tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post5111788226974574602..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: Stephen Talbott Doesn't Understand RandomnessUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-41797761421644917932015-11-22T12:33:01.342-05:002015-11-22T12:33:01.342-05:00Systems Biology as in:
https://www.systemsbiology...Systems Biology as in:<br /><br />https://www.systemsbiology.org/about/what-is-systems-biology/<br />http://irp.nih.gov/catalyst/v19i6/systems-biology-as-defined-by-nih<br />https://books.google.co.za/books/about/Systems_Biology.html?id=XSoJ51jLwNgCCarl Strydomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00210495792950145368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-85056811073551902012015-11-22T04:36:10.155-05:002015-11-22T04:36:10.155-05:00I'm sorry, I think I misspoke. I am not oppos...I'm sorry, I think I misspoke. I am not opposed to "systems biology", if it includes things like genomics. My objection is more to the "general systems theory" that proponents make ridiculous claims for.<br /><br />Now, for "best results" of the field, I think you misunderstood what I meant. I was referring to <i>scientific</i> results, not outcomes. You know, papers that would be published in journals. So your #1 is not really relevant. #2 is certainly interesting, but I wouldn't say that had much to do with "systems biology"; more the outcome of many researchers working in traditional genomics. #3 is engineering. #4 is just pharmacology for the 21st century.<br /><br />What concerns me are the inflated claims of "general systems theory". Now inflated claims are nothing new to science or mathematics, but every time I've read anything by the proponents of "general systems theory", it just screams bullshit.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-34340140558227044432015-11-22T00:58:02.711-05:002015-11-22T00:58:02.711-05:00Hi there,
Well, number 1 is definitely funding an...Hi there,<br /><br />Well, number 1 is definitely funding and job creation which leads to taxes. Number 2 would be the Human Genome Project. Number 3 I'd say the pace maker. Number 4 would be a combination of new targeted drugs for various diseases and environmental matters.<br /><br />Look, I think I can understand why you think it's complete crap but look at it like a sports match, like say football. There's a bunch of organisms running around a field trying to score a goal. Each organism has different properties but has a specific function in it's team. Now to predict who is going to win is not something you can guarantee to get right because of all the factors involved but you can generate a likely outcome, and that's why BOOKIES ARE SUCCESFUL.Carl Strydomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00210495792950145368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-10166726251654626962015-11-21T04:29:08.251-05:002015-11-21T04:29:08.251-05:00I think "Systems Biology" is complete cr...I think "Systems Biology" is complete crap, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. What, in your opinion, are the 3 or 4 best results in the field?Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-85471945638715098572015-11-21T04:24:14.602-05:002015-11-21T04:24:14.602-05:00Hi Jeffrey,
You say "..some vague "holi...Hi Jeffrey,<br /><br />You say "..some vague "holistic" analysis which has never produced anything of interest scientifically.."<br /><br />Doesn't your statement contradict the field of Systems Biology?<br /><br />Kind regards<br />CarlCarl Strydomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00210495792950145368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-16767698631024919512013-08-23T06:00:42.128-04:002013-08-23T06:00:42.128-04:00The same way I know you're a troll, Melville.The same way I know you're a troll, Melville.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-69043478437919737142013-08-22T21:10:35.360-04:002013-08-22T21:10:35.360-04:00How do you know JamesW is a Talbot defender?How do you know JamesW is a Talbot defender?Melvillenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-38814010859406889182013-08-22T13:40:15.788-04:002013-08-22T13:40:15.788-04:00Why would I want to present an "argument"...<i>Why would I want to present an "argument" to the likes of you?</i><br /><br />Your inability to (a) conduct a civil conversation and (b) rebut a single thing I said, is noted!<br /><br />Like Talbott himself, Talbott's defenders are unable to use any facts or logic.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-55376738709290553762013-08-22T12:58:58.188-04:002013-08-22T12:58:58.188-04:00Why would I want to present an "argument"...Why would I want to present an "argument" to the likes of you? "If you wrestle with swine, they love it and you get dirty." "Tone troll" indeed! JamesWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-84164725079906835882013-08-21T19:00:16.936-04:002013-08-21T19:00:16.936-04:00Somehow I think people who say things like "I...Somehow I think people who say things like "I find your gratuitous insolence loutish" are not engaging in civil conversation themselves.<br /><br />Come back when you have an actual argument, instead of being a tone troll.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-48959804763731434212013-08-21T18:23:49.623-04:002013-08-21T18:23:49.623-04:00Mr. Shallit,
I find your gratuitous insolence lou...Mr. Shallit,<br /><br />I find your gratuitous insolence loutish. Can't you engage in terms of civil conversation? You are not a worthy interlocutor. JamesWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-25924197368357839602012-02-10T04:14:33.818-05:002012-02-10T04:14:33.818-05:00Hi ho, my reason is pure curiosity.Hi ho, my reason is pure curiosity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-25083429539447646262012-02-08T22:53:18.290-05:002012-02-08T22:53:18.290-05:00Before I get too personal about my beliefs, I'...Before I get too personal about my beliefs, I'd like to know the reason for your question. If I like your reason, I'll answer your question.Melvillenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-63619841619329099952012-02-07T22:41:19.101-05:002012-02-07T22:41:19.101-05:00hi once again, I saw that you think the uni. is bi...hi once again, I saw that you think the uni. is billions of years old. What I'm trying to figure out is whether you're a creationist(of some type). Note, I was being quite explicit when I wrote that old earth creationists think that genesis provides a framework for how the world was actually physically assembled. I thought it was clear enough that I was asking if that's what you also think. Put another do you think that the old earth creationists are wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-41441024603984382972012-02-07T01:57:19.583-05:002012-02-07T01:57:19.583-05:00Didn't I answer how old I thought the universe...Didn't I answer how old I thought the universe was?Melvillenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-74495799819012398092012-02-06T13:42:12.209-05:002012-02-06T13:42:12.209-05:00Hi ho, this is anon again. My question was quite ...Hi ho, this is anon again. My question was quite straightforward, but in an effort to be far more clear I'll add to it. Creationists can broadly be classified as young or old earth creationists that differ roughly on how old they think the earth to be, among other things. Thus, a young earth creationist can commonly be quoted as believing that earth is roughly 6-10k years old. As opposed to old earth creationists who can be quoted as stating that the earth is 50K-100K years old, all the way up to the actual age of earth(approx. 4B years old). Furthermore, old earth creationists commonly hold that genesis provides a framework for how the world was actually physically assembled. Now, I see that you are a theist but are you either a young or old earth creationist?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-33839653693845088582012-02-05T01:07:35.893-05:002012-02-05T01:07:35.893-05:00Anon, I'm not sure what you're thinking wh...Anon, I'm not sure what you're thinking when you use the term "Creationist." If you're asking if I believe in God, the answer is yes. I believe the universe is not ultimately an accident. The universe got its non-accidental start billions of years ago. But beyond that, I'm open to different views on the mechanics of it all.<br /><br />Jeffrey, which creationist canard did Talbott repeat uncritically? (Oh why should I bother asking?; you'll just say I can't read.)Melvillenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-15838760558658932472012-02-03T16:24:39.471-05:002012-02-03T16:24:39.471-05:00Sorry Jeff, this is off topic, but Mr. Melville, a...Sorry Jeff, this is off topic, but Mr. Melville, are you a creationist(if so old or young)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-58643905911063088822012-02-02T17:16:36.644-05:002012-02-02T17:16:36.644-05:00Hopefully, you will take a course in reading compr...Hopefully, you will take a course in reading comprehension to help you figure out what Talbott said and why I objected to it.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-22618831451487701672012-02-02T15:29:58.063-05:002012-02-02T15:29:58.063-05:00Hopefully, your insults will just remind your read...Hopefully, your insults will just remind your readers that you were unable to find anything in Talbott's article that pointed to that odd definition of randomness.Melvillenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-83339131036170835292012-02-02T03:22:59.083-05:002012-02-02T03:22:59.083-05:00And Melville is certainly an expert on what makes ...And Melville is certainly an expert on what makes someone a crank.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-81774479843030499602012-02-01T21:44:37.602-05:002012-02-01T21:44:37.602-05:00SLC: Bethell might just be a crank, but it wouldn&...SLC: Bethell might just be a crank, but it wouldn't be merely because he rejects (actually, "challenges" may be more accurate) a very strong theory. It takes more than that to be considered a crank.Melvillenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-11983012879217002292012-02-01T07:34:32.484-05:002012-02-01T07:34:32.484-05:00Re Melville
I don't know who Bethell is, but ...Re Melville<br /><br /><i>I don't know who Bethell is, but it doesn't matter that Talbott quoted him</i><br /><br />Just for the information of Mr. Melville, Mr. Bethell also rejects the Theory of Relativity, thus putting him firmly in the crank column.SLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-77553281941548424082012-01-31T15:51:24.173-05:002012-01-31T15:51:24.173-05:00As a moron, you should not understand the followin...As a moron, you should not understand the following: some people are just too stupid to educate.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-23167843799148665982012-01-31T14:10:51.051-05:002012-01-31T14:10:51.051-05:00As a mathematician, you should be able to understa...As a mathematician, you should be able to understand the following equation: "I'm stumped by the questions" = "Let's insult the questioner."Melvillenoreply@blogger.com