Cow and Boy is not Calvin and Hobbes, but…

January 31, 2007 | By | 6 Replies More

This Comic strip often takes a pointed view of popular perceptions.

For example, today’s Cow and Boy strip:

Cow And Boy 1/31/2007

This seems all too familiar. One side framing an issue for debate, and the other sidestepping the frame because it doesn’t fit their world-view. We see a lot of this out in the blogosphere, and in the media, and in the schools, and so on.

Share

Tags: , , , ,

Category: Communication, Evolution, Recommended Reading/Films/Sites, Religion, Science

About the Author ()

A convoluted mind behind a curly face. A regular traveler, a science buff, and first generation American. Graying of hair, yet still verdant of mind. Lives in South St. Louis City. See his personal website for (too much) more.

Comments (6)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Dan Klarmann says:

    Learning to discern belief from reality in the comics:

    As this Over The Hedge comic reminds us, Philip K. Dick defined "Reality is that which refuses to go away when I stop believing in it."

  2. Scholar says:

    I suggest you folks check out the *Dilbert* intelligent design controversy which just keeps getting better with time, like a fine french wine…

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/01/will_s

    Erich/Grumpy, is there any way to search the contents of DI.org? If not, it would be a neat feature to consider, especially now that it take half an hour to load the main page…and even longer to find things.

  3. Scholar says:

    Oh, I get it, I had been using Erich's name as the homepage, now I see the search button. (and I know how to spell parallel)

  4. Erich Vieth says:

    Scholar: Yes, the homepage is the usual entry point to the site. There, you'll find a search option. The homepage loads very quickly (or it should do so). I recommend the home page as the usual entry point to this site over entering through the author pages, which can take awhile to load.

  5. Ben says:

    "Let me put this in perspective. You might be willing to accept a 10% risk of going skiing and getting hurt, but you wouldn't accept a 10% risk of a nuclear war. The larger the potential problem, the less risk you are willing to tolerate.

    An eternity in Hell is the largest penalty there could ever be. So while you might not worry about a .00000000001% chance of ending up in Hell, you can't deny the math. .00000000001% of eternity is a lot longer than your entire mortal life. Infinitely longer.

    As I’ve mentioned in this blog, when people associate with a point of view, they begin to lose objectivity. For example, if you were President of the Unicorn Association of America, and spent your days explaining how wonderful unicorns are, you would become married to that viewpoint. If 400 peer-reviewed scientific articles suddenly appeared indicating that all unicorns are pedophiles, you would be unable to accept that evidence. That’s how normal human brains work, i.e., crappily.

    There is no meaningful difference between an agnostic who understands science and a weak atheist who understands science. Neither believes the case for God has been made, and both accept the peer reviewed science showing the fragility of the human mind for knowing “truth.”

    The phrase “weak atheist” is apparently nothing but a weasel self-label for agnostics who have picked a side and don’t want to be seen as giving any opening to religion. It is politics disguised as philosophy."

    http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2

    "I'll send you to PZ's Hell when you die. You should worry, because every torment in my Hell is a million times worse than the torments in the Christian Hell — every magma smoothie is a thousand degrees hotter than theirs, to every poke with a pitchfork we add…"

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/scott_

    "Scott Adams (Dilbert) frequently reveals persistent and deep-seated ignorance when he strays very far into scientific and philosophical matters on his personal blog."

    http://atheism.about.com/b/a/259315.htm

  6. Dan Klarmann says:

    Pascal's Wager: Eternal punishment in hell is bad, if it exists, so you might as well believe in exactly the correct faith in exactly the correct way, never straying into any of those myriad competing false faiths (Baptist vs. Sunni vs. Methodist vs. Shi'ite vs. Catholic vs…)

    The odds of there even still being a vestige of the originally intended church of the true faith for Man is pretty slim, even if you were of a mind to accept it. If it is still on the menu, then the majority of the truly faithful have obviously neglected to select it.

    Scott Adams demonstrates his order of ignorance about science and philosophy in all of his writings. He is very good at lampooning corporate culture, and that's as far as I trust his opinions. I'll leave entertaining him with ripostes up to other LaManchians. LaManchites? La Manchans?

Leave a Reply