Alright, it's been a good five days since our blogs have come online, and I still haven't found a novel way to detail my first three and half weeks here at MIT. So I'll dive right into two arguments I've stumbled upon while on campus.
I spent a good chunk of time during rush with the brothers of Alpha Delta Phi. One of the rush activities was a pizza dinner at Uno's near Harvard. Here, I got into a heated debate with Arun '10 about the superiority or inferiority of crunchy peanut butter compared to creamy. Initial arguments centered around texture or lack thereof (looking at you, creamy). But Arun quickly turned the conversation towards much less tangible subjects, namely the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe. Being Course 8, he had an advantage over a mere frosh, but I had the powers of Course 16 in the form of Raul '10 to back me up. Arun claimed that creamy style peanut butter much better fits with the universe around us. I disagreed, pointing out that the bits of whole peanuts represent galaxies floating in that universe, and also that this had nothing to do with peanut butter. Thirty minutes later we were still arguing. A thought experiment involving a bathtub full of the stuff brought the discussion to a close, and at the end of the day, we accomplished nothing. No argument, no matter how ridiculous, will change someone's preference. Which brings us to a debate I witnessed this Friday.
During my one hour break between 5.111 and 8.01, I headed to the Student Center for some food. In front of the bike racks there were signs advertising a question and answer session later that night with Cliff Knechtle, a Christian author. The writer was actually there by the signs in the afternoon, and was in an intense argument with a heavily accented Australian man. The Aussie would always disclaim his sentences by saying “Now, I'm a raving atheist, but...,” to which Mr Knechtle would always reply, “Now, what if I slapped this man? This man right here. What if I slapped him?” The only thing the Australian man ever actually said was “I don't need to believe in God to believe in absolute morals,” which he repeated about every three minutes. Mr Knechtle always—seriously, always—responded with “Now, listen. What if I slapped this man?” Except he said it as if he had just received this intense deep revelation; as if every time he said it, he had stumbled upon a brilliant observation. It was all a bit absurd, really. On my way to lunch, and two strangers, an evangelical Christan and an atheist Australian are almost coming to blows over moral relativism.
Eventually I got hungry and annoyed by these people who couldn't argue so I bought a burrito, ate it, checked my email, and then went outside again. Same people. Same arguments.
As the conversation continued, Chi Alpha, the Christian group that brought Mr Knechtle here, was handing out business cards about his upcoming session that evening. There was a big picture of a pizza on it, so I attended. In a room in the student center, the organization had put about thirty chairs in a circle so that anyone could stop by and ask the author a question. I'd say that 28 of the people there were Christians, and that me and another freshman were the only skeptics in the audience. I asked some hard-hitting questions, and I was extremely pleasantly surprised when the leaders of Chi Alpha genuinely thanked me for coming and putting the questions on the table. It was a great experience, and in that room I saw the vast differences in personal Christian philosophies.
At the end of the program, there was a drawing for three gift cards. The other skeptic and I got the two of highest value (I walked away with the equivalent of 16.8539326 free donuts), which may be a hint...
So, the (relative or absolute?) moral of this roundabout story: Be prepared for a debate at MIT. Anytime, anywhere, any asinine argument.
Comments (Closed after 30 days to reduce spam)
Posted by: Shreya Vora on September 13, 2008
Posted by: mengshuen on September 13, 2008
Posted by: Shreya Vora on September 13, 2008
Posted by: JAJA on September 13, 2008
Posted by: Ahana on September 13, 2008
Posted by: Alex on September 13, 2008
Points for the Big Bang Theory reference, it is the greatest thing in the world.
Speaking of the greatest thing in the world, it's all about the chunky peanut butter, and for one inarguable proof:
the second law of thermodynamics.
Indeed starting with chunky peanut butter, it would be simple to continue to grind it and wind up with creamy, but once we have creamy there is no way to "ungrind it" back into chunky. To maintain maximum levels of entropic possibilities, one must use chunky. Plus it tastes better, so there!
Posted by: Chris '12 on September 13, 2008
I'm not a peanut butter expert(I've only had it once, so correct me if I'm wrong), but if you want it chunky again, you can put in ground peanut...but then of course, one has to use more energy in the first place to grind it. I'd say either ways, its peanut butter
Posted by: Ahana on September 13, 2008
Posted by: Ahana on September 13, 2008
2) Crunchy peanut butter beasts creamy peanut butter any day.
Posted by: Jeremy on September 13, 2008
Posted by: Ahmed on September 13, 2008
Posted by: Alex on September 13, 2008
Posted by: Jimmy on September 13, 2008
I actually think this is true. My explanation for this is that I think people are so used to being "know-it-alls" in their high school before coming here, and now that they come here - guess what happens when you put a lot of know-it-alls in the same place!
Same goes that other university down Mass Ave.
Posted by: Oasis '11 on September 13, 2008
Posted by: Oasis '11 on September 13, 2008
Posted by: Piper on September 14, 2008
...wait, doesn't that mean that the creamy peanut butter has a higher entropic state? since by grinding up the peanut you are increasing the entropy?
Posted by: 0 on September 14, 2008
Crunchy peanut butter is actually just creamy peanut butter with chunks mixed back in (it's more cost effective and consistent to have everything start out as creamy and modify it later for crunchy and extra crunchy styles).
Posted by: Ahmed on September 14, 2008
Posted by: Ahana on September 14, 2008
@Piper:
And what was the conclusion of that one?
Posted by: Alex on September 14, 2008
Posted by: 0 on September 14, 2008
Posted by: Barack Obama on September 14, 2008
Posted by: Alex on September 14, 2008
Posted by: Tracy on September 14, 2008
Posted by: 0 on September 14, 2008
seriously. I want to know.
Posted by: deng on September 14, 2008
Posted by: Ramon on September 15, 2008
I'm looking forward to reading more of your posts. =)
Posted by: Aditya on September 16, 2008
@Chris:
You seems to have quite a lot of faith in "the Big Bang Theory".
Posted by: sidd'13 on September 16, 2008
Posted by: sidd'13 on September 16, 2008
BBT is also a TV show.
Posted by: Ahana on September 16, 2008
well...u mean the comedy created and produced by chuck lorre and bill prady......
Posted by: sidd'13? on September 16, 2008
Posted by: sidd'13? on September 16, 2008
No offence to those who like it.
Posted by: Banerjee on September 17, 2008
Why yes, I do have a lot of faith in the Big Bang Theory, it brightens my days.
To make clear my argument, I justified it based on maximum entropic POSSIBILITIES, not maximum entropy. Chunky holds more possibilities since it hasn't been ground into creamy yet, but it still could. Thus in some capacity it retains both the characteristics of creamy and all the characteristics of chunky within some sort of peanut buttery, schrodinger foam-like state.
Posted by: Chris '12 on September 17, 2008
The best peanut butter is a matter of preference. You need facts to back something up ie.. there are nine million bicycles in Beijing. Anna's Mexican food restaurant (kitchen?) has the best burritos (chili verde) I've ever tasted. My digestive tract disagrees when I drink a soda with it. That counts as a debate.
The best peanut butter is a matter of preference. You need facts to back something up ie.. there are nine million bicycles in Beijing. <- four gangsta points if you recognize the allusion
Posted by: obesechicken13 on September 17, 2008
well.... u tried to xplain things quite sufficiently(quite good), though i knew those(POSSIBILITIES) already....
Posted by: sidd'13? on September 18, 2008
Posted by: Arthur on September 19, 2008
Posted by: Ahmed on September 19, 2008
Besides Reeses aren't crunchy
GAME; SET; MATCH!
Posted by: Everson on September 21, 2008
By the way. I know who humble pie is. And I hope to become an EMT during IAP.
Posted by: 0 on September 22, 2008
By the way. I know who humble pie is. And I hope to become an EMT during IAP.
Did you rush α∆ϕ?
Posted by: April '12 on September 22, 2008
Posted by: Ahmed on September 22, 2008
Posted by: Fatimah on September 24, 2008
Posted by: Yisel on September 24, 2008
Posted by: Yisel Uranga on September 24, 2008
Add a comment