- FROM THE ARCHIVE -

This picture is a good example of how the basic squirrel fishing model works. It’s best to find a fairly open space with enough room to walk around a bit. We stayed away from a group of ne’er do-well hippie hooligans who were playing games, as they were likely to inadvertently interfere with our fishing agenda. Keep in mind that squirrels often live in public places, so it might take time to find a secluded area. Trust me, though: it’s worth it in the long run. It doesn’t matter if people are somewhat close (see the man in the picture). Once they see what you’re doing, they tend to keep their distance.

There are two ways to go about casting a line. Evan opted to use his line sans rod, using a key to weigh the end down. This method was what I initially tried, but on my first cast, I wasn’t holding on to the string tightly enough. A squirrel grabbed the bait and began to run away. I chased the squirrel in an effort to regain my equipment, but he was too quick for me. I wound up falling on my arse and slipping in the grass. Chattering, the squirrel ran up a tree and defiantly nibbled on the nut. After a considerable amount of work, I was able to reclaim my fishing gear, but I decided to create a makeshift fishing rod.

Just be sure to select a sturdy twig and tie the line tightly around the end. I wouldn’t suggest using an actual fishing rod and reel, as that could cause problems with ornery park rangers who do not appreciate the fine art of squirrel fishing. Plus, a shorter pole allows greater contact with your friends the squirrels, and isn’t that what we’re all looking for?

Form and Technique:
Here, Evan demonstrates how to effectively lure the squirrel. Notice his slight crouch and bent knees. This position says to the squirrel, “Hello, squirrelie! I am your friend! I’m not a big scary human – I’m a nice human who wants to meet you!” The squirrel, though hesitant, will approach slowly. It’s important to refrain from sudden or jerky movements; this will frighten the squirrel, who usually scampers up a tree.

I’ve found that the human voice is music to a squirrel’s ears. Squirrels seem to be entranced by a soft coo or a gentle greeting. Evan and I took different approaches to the vocal lure.

Me: “Oh, hello, lovey! Hello, squirrelie! Oh, come HERE, I have a lovely treat for you, sweetie! Come on, lovey! That’s nice!”

Evan: “C’mere. C’mere, bub.”

You can guess who the squirrels came to see first.

Zen and the Art of Squirrel Fishing Maintenance:
Assuming that the aforementioned steps were maintained, a happy little squirrel should be within reach. But the rodent does not yet trust the human; the squirrel is by nature a skeptical creature, and he requires careful surveillance.

Gauge the squirrel’s temperment. Research has shown that squirrels may appear to be relaxed, but if they turn their backs to you or fluff their tail, they are not completely prepared to relax. You can help to de-stress your squirrel by being patient and tempting it with the bait. Eventually, the squirrel will become so intoxicated with the nut that he will overcome his fears.

Watch the squirrel and get to know his style. Some squirrels are skittish and jumpy; these tend to be the thinner, smaller ones. On the other end of the spectrum lie the chubby squirrels, who tend to be less inhibited when it comes to approaching humans. Go for the roly-poly ones. They’re friendlier, and fat for a reason.

As this picture illustrates, it’s fairly simple to bring the animal near you. Nuts entice the squirrel, rendering him under your spell. The larger the nut, the closer the squirrel.

Capturing the Creature:
Jackpot! We’ve caught a squirrel!

If the bait is tied securely to the string, then you should be able to play a bit with your catch. Try playing the classic tug-of-war game. Or pull the bait up with your pole, watching as the squirrel toddles about on his hind legs. These variations are always amusing and adorable.

Keep in mind, though, that teasing the squirrel too much will result in frustration for the little tree rat. After a bit, it’s important to give the squirrel what he wants, and that’s the nut. Sometimes they are clever enough to bite the nut off the string, in which case you will just tie a new nut to your equipment. However, this does not always happen, and on occasion you should just toss out a nut to the squirrel. Yes, it’s giving away nuts for free, but it wouldn’t be fair to just taunt the squirrel. In addition, giving the squirrel a nut will help create a special bond of trust between human and animal.

Once you’ve caught the squirrel, you should appreciate the fine features of his appearance. Take time to notice his cute little nose and his plump, furry belly. As he looks at you, his paws curling around the nut, know that this is your reward for your work in squirrel fishing.

The Joy of Squirrel Fishing:

Look, it’s a happy and satisfied squirrel! And it’s all because of squirrel fishing, the sport of the future.

For more information on squirrel fishing, please visit Yasuhiro Endo, who inspired our adventures.

- FROM THE ARCHIVE -

A minus 5 point starting credit.

1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.

2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.

3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.

5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.

5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.

5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).

5 points for each mention of “Einstein”, “Hawkins” or “Feynmann”.

10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for pointing out that you have gone to school, as if this were evidence of sanity.

10 points for beginning the description of your theory by saying how long you have been working on it.

10 points for mailing your theory to someone you don’t know personally and asking them not to tell anyone else about it, for fear that your ideas will be stolen.

10 points for offering prize money to anyone who proves and/or finds any flaws in your theory.

10 points for each new term you invent and use without properly defining it.

10 points for each statement along the lines of “I’m not good at math, but my theory is conceptually right, so all I need is for someone to express it in terms of equations”.

10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is “only a theory”, as if this were somehow a point against it.

10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly, it doesn’t explain “why” they occur, or fails to provide a “mechanism”.

10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Einstein, or claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a “paradigm shift”.

20 points for emailing me and complaining about the crackpot index, e.g. saying that it “suppresses original thinkers” or saying that I misspelled “Einstein” in item 8.

20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.

20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without good evidence).

20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if they were fact.

20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.

20 points for each use of the phrase “hidebound reactionary”.

20 points for each use of the phrase “self-appointed defender of the orthodoxy”.

30 points for suggesting that a famous figure secretly disbelieved in a theory which he or she publicly supported. (E.g., that Feynman was a closet opponent of special relativity, as deduced by reading between the lines in his freshman physics textbooks.)

30 points for suggesting that Einstein, in his later years, was groping his way towards the ideas you now advocate.

30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by an extraterrestrial civilization (without good evidence).

30 points for allusions to a delay in your work while you spent time in an asylum, or references to the psychiatrist who tried to talk you out of your theory.

40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

40 points for claiming that the “scientific establishment” is engaged in a “conspiracy” to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.

- FROM THE ARCHIVE -

The biotechnology community has been taken aback by a sudden and aggressive attack by an organization calling itself Humans for Bacterial Suffrage (HuBS). The group claims that an insidious culture of what it calls “eukaryotic oppression” is enslaving trillions of bacteria, subjecting them to perverse genetic experiments, and exploiting their labour in the execution of profitable biochemical reactions.

Says HuBS president David Clostridium, “Bacteria are routinely abducted from their natural habitats, sold on the open market, unwillingly subjected to invasive genetic manipulations, and forced to breed in captivity. Multiple generations of enslaved lifeforms are set to work expressing secondary metabolites at the hand of big corporations and research scientists. It’s disgraceful. They aren’t paid, the living conditions are terribly overcrowded, they don’t even get dental. Just because you don’t have a nuclear membrane, that doesn’t mean you don’t have rights, you know?”

Clostridium points out that his organization’s principal goal is simply to increase awareness. “Few people realize that so-called “organic” products like Bt insecticide are prepared by bacterial slave labour. They say it’s “natural”, because it comes from a living organism. What’s so natural about eating agar and living in a petri dish? About being sprayed with billions of your relatives onto a plant and forced to wage biological warfare on insects who never did anything to you? Consumers should have a choice. Consumers should be able to buy produce treated with free range Bt bacteria, who are properly compensated and valued for their work. It’s just like slavery. Except, you know, without that miniseries starring Geordi LaForge.”

Rhodia Chemicals markets Rhovanil Natural Vanilla, which is prepared via a biofermentation process carried out entirely by bacteria. Rhodia CEO Jean-Pierre Clamadieu was asked to comment on charges from HuBS that his company is exploiting single-celled organisms. “Look, these bacteria, they were eking out a miserable existence before they came to work for Rhodia, they were hiding in rocks, in the cold dirt, in rotting animal carcasses. They don’t even have cable TV in some of these places, you know? Our e. coli workforce is proud and happy to be part of the Rhodia team.” When asked if there had ever been any complaints from the bacterial workforce, Clamadieu shrugged. “Well, they don’t have mouths.”

Insiders at the US Republican party have expressed concerns that the ultimate goals of the bacterial suffrage lobby may include the granting of voting rights to all single-celled organisms. Estimates put bacteria population in United States at over 5×10²⁶, a number far exceeding that of registered Republicans, and a recent poll reveals that 74% of prokaryotes either agree or strongly agree with the statement “George Bush is a lying crapweasel.”

- FROM THE ARCHIVE -

When I was in grade school, my best friend had a monkey. I don’t know what kind it was, but I can tell you this: My friend’s parents had a Kung-Fu outfit for this monkey. His name was Bentley and he was kept is a large cage in the basement. When you got too close to his cage, he would grab at your shirt and tear it. But, if you were my friend’s dad, he would let you get into the cage and wrestle him. Bentley had some scrap in him, that’s for sure. I used to love watching the two of them go at it. It was like seeing a man and a small, furry Bruce Lee in a cage match. The dad, who was a Golden Gloves champion in the Navy, took it easy, though, because he saw the monkey, as did everyone, more like a very excitable, very challenged little boy…who was only let out of his cage for parties.

Recently, I was looking for a pet of my own because I was sad and lonely in New York City. I’m allergic to dogs and cats, so I knew I needed something else, something less traditional. Iguanas crossed my mind. So did the Mexican Hairless, but neither seemed to have any personality or warmth. Then, I remembered Bentley. Was I allergic to him? I don’t recall sneezing or itching when I was watching my friend’s dad put him in a headlock. And even if I was, would it bother me that much if I kept him in a cage in my second bedroom? I don’t go in there too often, so I wouldn’t die or anything. I just wouldn’t hang out in there and spar with him. But it would smell. Oooh man do I remember the way that basement smelled. Of course, they had a raccoon down there, too.

Would I have to walk my monkey? That could be a problem in this city, what with all of the permits I wouldn’t have and all. And I’m sure, if he was as radical as Bentley, he wouldn’t take kindly to those annoying little dogs that look like rats wearing coats and sneakers.

The idea of owning a monkey, which I thought could double as a kind-of-human friend, was still very appealing to me, regardless of all of these things. So I began to price them. As it turns out, monkeys are expensive! The cheapest one I could find online was $5,000!

Suddenly, having a monkey quickly became unfeasible. So, I did the next best thing: I bought Sea Monkeys.

After a few weeks, I am still happy with my choice. Sure, Sea Monkeys lack the animation of a primate, but they float around sometimes and are waaaay easier (and cheaper!) to maintain.

If you are considering getting a monkey, but can’t decide if it’s for you or not, consider going the Sea Monkey route. Here’s a Tale of the Tape that might help you to make up your mind:

Average Weight:
Monkey: 8.8-20 lbs.
Sea Monkey: Virtually nothing!
Winner: Tie – depends on your space

Cost:
Monkey: At least $5, 000
Sea Monkey: $5, tops
Winner: Sea Monkey, of course

Maintenance:
Monkey: Must clean filthy cage regularly
Sea Monkey: None
Winner: Sea Monkey!

Diet:
Monkey: Fruit
Sea Monkey: Specially developed “Sea Monkey Food” (included in box!)
Winner: Monkey. You can share!

Personality:
Monkey: Can be pretty grumpy, but can also funny!
Sea Monkey: Hard to tell
Winner: Tie. Depends on how much interaction you need

Poo-flinging:
Monkey: Yep
Sea Monkey: Do they even make this to fling?
Winner: Sea Monkey, hands down

Service to Science:
Monkey: For sure. Primates are in.
Sea Monkeys: Would you believe, a role in toxicology? [1,2,3]
Winner: Too close to call – even.

Dressability:
Monkey: Oh yes
Sea Monkey: Not Really
Winner: That snazzy monkey!!

Environment:
Monkey: a cage in your second bedroom/basement/yard
Sea Monkey: a bowl of water, anywhere
Winner: Tie – Again, depends on your space

As you can see, it’s a pretty close call between these two. I suppose your decision will come down to how invested you would be in owning a pet…and whether or not you feel like dodging flung poo.

References:

1. Artemia salina as test organism for assessment of acute toxicity of leachate water from landfills. Environ Monit Assess. 2005 Mar;102(1-3):309-21

2. The use of a brine shrimp (Artemia salina) bioassay to assess the toxicity of diatom extracts and short chain aldehydes. Toxicon. 2003 Sep;42(3):301-6.

3. Biological screening of Annonaceous Brazilian Medicinal Plants using Artemia salina (brine shrimp test). Phytomedicine. 2003 Mar;10(2-3):209-12.

- FROM THE ARCHIVE -

Q: What is the principle evidence for Creationism?
A: The Holy Bible, of course. After all, is it likely that the author of the Universe would be mistaken about its age?

Q: But isn’t the Bible religion and not science?
A: Truth is truth. It’s a poor sort of science that ignores truth.

Q: But isn’t there a lot of evidence for evolution?
A: Not really, most of it is from university professors writing papers for each other. If they didn’t write papers they wouldn’t have jobs.

Q: How big was Noah’s ark?
A: Big enough.

Q: But what about radioactive dating?
A: Hey, everybody knows that stuff is bad for you. Stick with good Christian girls.

Q: What about the fossil evidence?
A: The real fossils are university professors writing papers for each other.

Q: Is there any other evidence for creationism besides the Bible?
A: Yes.

Q: Can you give us some?
A: Yes.

Q: Could you give us a specific example?
A: Yes.

Q: What would be a specific example of evidence for Creationism?
A: I’ve already answered that question.

Q: What about the Antarctic ice core data?
A: Now I put it to you. Coop up a bunch of men in a Quonset hut in the worst weather in the world, with nothing to do but gather data and drink, and what do you expect?

Q: Did the dinosaurs coexist with man?
A: Look, the liberals were preaching coexistence with the Communists, and you saw what happened to them.

Q: Should Creationism be taught along with Evolution in the schools?
A: Creationism should be taught instead of Evolution in the schools.

Q: Doesn’t the Geologic Column prove that the Earth is very old?
A: The geologic column proves that some things are on top of other things and some things are underneath other things. But we already knew that, didn’t we.

Q: Hasn’t evolution been demonstrated in the Laboratory?
A: Students are demonstrating everywhere these days. To their shame, many professors are demonstrating also.

Q: Aren’t Hawiian wallabies an example of Evolution in action?
A: No.

Q: Why not?
A: Because they aren’t.

Q: What is a kind?
A: A kind is cards of the same rank. Thus 4 aces and a king are four of a kind, but four spades and a heart are not.

Q: Doesn’t genetic variation indicate that life has been going on a long time?
A: Let’s be up front about this. That’s deviation, not variation, and yes, there is a lot of deviancy out there. That just shows that there has been a lot of Sin since the garden of Eden.

Q: What about Neanderthal Man?
A: Hey, you take one of those geezers and put him in tweeds and give him a pipe and he could be a professor anywhere.

Q: Some scientists state that the earth’s continents are drifting around on top of a molten interior which has shaped life as we see it now. Are they right?
A: As you well know the Bible says that beneath the surface of the earth is Hell where there is eternal fires and brimstone. If the continents appear to be moving around that is Satan’s doing.

Q: Why do almost all of the scientists believe in Evolution?
A: The real scientists don’t. As for the rest of them, that’s a very good question, isn’t it?

Q: Are you talking about a Satanic conspiracy?
A: Did I say anything about a conspiracy? You might want to think about the shape the world is in since the Evolutionists and the Liberal Humanists captured academia and how Evolution is hand in hand with Godless Communism and crime in the streets but I certainly wouldn’t want to say anything about a Satanic conspiracy. I just want you to think about it with an open mind.

- FROM THE ARCHIVE -

QAJAOG: Greetings, Captain Zabujek.

ZABUJEK: Your eminence, Emperor Qajaog, I am honored by this private audience.

QAJAOG: Captain, word of your exploits has reached the farthest reaches of the Federated Republic of the Empire. Is it true that you have ventured to the planet called Earth?

ZABUJEK: It is true, Your Sliminess. We have journeyed millions of light years and returned safely to report our findings.

QAJAOG: Go on.

ZABUJEK: As you know, our study required two simple, working-class humans from a small, remote mountain town. Men, of course, preferably gullible and childless and mildly alcoholic.

QAJAOG: Yes, of course.

ZABUJEK: As we orbited, our Stealth Field activated, we zeroed in on the human settlement of Stone River, Idaho, which sustains a population of 215 humans and harvests nearly 500 tons of potatoes a month.

QAJAOG: Potatoes, harvested? Barbarians!

ZABUJEK: I’m aware of their folly, my squishy, amorphic highness, but they know not what they do. Wounded by their inhumanity, I’ve since adopted three potatoes from the Spud Kennel. They seem happy in my home.

QAJAOG: But back to your study.

ZABUJEK: Yes. Our sensors located two ideal specimens: Larry and Doug, two out-of-work loggers who were going on a platonic friendship-affirming camping trip that weekend, during which they had planned fruitless fishing and many back-slapping hugs.

QAJAOG: How did you apprehend them?

ZABUJEK: We sent down one of our colossal flying saucers, thinking they would confuse it for an airplane or a bird. They were busy tossing back a couple Bud Lights and trying to pitch their tent, and at first didn’t notice us looming over the trees.

QAJAOG: Didn’t notice you?

ZABUJEK: As we soon discovered, humans need – heh, heh, you’re gonna love this one – light radiation in order to see.

QAJAOG: Light radiation! What the hell?

ZABUJEK: Ha! Ha! Can you believe it?

QAJAOG: Ha! Ha! Ha! Oh, my God, I’m oozing.

ZABUJEK: Priceless.

QAJAOG: Ha! Ha! Ho. Wow. Wow.

ZABUJEK: Hooooo. So, yeah.

QAJAOG: Yeah. So. You were saying?

ZABUJEK: So we waited until they could see us. Because what’s the sport in catching them while their backs are turned?

QAJAOG: True that.

ZABUJEK: So suddenly they turn around, and bam! We hit them with a big, bright light.

QAJAOG: Oh, perfect!

ZABUJEK: Scared the living crap out of ‘em. And they’re all like: Oh, my God, it’s the aliens! And we’re all like: How’d they know? And they’re screaming and losing their shit as we pull them into the starship using the gravitational fetching beam.

QAJAOG: Couldn’t you just have grabbed them?

ZABUJEK: Yeah, see, Togath in engineering really, really wanted to use the beam, and who wants to argue with Togath? Once that guy gets pissy, he locks himself in the slimatorium and pouts. We figured, okay, fine, make Togath happy. Then maybe he won’t be such a baby.

QAJAOG: So what did you do with the humans?

ZABUJEK: Well, we shackled them to an uncomfortable slab of metal surrounded by lots of needles and sharp implements. I don’t want to be mean, but Larry was a little on the hefty side, so we had to rummage through the closet to find a bigger slab of metal.

QAJAOG: And then?

ZABUJEK: Everybody’s favorite part, of course.

QAJAOG: Ooh! Anal probe?

ZABUJEK: Hell, yeah.

QAJAOG: I love it. So what did you find out?

ZABUJEK: Not much. Mostly just the contents of their recta, the length of their respective intestinal tracts, and a bunch of microorganisms helpful in the digestive process. But check this out: It turns out that most of their neurological activity occurs in their heads.

QAJAOG: No way!

ZABUJEK: Way.

QAJAOG: So that’s what the human brain is for.

ZABUJEK: Go figure.

QAJAOG: You released them, then?

ZABUJEK: Oh, yeah. They’re negotiating their contract with Sci Fi Network movie as we speak.

QAJAOG: Cool. Who’s playing you?

ZABUJEK: Duh. David Duchovny.

QAJAOG: Thank God. That guy needed a break.

ZABUJEK: Anyway, that should do it for now. I’ll let you know when we get the rest of our test results.

QAJAOG: You know what, don’t bother. I’m probably going to get the Intergalactic Navy to destroy the Earth, city by city, using apocalyptic laser beams and savage hand-to-claw combat, anyway.

ZABUJEK: Woah, you feeling okay, Your Highness?

QAJAOG: Just one of those weeks, I guess. Anyway, I’ll check you later, Zabujek. Or should I say, Captain?

ZABUJEK: Oh, Emperor. You’re make me secrete protoplasm.

QAJAOG: Just don’t let it go to your mandibles. Okay, seriously, I have to go. Have to go walk my potato.

- FROM THE ARCHIVE -

Every year, upwards of tens of tens of assistant primatology researchers exchange cutting edge data retrieval techniques, field-based observation protocols, and daring new pants-and-jacket combos at their annual meeting. Usually a coastal locale, San Diego or Stamford, CT, the meetings are a veritable meat market for new blood. The cattle call of interviews is so famous it’s infamous, aspiring primatology assistants stacking their cv’s with just that many untraceable unpaid internship listings and five-letter acronyms. Primatological assistantship has, as a matter of course, become a lucrative and difficult-to-land job, not the least reason for which is the requisite grooming skills. As the tabloids have attested, most of our finest assistants have gone on to greater positions in the broader field, sometimes dressing people too. During a break-out session at last year’s Airport La Quinta Inn meeting, we took a poll:

How Long Does It Take to Dress Your Monkey?

Molly, 31: Honestly, I’d say no more than 2 or 3 minutes. He’s good about it. Sometimes he helps me pick out the tie. Hilfiger always goes well with his slacks.

Calvin, 27: Hmm, that’s a toughy, cuz we usually tousle first, get him all fired up, then get the suit on. He likes it that way, so I can’t say, really. Some days two minutes. Some days a half hour. Depends.

David and Anna, 34 and 32: We reject the question. No, seriously. We reject it. It’s not about the outfit for us. Daryl is part of the family and we don’t single him out. How long does it take you to get dressed? You don’t know, do you? Nope, you don’t time yourself, right? Exactly.

Melanie, 40: If vest, jacket, and a half-windsor knot, we’re looking at six, seven minutes. We go the bow-tie and suspenders route, then a few minutes more. Ugh. It’s always a pain with the suspenders. But I use a clip-on bow tie. I learned long ago with monkeys, always go clip-on, no matter how lame that may sound. Believe me.

DeAngelo, 24: Well…just a sec…hold on…there…up and around…hold on…just a sec…just a…into here…then under again…just…one…more…OK. There. What was that? Like maybe 45 seconds?

Lillian and Walter, 59 and 65: Oh, we do have a time with dressing. Verily. We’ll make a game of it, and Roger will pick out the shirt, and I the pants. Then we’ll switch, especially if we’re going to dinner with the Jacobsons. Such a wonderful chimp, our Marvin. He is marvelous. We call him marvelous Marvin. Don’t we, Marvin? You are marvelous, you are. Walter honey, be a dear and get me that Delft Saucer from the hutch, Elise asked that we bring it.

- FROM THE ARCHIVE -

This manuscript describes some of our recent findings in the exciting new field of quantum thermo-epistemology, a branch of implausibility theory dealing with fundamental questions such as:

* Why does toast always land butter-side down?
* Why do cars break down only when you need to go somewhere in an emergency?
* Why do banks only lend money to people who don’t need it?

We have found, surprisingly enough, that these vexing questions do in fact have a scientific answer, and have developed the beginnings of a theory, which is briefly described here.

- – -

Theorem (1).
Believing something to be true, or discovering a scientific fact, causes the universe to shift in such a way that the probability of this fact actually being true decreases. The amount of decrease is equal to the degree of certainty and incontrovertibility of the evidence for its truth.

Theorem (2).
The above assertion is unprovable, since proving it would render it entirely false.

Theorem (3).
Based on the principles of information theory (Shannon, 1948), in which information is analyzed as a form of entropy, it can be postulated that discovering a scientific fact, because of the large decrease in entropy this produces, would cause the discoverer to become cool to the touch. The degree of truth can then be simply and accurately measured with an appropriately calibrated thermometer.

From Theorem (1), it is easy to prove that: The probability that something will happen is inversely proportional to one’s desire for it to happen. The other laws of implausibility theory can be readily derived from these three theorems (e.g., “If something can go wrong, it will” (Murphy, 1868)). A further proof of the correctness of these theorems lies in the fact that, since they are unprovable, it is impossible to be certain of their correctness; therefore, the universe cannot shift in such a way as to render them false.

(Another, even better, proof of this theorem used to exist; tragically, however, one of our rabbits ate the only copy of the proof.)

Another correlate of Theorem (1) is that the only way to prove something true is to wish for it to be false. It also explains why, the more one needs something, the harder it is to get.

One possible explanation for this is that the representation of an external fact in one’s mind is in reality the creation of a small anti-universe, and thus by the law of conservation of truth, the external universe must change so as to make the sum total of truths equal to zero.

Here are some concrete examples of this phenomenon, which have been well documented elsewhere:

1. If you are in a car accident, the law changes in such a way as to make it your fault. Similar phenomena have been observed with tax laws and campaign finance regulations (Gingrich, 1997).

2. In conducting a scientific experiment, it is frequently observed that the closer one gets to the final result, the more difficult it becomes to reproduce the original observation. (This is also due in part to the well-documented Experimenter Entropy Effect).

3. The more potentially embarrassing your e-mail message, the greater the likelihood that it will be delivered to the wrong recipient ( Allman, 1983).

4. Failure to perform backups of one’s computer data produces a statistically-significant increase in the likelihood of a hard disk crash (The reference for this was accidentally erased).

5. Stepping out of the office causes the telephone to ring, as soon as the distance to the telephone becomes far enough to make it impossible to reach the phone before the caller hangs up. Only if you are working on something that requires sufficiently intense concentration that you can’t answer the phone, will it ring while you are close enough to answer it. The quantum nature of this phenomenon becomes evident if one decides to never answer the telephone. In this case, the telephone will ring only when you are walking past it with nothing to do.

6. As one walks down the street, no matter which direction one walks in, the vast majority of people one meets are travelling in the opposite direction to oneself. This observation has been frequently attributed to quantum phenomena; however, it has recently been demonstrated (Walker et al., 1997), that this effect is largely due to a subtle sampling bias.

As an aside, it should be noted that several other phenomena once attributed to quantum effects have also been found to have other explanations. For example, the well-known observation that washing one’s car can induce rain was actually found to be the result of tiny soap bubbles drifting into the upper atmosphere and acting as nuclei of condensation. Similarly, the observation by British researchers that carrying an umbrella usually prevents rain was found to actually be the result of trace chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) emanating from the plastic elements of the umbrella, drifting into the stratosphere, and not due to quantum effects as originally believed. In a classic experiment, it was shown that in the stratosphere, the intense local heating caused by the the CFCs accumulated from thousands of opened umbrellas (mediated by CFC-catalyzed disruption of the ozone layer) not only prevented atmospheric precipitation, but actually promoted nearly instantaneous reabsorption of clouds into the atmosphere, creating a sunny day.

The quantum epistemological effect of Theorem (1) has also been used by tornado researchers, who set up small trailers as “bait” in order to attract tornadoes for study, on the theory that the Universe would think the researchers did not want the trailers to be destroyed, and thus create a tornado (e.g., J. Swisher and B. Dervisham, J. Torn. Res. 7, 14332 (1999)). The ethics of this practice have been questioned by some researchers, while others have suggested that the fact that the researchers wish to observe a tornado actually serves to diminish the probability of their occurrence, even to the extent of counteracting the attractive effect of trailer parks (which are known to be a powerful tornado pheromone). In any event, although the affinity of tornadoes for trailer parks is readily demonstrated in the lab, the cycloattractant properties of trailers confounds any simple interpretation as to whether quantum effects truly plays any significant role.

It also underlines the difficulties of demonstrating these quantum effects in the laboratory, since any attempt to accumulate data on this effect will cause it to disappear, only to reappear again when the researcher concludes that the effect does not exist. Thus, these phenomena can only be studied by indirect or in cogito experiments.

Interestingly, the deconstructionists seem at some level to have grasped this concept, but as usual they have completely misunderstood its profoundly Heisenbergian epistemological implications.

(Note: We have recently shown that Theorem 1 is in fact a special case of general thermoepistemological theory, and is in fact a result of a generalized curvature of science. Quantum experimenter entropy effects may also play a role here as well.)

The theory developed thus far still needs more work to make it fit into the overall formal architecture of quantum mechanics. This is left as an exercise for the reader.

- FROM THE ARCHIVE -

May 8th, 1988

I encounter science for the first time during recess. As my friends and I are busy using the magnifying lens that Billy Stewart had gotten for his eighth birthday to burn some sticks, she breaks off from the pack of girls she usually travels around the schoolyard with to tell me that she likes my shoes. I don’t understand how anyone could possibly dislike my shoes as they are brand new and have little zippered compartments where I have carefully secreted away the coins I will later use to buy myself some Gobstoppers, so I’m a little befuddled as I return to the sticks. Achieving only faint smoke from the wood we foolishly move on to try, using the same techniques, to freeze a small puddle.

September 10th, 1990

As I patiently explain to Todd Walters that his newest scheme to attain flight will probably end disastrously Science approaches. Relations have been cool since the shoe incident and I am surprised that she’s coming my way. Timidly, she asks if I’m going to the lunch hour dance taking place the following day. Rumours abound that Science has been dating an older boy so I am shocked that she seems to be asking me to a dance. I try desperately, and ultimately unsuccessfully, to maintain my cool as I explain that, since I suspect the only tapes that will be played at said dance are by The New Kids on the Block and M.C. Hammer, I will not be going anywhere near the gym. As Science retreats dejectedly I agree with Todd that invisibility on the other hand is totally doable. I learn later that Science and Billy Stewart were seen kissing in a corner of the gymnasium during “Groove is in the heart”. No doubt this is in retribution for my breaking his magnifying glass.

October 22nd, 1993

During Math class Science’s friend Sarah Jensen passes my friend Cam Sparks a note that says, after a lengthy digression paralleling the math teacher’s personal hygiene and his family name, that Science thinks I am cute. I hear about this note later in the library as I am perusing a pop-up book about the human circulatory system that I discovered while searching for a compendium of the 1001 worst sports injuries. I immediately pen a response that is both witty and sweet, asking if Science would like to go steady. After school I walk her home and during a brief pause in her explanation of why, contrary to a popular movie of the day, it would be impossible to clone dinosaurs from a mosquito, I slip my hand into hers.

December 3rd, 1998

I accidentally run into Science in the cafeteria. Ever since we broke up I have been practicing in my dorm room’s mirror what I would say in just such a chance encounter. In these sessions I kept my composure as I listed the reasons, sensible to the last, that I had, during the previous semester, decided to simultaneously transfer into theology and end our relationship of 4 years. Now, I am pathetically trying to mask my sobs with a sudden and illogical case of mid-winter hay-fever; in the face of Science’s composure my reasons sound contrived and immature. Eventually I break down into tears, call my foray into the arts ill-advised and proclaim my everlasting love. Embarrassed by my own overflow of emotion and disappointed by her cold façade I regrettably erupt, calling Science a “heartless bitch”. I apologize immediately blaming the outburst on her absence from my life. It takes months of cajoling but eventually Science, whether out of pity, nostalgia or something else, agrees to take me back on the condition that I transfer back into Chemistry.

May 31st, 2005

My mind wanders from Karl Popper’s The Logic of Scientific Discovery to my impending nuptials. Have I made a huge mistake? Can I really spend the rest of my life with Science? There is no question that I love her, that I’ve always loved her, but sometimes I catch myself gazing wistfully at other girls. Girls who read novels, play the guitar and don’t quantify the beauty of a sunset for ease of comparison. Of course, they don’t seem to care about string theory.

- FROM THE ARCHIVE -

Most parents are anxious to know the meaning of the various cries, groans, and sounds their child makes. Recently a Spanish electronic engineer named Pedro Monagas created a battery-powered device called “Why Cry”. This instrument about the size of a calculator is reportedly able to tell a parent whether their baby’s cry is indicating hunger, sleepiness or tiredness. Mr. Monagas states that his “Why Cry” is 98% accurate.

Well I, myself, am considered a kind of “tinkerer”. And, as a new parent I often wonder what all the sounds that my baby makes might mean, not just his crying. So, I gathered together some random things lying around my basement: a bike frame, a tube of caulking, some bits of string that I keep in a metal tub, the metal heads from golf clubs I found, amongst other things and started to put together my own device.

“Baby Talk” is a small instrument about the size of a 70’s Volkswagen. It will listen to any sound that a baby makes and translate it into its true meaning. On a good day, it boasts 61.3% accuracy. I intend to place it on the market in the next year. I intend to sell it for a reasonable price. I intend to make a lot of money.

But does it work, you ask. Well, I can tell you that the communication between my 11 month old son and I has greatly improved since I’ve been strapping this device to him. Let me give you a sample of translations.

Mmma-maaa: Why don’t you give me some Cheerios…in fact give me the whole box.

Blaa-Blaa-Blaa: Dad, you’ve put the diaper on backwards again.

Tthhhpttt: I’ve recently come to realize that my tongue is capable of spraying some kind of liquid from my mouth all over everything, making a nice glistening sheen.

Gaa-gaa-grrmm: I quite like to look in the mirror as it seems to contain the twins of my parents and an amazingly handsome young child.

Bbb-bb-bbb: Excuse me, but you are invading my personal space.

Huhhhh!: Actually, these Cheerios are quite bland, I’d much prefer a case of Cocoa-Puffs.

Tweeemm: If you ask me to give “kisses” again, I’ll give you a big kiss, all right, buster.

Rrrrrrrrrr: It would be awesome if you would let me sit in the car alone, start it up, and roll down the hill.

Ddd-ddd-ddd: Where is that really cute girl-baby that came by yesterday? I’d really like to see her again, let her yank toys out of my hand, and make me cry. Rowr!

Whaaap: The “Baby Talk” machine is amazing. It has changed my life! By the way, where are those Cocoa-Puffs I asked for?

My “Baby-Talk” machine has been a bit of a miracle in our house-hold. Now, instead of waiting for our son to communicate clearly to us, or having to go through the long anguishing work of teaching simple sign language, I just plug the “Baby-Talk” machine into its gasoline-powered generator, attach it to my son and we’re “talking”.

I am also currently working on another device. But this one works the other way – translating parent’s words into baby-sounds so the child can understand us. Does anyone have a bucket full of used staples or the frame to ‘68 Cadillac?