k.e..
Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007
|
| Quote (N.Wells @ April 26 2015,14:39) | | Quote | | I actually need to spend less time in places that make me an easy target |
Yes, you do, but it would be even more effective to stop making yourself an easy target.
| Quote | | Instead of (for example) constructively discussing how to add a neocortex and more to the ID Lab critter I'm stuck in a rumor mill having words shoved in my mouth by those who don't even care about such things. |
YOU have to demonstrate that your model is worth anyone's time, that it is, in fact, better than nothing. So far, you haven't done that, because you just have bald, unsupported, implausible, and in some cases self-contradictory, assertions. "Nothing" is looking superior (and, again, your model would be made more realistic by removing the hippocampus).
| Quote | | Science becomes all about grammar and instead of like an English teacher explaining where there's a problem |
You're an adult and are claiming to be operating in the scientific stratosphere, so you shouldn't be needing English teachers. Nonetheless, you do. More importantly, the last steps in the scientific process are explaining and publicizing your results. You've failed miserably at this. (Note that I have in the past explained some of your grammatical errors and have suggested improvements, but you have rejected almost all of them.) After all this time, you still haven't managed to produce a readable first paragraph.
| Quote | | they just complain and complain as though the problem is my scientific vocabulary with words like "confidence" and "guess" |
Well, it is. You screw around with standard words by using them in nonstandard words without providing adequate redefinitions and operational definitions, which is one of several reasons why no one is interested in doing anything with your model. You have yet to demonstrate that it is significantly different from rubbish.
| Quote | | must be dumbed-down to what you're used to, a lazy dictionary type definition with a few "evo" words thrown in that (to you) makes it appear to have properly explained the origin of intelligence. |
Science needs valid dictionary definitions (NOT "dumbed-down") AND it also needs useable and valid operational definitions. You need to understand the evolutionary terms that you abuse and instead use them properly. Also, I'm NOT claiming to have an evolutionary understanding of the origin of intelligence. The evolutionary hypotheses about the emergence of intelligence are fairly straightforward and plausible enough, but they are clearly seriously oversimplified and have not been tested, so the origin of intelligence remains a major, genuine, and legitimate question. You just don't seem to have contributed anything worthwhile to it.
| Quote | | You ignore my giving you a whole multilevel model and theory to test. |
It's not yet a theory, and most of its levels appear to be wrong.
| Quote | | Instead of doing the right thing by science by helping to see that the theory gets proper testing you and others pretend that it is your responsibility to trash the theory, and me personally. |
The first part is not how science works, but critiquing new ideas certainly is. "Theories" are not accepted uncritically for development and testing until others are convinced that the suggestions have something worthwhile that makes further development and testing a worthwhile activity for them: that (and when the ideas start passing enough tests to win a modicum of acceptance or at least to start being taken seriously) is basically when a set of proposals and hypotheses evolves into a theory, and you are a long, long way from that, with no obvious way of getting there. Science starts with the basics, and you don't have any. You need to provide solid operational definitions, so that people can see what you are measuring and how, and repeat your measurements. Your operational definitions and your definitions need to be valid, and you haven't shown that. You need to supply some supporting evidence, which you haven't done. You need to show that you have in fact mastered both the basics of the fields you are criticizing and the theory that you are replacing, and you haven't done that. People need to be able to understand your ideas, which you haven't yet made possible (back to the poor English again). You need to show that your model is grounded in reality, but you are averse to ground-truthing. You need to show that your model is actually relevant to your major claims, but yours is not (it's not about the origin of intelligence, it doesn't involve reproduction over generations, it isn't true to life, it doesn't have anything to do with intelligent design, etc., etc., etc.). Your foundation is YOUR responsibility if you want your ideas to be taken seriously, but it appears to be rotten through and through. |
POTG
--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
|
