Ya Can’t Make This Stuff Up!

_{Barry Arrington

February 9, 2012

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In response to my last post DrREC wrote: “what is Barry Arrington’s exposure to the practice of science that trumps that of a scientist who has “been around the scientific block” as he put it?”

This is unintentionally hilarious. In the post I criticized scientists who appeal to authority instead of evidence and logic. DrREC, a scientist, responds by . . . wait for it . . . wait for it . . . an appeal to authority! Beautiful. Thank you REC.

Comments

@mike1962,
Eigenstate, you sound like a scorned lover. Put your big boy pants on, and move on.
Not at all. It's just another day on teh interwebs. It's anything to get amped up about, which is my whole point -- all this just distracts and talking about more substantive things. I just wanted to point out the animus and hostility in nullasalus' post, not because it's anything more than I encounter all the time in my various wanderings on the net, but because it shows that nullasalus is the very thing that he says disgusts him. I'm not the least bit interested in any kind of satisfaction or complaints about that stuff - he can say what he wants, and I'll be just fine in any case. The things I point out are the evidence that backs up the thesis I've been working on nullasalus from the beginning.eigenstate_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

Eigenstate, you sound like a scorned lover. Put your big boy pants on, and move on.mike1962_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

"I said nothing about “trolls”, crackpots, etc. Coyne – and frankly, most other blog owners – take an axe to pretty much anyone they dislike."
I tried to post on Coyne's blog a few times. Never got thru his censor. Ho hum. But thankfully, somehow my world did not fall apart. :Dmike1962_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

@nullasalus

“Walking away” is a deeper gesture of disrespect than flipping him the finger, and I don’t recommend giving people the finger.
Oh really? Well then, what can I say but… You’re not worth my time, eigen.
I understand what you are saying here, but can't help but wonder if you do, in the context of this exchange. On the one hand, you are disgusted by the animus and incivility you decry at AtBC, and on the other hand from you to someone else "You're not worth my time". That's the very animus and incivility you decry, flowing right from your keyboard. As I said, I don't get honked off at that kind of stuff and hear this kind of response regularly, but the irony of you BEING what you are so disgusted by is worth taking in and appreciated. You're blind to your animus and personal hostilities. it's good to appreciate because the lesson is that hypocrisy like this is fairly pandemic, across ideologies and tribes, and, more importantly, it's a quagmire. The priorities you pursue do not produce good fruit. It only caters to your pride, and the goal of tackling substantive issues in a serious way just always gets thwarted when the chip on your shoulder becomes paramount, and fatwas get issued so as to avenge your pride. Seriously, consider: you are in a much more "FU" mode than the guys who may actually use that phrase on you. And my proof of that would be that I, or, as I understand it (despite your misconceptions about my "clan membership", I'm a newbie outsider over there), the folks over there would still say you are worth their time. They are not above speaking to you, in contrast to your position towards them -- a much bigger middle finger you wag then even the real middle finger they might flash your way. Which again, is not to recommend flipping the bird, in any case. But please don't think you're on the short side of what they do. You're going farther and deeper into the animus and incivility. That' you're prerogative, but let's not pretend, OK? You clearly have some bizarre view of yourself as being Too Important To Ignore, along with your crazy-ass AtBC obsessives. I have no such views. No one owes me a reading or a response. People are free to read or not, and respond or not, as they will. I can't control everyone else. Policiing my own area is my job. So I say what I think is worthwhile, and let everyone else do the same. I don't mince words, and understand that to be considerate: say what you mean and mean what you say is a good rule of thumb for debating in good faith. I do control my "walking away", and when I have the site administrator's login, as I have elsewhere, I don't suppose I'm something so special that I have to censor, ban, or just "walk away" as a big FU gesture to the people I'm debating.
You’re a coward who won’t criticize your Home Team, no matter what they do. And honest to God, you’re just not all that impressive in discussion, aside from having above average grammar – good job on that.
I would. It's just not gonna happen as an effort to satisfy your obsession, here. If I have something to object to, it won't be done in service to the huge chip you have on your shoulder. It would be done for reasons that originate with me.
So, I’ll be walking away now. I’d say you should look me up when you grow a pair and get a little sharper, but really, I’m at least cognizant of my minor place in these things – discussing things with me is not some holy privilege. And besides, what’re the odds you’ll ever man up? We’ll need a decimal point and a few zeroes in a row to state that.
But it IS a holy privilege, and you've made that spectacularly clear. Really, read just this paragraph of yours back to yourself. You're walking away. I don't have testicles, or am unmanly somehow. I'm not worth your time. You have standards! But yet you know your "minor place". I couldn't summarize my objections to your ideas and priorities here than the way you've left it. Far be it from me or your critics to violate your minor place in these things. Others just aren't worthy of even the minor place you command in these things.eigenstate_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

eigen who? yawnmike1962_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

Null: Did you notice that it is only after the objectors kept on dragging up a topic they hoped to use an Isa 5:20 moral inversion on to create polarisation that I responded in brief? Notice, that they are not exactly falling over themselves to address either the implications of "a man's saliah is as the man," or the rebuttal to the usual genetic determinism talking point that can be seen here on? [As in what are the Sambia again, and what is it that Plato's Republic is talking about when it discusses love?] As for my having responded to the web porn plague at my blog for dealing with a rising threat in the Caribbean, what I saw was hateful anti-Christian bigotry [churches are houses of hate and the like cavils] not sound and cogent responses. Somehow it escapes these folks that over the past year, my main effort at UD has been the ID foundations series, which is on the issue of the framework of ID, starting with the design inference and the thermodynamics context of counterflow, and with side points on say the significance of the metric Chi_500 = Ip*S - 500, etc. beaver dams are in there, and more. My conclusion is that these are simply setting up and knocking over ad hominem laced strawmen, with no regard to duties of care to truth and fairness, and show exactly the sort of amoral nihilism that they so hotly deny as a problem for their worldview and a significant slice of its adherents. KFkairosfocus_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

When I looked at the thread she had just made a comment – not surprising as she had just been banned from here. So it was easy to see what her ID was. Again, interesting. She was banned quite a bit before you asked me who she was, and the thread had continued after that point. So it's not like you just skipped to the last post and hey, bingo, there's the ban mention. 'course, it's not like I look over your shoulder and see what you saw. But I'll say this: if you did see it, but you're BSing now just to avoid commenting on it when you really did, it says a lot about you. But that'll be a matter for yourself to think over. It would be like expecting you to call out bad behaviour on Telic Thoughts and Joe’s blog and all the other pro-ID blogs. We can’t all be moral supervisors for the whole of the internet! I did so on TT when I thought it crossed the line. I do so here, when I see it, and when it's relevant. We can be reasonable and have standards for what corners of the net we occupy. I'm the last guy to be utterly tight-assed over this, but yeah, there's a reasonable line and it's crossed there repeatedly, and excessively. As anyone who'd look would know. But you're afraid of commenting on it. So hey - don't.nullasalus_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT}

That’s very interesting. I mean, you didn’t even know what name she was using at first so you had to read the thread to find out. Now, you used the search function and apparently… didn’t read the thread.
When I looked at the thread she had just made a comment – not surprising as she had just been banned from here. So it was easy to see what her ID was.
I mean, it’s not like what I’m talking about is a buried isolated incident. It’s the thread theme.

Of course not, Mark. It’s not that you’ve got spine problems when it comes to pointing out poor behavior on the part of people who you think are on your side, or worse, actively tolerate such things. Also, telling people they’re wrong and going too far when they slander others, post their RL pics, do info digs on them, mock homosexuals and compare their targets to them… objecting to that is sanctimony.

And, you just never read the thread except for the comments of the person whose name you didn’t know, and besides, who are you to question how people behave? You’d never criticize the behavior of anyone on UD. That would be sanctimony.

Good boy, Mark. I’m sure your friends will compliment you for sticking up for the team, right or wrong.
Nullalus Don’t be ridiculous. No one can respond to everything they find immoral on any blog. In fact it would be a full time job responding to everything on UD. It would be like expecting you to call out bad behaviour on Telic Thoughts and Joe’s blog and all the other pro-ID blogs. We can’t all be moral supervisors for the whole of the internet! Now I am going to drop this silly discussion. You can have the last word.markf_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
12:27 AM
12
12
27
AM
PDT}

Fine, but you’re losing either way, because you’re being pedantic. No, I'm taking some time to explain what standards are - apparently, they're some mystical, fascinating thing to you - and why I hold to them, and why I think others should. Believe it or not, I can do this and continue to have discussions elsewhere. I'm just s'damn amazing, like that. More than that, I know better than to think these conversations - even when they are polite - are some manner of 'major victory'. Let's be frank: you're looking like a rank punk on this topic, not to mention frazzled. But what does this gain me? Gosh, I'm winning a debate on the interwebs? Where's my trophy? Where's my parade? No wonder you justify the behavior. It's just that important to you. You can see why people would be pushed to angry rants, info digging, etc for years on edge. This really is your life for the next ten years. Which is just to say that the most cogent and serious critiques I’ve read come from people who hang out at AtBC, Funny - slice through the forest of age-old, very personal hatreds and freakouts, and most of what I've seen there are strawmen, or taking on the weakest amateur YEC, rather than ID, arguments. But really, you're not even capable of calling your pals out when they go over the line in a petty way. What are the odds you'd be able to cop to a strawman when you saw it? I’m saying you won’t even make it far enough for the arguments to happen, to be made in the first place, such is your distaste for the person. See, this is your problem: you think AtBC is the standard for how people act. It completely blows your mind that a person can be an ID critic without behaving that way. Hell, go to Biologos - somehow they manage to run pretty much weekly criticisms of ID, yet their administration doesn't stoop to that kind of behavior. Wait, wait. That must be a 'Christian thing', right? No, eigen. If I decide hate-filled maniacs aren't worth my time, I still have plenty of of critics left over to engage. And of course, I also have the criticisms detached from the critics. So… dismising the person, and retaining the argument. You’ve got to be joking. The person is the SOURCE of the argument. If the person is dismissed, the ARGUMENT is dismissed. Sure - because when Francis Crick died, so too did his knowledge and arguments, right? There's no way to discuss Crick's views, or Hoyle's views, or Bertrand Russell's views, without engaging with the men one on one. Right? Anyone can discuss an argument without having to invite the person into their home, or in this case giving them comment rights on their blog. That happens plenty here; criticisms are found and responded to. The critic doesn't need to show up. But you? Apparently when you want to learn about DNA, it requires a trip to Crick's graveyard and a ouija board. Yeah, if my homosexual son had the kind of mega-chip you carry around on your shoulder, he’d never be out of the kind of righteous-indignation-at-the-expense-of-all-else pattern you’ve adopted here. It’s a luxury you can afford, that he can’t. I tell him to stand up to bullies, but think big, and avoid being petty. "Think big"? Buddy, that's just the thing - you ain't big. Neither is AtBC. You're a small group of exceptionally petty individuals with chips on your shoulders. I know you think of yourselves as Dawkins' Own Righteous, out to save the interwebs. It's cute. Like Rational Responders, really. But the fact is you could all disappear tomorrow, and ID would still have a ton of critics. How's the song go? "Art and music will thrive without you. Somehow Keats will survive without you. And there still will be rain on that plain down in Spain, even that will remain without you. We can do without you." I guess we just hit the heart of it all, eigen. You think that when you or your pals are ignored, that this is a Big Deal. How DARE anyone not pay attention to you all. Don't they know how important you all are? How privileged anyone is to listen to the Warriors of the Internet? Reality, eigen. Check it out someday. I can't promise you'll like it. That’s certainly not my position. I’m disproving that with this post to you. Oooh, look at the big man who can stand up on the internet to people he dislikes and who already think little of him. All you're proving is my point. You won't condemn the behavior because you approve of it. More than that? You're afraid to condemn it. You know you're dealing with some short-tempered, petty individuals, but they're on Your Team. And God, it sure would suck to have them turn on you the way they would if you actually held them to a standard like an adult. But that's okay, eigen. I understand how it is for some people. Criticizing people on Your Side is tough, only certain people can do it. You know - adults. That DOESN’T mean keeping my mouth shut. Sure it does - that's exactly what you do. Digging up info? Posting RL pics to deface? Screaming about how gay people are? Eigen sees it, and he shuts his mouth. To show everyone he's a good boy, and that he's on their side. After all, how people conduct themselves isn't important. The super-duper, abso-freaking-lutely, most important thing in the world - the thing you dedicate so much of your life to, that you think is Truly Important... is arguing on the internet. God forbid you let any sort of standard get in the way of THAT. You know what's really important. Speaking of shutting your mouth - wise move, keeping it shut in light of the ad hom talk. You may want to go through this thread and tally up how many times you've just completely freaking botched things, oh haggard internet warrior. “Walking away” is a deeper gesture of disrespect than flipping him the finger, and I don’t recommend giving people the finger. Oh really? Well then, what can I say but... You're not worth my time, eigen. You clearly have some bizarre view of yourself as being Too Important To Ignore, along with your crazy-ass AtBC obsessives. You're a coward who won't criticize your Home Team, no matter what they do. And honest to God, you're just not all that impressive in discussion, aside from having above average grammar - good job on that. So, I'll be walking away now. I'd say you should look me up when you grow a pair and get a little sharper, but really, I'm at least cognizant of my minor place in these things - discussing things with me is not some holy privilege. And besides, what're the odds you'll ever man up? We'll need a decimal point and a few zeroes in a row to state that. ;)nullasalus_{February 12, 2012
February
02
Feb
12
12
2012
12:02 AM
12
12
02
AM
PDT}

Of course not – there are thousands of comments on that thread. I used the search function to pick out all of her comments (there were gaps of literally years between her comments). That's very interesting. I mean, you didn't even know what name she was using at first so you had to read the thread to find out. Now, you used the search function and apparently... didn't read the thread. I mean, it's not like what I'm talking about is a buried isolated incident. It's the thread theme. But anyway I don’t accept the principle that we are obliged to make sanctimonious comments on the content of other blogs. Of course not, Mark. It's not that you've got spine problems when it comes to pointing out poor behavior on the part of people who you think are on your side, or worse, actively tolerate such things. Also, telling people they're wrong and going too far when they slander others, post their RL pics, do info digs on them, mock homosexuals and compare their targets to them... objecting to that is sanctimony. And, you just never read the thread except for the comments of the person whose name you didn't know, and besides, who are you to question how people behave? You'd never criticize the behavior of anyone on UD. That would be sanctimony. Good boy, Mark. I'm sure your friends will compliment you for sticking up for the team, right or wrong. ;)nullasalus_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PDT}

Oh, and here's as good a place to note as any: Barry, I've replied on the LNC thread, it's on your moderation queue or whatever.eigenstate_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT}

Nullasus
By the way, it seems you’ve read those threads now. I take it you’ll be denouncing the behavior you’ve seen, yes?
Of course not - there are thousands of comments on that thread. I used the search function to pick out all of her comments (there were gaps of literally years between her comments). But anyway I don't accept the principle that we are obliged to make sanctimonious comments on the content of other blogs.markf_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
11:01 PM
11
11
01
PM
PDT}

Sure, eigen. Because the two are anything close to comparable, right? Because KF’s mainstay is talking about how the people he dislikes are all a bunch of dirty homosexuals, right? Even Joe, who really can and does cross the line – and when I’m in the conversation I’ll criticize that, assuming I freaking see it – doesn’t hold a candle to what goes on in your hatefest.
Fine, but you're losing either way, because you're being pedantic. You're bogged down in the ennui. I don't think your standards for "hatefest" are even handed -- they're hypocritical -- but it doesn't matter, even if they are even-handed. You're still straining at gnats with this whole obsession, and have lost focus on the substance of ID, TE, evolution, materialism, and all that. Reading you, all that theory, science, philosophy and evidence is the ennui, and settling scores that can't be settled and don't matter beyond the baseline noise level of teh interwebs is What Is Really, Really, Profoundly Important™. You're as petty getting all over Joe here as you are agonizing over bad photoshop smears at AtBC. Consistency is good and well (if that's what your providing), but it's an exercise in way missing the important point.
Your defense is bull, and you know it. Hey, I have a great idea. If you want to recommend to your ‘Christian family and friends’ a great place to learn ID criticisms, how about you invite them to the thread and site you’re defending? I’m sure they’ll learn quite a lot.
I think it's likely one of the better places one might go to get up to speed on ID criticisms. You just have to be able to get past the ennui and be able to take the subject up. There's a lot horsepower there on the subject of ID criticism. Panda's Thumb, TalkRational and a handful of other places may be worth putting on the list (and I wouldn't be surprised to discover even better sites I'm simply not aware of), but if I had to point at the best examples of really taking ID apart as a matter of science and theory, most of the ones I would nominate would be UD threads where AtBC posters like Diffaxial, Nakashima and Seversky were allowed to post at length for a while before they were banned. Which is just to say that the most cogent and serious critiques I've read come from people who hang out at AtBC, and from people who mock the proud ignorance and intransigence they see at UD. For my friends reading, this ain't beanbag (I think that's the new saying), and if you're gonna get Church Ladied on all that, then give up trying to make a serious inquiry on this topic right now.
You know it. And to say otherwise – to try and spin that into ‘nullasalus was pointing out their rotten behavior and saying that’s why their arguments are wrong!’ makes you out to be either a liar or just that ignorant. Maybe both.
I haven't said that's your reason why the arguments are wrong. I'm saying you won't even make it far enough for the arguments to happen, to be made in the first place, such is your distaste for the person. That's your prerogative, but it TRANSCENDS any criticism on the merits, it's obviated by your righteous indignation and walking away in disgust.
You’re pretty slow. What I’m advocating is dismissing the person, and retaining the argument. Just as science != scientists, criticisms != critics. I know this freaks you out, because God forbid standards of respect and courtesy were enforced – you’d end up having to behave. But alas, I think that’s a good standard.
So... dismising the person, and retaining the argument. You've got to be joking. The person is the SOURCE of the argument. If the person is dismissed, the ARGUMENT is dismissed. You've got a self-refuting statement there, to open that paragraph. It's not a matter of confusing "science" with "scientists". You're supposing you can "retain the science" while dismissing the scientists who do the science. It's a transcendental fail. No scientists, no science to retain. I'm all for avoiding epithets and outing people's personal information, and "loutishness" in general. If you go look at AtBC, for all my "clannishness" you suspect, I'm a new nobody. I've got less than 20 posts there, total, over three months. No epithets hurled. That's my choice, and partly just because I run across pedants and concern troll polemics all the time like this, and so it's just a temptation for people to get distracted. And it's not a gratifying thing for me, particularly, anyway, so double whammy on just skipping that approach. It's not often I get bogged down with just posting as I do here or there, as the basis of some guilt-by-association groove, though.
Be sure to tell anyone with same-sex attraction you know, if people start belittling them, to just shut up, man up, and deal with the arguments. They’ll appreciate being told that regarding insulting behavior as making a person beneath their notice is ‘Church lady behavior’.
Yeah, if my homosexual son had the kind of mega-chip you carry around on your shoulder, he'd never be out of the kind of righteous-indignation-at-the-expense-of-all-else pattern you've adopted here. It's a luxury you can afford, that he can't. I tell him to stand up to bullies, but think big, and avoid being petty. Much better to engage on big, substantive, important issues. The Church Lady schtick just gets old for everybody, and doesn't help him any more than it's helping you.
Into the tarpit? Really? Funny – before you were talking about how that behavior was justified, nay, it was being too kind to the critics! Now it’s a tarpit. Good to see you coming around.
I'm sorry that wasn't more clear. By "tarpit" there, I was referring to conversations that took place at UD.
Apparently your version of ‘being an adult’ is this: no matter how people behave, keep your mouth shut and don’t correct them.
That's certainly not my position. I'm disproving that with this post to you. I'm speaking up against bad behavior, to you, and with others at UD. I'm all for speaking up and speaking out, I'm just also interested in not falling for the concern troll bait. And where there is occasion to criticize, correct, upbraid, I don't think of myself as simply too good for those that I dispute with, such that I must simply eschew them, or refuse to deal with them. "Walking away" is a deeper gesture of disrespect than flipping him the finger, and I don't recommend giving people the finger.
Certainly don’t dismiss them. And tell anyone who refuses to deal with that abuse, directed at either themselves or others, that they’re wrong. Absolutely don’t do it if they primarily attack people you discuss things with or criticize.
Right. Be a grown up all ready. It will be OK, and grown ups can and do just let that stuff go without having go Church Lady. That DOESN'T mean keeping my mouth shut. But it does mean resisting the childish temptation to pick up my blocks and go play elsewhere because I'm too good to be treated that way, or even be around such filth -- harrumph!
Funny, your version of ‘being an adult’ seems an awful lot like being a petty, clannish coward. Come to think of it, many adults are pretty, clannish cowards. Must be the fruits of the Enlightenment.
OK, now you're just talking silly. I'm suggesting that being a grown up on the Internet entails having a really thick skin, a strong determination to focus on serious and substantive issues if one wants to deal with them at all, given the many obstacles to that, and putting a priority on modes of engagement that can be productive, dialectically -- if we can identify points of disagreement that can be adjudicated objectively, by doing the math involved for real examples, or digging up real world experiments that are dispositive, or formulating novel, entailed predictions that proceed from either side and seeing which, if either side's predictions obtain, then we can get beyond just gainsaying-by-pseudonym, and that's a good thing. OK, enough for tonight.eigenstate_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
10:58 PM
10
10
58
PM
PDT}

Sound axioms? They don't need no steenkin' axioms. They have scientific knowledge about reality. And they can get it without any of that free will nonsense.William J Murray_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
08:36 PM
8
08
36
PM
PDT}

ES; If you have done any significant experimental work, you will know that we routinely trichotomise observed effects, on investigator intervention, random scatter and laws of necessity, just for one instance. Your attempt to evade the known pattern that in scientific settings we routinely trace to chance, necessity and intelligent action, is utterly revealing. SIXTH misrepresentation for the day, and there would be many more if I went point by point through your work. KFkairosfocus_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

ES: More misrepresentations. Perhaps it has not dawned on you that the concept of complex specified information and that of functionality as specific, or of organisation as having high information content are NOT design theorist originated concepts. Let me just draw your attention to the actual key sources:
ORGEL, 1973: . . . In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [[The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189.] WICKEN, 1979: ‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms [[i.e. “simple” force laws acting on objects starting from arbitrary and common- place initial conditions] and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an [[originally . . . ] external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content . . . Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’ [[“The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 77 (April 1979): p. 353, of pp. 349-65. (Emphases and notes added. Nb: “originally” is added to highlight that for self-replicating systems, the blue print can be built-in.)]
What Dembski did was to provide a context of quantification, and what Torley, Giem and I did was to reduce it to a useful heuristic. All of the sound and fury above reminds us of a very basic fact: FSCI is easily observable, is commonplace, starting with say posts in this thread, and is uniformly seen as the product of intelligence. The only reason why this is in the remotest degree contentious is the implications for the dominant evolutionary materialist school of thought in origins science. So, again, you evidence that blind chance and mechanical necessity can create such FSCI is? ______________ So long as you cannot fill in that blank with empirically well warranted evidence, it is quite plain that the commonly observed source of such FSCI, intelligence is its best explanation. Indeed, it is a credible signature of such design. This is the FIFTH time you have had to be corrected in a material misrepresentation for the day. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

To summarise a few potent comments from the recent past, NOT from creationists, but from men like Kenneth Hsu, who was moved to make the following observations in his article in the 'Journal of sedimentary Petrology.': "We all have heard of "The Origin of Species" although few of us have had the time to read it: I did not secure a copy until two years ago. A perusal of the classic made me understand the rage of Paul Feyerabend (1975). He considers science an IDEOLOGY. Feyerabend wrote, "all ideologists must be seen in perspective. One must read them like FAIRY TALES* which have a lot of interesting things to say, BUT which contains WICKED LIES,'...Nevertheless, I agree with him that Darwinism containes "WICKED LIES"; it is not "natural law" formulated on the basis of FACTUAL evidence, but a DOGMA, reflecting the dominating social PHILOSOPHY (Atheism) of the last century." in 'Science Contra Darwin" by Sharon Begley, which appeared in 'Newweek' she states: The great body of work derived from Charles Darwin's revolutionary 1859 book, 'On the Origin of Species', is under increasing attack- and NOT just from creationists...So heated is the debate that one Darwinian says there are times when he thinks about going into a field with MORE intellectual HONESTy: the USED CAR BUSINESS" Emphasis added. "Michael Denton is neither a Christian nor a professing creationist. He holds and M.D, and a Ph.D, from British universities...He has published a devasting critique of modern evolutionary theory. On every count, according to Dr. Denton evolution STRIKES* out. His book is one of the most incisive, thoroughly documented, and comprehensive books that describes the VAST AMOUNT of scientific EVIDENCE that REFUTES evolutionary theory." Emphasis added. "Seren Levtrup, a well known Swedish biologist, a COMMITTED evolutionist, but nevertheless reject the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. In 1987 he published a book entitled 'Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth." Among his conclusions we find the following statements (p.422). 'I suppose that nobody will deny that it a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a FALSE THEORY. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar 'Darwinian' vocabulary- 'adaptation', 'selection pressure,' 'natural selection,' etc..." Levtrup goes on to say: "I believe that one day the Darwinian MYTH will be ranked the greatest DECEIT* in the history of science" (pp.9-12, Emphasis added. This POINT cannot be stessed often enough, THAT Evolution theory, IS* first and foremost an IDEOLOGY* of a PHILOSOPHICAL agenda, NOT* true science, but, premised on, and ROOTED, IN* ATHEISM, then couched, veneered, and CONVOLUTED IN* a VAST MAZE of LIES, purporting to represent science, one of the most intellectually DISHONEST postures that has ever been presented by the so-called intelligentsia of the establishment of science in America and elsewhere! What an UTTER disgrace this is to true science methodology, and the great and respected founding 'fathers' of all science disciplines of yester-year, who would vomit over what these pseudo-scientist of the evolutionary theory have DONE in the name of science!Zoe_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

ES: You persist in distortions. This is the FOURTH case on your part I am correcting for record today. I gave you time to move past stale talking points, but you evidently have become so stuck in dealing with strawman opponents that it is distorting your ability to deal with what is actually on the table before you, to a point of culpable negligence of duty of care to truth and fairness. First, I have not raised "Creationist" arguments about the 2nd Law. Nor, did Thaxton (a PhD Chemist), Bradley (A PhD Polymer Scientist) and Olsen (A PhD Geologist). What you had in front of you was first that silly Bible-thumping fundy redneck from Arkansas -- NOT, Clausius' classic derivation of the law (Which has multiple forms), with a focus on B in the heat exchange. Transfer of an increment of heat INCREASES entropy of B sufficiently to overcompensate for the reduction in A due to the emission of heat, and this is explained on increasing the degrees of freedom for micro-level distributions of mass and energy. That's basic implications of the improper differential inequality (d'q standing in for the more correct crossed d); backed up by a glimpse at the underlying statistical view of the physics. The take-home lesson is something we need to recognise conceptually: addition of raw energy tends to increase molecular level disorder. So, the implications of entropy and its connexion to heat flows do relate to systems open to energy flows. Second, when we instead couple energy to a system in such a way that we get ordered forced motion, aka work [the accumulation of the dot product of incremental force and relevant displacement vectors], this is often based on natural structures such as hurricanes, but in many relevant cases is based on functionally specific complex organisation of parts, i.e for instance heat engines such as the steam engines that were the context in which the law was first developed. But if one claims that such FSCO/I spontaneously originated on chance plus necessity at molecular level, one is arguing for moving to highly specific zones in a configuration space of possible arrangements of parts. (I am here cutting down the phase space to leave off momentum considerations.) In Darwin's warm pond or similar environment, only blind necessity and chance would be available, so the relevant thermodynamics rooted in statistics and circumstances apply. The case of the challenge to undo diffusion of O2 molecules and the implications of relative statistical weight of dispersed and clumped macrostates -- they would be macro-distinguishable -- is highly relevant, and is an expression of why the second law holds in our reliable observation. The only empirically warranted source for such FSCO/I as we see in many systems is design. Next, you seem to be out of date and unfamiliar with the line of work from Szilard (and with G N Lewis putting in a sharp observation), to Brillouin to Jaynes and onwards to the rising acceptance of the sort of informational view of statistical thermodynamics that even Wikipedia is forced to acknowledge against interest. Let me clip here from Section A, my always linked:
wiki: At an everyday practical level the links between information entropy and thermodynamic entropy are not close. Physicists and chemists are apt to be more interested in changes in entropy as a system spontaneously evolves away from its initial conditions, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics, rather than an unchanging probability distribution. And, as the numerical smallness of Boltzmann's constant kB indicates, the changes in S / kB for even minute amounts of substances in chemical and physical processes represent amounts of entropy which are so large as to be right off the scale compared to anything seen in data compression or signal processing. But, at a multidisciplinary level, connections can be made between thermodynamic and informational entropy, although it took many years in the development of the theories of statistical mechanics and information theory to make the relationship fully apparent. In fact, in the view of Jaynes (1957), thermodynamics should be seen as an application of Shannon's information theory: the thermodynamic entropy is interpreted as being an estimate of the amount of further Shannon information needed to define the detailed microscopic state of the system, that remains uncommunicated by a description solely in terms of the macroscopic variables of classical thermodynamics. For example, adding heat to a system increases its thermodynamic entropy because it increases the number of possible microscopic states that it could be in, thus making any complete state description longer. [--> sounds familiar from the story of Clausius' B?] (See article: maximum entropy thermodynamics.[Also,another article remarks: >>in the words of G. N. Lewis writing about chemical entropy in 1930, "Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more" . . . in the discrete case using base two logarithms, the reduced Gibbs entropy is equal to the minimum number of yes/no questions that need to be answered in order to fully specify the microstate, given that we know the macrostate.>>]) Maxwell's demon can (hypothetically) reduce the thermodynamic entropy of a system by using information about the states of individual molecules; but, as Landauer (from 1961) and co-workers have shown, to function the demon himself must increase thermodynamic entropy in the process, by at least the amount of Shannon information he proposes to first acquire and store; and so the total entropy does not decrease (which resolves the paradox).
Now, I do you to wit that the prebiotic situation of a warm pond with a chemical soup, let's be generous and say, it is on Titan or the like, to get Miller-Urey's reducing and oxygen free environment, will not be under the control of biological but chemical and physical forces. And, until you have a credible, empirically warranted mechanism that delivers a metabolising automaton with an integral von Neumann self replicator, complete with codes, data structures, algorithms and organised implementing machines, you do not have a root for your Darwin-type tree of life. so, another little begged question or two. I think you will acknowledge that DNA is a string 4-state per position code storing medium, i.e. a data structure. And, the codes for proteins and enzymes especially are fairly complex and specific, as well as functional. That is all I need to show the relevance of random text generating exercises as easily accessible empirical tests of whether FSCI can crdibly originate by chance. Let us just say that a rebuttal based on tangential irrelevancies led out to strawmen and capped off with smearing by namecalling guilt by association with "creationists" is eloquent evidence that you have no sound answer on the actual merits. I also see that, hitherto, you have not found it in yourself to correct and retract previous misrepresentations. So, the sorry record you have made for yourself stands. Cho, man, do betta dan dat! GEM of TKI PS: Axel, sometimes it is necessary to correct for record, and to expose willful neglect of duties of care to truth and fairness leading to the sort of false assertions and misrepresentations I have had to correct for the FOURTH time today from this objector.kairosfocus_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
06:29 PM
6
06
29
PM
PDT}

Let’s show all the young folks what irredeemable reprobates scientists (rather, their internet supporters) are.
Why would I do this? There are plenty of ID friendly PhD.'s posting here as well as hostile ones. You guys keep doing this over and over, as in "scientific doofuses, all of 'em"
You’re a million miles out, but do you really care? You’re an electrical engineer, and you know how designs work, and you are convinced that biological entities are designs in EXACTLY the same sense. Well, bully for you. You are entitled to pursue that viewpoint to the extremes of your rhetorical impulse.
Methinks you assume way too much friend. My current thesis work may be entirely mathematical and on a non-biological problem in information theory, but my specialization for the M.S. was biomedical engineering, with graduate course study in physiology and other biological topics, e.g. cardiovascular dynamics. As an undergraduate I took 9 hours in psychology, 6 of those in physiological psychology. And yeah I think the human mind works just like a computer ha ha. Which is actually the metaphorical stance taken by many materialists, not me. Try again, have at it. BTW the main reason by far that I even bring up my academic background is as reponse the constant refrain that ID folks are scientific ignoramouses, kind of like what you did in your posts, referring to bus drivers, electrical engineers a million miles off, and such. You guys are constantly at it, trying to use arguments to "prove" we don't have any authority at all to know enough, so we should just take it like good sports and admit that your authority is superior, the typical argument from authority. I give you this much: kudos for admitting to your exasperation about not convincing the majority of Americans of your authority over us ignoramouses. You could maybe get over it and just not read this site.
And it has been very telling, to see how the group of people here, that aspires to a higher moral standard, views a group of people whose subject (for reasons that are not entirely clear to me) threatens that standard or even (in some cases) their aspirations to immortality. I’m sure you couldn’t give a damn, but I do not regard my moral standards as in any way inferior to yours, just because I study and accept evolution. I really can’t perceive any legitimacy to the claim of the moral high ground advanced by the “saved”, certainly not on the evidence here.
For the record friend, I express no judgement regarding you and morality. However it does seem like some of the contributors representing "good science", so-called, are on the verge of losing it, at least from reading them. May I ask a pointed question? Why does it seem to be so important and moral to you to convince everyone that with the unavoidable disintegration of your brain and other organs comes the total annihilation of your being? Is this to be a thought that one cradles in the crux of all good-feeling wonderfulness like maybe you experience? Hey a clue: The vast majority on this planet aren't deathly afraid of personal annihilation, its only an IDEA held by a small minority that in the very core of their being the majority know is absurd. Throughout history in all cultures this has been the case, you will never change this reality and will be exasperated until you realize you can't win by trying.
The bottom line is that, for a myriad of reasons I could rationalise to hell and back, you do not WANT the materialist position to be true. Why in hell should you invest any time in understanding it? It’s easy to just “do a Luskin”, filtering and spinning the work of scientists in a way that has scientists apoplectic not because of the worldview-challenge, but simply because it’s bad science.
Again you assume way too much. Twice in my life I subscribed to scientific materialism, it is just too sexy an option for most young students to pass up. Literally, as in those circles, they're just so besotted by the easy sex. That was the first time, and when that backfired I backed out of it, only to be bamboozled a few years later in SoCal because it was just so easy to fall into again out there. But a few years of living in a "pointless" universe full of pointless sex ground down my being a little too much for comfort. And so again I'm going to ask: where do you get your moral imperative to convince the world of your philosophy of personal obliteration?groovamos_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

"Those that come here and, even in good faith and with civil tongue, reiterate misrepresentations of ID corrected in the FAQ, or rhetorical characterizations of ID and anti-ID argument/positions, or offer only patently absurd, uninformed and unexamined materialist, atheist, or moral relativist commentary & propaganda as if it were reasoned argument, should be quickly shown the door. A reasonable, ethical host is not obligated to suffer the rhetorical, blathering nonsense of materialists, atheists, determinists and moral relativists in his own home ad infinitum just because his guests are polite and believe they are being honest and well-meaning. WJM, you address serious points with a wonderfully vicious wit; positively criminal in the degree that they are expressed in such an understated and measured way. If only we could all think and express ourselves in this way, this thread would have been redundant.Axel_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

I’m under no illusion about the abusive nature of taunts and epithets at AtBC, or wherever they occur (it happens here — hi Joe and KF!). Sure, eigen. Because the two are anything close to comparable, right? Because KF's mainstay is talking about how the people he dislikes are all a bunch of dirty homosexuals, right? Even Joe, who really can and does cross the line - and when I'm in the conversation I'll criticize that, assuming I freaking see it - doesn't hold a candle to what goes on in your hatefest. Your defense is bull, and you know it. Hey, I have a great idea. If you want to recommend to your 'Christian family and friends' a great place to learn ID criticisms, how about you invite them to the thread and site you're defending? I'm sure they'll learn quite a lot. That’s different than your suggesting “it’s worth noting”, by way of assessing someone’s ARGUMENT, that so-and-so was engaging in some low-brow mockery and uncouth satire somewhere else. No, eigen - I never said that. That's your wacky-ass pulled-out-of-the-air interpretation. Here's the full quote: "But when the AtBC people start screaming, yet again, about their being banned here, it’s worth noting just who we’re talking about." At no point - nowhere - did I say 'because of who they are, their arguments have no merit'. You know it. And to say otherwise - to try and spin that into 'nullasalus was pointing out their rotten behavior and saying that's why their arguments are wrong!' makes you out to be either a liar or just that ignorant. Maybe both. Take your pick. Or wait, don't. Let everyone else reading this pick for you. (Hi there, friends and family of eigen. Be sure to check out the thread at antievolution!) It’s a cheap and lazy way to dismiss someone, this recipe you’re advocating. You're pretty slow. What I'm advocating is dismissing the person, and retaining the argument. Just as science != scientists, criticisms != critics. I know this freaks you out, because God forbid standards of respect and courtesy were enforced - you'd end up having to behave. But alas, I think that's a good standard. Be sure to tell anyone with same-sex attraction you know, if people start belittling them, to just shut up, man up, and deal with the arguments. They'll appreciate being told that regarding insulting behavior as making a person beneath their notice is 'Church lady behavior'. Look, I get called worse than anything I’ve seen at AtBC all the time, in the various places I venture to post. It’s just a test — can I let all that just roll off my back and focus on some discussion that has substance, or do I descend into the tarpit with all the personality stuff. It’s always a challenge to keep on point, but it’s not THAT hard. It just goes with being a grown-up with an Internet connection. Into the tarpit? Really? Funny - before you were talking about how that behavior was justified, nay, it was being too kind to the critics! Now it's a tarpit. Good to see you coming around. Apparently your version of 'being an adult' is this: no matter how people behave, keep your mouth shut and don't correct them. Certainly don't dismiss them. And tell anyone who refuses to deal with that abuse, directed at either themselves or others, that they're wrong. Absolutely don't do it if they primarily attack people you discuss things with or criticize. Funny, your version of 'being an adult' seems an awful lot like being a petty, clannish coward. Come to think of it, many adults are pretty, clannish cowards. Must be the fruits of the Enlightenment. Either way, go ahead and keep on suggesting that I think arguments should be dismissed, depending on the behavior of their source. I've never said that in this thread, and I've denied it each time you've accused me of it. But clearly it's a delusion you desperately need right now. Otherwise, wow, you'd have someone you dislike making a valid point. Scary! Yes, but you know as well as I know this is an easy cop-out lever to pull. It’s the coward’s way out. StephenB says I’m “unfit” for rational discussion because his magic axioms aren’t treated as such. Yeah, that suggestion that 'the law of non-contradiction' isn't something you can dispense with is 'magic'. Also magic: the law of identity. "A = A", always and everywhere? What WILL those crazy philosophers come up with next? No, it's not the coward's way out. The coward's way out is to, when people behave like complete shits - not merely letting a barb slip, but the sort of personal attacks, slander and worse that goes on in your favorite little craphole - to keep your mouth shut and try to ignore it, rather than criticizing it. You know it, I know it. You just hate having it brought up because you know I'm right, and that means you better desperately change the subject. They aren’t threatened in the least. They aren’t so wound up about themselves that they get apoplectic at some nasty references or vicious talk. It happens. Maybe you do deny the law of identity, since you're basically saying "AtBC doesn't act like AtBC". Good on you, by the way, for admitting that sock-puppet behavior is pretty much what you can expect out of your group. Really though, I love the above. 'Yes, when people at AtBC are upset, they merely grin and chuckle. "Such tomfoolery," one may murmur to the other.' They don't, you know. Obsess. For years. Digging up pictures and personal info. Engage in vile slander. (Again, tell those with same-sex attraction that you know that if they get upset at people calling those they dislike a bunch of homosexuals that getting upset is 'church lady' stuff. They'll appreciate it!) Dr. Liddle has already engaged in a friendly, subject-centric way, and has invited him to her blog to discuss, and even offered him a “guest post” to start things off, with desired. She’s a demon, that one! Holy cow, Liddle - who, up until her banning, basically lived on UD - is showing signs of wanting to talk to anyone, at length? I'm shocked! What a surprise! And wow, a *guest post* on her blog? Stunning! What exposure and generosity! Readership may reach into the tens! Of course, UD - if I recall right - gave a guest post to Sean Carroll. So I guess that's a sign of how stellar things are here, eh? ;) Simply walking away, as you put it, is just a more extreme form of ad hominem. You aren’t even worth talking to at all, never mind worrying about the merits of your arguments. Wow, just look at the way that logic twists. So if a person walks away from a conversation with someone, it's not merely an ad hominem, but - in and of itself - a *more extreme form* of it. So, Richard Dawkins was like... ad homimem master when he ditched William Lane Craig for a debate. And PZ Myers, with his stated refusal to debate creationists entirely anymore? Same deal. Also, just as scientists = science in your world, criticisms = critics. It's utterly impossible for an argument to be addressed while the person making the argument is rebuffed. You just can't figure out or put together how any criticisms can be made, much less answered, without dealing with a critic personally. So, say... answering criticisms given by Francis Crick or Hoyle are impossible. What with their being dead. Wait, wait, I can see what's coming: to reply to intellectual criticisms lodged by people who are now deceased, or not present, is super ultra mega ad hominem! I hear that. You’ve learned to “shake the dust off your feet” as you leave, in Christianese, etc. Fine. But I’m surprised you’re holding this out as something more than an ad-hominem response. Sometimes, I agree, it’s the right thing to do. Sometimes it can’t be helped. But I don’t pretend it isn’t an outright dismissal of the person, which is the essence of ad hominem. Yeah, you uh... may want to look up what an 'ad hominem' is. "An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy." Nowhere - not at any point here - have I 'attempted to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic of the person supporting it'. In fact, I've said that criticisms can and should still be answered - it's the criticism that's important, not the person making them. If Guy X comes up to me and gives me an argument, and I say "Yeah, Guy X is a complete twerp, I have no interest in spending my time with him.", I haven't said "Guy X is a complete twerp, ergo his argument is wrong". I can go on to find the argument and respond to it without Guy X being there, if someone has written it down or I've otherwise picked it up. So maybe you're surprised because you aren't totally clear on what a freaking ad hom is. By the way, love the 'in Christianese' part. Because having standards is foreign to other religions, certainly atheists, right? Right, that PERSON can be and will be dismissed outright. His arguments need not be considered, he’s been dismissed as a person. I got it. One more time, because you don't get it: critics != criticism. Nowhere have I said 'there are no worthy arguments from the AtBC crew - just look how they behave'. That's been - why mince words - either a lie or stupidity on your part. Something you keep projecting, something you keep insisting I must REALLY mean, despite my never having said it, denying it repeatedly, etc. Believe it not, eigen, not all critics act like you or your friends. Many are civil and respectful. They put you to shame. You just don't want to grow up. And hey, I'm not making you grow up. Remain what you are - do it for ten more years of your life. I speak for myself. If you can’t read what I say, and judge it on the merits, nothing else will change that. In other words, no, you stand by their behavior. You keep your mouth shut when that crap goes on - or hell, you even take part in it - and will continue to do so. I believe some of your compatriots refer to allowing, encouraging and engaging in vile slander, personal attacks, mockery, etc as "reifying/deifying the good". Such great standards you have! Good boy, eigen. You're loyal to your tribe, no one can accuse you of otherwise. ;)nullasalus_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

"It’s not a matter of trust. It’s a matter of recognizing glaring logical flaws the argument of scientists that stem from fundamentally erroneous assumptions. It doesn’t require a Ph.D. to recognize bad logic and erroneous assumptions." WJM, their unwillingness to base their arguments on sound assumptions reminds me of J M Keynes' remark in a review of one of Hayek's books: "The book, as it stands, seems to me to be one of the most frightful muddles I have ever read, with scarcely a sound proposition in it beginning with page 45 [Hayek provided historical background up to page 45; after that came his theoretical model], and yet it remains a book of some interest, which is likely to leave its mark on the mind of the reader. It is an extraordinary example of how, starting with a mistake, a remorseless logician can end up in bedlam." I think, 'bedlam', perfectly describes the materialists' cranky fantasies about evolution, a multiverse, etc. It seems J D Watson knew a thing or two about the limits of the capacities of many of his confreres, also: "One could not be a successful scientist without realizing that, in contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid." -- J. D. Watson "The Double Helix" 'Nuff said?Axel_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

Argue with a fool, KF and it makes two fools. You're wasting your breath.Axel_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

A great post, Mr Murray, if I may say so.Axel_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

It's seems sad that he should have chosen to announce his PhD as part of his user name. Reminds me of a lad in the army whose wife said he'd asked her to sew his corporal's chevrons on his pyjamas, so that he could wear them in bed; like my wife when she was a toddler and took her wee pram into bed with her. You're only ever as good as your posts on Internet forums, so Big Al and Professor Magoo just won't cut it.Axel_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

Also, your protest that my application of the word "law" was ambiguous is not credible. I defined it with more than enough precision, and even if I hadn't, everyone, especially ID's critics, knows what "law" means in the context of any discussion on causation. Since you claim to have read Dembski et al, you should have no difficulty grasping its meaning. You are simply claiming ignorance in order to escape refutation. It's one more example of your disqualification for rational discourse.StephenB_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

@nullasalus,
Buddy, there’s only one of us here who’s defending ad hominem attacks, and that’s you. You tried to wordsmith your way into establishing that sitting around for years, digging up RL pictures of your opponents to post, mock, deface, screaming about how you think they’re all gay, etc, is… you know, some kind of intellectual, reasonable activity.
I'm under no illusion about the abusive nature of taunts and epithets at AtBC, or wherever they occur (it happens here -- hi Joe and KF!). It was not and is not my claim that those are any kind of argument from the AtBC members. They are not, it's just mockery, satire and namecalling. That's different than your suggesting "it's worth noting", by way of assessing someone's ARGUMENT, that so-and-so was engaging in some low-brow mockery and uncouth satire somewhere else. That is, I understand the distinction between argument and mockery/taunts. You appear to be connecting them and conflating them: hey, if you are reading the post of CriticX, it's worth noting that over here they called so-and-so names... By contrast, I don't see anything "worth noting" about Joe or KairosFocus patterns of ad homimen attacks and slander. I don't like when that happens, but that in ITSELF is not a reason to discount the point either of them raise when they set that aside and make a serious point. It's a cheap and lazy way to dismiss someone, this recipe you're advocating. I think KF is quite clueless about information theory, scientific epistemology and evolutionary biology, but I don't think that because of his predilections toward slandering atheists and those with different worldviews he supposes are hastening the Apocalypse. I think he's wrong on the merits, and think it's cowardly to say "it's worth noting" when evaluating KF's argument that he has a slander itch he just can't help but scratch.
Yes, I know. You’ll say sure, you defended the behavior, but the arguments fall on their merits. That still has you defending, even encouraging, that vile crap. Me? Not at all.
Yeah, I'm fine with that, because it's minutiae, pedantics as evasion on your part. This is what students of internet culture would identify as the "concern trolling" mindset. OMG, that's so uncivil, GOODBYE! It's a haughty, prideful reaction, concerned with petty, small issues at the expense of important, substantive ideas. That you want to obsess on that, and at this point it's seems clearly to be something of an obsession you're bringing forth here, tells me this is an evasion tactic. Look, I get called worse than anything I've seen at AtBC all the time, in the various places I venture to post. It's just a test -- can I let all that just roll off my back and focus on some discussion that has substance, or do I descend into the tarpit with all the personality stuff. It's always a challenge to keep on point, but it's not THAT hard. It just goes with being a grown-up with an Internet connection. Clearly, you have "higher standards" for what you will tolerate from others. You won't deign to deal with people like that. That's fine, that's your choice. But it comes across a very convenient and self-serving pridefulness. When I DO react badly to that stuff, that's what it is for me, anyway, a flash of my pride as a way to be "better than" all that.
No, eigen. At no point did I say that “the people at AtBC are what they are, so their arguments are all invalid”. You keep swinging at phantoms, which is fine, because I love pointing it out.
You've said something even worse -- "the poeple at AtBC are what they are, so won't even deign to converse with them." Merely an ad-hom dismissal would be more magnanimous, more down to earth, more serious than the preening dismissal you're advocating, here.
I said that mutual respect is a standard for discussion – one I hold to, and one I think others should hold to. If people act like they do at AtBC – something you’ve defended, even praised – then no. They, personally, are not worth discussing anything with. Show me where I said ‘therefore their arguments are all wrong’.
Yes, but you know as well as I know this is an easy cop-out lever to pull. It's the coward's way out. StephenB says I'm "unfit" for rational discussion because his magic axioms aren't treated as such. KF simply can't be bothered to defend what he says because we are "willfully" misrepresenting him, and that gives him a rip cord to pull to just not engage. You go all Church Lady on the stuff you read at AtBC, and it's quite clear to see that for the (faux) prudish reaction it is. Adults conversing on the internet do not and should not have to let that noise get in the way of discussing important ideas. But here you are, obsessing on it. It looks like cheap, easy polemics. That's where the "cesspool" at AtBC proves out this point. I'm still on the fence as to whether a new post there named "Dr. Jammer" is a real IDer, and the same person who posts her on UD as "Jammer", or is a fairly well conceived prank someone at AtBC is pulling on AtBC, but either way, since the members there don't really know, they give Dr. Jammer the benefit of the doubt, and they engage. They don't ban. And if I recall, this person has already made some kind of AtBC->NAMBLA connection in one or more of his posts. That doesn't get their righteous dander up, as it does yours. It causes grins, and good natured grins. It's so over-the-top, that this may be one of the AtBC members pulling out leg (cf. Poe's Principle, though, this is a hard problem). They aren't threatened in the least. They aren't so wound up about themselves that they get apoplectic at some nasty references or vicious talk. It happens. Dr. Liddle has already engaged in a friendly, subject-centric way, and has invited him to her blog to discuss, and even offered him a "guest post" to start things off, with desired. She's a demon, that one! This is how people who have the courage of their convictions and a grown-up attitude. It is the wild, pseudonymous internet, and that's how ideas get engaged.
What was that? I didn’t say that? Well then, we’ll just chalk your reply up to ‘yet more hopeless BSing’.
Simply walking away, as you put it, is just a more extreme form of ad hominem. You aren't even worth talking to at all, never mind worrying about the merits of your arguments. That's your choice, I know. But you've argued strongly for a much stronger version of what you deny right here.
Heh. That’s happened before, eigen. I’ve mostly received it from atheists, but I’ve also received it from a few Christians. And guess what I did when I received that? I stopped dealing with them – the conversation ended. I didn’t obsess over them for months or weeks, much less years. And I continued to engage the arguments, because – this will blow your freaking mind – I don’t need to tolerate dealing with a complete lack of respect to engage an argument, or even find criticism. I just wait for the critic I can respect (I know your being mired in AtBC’s antics may cloud your judgment here, but they do exist), or I engage the argument detached from the critic.
I hear that. You've learned to "shake the dust off your feet" as you leave, in Christianese, etc. Fine. But I'm surprised you're holding this out as something more than an ad-hominem response. Sometimes, I agree, it's the right thing to do. Sometimes it can't be helped. But I don't pretend it isn't an outright dismissal of the person, which is the essence of ad hominem. I realize "you don't need to tolerate", etc. But that's the problem. This is all about you, and the world living up to your "minimum pride conditions". You must be appeased, or you will walk! That will show 'em. I just think that fails to come off as the principled stand you hope it does, and it looks like hiding behind a Church Lady frown as a way to give yourself all the control you need to just pick and choose where you will put ideas at risk, and what you will answer to. It's a way to rig the social etiquette in your favor.
Again, eigen – the guy who is covered with feces and screaming an argument doesn’t need to be allowed into the room. The fact that he’s *gasp* a critic (with arguments!) doesn’t mean his antics should be tolerated. He should be, and should expect to be, ostracized until he apologizes and cleans up.
Right, that PERSON can be and will be dismissed outright. His arguments need not be considered, he's been dismissed as a person. I got it. This is the "concern troll" trope. It's vengeful just as much or more as the "loutishness" you are reacting to.
By the way, will you be apologizing and denouncing what goes on at AtBC? Digging up, posting, and defacing RL pictures of people? The insults? Or are you just going to let yourself stay covered in crap?
I speak for myself. If you can't read what I say, and judge it on the merits, nothing else will change that. For whatever concerns I may have on that, and maybe it's "none", you're mistaken if you think that kind of transparently manipulative bait is gonna take with me. Have some guts, man, go over there and get your Church Lady on, and see how it goes. Don't look to me or anyone else to placate the concerns you hide behing. That's just exceedingly weak.eigenstate_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

As always, eigen, you miss the obvious point, which you seek to camouflage in a linguistic fog. Can Jupiter exist and not exist at the same time, or can it not? If not, why not? Let me give you a head start here by providing an answer from my favorite materialist, Diffaxial, of happy memory. His considered opinion was that we have no empirical evidence that it has ever happened, which was, of course, an evasion. To the question, "Can it happen?," however, he remained silent and held to that silence. I have higher hopes for you. Can Jupiter exist and not exist at the same time? If not, why not? I will deal your misapprehensions about quantum mechanics at another time.StephenB_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

eigenstate complains bitterly on this site about being denied a fair opportunity to complain bitterly on this site and fails to see the irony of his project. It is useless to try to reason with such as he.Barry Arrington_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

"3. Why, if one clicks on the “Post comment” button before answering the verification question, does the page disappear along with the contributor’s typed input, and another page is presented? Would it not be better to conserve the work and let the contributer try again without having wasted the input?" I thought it was just me. Sometimes I got a prompt though.Axel_{February 11, 2012
February
02
Feb
11
11
2012
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply