tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post2162979834319932715..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: My comment that has NOT appeared (let alone been answered) at "The Intersection"Russell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger109125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-44671244129465998362011-01-13T00:07:24.186+11:002011-01-13T00:07:24.186+11:00Hello. It is great that at least you pour more lig...Hello. It is great that at least you pour more light on this issue. Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-15407362676107663682010-08-17T03:45:23.264+10:002010-08-17T03:45:23.264+10:00"I've already helped this thread get as o..."I've already helped this thread get as overlong and off-topic as it has, so I'll be brief and just point you to Razib Khan's comment quoted above. It's pretty clear that his impression was that the comment in question went well beyond a sentiment like "go dunk your head.""<br /><br />"Sarah Palin says healthcare reform includes death panels, therefore I as a reasonable person can make the same statement". Nice. Just because Razib Khan misrepresented a comment does not make it right if you simply repeat said misrepresentation.<br /><br />"Now enough already. You haven't said anything that hasn't been said several times over."<br /><br />Nor have you. In fact, everything you've said in this thread has been previously said by you in several locations multiple times already. If you make the same silly statements, don't be surprised if you get the same responses.Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-54513842585331408852010-08-14T05:40:40.476+10:002010-08-14T05:40:40.476+10:00@JJ Ramsey:
"P.Z. Myers, who erected a straw...@JJ Ramsey:<br /><br />"P.Z. Myers, who erected a strawman in order to call Michael DeDora a "witless wanker."<br /><br />Actually, that wasn't a straw man. De Dora was saying something really weird -- a lot of people actually questioned him further to make sure he was really saying what he seemed to be saying. <br /><br />Basically, he was proposing that we should give up on the notions of universal human rights and democracy -- this was confirmed after asking De Dora many times what he was actually trying to say ("...are you REALLY saying X?"). I can see why that would honk PZ off -- he's really into that sort of liberal politics garbage.<br /><br />-Dan L.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-80703830363856142912010-08-12T11:11:28.550+10:002010-08-12T11:11:28.550+10:00Paul: "JJ Ramsey accepted Kirshenbaum's &...Paul: "JJ Ramsey accepted Kirshenbaum's 'frame' that comments of the form 'go f*** yourself' or 'f*** you' (like 'go dunk your head') are 'rape jokes'"<br /><br />I've already helped this thread get as overlong and off-topic as it has, so I'll be brief and just point you to Razib Khan's comment quoted above. It's pretty clear that his impression was that the comment in question went well beyond a sentiment like "go dunk your head."<br /><br />Now enough already. You haven't said anything that hasn't been said several times over.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-73196057837387103992010-08-12T11:00:02.949+10:002010-08-12T11:00:02.949+10:00This comment has been removed by the author.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-91708677029626494622010-08-12T09:37:14.899+10:002010-08-12T09:37:14.899+10:00Allan, I'm saying that childish public rudenes...Allan, I'm saying that childish public rudeness from <i>accredited participants</i> in a scientific conference is implausible, and you'd want to corroborate the story with independent witnesses, etc., before believing it, especially if everyone was supposedly sober at the time. "Childish public rudeness" refers to the sort of thing described by Johnson - forced laughter in people's faces, etc., not just to hostile responses to a paper and so on. There can be objectionable kinds of behaviour well short of what was described by Johnson.<br /><br />Physical violence involving relatively low levels of danger (such as pouring water, throwing ripe tomatoes, etc.) from <i>political demonstrators</i> is not so implausible, though demonstrators are often demonised, and their actions are often exaggerated, so it would still be wise to check the story if it's alleged that a conference was interrupted by demonstrators who acted in such and such an outrageous way.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-26723674900107234692010-08-12T08:36:24.455+10:002010-08-12T08:36:24.455+10:00I just want to point out that above, JJ Ramsey acc...I just want to point out that above, JJ Ramsey accepted Kirshenbaum's "frame" that comments of the form "go f*** yourself" or "f*** you" (like "go dunk your head") are "rape jokes". It's horribly dishonest, disrespectful to rape victims, and just plain tacky. Needless to say, little Willy was a big fan of this assertion.Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-57974284164449743782010-08-09T22:37:43.791+10:002010-08-09T22:37:43.791+10:00Russell,
Well, hoping to get things back on track...Russell,<br /><br />Well, hoping to get things back on track (although that's probably futile), let me ask you this:<br /><br />Do you seriously think that someone pouring a pitcher of water on someone at an academic conference is LESS implausible than a claim that what was essentially heckling and mocking occurred at the same sort of conference?<br /><br />Noting that in the latter case the heckling and mocking was claimed to come from a group of people who have at last some very prominent members who say that the best way to deal with religious claims is indeed to heckle and mock them (although perhaps not at academic conferences)?<br /><br />I came very late to this, and certainly would have been surprised -- but not shocked -- if actual participants had done this. It wouldn't have surprised me of people in the audience did it, especially if those people were students -- even at the graduate level -- as opposed to professors.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03541357604328397306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-60980964027072559242010-08-09T12:58:15.366+10:002010-08-09T12:58:15.366+10:00Straw Man is used when the atheist has no one left...Straw Man is used when the atheist has no one left to burn...<br /><br />any argument that does not fit their extremely limited and sometimes (not always) bigoted view of others - is often called a Straw Man argument<br /><br />There is only one straw man and that is the one who believes they are right...Robert N Stephensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17846982349433428044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-6376314810920752592010-08-09T10:05:55.088+10:002010-08-09T10:05:55.088+10:00woo hoo and a jolly big woot!
Go you big red ngin...woo hoo and a jolly big woot!<br /><br />Go you big red ngine!Robert N Stephensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17846982349433428044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-71858812652738529592010-08-09T07:46:55.372+10:002010-08-09T07:46:55.372+10:00J. J. Ramsey
Yeah, you can't counter it becau...J. J. Ramsey<br /><br />Yeah, you can't counter it because usual counters such as "quote mine" don't apply in this instance.<br /><br />It gets exactly what de Dora was saying, and the whole thing is in the context he was saying it in. <br /><br />I see a lot wrong with what Myers wrote there, and I mean a LOT, but straw man isn't one of them.Bruce Gortonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-37567486392035072472010-08-09T07:39:05.394+10:002010-08-09T07:39:05.394+10:00JJ Ramsey
Myers was pointing out the unfortunate ...JJ Ramsey<br /><br />Myers was pointing out the unfortunate implications to de Dora's stated ideas. <br /><br />You could argue slippery slope, but not straw man.<br /><br />Note, again I am not saying Myers is right here, I think it is one of those arguments where if you take away all the crap there isn't anything left, but I am seeing way too much misuse of the straw man charge lately. <br /><br />Its becoming a straw zombie.Bruce Gortonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-40838677151616800512010-08-09T07:16:32.240+10:002010-08-09T07:16:32.240+10:00Bruce Gorton: "You can't take something D...Bruce Gorton: "You can't take something De Dora actually said, that is directly quoted, and claim it is a straw man."<br /><br />Are you kidding me? I'm tempted to write a rebuttal, but that is so transparently wrong that I think I'll just quote it for truth and leave it at that.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-73388643607783769262010-08-09T07:10:25.628+10:002010-08-09T07:10:25.628+10:00JJ
Who said it? De Dora said it. You can't ta...JJ<br /><br />Who said it? De Dora said it. You can't take something De Dora actually said, that is directly quoted, and claim it is a straw man.<br /><br />If you are going to accuse someone of straw man tactics it has to actually BE a straw man.<br /><br />The actual fallacy in PZ's argument (remember I think he is wrong here too) is this:<br /><br /><i>Those are "beliefs" that must be rejected by any scientist, by any textbook purporting to describe how science works and what conclusions it reaches — anything less is cowardly intellectual dishonesty.</i><br /><br />Which is to say it is like saying "Drink urine or you are a complete cretin." It isn't an argument, its just an order backed with the threat of insult.Bruce Gortonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-75034346146942678552010-08-09T07:07:53.553+10:002010-08-09T07:07:53.553+10:00A couple more things. First, the most a scientist ...A couple more things. First, the most a scientist can say about Last-Thursdayism is that it is not science, regardless of whether it is true or false. That, though, is certainly enough to keep it out of a science classroom. Second, and more importantly, look at how Myers follows up his quote from DeDora:<br /><br />"Somebody says the universe appeared magically a few thousand years ago, I guess that has to be a valid answer on the test question, 'How old is the universe?'. To actually state that it is about 14 billion years old, and make such an answer a necessary part of the student's grade ... why, that is philosophy or theology, and not to be discussed in science class."<br /><br />DeDora <i>never</i> said that the age of the universe was in general a matter of philosophy or theology, only the special case of Last-Thursdayism (which isn't science anyway and doesn't belong in science class). He certainly never said that bog-standard Young Earth Creationism--which lies about scientific matters such as radiometric dating, etc.--is solely a matter of philosophy or theology, and said outright that exposure of students to "multiple lines of evidence supporting the theory of evolution" would be "discouraging students from believing in creationism."J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-58409634752422504372010-08-09T06:36:53.736+10:002010-08-09T06:36:53.736+10:00Bruce Gorton: "You are calling a direct quote...Bruce Gorton: "You are calling a direct quote, in context, a straw man."<br /><br />I'm calling a direct quote, used as if it were a proof text when it's an utter non sequitur, a straw man. Indeed, DeDora already made clear that teaching the science would rule out "6,000 years" as a valid answer to the question of the age of the earth on an exam because it is, well, not <a href="http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/should_biology_textbooks_include_biblical_myth_language/P50/" rel="nofollow">"what the science says"</a>. (See comment #69.) His footnote hardly changes that. Furthermore, contrary to what Benson has said, that's not equivalent to reducing science to rote learning. (See comment #99, same page.)J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-90621547743194881862010-08-09T06:14:57.256+10:002010-08-09T06:14:57.256+10:00J. J. Ramsey said...
And I suggest you look up so...J. J. Ramsey said...<br /><br />And I suggest you look up something called "Straw man" while you are at it.<br /><br />The point to last Thursdayism is that science has a mechanism for coping with it called Occam's Razor - originally "Do not multiply entities needlessly" but generally "The simplest answer that fits the evidence, is generally the right one."<br /><br />So, if the universe started last Thursday, you need to explain why it looks so old. It was made to look old? Well, why? Because...<br /><br />Occam's razor cuts through all of that by saying, "We can dismiss last Thursdayism because it has no evidence in its favour, and frankly it isn't the simplest explanation of the evidence we have - which is that the universe looks so old because it is so old."Bruce Gortonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-55731601822797999762010-08-09T06:08:41.615+10:002010-08-09T06:08:41.615+10:00I took another look at your reply and it makes eve...I took another look at your reply and it makes even less sense"<br /><br />"... that very, very clearly dealt with creationist claims that manifestly contradicted empirical evidence, such as the age of the universe.<br /><br />"After all, the argument presented is God could have just made it look that way, which fits just about every empirical argument out."<br /><br />An argument that "fits just about every empirical argument" has "manifestly contradicted empirical evidence"? Are you even reading what you are saying?J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-47725686981547896972010-08-09T06:01:02.096+10:002010-08-09T06:01:02.096+10:00Bruce Gorton: "Again, his argument is not aga...Bruce Gorton: "Again, his argument is not against 'You can accept evolution if you adjust/reinterpret your religion to fit the science'"<br /><br />Except when you look at what the so-called "Chamberlain school" actually does to "bend over backwards" and court "'sensible' religion," the message they are sending <i>is</i> "You can accept evolution if you adjust/reinterpret your religion to fit the science." That's pretty clear if you, say, look through the NCSE's web site.<br /><br />Bruce Gorton: "[the claim that God made it look like there's been evolution, and that we are merely natural products, to test our faith] very, very clearly dealt with creationist claims that manifestly contradicted empirical evidence, such as the age of the universe."<br /><br />So according to you, a classic example of an unfalsifiable hypothesis, where supposedly the universe <i>looks</i> billions of years old but really was created on fill-in-the-blank date, is really in contradiction with empirical evidence. I suggest that you look up <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis" rel="nofollow">Last-Thursdayism</a> to find out just how little sense you are making. Maybe look up "unfalsifiable" while you are at it.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-22998777056441044012010-08-09T05:43:05.542+10:002010-08-09T05:43:05.542+10:00JJ
It isn't a straw man. It is a quoted footn...JJ<br /><br />It isn't a straw man. It is a quoted footnote...<br /><br /><b>science cannot reject them in full -- for how does the scientist answer the claim that God made it look like there's been evolution, and that we are merely natural products, to test our faith?</b><br /><br />... that very, very clearly dealt with <i>creationist claims that manifestly contradicted empirical evidence, such as the age of the universe.</i> <br /><br />After all, the argument presented is God could have just made it look that way, which fits just about every empirical argument out.<br /><br />It is one of the things the Flying Spagetti monster parodies.<br /><br />The counter to this is an explanation of Occam's Razor and why it is an important part of scientific reasoning. In other words, a big counter to this sort of thing is teaching science.Bruce Gortonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-5935688650192382902010-08-09T05:28:04.604+10:002010-08-09T05:28:04.604+10:00Okay, my error, Here is part of the Dawkins quote:...Okay, my error, Here is part of the Dawkins quote:<br /><br /><i>One of NCSE's main political objectives is to court and mobilize 'sensible' religious opinion</i><br /><br />Again, his argument is not against "You can accept evolution if you adjust/reinterpret your religion to fit the science"<br /><br />But rather the same larger issue being raised by Moran, of science being compromised in order to build alliances. Of science being something that is even flipping subject to alliances.<br /><br />It is a very different argument to the way you present it.Bruce Gortonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-54317250897754359002010-08-09T05:23:15.492+10:002010-08-09T05:23:15.492+10:00Bruce Gorton: "Nothing to do with creationism...Bruce Gorton: "Nothing to do with creationism eh?"<br /><br />Ok, and now <i>you</i> give me a strawman. I said that the quote from DeDora (which you now quoted) had nothing to do with "creationist claims that <i>manifestly contradicted empirical evidence</i>, such as the age of the universe." And none of the things you mentioned in your quote of DeDora can be refuted through empirical evidence -- which was DeDora's point. Science doesn't deal in non-empirical claims.<br /><br />"how does the scientist answer the claim that God made it look like there's been evolution, and that we are merely natural products, to test our faith?"<br /><br />That's basically Last-Thursdayism or a form of the Omphalos theology. Any evidence a scientist can come up with can be explained away as "God touched it with his noodly appendage to make it look that way."<br /><br />"Or that God has been the hand behind the process of evolution?"<br /><br />This is the "vague version of theistic evolution" that I mentioned before. Neither of these have anything to do with creationist claims that contradict empirical evidence, like claims about the age of the earth or universe.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-28053189605770834632010-08-09T05:11:42.309+10:002010-08-09T05:11:42.309+10:00Actually, you quoted from Larry Moran, but you als...Actually, you quoted from Larry Moran, but you also quoted another example of a straw man from a "Gnu Atheist," since the members of the "Neville Chamberlain" school are methodological naturalists and insist that miracles are emphatically <i>not</i> part of science.J. J. Ramseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00763792476799485687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-55380702645958962082010-08-09T05:09:57.354+10:002010-08-09T05:09:57.354+10:00Now back to de Dora:
It is important to note that...Now back to de Dora:<br /><br /><i>It is important to note that <b>creationism</b> and related ideas like intelligent design do belong to the field of religion, not science; they are theology and philosophy (bad theology and philosophy, but that's another matter). Hence, <b>science cannot reject them in full -- for how does the scientist answer the claim that God made it look like there's been evolution, and that we are merely natural products, to test our faith? Or that God has been the hand behind the process of evolution? A scientist must here put on the philosopher's cap to continue.</b></i><br /><br />Nothing to do with creationism eh?Bruce Gortonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-20406166541563076602010-08-09T05:00:58.502+10:002010-08-09T05:00:58.502+10:00Oh for fucks sakes JJ.
Who turned the position &q...Oh for fucks sakes JJ.<br /><br /><i>Who turned the position "You can accept evolution if you adjust/reinterpret your religion to fit the science" into bending over backwards to appease superstition?</i><br /><br />Here's the important bit of the original quote:<br /><br /><i>Do you believe in miracles? That's okay, it's part of science. Do you believe that God guides evolution in order to produce beings who worship him? That's fine too</i><br /><br />What Dawkins is clearly criticising, is the idea that science should be maleable to religious beliefs, <b>not</b> that religious beliefs should be maleable to science.Bruce Gortonnoreply@blogger.com