Imagine that deep within the bowels of these Himalayan mountains of refried-shit-for-brains and monumental and limitless, intellectual masturbation there actually exists a few, small, nay, make that tiny, as in teeny-weeny kernels of legitimate, worthwhile, bonafide and even, yes, important nuggets of both knowledge and wisdom. But then imagine that some social, so-called, supposed scientist, arms you with a toy plastic scooper and a toy plastic pail, let us say, no more than a quart in capacity: and then this voodoo witchdoctor, con artist, flim-flam, hocus-pocus, refried-shit-for-brains, intellectual masturbation, psychobabbler instructs and orders you to find these hidden, golden nuggets of wisdom and knowledge with the very same worthless, feckless and counter-productive tools he has just provided you.
Daunting task, n’est-ce pas? Well, yes, of course; in a billion years or two. Probable? Well, as I see it, this monkey has about as much, in fact less, of a chance of finding that golden nugget of knowledge and wisdom than those proverbial forty million monkeys locked up in a room with forty million state-of-the-art, supercharged super computers.
The question for me then becomes, is it really worth the effort? To be thoroughly and brutally honest, I am sorely divided and conflicted on this issue, because I do see a need and a legitimate, albeit limited place for the social, so-called, supposed, voodoo witchdoctor, psychobabbler, non-science, quasi-science at best, pseudo-sciences in our lives. But I also see the very many, vast dangers of their quackery and buffoonery and yes, once more again, their ideological agendas which are remarkably and decidedly left-wing and Marxist. However this latter point is just one controversial issue too far removed for this little composition of mine.
But unfortunately, reality has a way of intruding upon even these worthless musings of mine. As for the efficacy of the social, so-called, supposed, scientific psychobabbler establishment in America today: should there be any doubt or wonder at all why so many Casey Breziks and Jared Loughtons go undetected? Unfortunately, the sad truth of the matter is that even if they were found out, the chances of their cure and our protection from them, and of their not being subject to abuse themselves from an institutional system of snake pits; with the current practice of not holding and housing these very dangerous madmen in isolated and secluded asylums but instead, placing them and supposedly maintaining them in mainstream society, well the chances of their cure and or palliation and our protection vary from somewhere between infinitesimally slim to zero.
But allow me dear readers, to return to the original thesis of mine posited concerning the intellectual legitimacy, bonafides, efficacy and worth of political science. Simply stated, the reason why I so strongly hold and vigorously maintain that the term and academic and scholastic discipline of political science is an oxymoron is the following: there is very little, or rather, there is absolutely nothing scientific about political science, whereas, as we have recently seen, especially as it relates to climate change and global warming, real science, or so-called, supposed, mainstream science, is extremely and thoroughly political, and I might add, in the most petty, vicious and vindictive manner possible as, regrettably, it exists within the long tradition of Academia.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Alan Kurtz
Irv, I'm only on page 2 and already have a question. Are you claiming credit for originating what you call the "Forty Million Monkeys with Forty Million Typewriters …" theory?
French mathematician Émile Borel laid out the idea in hard natural science terms (as opposed to the soft social sciences you disdain) in his 1913 article "Mécanique Statistique et Irréversibilité." In his 1939 essay "The Total Library," Argentine author Jorge Luis Borges traced the infinite-monkey concept to Aristotle's Metaphysics, of which you are not doubt well versed.
Despite these precedents, Irv, you date the notion back only 40 years, by which time it had already entered American popular culture. For example, comedian Bob Newhart's "An Infinite Number of Monkeys" routine from his 1960 album The Button-Down Mind Strikes Back!
2 - Boeke
Alan, did you really expect better?
3 - Irvin F Cohen
Dear Allen,
Thanks for your fucking comments. Actually I have Borel's essay "Statistical Mechanics and Irreversibility" right here in front of me, mixed in with my porn mags and pix.
Am I impressed with your knowledge of statistics, yeah, I say rather reluctantly and begrudgingly. So have a nice fucking day.
And finish the goddamn article, I just can't wait for your friendly but devastating commentary in which you will point out that I can't write a lick and that I personally am not dumb as a rock, but rather, that I am dumber than said rock. So am waiting with fucking baited breath.
4 - Alan Kurtz
Actually that should be "fucking bated breath," not "fucking baited breath." Besides, you failed to answer my question. Are you claiming credit for originating the infinite number of monkeys theorem?
5 - Irvin F Cohen
"Bated" as in mastur"bate"r breath. Yes my bad. Called an error of DICTION!
My question to you first, did you read the entire medium-sized overstuffed fucking turkey yet?
Yeah, it's been in the popular culture since the fifties as I recall, which shows how fucking dated and geezer and old fart, Methuselah-esque we two truly are.
No, I don't think I knowingly purloined it, i.e., plagiarized it. Rather I retrieved it from the depths of my memory and through the process of cultural ozz-moh-zez, and my intellectual freedom of autistic license, I embellished on an idea that I kept stored in the back of my head for the past fifty plus years.
Is that satisfactory for you Allen, or do you got to beat this dead fucking horse into fucking salami?
6 - Alan Kurtz
It's hard to finish an article by an author who continually spells my name wrong.
7 - Irvin F Cohen
Sorry Al,
Is that better? Man, your worse than a woman, a maddening petulant woman.
Oops! That's got to be fucking sexist - shit, I'll never hear the end of it now.
Just read the fucker will yah!
8 - Alan Kurtz
Your critique fails to recognize the methodological diversity of poli sci. As a study of human behavior, poli sci naturally encompasses both science and the humanities. The field's very name acknowledges its composite approach. Yet poli sci over the past 100 years has increasingly adopted the scientific method to quantitatively model and test hypotheses, refine empirical research, and apply more rigorous statistical analysis using such interdisciplinary tools as econometrics.
Even so, poli sci remains by definition an observational, not a theoretical or experimental science. For you to castigate poli sci for not being physics entirely misses the point.
Finally, please note that my name is Alan, not Al.
9 - Dr Dreadful
Finally, please note that my name is Alan, not Al.
You sure it's not Steve?
10 - Clavos
Great link, Doc!
Steve it is, then.
11 - Alan Kurtz
I gather that's what passes for "humour" among developmentally disabled British schoolboys. Am I right, Mr. Knapp? I'm sure you can speak from personal experience.
12 - Irvin F Cohen
Nice try Allen, but what about the article and its theses?
Are you saying because it's not exactly "physics" and therefore true, legitimate science, even though its title and its terminology clearly states the word "science" in it, that somehow that's OK? That somehow it is justifiable and defensible because it ain't real science?
Well, dim fuck (or should that read dim sum?), that's exactly my point - it ain't science, not even close. Econometrics - shmonometrics. That's just icing on your shit cake. Furthermore, econometrics and economics are also not what one would reasonably or rationally describe as truly legitimate science; perhaps highly subjective and "fuzzy" science at best, and just pure intellectual masturbation and bullshit at the other end of the spectrum.
So let's get this clear here, are you saying because it really ain't real science, that we shouldn't hold these intellectual, academic and scholastic frauds, phonies and charlatans up to much higher standards? Is that what you are sayin'? Alen. Well, defend that motherfucker!
13 - Cindy
Dr.D,
That is farking HILARIOUS! lmao!!!! I loved that!
14 - Clavos
Al,
Who's "Mr. Knapp?"
15 - M
Irv, given an open ended time variable, the number of monkeys is not important and the idea reduces to The Monkey Thesis -- solving much of your brown stuff problem -- where the monkey is a model for random process substitutable for by any random process for example error often referred to as 'shit' as in "Shit happens" which you deny when you you claim that no Shakespeare will result leaving the only possible conclusion being that you accept the proposition that there are no accidents at all which seems decidedly too new age for the likes of you you old bastard. It is a comfort knowing that when -- not if -- our war toys glitch and blow us all to hell we can blame the fucking monkey; would you deny our Elite Scientists their consolation and access to their motto: Not My Fault?
16 - Deano
I'm just impressed Alan made it that far into the article. I tuned out at "logorrhea" ...
17 - Glenn Contrarian
Doc! That's one of the funniest videos I've seen in a LONG time!
18 - Clavos
Mark,
You are in very rare form (#15) today!
Did one o' them equines kick or step on ye?
19 - Cindy
Must be all the bending over made the blood rush to his head.
How It's Made had a farrier on last night. It inspired me to watch a hoof trim video. I just sorta thought you just order horse shoes and then nail them to the horse.
I am surprised that the farriers in the show did not wear hearing protection when they made the horse shoes. Must be hard on the ears. And all that bending over all day. Holy smokes, that would kill me in 20 minutes, tops.
What I wonder, Mark, is, do you have to carry the anvil and equipment to the horse to do the shoes? Or does the horse come to you for shoes?
We had a horse and ponies, as a kid, and a farrier came to the place. But I guess it didn't pay that much attention.
20 - M
snow's coming...I'd rather be sailing
21 - roger nowosielski
@16
You shouldn't be. Alan is a confirmed masochist. Sorry, couldn't resist it, Irv.
22 - M
actually, hoof boot tech for riding has come so far that I spend most of my time with horses building health iron hard bare feet -- which can't be accomplished with nailed on shoes
23 - Cindy
Hoof boots! Never heard of them. Just took a look. Pretty cool.
24 - M
...but you're right, Cindy. Beating on iron which I do more now to make hooks and the like instead of shoes is noisy. As for bending over -- it helps to be 4 feet tall.
25 - Irvin F Cohen
Dear Blogo-critter-land fellow lunatics and madmen of this asylum, human zoo and intellectual three-ring circus,
Allow me to tie up some loose ends here [Edited]
RE # 4. Did I invent the Infinite Monkey Theorem or am I deceitfully and deviously taking credit for it? Again, no, I'm not that dimly lit nor that maddeningly obscurantist. However what I am doing is making fun of it [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor].
RE #s 9 & 10. STEVE was an absolute scream. Who says you slimy limies don't have a decent, hip-slapping, uproarious, rolling in the aisles, laugh oneself silly till one cries, sense of humor?
RE # 13. Cindy, "...farking HILARIOUS..." Did you mean "fucking HILARIOUS?"
RE # 15. Say whad...muddafucker?!
RE # 21. Et tu, muddafucker?