WJM throws ID under the bus

I’m really not a fan of doing what I’m about to do.

But anyways, this is WJM @ UD

To be fair, when the proponent of a theory who claims that theory to be scientific fact provides little or nothing in the way of falsifiable predictions and offers largely only sweeping narratives and historical inferences based on ideological assumptions and/or an imagined infinite pool of unqualified possibility, it’s impossible for the opposition to offer specified rebuttals.

Until proponents offer specified, falsifiable predictions, the proper response to such a theory is to “lump everything into a single bucket and dismiss the entire topic.”

67 thoughts on “WJM throws ID under the bus”

  1. keithskeiths

    William,

    Your entire whinge* hinges on the question of whether it is possible to unintentionally throw something or someone under the bus.

    Google says yes. Case closed.

    *Not from the Empire, but couldn’t resist the rhyme.

  2. Allan Miller Post author

    William J. Murray,

    You’ve already admitted you knew exactly what I meant and exactly what I was talking about

    Correct

    so there’s nothing here for anyone to decide.

    Of course there is. Whether it is reasonable or not to think that your words could only possibly apply to evolution/climate change, and not to ID [eta – regardless of your intention].

    You lied, you misrepresented my position,

    Your position is exactly as you yourself stated, and with which we are all familiar. I offered my own ironic commentary, while also linking to the actual context of your statement. Which, of course, is exactly what misrepresenting liars do. (That’s irony, William. I don’t mean those words exactly as written).

    and now you’re attempting to talk your way out of it

    Yeah, sure I am! Irony never entered my head till you caught me out. I’d have gotten away with it too … I never thought you’d find me here in my top secret tree house.

    instead of simply changing your post title and adding an explanation.

    That would rather undermine the point of the post. Most people here know you and your views, and understand the irony. I’m not changing the post to explain the joke in painful detail for the deeply irony-challenged.

    Anyone who isn’t familiar with your views will be somewhat nonplussed – but will have no idea which side of the fence you lie anyway.

  3. Allan Miller Post author

    William J. Murray,

    It’s no big deal, though. It’s pretty much what you’d expect from a bunch of moral subjectivists.

    That’s funny, I was thinking earlier that trying to exlain irony to the irony deficient is rather like trying to explain morality to those who lack the fundamental sense.

  4. Allan Miller Post author

    I never thought this would sprout the legs it has!

    One comment before I retire: it’s rather hard to be deliberately ironic without lying – without saying something one knows to be untrue.

  5. dazzdazz

    This thread is already one huge success. We all knew WJM was a closet ID critic. Take that scientismists!

  6. AcartiaAcartia

    William J. Murray: It seems I’ve triggered the moral subjectivists by pointing out that a lie in service to irony is still a lie.

    And a lie in service of your own bizarre ideology is still a lie. Which one do you think is a more serious lie?

  7. MungMung

    Who will join me in throwing irony under the bus?

    Oh, and racism.

    And homophobia.

    And atheism.

    And keiths.

  8. newton

    William J. Murray:
    It seems I’ve triggered the moral subjectivists by pointing out that a lie in service to irony is still a lie.

    You need to learn the definition of lie if you think that.

  9. William J. Murray

    Allan Miller: One comment before I retire: it’s rather hard to be deliberately ironic without lying – without saying something one knows to be untrue.

    I’ll take this to mean that you admit you were lying and deliberately misrepresenting my statement. The fact is that your comment would not be ironic unless you were precisely doing just that.

    Allan Miller: I’m not changing the post to explain the joke in painful detail for the deeply irony-challenged.

    You really have no idea what’s going on here.

  10. newton

    William J. Murray: I’ll take this to mean that you admit you were lying and deliberately misrepresenting my statement.The fact is that your comment would not be ironic unless you were precisely doing just that.

    You really have no idea what’s going on here.

    Irony:

    a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character’s words or actions are clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.

  11. waltowalto

    keiths:
    William,

    Your entire whinge* hinges on the question of whether it is possible to unintentionally throw something or someone under the bus.

    Google says yes.Case closed.

    *Not from the Empire, but couldn’t resist the rhyme.

    Absolutely right. The following sort of dialog is common currency:

    “Wow you really threw me under the bus yesterday with that remark about Sue.”
    “I know. I felt really bad about it, but there was nothing I could do after I made that stupid remark.”

    And I do think that this is dispositive. People unintentionally throw people or things “under the bus” all the time. William’s claim that that’s impossible is just wrong.

    Also, I take from his remarks on this thread that WJM is a moral objectivist in spite of being a self-professed subjectivist about everything else. (Roughly, “I believe whatever makes me feel good.”)

    No dopier conglomeration of views was ever slopped together than the batch of nonsense posted on the internet by THIS William J. Murray, regardless of the preposterous idiocy blathered by any of the other ones.

  12. Robert Byers

    I listen to BBC In oUR TIME. They have great radio pods on sci/his issues.
    Recently i heard one about the scientific method. i heard a million but it emphasized that if a HYPOTHESIS can not be checked on its evidence( I don’t like falsibility concepts)then it has no claim to being a scientific hypothesis/theory.
    I do see evolutionism, in its main tenents, as fitting the bill.
    One can not ‘falsify” a biology hypothesis when its based on geology assumptions or mere lines of reasoning.
    Evolutionism biology is speculative. I admit, that even iof true, it could only be this because its about past and gone processes and actiomns.
    Thats not fault!!
    Evolutionism really really really does fail the boundaries of scientific methodology.
    In fact yEC/ID have failed to smash them on this.
    ID also embraces geology as good biology evidence.
    Why is evolutionism a biology hypothesis with no biology evidence except coupled to geology evidence which if not true would make the biology evidence null and void and so, i say, its null and void already as biology evidence.
    Why am I wrong?
    Well back to the BBC

  13. AcartiaAcartia

    keiths:
    Meanwhile, William is still determined to get to the bottom of pizzagate.

    Isn’t it obvious? They used a triangle on their restaurant sign. It must be a pedophile ring. They offer “cheese pizza” on their menu. That is just a code phrase for “child porn”.

    By that logic, Delta Airlines must be a front for pedophiles.

    I am going to buy shares in companies that make tinfoil. There will be a huge demand wherever WJM goes.

Leave a Reply