in a laboratory environment. Unfortunately, most of us are not similarly squeamish about performing such testing on other sentient and intelligent animals. But, that’s a side issue.
Anyway, I was using anal retentiveness in the way that psychologists use it rather than in being literally full of shit, as opposed to anal expulsiveness which gets kind of messy when used in the literal rather than the psychological way.
Who looks to songs for facts? It’s an art form, not science. Songs are for entertainment, not informing. I don’t think anyone took that song, or any other song, seriously for finding facts of life. I can’t believe I wasted my time reading this.
Sorry you feel that way. I’m not sure what you expected knowing the character of Sheldon on the show.
What I would say is that the same people might look to song lyrics for scientific accuracy as would look to a sitcom for scientific accuracy.
And, the show has a PhD physicist fact-checking everything that is said on the show.
It was more the comments in which I was referring, not the article itself.
I can’t believe you mispelled “Descent” as Decent. Sheldon never would’ve missed that one! Hell., I noticed right away. And you not being Sheldon, but an Educated Guy, I;m a dropout.
Oh crap!! You’re correct, of course. I’m fixing it now. Thanks.
Also, major kudos to you for being the first out of 4,584 page views on this post so far to notice this. Well done.
HI!
Thanks for ALL of the comments, the original ones on the song and the comments on those comments.
This is FUN and INTERESTING. My 12 year-old son just printed out the lyrics to learn them by heart, so I am glad that we have this to refer to so he doesn’t take them too seriously. It’s also a great jumping point for discussing anything brought up in the song and/or comments. Thanks again, everyone for sharing your knowledge.
hey sheldon oviste is atuchly is 14 billions years ago
I have no idea what this means or what language some of those words are in. If this is a real message, please translate.
The thing that led me to google “scientific inaccuracies in bare necked ladies” and find this excellent piece was as a biologist the thing you mentioned in the 7th paragraph. Autotrophs drooling seems a little odd to me but I doubt heterotrophs (all those that don’t make their own food) would have fit so well unless you slurred it! Thanks again for this.
I agree that heterotrophs wouldn’t fit. However, the line could have been “the autotrophs made their own food”. I doubt that drooling is all that important except for the rhyme. My way still works, albeit using assonance rather than a true rhyme.
Has anyone attempted rewriting the lyrics to correct the inaccuracies? Knowing Barenaked Ladies, they might do a ‘Katie Melua’ and record a corrected version.
Go for it! That’s a great idea. I don’t really think I’m that good at it.
Please post the results here, or link to them if you want to maintain your copyright.
Let me first start off by saying thank you Sheldon, my girlfriend just introduced me to this series and the song has been making me twitch since the first episode. Reading through the article and the comments following it I just have a few things to add. In session 4 extra features there is an interview with the Barenaked Ladies where they claim that they were in fact asked by the Big Bang production people to write their theme song and it came right after reading a book on the big bang so they have “done some research.” That being said it is an obligation of the scientific community to point out any inconsistencies so that they are not taken as truths. So far this has been done beautifully in this article and someone should point this out to the Barenaked Ladies on a fan page or something.
For my minor contributions to the congruity of the song I would like to point out that the conditions prior to the big bang may not have been “hot.” This would have required energy to exist in a state of heat that some modern theoretical astrophysicists do not think existed at that point. Heat was thought to have been expelled from the big bang during the creation of the universe but before the big bang the laws of universe need not apply. As for the Australopithecus /red deer (Cervus elaphus) issue, according to the phylogeography report found at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790303003841 (sorry web links are not my strong point) the Red deer came into existence from 2.9 to 3.5 MYA, this lines up with the existence of Australopithecus (2-4 MYA) but as no fossils of the Australopithecus were ever found as far west as the red deer lived it would not be likely that they ever interacted. As far as African antelope are concerned their phylogeography found in Molecular Ecology, 9, 12, pp. 1997-2008 (sorry cannot find a link for it)shows a likely origin of 1.13-2.5 MYA. Even though the Australopithecus and the African antelope did share the same area there is a chance that they did not exist at the same time, and if they did than one was on their way out and the other was on their way in not making them the best of hunting buddies. Maybe they hunted an ancestor?
P.S. At work right now so my resources are limited on the ability to look up astrophysics stuff so I was not able to properly expand on that part of the topic. I believe it was some of the work Steven Hawking’s did if someone would like to look it up and report back on it.
Thanks for the reply Stix, and especially for the link about the red deer.
I’m having a bit of trouble finding a link to the earliest evolution of antelope. This link states that many evolved around the time the homo genus came onto the scene.
http://www.mesacc.edu/dept/d10/asb/origins/pulse.html
But, that doesn’t state when the earliest antelope evolved. Bovines first evolved about 23 MYA, according to some links. And, antelope are in a subgroup, so must be more recent than that. But, I was not talking about a single or specific species of antelope. I was referring to the group of species in general, which seems to contain 91 known species today, according to wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antelope
I’m sure a group this diverse did not occur only in the last 2.5 million years.
Regardless, we don’t know whether Australopithecines hunted large game at all. I was merely pointing out that they did not hunt deer, but may have hunted antelope. There are some very small species, such as dik diks. So, even if Australopithecines could not hunt large game, some of the smaller species may have been on the menu.
It’s all conjecture though, to the best of my knowledge.
I was mostly just trying to point out that it was very unlikely they hunted deer.
Perhaps more interesting is the number of bones of australopithecines that are found in similar jumbles to those of antelope that have fallen out of trees after being dragged up by leopards. This has led some scientists to believe that our ancestors may have made good leopard fodder. Perhaps our earlier ancestors were more often on the menu than creating the menu, at least from a predator’s viewpoint.
Either way we go I am sure we can all agree they were not hunting deer, unless they liked to walk all the way across Africa for dinner every day. Most of my reading so far on Australopithecines seems to agree that they ate nuts and berries and the occasional small animal, this is about 20 million years too late to consider bovines that may or may not have been in the area to be small prey. It is most likely that as you said they were on the menu not making it.
If you have access to EBSCO you can find most of the phylogeography charts in there somewhere, it just takes some looking.
I had never heard of EBSCO before. I do not have access on the site.
BTW, I forgot to mention that it’s a very interesting idea to question whether the universe was hot prior to the big bang. I had not heard of anyone doing so before. Do you have a link to any article or paper questioning that?
I would have assumed that the very high energy in a very small space translated to “hot”. But, perhaps not. Interesting.
I would say that at this point the question of what if anything “happened” before the big bang is incoherent. After all, happening requires time to happen in. I submit that the BNL were only going as far back as time itself, in which case it would be appropriate to think of as tremendously hot.
Well….. its not incoherent:
Adjective
(of spoken or written language) Expressed in an incomprehensible or confusing way; unclear.
(of a person) Unable to speak intelligibly.
Synonyms
disjointed – rambling – desultory – disconnected
It might be unknowable but I’ve seen articles about just as information leaks from black holes, there might be in the structure (information?) of the Universe a clue as to its pre-existence?
I’m guessing it will come down to how comfortable you are with ambiguity???
Incoherent is still the right term. Anything spoken of that invokes a concept supervenient on time requires time to make sense of, so in that sense any questions regarding what happened (a movement concept entailing a causal concept, [though the cause could be null,]) before (a temporal relationship concept) the big bang (the exact moment that time and space began) is incomprehensible and thus incoherent. At best, it is certainly a question couched in confusing terms. While I am not a logical positivist, and few still are, this is the sort of question that is anathema to them. There is no truth value of any sort to be gleaned from a counterfactual statement of anything that “happened before the big bang.” No such claim can be either true or fals, so exists in a logical netherworld. Questions of that nature are now and will always be incomprehensible and incoherent until and unless another universe with time is confirmed, but even then “beforeness” could not obtain, because you are dealing with two different and unrelated species of time. I cannot say QWERTYtown is south of Canada coherently, but assuming a fully functional universe where such towns exist, I can fairly say QWERTtown is west of UIOPia. To say that QWERTtown is south of Canada is not a contradiction, it is a statement without any truth value one way or another. One could argue that to discuss QWERTYtown and Canada they would have to be part of the same universe of discourse, and thus QWERTYtown is south of Canada analytically, in the same sense that in the universe of discourse that includes invisible pink unicorns, it is true that billions of elephants inhabit the exosphere marching upside down along the curvature of the atmosphere, because I can define the universe of discourse that includes invisible pink unicorns any way I wish. However, this is merely vacuous truth, but I prefer to call a spade a spade, meaningless. That being said, in the universe of discourse that contains the solar system, we cannot say that Mars is west of Earth, because there is nothing that that means. Westness requires a planetary reference point wherein it stands in relation to another reference point on the same planet, so I hold that asking any questions about beforeness wherein beforeness is impossible are unanswerable because of their incoherence.
Meanwhile, back in reality, science has long made the statement that the universe was in a state of being incredibly condensed and high energy at the instant of, or prior to, the big bang. The question here was whether that state could be described as hot. Since the concept of hot requires that energy be transferred and since there is no place to which said energy could have been transferred, it is the concept of hot that is in question here. I don’t believe anyone seriously questions that the universe was densely packed into something approaching a point at the instant immediately prior to the big bang.
incomprehensible and thus incoherent. === no. by definition.
Two things:
1. I retract my earlier statement. A bit of googling showed me that the “hot” and dense state is considered to be part of the big bang, not a precondition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
2. I agree with bobbo that incoherent is not the right word. Unknown or even possibly unknowable might be preferable. But, there are scientific hypotheses about the causes of the big bang, most notably from brane hypothesis*, one version of which posits colliding membranes as the cause of the bang. So, the discussion can be coherently had, even if there is no way to test any hypothesis as yet and even if there never is a way.
* I do not yet call any version of string or brane hypotheses a theory. They have, as yet, no evidence. Thus they are hypotheses.
I don’t have the intellectual talents as most here have, but I’ll try my hand as best I can.
JTM
Quote–
I would say that at this point the question of what if anything “happened” before the Big Bang is incoherent.
End quote–
Incoherent? No. Just an unanswered question is-all.
You read as though you’ve given-up on the question, rather than trying to answer it. And I don’t think scientists would give up so easily…why would you?
Haven’t you even pondered such questions? You’ll never know unless you try.
I’m sorry, but I’m on the side of Scott and bobbo.
These qauestions are never incoherent to the human mind, never unknowable, there just unknowns at present…and will only require time in which to answer them.
Happenings do require time, but time didn’t begin with the universe either – as our universe only has a connection with time, or partnership, and in no way did both begin at the berth of our universe.
You see, time has always existed even before our universe began…so no, you’ll never go as far back as time itself…because time had already existed in the first place.
If you have no time before a universe…then you’ll simply have no universe. Period.
So time has always existed because without it… there’s no movement, no gravity, and no singularity. Just nothing.
So, you’ll never achieve in going as far back as time itself, because time is like numbers and never ends.
Time existed well before our universe, and will continue well after its end.
To give you an analogy, in (String Theory) the membranes of two different realities, universes, or dimensions?..brush together to create our universe. And if true, would be an indication that time has always existed, and well before our universe even began.
So happenings do require time, or it won’t happen.
And lastly, if things are closer together in thebeginning as theory suggests, then things would be incredibly hot, wouldn’t they?
Hopefully I’ve been of some help.
Time, as we recognize it, is relative to us. This would put our “time” as an individual construct and make it not necessarily the same “time” that the universe proceeds in. If something existed before the big bang, then it would also have its own unique form of “time” that would likely be different from what we perceive here on earth. The idea of the universe being created by two membranes bumping into each other seems to be a faulty idea; it only serves to open the question of what created those two and what existed in the area between the two before they bumped.
I agree with the others that the use of the word incoherent on pre-Big Bang is a little off. As coherency is based on our ability to symbolically reason about it and we have been doing such for over a year now, it must be coherent. It’s just a matter of defining the rules of the mental simulation.
As for things being closer together in the beginning and therefor hot, it is speculated that the universe was hot right after the Big Bang, but the Big Bang is where our universe got matter. Without matter there is no measure of the ability of a substance, or more generally of any physical system, to transfer heat energy to another physical system. Without this ability, one cannot say it was hot. On a more humorous note, even though it was likely high temperature the lack of heat by definition would make it cold.
I really am loving this whole discussion about the idea of a “hot” universe. Apparently, from a scientific standpoint, the energy must be transferred to be heat. So, we have this bizarre state of the universe that is very high temperature, but cannot accurately be described as either hot or cold, in my opinion.
Time as we know it did start with the beginning of the universe. However, there is a tremendous amount of coherent discussion about what caused the bang. To have any discussion of this type does require discussion of the “time before the bang”. It is possible that such time does not exist. We certainly have no real understanding of what time would mean in this instance, scientifically. But, logically it is a valid realm for discussion.
Perhaps a theory of everything (TOE) or grand unified theory (GUT) will shed more light (no there wasn’t light yet) on the subject.
No GUT; no glory.
But, that won’t stop us from hypothesizing ’til we’re blue in the face or get some real scientific data or a new theory. (I’m still not calling strings a theory, nor loop quantum gravity, nor any other current attempt at a TOE or GUT. Without evidence, all of these are hypotheses, some more testable than others, but none of them tested at all.)
http://web.ebscohost.com It is a great site, you may have to go to your local library or college to gain access though. It allows you to look through many peer reviewed journals, dissertations, and other works. My girlfriend calls it playboy for geeks. Only issue is depending on where you access it from you will have access to different databases, for example at work I get all the geographical, psychological, medical, and physics stuff but I do not have the astrophysics database unless I go to the library and connect there.
As far as the pre big bang state of the universe I have read 2 different articles on it that had opposing theories on it being cold, one said that hot and cold may not have existed due to the lack of space for thermodynamics to take place in, the other said that when it was compacted to the extreme that is the big bang the atoms were too tight to allow the movement necessary for friction to occur, no friction means no heat. Section 5.2 of http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9406056.pdf covers the second one and I am having an issue finding the article on the first one. I will keep looking; it may have been on one of the databases I do not currently have access to though. Not sure what Pre-big bang theory I buy into yet but it is worth stating that this one does exist.
Thanks Stix. That is a very interesting hypothesis. I hope you don’t mind, I’m personally still considering all pre-big-bang discussions to be hypotheses rather than theories. I do not believe they are, at present, testable. Still, it’s an interesting concept. I wonder if there have been any updates since that 1994 article. I’ll keep an eye out for updates. I appreciate the information.
Oh, and I also have to confess, I am not a physicist, theoretical or practical. I’m just an interested lay person. So, at times, I will be caught without the necessary skills to truly evaluate such hypotheses.
<aside>
And, if you’re wondering whether I’m consistent on such topics, yes, I still consider String Hypothesis not to be a theory yet. There are still no testable predictions from strings (or branes). Until there are, I don’t like calling it a theory. It is too confusing when scientists misuse theory in the same way as religious folks.
So, I stick to using theory for that which has abundant evidence and has been tested repeatedly and passed. Quantum Theory, Relativity, and Natural Selection are all theories. No GUT or TOE has yet come up with a single testable prediction, let alone reached the confidence level of any of these.
</aside>
From reading around a lot of string theorist seem to go for the cold state pre big bang. I do agree that it borders on being a religious argument when people talk about string anything, but seeing as Sheldon’s job is dealing with string theory, and due to my lack of ability to disprove it, I have to validate the possibility of the hypothesis as applying to this situation. As I said before, I am in no way as knowledgeable on this topic as I would like to be and have not studied enough on it to subscribe to any individual pre big bang beliefs.
I’m sorry if I implied that string hypothesis is not a valid hypothesis and area of study. What I meant to say was simply that it is not yet a scientific theory.
One of the arguments I end up having with religious folks quite often is about the use of the word theory, as in “evolution is just a theory.” This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what theory means to scientists. A scientific theory is one that is not only testable, but has indeed been tested numerous times and continues to win out.
Relativity, quantum mechanics, and natural selection are among the most well tested theories in the history of science. I do not include evolution because it is a simple observable fact. We have seen evolution in action. It is also the foundation of all of modern medicine. We need the theories of natural selection and sexual selection to explain the mechanisms by which it works and especially to explain drug and pesticide resistance in bacteria and insects.
So, since I often end up having to define theory for the religious, I have noticed that string hypothesis is not yet testable, has made no testable predictions, and has certainly not passed any test of the types other theories have. Therefore, scientists should stop calling it a theory. It muddies the waters to do so.
I believe it is still a very valid area of research. I just don’t believe it is a theory.
I also wonder if it’s time to start diverting some of the funding for research to other promising hypotheses like loop quantum gravity and some of the others that have been arrived at by model building, a ground up rather than top down approach. I know I’m being un-Sheldon-like in saying that. But, having read Warped Passages has given me an appreciation for other approaches to arriving at a GUT or TOE.
There are three books I read back to back to back that gave me an interesting perspective on the state of research into a GUT or TOE. In order, I read The Trouble with Physics, The Cosmic Landscape, and Warped Passages. All are written for a general audience and are listed on my books page. If you’ve got the time and interest, I recommend them all highly.
They all start with the same observation that String Hypothesis has not yet produced results. And, all go in very different directions. The first concludes that it may be time to give up on strings. The second that strings offer a great variety of universes and may give us a reasonable way to use the anthropic principle as an explanation of our universe’s current state. The last describes the variety of hypotheses around today, most of which I had never heard of.
I did not take it as an implication; I just simply wanted to make clear that I do not know enough about string theory to argue beyond the math or to state the correctness if the hypothesis. I do agree with you that it is still only a hypothesis and can only be speculated about in the realm of math, therefore not testable yet in real life situations. I only call it “String Theory” due to that being the popular name applied to it by the general public. But with a large portion of people starting to adopt “String Theory” into their belief structures the existence of a “hot dense state” must be questioned.
I believe part of this issue may be that we are both starting to hit the cap of our current knowledge on the topic of string cosmology and the correct pre-universe temperature range. Without more knowledge on the topic all we can truly conclude is that the pre-big bang state of existence was dense, anything more than that would be up to interpretation of the producers and their physics expert. Due to the predominance of “String Theory” in the show I have to assume that the physics expert they consult places great value in the hypothesis. This makes me question the reasoning behind allowing the first line of the theme song to contradict the hypothesis studied by the main character.
I was not aware of the book section until you pointed it out. Those books all look very good; I will have to read them. Your description of book three is tempting me to skip the first two books but I will follow them as suggested. As most of my reading currently consist of peer-reviewed articles and journals the break will be nice.
Hey Scotty==this must be your best thread ever? or most enjoyable? I have never thought of you as sheldon. Sheldon has a better developed sense of humor? ((Ha, Ha!))
Two nigs before my..no 3..before my purpose:
1. What would a song from the viewpoint of any non-human be like? That was mentioned above, but I will second it.
2. video no longer shows. Would be worthwhile to post the lyrics at the start anyway even if the video did work?
3. Heat is created by Friction? Yes, thats true but only because the molecules are moving faster? Movement not friction is heat?
Your interest in “Big Bang” reminds me of the Video of DeGrasse Tyson being upset about the Night Sky in Titanic. He emailed Cameron about it and IT GOT CHANGED when the film was re-edited.
Not a Bazinga moment but indeed, BNL might update their song if enough grass roots interest developed.
Thanks for the high compliment bobbo. This is actually my most read post with over 11,000 page views and counting. So, by popularity, at least, yes this is my best post.
1. A song form the viewpoint of a non-human? Interesting. I’m a human. So, I can’t really claim to understand the “lyrics” of a song by another species. So, I’ll just post some samples.
Here’s a bird singing the sad tale of his own destruction.
2a. Thanks for pointing out the broken youtube link. I have provided an updated one.
2b. I did provide the lyrics. See paragraph 3 and the link below it. The paragraph explains why I didn’t post the lyrics as text, but rather provided a link.
3. Thanks for causing me to look up an accurate physics definition of heat.
Source: http://physics.about.com/od/glossary/g/heat.htm
Therefore, since there was no place to which any portion of the energy of the entire universe might be transferred, hot is probably an incorrect term to use for the pre-bang universe. High energy or high temperature is probably a better term for the dense early universe than hot.
Lastly, all I can say is wow!! I have never been given such a high compliment as to be compared in any way to Neil deGrasse Tyson. I’ve heard him speak live and in person numerous times, more often before he became a NASA bigwig when he used to introduce the speakers at Hayden Planetarium lecture series. He’s both brilliant and humorous. His intros were usually better than the actual lecture, even when the lecture was great.
I am surprised that in this video, he didn’t mention the moon. Did I miss that? When I heard him speak on the subject, he pointed out that in the movie, they showed a beautiful full moon overhead just before the crash with the iceberg. He correctly points out that were there a full moon and clear sky that night, the ship would not have crashed at all.
Anyone who has stood outside on the night of a full moon in a place with little or no light pollution knows that it’s so bright that you can clearly see all around you and can even see your shadow. A full moon therefore, would have provided enough light to see the iceberg in plenty of time to avoid it.
Your have got to be kidding. What a total waste of brain power. You are obviously a very intelligent person. I don’t understand why you would pick apart a song. ITS JUST A SONG!! A great song but a song none the less. There are standards used to write a song. One of them is they have to rhyme! They also have to flow! If all song writers thought like you all songs would be boring. Like all your posts. Although there are a ton of songs that make no sense. Did you write them?
I cant believe I wasted my time reading it. Well most of it. I skimmed over alot of it because I was nodding off to sleep reading it. My college history classes were more more interesting than this post.
Gees,
First, thank you for the compliment of my intelligence. I’m glad you think I’m intelligent. Here is my explanation for why this song should be either picked apart or not used as the theme for this show.
This particular TV show, The Big Bang Theory, has a PhD physicist checking the facts of the show before it goes out. They make a very strong effort to avoid propagating incorrect information.
I know this because I went to a science lecture presented by David Saltzberg, PhD who fact checks the show.
Further, the actress who plays the role of Amy Farrah Fowler, Mayim Bialik, actually is a neuroscientist, furthering the fact checking to include that area of expertise as well.
So, with all of that effort put into making sure the show is correct, using a song with this many errors is, IMNSHO, at least a medium sized mistake.
Wow. It’s amazing how you enjoy anything in life. Analyzing and kicking apart everything you read or hear is just sad.
I feel sorry for you .
Time to delete you.
It’s truly not easy living in my brain. Though, having your pity doesn’t change anything.
I just hope that when you say you’re going to delete me that you mean stop reading my blog.
By all means, please do. Life’s too short to waste it on reading stuff you don’t find entertaining. I enjoyed writing this. I hope others enjoy reading it. I certainly hope that those who do not enjoy reading it don’t spend a lot of time doing so.
Just one question Gees, if you do come back to read this reply, didn’t the title give away the fact that I was going to analyze the lyrics to death? Isn’t that exactly what you’d expect from Dr. Sheldon Cooper were he not a fictional character?
Hey Scotty…. didn’t you tell me long time ago something near to what Gee just did? Anyhoo…. I’m just waiting now for you to ever post that: “It is possible to please all the people……”
Going to college huh? Standards have slipped even for a major as soft as history. I mean…. why study history when its already happened? Talk about wasting time analyzing something of so little worth.
Seems to me that studying anything but the future is a total waste of time.
THATS WHAT I THINK, and now… I will hold my breath until everyone else agrees with me. Because, I am just that self centered.
Hey Scotty…. didn’t you tell me long time ago something near to what Gee just did?
It is possible; though, I kind of doubt it. I’ve been known for over-analyzing stuff for a lot longer than I’ve been blogging.
As for history, I too do not find it to be the most interesting of topics. But, some knowledge of history is important. It won’t get you into the future but may help keep your future from being filled with the mistakes of the past.
Well said!
And not all of us find you so boring, if that means anything to you.
If any civilization is to continue then that civilizations people has to learn from its past, or it will be doomed to repeat it.
And because of those in our government that aren’t adhering to the constitution, our liberty foundation is cracking and will slowly wither to dust.
Here’s the most recent BNL connected Space Songs. I did not detect any errant science, but I would not call this ballad a Rock song either.
I LOVE HISTORY. But anyone can do that one their own. College should be more preparatory for something you can’t do on your own.
http://gizmodo.com/5982968/the-first-song-composed-and-recorded-in-space-actually-rocks
bobbo,
Simon and Garfunkel is rock. This is another example of soft rock, IMHO. I’m no music expert.
What about herstory? Do you only love hisstory? For too much of ourstory, herstory has been largely ignored.
As for the facts of the song, there aren’t that many. Altitude, speed of orbit, relative speed of a bullet. These things sounded fine to me. I did check the quoted speed of the space station in feet per second and it is indeed more than twice as fast as a normal or even an assault weapon muzzle velocity, much more than twice, I think.
Other than that, I’m done checking songs for a time.
BTW, I did like this one. So, thanks for sharing.
I also do like the theme to Big Bang Theory as a song. I just can’t help but be annoyed by the inaccuracies now that I’ve done the research into the lyrics. In fact, I confess that when I began this post 3 years ago, I was expecting to have just a few nits to pick. It wasn’t until I really read the lyrics that I realized the issues I have with nearly every line of the song. In fact, I hadn’t even heard the extra verses that are not played at the beginning of the TV show.
Wow…
That post didn’t format as expected, and I guess I’ll have to have my phone checked. Please disregard this, and my previous post, as I suck at debating anyway.
Hope the year will be good for you.
All the best
Troy
Your prior post formatted exactly the way wordpress formats replies that end up too deeply indented. The extra spaces are caused by right-justifying text when there is not much space. You were missing two spaces, both before the word “is” in different locations. I fixed those.
Thanks for the reply. It’s good to know someone finds me interesting even if the feeling is not universal.
What actually surprised me most is how long Gees stuck with reading the post after deciding s/he didn’t like it. Perhaps it’s like watching a bad movie twice to get one’s money’s worth.
Pardon if this sounds absurd, but I shall ask the question anyways.
MS
- It’s good to know someone finds me interesting even if the feeling is not universal. -
Was that sentence aimed at me, Gees, or both?
I was just trying lend some support. Was that a mistake?
Expulsion Of Gods,
I was thanking you for the support while making a reference to the fact that Gees did not find me interesting. (Luckily, I have a thick skin.)
Let me try to be clearer.
Thank you for the compliment and support.
Scott
Thanks for the clarification, Scott. I was just trying to avoid a mistake between us.
Thick skin?
Glad to know that, as I also have a thick head of cement because I can be quite cynical in my replies. But, I do try not to be to insulting though…
At least not to my friends.
Thanks again
Troy
There’s a very fine line between cynicism and realism. Also, between pessimism and realism. But, perhaps I’m just being cynical.
Just for the record…. I have very thin skin. The only thing that keeps me active in contentious forums is the concomitant attribute of not caring what anyone else thinks. What a delightful coincidence?
Being fact corrected is nothing but a joy to me. Each correction makes me a better man. Being insulted by fools or strangers is not stable or reasonable. And who among us is foolish or strange enough to get upset by mere disagreement?
For some reason, I’m thinking of the funniest line ever put on film from Pulp Fiction where Harvey Keitel tells Sam Jackson: “Gentlemen, before we start sucking each others d*cks……” etc. Ahhhh…. camaraderie, its a wonderful thing.
who among us is foolish or strange enough to get upset by mere disagreement?
Lots of people! It’s one of the reasons I mostly stopped frequenting Dvorak Uncensored. Cagematch has a much better, albeit smaller, group of people who actually respond.
Cagematch is probably better precisely because it’s a smaller group. People in large groups tend to annoy me. Sometimes when I’m in a large group, I annoy myself. Herd mentality can take over and make us do things that look silly later when we’re on our own.
My prime personal example is when I’m in the NYC subway and push into the last remaining space in a car. Why? Why not wait for the next train? There aren’t enough Os in MOOOOOOOO to give a proper answer.
Thats easy….. the next train may not come. Trains are like that.
Group dynamics are interesting. Hard to be in a group and not have to demonstrate ceremonial or group behaviors. The larger the group, the more likely you are going to have to salute the flag, pray, or listen to someone drone on about things no one is interested in, but you have to stay for the oeurdovers.
A) True.
B) That doesn’t make me feel very intelligent if I can’t break free of the herd. Again, MOOOO!!!!
@Babel, the pregnated extraterrestrial evangelical priest!
Babel
–The only thing that keeps me active in contentous forums is the concomitant attribute of not caring what anyone else thinks.–
Okay, I’ll go along with that. So, you’re saying that any new member to a blog should never bother to make new friends?
Should I just go on insulting you?
I don’t understand that logic…
But if that’s what you wish…
So be it.
Babel
–Being insulted by fools or strangers is not stable or reasonable.–
But I thought you didn’t care about being insulted? And now you do? Well.which is it?
Babel
–And who among us is foolish or strange enough to get upset by mere disgreement?–
So, I’m strange, foolish, and upset?
Are you sucumbing to some sort of delirium to further highten your own pride, captain Babel?
I’m simply trying to show some respect and common courtesy, as well as to make new friends…
Perhaps you find more value in those that are more hostile towards you?
I can oblige you with that, but I’d rather not.
Question, my captain, oh captain.
If one was to show-up at your door, how would you wish them to proceed?
Should the individual show a posture of kindness, or one of hostility?
Thanks asshole!
Babel … Cute. I’ve not seen anyone make that particular deliberate typo on bobbo’s name before. And, I’ve seen a lot of people make some attempt at humor from his name. I once coined “Psychobobbo … all psychobobbo … ” in reference to an Alan Parsons song. Come to think of it, “Psychobobbo, hey ques que cest fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa” also works for those who prefer the Talking Heads.
To be clear on the being insulted issue though, I think bobbo is not stating it well in his response below. I think I actually get him on this and even agree with him.
On one hand, there is the concept of a person slinging an insult. On the other, there is the internalization of feeling insulted. When one doesn’t care about the opinion of the insult slinger, one probably doesn’t actually feel insulted by the insult. In fact, if one has enough active disrespect for the insult slinger, the insult may be taken as a compliment.
Consider being insulted by Faux Spews or the Westboro Batshits. Personally, I’d be sure I was doing something right if those nutjobs were telling me I was doing it wrong. I would feel far from insulted by anything they had to say to me … unless they paid me a compliment … then I’d really feel insulted!
Only because your response demonstrates the heart and soul of what I so cogently posted, I will do YOU the favor of parsing
The Expulsion Of Gods says:
February 17, 2013 at 04:33
@Babel, the pregnated extraterrestrial evangelical priest!
Babel
–The only thing that keeps me active in contentous forums is the concomitant attribute of not caring what anyone else thinks.–
Okay, I’ll go along with that. /// Excellent. Looks like you see the humor, the insight, the basis for equanimity and good social order. I look forward to how you develop this.
So, you’re saying that any new member to a blog should never bother to make new friends? /// Oops, bit of a right turn. Never talked about new members or making friends. So, you are jumping off the main topic: “How to deal with discourteous people” into issues of your own.
Should I just go on insulting you? /// Personality is revealed/applied when no constraints apply===like being in a crowd of people.
I don’t understand that logic…
But if that’s what you wish… //// Total projection on your part. I never said or implied I wish confrontation or unearned abuse. Again–my theme was how to avoid the damage from same.
So be it.
Babel
–Being insulted by fools or strangers is not stable or reasonable.–
But I thought you didn’t care about being insulted? And now you do? Well.which is it? /// You make a non sequitur, on par with if I gave the advice to drive with a seat belt on, you would challenge why I like having accidents. Can you see that?
Babel
–And who among us is foolish or strange enough to get upset by mere disgreement?–
So, I’m strange, foolish, and upset? /// Well, you imply that for some reason you are upset? If so, for I see no reason at all why you should be-my advice being irrelevant to the exchange on this thread, then I am forced to say yes you are being strange and foolish to be upset for so little reason, if any reason there even be. If you had taken my advice, you would not be. You would not and perhaps have maintained equanimity to see the value of what you so obviously would benefit from.
Are you sucumbing to some sort of delirium to further highten your own pride, captain Babel? //// Another non sequitur. ….. ok, I can find several contexts in which to place this statement. All to perhaps the more valid point that this comment is too vague. You’ll have to connect the missing dots yourself.
I’m simply trying to show some respect and common courtesy, as well as to make new friends… //// And yet—you aren’t. Why would you go out of your way to be insulting and challenging while maintaining you want friendship? That doesn’t make any sense at all unless your goal is to be self defeating. Kinda foolish and strange don’t you think? If you want to find friends, you should be friendly. Like I was. (In context as it has developed….”Ha, ha.”)
Perhaps you find more value in those that are more hostile towards you? /// And yet I posted just the opposite and you repeated it as part of your initial critique. do you find holding onto an idea that time limited?
I can oblige you with that, but I’d rather not. /// As I did counsel–all to your own benefit.
Question, my captain, oh captain.
If one was to show-up at your door, how would you wish them to proceed?
Should the individual show a posture of kindness, or one of hostility? /// With honesty.
Thanks asshole! /// You start and end with unjustified hostility with a middle interlude of claims to the otherwise.
Foolish, strange, inconsistent. You have a long way to go for whatever your goal is. You’ll get more out of the trip more quickly and easily if you will recognize the truth in what you disagree with. Its demonstrated in this very exchange.
Scotty—did we argue like this at the beginning, or did we grow into it? Seems to me we “mostly” stick to factual disputes and both let our lapses into personality characterizations slide off? Please don’t correct me if I’m wrong, I’d prefer to think of us as friends.
bobbo,
I’d say you’re both mostly talking past each other and reading into each others’ words that which has not been said. Clearer wording on both of your parts might make up the difference.
As for how we argue, I’d say it evolved over time.
As we’ve grown/groan to understand each other a bit better, I’d like to think we’ve reached a modicum of mutual respect.
I often do think though that if you’d take a bit of time to choose your words and punctuation more carefully, you’d probably make your points more effectively and clearly leaving less chance for misunderstanding. And, you’d do even better if you stopped claiming that everything was definitional.
A perfect example is above. I think I get what you mean about being insulted. However, the way you said it was far from clear. It was easy to misunderstand. And, your response above did nothing to clear it up. Check my previous reply above and see if I got what you meant and if my explanation is more obvious and clear. If so, that’s what I mean. If not, then perhaps I’m not clear on your meaning in the following quote either.
Being insulted by fools or strangers is not stable or reasonable.
Did I understand correctly that you meant “[feeling] insulted by [the derogatory remarks of] fools or strangers is not stable or reasonable.”
Of course, one cannot stop the derogatory remarks other than by avoiding blogging. But, one can alter one’s own internal response to the situation.
Did I get that right?
Of course you got it right. That is clearly what I said if you aren’t foolish or strange.
I lounge in ambiguity. It shows respect to those who know already and provides a challenge to those who don’t. Challenge: learning by experience of being in the moment rather than being pedantically spoken to as a child.
Denigrating “everything is definitional” when the very subject we are discussing is definitional?…… Amusing. What else did I do but define what “having a thick skin” means? I thought we were all onboard with that being a good and even necessary thing on forums?===but it applies in life as well. No Hotheads are worth much.
NOTHING AT ALL to take offense at unless one is spring loaded to take offense …… at what….. I can’t quite say. An old worn out idea expressed differently?
…..but actually…….I was riffing on a realization I came to with an ex boss of mine. ALL Bosses give their stump speech about how they are open to new ideas, and have an open door policy. I have met very few bosses that actually are. The one that did the most I cam to recognize the source of his openness: he really flat out didn’t care what anyone else thought. I cracked myself up coming to that recognition.
Can any idea be better expressed?—Of course. But playing horse shoes, I got 5 points: close enough unless you are……>>
As to us groaning together–the movement was all on your point. I have respected your intelligence and humanity from the very start…even as I disagree with it. Thats why I spend so much time trying to teach you how everything is definitional. If the conveyor belt doesn’t give out first, I have faith you will attain Nirvana.
Psychobobbo is much better. More alliterative to the original eponymity. Babel is a good first effort though and equally thematic. The boy has potential if he will remove the blinders, the chip, probably detumesce a bit too?
But I wander.
Of course you got it right. That is clearly what I said
Not really. I guessed it by knowing you and happening to agree with you on this, meaning I already thought this way. However, the way you worded it was far from clear.
I lounge in ambiguity. It shows respect to those who know already and provides a challenge to those who don’t.
You do and it doesn’t. What you do by lounging in ambiguity is leave people wondering whether or not they agree with you and utterly failing to make the point because your words can be taken to make either the point with which you agree or the opposing view. It merely leaves people guessing.
What else did I do but define what “having a thick skin” means?
If anything, you misdefined it. Having a thick skin means being able to take the abuse without experiencing serious damage. Your way means to avoid the abuse altogether. Having a thick skin would mean that when someone you respect and who’s opinion you value criticizes or even insults you, you tolerate the criticism or even the insult and manage to move on. It’s as if each of us is claiming to have a high tolerance for pain, but one of us is biting a bullet for the pain while the other is under general anesthesia.
BTW, my experience is that you do have a thick skin.
I’ll go for the anesthesia too, when it makes sense. But sometimes, one gets criticism from a known and respectable source, or possibly more than one. My father used to say, “if three people tell you you’re drunk, you lie down.”
I’m glad to know you have faith in my reaching nirvana. I don’t have any faith. Too many people have already had Faith. She’s all reamed out. (Just kidding. Experience is a good thing. Like any other physical activity, people get better with practice. Though, in Faith’s case, after literally billions have had her, some Kegel exercises might help.)
This is fascinating: “If anything, you misdefined it. Having a thick skin means being able to take the abuse without experiencing serious damage. Your way means to avoid the abuse altogether.”
For me its interesting as the “words” issued from the second party can be exactly the same with the same hurtful intent. Take “You are an asshole.” Neither you or I would be insulted or hurt by such a childish, foolish outburts===from a stranger. So–the stimulus is the same, the reaction is the same, but you want to define the mechanism of interaction differently? Fair enough. How can I argue its not definitional?
How would those two coping mechanisms deal with the same insult from a loved one? From a deeply loved one? From a loved one who is very insightful? From a loved one who is insightful and who rarely if ever criticizes. Lots of variations for the definition to take into account.
Seems to me that thick skin of the centimeter type might not take proper heed from what is being communicated whereas the other centric empathetic approach would work much better in keeping the relationship health. So–you analyze the situation. What is being said, by whom, for what purpose and effect.
Seems to me thick skin is for an elephant or a bull seal? No distinction made. Almost insensate? Or not. Funny that its all definitional.
To define is to assign a concrete set of rules to the word or phrase, to operationalize is to assign the use of the word or phrase in this setting/situation, I think the better term here would be to operationalize. I would like to point out that the debate is completely derailed, have we decided that all the stated issues with the song are factual and there is nothing more to be added?
bobbo,
You just love to send me to the dictionary. I don’t know why.
Seems that both of our definitions fit within the simple definition number 2. The elephant, and even more so the rhino, would fall into the literal definition number 1. I don’t think either of us were talking about definition 3.
Stix,
Feel free to bring up any issues or questions related to the original topic. Feel free to ask for documentation on any that sound off to you.
As for derailing the original topic, I’m fine with that. I love tangents. Sometimes they wind up being more interesting than the conversation that sparked them. Not this time, but …
Scotty, you said: “1. I don’t think either of us were talking about definition 3.” /// When that was the very distinction I did emphasize in my precedent post.
Seems to me we are not upset by insults from strangers FOR THE VERY REASON that we could/might/should be from the very same words from intimates. We consider the source and the context. Its not being well armored against all, few people don’t care about loved ones==only psychopaths? ((Armored and amored… nice.))
So, to the degree you recognize you do care about the opinions of loved ones, you DON’T have thick skin. You in fact have the same coping mechanism I set forth.
close related issue touched on here, but tangental to the BigBang–people who become too easily insulting and/or insulted. But we would have to look up a few more words for that discussion.
You were talking about definition 3??!!? Really? I would never consider myself to be insensitive to the needs of others. In that way, I am most definitely not thick skinned.
I play around with defense mechanisms that fall solidly in definition 2. I do not let myself be insulted by those who’s opinion I don’t respect. That does not mean I am insensitive to their needs. I just don’t let their opinions hurt me.
As for loved ones, and even friends and acquaintances, that gets trickier. I have already proved on one thread that my skin can indeed be pierced. But, thick skinned doesn’t necessarily mean impenetrable. Even rhinoceros skin can be pierced, as evidenced by the poaching of rhinos.
But, my defense mechanisms are generally different for those I care about. I would attempt to evaluate whether I could see their side and agree. If so, I would work to improve in the area. Most of those about whom I care would be likely to be giving constructive criticism. Even if they are angry at me at the moment, I would assume that they might have some validity to their point. I would try to consider and determine whether I need to correct or at least acknowledge a deficiency. At worst, I would generally agree to disagree or some such.
I would view both of these defense mechanisms though, considering the source and attempting to reevaluate, to be under definition 2. I’m rarely heartless enough to play with definition 3. I would view definition 3 as beyond thick-skinned and all the way to callous.
Since I’m on a roll and DU is dead, as is too often the case, let me parse:
Stix says:
February 19, 2013 at 09:28
To define is to assign a concrete set of rules to the word or phrase, to operationalize is to assign the use of the word or phrase in this setting/situation, /// Concrete sounds like we are being inflexible whereas the truth/goal is just the opposite. We take one of several definitions and analyze it, just as with the song. I can accept “operationalize” as a label to distinction I made. As good as any other. I think I said (memory only, no peeking here) I process the insults in a certain way. Process vs Operationalize. Pretty close.
I think the better term here would be to operationalize. I would like to point out that the debate is completely derailed, have we decided that all the stated issues with the song are factual and there is nothing more to be added? /// Overly broad. Again from memory, seems to me the discussion is only about the scientific facts recited/referred to in the song. Dick Clark would analyze two remaining elements: the Beat and Dance-ability of the song. We’re geeks, or geeks wanna be’s, or linguistic wannabes. Someone said the song was “catchy.” But beat and dance-ability are very value laden–not a good basis for a factual analysis. To those issues, as with insults, I would say: find your pleasure where you may. Avoid the rest.
Regarding the derailing of the thread, for me, the unusual bit is seeing a thread go as long as it did without largely getting derailed. Except for a few comments about whether the topic was an appropriate one for discussion at all, the majority of topics for nearly 3 years did stay on topic.
Bizarre, IMHO.
Of course, anyone who wishes may feel free to go back to the main topic of conversation at any time. I tend not to moderate conversations much. I like to see where they go. And, since I’m not offended by cursing, I really only censor obvious spam. I haven’t even had to delete any trolling on my blog yet. I’d probably delete true hate speech if anyone tried that on my blog. Otherwise, I pretty much set the conversation free.
“the autotrophs began to drool” is a lyrical reference to the appearance of heterotrophs, I suspect. Life began eating each other for sustenance.
Hi Luke. Interesting interpretation. Not bad. I suspect they wouldn’t be autotrophs anymore. But, still, it makes it sound a bit better. Thanks.
Being single celled neither auto nor hetero trophs drooled at all. So, autotrophs were the first form of life. Good place to start the progress of life?
I assume cynobacteria drool when the sun rises over the horizon?
Probably correct.
However, just to play Bare Naked Ladies’ advocate, isn’t it possible that they drool by osmosis through their cell walls?
OK. No. I just figured I’d bring up the possibility.
Well…… not to get tooooooooo anal about it, even though I know you are a student of the anal, I would say that drooling is a conditioned reflex that only exists in higher complexity BRAINS. You know—more than one cell? So, I gotta conclude that line by the BNL is just total fubar. No scientific basis at all====”♫ But its got a back beat you can’t miss it…..”
Ack.
A small song for father, and I require no pity.
End of jaunt
I was thinking and dreaming of the warmth you sent my way,
In those days after work you always took the time to play,
Immersed in this time,
Awashed in love now only divide-
Looking inside the book and slowly fell from grace,
Kicking me while down to put me in my place,
End of jaunt!
I’ve only ever wanted peace-
It’s the end of jaunt!
I’ve begged you for release-
End of jaunt!
Now forever marked as the beast-
It’s the end of jaunt!
Longing for closeness again-
But can’t seem to make amends-
The love that we both shared is forever gone—
Birthday, and fishing trips–
Sometimes you even scared me shitless—
But now in death I guess you’ve gotten what you want–
End of jaunt!
As you start to fade away and I beg you to stay, you clinch my hand, I see death in your eyes—!
Memories are flashing over again of good times we had spent, I lift you up as I said goodbye—!
End of jaunt!
No more suffering nor needs-!
It’s the end of jaunt!
Your ashes scattered under that tree-!
End of jaunt!
Endlessly broken I’ll be-!
It’s the end of jaunt—-
Goodbye dad
You have my deepest condolences. No pity though. Just sympathy and empathy. I don’t believe that you will be endlessly broken. I do think you’ll recover and be left remembering only (or mostly) the good.
I prefer “bent” over broken. But people choose their own reactions, knowingly or not. As I grow older, I find my feelings for dear old dad lessening some what. All part of turning into an old woman as I age.
I guess Mom bent me too. I’d love to talk to them both. Not at the same time of course.
Thanks for the quotes bobbo. They help a lot. They almost kept me from briefly thinking you preferred to be “bent over”.
I hope a little levity at this time does not offend you Troy. I just have a hard time avoiding even small amounts of humor at bobbo’s expense at every opportunity.
Yep….. you aren’t Misanthropic for your deep insight!
(smile!)
Deep Insight is a good name for the main male character in a porn flick geared toward a more intelligent audience … or would be if such a flick ever existed.
No. I’m not going to google to check.
Bobbo?
When “bent over”, did person enter deep in your…(thoughts)?
Hope you don’t mind the question, but I couldn’t resist.
You two are very funny!
Scott?
That little segment between yourself and bobbo was fucking priceless!
LMFAO!
But you know something, Scott? You just may have something here.
For instance; when reading the sentence that he preferably likes the term ” (bent over) broken”, and then said: “All part of turning into an (old woman) as I age.”
This would lead on to think that maybe, bobbo is an old woman who likes being bent over a broken table? Perhaps bent over a broken desk?
Hopefully you both didn’t mind me expanding the joke.
I thank you for the guidance and support through all of this, Scott. And I apologize again for my outbursts, and any offensive remarks that may have been directed your way. But, I don’t really think either of us were truly being that offensive to the other though. But when meeting others for the first time I sometimes have difficulty reading them, and that compiled with my other problems is what sent myself spiralling out of control, when I should’ve been a little more patient in the first place. I’ll try to be a little more mindful of this in the future.
I’m usually not that offended by what others say anymore, but it’s been very difficult for me lately. Hope you understand.
All the best
Troy
I was not offended by any of your comments.
everyone knows the best porno name male is “Buck Naked” (George from Seinfeld) and female is “Porcelain Bidet” (lifeguard on Son of the Beach).
You two certainly are easily amused. My one eyed trouser snake has deeper insights than either of you. Isn’t Sleeper by Woody Allen one of the most intellectual porno flicks….. the Orgasmatron?
How I Met Your Mother had a better name, IMHO, Lance Hardwood.
I don’t consider Sleeper to be whacking material. If you do, you need better porn. In my opinion though, the best sex scene in any Sporting-A-Woody Allen film is not even from Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Sex But Were Afraid to Ask, but was from Love and Death.
Note the clock near the start and end.
Lance Hardwood is now at the top of my list. The Love and Death Scene is also excellent. Imagine getting PAID to be in such a scene. Makes me mourn my life decisions. Beautiful Woman–but I don’t see much “intellectualizing” going on. Is intellectual porno an oxymoron??
That actress is SO pretty in that scene. I’ll have to google and IMDb her. I enjoy finding such beauties and then finding other films they were in and then try to figure out how/why I didn’t notice them without their clothes off.
Simple things.
For me, since the brain really is the sexiest organ in the human body, I often find actresses more attractive if the role I remember them for was an intelligent character. Since I don’t know them in life, that’s all I have to go by.
For example, even though Daryl Hannah has been in some stupid movies as well as some very good ones, I always think of her as Roxanne, where she played an astronomer.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093886/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/11874_584296168258065_1681066008_n.jpg
I hope you don’t mind that I inlined your image. It’s cute. I saw that on FB too. It’s untestable, of course, so much more of a hypothesis than a theory. If it were proven true, it would essentially make these spacecyclopstopi the god(s) of deism.
Nope. I assumed you would. Your edits always make me look better. ((I could use you on my resume?))
$ure. For a fee.
Couple points. The autotrophs began to drool is a metaphor for evolution. The Neanderthals aren’t represented as inventing tools, they “developed” tools. Again, this is in keeping with the idea of an evolving group. For me, the place (in the theme rendition for te show) that they did get wrong was putting the “Great Wall of China” ahead of the pyramids. No question that the time line is wrong there. Otherwise, I think the theme song matches a great shw, brilliantly.
At least that’s my take on it.
Sorry for the typos, but I’m very tired.
I would agree with Nitrous that the autotrophs “drooling” would be a metaphor for the evolution of heterotrophic life from simple prokaryotes. That said, I do not think we’re meant to take the order of things at face value. The lyrics also order math, science, history. The Greeks developed math and history, but science as we know it did not exist until Francis Bacon developed the scientific method in the 1800s, though natural philosophy predated it by the Greeks as well, namely Aristotle who could reasonably thought of as the father of biology, though his conclusions about anatomy were rather far off and based on teleology rather than evolution. Even if we call the heroic efforts of the natural philosophers science, history started before either math or science. History happened the first time anyone in civilization conveyed information in writing to a subsequent generation about the generation extant to the author, roughly .01 mya. Also, obviously Deuteronomy came before Encarta, so I would say that their building the Wall before the Pyramids was to fit the meter rather than to make a claim about the order in which things occured.
The Greeks developed history in the same sense as neanderthals developed tools. History existed, they made it into an art.
I agree wholeheartedly in concept. I was not aware of neanderthals making tools into an art. I thought that was first done by cro magnons (us). Do you have any info suggesting that neanderthals made art?
(google break)
Neanderthal art: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/jun/14/neanderthals-first-create-cave-paintings
Interesting. Not artistic tools, but art nonetheless.
Anyway, history exists for chimps. They don’t write it down. But, even their current dominance hierarchy is based on a history of coalitions, fights, etc.
I wonder if humans can be said to have raised history to the level of art contained in a beautiful double helix. Probably not. There is history in every strand of DNA dating back to just a few hundred million years after the formation of the planet. At most, our own written history doesn’t even cover the dawn of agriculture. We have to reverse engineer that history from archaeology.
I can accept some debate about the ordering of events. Given that there are other stanzas of the song that sort of restart, we must accept some out of order bits. But, I still think that the order should remain somewhat significant within a stanza.
As for the metaphor of drooling autotrophs, I don’t really agree with that one. Autotroph is not an evolutionary family/clade/taxa. It is a description of lifestyle. Those species that make their own food do not drool.
If the line is “and autotrophs BEGAN to drool” I think this cannot be taken as anything other than a metaphor for evolution. Has nothing to do with taxa but rather with the action verb: “began.” Began what? …drool. How can a single cell organism drool? IT CANT===until it evolves.
bobbo,
Where did you get the idea that autotrophs are single-celled? Trees are autotrophs. Any organism that produces its own food is an autotroph.