It’s like me… if I wore sunglasses… and were a man… and a cop… and in a movie!
It’s like Skeptical Ninja Zach Weiner was thinking of me, specifically, when he drew this!
It’s like me… if I wore sunglasses… and were a man… and a cop… and in a movie!
It’s like Skeptical Ninja Zach Weiner was thinking of me, specifically, when he drew this!
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
I don’t like it – it implies that there *is* a correlation, which we know there isn’t.
@Elyse: …and your partner was only 2 days from retirement before he’s killed hired thugs.
@Karl Stevens:
There IS a correlation.
No action movies for skeptics? I will have to think about that.
Would Jeremy Brett’s Sherlock Holmes count?
I have not seen Brett’s sherlock holmes but every holmes movie I have seen and the books I have read have Sherlock making bullshit pronouncements all the way through. PZ said something about it a while back.
The Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes movie did have a fairly sceptical bent.
I say with complete conviction that the Granada TV productions of The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes staring Jeremy Brett is among the finest work ever done for television.
To enjoy fiction – any fiction – you have to buy into the story and its premises. I read and adored all of the stories as a child. I have not read them again but if my memory does not fail me, the Granada productions toned down some of Doyle’s excesses. Still, I have seen a great many actors trying to play Sherlock and IMO they all but one failed. Jeremy Brett’s performances were simply stunning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Brett
Sorry, Elyse. I seem to be wandering off topic. Do you think you might punish me?
Someone has to mention the movie “The Skeptic.”
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493451/
(original title, now “The Haunting of Bryan Becket” 2009)
The movie has it’s problems too: Seems like nearly all the characters are more skeptical than “the skeptic” character — even the “psychic” and the “paranormal researcher!!!”
Dittos on the Sherlock Holmes movie.
I’m sorry, but I think that “correlation implies causality” is really lame: It is the argument of the anti-vaccinationists! Children are diagnosed with autism around the time they get vaccinations; “therefore one causes the other.” (And it’s clear that autism does not cause vaccinations.)
For herd immunity, we have a causative mechanism. For children who die of whooping cough who have not been vaccinated, we have a causative mechanism. For the anti-vaccination claims, there is no consistent plausible theory for any causative mechanism. And there is no correlation between anti-vaccination actions, like eliminating mercury from vaccinations and results, like less autism.
Has anyone said “Ugh!” yet?
genjokoan: “Huzzah! Hear, hear!”
Jeremy Brett’s portrayal of Holmes was the best I’ve ever seen and also the most faithful to the stories, IMHO. RIP, Jeremy. I grieve that you will no longer be playing Holmes. Truely a gifted actor…His creepy “half smile” was just chilling…
To keep us way off topic, Jeremy Brett kicks ass – exactly the way I pictured Holmes while reading the stories: a huge asshole but a great rationalist (unlike his creator). I’m currently completing my collection on Amazon.
@JeffGrigg: Umm, I read it about 5 times before I realized it’s “casualty”, not “causality”.
Did I just spoil it for both all the people who got it and all the people who didn’t?
@Buzz Parsec: No, I didn’t get it either until you pointed that out. Damn dyslexia.
Another Yes Yes Yes for Jeremy Brett! He IS Sherlock Holmes. That’s why I couldn’t bring myself to see the new movie–it would ruin my vision of Holmes.
@Buzz Parsec: Heh. I was trying to figure out what had riled everyone up. I suppose it was that?
Besides, jokes are always funnier when you have to explain them ;)
@Brian G: Yes! That’s why I always explain my jokes until everyone gets them and laughs. Laugh, damn it, laugh.
Actually, once I got the joke, it didn’t really seem that funny. I think it’s because it works a little as a written pun, but not at all as an auditory pun. Maybe the hard s plus the silent u in causality make it sound too different from the soft s and barely aspirated u in casualty.
Clearly the more analysis we apply to this joke, the better.