Guano (2)

Comments that seem to me to be in violation of the game rules will be moved here, and closed to further comment.  Do not regard having your post moved here as a reprimand, merely as a referee’s whistle. 🙂

Feel free to comment on them at any other peanut gallery of your choice.

[New page 30485 created as an antidote to the page bug – AF]

364 thoughts on “Guano (2)”

  1. waltowalto

    keiths: walto,

    Why is dishonesty your tactic of first resort?Couldn’t you at least try to act like a genuine philosopher, for once?

    I understand that you regret your earlier position, which you now regard as weird and ridiculous.That’s fine; you’re free to change it.Don’t pretend that you didn’t hold it, however.

    You know perfectly well what I said:

    Again, why immediately resort to dishonesty?Don’t you see how it backfires on you?

    My questions stand:

    What now?

  2. keithskeiths

    Erik,

    Do you even understand that definition?

    It defines the intersection of A and B as a set. If A and B have no elements in common, then the intersection is the empty set.

    Your goofy definition outlaws the empty set, so you can’t use the elegant formulation.

    As for what makes you a crackpot, it’s simple: you actually think you’ve found a fundamental problem at the heart of mathematics, one that evaded everyone until you came along. In reality, the problem is simply that you’re incompetent. You’ve mistaken your own sloppiness and ignorance for skill and rigor.

    That’s crackpottery.

  3. keithskeiths

    Gregory,

    Why does Dennett still push ‘memetics,’ keiths and KN? They WILL NOT answer.

    Read the book, doofus.

    Dennett devotes an entire chapter to that topic:

    11.​What’s Wrong with Memes? Objections and Replies

    – Memes don’t exist!

    – Memes are described as “discrete” and “faithfully transmitted,” but much in cultural change is neither

    – Memes, unlike genes, don’t have competing alleles at a locus

    – Memes add nothing to what we already know about culture

    – The would-be science of memetics is not predictive

    – Memes can’t explain cultural features, while traditional social sciences can

    – Cultural evolution is Lamarckian

    Gregory:

    They cannot. It would ultimately (require them to) destroy their idol worship of Dennett.

    I don’t worship Dennett, but I do respect him.

    It must chap your ass to see him succeeding, again and again, while you fail.

  4. keithskeiths

    The sad thing is that Dennett has provided a wealth of material to argue against, if Gregory actually wanted (and was brave enough) to present an actual argument against memetics.

    I pointed this out to Gregory earlier:

    Gregory,

    Why does Dennett still push ‘memetics,’ keiths and KN? They WILL NOT answer.

    Read the book, doofus.

    Dennett devotes an entire chapter to that topic:

    11.​ What’s Wrong with Memes? Objections and Replies

    – Memes don’t exist!

    – Memes are described as “discrete” and “faithfully transmitted,” but much in cultural change is neither

    – Memes, unlike genes, don’t have competing alleles at a locus

    – Memes add nothing to what we already know about culture

    – The would-be science of memetics is not predictive

    – Memes can’t explain cultural features, while traditional social sciences can

    – Cultural evolution is Lamarckian

    Gregory:

    They cannot. It would ultimately (require them to) destroy their idol worship of Dennett.

    I don’t worship Dennett, but I do respect him.

    It must chap your ass to see him succeeding, again and again, while you fail.

  5. Gregory

    Thanks Joe, the one who actually tried to make an argument. The rest of the stuff I don’t read.

    “What are the boundaries of memes? They are a lot more fuzzy than, say, ‘gene’.”

    Yes, we are agreed; ‘memetics’ is fuzzier than ‘genetics’ in part because the so-called ‘unit of replication’ (concocted to rhyme with ‘gene’!) is not ‘purely material.’

    Check the record, folks. I’ve done Dennett’s ‘memetics’ already & will waste no more time on it. Memetics *IS* dead. The question is if YOU ‘skeptic’ folks have any clue WHY. Joe offered one reason, among many.

    It doesn’t seem most ‘skeptics’ here have much idea what memetics is or why it was stillborn. Another recent thread on Dennett made it appear that KN’s position had changed, that he’s finally realised the emptiness of ‘memetics.’ KN now seems to KNOW that “’memes!’ is a dumb explanation.” Ok, so let’s see if KN actually KNOWS or just BELIEVES that about memes because he’s got ‘fuzzy’ syndrome about other things already.

    None of the armchair cynics here offers much of value compared with KN, who is actually trained in some inspirational philosophy and should be without excuse for his damaged, ancestor-denying philosophistry, the kind of thing that Dennett would likely stand up and applaud exactly for it’s pretentious nonsense.

    “And we get no guidance on how to do that.” – Joe

    Well, to be fair, we have seen attempts. If you want to ‘trust’ Susan Blackmore’s wacko bizzaro world of ‘meme machines’, that’s a strange sort of priority (“Memetics is founded on the principle of Universal Darwinism.” – Blackmore). These ‘memetics’ people are kooky hyper-exaggerators from day #1.

    Dennett’s drumming for memetics & the kooks he gathered with him indeed shows how ‘dumb’ a philosopher it is that atheists have embraced as their own. Universal Darwinism uber alles!! Until it breaks and dies too, just like ‘memetics’.

  6. RumraketRumraket

    Holy shit there are so many completely unsupported assertions made, and it’s really just technobabble made with the pretention of legitemacy. You’re pretending you’re showing evolution to be impossible, using fancy technical jargon. It’s all smoke and mirrors.

    You people disgust me. Yes, you, Jonathan Bartlett. I don’t buy for one fucking second that you’re not aware that you’re lying with this gibberish. And I don’t buy that you’re not aware, that you can only get away with it, because the people you’re preaching to are already the most intensely cognitively biased dolts in existence, impressed by fancy technical jargon they don’t have the qualifications to understand.
    So you knowingly, actively, deliberately rely on the fact that to these people, it’s going to be a matter of “expert A whom I disagree with says one thing, expert B whom I agree with says another thing, but I don’t understand any of it but it sounds fancy, so I’m going to go with expert B”.

    Lying. Sack. Of. Shit.

  7. keithskeiths

    I should file this here before I forget.

    fifth plopped out another good one:

    No revelation is based on God.
    He is Gödel’s axiom that is necessarily true and yet unprovable.

    It’s so moist and shiny. Irresistible to a coprophile like fifth.

  8. keithskeiths

    Imagine how discouraging it must be to be fifthmonarchyman.

    He goes up against atheists here at TSZ and gets his ass handed to him time after time. It goes so badly that he’s ashamed to give a URL to his pastor and fellow church members.

    He squirms to avoid even the simplest of questions about “Jacob the father of Joseph” vs “Joseph, the son of Heli”.

    (Hey, fifth — maybe Jacob and Heli were a gay couple, and so Joseph had two fathers.)

    He defends dogma by fighting tooth and nail against the truth.

    TSZ should be a scene of great triumph for fifth, in which God hands victory to the Christians who are preaching the Word and humiliates the “rebels” who reject it. That never happens.

    You got suckered. fifth. Fell hook, line, and sinker for the fundagelical “Biblical Christianity” sales pitch.

    Time to wake up and start thinking again, instead of just blindly believing.

  9. RumraketRumraket

    keiths: Imagine how discouraging it must be to be fifthmonarchyman.

    He goes up against atheists here at TSZ and gets his ass handed to him time after time. It goes so badly that he’s ashamed to give a URL to his pastor and fellow church members.

    He squirms to avoid even the simplest of questions about “Jacob the father of Joseph” vs “Joseph, the son of Heli”.

    (Hey, fifth — maybe Jacob and Heli were a gay couple, and so Joseph had two fathers.)

    He defends dogma by fighting tooth and nail against the truth.

    TSZ should be a scene of great triumph for fifth, in which God hands victory to the Christians who are preaching the Word and humiliates the “rebels” who reject it. That never happens.

    You got suckered. fifth. Fell hook, line, and sinker for the fundagelical “Biblical Christianity” sales pitch.

    Time to wake up and start thinking again, instead of just blindly believing.

    The best part is that even the other theists here think he’s pretty much a nutcase. I could think of few better advocates against the position he attempts to advocate for, than himself. By simply allowing him to post, and us occasionally engaging the lunacy, it thereby becomes exposed as the lunacy that it is.

    I think many people (including myself), have in exhasperation tried to reason with presuppositionalists. But it’s become clear to me we don’t really have to get concessions, so to speak, from presuppers. We don’t have to convert them to reason andthen reason with them, we just have to reason “next to” them, so that any individual with doubts, who is a fence-sitter exploring the issues, who sees the two side by side, can see how obviouosly presuppositional apologetics fails to live up to it’s grandiose claims, and how they completely rig the rules in their own favor in a way that makes it impossible for them to reason out of it.

    In several very direct ways, FMM have stated that reason and arguments aren’t even allowed to bring into doubt his religious faith. For example, literally insane nonsense like this:

    FMM: Christianity is not a claim to be defended it’s a worldview that allows you to make sense of claims.

    If you were to be convinced of the truth of Christianity by a clever argument you could be dissuaded from Christianity when a crafty rebel came up with a cleverer argument that you had not thought of.

    This is enough. Generally reasonable and rational people can see through it. We don’t have to get the presuppositionalist to agree, we just need to get him to state his many absurd and unprovable claims, and then contrast it to our own. That’s it, no more is required.

    I would never, never ever in my entire life, state that I could not be persuaded out of something I believe by a good argument.

Comments are closed.