Uncommon Descent still has some interesting topics, but the authors of the OPs simply do not tolerate any comments that do not validate their opinions.
Worse than this, they label any commenter who disagrees with any of their opinions as a Darwinist/ atheist/ subjectivist/ materialist/ communist/ progressive. The two most flagrant abusers are Barry Arrington, the moderator, and Gordon Mullings, who posts as KairosFocus.
Kairosfocus’ most recent rants have been about objective moral truths and his charity of the day, self-evident first duties. It has been pointed out to him on numerous occasions that his objective moral truths are nothing more than human behaviours that most people have subjectively determined to be in their best interest if they want to continue to thrive in a social setting.
Rather than address the arguments raised against his views, he repeatedly erects strawman versions of his opponents’ views, and then argues from consequence.
The issue worth discussing here, is whether KF has a valid point.
Over on Joe’s blog, he apparently is obsessing over me again.
This in spite of the fact that my name isn’t Kevin Middlebrook. And I really haven’t commented anywhere, except a couple here, for over a couple years.
But, at UD, he had apparently latched on the false conclusion that I am Fred Hickson, a recent commenter at UD.
Joe really has to seek some help over his unhealthy obsession with me. I am really not that interesting. 🙂
You made me look! 😠😱
Nasty little shit with his post on Steve Story. Didn’t notice it on my previous drive-by.
Re Fred Hickson, I did wonder but if you say so…
I’m likely going to regret asking this, but what’s the URL for his blog?
I’ve sent it to you by PM.
Well, you have now been graced with a post on Joe’s site.
I feel like Abu Hassan now! 😏
And who is Richard Saunders?
I have no idea. I remember Jie arguing over chemical affinities over at UD, but I don’t remember the thread or the commenter. But I am fairly certain that it wasn’t Richard Saunders.
Joe has an unhealthy obsession with a few people and sees them in every commenter who disagrees with him.
It’s this guy
Skeptic, not Skeptical, Joe!
Could someone who posts comments at UD please comment on the title of the lates OP.
Fossil Scientists Ask, Could A Neanderthal Meditate?
Can Denise O’Leary meditate? And does that count as an example?
I have long since given up on UD. The amount of nonsense is simply astounding.
I was visualizing fossilized scientists.
I don’t comment at UD. It’s just not worth the hassle, esp with KF’s constant haranguing about “Ciceronian duties of right reason” (which by the way he doesn’t not at all understand) and bornagain posting the same Gish gallop in every thread.
I was tempted to invent a new sock for myself just to respond to the following bit of nonsense:
1. People can do things that can’t be done by the kinds of ANNs that we presently know how to build.
2. But the brain works exactly like the kind of ANN that we know how to build.
3. Therefore, whatever is allowing us to do whatever it is that ANNs cannot do, cannot be explained in terms of the brain.
Phrased that way, it should be perfectly clear that the desired conclusion (3) only follows (1) if (2) is true. And yet there is no reason at all to believe that (2) is true, and overwhelming reasons (from both neuroscience and from AI research) to believe that (2) is false. Hence the argument fails.
But the people at UD have no interest in even so much as recognizing this, because they want to believe that (3) is true.
Yes, I saw that piece of nonsense at UD. I decided not to respond, for about the same reasons that you similarly decided.
And therefore your presentation is backwards. Number (3) is not a conclusion, it is one of the premises. And (2) is also a premise. So (1) is your conclusion. When a conclusion is foregone, it’s no longer a conclusion, it is a policy position.
OK. Am I the only one who got a good laugh out of this from Joe at UD?