Scott Adams has this trick that he calls philosotainment.
- He announces that he is going to say something silly to wind people up
- Then he says that something is self-evident and no reasonable people can argue with it
- Then he says something vaguely plausible but wrong
- If someone questions the silly,wrong point, he makes fun of them
It works every time. Even I am falling for it.
Here’s a sample from today
I don’t think he appreciates the philosotainment benefit of watching the Dilbert cartoonist whip people like him into a frenzy.
First, I will make an argument on such a simple level no rational person could disagree. Then we will watch him disagree.
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 â€œtruth.â€
The Angry Atheist jumped on this post like a hobo on a ham sandwich
Thus, he creates a nice paradox. Either accept Scott’s wrongness or argue with it and be an idiot. It’s a no-lose situation!
PZ Myers fell into his trap but it’s worth reading if only to read what is now my second favourite argument for God’s existence:
Argument from Imaginary Improbabilities