# Scott Adams's online book, "God's Debris." **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [June 17, 2006, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adamss-online-book-gods-debris/361032 "2006-06-17T03:49:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adamss-online-book-gods-debris/361032/1 "2006-06-17T03:49:50Z")
SCott Adams has written a serious, non-Dilbert book in which he explains the universe. No, I’m serious. And you can download and read it for free: [http://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/godsdebris/](http://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/godsdebris/) The book is written as a conversation between Adams-as-an-all-seeing avatar (the word he uses) and a character who serves as Joe Everyman. I’m curious as to what others think. In my honest opinion Adams has achieved the publishing equivalent here of the Peter Principle; he’s clever enough to string his ideas together, and it’s pretty well written, and I’ll grant his conclusion is sort of unique and cool, but his book is rife with terrible logical leaps and problems and errors of fact, and one section that - I don’t know how else to put it, but he seems to think Silicon Valley is the center of the universe. You’ll know what I mean when you get to it. ---
**Author:** ![Khadaji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Khadaji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khadaji)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 10:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adamss-online-book-gods-debris/361032/2 "2006-06-17T10:05:34Z")
I thought it had a strong premise and a real strong opening. But petered out. It has been a long time since I read it so I don’t remember many details (which itself is a commentary.) ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adamss-online-book-gods-debris/361032/3 "2006-06-17T10:28:42Z")
I’m only in the very early chapters, but there is something I have to get off my chest: Laymen shouldn’t use quantum physics in a philosophical context unless they’re _terribly_ clever. Scott Adams is a smart man, but he doesn’t quite pull it off. The whole outing seems pretentious, but perhaps that feeling will fade as I get more deeply into the work. ---
**Author:** ![volvelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/e0b2c6/32.png) [@volvelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/volvelle)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adamss-online-book-gods-debris/361032/4 "2006-06-17T15:43:38Z")
I wrote Adams off when he came out on the pro-intelligent design side. He seems like a bit of a nut. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adamss-online-book-gods-debris/361032/5 "2006-06-17T18:57:57Z")
> [@volvelle](#): > > I wrote Adams off when he came out on the pro-intelligent design side. He seems like a bit of a nut. Yeah, he trots out the “evolution can’t be right because of the second law of thermodynamics” chestnut, which has been debunked on this board alone maybe a thousand times. It’s painfully obvious when he discusses evolution that, like a lot of its critics, he’s just ignorant. He’s not a nut; he just thinks he’s smarter than he is. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adamss-online-book-gods-debris/361032/6 "2006-06-17T19:06:32Z")
My description, when I read the book (printed version) about a year ago: “A ‘thought experiment’ in which the Dilbert creator gets all philosophical ‘n’ shit. It’s short, a quick and easy read, and mildly thought-provoking, I suppose, but not nearly as mind-blowing as Adams seems to think it is. I’ve read better stuff here in Great Debates.” And while searching for that, I stumbled across the previous thread [Spoil “God’s Debris” for me](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=259161) ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adamss-online-book-gods-debris/361032/7 "2006-06-17T19:07:15Z")
> [@volvelle](#): > > I wrote Adams off when he came out on the pro-intelligent design side. He seems like a bit of a nut. I was surprised to read this. It isn’t quite true. > **[The Dilbert Blog](https://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/)** > > Dilbert humor, business absurdity, the meaning of life > [@](#): > > The other problem for people like me is that the “good” arguments on both sides are too complicated for me to understand. My fallback position in situations like this has always been to trust the experts – the scientists – of which more than 90%+ are sure that Darwin got it right. But the rest of his post explains a lot about why the ID myth can’t be put to rest. Adams essentially says that not only is it too complicated for him to understand, but that he doesn’t want to put in the effort to try to understand it. And because that’s true he’s willing to give equal weight to both sides. It doesn’t matter that one side has a molecule of fact and the other side a neutron star’s worth. There’s a “controversy” so they both get time in his head. This pretends to be a balanced and cynical viewpoint, rather than someone talking out of his ass in pure ignorance. (His other comments would be torn to shreds in a hurry if he posted them here.) I haven’t read God’s Debris, but from the comments I’ve seen on it, I’d be willing to bet that his arguments in that book are just as uninformed, especially on science. Fortunately, it doesn’t make any difference. No one has paid any attention to Scott Adams for years. He had one joke and he beat it into the ground back in the 90s. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adamss-online-book-gods-debris/361032/8 "2006-06-17T20:45:26Z")
> [@Exapno Mapcase](#): > > But the rest of his post explains a lot about why the ID myth can’t be put to rest. Adams essentially says that not only is it too complicated for him to understand, but that he doesn’t want to put in the effort to try to understand it. And because that’s true he’s willing to give equal weight to both sides. It doesn’t matter that one side has a molecule of fact and the other side a neutron star’s worth. There’s a “controversy” so they both get time in his head. There was once a neutrons star’s worth of facts that the Earth was the center of the universe. I would agree that his scientific knowledge is somewhat lacking. For example he asks “what does the first member of a new species mate with?” like a baboon is going to give birth to a gorilla. I would imagine that the changes are gradual and it’s only after many generations of isolation from the rest of the species that a particular population would be so different that it was no longer compatible with it’s parent species. But I don’t think he’s coming out in favor of ID. I think he’s merely saying not to be so arrogant that you think you know the answer. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adamss-online-book-gods-debris/361032/9 "2006-06-17T21:07:33Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > For example he asks “what does the first member of a new species mate with?” Is that kind of like asking “Whom does the first speaker of a new language talk to?” ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adamss-online-book-gods-debris/361032/10 "2006-06-17T21:35:26Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > But I don’t think he’s coming out in favor of ID. I think he’s merely saying not to be so arrogant that you think you know the answer. That’s what he’s says, but if you read his words carefully he doesn’t even understand the problem well enough to ask the right questions so he can’t possibly come up with the right answers. He’s fallen for the propaganda that ID is worthwhile if it appears to poke holes in Darwinism. Leaving aside the fact that all those “holes” have been refuted in copious detail, that’s approaching the issue in exactly the wrong way, albeit the way that religious propagandists want. The correct way to approach this - as any scientific issue - is to ask the first principles. How does ID work? How does it account for the available evidence? What can it tell us to look for that we haven’t yet found? Note that this does not mention Darwin and evolution at any point. Real scientists go about the process in exactly this way. There is an example in the current New Scientist in an [article](http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025551.000.html) on how using an analogy to superfluids can explain the formation of the universe from a black hole singularity. The originators didn’t sit there saying we don’t like inflation, it has these flaws: they built up the physics from scratch to show how it accounted for features we see. Now they’re saying exactly what else they would need to account for to make the hypothesis stronger. That’s science. ID is not, and doesn’t even bother to follow the scientific method. That’s what I’m saying Adams doesn’t understand. Without that of course every bit of noise is equivalent. But when you look at the issue through normal scientific lenses, “teach the controversy” is reduced to pure noise. There is no controversy. None. One is science, one is not. They are not two sides of anything. As long as scientists play the game of responding to the “holes,” however, the public will not begin to understand this. Adams shows us why. > [@](#): > > There was once a neutrons star’s worth of facts that the Earth was the center of the universe. Absolute utter nonsense. There was a belief, to which all evidence was skimmed, filtered, and skewed. It’s a good analogy, to be sure, but to the other side of what you think it is. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2006, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adamss-online-book-gods-debris/361032/11 "2006-06-17T21:47:12Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > I think he’s merely saying not to be so arrogant that you think you know the answer. The Earth is made of custard. Do you think that’s a stupid idea? Do you think the Earth is made of rock? Don’t be so quick to dismiss me. You shouldn’t be so arrogant to think you have all the answers. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adamss-online-book-gods-debris/361032/12 "2006-06-18T08:10:10Z")
Ugh, I almost managed to convince myself that that book was written by ANOTHER Scott Adams who just happened to share the same name. It was a load of pretentious tripe trying to masquarade itself as something far more profound. ---
**Author:** ![drewcosten](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@drewcosten](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewcosten)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adamss-online-book-gods-debris/361032/13 "2006-06-18T14:06:59Z")
I was always under the impression that we weren’t supposed to take the arguments in “God’s Debris” too seriously. The Synopsis does say: “Imagine that you meet a very old man who—you eventually realize—knows literally everything. Imagine that he explains for you the great mysteries of life—quantum physics, evolution, God, gravity, light, psychic phenomenon, and probability—in a way so simple, so novel, and so compelling that it all fits together and makes perfect sense. What does it feel like to suddenly understand everything? God’s Debris isn’t the final answer to the Big Questions. But it might be the most compelling vision of reality you will ever read. The thought experiment is this: **Try to figure out what’s wrong with the old man’s explanation of reality.** Share the book with your smart friends then discuss it later while enjoying a beverage.” ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2006, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adamss-online-book-gods-debris/361032/14 "2006-06-18T22:53:48Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > The Earth is made of custard. > > Do you think that’s a stupid idea? Not at all. I really _like_ custard. I await the coming of the Big Holy Spoon. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2006, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adamss-online-book-gods-debris/361032/15 "2006-06-19T07:10:09Z")
I’ve read some of Adams’ “serious” writing - he repeatedly makes the error of assuming that anything he personally doesn’t comprehend is not comprehendable. He appears to believe that the scientists who actually understand the subjects that are beyond him are just faking it and can be dismissed. ---
**Author:** ![Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a8b319/32.png) [@Spatial\_Rift\_47](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spatial_Rift_47)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2006, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adamss-online-book-gods-debris/361032/16 "2006-06-19T18:09:42Z")
This book is 2 parts basic sociology and 1 part pop science. The basic sociology in this book is things like the mind as an illusion generator, people taking comfort in collective and useful delusions, science as a belief system, the useful fictions in science becoming accepted as fact, and even the idea of god as a metaphor for society and environment. The pop science is almost everything he said about biology and physics. I was especially amused at the God-dust theory of gravity, which is Newtonian gravity in different language. > [@God's Debris](#): > > “There is one other factor that influences the position of matter when it pops back into existence. That force is inertia, for lack of a better word. Although God-dust is unimaginably small, it has some probability of popping into existence exactly where another piece of God-dust exists. When that happens, one of the particles has to find a new location and alter its probability. To the observer, if one could see such tiny happenings, it looks like the particles collide and then change direction and speed. The new speed is determined by how far from its original spot the God-dust appears with each beat of the universe. If each new location is far from the old spot, we perceive the object to be moving fast.” > He continued. “So there is always a dual probability influencing each particle of God-dust. One probability makes all God-dust pop into existence nearer to other Goddust. The other probability is that the dust will appear along a straight line drawn from its past. All apparent motion in the universe is based on those competing probabilities. > “Earth’s moon, for example, has a certain probability of coming toward the Earth and a certain probability of moving in a straight line. The two probabilities are, by chance, in balance. If gravity were a tugging force, the way we normally think of it, there would be some sort of friction, slowing the moon and eventually dragging it to Earth. But since gravity is nothing more than probability, there is no friction or tugging. The moon can orbit almost indefinitely because its position is determined by probability, not by tugging or pushing.” Adams completely ignores that Newton, the person whose gravitational theory he is contesting, was the guy who introduced the concept of inertia, the term Adams co-opts for his “solution” to Newtonian gravity. Also, if gravity could be re-formulated into a probabilistic theory this easily, physicists would have done it already in attempting to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2006, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adamss-online-book-gods-debris/361032/17 "2006-06-19T20:32:45Z")
> [@Thudlow Boink](#): > > And while searching for that, I stumbled across the previous thread [Spoil “God’s Debris” for me](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=259161) As the guy who started that thread, I’ll note that I finally did read _God’s Debris,_ and came away thinking it was meh. Aside from a glorified version of a Socratic dialog, the science and logic seems rather slapdash throughout (though I note Adams tried to cover himself by prefacing the novel with saying there are “deliberate mistakes” for the reader to find :rolleyes: ). It does introduce some fun questions that could be used as conversational icebreakers, but that’s about it. ---
**Author:** ![chorpler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chorpler/32/2888_2.png) [@chorpler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chorpler)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2006, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scott-adamss-online-book-gods-debris/361032/18 "2006-06-19T23:36:10Z")
Yeah, he says that you’re supposed to find the flaws in the old man’s arguments, but there sure are a lot of them, and often the old man sounds like a smug ignorant moron arguing from the fallacy of personal incredulity. “I don’t get it, so it can’t be true.” I really enjoyed his “sequel,” _The Religion War_, a lot more. It’s basically a sci-fi novel, and even though the main character is the guy who is being lectured by the Avatar in the first book (who is now an old man and is the Avatar himself) who uses weird logic and “patterns” in a completely unbelievable way to bend people to his will. I still enjoyed the book.