Noyau (2)

…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation

Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.

[to work around page bug]

2,941 thoughts on “Noyau (2)”

  1. phoodoo: Well, there is a level of nastiness that is perhaps sometimes necessary, and then there is another level of nastiness that is pointless and completely useless to the objective of conversation.

    I’d agree. Spittle-spraying hyperbole is counterproductive to communication. That’s why the management try to discourage it.

  3. Alan,

    You are defending Jerry Coyne’s tactics?

    We could devote an entire thread to the underhanded, unscrupulous behavior of that Joe McCarthy wannabe.

  4. phoodoo:
    Alan Fox, What management are you referring to?I think everyone would like to know the answer to that.

    Elizabeth Liddle set up and still maintains TSZ as a place intended to facilitate communication across a wide diversity of view. This is my guiding principle and, I believe, fellow admins share that principle.

  5. phoodoo:
    Alan,

    You are defending Jerry Coyne’s tactics?

    in writing books and blog (sorry, Jerry) articles? What is it you object to about that?

    We could devote an entire thread to the underhanded, unscrupulous behavior of that Joe McCarthy wannabe.

    You have author permission. Though TSZ has to respect the laws of defamation so please keep to the facts rather than innuendo. I read Coyne’s blog from time to time and have never seen him say anything to indicate an admiration for or wish to emulate the late senator.

  6. phoodoo:
    Alan,

    You are defending Jerry Coyne’s tactics?

    We could devote an entire thread to the underhanded, unscrupulous behavior of that Joe McCarthy wannabe.

    Link please? I’ll ask him in person on Monday.

  7. Richardthughes: VJ – you seem a quite a reasonable sort. How can we collectively get better dialogue going?

    LMAO!

    Try not acting like an ass. Perhaps get the mods to enforce the rules.

    Such a dreamer you are Richard!

  8. Mung: LMAO!

    Try not acting like an ass. Perhaps get the mods to enforce the rules.

    Such a dreamer you are Richard!

    I wasn’t talking to you, Mung, Your agenda is very clear. Go look up the meaning of each of those words and have a grumble.

  13. http://seanmcdowell.org/blog/how-is-the-intelligent-design-movement-doing-interview-with-william-dembski

    “DEMBSKI: Unlike creationism, with which it is often conflated, intelligent design shifts the discussion of biological origins from a religion vs. science controversy to a science vs. science controversy. This is a success, even if ID’s critics continue to try to claim that it is religion in scientific garb.”

    A scientific argument with no science!

  14. Richardthughes: “DEMBSKI: Unlike creationism, with which it is often conflated, intelligent design shifts the discussion of biological origins from a religion vs. science controversy to a science vs. science controversy. This is a success, even if ID’s critics continue to try to claim that it is religion in scientific garb.”

    It’s a great success in that way, despite the fact that almost no one is fooled by it any more.

    Glen Davidson

  16. Neil Rickert,

    It’s dead on the vine. At the start an argument could be made for ‘let them research, let’s see what they can discover’. Just like PSI phenomena, they got nothing. UD has given up “All science so far” and no serves up “old apologetics with a side of Jesus” 24/7 with climate change denialism for variety.

  17. GlenDavidson: It’s a great success in that way, despite the fact that almost no one is fooled by it any more.

    If ID is not creationism, why do all the ID advocates on this site rant on and on about atheism?

  18. petrushka: If ID is not creationism, why do all the ID advocates on this site rant on and on about atheism?

    Let’s see what REW has to say at UD:

    There are more similarities between ID and YEC than there are differences. Many YECs cite ID sources, and there have been IDers citing YEC sources, although not as many. There are a few YECs at the DI ( including Paul Nelson I believe) and IDers and YECs have joint meetings on occassion. If you take all the major arguments made by YECs (excluding religious arguments) you can pretty much line them up precisely with the same argument made by IDers. The only difference is that the ID arguments are usually far more sophisticated – both scientifically and philosophically- than the equivalent YEC argument.

    Other than that ID arguments should be called more sciency and pseudophilosophical (looking more sophisticated to the dullards), I think he explained the “differences” fairly well.

    Glen Davidson

  19. I think if you regularized all the arguments against “Darwinism” made by the Discovery Institute and by AIG and lined them up, you would find about 80 percent correspondence.

  21. keiths is a pathetic liar. Wait for it. OP coming soon.

    I just thought I’d give phoodoo first shot.

  22. Neil Rickert: It seemed to me that Dembski is declaring victory and leaving.

    Axe also declared victory at the beginning of the talk he gave when his book came out. I suspect that the DI has decided on a new strategy.

  25. keiths is a pathetic liar. Turns out he has agreed with me all along about Weasel and cumulative selection and has been lying about that fact, including posting lies about me that he knew were false.

    Pathetic, keiths.

    Perhaps now that we’ve discovered that we actually agree, you [keiths], can stop your campaign of lying and gross misrepresentation and I can decide to be NewMung again.

    Deal?

  31. Mung,

    Since it would obviously mean so much to you, I hope that one day you do catch an error of mine. I won’t pretend to be mistaken just to make you happy, though.

    It’s kind of cute. It reminds me of time Alan thought he had caught me in a spelling mistake (woo hoo!), only to find that the word I was (correctly) spelling — “complaisant” — was not the word he was thinking of — “complacent”.

  32. keiths: It reminds me of time Alan thought he had caught me in a spelling mistake (woo hoo!), only to find that the word I was (correctly) spelling — “complaisant” — was not the word he was thinking of — “complacent”.

    Citation?

    ETA: Never mind

  33. I’d sure love to know how keiths defines “error” and “mistake.” So far it seems the terms, as applied by him, refer to spelling and not much else.

  34. I have two words for keiths. Drift Weasel. You lied to us, keiths. Your program is not a Weasel program at all.

  36. Sal is going up against Larry moran.

    http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2016/09/how-many-lncrnas-are-functional-can.html#comment-form

    Kind of like this: https://youtu.be/n-wUdetAAlY (if Bambi richly deserved it).

    On what basis does Patrick assert that I was somehow crushed in that exchange? The HOTAIR lncRNA and the thousands of similar lncRNA? 🙄

    This is an example of reflexive robotic denials of laboratory experiments that are embarrassing to claims made by Larry 8 years ago.

    The problem is, if Larry makes claims that can be overturned by laboratory experiments, he has to live the consequences of being presumptuous.

    I stayed on the sidelines on the topic of lncRNAs until laboratories started reporting results over the last few years, which is more than I can say for Larry.

    Now I can gloat.

  37. Watching the insular, fact-proof community of the Trump campaign I was reminded of a certain website..

  39. YEC “wins” lawsuit, the reporting of which got me dismissed by Barry Arrington at UD. There isn’t much in the way of independent reporting on this except by a YEC.

    Young-Earth Creationist Wins Lawsuit

    Young-Earth Creationist Wins Lawsuit

    I had the pleasure of speaking with Mr. Armitage yesterday, and I learned that the university’s initial response was that he had been fired for budgetary reasons. However, when university officials were questioned, it became clear that budgetary factors were not the real issue. The university attempted to argue that its actions weren’t discriminatory, but Mr. Armitage and his attorney weren’t convinced, so they wanted a jury to decide who was right.

    As Mr. Armitage put it, they were about a week away from jury selection when the university said it wanted to settle the case. He says that they spent most of a day in court trying to negotiate for a smaller settlement, but he and his attorney were convinced that a jury would see that the university was in the wrong. As a result, he and his attorney were not willing to budge. Apparently, the negotiations ended with a lot of shouting and no agreement. Several days later, however, the university agreed to settle using Mr. Armitage’s terms.

    According to Mr. Armitage, his discovery was well-known in the department long before he and Dr. Anderson published their scientific paper. Indeed, the biology department wrote about it in their newsletter long before the scientific paper was released. As a result, there were a lot of people interested in the discovery. Students would come down to his lab and ask to see the dinosaur cells. They would talk to Mr. Armitage about his discovery and ask him what he thought it meant. He would tell them that he thought it meant the Triceratops fossil couldn’t be millions of years old. He is convinced that’s why he was fired. The university didn’t want him telling students what he concluded based on his original scientific research.

    The consequences of Faint Young Sun Paradox will not die. That’s why the dino tissues look young. They look young because they are young.

  40. walto: Forget it, mung. Keiths’ just sore because he thought you weren’t going to correct his false claim and he was, as usual, wrong.

    No doubt he’ll head right over to his ‘How I always Admit When I’m Wrong and No One Else Ever Does’ thread and make a clean breast of his error. Just like always.

    Would that be a first, for keiths? Oh, wait, he admitted he made a spelling error, once.

    No, he has me on record saying If I were to put forth an argument challenging his position, it would look like this …

    Thus he was justified* in saying what he did, even if it is false. Because, you know, he just knew* he was right, and justifications don’t have to be true.

    keiths’ claim that I am a freak, and that I think that rape isn’t evil, is based on what evidence, exactly? One single hypothetical followed by four years of silence?

    Because that would really be pathetic.

  41. I think he realized that he was wrong about logical determinism and epistemic determinism, both of which he pushed recently before changing his tune and coming to realize that neither knowledge nor truth determine events.

    It’s good he was able to learn that and didn’t continue to push confused positions–at least on that front. But did he admit he was wrong? No.

    Maybe he simply can’t. I don’t know.

  42. Anyhow, he’s a very smart guy, from whom I’ve learned a lot. And maybe, on boards like this, it’s more important to be smart, articulate and generous with your time than to be a decent human being.

    In a way, that’s kind of the point phoodoo has been making about taking the bad with the good. Can we know that keiths would have been as incisive as he is if he weren’t a prick? I don’t think we can. And would he choose to be nicer and more intellectually honest if he knew it meant that he’d end up a less acute thinker? I’m not sure, but I doubt it. Different people have different piorities. That’s life. We do what we can.

  43. Perhaps I should just think of keiths like I think of Salvador.

    Yes, they are both very intelligent.

  44. keiths: You can present the argument for an opposing position without asserting its truth. Obviously.

    Oh good. Progress.

    How do you decide whether someone is presenting an argument without assenting to the truth of that argument?

    More to the point, what makes you so certain that I was asserting the truth of the argument that I presented, given the rather obvious qualifiers?

  45. keiths: Mung is a transparent and hypocritical fraud.

    Oh good. Glad we got that out in the open. So what?

    Your subjective morality that you think everyone else ought to assent to?

  46. This is worth cross-posting

    Mung’s manufactured outrage is especially amusing in light of his own behavior.

    From the same thread at UD in which he made his rape comment:

    Mung:

    I have to ask, who did you [keiths] decide to rape, and can you please define rape for us?

    And:

    The difference between me and keiths:

    If someone put a gun to my head and said, rape that child or I will kill you, I would choose to not rape the child and take my chances.

    keiths, otoh, would rape the child and say he had no choice.

    Mung is a transparent and hypocritical fraud.

  47. Typical of keiths. Post a link to something he already said and assert that it’s never been subjected to any criticism.

    keiths is a liar. Nothing he says ought to be accepted at face value.

  48. Mung:

    Typical of keiths. Post a link to something he already said and assert that it’s never been subjected to any criticism.

    What are you talking about, Mung?

  50. Would anyone here care to share what they thought about the VP candidates or the debate last night? I’m curious to hear reactions. Thanks.

Leave a Reply