Ask Mr. Apple......

Holy schnikies compadres, it's finally time for another installment of the least read question-answer/advice column on the internet......Ask Mr. Apple!

Dear Mr. Apple,
I recently saw the post where you provided us with your "current stats" and I'm a touch incredulous about some of the "stats" you quoted. For starters, you list a personal best in the shotput of 112m....but as far as I know, the world record of 23.12 m is held by Randy Barnes of the USA. Second, you claim to have run a 3:56 minute mile that would put you close to the NCAA collegiate record of 3:55:11, and yet you've never run so much as a timed weekend "fun run", let alone in an NCAA track meet. Third, you claim to have 0% body fat, which if it were true would almost certainly be fatal. I can only assume that the height, weight, and net worth figures you quoted are similarly exaggerated. Are you really so desperate for approval that you have to lie to us?
Yours,
A skeptical reader

Dear skeptical reader,

Frankly, I'm insulted by your insinuations. Comparing my 112 m shotput to Randy Barnes' world record is like comparing apples to oranges (no pun intended). Olympic rules specify that the throw will be measured from the the circumference of the circle from which it is thrown to the first mark made by the shot. CSAIL olympics rules specify the measurement will be made from the point of release to where the shot comes to a full stop. This means that distances are slightly inflated since the shot is allowed to roll. Would my throw have broken Barnes' record under Olympic rules? I humbly refuse to speculate.....but for the historical record may I present the local athletics field where I made my 112m throw:
Now I'd like to address your remark about my sub-4 minute mile. Again, comparing my 3:56 mile to the NCAA record of 3:55:11 is not really fair. While it's true I run like lightning, my 3:56 mile was wind-adjusted. During my epic mile, my associate timed me running at an average speed of 7mph. Unfortunately, there was a gentle breeze of approximately 8.3mph blowing directly into my face. After wind adjustment that makes my average speed 7+8.3 = 15.3mph, which translates into a 3:56 mile.

I don't think I need to dignify the rest of your slander with a response.
Yours,
Mr. Apple



Dear Mr. Apple,

Mister, you're on fire Mister.

Sincerely,
Creepy tall guy in the middle





No sir, I'm ok.

Yours,
Mr. Apple


Dear Mr. Apple,

My friend Natalie Portman and I were having an argument yesterday. I claimed that it can objectively be said that you are sexier than Jake Gylenhaal. Natalie disagreed and said that, while we both find you incredibly sexy (and much sexier than Mr. Jake Gylenhaal), sexiness is a subjective experience of each individual, and therefore no objective statements about how sexy you are can be made. Do you agree?

Love,
Chan

Dear Chan,

Your friend N. Portman is spewing pure nonsense. This line of reasoning is why some long-haired hippie can get up in front of a group of people, defecate in his hand, smear it all over his face whilst doing yoga, and call it "art". You'll find that people who make arguments like this are usually glassy-eyed mouth-breathers with no other way of defending their own poor taste.

There are objective standards for almost everything Chan. The problem is that we aren't always qualified to evaluate how well something measures up to those standards or even to identify what those standards are. For example, what is General Electric worth? I haven't a clue, but I'm guessing a lot. Even the finest business minds in the world have no absolute way of knowing exactly what its value is, so does that mean it's value is subjective? No it does not. Different people will come to different conclusions via different paths of reasoning about what one share of GE is worth, but that share does have a true value. When all available information is integrated into a single price on the stock exchange, we get a noisy measurement of the true value. Over time, as more data is collected, we get a better measure of GE's value and we can confidently make statements of fact like "General Electric is a more valuable company than Al's Steak House". So too, in the world of science, we are able to make objective statements about the value of particular lines of research. Trained individuals with expertise and experience form a kind of market of ideas and over time the information in this market lets us make non-normative statements like "Darwin's theory of evolution represents a greater scientific advance than the invention of Nutra Sweet." A diet soda-loving fundamentalist Christian in Kansas might disagree. But if she had the perspective afforded by years of study and experience in evolutionary biology she might be able to see the bigger picture and form the connections necessary to appreciate her error. The fact that she doesn't make these connections doesn't make her any less wrong.

This analysis applies to art and beauty as well, Chan. More people currently enjoy the music of the grotesque and crass Fergie than that of rock'n'roll legends the Bay City Rollers. But the greatness of art is not a popularity contest. Accomplished musicians, poets, serious critics and academics appreciate the skill required to make the art, they can assess the impact and influence it has, they observe its depth and profundity of feeling, and they assess how the music and words are integrated into a beautiful and harmonious whole. They can do all this because of their expertise and experience. A few of these learned individuals may disagree, but the general trend and underlying truth will reveal itself in time, and 100 years from now they will say with utter confidence "That Fergie song 'My Humps' really sucked, but the Bay City Rollers were keen - especially that song Saturday Night. S! A! T-U-R! D-A-Y! Night!"

Dissent is good! Dissent brings new ideas and opinions to the market which, upon further examination by the community of experts, may survive and thrive. Weaker memes exposed to scrutiny will ultimately die out. The idea I'm trying to convey, Chan, is that the market of ideas in a community of knowledgeable and experienced individuals can, over time, convert the subjective experiences of many individuals into an objective measure of truth! The markets are the shadows on the wall of the cave! Over time, if we pay close attention, we can come to know the reality they represent! Cultures change, the fortunes of aesthetic ideals wax and wane, so Gylenhaal getting more chicks now means nothing! History will vindicate us Chan! Call me. And tell Natalie to call me too.

Yours,
Mr. Apple

Whew!!!! Well, that was a long one kids! I think we're all glad that's over with. Anyway, I should have been reviewing a paper instead of writing that crap, and I'm off to Ottawa Friday for a weekend of booze and babes, so don't expect any updates from me for a while. Remember that I love you all, and although every once in a while I've got to ramble, I always come back to you in the end.