The Ghost of Paley
Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Louis:
| Quote | Oh no! Whatever am I to do? I've been challenged by the mighty mind that is Ghosty!
|
And you should be afraid. 
| Quote | Firstly, this is another one of your rather obvious distractions as I have manifestly made none of the claims you attribute to me, read back and in context. The dilemma is do I accept the challenge knowing that it is a convenient distraction for you to avoid, ya know, actually supporting any previous claim you made, political or otherwise. I'm specifically looking at geocentrism and guts to gametes etc etc. Your mouth has written a number of cheques it would appear that cannot cash, esp on the science front.
|
Naaah....I'm making progress little by little on the geocentric front. One of the primary challenges to geocentrism is, "How do you get the stars to rotate around the Earth? Gravity ain't gonna do it, boyo!" Well, by elucidating my information dual space, and tying it to Shannon and quantum mechanics, I'm showing how the planets and stars can orbit the Earth. Basically, scientists are mistaken to attribute planetary motion to a simple application of gravity: rather, gravity is an epiphenomenon of information exerting its power over our universe -- it guides the motions of the heavens, just like the Bible says, and Newton almost rediscovered. For my solar model, think Brahe. So I guess you could call my model a "Hidden Variables" model like Creeky did. I know I haven't rebutted the "counterevidence" yet but that's coming.....SteveStory made a big mistake bringing the Foucault Pendulum up, heck he probably realised it and that's why he later claimed that I'm a work....he could feel the breath of Cerberus nipping at his heels.  Anyway, don't worry about distracting me.....my work and girlfriend have much more influence on that front, and it's been slow lately at work.
| Quote | | Thirdly, I think you are a dishonest moron or a troll, as I have made abundantly clear. I have wasted time with you before Ghosty, which disinclines me to do so again. |
Sorry that you feel it was a waste. I thought you helped clarify my thinking on how information energy relates to the gravitational force. You demonstrated that I have to account for antiboding orbitals when using QM; I still think gravity is analogous to a blown-up bonding orbital for an "s" type subenergy level. I realise that I can't think of it in terms of a more complicated molecular bond since that would eliminate the higher-energy bonding orbitals along with the antibonding orbitals. I also agree that my metaphor was incoherent and therefore inappropriate. Think of all this action happening in information space, which then sends a simplified command across the kleinjunction. Thus gravity is a "trace" of classical chemical bonding. Coulomb forces don't apply to astronomy, of course. Anyway, I will continue to work on this, hopefully with your help.
| Quote | | However, as I have said, crapola of your favourite flavour needs open opposition, so I am hoist by my own principled petard on that one. |
Great! That's all I ask.
| Quote | 1) Someone has refuted you someone on politics, Louis must do searchy searchy.
I agree, 'tis only fair after all. I'll try to do searchy searchy and find something. My lack of god 'twill be dull though. I am fairly sure Ghosty (fallibility of my memory openly admitted) that this has been done, whether you would agree or not is a different matter. Although, I have an offer of my own for you later that might make this unnecessary.
|
OK. As you'll see, I accept your offer. But if this debate doesn't come about for some reason, I do expect you to follow through on this.
| Quote | 2) Ghosty bad on science therefore Ghosty bad on other stuff.
Well it's hard to see how you get this as an option seeing as I have bent over backwards to make it clear that I don't think this, but hey, this is your delusion (as with the intimidation, oh how I laugh at that, see the P.S.).
[snip points 3 and 4, which are addressed below]
|
Well, I was trying to cover all the logical possibilities, but you were the one saying that I haven't made "a single coherent point." That's where I was getting it from. As far as "intimidation", calling someone a bigot who belongs to the Klan....well, if that isn't an attempt to quash debate, then what is it? But anyway, I'll let it go cause I really want to get beyond this kind of PC BS. I'm happy to hear that you're not a big fan of PC tactics yerself.
| Quote | I have a better idea. How about you defend one of your propositions as you have stated it, and I rebutt? That way there's no thread baggage from previous nonsenses. Sound fair? We could even have a special thread for it if you wish. I'm also going to do you a favour and pick a topic I admittedly know little about. I think this is a far better demonstration of your political acumen than rehashing old threads, even though it is a past claim of yours. It also ups the stakes nicely.
Here's the claim I want you to defend:
| Quote |
For example, I claim that Muslims, as a group, do not assimilate as well as other groups, and in fact their culture often damages civil liberties. Is this bigotry or simply stating an unpleasant truth? You obviously think the former, but if you're right you should point to evidence (not isolated examples) that Muslims do in fact assimilate, or that we are more free to speak our minds than previously. |
The bit in bold is the relevant bit. You are proposing that Muslims as a whole religion integrate worse than other as yet undefined groups into Western civilisations/cultures, and that their cultural contribution to those Western civilisations/cultures directly results in the civil liberties of those civilisations/cultures being "damaged".
This interests me for several reasons. Firstly because I don't think it's the case and secondly because I don't KNOW that it's not the case. My "liberal bias" as you would call it would grant the Muslims the benefit of the doubt until the evidence was in. You're saying it is in and that it shows Muslims to be less integrating and more damaging to Western civilisations/cultures.
Is that fair?
|
Ok, why don't you set up a thread, and title it, "Does Muslim immigration threaten Western Culture, Science, and Civilisation?" This should keep Wes happy and yes, I do intend to defend the proposition that Islam is an enemy of Science. The only thing I disagree with is your implication that the burden of proof rests with me, but in any case I will proceed as if it does. I do expect to see positive evidence for your position however, and will be quick to remind you of any deficiencies in that area.
| Quote | So my proposal is that we have a new and fresh debate on this claim of yours. Of course you as proposer get to go first and provide a clear definition of you proposal and claim, and some of the evidence supporting it. Obviously I then have to rebutt on the basis of the evidence. I reckon a proper debate will sort the men from the boys nicely don't you?
|
Yes. But more to the point, a proper debate both delights and informs, and hopefully this debate will be proper.
--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.
|
?