Great American Logic Out
Killing Four Birds with One Stone, and Michelle with Poison

The Exciting Conclusion of Science Week


How Science Will Work:  The Future of Science 

I’m often asked, “Well sure, Matt, anyone can understand basic scientific principles such as iPods, Futureade_1water, scientists, and dinosaurs, but that’s because those are all happening right now—but what will happen with the future of science?”  I cannot stress what an excellent question this is.  No, seriously, I can’t stress it, because it is NOT an excellent question—it is a smartass question that undermines the authority of hardworking scientists everywhere.

So even though these wannabe scientists are clearly sipping the hate-o-rade (which chemically is 2 parts hydrogen, 1 part oxygen, 1 part smarm), allow me to answer this question. 

First, and I cannot stress this enough, the future of science will NOT consist of the following things: 

a) time machines;

b) killer robots;

c) regular robots; or

d) people living on the moon. 

89920040814195137This is because science hates clichés.  Also, the future of science will not consist of inventing killer clone armies.  This will be unnecessary because we already have the North Koreans.

However, several disciplines will see significant changes in the years to come.  For example:

Zoology:  The future of zoology (which is Latin for “the study of zoos”) will focus primarily on creating hilarious pets, such as a cow the size of a dog or a bear that can fit in the palm of your hand.  Paris HiltonFutureparis will carry around a tiny giraffe everywhere.

Biology:  We will finally realize, as a nation, that there is nothing left to learn by cutting open a frog.  “Enough already with the cutting open of the frogs,” a particularly sarcastic Secretary of Education will likely proclaim.  Likewise, we will stop collecting insects and pinning them in cardboard boxes, thus critically injuring our cardboard box industry and our pin industry.  Shortly after these two practices become obsolete, no one will be able to remember any other reason to study biology, and middle schoolers will just get a second lunch period.

Nuclear Geophysical Quantum Oceanography: If I even began to tell you what this will entail, Einstein would literally shit himself in his grave.  So let’s be safe and just note that this is something to look out for on the scientific horizon. 

Futurespace Outer Space: Upon closer inspection, we will learn that outer space, with all of its vastness, grandeur, and mystery, really isn’t that interesting at all.  It is called “space” for a reason, and that’s because it is just a bunch of empty space.  However, we will discover a whole bunch of new moons, and since we are running out of Greek Gods, we will name them after hockey players.  “If the light is right tonight, Timmy, we might be able to see Callisto, Europa, and Gordie Howe,” is something a scientist will say. 

So basically, science is something that is easy to predict.  All you have to do is look for something that you want to happen, such as hilarious pets or quantum oceans, and some scientist will do it, usually for cheap since scientists are poor.  And with disciplines like physics or chemistry, the only changes that will happen in the future are things that you wouldn’t understand anyway, so from your perspective nothing will change. 

And this concludes our celebration of science week.  I sincerely hope you have a greater understanding of how science relates to your world, because otherwise the National Science Council will have my ass on a scientific platter.  In case you forgot anything, here are some review questions of the central principles we discussed that you need to know if you ever want to be half the scientist I am. 

Review Test:

  1. What is the true   meaning of Jurassic Park?  Explain.
  2. Have you seen the   movie Waterworld?  Why or why not?
  3. Who invented text   messaging?  What about creationism?
  4. Who wrote “Take   it To Da House,” and did it make you want to get up out yo’ seat?
  5. Did I really use   the term “Crustacean Scientist” in one of these articles?    Why or why not?  And if so, come I didn’t think to reference   Dr. Zoidberg from Futurama, who really is a crustacean scientist?  


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


is the test open note?


Okay, well since you did not reply in the .02 seconds i can wait without fidgeting, I wuill assume it is not open-note.

1. The true meaning of Jurassic Park is that dinosaurs are a lot like birds. This was demonstrated not only at the end when like pelicans fly by, but also in the speech Grant gives to the Fat Kid.

2. No i didn't see the movie Waterworld. I have not seen it because I think Mel Gibson is in it.

3. Alexander Grah-Ham Bell invented both Text Messaging and Creationism. The latter was invented because he created text messaging.

4. Trick Daddy penned "Take it to da house," and I did indeed want to get up out my seat (get down).

5. You used that term because you were giving answers to a review question i think, and because you wanted to invent a type of scientist that was above creation scientists but below something else? You didn't think to reference Zoidberg because you were so busy comparing unrelated quantities with the Porkham Metric. I think.


Matt Price

Student: Kellington M. Boydles

Question 1: Correct, 2 points.
Question 2: Partial credit. You didn't see Waterworld, but it is because Kevin Costner drinks his own piss, not because of Mel Gibson. 1 point.
Question 3: Partial credit. Bell invented Text Messaging, but it was God that invented creationism. 1 point.
Question 4: Bonus points! Yes, it was Trick Daddy, yes it made you want to get up out yo seat, and a bonus point for also getting down. 3 points!
Question 5: Blatantly incorrect. The first sentence is rambling and boring. And I didn't think to reference Zoidberg because I was eager to eat a Celeste's pizza and just finished up the post real fast. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Final Grade: 7 out of 10. C-. Please stay after class, I'm very disappointed in you.


I don't think that biology will become obsolete. Just look at that picture of Paris Hilton, biologists need to figure out why that one eye is so much smaller than her other one. I believe that Paris' popeyeism is probably due to a sex-tape related injury, if only a scientist could unlock this mystery!

The comments to this entry are closed.