Reputation (again) and other stuff split from evolution and creation as one

[Reg Prescott]

If no one feels offended or angry or threatened by evobulgarevo -- a masquerade that some unoffendable members seem determined to uphold -- I'm wondering how to explain his ever-growing and prodigious pile of -1 you're-a-bad-boy rep points, which, although hasn't yet attained the dizzying heights of my own, is beginning to cause me some concern over the possibility of being usurped from the diabolical throne.

Just a few words to the rotten new kid on the block then...

I had to go through exactly the same song-and-terpsichore when I first joined the site a couple of months ago, evo. A significant number of our members ARE -- and never mind their denials to the contrary -- manically suspicious of anyone who speaks a different dialect from their own, and thus embark on a mission to insult, belittle and hopefully silence the upstart dissident. Ten of them will rally together against one, accuse you of evading their questions when you may simply lack the time or competence to address them all, attempt to snow you and dazzle you with technicalities, predictably and formulaically point out putative logical fallacies in your posts (and on this site, by and large, you can read "strawman" as "you're wrong, asshole"), on occasion censor your counterarguments (happened to me recently in another thread), misrepresent -- sometimes grossly -- your own comments, simply assert without support what is the case, or what they take to be the case, and blithely dismiss any evidence you might adduce, when no one, as I've been examining in a thread of my own, seems able to articulate exactly what evidence is -- all we've learned so far is that if scientists say it's evidence then it IS evidence, and vice versa. Evidence by legislative fiat!

The good news is, evo, that, to some degree at least, it does get better with time if you make clear that you're sincere about productive discussion, and are not here just to cause trouble. Certain members who were initially hostile to me seem to have warmed somewhat. Some were perfect gentlemen and gentlewomen from the beginning, bless 'em. Others, meanwhile, seem incurably belligerent to anyone, like myself and yourself, not content to simply toe the party line, sing songs of praise, and rehearse the same hoary and often dubious (in my opinion) mantras of the orthodox scientific community. All my attempts at detente remain futile in some quarters; all I can do is ignore those who seem committed to regarding me with contempt no matter what I say or do, and focus on those with whom I can enjoy enlightening dialog within a cordial atmosphere of mutual respect.

Erm, welcome!

Edited November 16, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Phi for All]

It's truly amazing how you can glean all that from people disagreeing with your ideas, showing you exactly why they disagree with your ideas, and asking you to maintain the same rigor in your replies instead of guessing and making stuff up.

[Reg Prescott]

It's truly amazing how you can glean all that from people disagreeing with your ideas, showing you exactly why they disagree with your ideas, and asking you to maintain the same rigor in your replies instead of guessing and making stuff up.

 

Would you like me to compile a list of some of the things I've been called on this site? If so, say the word and I'll get to work immediately. Meanwhile, perhaps you can work on compiling a list of insults I've hurled at other members. Your list will be shorter than mine.

 

Edit : P.S. Since you mentioned it, can you give us a few examples of stuff that I've "made up"? On a site like this, aren't members expected to support their claims?

Edited November 16, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Ophiolite]

If no one feels offended or angry or threatened by evobulgarevo -- a masquerade that some unoffendable members seem determined to uphold -- I'm wondering how to explain his ever-growing and prodigious pile of -1 you're-a-bad-boy rep points, which, although hasn't yet attained the dizzying heights of my own, is beginning to cause me some concern over the possibility of being usurped from the diabolical throne.

I for one become near incandescent with rage when I see the ill conceived, unsupported, factually contradicted, illogical, self-contradictory, poorly structured morasse of nonsense incompetently presented by some members. However, two points may be relevant here:

1. I never hit the post button until I have cooled to room temperature.

2. I never award negative reps to people for being idiots.

 

I strongly suspect that many members are annoyed, or disappointed, or surprised, or like terms by the crap that they read. They choose to say they are not offended by it. I accept that, but for the record state it offends me to see humans using whatever intelligence they may possess to jump to a concussion.

 

You said in a later post:

Meanwhile, perhaps you can work on compiling a list of insults I've hurled at other members. Your list will be shorter than mine.

Correct. My list has one item on it. You have insulted my intelligence by your manipulation of words, misappropriation of facts and generally questionable debating technique in multiple posts.

[Reg Prescott]

Correct. My list has one item on it. You have insulted my intelligence by your manipulation of words, misappropriation of facts and generally questionable debating technique in multiple posts.

 

Once again I find myself in the same unenviable predicament that my investigation of evidence led to in another thread; to paraphrase : "We'll tell you what is, and what is not, evidence, thank you very much."

 

I have my own qualms regarding the debating technique of certain other members; qualms that I can easily make explicit if anyone cares about such things (which, given my brief time here, I somewhat doubt). Unfortunately it seems that the final word on these matters -- whose arguments are good and whose aren't -- lies in the hands of the very people that I am debating against.

 

You do see a problem, don't you?

Edited November 16, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Strange]

If no one feels offended or angry or threatened by evobulgarevo -- a masquerade that some unoffendable members seem determined to uphold -- I'm wondering how to explain his ever-growing and prodigious pile of -1 you're-a-bad-boy rep points

 

As you have no idea why people give a member negative points, you are just inventing these reasons. Whenever this has been discussed (because someone creates a thread to whine about their treatment) people always say that the main reason for giving negative points are things like irrational posts, refusing to answer questions, failures of logic, and generally failing to engage in a rational discussion. I can't remember if I have given evobulgarevo any negative votes or not, but if I have it would be for that reason.

 

I can't imagine why I would feel angry or threatened by some unknown entity on the Internet. It's the Internet, for god's sake. I am mildly fascinated/amused that people can have such extraordinarily low levels of critical thinking skills. But mostly, chi se ne frega. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.

 

Do you really think his arguments make any sense? Or are you just siding with the "underdog"?

[Phi for All]

 

Would you like me to compile a list of some of the things I've been called on this site? If so, say the word and I'll get to work immediately. Meanwhile, perhaps you can work on compiling a list of insults I've hurled at other members. Your list will be shorter than mine.

 

Great example! I argue that you're assigning complicated motives when people just want you to explain what you mean rationally, and instead of replying to my point, now you want us both to compile a list of insults gleaned from the boards and compare them. You'll notice this doesn't address my point. It looks like another Strawman argument (which, btw, doesn't mean, "You're wrong, asshole!", it means you're argument didn't address my question, and instead attacked a different position), or perhaps a Red Herring fallacy meant to distract so you don't have to offer a substantive answer.

 

You know, one of the big mistakes many make is coming here to ASSERT their ideas, tell everyone how things really are. If the foundation of those assertions is flawed, anyone with critical thinking skills is going to want that shored up first, before we talk about anything else. If people would just ask questions instead, so much of this kind of crap would go away. Making a flawed assertion on a science site is like running from a pack of wolves, the response is practically guaranteed.

[evobulgarevo]

That's an amazing thing to say! "I'm going to ignore filter those arguments I don't like because I want to be constructive and open-minded".

 

What arguments? I'm merely sharing my personal observations based on the atheists I've talked to.

 

 

Nor do I. It is a discussion. As part of a rational discussion on a science forum, I (and others) are asking you to support what you say.

 

So proving to you that there are, let's say 20 people, who identify as atheists and are arrogant, self-centered, with little to no knowledge of science would make you feel better?

 

Or, am I to understand that identifying as an 'atheist' is some sort of accolade that means one can't possibly be arrogant, self-centered, or lack knowledge of science in your opinion?

The words you used were

" I think that any respectable scientist would need to be well versed in theology."

which I paraphrased as "You have said that science should study theology"

It's not clear to me why you are saying there's a difference.

 

On the other hand, there's a lot of difference between either version and " I said that science and religion go hand-in-hand and can compliment each other. "

which is what you now claim

(though the best you can come up with for evidence is a logical fallacy- an appeal to authority).

 

Do you realise how pointless it is to try to move the goalposts when they are posted here and everyone can see exactly what you said?

 

First and foremost, I apologize for any confusion that my posts may have caused. Please read carefully because this is now my attempt to clarify that confusion.

 

[the point] If a respectable scientist engages in a discussion that involves God it would be reasonable for that scientist to be well versed in God. [/the point]

Edited November 16, 2015 by evobulgarevo

[Strange]

So proving to you that there are, let's say 20 people, who identify as atheists and are arrogant, self-centered, with little to no knowledge of science would make you feel better?

 

Of course not. You have made general claims about (all/most) atheists. You made these statements as if they were facts. You have now admitted that they are just opinions based on a few people you have met. How many? 1? 20? Not a statistically significant sample anyway. But based on your personal experience, you think it is OK to tar all atheists with the same brush. This is not rational behaviour.

 

Or, am I to understand that identifying as an 'atheist' is some sort of accolade that means one can't possibly be arrogant, self-centered, or lack knowledge of science in your opinion?

 

Of course not. No one claimed that (so it is another strawman argument). Atheists are just people who don't believe in a god or gods. Apart from that they have nothing else in common, as a group. They may have many different reasons for not believing. They my or may not be arrogant, self-centred, or lacking knowledge of science. I see no reason why atheists should be any different from the general population in any of those things.

 

First and foremost, I apologize for any confusion that my posts may have caused.

 

No problem. But it would have been much better if you had said, "No that's not what I meant. What I am trying to say is ..." a couple of pages ago. Instead of trying to defend a position that you didn't really hold.

 

Perhaps we could get back to evolution as the thread topic...

But maybe your comment about scientists "engaged in a discussion that involves God" was about Creationism? But, every scientific argument I have seen about Creationism/ID says nothing about God. It just discusses the "scientific" claims and the evidence presented by Creationsists. That is the scientists area of expertise and so they have every right to comment on it.

 

But actually, it doesn't require much scientific training; anyone with critical thinking skills and a small amount of knowledge of basic biology can see through most Creationist claims quite easily.

[Reg Prescott]

 

Great example! I argue that you're assigning complicated motives when people just want you to explain what you mean rationally, and instead of replying to my point, now you want us both to compile a list of insults gleaned from the boards and compare them. You'll notice this doesn't address my point. It looks like another Strawman argument (which, btw, doesn't mean, "You're wrong, asshole!", (1) it means you're argument didn't address my question, and (2) instead attacked a different position), or perhaps a Red Herring fallacy meant to distract so you don't have to offer a substantive answer.

 

You know, (3) one of the big mistakes many make is coming here to ASSERT their ideas, tell everyone how things really are. If the foundation of those assertions is flawed, anyone with critical thinking skills is going to want that shored up first, before we talk about anything else. If people would just ask questions instead, so much of this kind of crap would go away. Making a flawed assertion on a science site is like running from a pack of wolves, the response is practically guaranteed.

 

Now, I don't want to be impolite to anyone, but Phi, I feel compelled to respond as you're not only attempting to discredit me, but your own response is simply nonsensical. Let's examine it:

 

 

(1) You didn't even ask a question! Here's what you said again:

 

It's truly amazing how you can glean all that from people disagreeing with your ideas, showing you exactly why they disagree with your ideas, and asking you to maintain the same rigor in your replies instead of guessing and making stuff up.

 

 

(2) I did not "attack" anything! I responded with an offer. An offer cannot possibly constitute an attack. Here are examples of offers:

 

Would you like me to open the window?

Can I offer you some whisky?

Would you like me to compile a list?

 

Here's an example of an attack:

 

Your claim that President Smith is a good man is untrue, and here's why...

 

An offer is not even a candidate for an attack. An offer is not in the attacking business. Your strawman accusation, therefore, is incoherent.

 

 

 

(3) Yes, like you asserting that I "make stuff up". I explicitly asked you to provide examples to support your allegation. You didn't.

 

 

Why not examine your own rigor and critical skills before advancing nonsensical, incoherent, and untrue slurs on mine.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Phi for All]

Now, I don't want to be impolite to anyone, but Phi, I feel compelled to respond as you're not only attempting to discredit me, but your own response is simply nonsensical. Let's examine it:

Why would I attempt to discredit you personally? Everything I've said has been aimed at the statements and arguments you've made. Why do you feel like anyone needs to discredit you to show that a specific idea is weak, or needs shoring up?

 

 

You didn't even ask a question! Here's what you said again:

Oh, heavy sigh. That was my explanation of a strawman. I was pointing out that you were strawmanning others, so, um, that's why I didn't ask a question. OK?

 

I did not "attack" anything! I responded with an offer. An offer cannot possibly constitute an attack. Here are examples of offers:

 

Would you like me to open the window?

Can I offer you some whisky?

Would you like me to compile a list?

 

Here's an example of an attack:

 

Your claim that President Smith is a good man is untrue, and here's why...

 

An offer is not even a candidate for an attack. An offer is not in the attacking business. Your strawman accusation, therefore, is incoherent.

I'm truly sorry, please forgive me, but the ignorance is actually painful now. You need to understand what you're talking about. It's like you're walking into the locker room of the big NFL game and telling all the players that's it's so simple, that what they really need to do is score more baskets than the other guys.

[Reg Prescott]

Why would I attempt to discredit you personally?

 

That's a question only you can answer. Now, you can sigh all you like, despair at my ignorance, celebrate your own enlightenment, and seek refuge in sarcasm if it makes you feel better. I'd still like you to support your allegation about me "making stuff up", though. Do that now, please.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Strange]

Imisrepresent -- sometimes grossly -- your own comments

 

Ironic from someone who repeatedly (for more than a page) claimed that I had said something I hadn't. Eventually, I had to quote my own post to prove what I had actually said. At which point you made a childish joke (about the size of your dick, or something).

[Ophiolite]

 

Once again I find myself in the same unenviable predicament that my investigation of evidence led to in another thread; to paraphrase : "We'll tell you what is, and what is not, evidence, thank you very much."

This analogy makes no sense to me whatsoever. My assertion was that you had "insulted my intelligence by your manipulation of words, misappropriation of facts and generally questionable debating technique in multiple posts."

 

That is an assertion. Assertions can be challenged. I believe the assertion to be accurate. Your predicament is - frankly - non-existent. You can either demonstrate the fallacy of my assertion, or require me to demonstrate the validity of my assertion. What do you do instead? You take the role of the "injured party", set upon by others. How unfair, you cry (implicitly).

 

And that is a fine example of your "questionable debating techniques" and, to some extent, your manipulation of words. Rather than defend your position in a direct and simple way, you try to deflect attention and completely fail to address the claims.

 

You continue:

I have my own qualms regarding the debating technique of certain other members; qualms that I can easily make explicit if anyone cares about such things (which, given my brief time here, I somewhat doubt).

Once again you try to deflect attention from your debating techniques to those of members at large. And you parenthetically adopt the role of the poor, set-upon individual, yet again.

 

Unfortunately it seems that the final word on these matters -- whose arguments are good and whose aren't -- lies in the hands of the very people that I am debating against.

Bollocks. Stop playing the martyr. Rather than address the assertions I have made you continue to adopt the role of victim.

 

You do see a problem, don't you?

I most certainly do see a problem. The problem is that you have "insulted my intelligence by your manipulation of words, misappropriation of facts and generally questionable debating technique in multiple posts."

 

It's not much of a problem for me, but if you wish to be taken seriously, it is a problem for you.

[evobulgarevo]

Alright, let me put out a general statement here for everyone who is willing to read it.

 

All of my statements regarding atheists pertain to the atheists I've either had discussions with or attempted to have discussions with on the matter of God. And in my experience, the vast majority of those atheists have turned out to be arrogant, self-centered, with little to no knowledge of science.

 

I don't know the exact number of discussions, because some have been mere attempts that never really unfolded into discussions. I would estimate the number of discussions that were more than just 'attempted discussions' at around 20 with different people.

 

In all fairness, from what I could tell, most of those atheists were conformists to a notion that "atheism is the cool new thing". I highly doubt that they put any thought of their own into their reasoning for identifying as 'atheist'.

[Phi for All]

All of my statements regarding atheists pertain to the atheists I've either had discussions with or attempted to have discussions with on the matter of God.

OK, this at least tells me it's your personal experience only, and you aren't trying to make a claim about all atheists. This kind of statement won't get criticized for lack of support, but it's also just an opinion, very subjective, and holds as much weight as anyone else's opinion.

 

And in my experience, the vast majority of those atheists have turned out to be arrogant, self-centered, with little to no knowledge of science.

I need to get one of those heavy-duty irony meters if I'm going to keep discussing things with you. You, who have little to no knowledge of science, are judging other people's knowledge of science?! How does that work?

 

I don't know much about... say, art restoration, and for this analogy you don't either. How would either one of us be able to accurately judge whether someone else was an expert just from talking to them the way you did with the atheists? Wouldn't most of their terms and descriptions go right over our heads? And if that happens, we might either assume they know what they're talking about, or we might assume they sound wrong. Wouldn't an expert and a fraud sound equally wrong to us who don't know what we're talking about when it comes to restoring art?

 

I can't help it, but thinking I could judge someone's knowledge in a subject I knew little about seems arrogant, and maybe a little self-centered. Ironic, huh?

[Reg Prescott]

@ Phi for All

In your post #43 of this thread you -- wrongly -- accused me of "making stuff up". My immediate response was:

"Since you mentioned it, can you give us a few examples of stuff that I've "made up"? On a site like this, aren't members expected to support their claims?" (post 44)

You failed to offer any support for your accusation in your next post (48), so I brought the matter to your attention again (post 51). You evaded the issue again (post 52), focussing instead on the pain that my ignorance causes you. I raised the matter for a third time (post 53) and you have evaded it yet again.

During the meantime, quite predictably, the usual jackals that I'm not even addressing took a nip here and a bite there, while hammering away at their respective +1 and -1 rep points, as if justice can be determined through sheer force of numbers.

I'm addressing you, Phi. Your conduct is unconscionable. I now request for a fourth time that you either support your accusation, or retract it with an apology.

I submit to all the reason Phi for All has dodged his responsibility is very simple: I don't make stuff up, at least not in any sense that implies wrongdoing.

My foibles are many. Like all the rest of you, I get confused on a regular basis, I'm often wrong, I screw up; but I am not a fabricator of facts. Those who know me well regard me as a very honest man, sometimes too honest for my own good. If attempting to clear my name results in the termination of my membership here, so be it. My conscience, at least, will rest easy. Ophiolite, another member who has insulted me on numerous occasions, chooses to characterize it, in yet another attempt at belittlement, as "crying" and "playing the martyr", among other things. He can call it what he likes; nonetheless I will not allow my character to be impugned.

Here are some of your options, Phi:

(i) Continue to evade your responsibility

(ii) Construct a paper tiger. Build a case that I do make stuff up, but you'll only succeed by trivializing the idea of making stuff up. For example, in the sense that my posts are, by and large, generated through my own thought processes, and not through copying and pasting, say, then I do indeed make stuff up. But then so does everyone else.

(iii) Silence me

(iv) Do the right thing

I'd also point out this is not the first time I've been falsely accused by a moderator, and objected. A similar incident, though less egregious than the present one, occurred only a few days ago. The moderator in that instance (hypervalent_iodine) also lacked the integrity to admit his mistake, choosing silence instead. See posts 216 & 222 in the thread entitled "Is Religion Being Picked On" for details.

Those in charge take note. Is this really the kind of site you want?

[zapatos]

 

Those in charge take note. Is this really the kind of site you want?

 

The kind of site we want is one where people primarily discuss the topic at hand instead of constantly complaining about how they've been mistreated. I count six posts by you in this thread and not one addresses "evolution and creation as one".

 

When you find yourself in a position where most people you are talking to think you are in the wrong, you may want to at least consider the possibility that you are indeed wrong.

[Ophiolite]

@SillyBilly

 

You wanted an example of you making stuff up. You concoct motivations and conspiracies to account for the manner in which some members deal with you. I suspect you may actually believe those fabrications and it is therefore difficult for you to see them, but they are fabrications.

(If) ten people rally together against one, accuse you of evading their questions when you may simply lack the time or competence to address them all, attempt to snow you and dazzle you with technicalities, predictably and formulaically point out putative logical fallacies in your posts . . . . . . . . . etc.

1. If ten people do this, it is because ten people believe you have been "guilty" of these actions and they object to them. There is no conspiracy involved, no group action, as implied by your use of the word "rally".

 

2. You say you may lack the time or competence to address questions. Really? If you lack the competence we might wonder why you were making assertions on a topic in the first place, but that aside - what would be so difficult about saying you don't know enough to answer the question. It would be the work of a moment.

As to the lack of time - well, you have sufficient time to make six posts in this thread that have nothing to do with the thread, yet you cannot find the time to answer questions concerning earlier assertions you have made. To hijack your own words: "You do see a problem, don't you?"

 

3. This is a science forum. We deal with technicalities. If you find yourself "snowed" by any of them you need only ask and one or more members will be happy to explain. Continuing to argue a point that is contradicted by the evidence will not be viewed positively. Do you think it should be?

 

4. If you make commonplace and obvious logical fallacies then why should you expect other than a "predictable and formulaic" response. It would be a bizarre and subtle logical fallacy that would merit an unexpected and original response.

 

 

On a separate point, you accused me in an earlier post of having insulted you. I have not done so. Trust me on this one, if I choose to insult you at some point in the future you will be in no doubt that it has occurred. I may have offended you, however that is often the consequence of writing unpleasant truths.

[Strange]

In your post #43 of this thread you -- wrongly -- accused me of "making stuff up". My immediate response was:

"Since you mentioned it, can you give us a few examples of stuff that I've "made up"? On a site like this, aren't members expected to support their claims?" (post 44)

 

I would count misrepresenting what people say and using strawman arguments as examples of this. (especially in the context of Phi's comments) You do this continuously in all your threads. To give just one example (from a thread which you created based on a version of the scientific method that you made up), you spent many posts accusing me of saying something I didn't say, i.e. something that you made up:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/91338-scientific-testing-split-from-goal-of-science/page-2#entry886152

 

Now, back to the subject of this thread: creationism.

 

It is ironic that this is a subject so very dear to your heart that you are keen to drag it into other discussions. Yet here in a thread devoted to the subject, you have nothing to say?

Also, it is not entirely clear to me that Phi for All was actually accusing you of making things up. He was explaining to you (and others) what a "straw man" argument is, as you gave the impression of not knowing.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Strange

[Reg Prescott]

@SillyBilly

 

0. You wanted an example of you making stuff up. You concoct motivations and conspiracies to account for the manner in which some members deal with you. I suspect you may actually believe those fabrications and it is therefore difficult for you to see them, but they are fabrications.

 

1. If ten people do this, it is because ten people believe you have been "guilty" of these actions and they object to them. There is no conspiracy involved, no group action, as implied by your use of the word "rally".

 

2. You say you may lack the time or competence to address questions. Really? If you lack the competence we might wonder why you were making assertions on a topic in the first place, but that aside - what would be so difficult about saying you don't know enough to answer the question. It would be the work of a moment.

As to the lack of time - well, you have sufficient time to make six posts in this thread that have nothing to do with the thread, yet you cannot find the time to answer questions concerning earlier assertions you have made. To hijack your own words: "You do see a problem, don't you?"

 

3. This is a science forum. We deal with technicalities. If you find yourself "snowed" by any of them you need only ask and one or more members will be happy to explain. Continuing to argue a point that is contradicted by the evidence will not be viewed positively. Do you think it should be?

 

4. If you make commonplace and obvious logical fallacies then why should you expect other than a "predictable and formulaic" response. It would be a bizarre and subtle logical fallacy that would merit an unexpected and original response.

 

 

5. On a separate point, you accused me in an earlier post of having insulted you. I have not done so. Trust me on this one, if I choose to insult you at some point in the future you will be in no doubt that it has occurred. I may have offended you, however that is often the consequence of writing unpleasant truths.

 

@ Ophiolite

I've numbered the sections of your post for convenience.

(0) Firstly, I was quite clear in my previous post, I believe, that I wanted Phi for All to provide examples (examples, mind you, not example); not you or anyone else. It was, after all, he who made the accusation.

(1) I've never used the word "conspiracy", nor do I believe it is implied by my use of the word "rally". To rally together in order to help a friend, as far as I can see at least, holds no connotations of conspiracy; an altogether more sinister proposition. You're manipulating words, I'm afraid; one thing you accused me of earlier. One might even be forgiven for thinking that you're now attempting to add mental illness to my litany of sins.

So, no, your putative example of my making stuff up fails. Furthermore, it seems to me quite irrelevant to Phi's original accusation which has nothing to do with inventing motives, as far I can see.

(2) What's so difficult about saying I don't know enough to answer a question? Nothing! I have done so. If you want links, just ask. Meanwhile, your comments regarding competence are just plain silly. At times, other members will introduce a sub-topic the OP knows little or nothing about. When it happens to me, I say so. Surely members cannot be expected to be competent in all domains? If I'm to hang for lack of omnicompetence we'll all hang together.

All of this, of course, has nothing to do with my "making stuff up". Someone playing your own logical fallacy game might refer to this as a red herring.

(3) Asking about things I don't know enough of? I've done this too. Links available upon request.

Once more, this is irrelevant to the charges of my making stuff up. Another red herring.

(4) Now, I've no doubt there is such a thing as a logical fallacy, but with respect to some threads and some members here, it seems to me the logical fallacy thing is better described as a tactic, a game, if you will. It's a tactic that could potentially be adopted against any post. What happens in reality is that certain members play the game against posters whose content they find objectionable (Creationism or whatever) in an effort to belittle and discredit, and refrain from playing it against anyone they consider a friend. It could nonetheless be played against anyone -- as you've been doing to me and I'm doing against you right now.

Just my humble analysis, and I don't expect anyone to admit as much. Ask yourselves late at night tonight, though, when you're alone. On the other hand, it may just be another symptom of my mental illness. Readers may judge for themselves.

By the way, inasmuch as this also has nothing to do with my making stuff up, chalk up another red herring. That makes three.

(5) re insults. A quick glance at your post# 46 in my "Popper, Confirmation..." thread yields the following. I am apparently:

"supercilious"

"arrogant"

"a passive-aggressive ******* " (this one is left to the imagination)

I'm inclined to think most of us would feel insulted if addressed in this way. Once again readers will have to judge for themselves. Meanwhile, Ophiolite, I challenge you to produce one insulting term I've used against you. Just one. I'm fairly certain you won't find any. And never mind the spiel about "insulting your intelligence". It's lame and I think you know it.

Zapatos said : "When you find yourself in a position where most people you are talking to think you are in the wrong, you may want to at least consider the possibility that you are indeed wrong."

Respectfully, sir. I do.

Finally, to all: I don't like this at all. I don't want this. I simply want to learn from, and perhaps contribute to, the community. But for as long as I'm allowed to speak, I will challenge all attempts to besmirch my character.

Colin

Edited November 18, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[DrP]

SB - Ophilote's post and all the points made seem very clear and correct to me - an outside observer of this conversation and many others. If you do not understand his points then go away and think about them. Every point you listed.... I agree with Oph on every one as I believe pretty much everyone else does - it is just you mate! Which means you have some self reflection to do.

[Phi for All]

@ Phi for All

 

In your post #43 of this thread you -- wrongly -- accused me of "making stuff up". My immediate response was:

 

"Since you mentioned it, can you give us a few examples of stuff that I've "made up"? On a site like this, aren't members expected to support their claims?" (post 44)

 

You failed to offer any support for your accusation in your next post (48), so I brought the matter to your attention again (post 51). You evaded the issue again (post 52), focussing instead on the pain that my ignorance causes you. I raised the matter for a third time (post 53) and you have evaded it yet again.

 

During the meantime, quite predictably, the usual jackals that I'm not even addressing took a nip here and a bite there, while hammering away at their respective +1 and -1 rep points, as if justice can be determined through sheer force of numbers.

 

I'm addressing you, Phi. Your conduct is unconscionable. I now request for a fourth time that you either support your accusation, or retract it with an apology.

 

I submit to all the reason Phi for All has dodged his responsibility is very simple: I don't make stuff up, at least not in any sense that implies wrongdoing.

 

My foibles are many. Like all the rest of you, I get confused on a regular basis, I'm often wrong, I screw up; but I am not a fabricator of facts. Those who know me well regard me as a very honest man, sometimes too honest for my own good. If attempting to clear my name results in the termination of my membership here, so be it. My conscience, at least, will rest easy. Ophiolite, another member who has insulted me on numerous occasions, chooses to characterize it, in yet another attempt at belittlement, as "crying" and "playing the martyr", among other things. He can call it what he likes; nonetheless I will not allow my character to be impugned.

 

Here are some of your options, Phi:

 

(i) Continue to evade your responsibility

 

(ii) Construct a paper tiger. Build a case that I do make stuff up, but you'll only succeed by trivializing the idea of making stuff up. For example, in the sense that my posts are, by and large, generated through my own thought processes, and not through copying and pasting, say, then I do indeed make stuff up. But then so does everyone else.

 

(iii) Silence me

 

(iv) Do the right thing

I'm not sure which option you'll think I'm taking. Pick one, and I'll just explain to the best of my ability.

 

A significant number of our members ARE -- and never mind their denials to the contrary -- manically suspicious of anyone who speaks a different dialect from their own, and thus embark on a mission to insult, belittle and hopefully silence the upstart dissident.

This is the one I'm going to point you to, SillyBilly, because it's a typical example of you making things up, assigning motives you couldn't possibly know, asserting that this is the way things are. It's the major example in this thread (and I don't want to bring other threads up here). It also seems to be at the root of your problems with science, imo, and maybe that's why you champion creationism, this misunderstanding that disagreement means censorship and ridicule. Historically, religion has used this to keep the flock together, so maybe it's just ingrained in you to see criticism as evil.

 

Also, it is not entirely clear to me that Phi for All was actually accusing you of making things up. He was explaining to you (and others) what a "straw man" argument is, as you gave the impression of not knowing.

That particular instance, which SillyBilly quoted in his original objection, was exactly as you describe it. But I most certainly accused him of it later, so I guess it doesn't matter, except to highlight how crucial critical thinking skills are.

 

 

 

I keep feeling like the new objection here is that, in this compromise between science and religion over the topic of creation, creationists (defined here as those who believe in an inerrant Bible, and that the Earth is a fraction of the age science claims) aren't being fairly represented. Is that just me?

 

The problem here is that science is more than happy to say, "We don't know yet" when it comes to how life formed on this planet, which leaves a fairly nice blank slate for theists [edit] and their perspectives. But scientists can't (yes, can't) consider any explanations from creationists that doesn't tally with reality. Measurements we trust for everything else don't magically get a pass just because a fundamentalist claims the Earth is only 6000 years old.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Phi for All
added after internet crash

[Reg Prescott]

I'm not sure which option you'll think I'm taking. Pick one, and I'll just explain to the best of my ability.

 

 

This is the one I'm going to point you to, SillyBilly, because it's a typical example of you making things up, assigning motives you couldn't possibly know, asserting that this is the way things are. It's the major example in this thread (and I don't want to bring other threads up here). It also seems to be at the root of your problems with science, imo, and maybe that's why you champion creationism, this misunderstanding that disagreement means censorship and ridicule. Historically, religion has used this to keep the flock together, so maybe it's just ingrained in you to see criticism as evil.

 

 

That particular instance, which SillyBilly quoted in his original objection, was exactly as you describe it. But I most certainly accused him of it later, so I guess it doesn't matter, except to highlight how crucial critical thinking skills are.

 

 

 

I keep feeling like the new objection here is that, in this compromise between science and religion over the topic of creation, creationists (defined here as those who believe in an inerrant Bible, and that the Earth is a fraction of the age science claims) aren't being fairly represented. Is that just me?

 

The problem here is that science is more than happy to say, "We don't know yet" when it comes to how life formed on this planet, which leaves a fairly nice blank slate for theists

 

 

Phi

 

I don't champion Creationism, not at least without examining it. I'm afraid you've got me wrong. Read all my posts in all threads, you'll see. I don't champion anything without examining it. In fact, I don't really champion anything at all. It's enough of a struggle for me to understand what people far more intelligent than myself are talking about. I do read read what these Creationists write about though. Do you? They're not all dummies, you know. Some are very clever and very well read. I read what you guys ( = stubborn scientists with poor fashion sense) write too, at least that stuff written for the laydude. I read what everyone writes. Just another of the perks of having no life, I suppose.

 

I don't have a problem with science either, as you suggestimplied. I'm fascinated by it, especially the more philosophical aspects, which you may chalk down as another sin when my time would surely be better spent climbing mountains or checking out tarsiers (which I'll be doing next month in the Philippines).

 

I do tend to stand in when I see a mob picking on one poor solitary individual though. Chalk that one down to personal history.

 

Er, what else? "A typical example of me making things up"? Um, what were the rest again? Never mind. "Motives I couldn't know"? I don't recall attributing any. Never mind that either.

 

If I may be so bold, I think I can fairly say I'm not entirely unfamiliar with logical fallacies. That is, after all, how pizza-delivering philosophy-inclined miscreants spend whatever time is left between eking a pittance. There has been talk of intelligence-insulting. I might consider my own insulted too if (i) I had any, and (ii) can't remember. Must the fallacy of amnesia.

 

Anyway, gentlemen and gentleladies, I do think there are certain misunderstandings here. Criticism as evil you say? Au contraire, mon ami (chalk up another for pretentiousness )

 

Anti-science? Not really? Do I think the House of Science has a few spooks of its own? Yes. And I'm quite willing to debate rationally with anyone who demurs.

 

After I sober up, of course. In the meantime, best wishes to all. Yes you too, Phi. You're a clever young (a heinous assumption on my part) man. Bless ya.

 

Most of all, let us get on. Life is short.

 

Oops P.S. -- almost forgot, Phi, just please don't make unjustifiable accusations. I'm not a bad guy. You've misread me. Peace!

 

P.P.S. Have you guys found a cure for baldness yet?

Edited November 18, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Strange]

I don't champion Creationism

 

Sigh. Do we have to go through all your threads and count the number of times you have done that? And post examples because you will still deny it?

 

 

I do read read what these Creationists write about though. Do you? They're not all dummies, you know. Some are very clever and very well read.

 

I'm sure they are. That doesn't stop them doing bad/pseudo science.

 

 

"Motives I couldn't know"? I don't recall attributing any.

 

That would be why Phi quoted an example: to help you remember.

 

 

Never mind that either.

 

So you demand, repeatedly, examples. And when they are provided you just dismiss them with, "oh that doesn't matter". Can you see why people like Ophiolite and many other members now have a very negative attitude to your style of posting?

 

 

I'm not entirely unfamiliar with logical fallacies.

 

Indeed. You are pretty skilled in them.