Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > William Brookfield:

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2007,13:04    Some might have noticed the references to William Brookfield yesterday on ATBC, and the thread by John Lynch (Stranger Fruit) on PT as well. Several people realized that his little geocite webpage could  be overwhelmed by the numbers of people snorting their coffee on their keyboards while viewing it, so I made a backup for local viewing pleasure: http://home.earthlink.net/~tjneal/Bitscience.htm However, this isn't really what I want to bring to people's attention in this thread. Instead, while perusing Lynch's thread, I noticed this posted by Wad of ID:     Quote This tactic is WAD's way of humiliating Brookfield without having to do it himself. He announces WB and then quietly watches the attack without raising a finger to defend. It's the same way he 'popularized' Christopher Langan (SuperIQ man who came up with a Theory of Everything) and then dropped him like a bad habit after Langan was thoroughly shredded on some pro-ID website (ARN) a few years back. Clever, but cold. Posted by: wad of id | June 16, 2007 10:38 PM so sure, there is much for William Brookfield to explain, not the least of which is what the hell the "pleasurians" are (and what bars they hang out at), and perhaps disentangle what his title: "Trans-cultural, trans-paradigmic, Cognitive Monistic, Infodynamicist, Humanist" actually means. However, I would most importantly like to offer him this opportunity (if he isn't too busy) to come here and share his thoughts on why his buddy, William Dembski, has apparently set him up as the most recent fall-guy in a long line to draw attention away from WD40's own feux-pas. So, William? What do YOU think? please give this a day or so before piling on to see if William (either William, actually) is willing to share his thoughts, and if someone has direct access to him, would they please notify him this thread is available to him? thanks, oh, and no need to notify WD; I think he installed spy cameras in the bathroom stalls long before I ever even found the bar, so he's already seen this. *builds wall of cardboard to hold out inevitable commentary for a short time* -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Robert O'Brien Posts: 348 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2007,18:23    The Brookfield Institute of Transparadigmic Science WTF? -------------- Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2007,18:29    Quote This tactic is WAD's way of humiliating Brookfield without having to do it himself. He announces WB and then quietly watches the attack without raising a finger to defend. It's the same way he 'popularized' Christopher Langan (SuperIQ man who came up with a Theory of Everything) and then dropped him like a bad habit after Langan was thoroughly shredded on some pro-ID website (ARN) a few years back. Clever, but cold. Posted by: wad of id | June 16, 2007 10:38 PM An adage is, never ascribe to conspiracy what's best explained by stupidity. Also, ID supporters tend not to have even basic educations in biology or math, because people who have those educations tend to see through the ID fraud. Those ideas weigh heavily on my thinking, when I'm trying to suss out the motives behind an ID statement. I think it's more likely that Dembski just took a cursory glance at Brookfield's site, thought "Aha! Something to fill another couple days on my wretched site" and posted it.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2007,18:33    some interesting comments at Lynch's site: Quote Brookfield is also the author of a delightfully silly paper In Search of a Cosmic Super-Law: The Supreme "Second law" of Devolution. One of the highlights of this work is a suggestion to replace the 2nd law of thermodynamics with Murphy's law. I am not kidding. Incidentally, Brookfield's paper appeared in Progress in Complexity, Information and Design, the now defunct ID journal edited by Dembski. Posted by: Oleg Tchernyshyov | June 16, 2007 10:14 PM this was very funny: Quote Brookfield is a living fossil, it seems. The previous last known pleasurosaur was discovered in precambrian rocks, with its last meal, a playboy bunny, still in its mouth. Which is why there are no rabbits in precambrian strata. Posted by: grasshopper | June 17, 2007 05:38 AM Quote Stick a fork in UD; it's done. Posted by: Robert O'Brien | June 17, 2007 07:19 PM You do have to wonder what the breaking point is.

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2007,18:34    Quote (Robert O'Brien @ June 17 2007,18:23) The Brookfield Institute of Transparadigmic Science WTF? yes, yes. patience, RO. maybe William will choose to explain it himself. otherwise, I'm happy to open the floodgates to creative interpretation by EOD tomorrow. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2007,18:40    Quote (stevestory @ June 17 2007,18:29) Quote This tactic is WAD's way of humiliating Brookfield without having to do it himself. He announces WB and then quietly watches the attack without raising a finger to defend. It's the same way he 'popularized' Christopher Langan (SuperIQ man who came up with a Theory of Everything) and then dropped him like a bad habit after Langan was thoroughly shredded on some pro-ID website (ARN) a few years back. Clever, but cold. Posted by: wad of id | June 16, 2007 10:38 PM An adage is, never ascribe to conspiracy what's best explained by stupidity. Also, ID supporters tend not to have even basic educations in biology or math, because people who have those educations tend to see through the ID fraud. Those ideas weigh heavily on my thinking, when I'm trying to suss out the motives behind an ID statement. I think it's more likely that Dembski just took a cursory glance at Brookfield's site, thought "Aha! Something to fill another couple days on my wretched site" and posted it. actually, according to William (again hunted down by someone on Lynch's site), WD40 invited William personally to join ISCID back in 2002, so there does seem to be an ongoing relationship there, of some kind. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2007,21:11    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2007,21:37    Quote (stevestory @ June 17 2007,18:29) Quote This tactic is WAD's way of humiliating Brookfield without having to do it himself. He announces WB and then quietly watches the attack without raising a finger to defend. It's the same way he 'popularized' Christopher Langan (SuperIQ man who came up with a Theory of Everything) and then dropped him like a bad habit after Langan was thoroughly shredded on some pro-ID website (ARN) a few years back. Clever, but cold. Posted by: wad of id | June 16, 2007 10:38 PM An adage is, never ascribe to conspiracy what's best explained by stupidity. Also, ID supporters tend not to have even basic educations in biology or math, because people who have those educations tend to see through the ID fraud. Those ideas weigh heavily on my thinking, when I'm trying to suss out the motives behind an ID statement. I think it's more likely that Dembski just took a cursory glance at Brookfield's site, thought "Aha! Something to fill another couple days on my wretched site" and posted it. That's what I tend to think -- that Bill, as usual, just wasn't paying very close attention. (The saying I always heard was "never attribute to malice what you can attribute to stupidity".) -------------- "Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2007,22:55    Quote (stevestory @ June 17 2007,17:29) An adage is, never ascribe to conspiracy what's best explained by stupidity. Words to heed, my friends. Quote (stevestory @ June 17 2007,17:29) Also, ID supporters tend not to have even basic educations in biology or math, because people who have those educations tend to see through the ID fraud. Those ideas weigh heavily on my thinking, when I'm trying to suss out the motives behind an ID statement. I think it's more likely that Dembski just took a cursory glance at Brookfield's site, thought "Aha! Something to fill another couple days on my wretched site" and posted it. I think that's more likely, too. But supposing that it was a "conspiracy" - it didn't work, did it? Brookfield isn't being shredded that I can see, unless you count "Oh, isn't that great, heh heh, we've got them now, catchy acronym" as a shredding, whereas this whole thing makes Dembski look ridiculous again. So, don't ascribe a conspiracy to what can be called a stupid attempt at a conspiracy! -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 17 2007,23:29    Quote So, don't ascribe a conspiracy to what can be called a stupid attempt at a conspiracy! or even a subtle one. *hint* -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,11:18    Quote The Brookfield Institute "Supporting both the emerging field of cognitive monistic info-dynamics ('Intelligent Design science') and the emerging science-based, socio-ethical paradigm of humanistic pleasurian philosophy." Cognitive monistic info-dynamics. Impressive.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,11:49    Quote (Ichthyic @ June 17 2007,18:34) ... maybe William will choose to explain it himself. otherwise, I'm happy to open the floodgates to creative interpretation by EOD tomorrow. Do you really care what WAD has to say? I am fair certain that you have noticed how carefull he puts his posts. He seems to have learned quite a lot from the British tabloid press. Namely, how to make an assertion/accusation while doing it in such a way that you can "honestly" point to the original claim and say that "I never actually said that precise thing!" The man is a snake*. *No offense intended to any genuine snakes (or snake lovers) reading this. Just an analogy where snake=bad. EDIT: Whoops, you may have been reffering to a different William than I was. I meant WD.

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,17:18    Quote (Ichthyic @ June 17 2007,22:29)   Quote So, don't ascribe a conspiracy to what can be called a stupid attempt at a conspiracy! or even a subtle one. *hint*  Oh. Duh. Well, to make it up to you I had a friend try to nudge him here. However, she got a bounceback saying that the in-box was full and not accepting e-mails. Hmmm. -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

silverspoon Posts: 123 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,18:11    How stupid of Dembski pointing to this guy as an example of ID growing among non religious people who accept ID.  The guy says he’s been convinced of ID for over 10 years.  My guess is he’s been into ID longer than most of Dr. D’s fan club.  Something smells, and it ain’t my feet. Since WD40 is holding up Brookfield as an example of a “Non-Religious ID Scientist”, then why doesn’t he point to Raeliens? They number in the thousands, and as far as I know, aren’t pushing sex toys. After all, ‘The Designer’ could be a space alien or time traveler.  Right Dr. Dr. D? -------------- Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,18:25    I don't think Mr. Brookfield is going to grace this thread with his presence, so I open the floodgates to whatever creative commentary his efforts inpsire. ...and there is certainly a LOT of material to, uh, "inspire". have fun! -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Ptaylor Posts: 1180 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,19:53    The ICON-RIDS site has been updated to reflect all the hubbub. (Now to go and find this has already been noted elsewhere - c'est la vie) -------------- We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.â€� We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.â€� -PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

Mister DNA Posts: 466 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,22:38    Quote (Ptaylor @ June 18 2007,19:53) The ICON-RIDS site has been updated to reflect all the hubbub. (Now to go and find this has already been noted elsewhere - c'est la vie) Has anyone tried to leave a comment on his blog? I see that he moderates comments... I'm wondering if anyone dropped off an invitation. BTW, the "Enter the Klone" post is pretty entertaining, too. -------------- CBEB's: The Church Burnin' Ebola Blog Thank you, Dr. Dembski. You are without peer when it comes to The Argument Regarding Design. - vesf

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,23:09    Oh my stars. Quote The bottom line is that given the ideologically charged society in which we live, you cannot merely scientifically prove the existence of God and then notify the scientists (they will just dismiss you as a "kook"{PZ Myers} or a "wingnut"{Richard Dawkins}). [And no shimmies.]The trick is to submit it and have it scientifically published (say, in the journal Nature {in 1979}) and scientifically verified (say in, Communications in Mathematical Physics - 1980), long before the scientific community realizes what it is -- and their (otherwise-operative) brains become clouded by ideology. Bwahahahah! Yeah - submit a paper "proving" the existence of God to Nature! Good idea! Ever heard of baraminology? That's a great idea, too. Go for it. Quote There are two questions I wish to raise here; #1. Is there really sufficient "bandwidth" for the scientific processing of a God-proof given the sociological, God vrs Anti-God, passions in the scientific community? Who can the people really trust? Clearly You-tube (w/Josh who tagged the video "stupid") lacked sufficient "bandwidth" for any respectful scientific comentary. Can we expect any better from Richard Dawkins and his "Wingnut News"? I saw the video. Stupid it is! I am behind Josh on this, obviously. (But he should watch it 'cause I've become a Pleasurian). Quote If Richard Dawkins is indeed "The Oxford Professor of the Public Understanding of Science/Logic/Reason" then why does he maintain an entire category at his web site, that is itself a fallacy of logical argumentation!? The term "Wingnut" (just as with PZ Myers term {and category} "Kooks") is an ad hominum violation of logic. Such terminology is being directed, not at Tipler's arguments/science/logic but at Tipler himself. "Ad hominum" is latin for attacking the man/person instead of addressing the person's argument(s). If you wish to undermine science, then violate logic/reason while pretending to be a champion of reason. "Army of dorks" is my category. Keep up the good work, fellers! -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,23:12    Quote Ever heard of baraminology? why, no... what KIND of science is that? ;) -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 18 2007,23:29    Quote (Ichthyic @ June 18 2007,22:12)   Quote Ever heard of baraminology? why, no... what KIND of science is that? Oh yeah, you were working hard during all this. Why, it's no science at all. Just pure pleasure[ian]. -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 19 2007,00:04    I knew what KIND of science it was. it's kinda the kind of "science" that the kinds of people like airheadDave use to tell us all about kinds. the neon-genesis of the "macroevolution" doesn't exist argument. although most creobots aren't even aware of this. of course any kind of idiot can simply look it up on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 19 2007,12:31    Quote (Ichthyic @ June 18 2007,23:04) I knew what KIND of science it was. it's kinda the kind of "science" that the kinds of people like airheadDave use to tell us all about kinds. the neon-genesis of the "macroevolution" doesn't exist argument. although most creobots aren't even aware of this. of course any kind of idiot can simply look it up on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology Wikithyic!    Nyaaaa! Okay, back to the sex - uh, science of pleasurianism. -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 19 2007,13:26    actually, I seem to recall pleasurians as being rather tease-ish. you can't get past first base with them, IIRC. no, I won't throw a gratuitous Richard Dawkins + You reference here. :p -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

Kristine Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 19 2007,20:54    Men! Can't live without them. Can't be three billion women. -------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip? AtBC Poet Laureate "I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive "Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

Ichthyic Posts: 3325 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 19 2007,21:34    you guys (pun intended) need to get to work on that parthenogenesis thing. -------------- "And the sea will grant each man new hope..." -CC

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 27 2007,15:48    Conservapedia now has an ICON RIDS entry.

Richardthughes Posts: 11177 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 27 2007,20:43    Magic stuff. *wipes tears* -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,14:31    Oooo, there's some dispute about Brookfield at Conservapedia: Quote Transparadigmic Science is an adaptation of holistic and noetic scientific principles (such as those found in Chaos Theory, Quantum Mechanics, and Relativity) founded by William Brookfield. The theory led to the development of the Physical Cosmological Incompleteness Theorem and Generalized Second Law of Thermodynamics.[1] A philosophical offshoot of Transparadigmic Science known as Transparadigmic Semiotics has been recently developed by members of Brookfield's ICON-RIDS [2] organization. This is fringe stuff, with no known relation to the real world. http://www.conservapedia.com/Transparadigmic_Science

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2007,14:54    HAHAHAHHA! Some guy named Dobson, in Brookfield's comments: Quote dobson said...    I'm sorry - Chu-Carrol and Hawking both seem to have the most correct understanding of Thermodynamics, by this I mean the understanding that is most validated by empirical data and everyday observations. Are you sure you have a better understanding of the theory than Professor Hawking? Brookfield's reply begins Quote I don't know for sure how our two understandings would match up re-orthodox thermodynamics. Heh heh. I think I could venture a guess. https://www.blogger.com/comment....up=true

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard