“So I was very surprised to find Adams was a believer in and evangelist of something that sounded a lot like pseudoscience.”
Yep. The Dilbert Future isn’t online so you can’t see the nonsense directly, but to get a feeling for what Adams was like before he started backpedaling recently:
To memory, that description of The Dilbert Future sounds accurate, but I think it misses the fact that the book was not meant to be taken seriously. Given the extent to which Dilbert relies on absurdity, I do not find it particularly likely that an intelligent and relatively skeptical person like Scott Adams meant for it to be taken as truth.
I would rank explanations for what he said in the following order of likeliness:
It’s a joke
He meant for readers to ponder absurd ideas for the sake of mind-expansion,
I happen to have a copy of The Dilbert Future. You’re right that Scott Adams writes mainly for comedy. However, the end section of The Dilbert Future is more serious. Adams actually writes, “I’m turning the humor mode off for this chapter because what you’re going to read is so strange that you’d be waiting for the punch line instead of following the point.” And without re-reading the whole thing, as i recall his tone is about as serious as he promises. The serious chapter includes some quantum physics speculation, but the main idea Adams advocates is affirmations), which he ties into part of his life story.
“So I was very surprised to find Adams was a believer in and evangelist of something that sounded a lot like pseudoscience.”
Yep. The Dilbert Future isn’t online so you can’t see the nonsense directly, but to get a feeling for what Adams was like before he started backpedaling recently:
(http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v05/n12/scott-adams-responds.html)
Unflattering, but (to memory) accurate, description of The Dilbert Future here:
(http://www.insolitology.com/rloddities/dilbert.htm)
Glad someone mentioned that there is good reason Scott Adams is not considered a paradigm rationalist.
To memory, that description of The Dilbert Future sounds accurate, but I think it misses the fact that the book was not meant to be taken seriously. Given the extent to which Dilbert relies on absurdity, I do not find it particularly likely that an intelligent and relatively skeptical person like Scott Adams meant for it to be taken as truth.
I would rank explanations for what he said in the following order of likeliness:
It’s a joke
He meant for readers to ponder absurd ideas for the sake of mind-expansion,
He actually believes it.
I happen to have a copy of The Dilbert Future. You’re right that Scott Adams writes mainly for comedy. However, the end section of The Dilbert Future is more serious. Adams actually writes, “I’m turning the humor mode off for this chapter because what you’re going to read is so strange that you’d be waiting for the punch line instead of following the point.” And without re-reading the whole thing, as i recall his tone is about as serious as he promises. The serious chapter includes some quantum physics speculation, but the main idea Adams advocates is affirmations), which he ties into part of his life story.