Louis
Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Since I have discovered a moment or two...
1) Gimpy do you know what a strawman is? You use them left and right so you should. If someone is openly and statedly using a word in ONE of its defined contexts it does not follow that it is to be taken in ALL of its defined contexts. That would be equivalent to asserting that a comment that "I'm in the black" in a conversation about bank balances means that I am currently in side a specific person of African heritage. Nice try. Score for Gimpy: Nil points.
2) Why not tease you about being part non-white? Because I don't know if you are or not. Get this straight Gimpy, you are a proven and self confessed liar. End of story, no equivocation. I don't belive your claim. If you said the sun was going to rise tomorrow, I'd fucking check it. Twice. With expensive kit.
You CLAIM to have been perpetrating a parody but I sure as #### can't tell the difference between "new and improved Gimpy" and "old and dumb as a bag of rocks Gimpy", and I am FAR from the only one. The arguments are equally poor, the total lack of familiarity with simple things like intellectual honesty and evidence are the same, and even the CLAIMS are the same. You've just skipped the really bonkers stuff about geocentrism etc. My guess on that little evasion of yours is because you have a total inability to admit when you are wrong, which you were and are. Want evidence? Just one piece for you, of many: the entirety of the "muslim integration thread". You made a VERY specific claim which you were held to. Your claim was very clearly demonstrated to be false, so you moved the goalposts to wider immigration related issues. THAT, incidentally, is at least partially why you have been told to shut your yap on that topic. The other reasons being that a) your bigotry shines through, b) you are and were being openly dishonest, c) if you're going to do a and b, at least do it vaguely on topic. As I've said many times Gimpy, were it up to me you'd be gone. You add nothing but annoyance and dishonesty, neither conducive to any form of discourse.
3) Abuse and homosexuality. You recieve my unending contempt and abuse because you lie. I'm a big enough boy to change my mind on the basis of evidence, give me the evidence and I'll change my mind. Pretending to play nice nice as if the past never happened, or as if your posts are not a matter of easily recovered record is not evidence. How about an apology Gimpy? For trolling and lying and being a dishonest fucker? You want to whine about being abused and insulted? Stop being such a fuckwit, stop lying, start having a reasoned honest debate, stop obfuscating, stop posting silly witterings about "evos and lefties and liberals", stop attributing views that people don't hold to people simply because they disagree with you.
As for being a closet case, Gimpy you total fucking imbecile I don't know if you are or not, and I really couldn't care less. If you are GOOD, if you're not GOOD. The WHOLE and total point of that abuse (actually mocking humour rather than abuse, I don't expect you to see the difference) is because you post silly pictures of sweaty men and make silly macho comments. Nobody else does this. The purpose of mocking this behaviour that you (and no one else) exhibit is to highlight how ridiculous it is, and because based on your previous posting habits and comments, I and others assume that being accused of closet homosexuality is something that would annoy you. It seems that I and others scored a hit since you keep wanking on about it, keep deliberately dishonestly attributing attitudes to it that statedly don't exist, and fail to get the point of it (i.e. that it's the CLOSET element that makes you behave like a total arsehole, not the homosexual element). I know you don't understand this. I know you will yet again try to spin this into bigotry, the problem you have is that the only way you can do this is to lie, since no evidence for said bigotry exists (because there isn't any bigotry to start with) and you are dishonestly trying to obfuscate the fact that you cannot support a single claim you've made and this is a convenient distraction.
4) You've made a couple of good points on economics? Wow (colour me doubtful in any case). You've posted in excess of 1400 posts, the vast majority of them either part of some trolling campaign/claimed parody (bullshit), dishonest, attention whoring, thinly veiled bigotry, asinine antiscience or sweaty wrestler based and you think that the fact that one or two competant comments have accidentally crept in turns you into a human being as opposed to the witless excrescence you demonstrably are (or wish to appear to be, 'tis the net after all)? Fucking #### Gimpy, that's the best delusion you've managed yet. Even less evidence than geocentrism. Some say a stopped clock is right twice a day, you've yet to acheive those lofty heights. The simile I would use is that the sun shines on every dog's arse some day. Shit my standards aren't high Gimpy, but I was expecting better than the intellectual equivalent of amoebic dysentery and a whine from a spoilt child.
5) Smacking you in the mouth. Sorry where have I advocated this? What I HAVE said is that if you behaved in real life like you do here, you would recieve a well deserved smack in the mouth from an unspecified, but probably irritated, listener. Are you somehow above an arse kicking Gimpy? Shit I know I'm not! If I behaved offline like you do online I'd employ a secretary to organise all the extremely well deserved smacks in the mouth I would undoubtably have people queueing down the road to administer. Your rather pathetic paranoia and out of context use of Lenny's comments speak volumes, especially added to the fact that you think beating harmless, elderly homeless people is a good idea, and you continually post wrestler pics and make comments of beating/crushing etc evos/liberals/lefties etc. Like I've said about ooooooooh a gazillion times now (no exaggeration) these things speak VOLUMES about your psychology. No one makes you do them. No one else here does them. Just you. THAT FACT ALONE SHOULD MAKE YOU PAUSE FOR THOUGHT.
6)
| Quote | | You claim that theology is as reasoned as literary criticism, but since it's lacking observation, it can't be scientific. On the other hand, literary criticism is based on observation, so there's no qualititative difference between lit crit and science -- it's all a matter of degree: |
This is not precisely what I said and you know it. Theology, lit crit of fiction are identical in many respects. They are based, as I said pages ago, on the observation of the texts, and reasoned arguments derived from those points. The fact that they deal with fictional topics isn't the issue at all, again as explained pages back (and I didn;t say that theology is at a lower level than lit crit, nice lie Gimpy, gotcha again). The point is that the tools being used in these fields are not qualitatively different from those being used in science. Their mode of application and subject matter are different, and that is what accounts for the superficial differences of field and method we see, but the underlying mechanism of elucidating knowledge about their respective targets (reason and observation) are the same. The DIFFERENCE with things like theology and fiction is that they deal sometimes with items that are not only unobserved but unobservable. The difference between theology and some fictional literature is that in theology certain faith based axioms are assumed to be absolutely true and unquestionable and are, I'm sad to say, defended by dishonesty and obfuscation at worst, and poor reasoning at best. Again as I said before.
Also as I said before, but you STILL are dishonestly evading, is not all knowledge=product of science, but all knowledge=product of reason etc.
So with that in mind again, let's deal with your asinine questions based on your dishonest deliberate ignorance yet again (for if you could read for a modicum of comprehension, you'd already have your answers).
| Quote | | 1) How do you know that the disparate way the tools of reason and observation are applied in lit crit and science are quantitative, rather than qualitative? And if these disciplines are different in kind as well as degree, then why couldn't you classify the literary approach as "another way of knowing"? |
My first thought is that since you made the claim that they are not the same originally, the burden of proof remains upon your shoulders. All we've had from you that far is stamping of your feet and crying "IS IS IS IS IS", no actual argument.
My second thought is read my fucking posts, I've answered this.
My third thought is what is lit crit etc telling you about? Precisely what are you gaining knowledge about? I've already been over this posts ago (again, sigh will you ever learn to read?). What knowledge are you getting fromlit crit? Are you getting any knowledge about the universe around you? The answer is perhaps. If one is examining the use of effective literary hooks in stories then one is learning important things about human psychology and sociology. If one is examining a painting one can learn about vanishing points, optics, the limitations of human visual systems etc. The whole point is that the valuable information one garners from examination of art is in some fashion reproducible and evidence based. Granted, not in exactly the same manner as a chemical reaction or a physical system, but then that's to be expected, we're dealing with less well defined phenomena.
Doubt this? Look at fields like etymology and linguistics, or (a personal favourite) abstract art and WHY it is abstract (subverting the tradition lines of art by distorting vanishing points and perspectives).
Yet again, as said in previous posts, the superficial or emotional responses to art are reasoned responses to observed stimuli no matter how unconscious they are.
| Quote | | 2) You claim that theology lacks observation. What about circumstantial evidence like the anthropic coincidences, or science's failure to explain certain phenomena? In fact, some scientists believe that we will never have a complete theory of say, abiogenesis. Why can't theologists use negative evidence in addition to (or even the exclusion of) positive evidence? "Just you wait -- I'm sure we'll figure it out someday" isn't based on anything more than an inductive inference, which is either tentative or fallacious no matter how you look at it. Why treat hopes as guesses as facts? Because there sure ain't much else when it comes to life's origin. |
Firstly no I don't claim theology lacks observation, all I said was that the subject matter of theology are based on unobserved, axiomic faith based articles of unquestionable dogma. The lit crit aspects of theology, or the downstream logical justification of these axioms is just as reasooned an observation based as any other philosophical field. Stop lying Gimpy.
The anthropic coincidences you claim are fictional, products of your own asinine argument from personal incredulity. This has been pointed out to you several times before, yet you ignore it and prefer to obfuscate with maths you clearly don't grasp. The coincidences you claim are not coincidences, you're forgetting Adams' puddle Gimpy, I told you not to.
Why can't theologians use negative evidence instead of evidence? I can't believe you asked something that fucking stupid. Considering my already abyssal opinion of your intellectual abilities, that's quite something. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is why for example I do not claim there absolutely is no god, or no teapot orbiting Titan, or no FSM. What I DO claim, and on the basis of some excellent data, is that these things are vanishingly unlikely based on the definitions of them given to date. Of course in one o those three cases dishonest fuckers like you move the goalposts continually to avoid the obvious.
Have you seen my garage? In my garage I have a dragon, come and have a look. Can't see it? That's because it's an invisible dragon. Can't feel it? That's because it's an invisible, intangible dragon. Put flour on the floor to detect it's footprints? Well obviously it's a flying invisible, intangible dragon with no mass. Try to feel the heat from it's dragon flame? Obviously it's flame is magical and can't burn you, how silly of you to even think it would, you're so literal! (With apologies to Carl Sagan).
Do you believe I have a dragon in my garage Gimpy? Give reasons. Obviously it's POSSIBLE that I have such a dragon in my garage, but based on the evidence it is AT LEAST equally possible (even probable) that I am either mistaken, stupid, misled, dishonest or wicked when I am advocating my dragon's existance. Is absence of evidence for my dragon proof of its non-existance? No, because (as we know from Bacon) if you don't see a black swan and all you see are white swans, it doesn't conclusively prove that black swans don't exist. What it DOES prove is that thus far we have only seen white swans. If you are claiming that black swans exist then you'd better have some evidence to back that claim up.
In the case of my dragon I can provide no such evidence because each time my dragon's existance is probed I move the goalposts. However this also renders the question of said dragon's existance moot: how is an utterly undetectable dragon different from a non existant one? Both COULD exist, but surely you need more than my unsupported say so to claim that one does. Simply because a claim can be made, it doesn;t follow that this claim is equally well supported by the evidence as other claims are.
Science's failure to explain certain phenomena? Since when has anyone claimed to have all the answers right now? It's called an ongoing process Gimpy, and we ain't at the end. I've made this point about a half dozen times in this thread alone. Do I really have to reiterate it because you're too stupid and dishonest to read? All knowledge is provisional, but we can have some idea of how reliable it is. Read back, this element is answered.
The "Just wait, we'll figure it out" answer is NOT an answer to the question, it is an admission of current ignorance (and some optimism! . Current ignorance doesn't equal non existant. However, the caveat is that simply because all things are POSSIBLE, not all things are EQUALLY possible, no even PROBABLE. Very very very very key distinction Gimpy, forgive me if I doubt you'll get it, based on the evidence you have provided so far nof course.
As for abiogenesis, we're in better shape than you know. Do we have mechanisms that we know can create complex self replicating molecules? Yes. Have we seen these things in the lab? Yes. Is it likely that we will be able to reproduce the exact path that life on earth followed? No, verging on perhaps. Could we perhaps develop analogous systems? Yes. The current lack of a concrete idea of precisely how abiogenesis proceeded on earth is NOT evidence for any alternative claim you dream up. We currently know all about every mechanism required to produce self replicating molecules from common chemicals found in space/on earth etc. What we don't know is the precise details of which of several possible routes it took. Think of it like a painting: we can see the artist's rough sketches in charcoal, not all of them, but enough to know the layout of the painting and that it is a portrait of a face. The colours, details and precisely who's face it is we cannot yet tell, but we also know a thing or two about painting.
All though this, your painfully obvious quest for certainty is clear. There is none. There is no absolute certainty for you. We are on shifting sands, some more solid than the rest, but all shiting to various degrees.
| Quote | | 3) You apparently claim that an individual can only "know" something by applying reason or observation. But then you admit that theology is based on reason alone. Wouldn't this qualify as another "way"? And what about people who rely on dreams as a source of inspiration, or even "delusions" about past lives? Some of these may have been hoaxes or due to humdrum mental phenomena, but nobody really knows what happened in some of these cases. |
No Gimpy you stupid, lying fuck that is NOT what I said about theology. Read it again.
Dreams and revelations are exactly what I was referring to as other ways of knowing. See right back at the start, thanks for catching up at least on one tiny point. But what do they tell us? Nothing whatsoever by themselves. My revelation that we were shat out of the arse of a gigantic space trucker is no more or less valid than your revelation that we were produced by the vaginal discharge of a mutant star kangaroo. That is until we look up into the night sky and see a huge marsupial clopper staring back at us. The only way we can verify any revelatory experience or faith based claim is by reference to observation. The only way we can know if that observation is reliable at all is to be honest and rigourous in our making of it. The only way we can know anything is by reasoned, rational observation of the universe around us.
If you claim your deist god exists and has certain attributes and I claim my different deist gods exist and have different and mutually contradictory attributes how do we know if either claim is representative of reality in any way? We resort to reason and observation. Faith and revelation alone can tell us nothing about the universe. Oh they MIGHT be correct, but only by coincidence. Back to my dragon again.
| Quote | | 4) What if some things exist, but are unobservable by human minds? How can we decide if this situation applies? Especially since we're using the same tool we're allegedly testing? |
Like for example alpha radiation. Can you see alpha radiation? Can your human mind sense it? Mine can't and I doubt yours can either. What we CAN do is design a series of experiments that render alpha particles, or rather their down stream effects on certain physical processes like fluoresence, detectable to our human minds.
If something is totally beyond observation in any manner at all, if it in no way interacts or intersects with the material universe then how is it different from not existing at all? The second it interacts, it falls into the domain of reasoned enquiry and observation. I ask again, does my garage dragon exist?
| Quote | | 5) What about the limitations of certain branches of mathematical logic as elucidated by Gödel's incompleteness theorems? What, if any, connections can be made to human intelligence? |
Ah zombie Gödel, the last refuge of the scoundrel. I have yet to see ANYONE arguing as you have invoke Gödel's theorems correctly. You might as well as wittered on about quantum uncertainty...oh wait you have elsewhere. Gödel's theorems refer only to specific first order logical systems with stated axioms.
What you are drving at here is are there things we don't know? The answer is yes. Is it possible that {insert claim here}is the case? Yes. Is it therefore the case that {insert claim here} is equally valid as the current state of rationally obtained knowledge? No. Possible =/= probable.
The connections of Gödel's theorems to human intellect...... probably yet another tiresome irrelevance of yours. The only possible connection I can see is to do withh Turing machines and the halting problem, but then my understanding of this is admittedly very sketchy so it's probably best left to better mathematicians than I.
7) You're accusing ME of being dishonest with regards to your comments about evolutionary biology? YOU ACCUSE ME OF DISHONESTY? I am actually genuinely outraged. Firstly, not only did I not in any way misrepresent your claim, I don't need to Gimpy, but you have lied continually and shifted the goalposts here yet again. Amusingly in your attempt to claim I am a liar you have to lie to accomplish it! Irony much? Not only have you NOT proven your claim, but you proven (yet again) my contention that you are a dishonest prick who'll stoop to any level to "win at that intarnetzzz". Your pathetic motivations are as usual clear.
What game is a foot? Gimpy I don't need to play games with you, you're too dumb to read plain text, games are beyond your meagre ken. Yet again, as usual, you try dishonestly to move those goalposts. The comments you were making were to do with the similarity of processes of inference in science and theology. My point is that in the example you gave the inferences being made are not of the same type, nor being made in the same way, nor on the same basis. You're strawman of how science works is what I was taking issue with.
Take your comments in context Gimpy. You were arguing that because in science some things are indirectly observed and based on inference that similar indirectly observed inferences from fields like theology could be considered to be similarly valid. My point is they cannot for several key reasons (reasons I note you admit, gods you are dishonest cunt aren't you?). We don't claim that whales absolutely definitely evolved from artiodactyls because of certain DIRECT observations of fossils and genes etc. What we DO say is that the most parsimonious model we can build for whale evolution based on current evidence is that artiodactyls are in the ancestral line (direct or indirect) of modern whales. That is LIGHT YEARS different from what you said. The nature of the inference being made is wildly different. THAT is why your false equivalence is wrong, and no doubt in your case deliberately dishonest.
The "wild tirade" as you call it is no such thing. It is a refutation of the claim you were making about the equivalence of data from disparate fields. What observations about the universe support a theological claim? None! Not one. Not even a sausage. Why? Because as you've had pointed out to you about a billion times now personal incredulity does not constitute evidence. Also good to remember is the plural of anecdote is not data. Theology uses observation and logic in reference to works based on it's own dogmatic, unquestionable axioms. As has been explained to you several times. This does not mean that the claims of theology are on equal footing with those of science. What it means is that in some areas of theology the tools that underpin science are used. The problem with theology is that it uses faith and revelation also, and they fuck the whole picture up, as explained above.
The false comparison you are making is that because we didn't see whales evolve from artiodactyls that the evidence is circumstantial thus circumstantial evidence from theology is as valid. First of all the relationship proposed between whales and artiodactyls is not as simple as your strawman (as pointed out). Second of all the evidence is not at all circumstantial but direct. You don't understand what is being discovered in the whale/artiodactyl example. The point is NOT that whales evolved from artiodactyls, but that similarities between two groups of organisms have been directly observed. That's it. One possible secondary implication of this is that the two populations could be related, but this is a probablistic argument based on the construction of parsimonious clades, not a concrete or tentative claim based on circumstantial evidence.
8) Me, one of the board's heavy hitters? Bwaaaahahahahaha. Hardly. Thanks for the flattery Gimpy, sadly for you, it's just another piece of taawdry bullshit from a practicallt sub-human piece of bigotted scum. Now do us all a favour and fuck off. There's a good troll.
Louis
--------------
Bye.
|
