A friend recently responded to this bit of nearly clever nonsense from a source that is, in other cases, often actually witty:
I thought it would be possible to improve on this, and explain a thing or two along the way.
- Science is finding any way you can to describe a room, a cat, a flashlight, eyesight, or a lightswitch usefully and accurately.
- Philosophy is waking up in the dark and trying to decide whether you need to find a lightswitch or remove a blindfold.
- Metaphysics is waking up in the dark and trying to describe what you would need in order to invent a flashlight.
- Theology is waking up in the dark and trying to find out who gave you this really handy flashlight kit, so you can ask why it came “some assembly required.”
- Quackery is throwing away the flashlight kit and then using trial-and-error to see which bits and bobs from the room might strike sparks.
Also, folks: Nobody @#$%&*! Loves Science
when Katie Couric (B.A., English) asks Sarah Palin (B.A., communications) about her views on evolution, whatever is transpiring between the two of them is not a scientific discussion. Likewise, when Bill Nye the Science Guy — who is actually Bill Nye the engineering guy (B.S., mechanical engineering) — debates Mr. Ham (B.S., environmental biology), neither the debaters nor the scientifically illiterate popular audience sitting in judgment of them are engaged in anything that comes close to meriting description as scientific discourse — they are not equipped for it. What they are engaged in is simply the flashing of cultural and political gang signs.
(source: National Review Online)