I noted this on twitter from a number of people:
4th Law of Thermodynamics: The amount of energy required to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than that required to create it.
Dealing with some of the comments on this blog is ample evidence that this is true
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Interestingly there already is a Fourth Law of Thermodynamics, Law Zero http://physicsforidiots.com/physics/thermodynamics/ which may, or may not, be relevant – but it’s no bull 🙂
I am aware…
Nope the Laws of Thermodynamics are zeroth, first, second and third, the fourth law is as Richard stated, he did not state there were four laws. Damned Physicists, I have to put up with them all day long (only joking boss)!!!!
This adressed the problem (strategy) a while ago
Amused
That’s because one of the characteristics of much of the political right is that winning is more important than the truth, or behaving ethically. The kind of tunnel visioned stupidity encompassed by the saying “winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing”. So they use every dirty trick in the propogandists book; lies, half truths, cherry picking of evidence, ad hominum attacks, etc.
Hence the volume of BS directed in Richard’s direction. You see the same of course with climate change deniers, who are very largely coming from the same ideological position as Richard’s opponents here. And since it easy to put up nonsense on the internet, and it spreads quickly and is taken up by the credulous, a lot of time and effort has to be put into disproving it.
Agreed
Apropos climate change deniers, I wonder how it is that the likes of Lord Lawson and Owen Paterson think that they are such ‘experts’ on the subject, when in reality they know sweet nothing about it!
True.
Narcissistic managers employ this law to great effect.
By coincidence, yesterday I also received an email from the Conservative party, which annoyed me so much that I penned the reply below to my MP:
Dear Simon Kirby,
I received yesterday a remarkable email from your colleague Grant Shapps, from which I quote:
“We know that Labour are being bankrolled by trade union bosses. They’re donating a staggering £1,000 an hour to try and make Ed Miliband Prime Minister.
If we’re going to stop them, everyone needs to play their part. Because unlike Labour, our campaign is funded by individuals like you.”
As your colleague must be aware, all contributions to the political fund of a trade union are voluntary. (I believe that the legislation dates back to 1913, and was strengthened in 1984) The “staggering £1,000 per hour” is the aggregate of a large number of small voluntary contributions by individual trade unionists. One may question the trade unionists’ wisdom, but surely not their right to make voluntary political contributions or to delegate the use of those contributions.
On the other hand, from what I have read about the political contributions of some recently ennobled peers, the Conservative campaign may well be funded by individuals, but not by individuals like me.
As an emeritus professor and an author or co-author of more than a hundred peer-reviewed scientific papers, I have an interest in the accurate presentation of data. I know that different standards apply in politics and science, but if your colleague had made such a misleading statement in an obscure scientific paper, it would not just have damaged his reputation, but it would probably have led to disciplinary action.
Inaccurate and misleading assertions damage the credibility of politics. Moreover, if members of a Government begin to believe their own propaganda, they are likely to make very bad decisions.
Well said
“That’s because one of the characteristics of much of the political right is that winning is more important than the truth, or behaving ethically.”
Because democracy is wrong, therefore, any way of overthrowing it is right. In the states Republicans have taken office in cities & cut taxes to zero with out, in any way, cutting expenditure. The result, obviously, being that the state goes bankrupt. This achieves the desirable outcome that government is over-thrown.
I do find much of this quite, genuinely, frightening & I worry why I brought my boys into this world. The odd thing is that 20 years ago I’d have called myself right-wing, in the way John Major, Ken Clarke & Michael Heseltine were.