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

[Reg Prescott]

you again, eh?

 

Don't quite recall you being asked anything at all. But here's a +1 anyway to mount beside the rhino heads in your trophy room..

Edited November 18, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[evobulgarevo]

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?

 

Well sir, that works because I don't claim to know science nor do I claim to be smart. On the other hand, those with whom I've engaged in such discussions claim to know science and they also claim to be smart.

 

Most, if not all, of these discussions started because of God. But it has never been about showing how much I know of science or God.

 

Showing that they knew less than someone who knows little was enough.

[Reg Prescott]

 

Well sir, that works because I don't claim to know science nor do I claim to be smart. On the other hand, those with whom I've engaged in such discussions claim to know science and they also claim to be smart.

 

Most, if not all, of these discussions started because of God. But it has never been about showing how much I know of science or God.

 

Showing that they knew less than someone who knows little was enough.

 

Well, at least you haven't yet reached the stage where your ignorance causes pain to other members.

 

Is there a dentist in the house?

 

I'll be in the corner contemplating my arrogance if anyone needs me.

[Phi for All]

Phi

 

I don't champion Creationism, not at least without examining it.

I think you've adopted this "Be fair and hear them out" approach, but again, you don't understand the position I'm arguing (based on your continued misrepresentation of it). Creationism makes some very specific claims that allow science to unequivocally shout, "FALSE". It's not about creation, it's about creationism. It's not a guess at something even science says, "We don't know yet", it's outright lies and propaganda trying to get the Bible taught in public schools. And that's why it seems like we aren't listening.

 

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.

They're really only clever to people who don't check facts. They're con men and liars. Ten years here I've been hearing the same arguments refuted, then repeated, over and over.

 

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.

Classic example of an emotional response overriding your reason. Congratulations, you're trying to stop the mob from driving off the rabid dog in their midst. Actually, this is more like a lying dog that just wants to waste our time.

 

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.

In case that's not a joke, here is a good guide to Logical Fallacies.

 

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

I'll say it again again, it's not supposed to be personal. It's all about the science, backed up by evidence to make it trustworthy and worth our time and resources.

 

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

 

 

edit to add: Sorry, posted this after closure.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Phi for All

[swansont]

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,

The lack of time excuse is belied by posting in other threads, and if you lack the competence to defend a claim, then you lack the competence to have validly made it in the first place. But an even greater sin is not acknowledging this, and ignoring the query.

 

 

attempt to snow you and dazzle you with technicalities

I'm sure it looks like that when you lack the competence to evaluate the information, as you suggest above, but the simple truth is that lacking the competence also means you probably don't know how deep the rabbit hole goes. One probably shouldn't complain when that's revealed.

 

(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)

Well, here's something that you made up.

 

You were not accused of being supercilious or arrogant in that post. It was a description of your writing style

 

"Either you have the misfortune to write in a supercilious and arrogant manner by accident"

 

You were, however, accused of being passive aggressive. Not actually an insult, though.

[Reg Prescott]

The lack of time excuse is belied by posting in other threads, and if you lack the competence to defend a claim, then you lack the competence to have validly made it in the first place. But an even greater sin is not acknowledging this, and ignoring the query.

 

 

I'm sure it looks like that when you lack the competence to evaluate the information, as you suggest above, but the simple truth is that lacking the competence also means you probably don't know how deep the rabbit hole goes. One probably shouldn't complain when that's revealed.

 

 

Well, here's something that you made up.

 

You were not accused of being supercilious or arrogant in that post. It was a description of your writing style

 

"Either you have the misfortune to write in a supercilious and arrogant manner by accident"

 

You were, however, accused of being passive aggressive. Not actually an insult, though.

 

Oh dear, here we go again. Swansont, I see certain admirable qualities in you. I also see when you presume to speak authoritatively about matters you know absolutely nothing about.

 

If you want examples, I can provide several. Let's take a recent one. In the thread about Newtonian laws I suggested that the issue of whether or not muons, or anything else, are affected by Newtonian gravity, might depend on certain theories in the philosophy of language.

 

With one wave of a hand, you dismissed everything I said. Abracadabra "This is not controversial at all" (I'll go check if need be for your exact words) you said, remember? With your self-assumed omnipotence you disregard Kripke, Putnam and some of the smartest people out there. You made no attempt at refuting... on the grounds that it is blindingly obvious that you have never read their work.

 

You simply asserted there is no controversy. I say there is. So do Kuhn, Feyerabend, Laudan and others.It is embarrassingly obvious you have not read their work. We're not supposed to simply assert stuff here, are we? Now, perhaps you are right, but you don't get this for free. We can argue it, after you do the appropriate reading.

 

Swansont, have you read Kripke? Have you read Putnam? Have you read Feyerabend, Kuhn and Russell? Have you read Frege?

 

Swansont, have you read any of these people? If not, what makes you think one theory can simply be absorbed into another? Can my theory of penguins be reduced to yours? Would that depend on whether your concept of penguins is the same as mine?

 

Swansont, what exactly do you know about inter-theoretical reduction? Does it matter that Einstein's "mass" is not quite the same concept as Newton's "mass"? Or should we ignore that? Does it matter that Newtonian gravity is not the same concept as Einsteinian gravity? What if the two concepts are not the same?

 

Please tell us how one theory reduces to another. Thanks.

 

What do I think? Do I think one theory can be conveniently reduced to another? Ans: I don't know. I'm not that clever. It seems you are. Lets test it.

 

If you'd like more examples of yourself pontificating on topics that you know jack shit about , just ask. I can provide links.

 

Erm P.S. I can probably express all this better when the weather is .... less inclement. In the meantime, be well all. .

Edited November 18, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[Phi for All]

If you'd like more examples of yourself pontificating on topics that you know jack shit about , just ask. I can provide links.

 

Erm P.S. I can probably express all this better when the weather is .... less inclement. In the meantime, be well all. .

 

Oh my gosh.

 

I wouldn't worry about the weather. It's being tracked by satellites using precision time made possible by atomic clocks owned by the US Naval Observatory, clocks maintained by professional physicists like our Dr Swanson.

 

This is a novel new tactic, though, I'll give you credit.

[Reg Prescott]

 

Oh my gosh.

 

I wouldn't worry about the weather. It's being tracked by satellites using precision time made possible by atomic clocks owned by the US Naval Observatory, clocks maintained by professional physicists like our Dr Swanson.

 

This is a novel new tactic, though, I'll give you credit.

 

Hmm, well, be sure to wake me up before 3:00 pm, lest people talk (after all, how many sins can one swine accummulate?).

 

In the meantime, God (erm, Dawkins then) bless you and yours, and we'll meet up again tomorrow.

 

My best case scenario is : "Sorry Colin, we were wrong about everything, and to make up you get a knighthood and two weeks in Tahiti."

 

I'd rather not think about the worst case right now, but realistically speaking, I don't expect any wake-up surprises. Oh well, we'll see.

 

Don't forget to smile, friends. All this is not that important. Be well.

 

And whatever happens... the hangover will be worse than the critique from you fine people.

[Ophiolite]

(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.

This is a discussion forum. Any member is free - indeed, encouraged - to respond to points made, or questions asked, by any other member. Since I happen to agree with his "accusation" it was appropriate for me to respond.

If you don't like those rules I recommend you take up crochet.

 

 

 

(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.

I never suggested you had used the word conspiracy. It was because I recognised that that I specifically noted that you had implied conspiracy. You may not believe it was implied by your use of the word "rally" in that context, but it certainly read that way.

 

The hypothetical ten people you accused, were not "rallying to help a friend", but - in your own words - rallying to "........ 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...."

 

Once again it is you who is manipulating words.

 

[Your reference to mental illness is beneath contempt. You may wish to offer an apology to those members who genuinely wrestle with mental illness.]

 

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.

Are you seriously suggesting that inventing motives is not a form of making stuff up? Is your reading comprehension so poor that you do not understand this to be the case?

If this is true, perhaps the forum is not the place for you and you should take up crochet.

 

 

(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

You stated that you had not answered some questions because you either did not have the time, or the competence to answer them. Now you claim you did answer (some) of them. So, what about the rest?

 

You are either deliberately acting dumb, or......

More than one member has pointed out that if you make clear assertions on a topic then it is reasonable to expect that you have the competence to answer questions on that topic. You apparently think it is alright to make an assertion, then excuse yourself from answering on the grounds that you lack competence in that area. It is not acceptable behaviour.

 

If you don't like having to behave correctly, perhaps you should take up crochet.

 

 

Frankly, this is becoming tedious. In attempting to defend your position, you simply provide more examples of what members have complained about. The crochet option increasingly looks like the optimal choice.

 

 

My apologies to those rational members who take pleasure from the satisfaction inherent in an afternoon of contemplative crochet. My recommendations to Silly Billy are in no way intended to defame you, or the noble craft you practice.

[Reg Prescott]

This is a discussion forum. Any member is free - indeed, encouraged - to respond to points made, or questions asked, by any other member. Since I happen to agree with his "accusation" it was appropriate for me to respond.

If you don't like those rules I recommend you take up crochet.

 

 

 

I never suggested you had used the word conspiracy. It was because I recognised that that I specifically noted that you had implied conspiracy. You may not believe it was implied by your use of the word "rally" in that context, but it certainly read that way.

 

The hypothetical ten people you accused, were not "rallying to help a friend", but - in your own words - rallying to "........ 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...."

 

Once again it is you who is manipulating words.

 

[Your reference to mental illness is beneath contempt. You may wish to offer an apology to those members who genuinely wrestle with mental illness.]

 

Are you seriously suggesting that inventing motives is not a form of making stuff up? Is your reading comprehension so poor that you do not understand this to be the case?

If this is true, perhaps the forum is not the place for you and you should take up crochet.

 

 

You stated that you had not answered some questions because you either did not have the time, or the competence to answer them. Now you claim you did answer (some) of them. So, what about the rest?

 

You are either deliberately acting dumb, or......

More than one member has pointed out that if you make clear assertions on a topic then it is reasonable to expect that you have the competence to answer questions on that topic. You apparently think it is alright to make an assertion, then excuse yourself from answering on the grounds that you lack competence in that area. It is not acceptable behaviour.

 

If you don't like having to behave correctly, perhaps you should take up crochet.

 

 

Frankly, this is becoming tedious. In attempting to defend your position, you simply provide more examples of what members have complained about. The crochet option increasingly looks like the optimal choice.

 

 

My apologies to those rational members who take pleasure from the satisfaction inherent in an afternoon of contemplative crochet. My recommendations to Silly Billy are in no way intended to defame you, or the noble craft you practice.

 

 

Erm, caught me as I was off to bed.

 

I'm just wondering how a felon might clear himself of the charges of "manipulating words". Any ideas?

 

Doesn't sound promising to the accused. Anyway, I'll respond to the rest tomorrow, Oph with the usual circular reasoning, flounders, herrings, and stuff in Latin that I can't say coz I'd be labelled pretentious. , assuming cardiac arrest doesn't get me first.

 

Be well. And stop disliking people * poke" .

[Ophiolite]

Be well. And stop disliking people * poke" .

I shall dislike whom I please. I don't dislike you, but I have serious reservations about your behaviour on this forum.

 

If the dislike is a reference to giving negative rep, as far as I am aware I have never given you any. I generally pay scant heed to who is posting, but to what they post. Only when I see repeated nonsense do I conduct a dialogue.

[ajb]

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.

That seems a fair statement, but this does not mean that you can directly extrapolate this to all atheists.

 

I would like to know where you have been meeting these people?

 

You now, via this forum have a great opportunity to discuss almost anything with a group of scientifically trained people. A significant number of these would identify themselves as atheists, but they should do that themselves.

[swansont]

 

Oh dear, here we go again. Swansont, I see certain admirable qualities in you. I also see when you presume to speak authoritatively about matters you know absolutely nothing about.

 

If you want examples, I can provide several. Let's take a recent one. In the thread about Newtonian laws I suggested that the issue of whether or not muons, or anything else, are affected by Newtonian gravity, might depend on certain theories in the philosophy of language.

 

You never answered the question, though there was a bunch of material that undoubtedly answers some other question. But this is all off-topic. A distraction from what the discussion is about. Fact is that you made something up when you stated that muons were a poor example of following Newton's law of gravity.

[Reg Prescott]

 

You never answered the question, though there was a bunch of material that undoubtedly answers some other question. But this is all off-topic. A distraction from what the discussion is about. Fact is that you made something up when you stated that muons were a poor example of following Newton's law of gravity.

 

Not true, sir. I offered an answer to the question. I presented both sides of the argument for other members to consider, Let's try again. Consider the properties attributed to a unicorn:

 

(i) a kinda horselike beast

(ii) with a kinda horn on its head

 

As far as we can ascertain there is nothing in nature which satisfies those criteria, and therefore, on one account at least, the term unicorn does not refer. There is no such thing! I also offered the following characterization of Newtonian gravity:

 

Newtonian gravity, according to my layman's understanding (so please be gentle -- I'm not a physicist), is construed, among other things, as an attractive force which acts instantaneously over any distance, apparently with no expenditure of energy, against a backdrop of absolute space and absolute time. Is this correct? If so, I don't think anyone believes in Newtonian gravity these days, do they?

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/92140-newtons-inverse-square-law/

 

I asked you whether my layman's description captured the features of Newtonian gravity. You conspicuously ignored me. Assuming this characterization is more or less correct, and given our current state of knowledge, there is nothing in nature answering to this description, and thus the term Newtonian gravity does not refer -- there is no such thing. On one account, at least.

 

I also presented a rival Kripke-Putnam inspired account of reference to which those wishing to defend inter-theoretical continuity might appeal.

 

Your only answer was...

 

Um, it's used all the time. By NASA, even, to send probes to planets, satellites into orbit and men to the moon. It works very well. (post 23 - same thread)

 

... once again failing to recognize the distinction I pointed out between a theory working (i.e. yielding true observational consequences) and a theory being true. Yes, the theory of Newtonian gravity can get us to the Moon. But the Ptolemaic theory of the cosmos can also get you around the world! It works extremely well. Most of us, I daresay, would maintain that the Ptolemaic model is not true: as a model of reality, Ptolemy got it quite wrong.

 

You're a very clever man, and a very knowledgeable man, Swansont. In this case, though, you're pontificating on topics you know nothing about.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[swansont]

 

I'm just wondering how a felon might clear himself of the charges of "manipulating words". Any ideas?

 

Purple!

 

 

I have offered an answer to the question.

[Reg Prescott]

 

Purple!

 

 

I have offered an answer to the question.

 

LOL!

Ah, you want the answer to the question.

 

That's an easy one : I don't know!

[swansont]

 

LOL!

Ah, you want the answer to the question.

 

That's an easy one : I don't know!

 

 

Meaning that when you made your original statement, which implied you did know, you were making that up.

[Reg Prescott]

Uh oh, another hanging. My neck can't take much more.

 

How about you address my last post while I enjoy my last meal - lobster dinner

 

Then again, perhaps I can save you some trouble. Ans: You don't know either!

"Meaning that when you made your original statement, which implied you did know, you were making that up"

 

Uh oh, again. Erm, balderdash, old chap. No such implication, and rather uncricketish of you to say so. I've made it clear in post after post, I know Jack Shit. You're the fellow who seems to know a lot.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Reg Prescott

[hypervalent_iodine]

Uh oh, another hanging. My neck can't take much more.

 

How about you address my last post while I enjoy my last meal - lobster dinner

 

Then again, perhaps I can save you some trouble. Ans: You don't know either!

"Meaning that when you made your original statement, which implied you did know, you were making that up"

 

Uh oh, again. Erm, balderdash, old chap. No such implication, and rather uncricketish of you to say so. I've made it clear in post after post, I know Jack Shit. You're the fellow who seems to know a lot.

!

Moderator Note

I think I speak on behalf of all staff when I say that I am sick to death of having to remind you of the forum rules. One seriously has to ask if you are trolling at this point?

 

In any case, since you refuse to stay on topic here and since this thread has devolved into a round of he said she said, this is closed.