Science: Do we believe or do we accept?

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Evolution is an elegant theory. By elegant I mean it in the way that mathematicians, engineers, scientists and hackers mean it--a solution that is subtle, powerful and no more complicated than it need be to do the job. On paper, it is a very simple theory. In practice it is fiendishly subtle. It also has very wide-ranging implications.

A few months ago, I read an article (that I wish I'd clipped to my electronic scrapbook) about farmers in, I believe, Alabama who were battling some pest or another. They were expressing surprise that this pest, which they thought some pesticide or another had all but eradicated, had come back with a vengeance and was now all but immune to the pesticide in question. This was, perhaps, the most poignant example of what not understanding evolution looks like. Evolution *predicts* that we should see exactly that kind of thing happen.

I'm going to terminate this post because I think that it might be interesting--and worthwhile--to post a general statement about evolution but that will take some time. Stay tuned.

I normally don't quote myself but I wanted to have that above to explain why this subject came up. This is no substitute for reading a good treatment on the subject, but to understand why so many people get so mystified or flummoxed about people denying evolutionary biology on religious grounds, it's kind of necessary to explain why evolution is such a core part of modern biology.

Everyone is, I'm sure, aware that Charles Darwin is the name most attached to evolution. It's even called Darwinism or Darwinian theory. I won't belabor talking about Darwin there's plenty of good material on him. But what did he actually say. What follows is a condensation of a very subtle and elegant theory. I've stripped out everything I think is extraneous. But follow the logic and you will see why I call the theory subtle, beautiful and elegant.

Evolution in a nutshell:

1) Left to their own devices, meaning that absent predation or disease and with unlimited resources any population will tend to increase in a geometric fashion (e.g. 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128...). As you can see numbers start to get really big really fast. If populations *actually* increased geometrically then we should not be surprised if the planet were populated by nothing but, say, elephants.

2) We don't live on a planet populated by nothing but elephants so there must be *some* check on the growth of populations. Those checks come in the form of predation, accident, disease and starvation.

3) Not every member of a population goes on to have offspring. This is because many die before they can manage to reproduce.

4) When sexual species reproduce the offspring is like but not identical to its parents.

5) If the parents have some trait that helps them survive a little better and they pass that trait on to their offspring, then they will survive a little better than those around them who may lack that trait.

6) Over time, these small, incremental changes in genes accumulate.

7) If a population becomes reproductively isolated and the environment is such that other adaptations may become advantageous they will tend to diverge from the founding population. If enough time passes then the two groups may not be able to interbreed if they come in contact later. They have become two different species.

8) Over very long periods of time, these accumulated changes are responsible for the diversity of species we see.

That is pretty much the theory in a nutshell.

I find it useful to invoke analogy so I'm going to ask you to come play in a toy world for a few minutes. In this world there are cats and there are mice. Let us call them average-cat and fast-cat. Let us say that, on average, for every five mice a cat goes after it gets two. That is average-cat's performance. Fast-cat, however, is a *tiny* bit faster than average-cat. She is able to catch three of five mice. Fast-cat and average-cat both get impregnated by the same Tom who also carries the gene that makes fast-cat a little bit faster than average-cat. But the gene is recessive. In order for average-cat to pass it on she needs a copy of the gene too but she doesn't have it. Her kittens will also be average. Let's say that the average litter size for these cats is four of which one kitten has a better than 50% chance of dying so the average number of kittens that live to reproduce is 3. Now, fast-cat, because she eats a little better than average-cat has five kittens. She also loses one of her kittens but that means she has four kittens instead of three. Let us say that of those four, they *all* inherit the gene for fastness. That means that, all other things being equal, the offspring of fast-cat will have more descendants than average-cat. Over time, genes for being a fast cat will become dominant in that population. This will now set the bar for the new 'average' cat.

Now, you might be wondering "okay, if this is true, Aj, then why don't cats move the speed of light". The reason is straightforward, after a certain point it just is no longer cost-effective to build a faster cat body. So cat speed is not being driven infinitely upwards. It's like the old joke about you and someone else running from a bear, the goal isn't to be faster than the bear, the goal is to be faster than the other person.

At the same time that the cats are spreading genes for being fast, the mice are in an evolutionary arms race with the cats. The mice don't want to be eaten, so any genes that help mice live a little bit longer so they can reproduce will, again, tend to become dominant in a species. If something changes for *either* mice or cats that effects how well the cats eat and how long the mice avoid being eaten, if it can be passed down it will be.

So, at some point, fast-cat winds up on an island where there are mice and birds. Average-cat stays on the mainland. Let's now introduce not just birds but coyotes. Coyotes go after cats. On the mainland it helps to be small so you can get up or in things quickly. Not *too* small but about the size of a house cat. On the island, however, there's nothing to predate on the cats. So they can start getting larger. At some point, a population goes across a river while it is dry and then it returns. Over time, the two cat populations diverge. One population becomes larger, the other population stays the same size. After a while, the larger cats begin to predate on the smaller cats because mice and birds just aren't cutting it for something the size of, say, a lynx.

That is evolutionary thinking in action. Does nature work this way? Yes. I built an overly simple toy world because the details are not important. It is just to give you an idea of what kind of explanatory power evolutionary theory has. Subtle, beautiful, elegant and powerful.

If we keep gaming out our toy world long enough to get a species that begins asking questions about the cats, at first glance it might seem incredible that something the size of a house cat gave rise to something the size of a mountain lion. It didn't all at once, but little tiny forcings due to conditions make it possible to grow a larger body.

Look around you. Look at your cats and your dog. Look at the plants in your garden. All around you are survival machines designed by genes.

Cheers
Aj

[citybutch]

Was sitting here thinking AJ... and it came to mind (I would love your response to this) that perhaps one of the great differences between a spiritual understanding of the world around us and a scientific one is that in science the question is how and yet in a spiritual sense we want to know why. Science sees the patterns that allow us to predict... but at the same time the randomness of creation and life... i.e. certain events had to have happened in order for life to exist.

Thoughts?

[imperfect_cupcake]

Aj you wrote:

So my construction is not 'humans are xenophobic and therefore we can do nothing about racism'. Rather it is 'humans are xenophobic, racism is just a special case of xenophobia, therefore we are going to have to work hard as both individuals and as a civilization to give racism no haven or quarter in our lives, in our laws, or in our institutions. It will be hard work because we are fighting a somewhat uphill battle but it is doable.'

and I'm just using this because it's the crux. And as a primatologist, I actually do agree with the above statement .... BUT then I'm agreeing to a principle statement that genes can be overcome and then we get back to the "gay gene" again. "you could help being gay if you really tried hard enough" thing. Honestly? yeah, I could. I could be semi-miserable in a marriage with someone and be monogamous and be damply unfulfilled but function ok. But again yes, as you said below, it's two different issues - the gene and the moral value of the behaviour.

I do recall a petition that was sent around the globe through the journal of primatology, back in... 95? 96? that yes, they all agreed humans had xenophobic biology for certain group reasons but that it was no fucking excuse for shitty behaviour (A mate of mine tried to leave vietnam and the horror she experienced was unfathomable, even in her experience with globe trotting quite a bit and being a black masculine looking lesbian). I forget who they sent the signed results to, several countries I believe. I doubt it made any impact.

but then, if I agree to it...it's no excuse for being gay.

and I do utterly agree with

I understand why people in the gay community want their to be a genetic basis for homosexuality but it does not buy us what many people think it does.

and your example is exactly why.

I suppose my beef is more in how the "message" gets twisted by people to suit their argument. I find almost all science reporting in newspapers rather upsetting for that reason.

and for that reason, I can empathise with people who follow spiritual teachings but get the lessons "bent" by the teachers and how fucked off they must feel about it. How the responsibility to the twisted message of assholes seem to lay at the feet of those that have nothing to do with what's being twisted - but still are under the same "label group". I'm wording poorly. excuse me if that's not clear.

probably why the non-hierarchical/philosophical teachings had more interest for me in study. not here or there though. just a random comment.

[imperfect_cupcake]

Originally Posted by citybutch

Was sitting here thinking AJ... and it came to mind (I would love your response to this) that perhaps one of the great differences between a spiritual understanding of the world around us and a scientific one is that in science the question is how and yet in a spiritual sense we want to know why. Science sees the patterns that allow us to predict... but at the same time the randomness of creation and life... i.e. certain events had to have happened in order for life to exist.

Thoughts?

well, for me - I know you asked aj but I'm going to answer too - the magic thing that makes me feel all the beauty/wonder is that for me... there *is* no why. it just... is. It has it's own inherent value just for the same meaninglessness as the next thing. A cockroach is as different from a human as a cougar. for me there is no why. *I* get to invent the why, for me. it's up to me to give my own life purpose and meaning. That's a big fat responsibility.

sometimes, I'm not up to the task, lemme tell you. But most of the time, I am.

and in that, I do get a sense of "spirituality" in the sense of the word meaning "a sense of wonder and beauty and feeling of unity and smallness/humility all in one." for me spirit doesn't have to mean supernatural or other worldy. it's a concept word for me that I "get" the translation of. I don't mind it being applied.

[imperfect_cupcake]

It applies to New Age invocations of quantum mechanics or chaos theory or relativity theory

* SHRIEK* sorry but that really gets on my tits. I once watched a 3.5 hour movie on just that called What the bleep do we know and it is the loss of those 3.5 hours out of my life is something I mourn heavily. I'm pretty non-judgemental when it comes to beliefs but some things I just can't take.

Granted I have The Tao of Physics, but I actually didn't find that book flakey or unreasonable.

[imperfect_cupcake]

Originally Posted by honeybarbara

* SHRIEK* sorry but that really gets on my tits. I once watched a 3.5 hour movie on just that called What the bleep do we know and it is the loss of those 3.5 hours out of my life is something I mourn heavily. I'm pretty non-judgemental when it comes to beliefs but some things I just can't take.

Granted I have The Tao of Physics, but I actually didn't find that book flakey or unreasonable.

I f*cked up that last sentance. I didn't find the book that flakey (meaning a touch) or too unreasonable (meaning for 1974. despite new advances each reprint has not been updated and I find that a bit suspect as some of the particle theory has moved on to better theory). But it does state in the epilogue "Physicists do not need mysticism, and mystics do not need physics, but humanity needs both" so I did find the read interesting and far less offensive than the WTFDWK movie

[Toughy]

Originally Posted by honeybarbara

* SHRIEK* sorry but that really gets on my tits. I once watched a 3.5 hour movie on just that called What the bleep do we know and it is the loss of those 3.5 hours out of my life is something I mourn heavily. I'm pretty non-judgemental when it comes to beliefs but some things I just can't take.

Granted I have The Tao of Physics, but I actually didn't find that book flakey or unreasonable.

The Secret gets my tits also. The book and the movie. Oprah made it a success and it just was a waste of time.

[Okiebug61]

I have always thought of science as one big experiment with we humans being the G Pigs. When compared to secular religion IMO there is not much difference between the two.

Go ask Alice!

[Andrew, Jr.]

Science comes to a end conclusion after repeated testing. Data can be repeated, and the theories can change. Also, with the new research being done and clinical trials science changes each and every day.

I believe that as human beings we all have common sense to some degree - some more than others (think of those who are mentally ill, have head injuries, or have other health issues). So for the most part, most folks can reason out any decision that needs to be made should the situation come about.

We all also must consider each person has their own perceptions, own belief system, and own priorities. Not everyone will ever answer the same when faced with say a terminal illness.

[Toughy]

secular religion

huh??? I'm confused. secular means not connected with/to any religion

[Okiebug61]

Originally Posted by Toughy

huh??? I'm confused. secular means not connected with/to any religion

Secular religion is a term used to describe ideas, theories or philosophies which involve no spiritual component yet possess qualities similar to those of a religion. Such qualities include such things as dogma, a system of indoctrination, the prescription of an absolute code of conduct, an ideologically tailored creation story and end-times narrative, designated enemies, and unquestioning devotion to a higher authority. The secular religion operates in a secular society by filling a role which would be satisfied by a church or another religious authority.

Does this help? I was trying to point out that science has a way of not being connected to any specific thing yet has many ideas that are adopted by followers. IE: Believing a pill will cure an ill without really any specific determination that you have the illness. Putting us in the G Pig realm.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Okiebug61

I have always thought of science as one big experiment with we humans being the G Pigs. When compared to secular religion IMO there is not much difference between the two.

Go ask Alice!

Hmmm...if you don't mind my asking a couple of questions because I'm a bit mystified by both of your statements.

How are human beings the guinea pigs in, say, high-energy particle physics? Or, for that matter, materials science or nanotechnology?

Also, what do you mean by "secular religion". By definition, unless you are using it in a ironic or cynical manner, religions are not secular they are sectarian. Also, where in religion do you see ANY process remotely like the following:

1) Find interesting thing about the world.
2) Start asking questions about how that thing works.
3) Form hypothesis to explain how that thing works.
4) Test hypothesis either by experiment or observation.
5) Fully document your findings so that others can repeat the process. Check to see if they came up with the same or, at least, similar answers.
6) If your hypothesis is not in agreement with experiment or observation, or if your results cannot be duplicated adjust hypothesis to see if you can bring it into line with reality. If no, abandon hypothesis and start over again at step 3. Continue repeating until a provisionally satisfactory answer is found.
7) Publish findings.
8) Have others look at your findings and see if they can repeat experiment or observation.
9) Continue iterating through the preceding steps.

I'm sorry but I can think of no religion that even gets in the ballpark of that so if you dont' mind, can you explain how it is that you do not see any significant difference between science and religion? Thank you.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Okiebug61

Secular religion is a term used to describe ideas, theories or philosophies which involve no spiritual component yet possess qualities similar to those of a religion. Such qualities include such things as dogma, a system of indoctrination, the prescription of an absolute code of conduct, an ideologically tailored creation story and end-times narrative, designated enemies, and unquestioning devotion to a higher authority. The secular religion operates in a secular society by filling a role which would be satisfied by a church or another religious authority.

I can think of several examples of a secular religion (Ayn Randian Objectivism leaps to mind here as well as American Exceptionalism) but science is not a particularly good example of a secular religion.

Does this help?

No.

I was trying to point out that science has a way of not being connected to any specific thing yet has many ideas that are adopted by followers. IE: Believing a pill will cure an ill without really any specific determination that you have the illness. Putting us in the G Pig realm.

You are talking about medical marketing, not science. You may even be talking about the practice of medicine with health as a commodity, but you are still not talking about *science*. Science and technology are not the same things. What you are describing is pharmaceuticals developing a drug for illness A, determining that the drug will actually help people with symptom B even though it is not connected to illness A, and since people expressing symptom B greatly outnumber those with illness A, marketing to those with symptom B (see Viagra, for a canonical example of this).

However, you are still not talking about *science*, you are talking about *marketing*.

How are human beings a guinea pig in, for instance, searching for gravitons (the particle that is hypothesized to carry the force of gravity)?

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by citybutch

Was sitting here thinking AJ... and it came to mind (I would love your response to this) that perhaps one of the great differences between a spiritual understanding of the world around us and a scientific one is that in science the question is how and yet in a spiritual sense we want to know why. Science sees the patterns that allow us to predict... but at the same time the randomness of creation and life... i.e. certain events had to have happened in order for life to exist.

Thoughts?

For the most part I agree with the first part. I think that science deals very well with how questions and a limited set of why questions. For example, science can deal with the question "why do we die" it cannot deal with the question "knowing that I will die, why should I live". Religion deals with a different set of why questions having to do with ultimate meaning. For better or worse, science is not tooled-up to handle ultimate meaning questions.

As far as your last part about certain events having had to happen in order for life to exist, I think that is an artifact of our perceiving our existence as somehow special. For example, in order for me to exist my parents had to have been born, had to live long enough to meet, have sex at least once, and then my mother had to live long enough to give birth to me. It would be tempting to look at that chain of events and conclude that since I am here (obviously) all those events came to pass and *therefore* there must be some great cosmic meaning or force that caused it to happen. Put another way, I could look at my parent's life as having happened so *that* I could come into existence.

I think we do something similar with the Universe. I know that a great deal is made about the perfect set of conditions that (allegedly) have to obtain in order for life to exist on this planet but some of that stuff is just an artifact of looking for specialness where it may not exist. For example, I've heard people say on numerous occasions that if the Earth were ten feet or ten miles in either direction then life wouldn't be possible. Except that is entirely wrong. Our orbit is not a circle, it is an elipsis so by definition we vary in our position relative to the Sun. It is certainly more variance than 10 miles (the distance between Earth at its closest point and at its farthest point varies by ~3 million miles!). The biozone (habitable zone) around Sol may be as close to the Sun as Venus orbit and possibly as far out as Mars' orbit. That gives a lot of variance.

Yes, some of the constants of the Universe appear very finely tuned and if they had slightly different values we wouldn't be here. But the fact that they have the values makes our existence possible, it does not mean that those values *had* to be where they are. Just that if we were going to be there, they had to be what they are.

Does that make sense?

Cheers
Aj

[Okiebug61]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Hmmm...if you don't mind my asking a couple of questions because I'm a bit mystified by both of your statements.

How are human beings the guinea pigs in, say, high-energy particle physics? Or, for that matter, materials science or nanotechnology?

Also, what do you mean by "secular religion". By definition, unless you are using it in a ironic or cynical manner, religions are not secular they are sectarian. Also, where in religion do you see ANY process remotely like the following:

1) Find interesting thing about the world.
2) Start asking questions about how that thing works.
3) Form hypothesis to explain how that thing works.
4) Test hypothesis either by experiment or observation.
5) Fully document your findings so that others can repeat the process. Check to see if they came up with the same or, at least, similar answers.
6) If your hypothesis is not in agreement with experiment or observation, or if your results cannot be duplicated adjust hypothesis to see if you can bring it into line with reality. If no, abandon hypothesis and start over again at step 3. Continue repeating until a provisionally satisfactory answer is found.
7) Publish findings.
8) Have others look at your findings and see if they can repeat experiment or observation.
9) Continue iterating through the preceding steps.

I'm sorry but I can think of no religion that even gets in the ballpark of that so if you dont' mind, can you explain how it is that you do not see any significant difference between science and religion? Thank you.

Cheers
Aj

Hi Dreadgeek,

Your thoughts are cool and I totally respect them. I just have to say that my beliefs are way different than yours. I think we have come to a crossroads that will only stray from the conversation of this post if I continue to answer your questions. I certainly do not want to get in a who's right and wrong about science and religion. Thanks for opening my mind to different thoughts regarding both.

Peace!

[ScandalAndy]

I just want to state that I am thoroughly enjoying the responses and how respectful everyone is being although this has the potential to be an incredibly touchy subject. Thank you all for presenting your points respectfully, and taking the time to process what we each have to say.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Okiebug61

Hi Dreadgeek,

Your thoughts are cool and I totally respect them. I just have to say that my beliefs are way different than yours. I think we have come to a crossroads that will only stray from the conversation of this post if I continue to answer your questions. I certainly do not want to get in a who's right and wrong about science and religion. Thanks for opening my mind to different thoughts regarding both.

Peace!

As you will. I regret that you choose not to expound on your interesting take on this matter. I think it would have been fascinating to get some insight into your take on humans as guinea pigs in physics or, for that matter, any of the historical sciences. Alas, I guess we'll never know.

Cheers
Aj

[Toughy]

Originally Posted by Okiebug61

Secular religion is a term used to describe ideas, theories or philosophies which involve no spiritual component yet possess qualities similar to those of a religion. Such qualities include such things as dogma, a system of indoctrination, the prescription of an absolute code of conduct, an ideologically tailored creation story and end-times narrative, designated enemies, and unquestioning devotion to a higher authority. The secular religion operates in a secular society by filling a role which would be satisfied by a church or another religious authority.

Does this help? I was trying to point out that science has a way of not being connected to any specific thing yet has many ideas that are adopted by followers. IE: Believing a pill will cure an ill without really any specific determination that you have the illness. Putting us in the G Pig realm.

Actually it does not help based what you said after the definition. I'm with Aj in that I would love for you to clarify this more. I'm not sure talking about western medicine is a useful comparision.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by honeybarbara

* SHRIEK* sorry but that really gets on my tits. I once watched a 3.5 hour movie on just that called What the bleep do we know and it is the loss of those 3.5 hours out of my life is something I mourn heavily. I'm pretty non-judgemental when it comes to beliefs but some things I just can't take.

Granted I have The Tao of Physics, but I actually didn't find that book flakey or unreasonable.

I saw that movie, mistakenly believing that it was a feature-length treatment of Brian Greene's brilliant book "The Elegant Universe". Boy was I wrong!

To give you a taste of just how painful that movie was for me, I will borrow from Douglas Adams description of Vogon poetry.

"...During a recitation by their Poet Master Grunthos the Flatulent of his poem "Ode to a Small Lump of Green Putty I Found in My Armpit One Midsummer Morning" four of his audience died of internal hemmoraging, and the President of the Mid-Galactic Arts Nobbling Council survived by gnawing one of is own legs off."

It was horrible. It was painful. It was a complete bastardization of the physics.

It is ironic that my introduction into Quantum Mechanics was Fritjof Capra. I read that, then Taking the Quantum Leap, then the Dancing Wu-Li Masters. Then I happened to pick up a book on QM that was not written from a 'spiritual' point of view and fell in love. Here was a description of the science that made the more New Age rendition of that same material fade into ugliness by comparison. The fact that the universe just works this way and it plays out without any apparent interference from an supernatural entity is just awe inspiring to me.

I wrote a paper about the New Age misuse of QM a while back and made myself read and watch The Secret (if I'm going to criticize something, I should at least familiarize myself with the subject matter. I wish more people who are critical of science would do the same). One of the things I find most disturbing is the whole idea of "we create our own reality". I understand that this is supposed to be a 'kinder, gentler' world view but I find it callous. As callous as the kind of Ayn Rand Objectivism philosophy beloved of free market fundamentalists. Typically, when people are talking the 'we create our own reality' line, they are doing so from a relative position of privilege. I think that any of these philosophies should be viewed not from the point of view of someone in comfort but someone in great distress.

The example I always use (and anyone can find their own) is that of a young child whose mom and dad worked above the 100th floor of WTC 1 and WTC 2, who never came home the evening of 11 Sept. Now, according to the The Secret, anything that happens to us is something we attracted. So either this young child attracted the death of her parents or her parents attracted orphaning of their child. What could possibly be more callous than that? One can look anywhere on the planet where misery is a constant companion and one will be moved to ask "so what did that person, this three year old born into a war zone in Sudan" attract here? If we view things that way then there's really no need to feel compelled to do anything to alleviate their suffering. I mean, if you are suffering in a universe that will give you whatever you wish just for the asking and visualizing then your misery is your own. That sounds neither kinder nor gentler to me and yet it is an inescapable conclusion of the logic of The Secret.

Cheers
Aj

[imperfect_cupcake]

As callous as the kind of Ayn Rand Objectivism philosophy beloved of free market fundamentalists. Typically, when people are talking the 'we create our own reality' line, they are doing so from a relative position of privilege. I think that any of these philosophies should be viewed not from the point of view of someone in comfort but someone in great distress.

you might be really interested in a new BBC series put out called "watched over by machines of loving grace" that I loved. I agreed with a lot of the principle statements the writer of the series was making, but I didn't quite agree with the full conclusion at the end. But I really did empathise why he thought that way and it was and interesting take. here's the synopsis for the first episode:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011k45f

if you go to the right in the box you'll see the link to the other episodes. Try googling the names of the episodes, you might be lucky to find a torrent for them.

As for Douglas Adams (one of my favorite authors) and his invention of vogon poetry... yes. I agree. what made it worse was the cartoon of the double slit experiment was a great explanation in lay terms. Like you, I thought it was going to be something about real QM. gosh, it was a horrific discovery as the realisation came through, wasn't it!

I feel very sorry for one of the scientists who later had to claim over and over that they twisted and took out of context everything he said to support their claims. Imagine the piss-take at work when people find out?

[/tangential aside for scientific pity]

I just went to Uncaged Monkeys in oxford with Prof Brian Cox, Ben Goldacher (whos blog on debunking shitty science journalism I strongly suggest for a read if you haven't read him already) and Simon Sing. It was really fun and I loved it but Prof Cox's collegues really took the piss out of him in front of the audience because he's a giganto sex symbol here. I was suprised no one threw their panties on stage. They kept picking the inappropriate questions from women in the audience sent in by text for the Q&A session like "what colour boxers is prof cox wearing" etc. The MC then said, after Cox very patiently declined the questions and exited stage left for the next section in the show, "Thank you audience. Later, Professor Cox will be pole dancing." Ok. I snorted at that one. But poor bastard.