NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,21:49) | | Quote (NoName @ Oct. 15 2015,06:47) | | Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,05:00) | | Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,16:52) | Also, he hasn't been entertaining so far -- why expect that to change?
He's a tedious little git and that's unlikely to change. |
I wrote my science and I shared my science not to entertain but give you either bad end or good end..
Good end if you would do science and agree with me...
Bad end if you ignore me and don't do science...
REMEMBER that I have science, the best the world has ever...
It is not a claim but a reality...read my science books and see if I'm telling a lie..
I think that you can refund to Amazon any book that is bought if you did not like them. Before, that is possible, I don't know now...
READ AND STUDY before you fight me in a debate since you will surely never win... |
We've already won. It's not even a battle.
You have already admitted that "good end" means simply "Edgar gets rich and famous". That's a pathetic 'good end'.
You have likewise admitted that "bad end" is what we have now. That's not so bad, particularly when you have nothing to offer that would improve what we have now.
You said very clearly that the only change that would accompany widespread acceptance of your notions would be that you would become rich and famous.
That does not represent any improvement in human knowledge or understanding, it suggest no new research opportunities, it has zero explanatory power, it is so intellectually impoverished as to be non-intellectual.
I cannot 'remember' that you have science, let alone "the best science' if you have never shown that you have any science at all. And you have never shown that you have any science at all.
Further, "the best science" is an odd claim -- how are sciences rated from 'worst' to 'best'? Why, in terms of explanatory power, evidentiary support, and so on.
You have neither explanatory power nor evidentiary support. When you have tried to produce either, the results have been laughable.
So, all we remember is that you are a foolish lunatic burdened with delusions of grandeur.
You have yet to enter a debate. That is yet another word you do not understand. It has a well-understood meaning.
And it is well understood that you are incapable of debating.
You are wrong on every point. |
I've already debating you and presenting you a very simple and obvious empirical evidence but yet you did not want to yield. |
This is not a debate. You are not arguing in good faith, by which I mean first, that you make no effort to consider your opponents' criticisms and second, that you are already known to be dishonest in your claims.
| Quote | | Then, I will never yield too, thus, we can never agree. |
I have been shown no reason to 'yield' -- you have no arguments, only assertions. The assertions are backed by nothing more than bluster and word-salad.
Your terms are made up and unsupported, you have no operational definitions, and, most critical of all, your work has absolutely zero explanatory power
| Quote | BUT
YOU ARE NOT A SERIOUS PERSON
- since you did not have a replacement for the new and universal intelligence vs mine |
Irrelevant. Serious people do not take seriously your absurd demand that a replacement be offered before you admit your nonsense is, in fact, nonsense.
The child in the famous fairy tale did not have to produce a new set of clothes for the emperor to know and be correct in pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.
Your 'new discoveries' are nothing of the kind.
You have shown zero reasons to believe otherwise. Assertions are not reasons.
None of your claims up to this point support any consideration of the charge that I am 'not a serious person'. For example, I am not the one who is shouting 'shut up shut up' when confronted with flaws in my reasoning or missing facts or fundamental errors of fact.
You have repeatedly done the shouting of 'shut up' in the face of precisely those challenges.
The party here who is not serious is you.
| Quote | | - since you did not read my science books to know what is the real intelligence |
There are zero reasons to read your books. You are merely a marketing shill, trying to get rich by selling absurdist nonsense as science.
We are here to discuss what you present here. What you have presented here does not constitute 'real intelligence', nor any sort of intelligence at all.
You have no definition, you have no test to adequately discriminate intelligent from non-intelligent behavior, you fail to consider the problem posed by the possibility that intelligence is a continuum phenomenon.
Your evidence is non-existent or dishonest.
Your reasoning is absent without leave.
Your discoveries are fantasies and delusions of your own making, and have been accepted by no one but you.
That's what's going on here. None of that is an inducement to read any more of your writing.
To say nothing of the fact that your writing is execrable.
| Quote | | - since you did not make any experiment for your claim that you have the right explanation of intelligence and I'm wrong |
Again, the emperor's new clothes argument.
I don't have to have "the right explanation" to show that your explanation is wrong.
You, on the other hand, have to have solid and well-defended evidence, logic, and reason to demonstrate that you have a specific phenomenon in mind [operational definition], have specific evidence to support your new analysis, have specific objections to current understanding, which you must demonstrate that you comprehend, and specific examples of why and how your purported new explanation explains all the phenomena explained by the currently accepted explanation as well as other phenomena or that it reduces or eliminates problems caused by or unaddressed by the current explanation.
Your 'new explanation' must be, in fact, an explanation.
Your nonsense as zero explanatory power. You can explain nothing at all with it.
At most you can provide a mechanism for defining entities as members of one or another category.
That is not an explanation. It is a categorization, a definition, and one that, in your work, lacks explanation and justification. It is ad hoc, prejudicial (in the technical sense), and without value (in both the practical and technical senses). Your 'new explanation' offers us nothing whatsoever except new, made up and unjustified terms. The new terms are literally useless.
| Quote | | YOU HAVE NO CREDENTIALS |
Ad hominem and thus rejected as invalid.
Also, this is a claim you cannot justify or support.
| Quote | | - since you did not write science books to show that you could summarize the 80 definitions of intelligence that ToE's supporters had messed |
Prove that I have written and published no books or retract the claim.
Writing science books is a requirement in no one's mind but yours. You have written 'science books' in only the most limited and self-assigned sense of the term. You have self-published material that you assert is science, yet has no support, no peer review, no scientific content, no acceptance as science, etc. In short, there is zero evidence that the result of your vanity publishing efforts should count as a 'science book'.
But even if it did, it wouldn't matter. Science is not determined by publishing count. Nor is scientific value.
| Quote | | - since you are not a scholar like me |
Prove it or retract the claim.
No one is a scholar like you. You might as well claim that no one is a square circle like you. You are not a scholar in any sense of the term.
But again, ad hominem.
The child who pointed out that the emperor was naked was not a tailor. So what? He was right.
Likewise here. Anyone can point out that you are wrong, from start to finish. Everyone else posting here has done so as well as I.
Ad hominem attacks are invalid and do no support your case. Worse, this one is based on your own delusions born of your own complete lack of understanding of what science is and how it works.
| Quote | | - since you have no clue about engineering |
Doubly irrelevant. We are discussing science, not engineering.
This is another ad hominem and is as useless as the others.
But worse, it betrays an astonishing confusion over science and engineering. You have presented no grounds for supposing that intelligence, under any meaning, is an engineering problem rather than a scientific problem.
So, not only an ad hominem, one that is wrong, unsupported by facts or reason, and irrelevant based solely on what you have asserted up to this point.
| Quote | | - since you have never tried submitting a manuscript in science journals especially the topic of intelligence... |
Prove it or retract the claim.
Again, an ad hominem born of your delusions about science and how it works. Also an irrelevancy for no special expertise is needed to demolish your assertions.
| Quote | | THUS, YOU CANNOT win AGAINST ME.. |
False to fact. I already have.
The only one who is not convinced is you.
That would be because you are technically insane.
You have already lost. That you refuse to accept or acknowledge this has zero bearing on whether it is true or not.
Find a single person who will read this thread and take your side rather than mine.
You won't because you can't because you are completely wrong on every point. Thus, you have lost.
| Quote | | I have science and I offer the best...and you have nothing... |
Wrong as always.
You have no science, not in the sense you are claiming.
Demonstrably you understand nothing at all about science.
You likewise appear to be severely impaired in quality determination -- what you have is not only not science, it is not 'the best' of whatever it is.
It more precisely resembles a midden with a rookery on top than it does anything else.
I will also note that it is absurd that you take so much time and effort to cast ad hominem arguments rather than address the solid logical case that defeats your silly 'hunger -> eat' "empirical example".
That's where you should be focusing your attention.
Of course, it won't be because you cannot counter it.
You can only reject it.
You only reject it because it demolishes your delusions of having 'empirical evidence' that supports your fantasy 'new discoveries'.
|
