NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 09 2015,21:11) | | Quote (NoName @ Oct. 09 2015,08:50) | | Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 09 2015,08:52) |
I have always science because I have new discoveries and no one had ever smashed them. So, if you are a real scientist, you can read my science books and smash them and publish them in science books..
BUT YOU COULD NOT! |
Utterly delusional. False to fact in every respect.
What evidence do you have? None.
What 'discovery' have you made? None.
You have odious word-salad that makes no sense, frequently contradicts itself, relies on assertion rather than evidence, is based on a fundamentally false notion of how science works, uses (intentionally?) confusing pseudo-algebraic notations such as a multi-variant X, combined with X', X'', etc.
As to the last, if X' is a different thing from X, not X with a minor variant, then the proper, i.e., useful and meaningful, notation would be X, Y, Z.
Your usage of symmetry/asymmetry is literally insane, and is unrepeatable by others. You have been completely unable to provide any insights, instructions or clarifications of how to determine symmetry/asymmetry, whether the symmetry is always of the same form, etc.
So, in short, you have no science, you have convinced no one, and despite your assertions to not care what anyone else thinks, you relentlessly promote your nonsense, with the apparent "scientific" aims of acquiring fame and fortune.
You were unable to identify a single change, other than in your fame and fortune statuses, from adoption rather than rejection of your so-called 'theory'.
You do not grapple with objections raised, you instead insult and preen. "Once you understand my brilliant ideas you'll see I was right" is hardly an argument, nor does it add value of any sort to the discussion.
We have all seen this, commented on it at some length, and you remain incapable of understanding what the issues and problems are.
If you did understand, you would at least be able to grapple with the issues in specific terms and show, specifically and with examples, where and how the objections fail to hit the mark. The absence of such responses from you is quite telling. |
I have already shown you may observational and demonstrable evidences and empirical evidences! I've even told you that when you eat, you don't use intelligence! |
And we have shown you that your attempts fail. You most emphatically do not show specific concrete examples. Or where you do they are trivially refutable.
As, for example, your assertion that when I eat I don't use intelligence. I most certainly do. Intelligence is required in every phase of eating except the most minimal, mechanical, function of digestion. I choose which utensil to use. I choose what to cook. I choose when, where, what, and how to eat. Intelligently.
There are always multiple possible solutions to the "problem" of 'consume food'.
Yet another example of your stunning inability to craft clear, coherent examples that can be addressed by the also-lacking clear coherent principles you claim to have, yet cannot provide.
| Quote | Thus, you are just ignoring my discoveries. I don't care..
Multi-variant X...you are correct to say that I shoudl be using X, Y, Z, W...to denote proper notation. But I think, I am correct. |
Of course you do. But that only matters to science when you can convince others. You have convinced no others.
No one can replicate your results, which is also required for science, and is taken to be the minimum requirement for not just 'thinking' but knowing you are correct.
| Quote | | If we would like to study any X in teh entire exietnce for origin, then, I note this as X. |
Which is where you begin to go wrong. You are generalizing ahead of the concrete. Name the specific thing being considered. Identify any and all qualifications (restrictions, enhancements, addenda of whatever sort) involved in the analysis to come. Be specific.
By launching immediately into "X" you are pretending to a generality that cannot yet apply.
| Quote | | But since intelligence preduicts that if X is meant to exist, X must have a support or reinforence |
Prove it, don't assert it. This is naive metaphysics of the worst sort, done as badly as possible. I have already given you examples (an infinite number of them in fact) that exist and do not have support or reinforcement. What do those words even mean? *Specifically and unambiguously*
Also, the word 'meant' smuggles at least part of your conclusion into your expression of the situation. What does it mean to assert that any given thing was 'meant' to exist? Some things just exist. No 'meant to' required. None implied by the fact of its existence.
| Quote | | (to achieve asymmetrixcal phenomenon) |
See -- assuming your conclusion. You need to demonstrate this, not rely on it in the demonstration.
| Quote | | ..and tghis support is a colectively assigned as X'. |
Collectively? You are piling unwarranted assumptions on top of unwarranted assumptions. In particular, let us note that you asserted "X must have a support or reinforence" which is singular. How does a singular become 'collectively'?
Why, through the magic of improperly generalizing a single specific item to an X and from there improperly generalizing the asserted requirement of "support or reinforce[ment]" to a multitude of 'supports and/or reinforcement(s)'. This is, at best, improper and unsupported by your own work, your own words.
It is also based on assertions that are wrong. As already noted.
| Quote | Why? I am just trying to simplify everything since I used this simple formula
intellen = X + X' + X' + X'....
naturen = X + 0. |
You're missing the step(s) generally covered as "and then a miracle occurs". The justification of moving from a specific existing thing to a general formula is precisely what your work is missing. The required support for your claims is simply asserted and juggled with to skip past all the hard work and arrive at your meaningless and unsupported formalism.
| Quote | | Thus, we can see that in naturen, X is always X (single) and in intellen, anybody can count the appearance of X' for X. |
Which is not true, as shown already.
Your terms are undefined, your generalizations are unsupported, your argument is missing steps, your examples cannot be supported, and at least some of your assertions are demonstrably false.
Deal with it.
| Quote | | I do it so that even an elem school student could cope with the topic of intelligence since the best scientist for ToE had never discovered the real intelligence even though they received taxes and grants in billions bucks. |
No, you do it so you can support the pretense of having done all the hard work and so you can suppress the existence of the host of elements that exist and yet do not fall under the scope of your ridiculous claims.
| Quote | | About symmetry..and asymmetry, please, see my reply to NWells... |
See my response, above.
| Quote | | I don't grapple with objections since those persons who are making an objections have no idea of the real intelligence |
You don't know this and cannot demonstrate it to be true.
It is a comforting lie you tell yourself. It avoids the scientific responsibility to address the counters raised and counter them, not just sneer at them and say "you just don't understand". If we don't understand, that is your problem -- it is a problem that you are required to address and solve. That's how science works. | Quote | and no replacement for my new discoveries.
|
See the multiple places above where this nonsensical requirement is rejected as the self-serving anti-science idiocy it is.
| Quote | | How could I accept a lower intellectual person vs my new discoveries? I am discoverer, founder of the new Intelligence Design and author. And the those persons who objects to me are no-science? Lol! |
You are suffering from fulminating, suppurating even, delusions of adequacy.
You have discovered nothing. Even if you had you have no grounds for asserting that others who argue with you on the conclusions you draw are 'less intelligent'.
This entire enterprise is the "Edgar Postrado self-justification and self-worth project", not science.
You do not behave as scientist would. You do not do science.
| Quote | | Thus, you cannot expect me to yield to those persons..I have science and I have science books! Where are those objectors and critics? Let them PUT UP and write them in science books and I will buy and let us compare. |
No one is asking you to yield. What is being asked is that you argue in good faith. That means, first and foremost, that you engage your critics, defend your evidence, your logic, your conclusions, against all comers.
You don't do that, and that in and of itself is enough to demonstrate that you are not doing science.
| Quote | | Or let them SHUT UP! |
You only insist that objectors do that because you have no answers for their criticisms.
Science encourages criticism and debate. Genuine science does not tell challengers to 'SHUT UP!', it tells them why there challenges fail, or takes on board the insights brought about by grappling with the challenges and so improves its content.
You are no scientist.
You are a pathetic fraud.
Repetitively assering "I have science, I have science books!" may sound triumphal, but it is the hollow call of the fraud.
Show it, don't assert it. Address the challenges. Seek to understand the objections raised rather than reject them a priori. Then address what you understand your opponents issues to be. Don't misrepresent your challengers, be honest, be rigorous. Do the work.
|
