Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
sponsoredwalk wrote: »
/Ignores like 4 threads filled to the brim with evidence for evolution, just to post a clever picture
JCs debunking of the CSI paper basically comes down to:
I disagree:D:rolleyes:;)Dempski is wrong because of X[1], Y[2] and Z[3]. Here are a few examples of stuff what disproves his claims.
And even if he had made a solid attempt, a lot of people are just too fed up of him to even bother replying.
Like me!
(Apart from the odd snide remark, always have time for one of those.) 0 -
Genghiz Cohen wrote: »/Ignores like 4 threads filled to the brim with evidence for evolution, just to post a clever picture
Sorry but I have no idea what me ignoring like 4 threads filled to the brim
with evidence for evolution has to do with what I'm saying or especially
what it has to do with 1950's ironing lady. My guess is that you think
I'm arguing against evolution or defending CFIS or something like that.Genghiz Cohen wrote: »JCs debunking of the CSI paper basically comes down to:
I disagree:D:rolleyes:;)
As high a standard of scientific rigour as it is to accept your word as
some kind of authority on the contents of JC's posts on as scientific a
topic as debunking creationism is, I think offering arguments from
authority as opposed to demonstrating, with [ugh] evidence, & justifying
from those who pride themselves on the fact that they have so much
evidence to justify their conclusions is why 1950's ironing woman has
found a new home in this thread...Genghiz Cohen wrote: »And even if he had made a solid attempt, a lot of people are just too fed up of him to even bother replying.
Like me! (Apart from the odd snide remark, always have time for one of those.)
I don't know if you're aware of it but this thread has at least 4 months
of these attempts to get JC to properly respond to that paper.
What kind of person spends 4 months asking someone to do something,
increasingly using this topic as a weapon to insult (out of frustration at
times, sure) & then just totally ignore every single word posted once
they get what they wanted & instead use it as another means to
insult...? When that happens it becomes more similar to the doctrine of
original sin or wife beating really, so trying to justify the fact that people
are too fed up to respond really isn't any kind of a justification...
All of that is cynical enough in and of itself, but the reason I've bothered
to respond is because the people on one side of this are using the
authority of science non-stop & even funnier they are criticizing JC
for his lack of scientific analysis while simultaneously displaying their
own high standards of scientific skills in writing off massive portions of
JC's post with quick dismissive insults relying exclusively on the shadows
cast by the authority of science & evidence ever present in this thread
in name only, such ironing...0 -
I can't even remember what side of the fence you call home on the whole creation/evolution thing. It doesn't really matter, anyone can call out hypocrisy.sponsoredwalk wrote: »Sorry but I have no idea what me ignoring like 4 threads filled to the brim
with evidence for evolution has to do with what I'm saying or especially
what it has to do with 1950's ironing lady. My guess is that you think
I'm arguing against evolution or defending CFIS or something like that.
When I saw your post quoting someone saying how it's unreasonable to dismiss something without evidence, and then post an image that can be found by Googleing: "oh the ironing" (image found on the 6th line)
It really seemed to imply that you thought Sarky was, ironically, dismissing something without evidence. So sorry if I got that one wrong. I really can't see any other explanation.
Meow, if you had in fact intended to imply such things, one could say this.
That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
JC presents CSI as proof as Creation, there is no evidence to support the existence of CSI, there is even the mentioned paper which as far in as page 20 (where I currently am, it's slow going while trying to work at the same time
) the author has quite neatly undermined a few of Dempski's claims. Making the entire idea of CSI look a bit shoddy.
I wouldn't ask you to take my word for it.sponsoredwalk wrote: »As high a standard of scientific rigour as it is to accept your word as
some kind of authority on the contents of JC's posts on as scientific a
topic as debunking creationism is, I think offering arguments from
authority as opposed to demonstrating, with [ugh] evidence, & justifying
from those who pride themselves on the fact that they have so much
evidence to justify their conclusions is why 1950's ironing woman has
found a new home in this thread...J C wrote:In recent books and articles (e.g., [16, 17, 19]), William Dembski uses a semi-mathematical treatment of information theory to justify his claims about "intelligent design". He has backed up his contentions with mathematical rigour.
See that?
Papers claim. J C disagrees
While the paper contains references, J C does nothing to back up his counter claim, thus it can be dismissed.sponsoredwalk wrote: »I don't know if you're aware of it but this thread has at least 4 months
of these attempts to get JC to properly respond to that paper.
What kind of person spends 4 months asking someone to do something,
increasingly using this topic as a weapon to insult (out of frustration at
times, sure) & then just totally ignore every single word posted once
they get what they wanted & instead use it as another means to
insult...? When that happens it becomes more similar to the doctrine of
original sin or wife beating really, so trying to justify the fact that people
are too fed up to respond really isn't any kind of a justification...
All of that is cynical enough in and of itself, but the reason I've bothered
to respond is because the people on one side of this are using the
authority of science non-stop & even funnier they are criticizing JC
for his lack of scientific analysis while simultaneously displaying their
own high standards of scientific skills in writing off massive portions of
JC's post with quick dismissive insults relying exclusively on the shadows
cast by the authority of science & evidence ever present in this thread
in name only, such ironing...
1 word highlighted. Very important word.0 -
Genghiz Cohen wrote: »I can't even remember what side of the fence you call home on the whole creation/evolution thing. It doesn't really matter, anyone can call out hypocrisy.
Sorry but I still have no idea what me ignoring like 4 threads filled to the
brim with evidence for evolution or what side I fall down on of this fence
has to do with what I'm saying or especially what it has to do with
1950's ironing lady.Genghiz Cohen wrote: »When I saw your post quoting someone saying how it's unreasonable to dismiss something without evidence, and then post an image that can be found by Googleing: "oh the ironing" (image found on the 6th line)
It really seemed to imply that you thought Sarky was, ironically, dismissing something without evidence. So sorry if I got that one wrong. I really can't see any other explanation.
That's exactly what I was saying, & you'll notice the post I quoted came
after I posted this, the post which explicitly points out the hypocrisy in
this thread (i.e. it was pointed out in a manner that any honest person
would readily concede and try to correct for). But no:
person A points out hypocrisy of persons B,C,...;
person X commits further hypocrisy;
person A quotes X's further hypocrisy, a quote that so deliciously
describes X's own hypocrisy only delicious ironing can illustrate it.Genghiz Cohen wrote: »Meow, if you had in fact intended to imply such things, one could say this.
That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
As warm & cuddly as Hitchen's phrase is, if you think it through it's just
foolish - for example not only are you using logic to analyze such a
sentence (logic which can never be justified with evidence), the sentence
itself is self-negating if taken seriously [hopefully you can see, let alone
admit, that]. But that aside, lets take it as true - it just illustrates further
hypocrisy in here:
The point I'm trying to make is about the sheer hypocrisy in this thread
by virtue of the fact that one side, the majority of posters on here, make
dismissive statements about JC's posts, statements "asserted without
evidence" and hence, "can be dismissed without evidence". Curiously
you completely ignore that, totally irrelevant, and instead focus on me...
If you believe so passionately in Hitchen's phrase then why didn't you call
everyone else out with the exact same phrase? I've already told you that
the sheer size of the post containing all of the hypocritical posts is far
too big - in fact just prove me wrong: Try it yourself...
Not only will this be a great chance at trying to one-up me by finding
that, after all, I'm talking out of my ass but you'll also be forced to
actually address JC's posts in order to contextualize the hypocrisy which
forces at least someone to bother to address JC's actual words...
Heck even try to justify the very last thing I quoted with the Ironing Lady
picture, please explain to us how you can simultaneously ignore such glaring
hypocrisy in the face of what I'll quote & explain below. On second thoughts,
I'll re-ask this question at the very end of the post so just hold off for a second.
But no, lets focus on the one post of mine, something I'd already
explained was far too huge for me to explain & something I'd already
justified by reference to a specific example of JC's totally ignored by
persons B,...,X (something illustrated below). This is just a basic
consequence of logic (offering one counterexample to invalidate a claim).Genghiz Cohen wrote: »JC presents CSI as proof as Creation, there is no evidence to support the existence of CSI, there is even the mentioned paper which as far in as page 20 (where I currently am, it's slow going while trying to work at the same time) the author has quite neatly undermined a few of Dempski's claims. Making the entire idea of CSI look a bit shoddy.
JC claims otherwise, and that's fine. If you scroll back or were paying
attention at the time the whole point of this ridiculous paper was for
JC to explain what was incorrect about it's dismissal of Dembski's
argument as some form of justification of CSI. So technically we don't
know yet as JC is supposed to justify it, that is - he was before those
requesting his justification totally invalidated themselves (more below).Genghiz Cohen wrote: »I wouldn't ask you to take my word for it.
But what you just posted was doing exactly that (hence why I called you
on it, hence why I'm posting this argument). Lets examine why:Genghiz Cohen wrote: »JCs debunking of the CSI paper basically comes down to:
I disagree
:rolleyes:
That's it... So even though JC has posted tons of material, examining
part of the paper offering his thoughts on lines/paragraphs you choose
not to quote a tap of that & instead merely insist that his entire
argument can be summed up with "I disagree". Ignoring the fact that
this is tautologically obvious by virtue of the fact that the whole point
of him examining the paper is to show us why it's wrong, you don't
bother to quote his words & show us how we can just sum his argument
up with "I disagree", also you ignore - totally - the fact that JC has
consistently argued that the authors ignore a distinction between
design & intelligent design:Intelligent design advocates claim that "design implies a designer", ID proponents claim that "Intelligent Design implies an Intelligent Designer".
but perhaps this claim owes more to the structure of English than it does to logic. After all, we would not likely say "pattern implies a patterner". The reason we don't say that "pattern implies a patterner" is because 'patterns' and indeed 'designs' that aren't specified can be produced by random and deterministic processes that don't require any intelligent input.
By the standards of those scientifically minded people in this thread we
would be totally deluded into ignoring this (something I've already
referred to in my first post but just totally ignored by you & others [note
the other distinction I made back then]). In other words, by virtue of
this example alone everybody criticizing JC totally embarrasses
themselves, totally invalidates themselves & furthermore can't argue
ignorance as I'd already hinted at the fact JC was making distinctions
like this in my first post since the vast majority of his posts were mainly
ones "of pure logic, not something you can actually prove - something the
majority of JC's posts are exemplary of". Hopefully I don't need to explain how
comments that write off important things like the above is the antithesis of science,
hence why it's so important when illustrated by those crowing the loudest about
their scientific credentials & their own understanding of the practice of science
(while chiding others for their apparent lack of such noble understanding).Genghiz Cohen wrote: »See that?
Papers claim. J C disagrees
While the paper contains references, J C does nothing to back up his counter claim, thus it can be dismissed.
Few glaring things to point out with this:
1) We should be aware that this is the second time anybody bothered to
quote JC, lets remember the first & second quotes came only after the
hypocrisy was pointed out by me & that's pretty messed up when
thought about considering I've already mentioned, twice, just one
important example of something that might be considered as a valid
point to anybody honest enough to engage it [note the qualification I
made in my first post].
2) On the face of it we are dealing with the introduction so every
statement in the introduction made by anybody is meant to be a
summary, so just by basic logic you can't justify yourself in any depth
& that's what the rest of the paper is for. In similar logic JC can only
respond with similarly broad statements without reference to evidence.
But even ignoring this trivial point, I'm just shocked you'd choose a
quote that totally invalidates the argument you're trying to make when
there are far better quotes you could have chosen to make the point
you're making (which, by any honest standards would be highly
questionable by the point I've just made):
3) Notice how the authors claim Dembski's used a "semi-mathematical
treatment of information theory to justify his claims about "intelligent
design"", the evidence to justify it's semi-mathematical nature is
Dembski's own papers. Similarly JC refers to the exact same papers
referenced in the exact same quote. Without going into any more depth,
something I'm aware is shunned by this audience, your point is totally
rendered irrelevant. If it's not clear I'll be explicit:
3') Authors refer to sources cited as "semi-mathematical",
3'') JC refers to exact same material, the material referenced in the
part of the paper he was quoting, as "backed up... with mathematical rigour".
Therefore the point being made is fully referenced.
So again it seems we're being totally deceived by you guys even when
you bother to quote JC, most likely out of ignorance fueled by spite but
it could be something else. Nonsense like this can be avoided when
people honestly engage large portions of topic X and triple check
everything, for instance my point 2) just implies you don't quote the
introduction as you're most likely going to end up having to correct
things by going deeper into the paper, and unsurprisingly I'm right...Genghiz Cohen wrote: »1 word highlighted. Very important word.
Judging by the standards of your last posts we can totally ignore this
since we have evidence of you missing very important pieces of the
massive posts you dismissively refer to with one liners...
But just for kicks lets analyze the flaws with what you've said:
Again it just illustrates the cynical hypocrisy of arguing in the name of
science while, in practice, totally ignoring it's method by totally refusing
to demonstrate how JC's posts are not a proper response. If you
need evidence of this I've provided it above, as would be obvious to
anybody not trying to quote sections of my posts & fish for
contradictions (had that happen on this forum many times, hence the
pedantic justifications). The thing is any honest person would have done
that immediately, & I swear it's what I thought the whole goal of chasing
JC down with this paper was. Also we can use your own Hitchen's
argument to invalidate your own point (I'm surprised you didn't notice
this yourself).
So please, I'd love for you to explain to us how you can simultaneously
ignore the post I quoted with my 1950's Ironing lady, shown to be just
the latest example of complete hypocrisy when we remember the
distinction JC is making (as I quoted, that thing everybody ignores with
their grandiose write-off's of JC's posts, and something referred to in
my first post) & still post Hitchen's quotes as if they are some form of
authority invalidating anybodies point, let alone an excuse for stellar logic.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
this slow motion car crash has come to a standstill.
Hopefully not, we've still got an evolution video course to get through
The wife-beating analogy is just over the top, and offensive. And not in the hilarious way.
Offensive or not it still is a great analogy for what we've witnessed. Why?
Just as a wife beater who beats his wife for doing what he told her to do
after months of beating her for not doing it, so too we have people in
here insulting JC for responding while simultaneously ignoring every single
word he posts after months of them constantly chasing him down to go
through the actual words of the paper & insulting him for not doing it...
So basically if you think the analogy is over the top you have to actually
explain what's over the top about it rather than just tell me it's offensive
- considering how well it describes the situation in here I find it pretty
disturbing that you find the analogy, rather than the reality, offensive.Repeating the same unfounded opinions over and over again without proof.
Just read through the first 100 or so pages & you'll see tons & tons of
my posts making explicit JC's lies over & over again. I got JC to admit
that he accepts like 95% of the theory of evolution, I've made explicit
how full of holes the guys arguments are. I just remember what I did
back then, others were similarly poking massive holes in his arguments.
Not only does he repeat the opinions over & over but he repeats
comment about the flaws in evolution he'd previously told us he actually
accepts. If you've been following this train wreck of a thread you'd really
appreciate how fcuked up it is for people to chase JC down for months
expecting some form of an honest answer. But shockingly JC finally
goes for it
He actually engages a paper line/paragraph by
line/paragraph, the majority of which is him simply pointing out that
the authors missed what might be a crucial logical error on the part of
the authors. Note the key word there, logical distinction...
I have no idea if it's an honest argument on his behalf but surely you
can't deny that ignoring everything else if he's right about the logical
distinction he's right - end of...
However, what do we get from those flaunting their scientific knowledge
for months non-stop? What do we get from those who apparently
represent the honest side of the argument?
Surely they'd engage that distinction, maybe explain to JC why the
authors are actually incorporating JC's distinction into their analysis
(the pattern implies patterner part makes me think JC might have a
point, though I don't care to waste my time on chasing up this
boring nonsense), surely we'd see at least something of that which
they wear as a badge of honour?
As much as JC has led people on in the past you can't excuse everyone
else when they descend to his level, especially when they're so proud of
the fact they're not like this lowly scientific philistine, but apparently we
are supposed to excuse everyone for some justifiable reason, maybe
I'm just not in on the secret of why we're supposed to do that:
Because people are pi∫∫ed off? :rolleyes:
Because JC is a charlatan? (Why are we even having this conversation then, why
bother chasing him for months...? Why... *repeats posts*).
Because he didn't do it properly? How the hell do we know that when nobody
bothered to quote him? Note what we've missed by submitting to the authority of the insults
by those in here...
Because nobody else debunked the paper therefore it must be
correct regardless of what JC says ergo his words are irrelevant?
How scientific it is to appeal to the authority of absence of evidence as evidence of absence...
This sums up the justifications thus far, but maybe I've just missed the
one that isn't pathetic...?
I don't understand how people can miss this.0 -
Advertisement
-
On a side note SW.
I'll reply properly on like.. Monday or so. Weekends are for not thinking too hard
I may have missed your point when I replied to Ironing Lady also, since I don't really follow this thread to the letter. So a bit of reading may be in order.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement