ICP and "Miracles"

[bascule]

Anyone familiar with the band Insane Clown Posse is probably aware they're not exactly the sharpest tools in the shed. Their latest music video, however, takes the cake:

 

_-agl0pOQfs

 

They've got a "theory" about magic and miracles!

 

Rainbows, giraffes, and magnets! These things cannot be explained. They are miracles. Their children look like they do (I assume they mean under the facepaint). It's a miracle! F*cking magnets, how do they work? I dunno, it's a miracle!

 

"I don't want to talk to a scientist. Y'all motherf*ckers is lying and getting me pissed!"

[ydoaPs]

Go drink some Faygo

[Moontanman]

I think snakes are miracles, I mean really, how do they move? It looks like a miracle to me!

[pippo]

Isnt ICP Inductively Coupled Plasma??

[the tree]

This is, I dunno, it's not really representative of anything is it? They must know how rainbows work really, that's all kind of basic.

 

There's a certain familiar edge of "I appreciate the world by actively avoiding learning about it" which I think is always the position of a severe minority. I don't think it's too worrying.

 

I think snakes are miracles, I mean really, how do they move? It looks like a miracle to me!

If you ask that in the biology section I am certain that Moleke, our resident reptile representative, will be more than willing to give you a very detailed answer.

[Fuzzwood]

People who actually think that way should be shot on sight. Survivors should be shot again. This to purify the gene pool.

[Mr Skeptic]

There's a certain familiar edge of "I appreciate the world by actively avoiding learning about it" which I think is always the position of a severe minority. I don't think it's too worrying.

 

I like sausages, but I hear I don't want to know how they are made.

[zombieSquirrel]

'Insane' Clown Posse indeed (jk)

 

If you don't take the song too seriously, it's pretty interesting, though it could do without the over excessive swearing, and the part about scientists being liars.

[JohnB]

If you don't take the song too seriously, it's pretty interesting, though it could do without the over excessive swearing, and the part about scientists being liars.

 

Agreed. I think that their point was that when looked at simply, the world is beautiful and full of miracles. I've met people who are so bogged down by the nitty gritty, they fail to appreciate the beauty any more.

 

Does knowing the exact physics of a rainbow allow to appreciate the beauty any better? Nope.

 

Does knowing the chemistry involved make a fireworks display more fun to watch? Nope.

 

By all means know how things happen, but appreciate them as "miracles".

[iNow]

Does knowing the exact physics of a rainbow allow to appreciate the beauty any better? Nope.

 

Does knowing the chemistry involved make a fireworks display more fun to watch? Nope.

 

You and I are often pretty well aligned on many issues, John, but I have to disagree with you on both of these points. In my personal existence, knowing the physics of the rainbow ABSOLUTELY makes it more beautiful, and knowing the chemistry of the fireworks display ABSOLUTELY makes it more fun to watch.

 

 

 

I think there are others like me, too. In fact, I'm reminded now of a quote from Carl Sagan:

 

 

It is sometimes said that scientists are unromantic, that their passion to figure out robs the world of beauty and mystery. But is it not stirring to understand how the world actually works — that white light is made of colors, that color is the way we perceive the wavelengths of light, that transparent air reflects light, that in so doing it discriminates among the waves, and that the sky is blue for the same reason that the sunset is red? It does no harm to the romance of the sunset to know a little bit about it.

 

... and also:

 

I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any meaning, science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one, of being true.

[bascule]

Agreed. I think that their point was that when looked at simply, the world is beautiful and full of miracles. I've met people who are so bogged down by the nitty gritty, they fail to appreciate the beauty any more.

 

Does knowing the exact physics of a rainbow allow to appreciate the beauty any better? Nope.

 

Does knowing the chemistry involved make a fireworks display more fun to watch? Nope.

 

By all means know how things happen, but appreciate them as "miracles".

 

I think you're giving ICP faaaaaaaaaaaaaaar too much credit. The point you're making is certainly a valid one. It was expressed much better by historian James Burke and his Connections TV series. He summed it up in the following quote:

 

"Never before have so many people understood so little about so much of the world around them"

 

However, that doesn't make the world magical or miraculous. Much of what is difficult to explain is the result of science and technology. It doesn't make magnets inexplicable. It doesn't make rainbows inexplicable, which is particularly ironic considering the video features CG rainbows which were rendered using knowledge of physics/optics. The very fact we can make a semi-realistic looking rainbow inside of a computer means we have an EXCELLENT understanding of how rainbows work.

[the tree]

Does knowing the exact physics of a rainbow allow to appreciate the beauty any better? Nope.

Does knowing the chemistry involved make a fireworks display more fun to watch? Nope.

You and I are often pretty well aligned on many issues, John, but I have to disagree with you on both of these points. In my personal existence, knowing the physics of the rainbow ABSOLUTELY makes it more beautiful, and knowing the chemistry of the fireworks display ABSOLUTELY makes it more fun to watch.

I would definitely have to side with iNow on this one. The night sky as well, is even more impressive when you can appreciate how far away it is.

 

The rainbow that you see and the rainbow that I see are created by different raindrops. Our eyes are in different places, so we detect different cones, produced by different drops. Rainbows are personal. Some people think that this kind of understanding "spoils" the emotional experience. I think this is rubbish. It demonstrates a depressing sort of aesthetic complacency. People who make such statements often like to pretend they are poetic types, wide open to the world's wonders, but in fact they suffer from a serious lack of curiosity: they refuse to believe the world is more wondrous than their own limited imaginations. Nature is always deeper, richer, and more interesting than you thought...

- Ian stewart’s letters to a young mathematician

.

 

If you're going to appreciate something, at all, then you should learn about it. It's not very appreciative to say that you don't give a damn about anything other than it's superficial qualities.

[bascule]

I think there are others like me, too. In fact, I'm reminded now of a quote from Carl Sagan

 

There's a similar quote, I believe from Richard Feynman, about people asking him if knowing physics hindered his appreciation of the beauty of nature, and he argued on the contrary that it improves it. My Google-fu is failing me, unfortunately, but if anyone knows the quote I'm talking about it'd be great if you can paste it.

[iNow]

To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature ... If you want to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, it is necessary to understand the language that she speaks in.

o The Character of Physical Law (1965) Ch. 2

[bascule]

To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature ... If you want to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, it is necessary to understand the language that she speaks in.

o The Character of Physical Law (1965) Ch. 2

 

That's an interesting quote, however looking over Feynman's Wikiquote this is the one I was thinking of:

 

Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars — mere globs of gas atoms. Nothing is "mere". I too can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more? The vastness of the heavens stretches my imagination — stuck on this carousel my little eye can catch one-million-year-old light. A vast pattern — of which I am a part... What is the pattern or the meaning or the why? It does not do harm to the mystery to know a little more about it. For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined it. Why do the poets of the present not speak of it? What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?

[JohnB]

the tree. I just have to agree with you about the night sky. The more you appreciate the size of what you are seeing, the more you see the grandeur. On a clear night, it's simply breathtaking.

 

iNow and bascule. I do take your points, and mostly agree with them. I've simply found that sometimes, some people, spend too much time looking at the mechanics and miss the bigger picture.

 

Having some knowledge of "things that go bang" I can use that to further appreciate the artistry demonstrated in the fireworks display. However, the guy beside me saying "They should have used a bit more copper in that one" does not.

 

I suppose the extra knowledge can both add and detract, depending on the outlook of the person.

 

There is also the practical standpoint to consider.

 

Example: Two couples are sitting on a hillside watching the sunset. In the first couple the young man is saying "Gee, that's so beautiful. I'm so glad to be able to share it with you" to his companion. In the second couple the young man is discussing atmospheric physics and it's effect on sky colour.

 

Which one will go home alone?

[the tree]

Having some knowledge of "things that go bang" I can use that to further appreciate the artistry demonstrated in the fireworks display. However, the guy beside me saying "They should have used a bit more copper in that one" does not.

Ah, but the important thing there is that that guy is a dick. If he didn't know about chemistry or whatever then the same guy would have said "it should have been brighter", "that didn't last long enough" or "I'm sure I could have done better". It's more than possible to have a good understanding of something, and appreciate it at the same time.

[iNow]

Have you seen the SNL parody of this?

 

 

http://skepchick.org/blog/2010/04/saturday-night-lives-take-on-insane-clown-posse/

 

4xfmCRFxIJw

 

It's on Hulu, too, in the US:

[bascule]

I just came here to post the SNL parody. Awesome.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

And these cracked me up: