The old man’s explanation of the universe’s origin, for instance, was novel to me.
The philosophy of God’s Debris does have its merits. Thus, the fact that the old man’s arguments are flawed says little about the validity of the skeptic’s creed. It’s not at all clear that the explanations presented are simpler than the alternatives.
Adams claims that the old man’s philosophy stems from the “skeptic’s creed”–that the simplest explanation is probably the correct one–but he gives no justification for this claim. Would Adams’ thought experiment have been any different had he presented the old man’s views as his own? No–we would still read his work skeptically. One should read any work skeptically, and a work making metaphysical claims deserves an especially close look. Second, I don’t find Adams’ thought experiment particularly interesting. I’m wary of an author who won’t put himself on the line. First, Adams’ unwillingness to stand behind any of the views he presents feels like a cop-out–one wonders if he wrote the book, saw the obvious flaws in his (the old man’s) arguments, and then decided to publish it anyway with the disclaimer. I have a couple problems with this approach. The old man is presented as an oracle (of sorts), and the delivery man is there mainly to keep him talking.Īdams disavows the beliefs presented in God’s Debris, stating that the “thought experiment” is to discover where the old man goes wrong–where his beliefs make leaps that defy logic. The two have a long conversation that covers physics, metaphysics, God’s will, free will, religion, evolution, extra-sensory perception, and motivational psychology (not to mention the kitchen sink). In God’s Debris, Dilbert-creator Scott Adams lays out what he calls a “thought experiment.” Adams frames the meat of his book–a long conversation–in a meager plotline: A delivery man comes to a house one day, gets no response to his knock, steps inside, and is greeted by an old man.
0 kommentar(er)
