>>102009747I remember The Dilbert Future quite well - I read through it several times as a kid - and I don't remember anything about evolution being disprovable (although he did in a blog post), while he was fully aware that the growing theory probably wasn't true at all and was just suggesting it as a wild out-of-the-box idea.
I will say that he definitely doesn't understand the scientific process though. He likes to think of science as a sort of political thing, where the 'scientific consensus' is whatever is the most popular idea, rather than something that goes through peer reviews and can be debunked.
>>102004281This, on the other hand, is entirely true. Not that it works, I mean, but that he did think it worked that way. I remember him explicitly writing about how luck was probably not just coincidence.
Basically, he's just one of those guys that thinks that wild hunches count for something while verified science does not. See also: his absolute insistence that he's good at persuasion, despite doing hardly any professional study into it.
