Disappointing Results

9 people found this site, last month, by searching for the word ‘disappointed’. I’m not sure they found what they were looking for, but in a sense, doesn’t that mean they did? Is it logically coherent to be disappointed by the results for the word ‘disappointed’? In fact, is it even logically coherent not to be?

I decided, once, that all logical paradoxes were solvable. If a barber can only cut the hair of men who cannot cut their own, can he cut his own? No. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The egg. Whatever the immediate evolutionary ancestor of the chicken – i.e. the parent of the first creature that would satisfactorily meet our definition of a chicken – it laid a chicken egg, even though it was not itself a chicken. The type of an egg is determined by its contents rather than its parent.

In this case I think yes, you could be disappointed by your results, and have found what you were looking for – disappointment.

Hey, I had a mind-expanding adventure in a virtual world last night – one so fascinating that I had the (missed) oppourtunity to say “Do you want to blog this or shall I?” Although the person I was talking to doesn’t have a blog per se. Details, naturally, later.

4 Replies to “Disappointing Results”

  1. Clearly you’re talking about running into me in Second Life — not!

    But of course now you have me on the hook. Get blogging!

  2. Hey, you are wrong about the chicken bit: The chicken came first, because very speicifically, the gene required to make chicken eggs is ONLY found in chickens. No one knows where the first chicken came from (a dinosaur egg!), but a chicken had to exist before a chicken egg could.

    SCIENCE!

  3. Ridiculous. The mutated first-chicken was inside it, so it was a chicken egg; egg first. Also, while it’s technically true that chickens came from dinosaurs (since they are dinosaurs), the more useful descriptor for the predecessor is ‘guinea fowl’.

Comments are closed.