tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post1848332198018261851..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: God and Reason - Lecture 2Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-89312611181712676002013-02-06T14:37:47.875-05:002013-02-06T14:37:47.875-05:00The idea that the "Center For Inquiry" i...The idea that the "Center For Inquiry" is above criticism or questioning is as hilarious as the idea that organizations selling themselves as dedicated to "skepticism" is above skepticism. Not to mention the "skepticism" Czar, himself. If irony had ever really been in danger of dying that idea would resurrect it. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-17303238224927050242013-02-06T13:15:16.896-05:002013-02-06T13:15:16.896-05:00Re Jeffrey Shallit
CFI and its late founder, Paul...Re Jeffrey Shallit<br /><br />CFI and its late founder, Paul Kurtz, is another subject about which Mr. McCarthy has a bug up his posterior orifice. Even though I have never been associated with it, AFAIK, there is nothing at all wrong with it (Larry Moran is a member for instance) and I would not attempt to hide such association if it existed.SLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-65889123576317133882013-02-06T12:24:14.266-05:002013-02-06T12:24:14.266-05:00I have not been banned from Larry Moran's blog...I have not been banned from Larry Moran's blog that I know of, I don't remember him saying so. I also don't believe Jason Rosenhouse banned me from his blog either, he did as me to not comment more than twice a day at one point but I was pretty much done with that discussion, anyway. I still do lurk at Moran's blog because we share some ideas about evolutionary theory but I did that for years before I commented on it. <br /><br />If SLC isn't associated with the alphabet soup empire of the late Paul Kurtz, he does a mighty good imitation of someone who does. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-38856910712117201392013-02-06T11:43:02.399-05:002013-02-06T11:43:02.399-05:00I would suggest to Prof. Shallit that, if Mr. McCa...<i>I would suggest to Prof. Shallit that, if Mr. McCarthy continues to repeat this lie that he be given the heave ho from this blog.<br /></i><br /><br />I don't usually ban commenters just for lying. The tiny list of people I have banned have to transgress even further than that. McCarthy is dancing close to the line, though.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-3852158718109344622013-02-06T10:25:02.045-05:002013-02-06T10:25:02.045-05:00Re Anthony McCarthy
Mr. McCarthy is a liar. I do...Re Anthony McCarthy<br /><br />Mr. McCarthy is a liar. I do not now nor have I ever hand any association with CFI. I have informed him of that fact on numerous occasions over at Larry Moran's blog before he was given the heave ho there. I would suggest to Prof. Shallit that, if Mr. McCarthy continues to repeat this lie that he be given the heave ho from this blog.<br /><br /><br />By the way, Mr. McCarthy has also bad mouthed Carl Sagan, Murray GellMann, Jerry Coyne, and Richard Dawkins among others. Amazing chutzpah from someone who has no record of accomplishments.<br /><br /><br /><br />SLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-9315266179036370642013-02-05T14:56:29.867-05:002013-02-05T14:56:29.867-05:00I should point out that I'm saving my comments...I should point out that I'm saving my comments that are held up in moderation for future possible use.<br /><br />I mention this exchange in my post today.<br /><br />http://zthoughtcriminal.blogspot.com/The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-30484264895054837582013-02-05T13:02:33.226-05:002013-02-05T13:02:33.226-05:00The only thing I've ever said about "ESP&...The only thing I've ever said about "ESP" is that Jessica Utts evaluation would seem to be correct that the controlled research into it has met the requirements current in the social sciences. If the standard that Fischer set for that is valid, I've never expressed an opinion on other than to point out that, as arbitrary as it is, it can't be valid when you want it to be and invalid when you want it to be. Well, you can but not if you want to maintain your scientific integrity. <br /><br />SLC is a CFI hack who has trolled me all over the blogs and has a tendency to embroider. <br /><br />Perhaps he's volunteering to provide the evidence refuting what I said which I'm still checking for as I'm writing about the failure of Jeffrey Shallit to provide it. <br /><br />"bad mouther of the late Martin Gardner and James Randi"<br /><br />I'd have said, "failed to genuflect and pretend they were other than what he could document they were". <br /><br />I've never made any claim about Charles Darwin which I haven't been able to document in his own words, in full quotes with citations of entire documents, or his children's words. Which is more than my opponent has done in this argument. If you didn't like what I said about him last summer, you'll really hate what I'm working on now. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-15967918057068359502013-02-05T12:01:48.992-05:002013-02-05T12:01:48.992-05:00Yes, I suspect he has some sort of mental problem....Yes, I suspect he has some sort of mental problem. Normal people, when given a citation to something they claim they are very interested in, just go and read the paper. He reminds me of Holocaust deniers who, when I gave them a pointer to the book <i>The Good Old Days</i>, demanded that I summarize the contents for them.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-32531643162137374342013-02-05T11:16:09.452-05:002013-02-05T11:16:09.452-05:00Incidentally, Mr. McCarthy is also a notorious bad...Incidentally, Mr. McCarthy is also a notorious bad mouther of the late Martin Gardner and James Randi. SLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-91926349665622224522013-02-05T11:11:55.958-05:002013-02-05T11:11:55.958-05:00I don't know how familiar Prof. Shallit is wit...I don't know how familiar Prof. Shallit is with Anthony McCarthy but in case he has just encountered him, he should be aware that he is a particularly obnoxious troll who has been given the heave ho on several blogs, e.g. those run by Larry Moran and Jason Rosenhouse. Among other things, he is also absolutely convinced that there is credible evidence for ESP and PK.<br /><br />He also is addicted to bad mouthing prominent scientists, particularly Charles Darwin. SLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-30299055335045734762013-02-05T11:02:15.874-05:002013-02-05T11:02:15.874-05:00if the neutron were just 0.2% lighter, all protons... <i>if the neutron were just 0.2% lighter, all protons would decay, so there would be no atoms. If the neutron were just 0.2% heavier, no element beyond hydrogen could form. This "fine tuning" suggests a designe</i><br /><br />A totally preposterous argument. If both the neutron and the proton were .2% lighter, the proton would not decay. If both the neutron and the proton were .2% heavier, the lifetime of the neutron would be the same, as the phase space available for decay would be the same and heavier elements could form.<br /><br />A typical argument from someone totally ignorant of physics. SLCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-6385719209534878652013-02-05T10:24:58.226-05:002013-02-05T10:24:58.226-05:00I have seen no evidence that you have read as much...I have seen no evidence that you have read as much of that record as I have. I think you might have done the internet-shuffle, quickly googling and Wikiing the topic.<br /><br />Show me where I missed the answer to those points. <br /><br />As I asked, explain the mathematical problem of decreasing numbers of "altruistic" members of the breeding population results in an increasing percentage of "altruistic" members of the population. <br /><br />I'm ever so interested in finding out how far you will go in protecting "science" on the basis of your ideology, even at the cost of mathematical possibility. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-59243992334728494382013-02-05T09:45:34.805-05:002013-02-05T09:45:34.805-05:00I must also add that the "evidentiary facts&q...I must also add that the "evidentiary facts" must be constantly re-examined relative to contextual interpretation (S-W again). The willingness to admit that one was wrong, was a fool etc.. and to assume a redefined outlook is important. The same goes for enthusiasm and the mental 'kick' one feels when comprehension dawns..this should be shared. A well deserved kick in the ass or a genuine smile of appreciation are more effective than the 'politically correct protocols (though necessary for career survival)' I've seen in place during my travels. I like the way the Japanese culture has used body language to make a point -call a person an asshole or show sincere respect equally deferentially.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-87008074912682614582013-02-05T09:25:04.937-05:002013-02-05T09:25:04.937-05:00My ex is an English Ph.D and (to quote Clarke) may...My ex is an English Ph.D and (to quote Clarke) may have been educated beyond her intelligence. I've read through some Apochryphia, (Jubilee's, Macabee's, Enoch..)as well as Wittgenstein, Hegel, Frege and Liebniz. I've also tried to understand the rationale of St. Augustine, Spinoza, Pascal, Euler, Ramanujan, Einstein regarding "the creator." Rather than the anthropic principle I would assume the Sapir-Whorf (not the Star Trek guy) hypothesis is a better referential frame. Both mathematics (see Cajori) and one's language of choice are constantly evolving. Tautologies can be created just based on the structure of the 'language' itself regardless of the point of the discussion. Belief is a feeling which is an emotional response based on neurological function. If these instructors would provide a PET scan of their brain function while lecturing on these topics..and/or maybe linked to a polygraph..any proselytism may be better detected as well as the basis of their reasoning processes.<br />Honesty/integrity and evidentiary fact should be a basis for reasoning from the known to the unknown. Did this come across in the lectures? Were the Amazing Randi, the Skeptic or Skeptical Inquirer mentioned at any time in any context?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-61392394694966937772013-02-05T09:18:15.732-05:002013-02-05T09:18:15.732-05:00After three days of making that contention, it'...<i> After three days of making that contention, it's time for you to put up your evidence.</i><br /><br />Poor sad little crackpot who is doing every single thing except reading the paper with the evidence. Keep pretending, by all means.<br />Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-73023214966873235302013-02-05T07:33:30.002-05:002013-02-05T07:33:30.002-05:00Well, quote them and blow that contention out of t...Well, quote them and blow that contention out of the water, you've had three days to do that. After three days of making that contention, it's time for you to put up your evidence.<br /><br />You can't do it because there is no credible evidence, anywhere, that those two points are not valid criticisms of the theory. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-80870255634496449612013-02-05T03:51:20.339-05:002013-02-05T03:51:20.339-05:00I have never seen any explanation of how 1. "...<i>I have never seen any explanation of how 1. "altruism carrying" individuals in the species would be more advantaged by "altruistic" self-sacrifice than "non-altruistic" individuals in the same species</i><br /><br />You haven't seen it because you're doing everything possible to avoid reading the paper I cited. <br /><br />Typical crackpot.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-46862611946156365842013-02-04T18:14:31.347-05:002013-02-04T18:14:31.347-05:00I am skeptical that J.S. read even as much of it a...I am skeptical that J.S. read even as much of it as I have, I have never seen any explanation of how 1. "altruism carrying" individuals in the species would be more advantaged by "altruistic" self-sacrifice than "non-altruistic" individuals in the same species. Considering that the "altruism carrying" individuals in every generation would be more prone to sacrificing themselves, that trait would have to be, in itself, a maladaptation. 2. how the decrease of an "altruism carrying" individual in a species does anything but decrease the percentage of "altruistic" members of the species.<br /><br />I went into quite a few problems with the idea in my post on the topic. First and foremost, in Dawkins' version of it, there was no evidence, at all, that the "first bird in a flock to call out" was at a slightly increased chance of being killed by the "flying predator". I doubt it's practically possible to record enough instances of first birds a flock calling out with enough resolution to even figure out which bird it was to come up with a statistically valid sample to confirm that conjecture.<br /><br />I also mention the large flocks of blackbirds we have around here in which different species flock together (including the infamous cowbird). Quite often in real life instead of desk chair imagination, different species also are present in the same place, in which case any "first bird to call out" that was at an increased chance of dying would also be benefiting birds of other species by its sacrifice. <br /><br />But, then, quite often in real life, when birds and rodents see a flying predator, they don't call out, they play statues. <br /><br />The entire kinship-"altruism" conjecture seems to be mighty short on the observation of nature, you know, coming up with actual evidence. It seems to all be pretty much making up nature lore, bringing science back to the classical and medieval periods. <br /><br />I have posted the first part of my piece. You'll hate it. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-20247720853218867632013-02-04T15:40:43.185-05:002013-02-04T15:40:43.185-05:00Go read the material that Dr Shallit has given you...Go read the material that Dr Shallit has given you & get your own answers. You don't have to be spoon fed.Eohippusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-3482109007235748022013-02-03T15:29:57.966-05:002013-02-03T15:29:57.966-05:00Eohip, why don't you fill in the time answerin...Eohip, why don't you fill in the time answering the questions that J.S. assures me there is an answer to but which he will not share. <br /><br />I'm especially interested in the matter of decreasing numbers of "altruistic" members in a species results in increased percentages of "altruistic members of the species as opposed to the "non-altruistic" members not so decreased. <br /><br />You'll have to forgive me for not being too worried about accusations of insanity from people who believe that it is possible for the decreased numbers in that scenario to equal an increased percentage in the population. <br /><br />You guys got nothing, to put it into blog-talk. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-87932764383464448982013-02-03T14:10:17.609-05:002013-02-03T14:10:17.609-05:00Andy McCarthy:
"I am writing a long piece on ...Andy McCarthy:<br />"I am writing a long piece on this exchange in which you will be discussed, to be posted on my blog later."<br /><br />We'll all be sitting on the edge our seats awaiting your breathless inanity.Eohippusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-66754639692450202412013-02-03T11:20:11.672-05:002013-02-03T11:20:11.672-05:00Apparently you're going to ignore my last comm...Apparently you're going to ignore my last comment while pretending you answered my points about Dawkins' "First bird to call out" fable as you have resorted to 1. argument from authority, 2. ridicule. If I was an atheist blog boy I'd probably scream about both as fatal instances of logical fallacy. But I'd rather go into detail on your failure to answer my points on either the 35,000 year old statue or Dawkin's absurd elucidation of "altruism". <br /><br />Your assertion that I've committed some intellectual sin in concentrating on that instead of going into the entire history of the folly of Hamiltonian "altruism" is pretty funny as I never addressed the thing before about the dozenth time atheists brought it up in arguments. I would guess that the large majority of atheists who use those "altruistic" birds in arguments have never heard of Hamilton or the others you list. I've actually brought Hamilton into it a number of times, noting E.O.Wilson's recent apostasy on the issue. <br /><br />I am writing a long piece on this exchange in which you will be discussed, to be posted on my blog later. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-5081077289315869022013-02-02T21:11:53.005-05:002013-02-02T21:11:53.005-05:00Well, present the refutation of my points, whether...Well, present the refutation of my points, whether based in your obviously vast familiarity with the literature or your ability to make decreasing numbers in a population equal increased percentages within it. You make it ever more obvious that you can't as you try to shift attention to your litany of those who pushed these speculations. <br /><br />I wonder, since you think his authority suffices in the absence of presenting countering evidence or a logical refutation of my points, if you think Hamilton's authority is sufficient in support of his related advocacy of a rather putrid form of neo-eugenics and his theory that HIV originated in polio vaccine programs. The one that ended up getting him killed. <br /><br />I haven't read E.O.Wilson's recent rethinking of Hamilton's equations but maybe you have. I watched behaviorism disintegrate, it looks to me that the deficiencies of evo-psy are about at the same tipping point that reached. The Thought Criminalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01381376556757084468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-17346854307639997612013-02-02T20:29:46.259-05:002013-02-02T20:29:46.259-05:00Dawkins' idea
I've already pointed out it...<i>Dawkins' idea</i><br /><br />I've already pointed out it is not "Dawkins' idea"; the ideas go back to Fisher, Haldane and more recently by people like Trivers, Maynard-Smith, and Richard Alexander. <br /><br />Crackpots always get obsessed with Dawkins. I don't know why - I guess it is because they only read the pop science literature and never bother to read the actual journal articles. Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-27173860390521590292013-02-02T20:18:23.491-05:002013-02-02T20:18:23.491-05:00You think I haven't read the literature?
I kn...<i>You think I haven't read the literature?</i><br /><br />I know you haven't. You exhibit no familiarity at all with the names I have given, and you don't understand why your assumptions are flawed, even though I have now given you an explicit pointer to two places where it is discussed.<br /><br />That's the problem with arguing with crackpots. They refuse to learn anything.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.com