|
|
|
Negative Entropy
New Member
12 Posts |
 Posted - 05/21/2012 : 06:43:20 [Permalink]
|
Sorry Dave, but I fail to see why saying that I suspect that you guys are not that skeptical is an insult. In any event, I expect people in a forum called this to try and find the problems with my arguments, as much as with Sober's. Of course, if you find no problems with Sober's, that's fine. But I note that you guys don't seem to try anything else but a defence of this guy's stupid talk without first considering if the talk has tones of imbecility in it. I know we all waste time. I am wasting time right now. I enjoy it though. I like it when others find problems with what I say. I like finding problems in what others say. But it is still not that useful to discuss about Sober's crap. That has not been the point. The point has been that Sober went to some place and talked quite seriously about a "compatibility" between science and religion. That the talk was filled with verbal diarrhea, and that his arguments reduce to an acceptance of imbecility. This was no exercise of the philosophical imagination for mere fun.
But since you are bowing down, best to you and enjoy Skyrim. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2012 : 07:00:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Negative Entropy
Sorry Dave, but I fail to see why saying that I suspect that you guys are not that skeptical is an insult. |
I'm sure that isn't at all true, precisely because of what you said in your next sentence.| In any event, I expect people in a forum called this to try and find the problems with my arguments, as much as with Sober's. Of course, if you find no problems with Sober's, that's fine. But I note that you guys don't seem to try anything else but a defence of this guy's stupid talk... |
Okay, if you're going to insist that the opposite of reality is reality, we really are done here. It surely is no defense of Sober's talk to agree with you that it is verbal diarrhea about a trivially true point which begins with a premise that is factually wrong. "Find no problems?!" You must be trolling us.
No, the problem (which you seem to have forgotten) is your declaration that from those agreed-upon premises, the characterization "imbecile" follows (presumably in a logical fashion). You have yet to show how this is so, despite direct requests, instead apparently opting to believe that repeated assertions that it is true will somehow magically make it become actually true. You claim that you like it when others find problems with what you say, but you sure aren't acting like it. You seem to be actively ignoring what you claim to like.| This was no exercise of the philosophical imagination for mere fun. |
James Randi will hand you a million bucks if you can demonstrate (under controlled conditions) your ability to read Sober's mind and correctly declare that he derived no enjoyment from spewing his nonsense. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Negative Entropy
New Member
12 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2012 : 07:15:15 [Permalink]
|
Sorry Hawks, but the way you are commenting this will not go anywhere. (I know, I know, the way I am commenting this will not go anywhere.) I suggest you think carefully and look at the history of this conversation.
I made my first comment in a place where the whole thing was there plain and bare. That was the context, and under that context (2) followed from (1). You might also want to note that I said "perhaps" just before mentioning Jerry's blog. I mean, you are right, I have a simple mind, for that reason, I try and be a tad careful about how I phrase my stuff (I confess I was not careful enough when stating that Sober is an imbecile, but I still don't see anything wrong with my conclusion).
Then, you said that it is my problem if I interpreted your statement as an "I dare you." I could either say, as you did, that I don't believe you:
| I don't believe you. I think you were simply trying to insult me. |
or else, we could be consistent and say that "that's your problem." Right?
As for my question about whether you were a creationist. I was not trying to insult you, I thought I knew that a "Hawks" I had read before was not a creationist, but then I wondered if this could be a different Hawks. It was not an innocent question though. Had you been a creationist I would have understood why you took so much offence for my view of Sober's defence of crap, and deal with it "accordingly."
I think I rather stop. I was going to go piece-meal with your comment, but you would then keep giving me fuel, and there is a point where what could be fun for me, could be too insulting to you (it already seems to be). Let me show you one more: you ask whether I am trying to make this an exchange of insults. However, I think you should take a second read at your second comment to me (which you quote there at the intro to this discussion). Unless you are Sober, I don't think that I started by insulting you.
Be well. |
|
|
|
Negative Entropy
New Member
12 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2012 : 07:19:20 [Permalink]
|
As you wish Dave. If I start answering these things, you will feel as insulted as Hawks, and that's enough for me. I will just stop trolling you guys in a forum where I was invited to post further answers.
How's the weather there? |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2012 : 08:32:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Negative Entropy
As you wish Dave. If I start answering these things, you will feel as insulted as Hawks, and that's enough for me. I will just stop trolling you guys in a forum where I was invited to post further answers.
How's the weather there?
|
When you read what we have written, and I'm assuming you have, saying something like this makes no sense at all:
| In any event, I expect people in a forum called this to try and find the problems with my arguments, as much as with Sober's. Of course, if you find no problems with Sober's, that's fine. But I note that you guys don't seem to try anything else but a defence of this guy's stupid talk... |
How should we react to such a complete misrepresentation of what we have said?
Would you also argue that Sober's takedown of ID, which is one of the things he's known for, is also imbecilic? Or is he not an imbecil when he's doing that?
What you seem to be missing is that one wrong or trivially true argument does not erase erase a whole career. Stephan Gould was no imbecile either, though his idea of NOMA is demonstrably wrong. Do we now conclude that all of the fine scientific work he did and his enormous contributions to popularizing science and making complex ideas understandable to non-scientists mean nothing because by the criteria that you seem to be using means that the mistake that he made about NOMA makes him an imbecile too? Harsh! Throw away all of those scientific americans that carried his column and discount punctuated equilibrium because that stuff came from an imbecile!
You didn't just say that Sobers argument was imbecilic. What you did was to call Sober an imbecile. And you have so far failed to support that assertion. Well if he's an imbecile, than we should be discounting his arguments against ID too because they come from an imbecil. It follows, right?
Or are you willing to concede that there are things Sober has said that you probably agree with? And if that's the case, you really need to either explane why you would listen to an imbecile or take your assertion back.
Why you can't see the mistake you have made is beyond me. And suggesting that we aren't being skeptical is beyond me. We are being skeptical. Skeptical of your remark that Sober is an imbecile, based on your criteria for what makes a person an imbecile.
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2012 : 08:48:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Negative Entropy
If I start answering these things, you will feel as insulted as Hawks... |
You're saying that if you explain the logical argument behind your characterization of Sober as an "imbecile," I will feel insulted? Must be a very powerful argument, indeed.| ...and that's enough for me. |
That's just bizarre.| I will just stop trolling you guys in a forum where I was invited to post further answers. |
You say this as if they are mutually exclusive. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Negative Entropy
New Member
12 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2012 : 08:59:32 [Permalink]
|
Kil,
| Would you also argue that Sober's takedown of ID, which is one of the things he's known for, is also imbecilic? Or is he not an imbecil when he's doing that? ... (more quite good stuff) ... |
This is what I was expecting. The right argument for demolishing my conclusion and my phrasing. So I stand corrected. Sober might not be an imbecile. The talk we were discussing, I would continue, is what was imbecilic. (I would have to add that there are a few ideas that Sober published about the ID shit that are quite enlightening.)
Thanks Kil. |
|
|
|
Negative Entropy
New Member
12 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2012 : 09:06:10 [Permalink]
|
Dave,
No, I am saying that if I answer your arguments you might find my answers insulting.
I save you the answer to your next "points" ... yes, no comment as tempting as it is ...
Since I have been beaten by Kil, I can leave, and you can be happy guys and gals. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2012 : 13:59:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Negative Entropy
No, I am saying that if I answer your arguments you might find my answers insulting. |
I find that insulting.| I save you the answer to your next "points" ... yes, no comment as tempting as it is ... |
I can't even parse that.| Since I have been beaten by Kil, I can leave, and you can be happy guys and gals. |
Seems like you very much misunderstand us. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2012 : 02:30:22 [Permalink]
|
| What an enriching debate. |
 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2012 : 10:32:48 [Permalink]
|
| I don't see that I have anything more to add at this stage... |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2012 : 17:21:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Negative Entropy
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
What an enriching debate. |
I guess we all have some stupid moments. But, reading around the comments you make, you seem to be a champion at it. Trying to break some record? I bet you might make it into Guinness. |
Yeah, that helps. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2012 : 06:17:19 [Permalink]
|
| I have never been so insulted. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2012 : 08:12:43 [Permalink]
|
| He most likely removed his remark for fear of incurring my wrath. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Elliott Sober talk
