AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: Febble

form_srcid: Febble

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.242.8.162

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Febble

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Febble%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2007/01/09 17:53:09, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (guthrie @ Jan. 09 2007,16:01)
Hey, Dave banned someone else:
 
Quote
66. DaveScot // Jan 9th 2007 at 3:17 am

febble is no longer with us - anyone who doesn’t understand how natural selection works to conserve (or not) genomic information yet insists on writing long winded anti-ID comments filled with errors due to lack of understanding of the basics is just not a constructive member - good luck on your next blog febble

Comment by DaveScot — January 9, 2007 @ 3:17 am

Yet they were a theist!  However, apart from daring to disagree with DS, it seems to me that they take rather a telic (is that the right viewpoint) view of it all, which is of course silly:
 
Quote
Natural selection +replication with modification doesn’t do that, of course. It cannot rehearse possible future courses of action, and choose the best. It’s gotta do what it’s gotta do. However, it does do a form of planning that we also do, and so do less intelligent animals, which is that it learns. While it may not plan novel strategies de novo or from observation, it learns from direct experience, as we do. If it makes a mistake, it doesn’t repeat the mistake. It makes sure that in the future it does what worked last time. So in that limited sense, yes, it “plans”. It “chooses” what worked, rather than what didn’t. And like us, sometimes it gets lucky by accident, and remembers that trick too.

Well, read it in context with the other posts, and tell me if you still think it's silly.  I don't think it is.  Nor is it "telic" exactly.

And if it was you who invited me over from the Guardian, thanks!

Date: 2007/01/09 18:08:35, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 09 2007,17:56)
Febble: as moderator here, let me welcome you. Whatever your views, I'm sure you'll find this a more hospitable place than UncommonDescent. Somebody earlier said that you have scientific training, so I'm doubly sure you have things to contribute here. Happy posting.

-Steve

Thanks!  Well, I didn't exactly expect a welcome at Uncommon Descent, but it was an interesting experiment in natural selection.

I'm a neuroscientist, and I'm interested in computational models of cognition.  My point, over at UD, was simply that replication with modification + natural selection is a model of cognition - specifically, of learning.  So it's an intelligent system, which is why it's products look like the products of an intelligence - they are.

But deciding whether there is any intention behind them is just as intractable a problem as deciding whether there is any true intention behind our own apparently directed actions.  It's the "free will" problem again, and I don't think there is any objective test of free will.  

Nice to be here!

Date: 2007/01/09 18:16:02, Link
Author: Febble
[quote=Febble,Jan. 09 2007,18:08]
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 09 2007,17:56)
...which is why it's products ...

Jeez, second post, and I screw up the punctuation...

That would be:

...which is why its products...

Date: 2007/01/10 02:14:18, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 09 2007,20:44)
Frebble,

In 1999, I said this in my review of "The Design Inference":

 
Quote


The apparent, but unstated, logic behind the move from design to agency can be given as follows:

  1. There exists an attribute in common of some subset of objects known to be designed by an intelligent agent.
  2. This attribute is never found in objects known not to be designed by an intelligent agent.
  3. The attribute encapsulates the property of directed contingency or choice.
  4. For all objects, if this attribute is found in an object, then we may conclude that the object was designed by an intelligent agent.

This is an inductive argument. Notice that by the second step, one must eliminate from consideration precisely those biological phenomena which Dembski wishes to categorize. In order to conclude intelligent agency for biological examples, the possibility that intelligent agency is not operative is excluded a priori. One large problem is that directed contingency or choice is not solely an attribute of events due to the intervention of an intelligent agent. The "actualization-exclusion-specification" triad mentioned above also fits natural selection rather precisely. One might thus conclude that Dembski's argument establishes that natural selection can be recognized as an intelligent agent.



- Source

That last sentence bugged Dembski enough to include it in the preface to one of his later books in order to dismiss it.

Yes, RBH on IIDB pointed out to me that you had made the same point.

Do you have a source for the preface in which Dembski dismissed it?  What was his counter-argument?

BTW I very much enjoyed your review.

Date: 2007/01/10 07:21:42, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 10 2007,04:31)
Quote

Do you have a source for the preface in which Dembski dismissed it?  What was his counter-argument?


I think that it was the preface to "No Free Lunch", and IIRC he simply said that he certainly did not mean NS as a candidate designer, that NS was not up to the task, details to follow in the remainder of the book.

Ah.  

Well, obviously he didn't mean NS as the intelligent designer. And from his views on neuroscience

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Schwartz_Review.htm

perhaps I can understand why.

But what I can't understand is why he should be prepared to condone the stifling of pertinent questions on his blog.  If he's got a rebuttal to your point or mine, you'd think he'd want to make it.  Sure, it may take an entire book to make whatever his rebuttal is in full.  But if it can't be encapsulated in a short abstract, then one is driven to the conclusion that he doesn't have one.

And I find his inaction in the face of the banning of a poster whose only crime was to present a counter-argument pretty damning.

Date: 2007/01/10 11:04:54, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (jujuquisp @ Jan. 10 2007,08:19)
It is kind of funny how people on UD such as DaveScot think they get credibility by having Panda's Thumb post on the FRONT PAGE about UD.  It really gets the tards riled up over there.  DaveTard appears to be getting crankier and more strange by the day.  It might be time for DaveTard to get a diagnosis via the DSM-IV-TR.  Any ideas about what his major malfunction is in psychiatric terms?  My best guess is narcissistic personality disorder and organic brain injury.

Well this is getting rather amusing.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1940#more-1940

I spent rather too much of the last couple of years trying to figure out whether the discrepancy between the 2004 exit polls and the official count indicated that Kerry had actually won the election.  I concluded that it didn't, despite the fact that I rather wished he had.

http://www.dailykos.com/user/Febble

Just as, being a Christian and all, I'd be rather delighted to find unambigous scientific evidence of a benificent creator God, but I have to conclude that there isn't any.

Hey ho.  I'd rather have sound analyses, even if my conclusions don't fit my preferences.

Date: 2007/01/12 19:04:25, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 12 2007,18:12)
Quote (Febble @ Jan. 10 2007,02:14)

Yes, RBH on IIDB pointed out to me that you had made the same point.

Do you have a source for the preface in which Dembski dismissed it?  What was his counter-argument?

BTW I very much enjoyed your review.


 
Quote

Indeed, natural selection is not the agent I had in mind for biological design, nor have my criteria for detecting design stumbled on yet another confirmation of Darwinism -- they do not constitute an unexpected vindication of natural selection. When properly understood and applied, these criteria demonstrate the inherent limitations of the Darwinian mechanism.


-- William A. Dembski, Preface (note 6), p.xxv, "No Free Lunch".

Ah, so not a rebuttal, then.  Just something he forgot .

Thanks.

Date: 2007/01/13 16:08:21, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Dr.GH @ Jan. 10 2007,17:52)
Febble: I would be interested in a seperate discussion on the notion of intelligence and "materialism."  If you would be interested, we could start a seperate thread- this one is for the abuse of UncommonDescent.

I'm sorry, I missed this.

Yes, I'd be interested.  Could you send me a PM when if you start one?

Cheers

Lizzie

Date: 2011/08/16 12:19:27, Link
Author: Febble
Sorry!

Still getting the hang of the dashboard.

Hope your comments have appeared now.

Cheers

Lizzie

Date: 2011/08/19 14:16:39, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2011,13:57)
So if you put your credentials in "Leave a Reply" without logging in, the post gets eaten.

Does it?

Oops, will try to sort that out.

Also, if you want OP posting privileges let me know.

Date: 2011/08/19 15:50:13, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2011,14:52)
Quote (Febble @ Aug. 19 2011,14:16)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 19 2011,13:57)
So if you put your credentials in "Leave a Reply" without logging in, the post gets eaten.

Does it?

Oops, will try to sort that out.

Also, if you want OP posting privileges let me know.

Me, moi?

I do. I shall try and leave my priors and irreverence here. I also need clarification on your stance on LOLcats, FT4U, All science so far! and other AtBC memes.

Done.

Date: 2011/11/18 14:03:28, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 18 2011,09:04)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 18 2011,08:36)
   
Quote (Raevmo @ Nov. 12 2011,07:00)
Just in case you have any lingering doubts that Vincent Torley still has some small measure of sanity left, read this.
         
Quote
Or imagine that the family member opts for a head transplant. Which would you value as the person you loved: the head or the body? And what if the body their head is transplanted onto is robotic? Now imagine that this person wants to load their all their personal memories onto a CD, before they die. Assuming it were doable, would you ascribe any ethical value to the CD? If you’re self-consistent in your ethics, you’d ascribe value to the head and the to the CD. But I wouldn’t. I’d identify more with the loved one’s body, and I’d attach zero importance to the CD. In my book, anything that doesn’t have a body, isn’t even an organism, and therefore isn’t an individual.

Commenter goodusername is shocked.

I'll see that and raise you this:        
Quote
Looking at your post, I think your most serious philosophical mistake is to regard the mind as some sort of “thing”. Because you view it as a thing, you are prepared to argue that it possesses importance in its own right. But where’s the evidence that the mind is a thing? The only thing I can see is the human body. And that thing begins at conception. What about the brain, you ask? That’s just a part of a thing, not a thing as such.

The craziness of that thread is rapidly approaching the Universal Craziness Bound, aka the Madness Event Horizon. Theoretically, once that boundary is crossed, there is no going back and the universe will implode into a tiny clump of pure tard with infinite density, the dreaded Kairosfocus.

Date: 2012/01/18 04:56:56, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 18 2012,03:18)
Quote (Kristine @ Jan. 17 2012,15:37)
Elizabeth promptly  squashes the slimy bastard.
May I say that it is also simply a pleasure to read her? She writes very well. For all of the UDudes purported purpose and design, their sentences do not sing. Their sentences mumble; their arguments slouch. Kaplan consultants could not save those guys.

UD has become a fascinating read since she started participating.

*blushes*

thanks :)

Date: 2012/01/20 05:26:39, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Raevmo @ Jan. 19 2012,10:22)
kairosfocus:
   
Quote
F/N: if PG means me by that [though due to his misbehaviour there is now only correction for record . . . ]

I take that to mean that Peter Griffin has been silently banned, even though his tone has been quite civil in comparison with the inmates.

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/methodological-naturalism-science-enabler-or-science-stopper-a-response-to-dr-elizabeth-li


ddle/comment-page-1/#comment-415934]Link to deranged blowhard.[/URL]

Apparently not.  I just asked.


http://tinyurl.com/88x9hnj....88x9hnj

Date: 2012/01/30 06:47:55, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (CeilingCat @ Jan. 30 2012,00:24)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 29 2012,14:11)
Pic one:

http://www.google.com/search?....bih=964

And we have our winner!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....viAHhVE

I'd like to thank the academy, God and Gordon E Mullings! Mwah!

Man, kairosfocus still hasn't gotten his breath back from that one!

It reminds me of Father Guido Sarducci's act, "Vita est Lavorum".  After watching your cites, Gordon is going, "Thirty five cents, thirty five cents, thirty five cents..." and hoping he isn't born again as a nun.

On another topic, what's with Gordon and "Bydand"?  Don't tell me that Gordon, Wind of the Carribean, is claiming a tie to Gordon of the Highlanders?

I mean, he certainly doesn't look Scotch.

There are lots of caribbean scots, and lots of scots caribbeans.

Date: 2012/02/07 08:44:17, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 06 2012,22:45)
Okay, that does it. For quite awhile I've wondered what motivates you (Elizabeth Liddle) to even bother trying to discuss/debate anything with gordon mullings (kairosfocus), and I've also wondered if you have paid any attention to what he has been saying at UD, his blog, and elsewhere on the internet, for years, and whether you have standards that you're actually willing to firmly stand up for.

How you could possibly say this is beyond me:

"But you insist on reading that as saying that you are accusing atheists of being immoral. We know you are not saying that."

I should not have used "we" and I apologise.  But it seemed to me that he had, repeatedly, made the point that he thinks we all have consciences, and are therefore capable of behaving morally, and that the is not therefore accusing atheists of being immoral, or amoral.

I'm prepared to accept that.

But he keeps on avoiding the real charge by erecting the straw man that I am accusing him of accusing atheists of being amoral.

I'm not.  I'm accusing him of accusing atheists of promoting an amoral worldview, which he is.

As for telling him he doesn't need to apologise: he doesn't.  he keeps starting his posts with things like "pardon" or "this will be painful but..."

It's totally unnecessary.  Indeed, it's quite insulting.  He is not hurting me by saying these things, because he has no authority over me, and, in any case, he is simply wrong.

So I'd far rather he dropped the apology.

If he wants to apologise for repeatedly accusing atheists of promoting an amoral worldview, that's fine.  I should have been more specific.

I simply meant it in regard to what he had actually apologised for, which I  assumed the context made clear, but in retrospect, does not.

Date: 2012/02/07 10:26:55, Link
Author: Febble
I could do, but it's old news now, and I've got better things to do.

FWIW, I don't think I'm "submissive " at all - I think that's a wrong reading completely.  It might be to do with being female, but not because females are doormats, but because on the whole (I'd say) we don't do that dick-measuring thing.

tbh, I honestly don't notice half the time if someone is playing power games, because I am genuinely not interested in power games, especially virtual power games. Why should I care if someone else thinks they are superior to me?  It's their problem, not mine.   The only thing that seems to really get my goat, personally, is being accused of lying, and that's because it undermines the entire discourse.

I'm interested in why people think what they do, and why they come to different conclusions from the ones I come to.  If I see a fallacious argument, I want to expose the fallacy.  If someone points out a fallacy in my own argument, I'm grateful to have it pointed out.

If someone says something that I think is immoral, or dangerous, I say so.  I use blunter language on some sites than others, but tbh, I'm bluntest with people I basically like, which is very unfair I guess, but I guess I trust them not to be offended.

But that doesn't stop me saying what I think when someone attempts to defend the indefensible.  I'm still truly shocked by the defense of William Lane Craig at UD.  I was shocked enough to read his essay when Dawkins linked to it on the Guardian, but naively thought: wow, this will disabuse anyone of the notion that his is a "Reasonable Faith".

Yet, it was Dawkins who got it in the neck.  

Mind you, it was pretty stupid of Dawkins to tie it to his refusal to debate Craig.

Date: 2012/02/07 11:20:08, Link
Author: Febble
I agree that they are not apologies.  That's why I said he didn't need to make them.  I should have been clearer.

I apologise.

Date: 2012/02/10 11:07:49, Link
Author: Febble
Looks like I have been banned too.

Date: 2012/02/10 11:17:07, Link
Author: Febble
I thought I'd just got the captcha wrong (again!), but no.

Date: 2012/02/10 11:25:19, Link
Author: Febble
Checking in.  Or, rather, checking out :)

Date: 2012/02/10 13:13:23, Link
Author: Febble
Now, that is very odd.  Axel is accusing me of being a "company man" because I concluded that the exit polls did not in fact indicate that Kerry had beaten Bush in 2004.

He seems to have been an obnoxious DU poster called KCabotDullesMarxIII.

Date: 2012/02/10 16:58:47, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Patrick @ Feb. 10 2012,11:25)
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 10 2012,12:17)
I thought I'd just got the captcha wrong (again!), but no.

Excellent!  Now you can spend more time on your blog!

A not-so-secret admirer.

Well, I've put up a welcome thread :)

Seems the right sort of time to have a party.

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....0

All welcome (including any UD regulars who want to finish conversations with any of the banned, or even start some more....)

Date: 2012/02/10 17:51:31, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 10 2012,17:32)
nullasalus:      
Quote
If you’d like things to be lively, I suggest you have a look at the antievolution.org forum. Particularly the thread relating to UD.

Then do this: compared the behavior on that thread to the behavior here, by admins and posters alike. Also, notice if Liddle is outraged – outraged! – at what’s going on in that thread. Or if she behaves like a good little girl who keeps her mouth shut and tolerates, or even encourages, what goes on there.


good little girl? Null, why don't you come over here where all the bad and good little girls and boys can talk, without Barry deciding who gets to speak?

Oh, that's right......

I mean, practically every one of you has admitted to following this thread over the years.

But no, you'd rather sit over then in the soon to be echo chamber, listening to Joe and KF and BA77 saying the same things, over and over and over.

Just the way you like it. Unchallenging (Telic Thoughts anyone?) and unchanging.

If you had any guys at all Null you'd tell Joe exactly what he's making UD and ID look like. But you can't make waves in the big tent can ya?

Well, nullasalus, if you are reading this:

I actually don't mind insults much, personally. After all, I post on Talk Rational, indeed was an admin there.

But I do like rules to be even-handed, which was why I got cross about DrREC being banned, when Joe had been calling someone or other a wanker and a moron only the day before.

And I do like conversations to proceed on substance, and insults do tend to get in the way.  But far more obstructive than rude words, IMO, is failure to take other people seriously. That's why the rather vague rule at my own site is: Assume other posters are posting in good faith.  But I won't ban anyone except spammers, and I just move violating posts to a (locked) forum, and they remain visible.  It's not a sanction, it's just a sorting operation.

So you'd very welcome if you'd like to drop by.  And any other UD lurkers :)

Date: 2012/02/11 04:36:37, Link
Author: Febble
As this seems to be the only place linked to from UD that my UD friends might see, here is the link to my blog:

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....w....p....wp

And a message:

I've enjoyed discussing stuff with many of you, and would be delighted to see you there, if you'd like to drop by, as some of you already have.

As for the suggestion from nullasalus that I deserve my banning at UD because I have been consorting with tax collectors and sinners here, well - do I need to quote my source on that?

But fwiw - what I object to is not insulting words, but hypocrisy.  Banning and outing one person for using the epithet "arrogant prick" yet endlessly tolerating another for using epithets that include "wanker", "moron", and "spaz".  Complaining about one person NOT objecting to rude words on another site, yet endlessly tolerating someone who uses those exact same rude words on their own.

Accusing one person of tarring all believers with the brush of Fred Phelps or the 9/11 bombers, while tarring all atheists with the brush of Lewontin, Provine and Dawkins.  

Finding "arrogant prick" beyond the pale, but "morally abnormal" just fine.

My own position is that what matters is not the language, but whether you take people seriously.  I took the posters at UD seriously, and still do.

If you want to continue those serious conversations, I hope you will visit my blog, and maybe make yourselves at home. I won't ban anyone, and I'll only move posts, not delete them, and the rules of the game are simple: assume that people are posting in good faith.  Even if you think they aren't.  The only consequence of breaking the rules of the game are that your posts will be moved (not hidden).  So there's no censorship, but there is deck-clearing.

Cheers

Lizzie

Date: 2012/02/11 09:56:21, Link
Author: Febble
William J Murray:

Quote
IMO:

Those that come here and, even in good faith and with civil tongue, reiterate misrepresentations of ID corrected in the FAQ, or rhetorical characterizations of ID and anti-ID argument/positions, or offer only patently absurd, uninformed and unexamined materialist, atheist, or moral relativist commentary & propaganda as if it were reasoned argument, should be quickly shown the door.

A reasonable, ethical host is not obligated to suffer the rhetorical, blathering nonsense of materialists, atheists, determinists and moral relativists in his own home ad infinitum just because his guests are polite and believe they are being honest and well-meaning.


Some retrospective self-justification going on here, I think: It's not that we are rude, it's that we are wrong. And nobody is under any ethical obligation to be told they are wrong by people who are, themselves, wrong.

William: that's how you build an echo chamber.

But you are still welcome to come to my place and tell me I'm wrong as many ways as you like.  I may eventually get it.  On the other hand, you may eventually figure out that the error is yours.  Either way, we will both be better off, right?

Date: 2012/02/11 10:05:02, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (damitall @ Feb. 11 2012,09:57)
So after that classic Friday Meltdown, what are you guys going to do?

Sock up again and keep on stirring the Tardheap?

Or just let it fester into nothing more than a bad smell?

Well, no socks for me.

Date: 2012/02/11 13:16:17, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ Feb. 11 2012,12:53)
Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 11 2012,12:12)


:D

Hehe...


All this shows me is that U.D. mods are fair-minded and polite when they're dealing with fair-minded, polite commentators.

How many people here can be described as fair-minded and polite when it comes to I.D.? The answer to that question is the answer to why you've all been banned, some of you repeatedly, at U.D.

Liz had potential, as kairosfocus made clear. Unfortunately, her nutty, unscientific worshiping of the conveniently undetectable Blind Watchmaker, combined with her association with you scum bums, finally bit her in the ass.

Could you explain the bolded, Dr Jammer?

Date: 2012/02/11 13:33:10, Link
Author: Febble
Quote
Could you explain the bolded, Dr Jammer?



The reason I ask is that before I was banned at UD I had 19 posts here.  Of these, 10 were later than 2007.  Of these 10, 3 were about my account.

Of the remaining 7, one was a futurama cartoon; one was a thank you for a compliment; one was to correct the rumour that Peter Griffin had been banned at UD; one was to correct the idea that a carribean (kairosfocus) couldn't have Scottish ancestry; one was to explain why I had told kairosfocus that he had nothing to apologise for; one was to explain the difference between "polite" (as in my behaviour at UD) and "submissive" (which I was not); and one was to clarify that earlier comment.

In other words, while I have no problem in "associating with" these people you refer to as "scum bags", I have "associated" with them no more than you have, it seems.

And unlike you, I have been exactly as polite here, as I am on UD.

Date: 2012/02/11 13:53:29, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ Feb. 11 2012,13:46)
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 11 2012,13:39)
   
Quote (Woodbine @ Feb. 11 2012,09:12)


:D

Hehe...

Yeah, that, after falsely accusing EL and everyone else who doesn't kiss his sanctimonious ass of being amoral, immoral, depraved, ignorant, unresponsive, non-serious, uncivil, lying, and lots of other negative things.

gordon mullings is the ultimate, narcissistic, chauvinistic hypocrite.

To be fair, I would say most of those adjectives accurately describe the regulars here, as well as most design-deniers across the net.

Notice I said across the net, and not design-deniers in general. Those deniers who meet with I.D. proponents, face-to-face, tend to be far more civil than those who remain online. Methinks it's much easier to be crass from the comfort of your homes/offices, as opposed to when you're within severe beating distance.

As for the discussion of morality, kairosfocus was right on the mark. Liz put up a valiant fight, but her argument for morality ultimately boiled down to argumentum ad populum.

If the members of NAMBLA (I suspect a few of you are card-carrying members) decided to start their own nation, with their own set of laws, and they all determined pedophilia to be not only legal, but moral, would that make it so? According to Liz's reasoning it would.

With no ultimate source of objective morality, morality becomes nothing more than a popularity contest. It's might-makes-right. That majority opinion becomes the might, and they decide what is right.

Even worse are the non-democracies, where might isn't represented by the majority, but by a small section of the elite. This is what we witnessed in the early 20th century with the eugenics movement, where the elite decided that it was moral to decide who could and could not reproduce. That's one of the more tame examples.

kairosfocus' point isn't that we can't reason to right and wrong. We can, in large part because morality (seems to be) an attribute inherent to most human beings, which acts as our guiding light, so to speak.

His point is that the might-makes-right mentality that arises when one denies an objective, ultimate source of morality, is often a very dangerous thing. A look through any history book will confirm that he is correct.

Dr Jammer, I'd be delighted to respond to this post, but can I suggest we do it on my blog?

You don't have to register to post, but if you do, I can enable your account so that you can post an OP.

If I don't see your post there, at some stage I will address it here.

Cheers

Lizzie

Date: 2012/02/11 13:58:23, Link
Author: Febble
Done already, Dr. Jammer:

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....2

Hope to see you there :)

Date: 2012/02/11 14:46:42, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ Feb. 11 2012,14:04)

I think nullasalus summed it up pretty well.


I thought he summed it up extremely badly.

   
Quote
I think your friendly association with the depraved circus clowns here, as limited as it may be (six posts in the past month, prior to your banning), made it seem as if you were a part of their clique.


I doubt it.

   
Quote
I think Barry Arrington got a little heated, and, in the heat of the moment, took you down with the trolls. I guess you could say you were collateral damage.


I think he didn't like the fact that I took issue with his outing of DrREC, nor my general criticisms of his moderating.  But who knows.

I thought his outing of DrREC was quite unethical, and still do.

   
Quote
I don't agree with it, but then, it's not my board. To be fair to U.D., they're far more open to critics than most anti-I.D. boards I've been to.


Really? In what sense? I know plenty of anti-ID boards where IDists and creationists are virtually never banned unless they are spammers (which a few are - hit and runners).

But I would agree that many of the posters at UD have been commendably open to discussion, which is why I enjoyed posting there.  

   
Quote
Here's my question: If you were unbanned, would you be willing to return to U.D.?


Well, I'd be in no hurry.  I think UD has had enough posts from me to be going on with, and I'd prefer to spend more time at my blog, which I have been sadly neglecting, and where the bannees can post as well as the unbanned.

And eigenstate is still there, making the points I wish I could make as elegantly.

But if I'm honest, I'd probably drop by at least to tell friends where to find me.  Fortunately I am in contact with some of them by email.

Date: 2012/02/12 16:23:28, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 12 2012,14:47)
I knew when Dense linked to the Daily Mail it was going to be like pouring petrol on a fire ...

Axel:
   
Quote
Incidentally, it takes many forms. Apprently, there are 450 public employees at present working on legislating for hospital staff to be forbidden to use the terms, ‘mother’ and ‘father’, for fear of offending the sensibilities of homosexuals.

   
Quote
I should have said, ‘militant’ homosexuals. There is a difference between them and most homosexuals, I believe.

   
Quote
Also, in your dismissiveness, you forgot the primary-school children raping and sodomising their little class-mates.

In today’s papers, two young women, each with a baby sired by the young man in the middle of the photo. We’ll leave their sexuality out of it, since there is no arguing with homosexual lobbyists, however “ad hoc”. The immemorial wisdom of nature’s nuclear family is despised by today’s atheist know-nothings.

Some other odd views in his ramblings as well.

Axel I think claims to be a guy I ran into on DemocraticUnderground: KCabotDullesMarxIII.

A very odd guy with a very odd set of views.

Date: 2012/02/12 18:49:05, Link
Author: Febble
And for anyone from UD who is interested in discussing Barry's LNC OP with eigenstate and others of us who can no longer post at UD, you are all very welcome to this thread at The Skeptical Zone.

That includes you, Barry :)

Feel free to cross link any posts back to UD if you like.  It's slighly odd communicating by megaphone from different sites, but there's no reason why it shouldn't work.

ETA: I see olegt has already linked.

Date: 2012/02/13 03:57:09, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 12 2012,22:11)
StephenB:
Quote
Incidentally, a blogger named Keiths (didn’t he hang out with us for a while), at the website in question, points out that a five-year-old would know that a physical object cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Indeed.

That same blogger challenges Barry to learn some quantum mechanics, arguing that superposition can invalidate the laws of logic. Well, I am prepared to debate that point, but I would first ask Keiths the following question: How does the five year old KNOW (rightly so) that a physical object cannot exist and not exist at the same time? Anybody?

StephenB,

That was olegt, not me. (I see your reading comprehension is about as good as your reasoning).  Why don't you come over here, where discussion is free and open, and see if you can defend your ideas against Oleg and the rest of us, without Barry's protection?

We'd love to have you.  We'd even give you your very own thread here, as is our custom.

If anyone here is still alive over there, perhaps they could post a link to the LNC thread on The Skeptical Zone:

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....7

in case people don't want to click on AtBC :)

In particular, I notice that Bruce David is on that thread, and it would be sort of nice if he knew where we'd got to.  He's a decent guy.

Actually it would be good if some ID-supporting UD lurkers knew where we'd got to.  At least one has turned up at TSZ, and it would be great if a few more would follow.

Date: 2012/02/14 16:17:55, Link
Author: Febble
Scott Andrews is a mensch in my book.  

I hope he shows up at TSZ.

Date: 2012/02/19 03:09:51, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 19 2012,01:24)
I think it stinks that EL moved your comment to "Guano". By doing so she's saying that your comment is shit. Frankly, I wonder about her motives, and standards (or lack thereof). She's more protective of and submissive to the IDiots than she is with the people who speak the truth to or about them.

Only in the sense that "shit" (especially penguin shit) is useful stuff, but is a bit stinky to have hanging around the bar.

Note that I do not delete comments; I do not hide comments; I do not ban people; and I make it absolutely clear that moving a post to "guano" is not a moral indictment of either comment or commenter but merely an indication that it violates the rules of the "game" played at TSZ which is that people post on the assumption (whether justified or not) that people are posting in good faith.

What I am protective of is communication.  I am not submissive to anyone or anything.

hth.



Date: 2012/02/19 12:27:39, Link
Author: Febble
tbh I don't see anything "noble" in the policy, especially.  As I keep trying to emphasise the rules are not moral rules, merely rules intended to try to keep discussion focussed on the actual arguments, rather than on the motivations.

If people make bad arguments because they are more interested in an answer that supports their preconceptions, then it should be possible to demonstrate the badness of the argument without discussing the preconceptions, and in my experience, focussing on the alleged preconceptions merely distracts from the badness of the arguments.

For instance Abel is clearly much more interested in concluding "ID" than he is in making a reasoned argument.  But I don't need to hypothesise why he is making a bad argument in order to demonstrate that he is, and by putting the why to one side it clears the decks of any counter-accusation that I just don't like his argument because it supports ID.

I don't like his argument because his argument makes no sense.

Date: 2012/02/19 14:35:51, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Patrick @ Feb. 19 2012,14:02)

Well, in case it's not clear, I don't think Woodbine is "stinky" not even his post.

I do tend to bend over backwards to give air-time to opinions opposed to mine, rather than those that agree with them, and I acknowledge that fault.

So I apologise to anyone who feels hard-done-by.  I will try to be more even-handed.

But my goal is simply to try to keep, as much as possible, to the substance of the argument, and not be sidetracked by discussion of motivation, and if that means that some arguments are exposed as contentless, then that's a useful result IMO.

Date: 2012/02/19 15:39:01, Link
Author: Febble
An example of how easy it is to offend:

 
Quote
“I’d want to see the actual reasoning, and the actual probability calculations that you think make the chance remote. Not just liquid nasal ejecta :) ”


was quoted by butifnot on UD as example of me insulting Gil, who had said, in his TSZ post:

 
Quote
When I was growing up and learning mathematics my dad (a professor of chemical physics) admonished me to always check my calculations to see if they made sense on the surface (in my engineering department we call this “using the beverage out the nose” test).


That's why I'm trying to keep the place squeaky clean.



Date: 2012/02/19 16:15:52, Link
Author: Febble
[quote=socle,Feb. 19 2012,16:01][/quote]
Just to make it clear, I don't think Gil was offended.

It's just that it doesn't take much for people to take offense, even on other people's behalf.

And it does make for awfully boring discussion.

ETA when it ends up being all about tone and not about substance.



Date: 2012/02/20 09:26:18, Link
Author: Febble
After a hiatus, it's up and running again.

Hope people will drop by :)

Date: 2012/02/20 16:20:39, Link
Author: Febble
Not sure, but I just released two posts from the spam filter.

WP is a bit like our aging Dyson washing machine.

Date: 2012/02/21 03:11:07, Link
Author: Febble
There should be a 30 minute edit window for comments, and posts can no longer be edited after midnight (to avoid deletion of entire threads).

There are two ways of editing a post, one gives you a menu and no wysiwyg, the other gives you wysiwyg but no menu.

It would be nice to figure out how to give people both....

Date: 2012/02/21 09:27:42, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 21 2012,08:46)
So, Joe gets a free pass on being an obtuse autistic prick on yet another blog.  Is there some kind of affirmative action for creationist retards that i have not heard about?

Everybody gets a free pass, but some posts don't.

However violations of site rules aimed at me tend to get a pass, because they don't bother me.

Also he was right, and I was wrong.

Joe is quite often right, actually.

Date: 2012/02/22 02:23:26, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 22 2012,02:04)
Some good old-fashioned tard from John D:
Quote
I agree with Tragic Mishap. I think visually when you look at something and infer that it is designed, it is because your eyes take in hundreds or even thousands of subtle features into consideration which make it nearly impossible to articulate with speech and would be incomprehensible if it even could be spelled out since the realization is made by apprehending them at the same time.

I think that instead of constantly looking for ways to formalize CSI and FCSI or whatever, more effort should be put towards showing how pursuing research from a design perspective is more rewarding. You can look at proteins and see strategies that make sense to us. This should lead to predictions about what other types of connected processes might exist and things to look for that wouldn’t be assumed from an evolutionary stand point.

That's interesting because sh/e is 50% right.

It does make sense to look at a protein from a design perspective - or any biological feature from a design perspective, because there is a real sense in which biological features are designed - they are there for a functional reason.

It's just that you don't need to assume intentional design, and assuming intentional design gives us less information, not more, because it implies that the thing may be there for some private reason not available to an objective observer.

Date: 2012/02/22 11:36:49, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 22 2012,10:37)
Quote (Cubist @ Feb. 22 2012,01:18)
Quote (BWE @ Feb. 22 2012,00:56)
I take some of that back. His behavior is only disgusting and his ideas only utterly simplistic, juvenile, wrong, and stupid on the the topics of religion and politics. He is alright at talking about biology.

How's your "We Hate PZ" Club—sorry, I meant Post Atheist Movement—coming along, BWE?

Good! I have a whole forum dedicated to it now!
www.talkrational.com

Do keep up, BWE.  It's Post Post Atheism at TR now.

Date: 2012/02/23 07:34:32, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (paragwinn @ Feb. 22 2012,20:34)
Emperor Palpington finally closes the door on Dr. Liddle:    
Quote
Liddle denies the universal applicability of the three laws of thought. And people wonder why I refuse to countenance her self-repudiating incoherence masquerading as rational argument on this site. Why? As has been said, anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction doesn’t need an argument; they need therapy. Someone else said, “Do not answer a fool according to her foolishness lest you be like her.” Liddle is a fool. She will no longer be spewing her folly on this site.

Palpington's Proclamation: "Whoever shall speak against the Three Laws of Thought, it shall not be forgiven him/her, either in this age, or in the age to come"

That is really quite dishonest, as I was banned without making any reference (IIRC) to his Three Laws of Thought.

He's obviously been lurking at my blog, hoping I'd utter an appropriate heresy.

What my banning did follow was a protest from me about his outing of DrREC.

*growl*

Date: 2012/02/23 12:27:25, Link
Author: Febble
Site now has mini-forum attached.

Date: 2012/02/24 04:45:21, Link
Author: Febble
That doesn't make it not interesting :)

But he actually has a good point.  Most ID proponents don't understand the science, and, to be fair, most ID skeptics don't understand evolutionary theory all that well either.

Most of us simply do not have the expertise to critique the relevant science, but we are happy to refer to scientific authority because we are not anti-science.

There is a real assymmetry, but I don't think that's where it lies.

And boy is there tribalism.  That, IMO, is how people like Santorum or Bachmann can get away with endorsing ID.  Most people don't have the expertise to see what's wrong with it, nor the expertise to understand the scientific counter-view.

Date: 2012/02/24 17:55:18, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 24 2012,17:03)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 24 2012,16:59)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 24 2012,23:57)
 
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 24 2012,17:55)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 24 2012,14:56)
   
Quote (k.e.. @ Feb. 24 2012,02:30)
   
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 24 2012,05:48)
     
Quote
I wonder if Deuce knows about the difference between euclidean and non-euclidean geometry?

As mathy concepts go, one version of that is absolutely without parallel!

Henry

you always go hyperbolic

When I'm not off on a tangent, anyways...

Careful, you're on a slippery slope with a steep gradient, there ...

this conversation is derivative

Meh! Circular arguments...

I need a drink. A slim tot, hic!

You are all being irrational.

Date: 2012/02/25 05:39:31, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 25 2012,03:16)
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 24 2012,04:45)
That doesn't make it not interesting :)

But he actually has a good point.  Most ID proponents don't understand the science, and, to be fair, most ID skeptics don't understand evolutionary theory all that well either.

Most of us simply do not have the expertise to critique the relevant science, but we are happy to refer to scientific authority because we are not anti-science.


There is a real assymmetry, but I don't think that's where it lies.

And boy is there tribalism.  That, IMO, is how people like Santorum or Bachmann can get away with endorsing ID.  Most people don't have the expertise to see what's wrong with it, nor the expertise to understand the scientific counter-view.

Maybe, but you don't have to understand scientific publications to know which side has the evidence. It is fairly simple (if you actually look) to see that science is based on trying to explain data, ID is just saying that science is hard/not certain etc. Therefore God!

Do you think that ID has anything of substance? I don't.

No, I don't, but that's because I have enough expertise to recognise that.

Date: 2012/02/25 09:06:41, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 25 2012,09:02)
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 25 2012,05:39)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 25 2012,03:16)
   
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 24 2012,04:45)
That doesn't make it not interesting :)

But he actually has a good point.  Most ID proponents don't understand the science, and, to be fair, most ID skeptics don't understand evolutionary theory all that well either.

Most of us simply do not have the expertise to critique the relevant science, but we are happy to refer to scientific authority because we are not anti-science.


There is a real assymmetry, but I don't think that's where it lies.

And boy is there tribalism.  That, IMO, is how people like Santorum or Bachmann can get away with endorsing ID.  Most people don't have the expertise to see what's wrong with it, nor the expertise to understand the scientific counter-view.

Maybe, but you don't have to understand scientific publications to know which side has the evidence. It is fairly simple (if you actually look) to see that science is based on trying to explain data, ID is just saying that science is hard/not certain etc. Therefore God!

Do you think that ID has anything of substance? I don't.

No, I don't, but that's because I have enough expertise to recognise that.

The bar on relevant expertise is low for recognizing the null content of "intelligent design" creationism. All one has to be able to do is compare what is offered as IDC to what has been offered previously as arguments *for* religious antievolution. First, strip off any "evolution is wrong" argument, which don't provide argument *for* religious antievolution. What remains in IDC is a proper subset of previous forms of religious antievolution argument.

The four big ideas of IDC, "irreducible complexity", "complex specified information", cosmological ID, and "the privileged planet" argument are recognizable as elaborations of arguments made by the Rev. William Paley in his 1802 book, "Natural Theology". The rest are easily traceable to "creation science", "scientific creationism", and plain old "creationism".

You don't have to have scientific training to see this.

Well, I'd say you have to have good science education that consists not merely of learning a body of knowledge but of also learning what scientific knowledge consists of.

My son is doing the IB, and one of the core IB subjects is "Theory of Knowledge".  I wish it was universally taught.

ETA: yeah, those are the Big Four.  Thanks.



Date: 2012/02/25 17:33:12, Link
Author: Febble
I take your point.

I still think the notion that if something is shown to be not-quite-right that doesn't necessarily mean it is All Wrong is not intuitive.

At the very least, Asimov's essay, The Relativity of Wrong, should be compulsory reading in all schools.[I]

Date: 2012/02/25 17:34:55, Link
Author: Febble
BTW, the comment editor is broken, and everyone is waiting for an update.

There is a workaround, though, that works in Firefox at least - if you right-click on the edit link, and open in a new tab or window, you get an edit window that seems to work OK.

But I hope they will fix the pop-up window soon.  I can't find another comment editor that works.

Date: 2012/02/26 18:35:26, Link
Author: Febble
Well, I seem to have inadvertently deleted the entire site.

Hope to have a backup up shortly.

Yikes.

Date: 2012/02/26 19:04:38, Link
Author: Febble
I can't believe I managed to be so stupid.  Or how unfoolproof the thing is!

OK, I need a sysadmin....

Date: 2012/02/26 19:43:44, Link
Author: Febble
There was a backup up till Saturday, and it should be back online (minus posts since then) in a few hours.

I'll be sorry to have lost all those interesting comments to my Conching posts, but I've got the original backed up, and Gregory probably has his.

Life will go on....

Date: 2012/02/27 14:45:43, Link
Author: Febble
I don't know,  I don't think it was my fault this time. I've put in a support request.

Date: 2012/02/27 17:40:28, Link
Author: Febble
There was a rogue plug in that I have now deactivated.  Sorry about that!

I'm going to keep things simple for a bit.

Also I've now, thanks to aiguy who sent me the lost texts, restored the Conching thread.

Any aisle-mopping will have to wait until tomorrow evening.

Cheers guys :)

Date: 2012/03/01 11:32:18, Link
Author: Febble
shoot, account suspended again!

I have no idea why!

Date: 2012/03/04 13:55:45, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 04 2012,13:17)
Connectivity to TSV up and down today. :-(

I've sent in a ticket.

Date: 2012/03/04 13:56:18, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (afarensis @ Mar. 04 2012,13:55)
Quote (Febble @ Mar. 01 2012,11:32)
shoot, account suspended again!

I have no idea why!

On ScienceBlogs that usually happened when one of PZ's threads started getting too long. I don't know if Wordpress has the same issues but you might want to start a new thread when you get 500 or so comments...

Good thought.

Date: 2012/03/04 14:00:19, Link
Author: Febble
The hosting service doesn't think so, but I've closed the Holding Tank thread anyway.

I think it had run its course :)

Date: 2012/03/04 14:56:18, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 04 2012,14:45)
Joe G.:

Quote

So when AVIDA is used as evidence that complex biological functionality can evolve- Tom Schneider is lying?


Avida is not a genetic algorithm.

It isn't?  What do you call it then?

Date: 2012/03/04 17:47:43, Link
Author: Febble
No, I was just curious about the terminology.

Thanks.

Date: 2012/03/04 18:32:23, Link
Author: Febble
There's a really nice post by Joe Felsenstein up.

Date: 2012/03/05 12:42:23, Link
Author: Febble
I've restricted posting to registered logged-in users, and I've installed a plug in to allow me to place individual users in moderation.

If I have to move one more comment from Joe G to guano I will put him in moderation.  Other posters are well below my last-straw threshold.

I will still post all comments, but game-rule-violating comments will go straight to guano.  I hope that will improve the SNR in the threads.

Joe G, I'm posting this in a number of places where you read so that you know.

Date: 2012/03/05 12:59:03, Link
Author: Febble
That's OK.  As I said, there will be no censorship, everything will be posted, it's just that I'd rather move stuff before it hits the thread, not after.

Date: 2012/03/05 14:43:32, Link
Author: Febble
I'd be delighted if someone would like to post a new GA post.

Joe is now in moderation.

Date: 2012/03/05 15:45:12, Link
Author: Febble
Struggling with the wretched plug-in!

I guess I'll figure it out....

Date: 2012/03/05 16:38:07, Link
Author: Febble
It's OK, I think it just applies to his own threads.  I'll draw the Tiktaalik one to a close shortly.

Date: 2012/03/05 16:50:03, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Robin @ Mar. 05 2012,11:21)
Not sure if Lizzie noticed, but there's a post to her on UD from Timmeaus under Douglass Axe responds to Shapiro. Not that you can respond Lizzie, so perhaps it's moot.

Yes, I noticed that.  I asked Gil to let him know where I was.

Or I could ask Joe, who seems to have more time :)

Date: 2012/03/06 10:11:51, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (noncarborundum @ Mar. 06 2012,10:04)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 06 2012,09:23)
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 05 2012,22:59)
Isn't MODERATION supposed to be a virtue? ;)

Not when taken to extremes.

Now you're just being mean.

It's a standard error.

Date: 2012/03/08 03:52:48, Link
Author: Febble
Thanks guys :)

I'm touched.  Love the graphics!

I've been in denial until a couple of days ago, but now the new decade is upon me it doesn't seem too bad.

And 60 is a pretty cool number.

Date: 2012/03/08 05:34:37, Link
Author: Febble
Let me know here if you have any problems.  

I'm sorry it's not as easy to post as it was, but there are already benefits, I think.

ETA: I will release everything except spam, but some things may be sent directly to guano.  So, still no censorship, but some control over the rate and direction of flow :)



Date: 2012/03/13 03:37:31, Link
Author: Febble
I'm trying to fix these technical things, but I'm no expert at the back end of servers.  If anyone is, and would like to volunteer as sysadmin I'd be grateful!

Date: 2012/03/14 03:31:08, Link
Author: Febble
[1/sqrt(2*pi)]*e^-[(z^2)/2]

Or use NORMSDIST in Excel :)

Date: 2012/03/15 04:19:02, Link
Author: Febble
I can't see your comment either - must have failed to upload I think.

There's nothing in the moderation queue, nor the spam filter.

Can you try again?

I'm sorry the software is glitchy.  Unfortunately I don't have the expertise to optimise it.  I'll gradually try and fix the glitches, but each new fix seems to come with another downside.

ETA: I have now switched you as unmoderated at the back end, so you should be able to post straight away.



Date: 2012/03/15 07:09:20, Link
Author: Febble
I couldn't resist clicking on this post:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....s-again

while checking out Joe's link to my CSI post at TSZ.

Nobody seems to have noticed, in their glee at finding a "use" for "junk" DNA, that the "use" of a point mutation within a "junk" gene is to cause a fatal disease in babies.

Or, if they have, then it seems an odd argument for an Intelligent Designer.

Date: 2012/03/15 07:49:22, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Mar. 15 2012,07:45)
Quote
Behe has no problem with killing babies, as long as God does it.

Sounds harsh, but it's the obvious conclusion to draw from his assertion that the Designer is God and that malaria is designed


Perhaps he's saving himself the bother of allowing the life to unroll and then finding them sinful. We can't 'play God' - we need to ensure that all possible lives are lived, so that he can judge whether they were lived well or not (and cast them in a fiery pit if the answer is 'not').

Well, the effects of the Fall work both backwards and forwards in time.

It's Intelligent Falling.

Date: 2012/03/15 09:44:32, Link
Author: Febble
Stonehenge is irrelevant.  Stonehenge doesn't reproduce.

Date: 2012/03/16 11:52:18, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 16 2012,07:14)
Quote (Woodbine @ Mar. 16 2012,05:16)
Cap'n Guano....



Funny you should mention ID fading away, Joe....


More and more irrelevant, just like the people who promote it.

To be fair, the only high points are during the Dover trial, and it's only just gone back to pre-Dover levels.

ETA: in fact, it hasn't, quite.  They need a new trial. Oh, wait....



Date: 2012/03/18 05:00:15, Link
Author: Febble
Actually, it's this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Anarchi....9500824

Date: 2012/03/18 05:32:22, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 17 2012,01:05)
A mall in Nanaimo was like that a few years back, just a couple of kitsch and crappy tourist junk stores, and a car-racing video game called "F1 Exhaust Note".  I wish I'd taken a picture of that for engrish.com.

As I recall, that was all Nanaimo ever was.  Plus a ferry.

Date: 2012/03/18 14:15:42, Link
Author: Febble
tbh, I've watched that video (Privileged Planet 11/12) and I wouldn't call it "religious".  It mentions God, but then so does Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time - that doesn't make his book religious.

It's putting across the argument that perhaps an Intelligent Designer is indicated by the constants of the universe, which is a legitimate argument (if wrong).

More to the point, JPL isn't defending its position on the basis of the content of Coppedge's views, but on the insensitive way in which he banged on about them at work (including his views, apparently, on gay marriage).

Seems legitimate to me, when you are downsizing, to let go the people whose social skills, or lack of them, are getting in the way of smooth running.



Date: 2012/03/19 13:48:41, Link
Author: Febble
Barry has told Bruce David that he "truly is evil". I wonder if Bruce has been banned.

I like Bruce.  I hope he shows up at TSZ.

Date: 2012/03/21 02:21:50, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 20 2012,19:33)
Quote (The whole truth @ Mar. 20 2012,19:11)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 20 2012,14:37)
I'm not actually predicting church attendance numbers.  Just asserting there are people who place a positive value on faith over evidence. Some go for new age stuff, some for quack medicine, etc.

I see more and more people (especially women) saying that they are "spiritual, not religious" or are "spiritual but not part of organized religion", in personal ads. Earlier today I saw one who said she is christian, attends church, but is "more spiritual than religious".

What cracks me up are the ones who say they're spiritual, christian, attend church, are tattooed, pierced, kinky, and like death metal, and want a badboy "Master" or "Dom" or "Daddy" with lots of tattoos and piercings who will get high and drunk with them and spank them.

The funniest one that I saw was a Christian Humanist.

Oxymoron

I dunno.  That sort of describes me :o

Date: 2012/03/21 13:45:19, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 21 2012,08:59)
Quote (Febble @ Mar. 21 2012,02:21)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 20 2012,19:33)

The funniest one that I saw was a Christian Humanist.

Oxymoron

I dunno.  That sort of describes me :o

I can't tell if that's a Poe or not.

If it's not, then I'm curious how you deal with the dichotomy.  Christianity is all about Jesus/God being in total control and being worshiped... while humanism is about humans being in control.

Unless you're referring to how humanism was defined in the ancient world as the literary criticism.

No, it's not a Poe.

I'm a humanist of a most definite Christian flavour, with maybe a dash of Buddhism.

I think Jesus's version of the Golden Rule is one of the best.
I think the idea that "whatever you do for the least of my brothers you do for me" is a powerful conception of God.
I think the idea that "greater love has no man than that he lays down his llfe for his friend" lifts us above narrow self-interest.
I think the idea that victory may involve personal defeat is, ditto.

I was raised with a very liberal form of Christianity, I guess, and I haven't really shed much of it that matters except maybe for separate-soul part, and I'm not sure that I ever really subscribed to that, theologically, anyway.

Christianity seems to be one of these religions (maybe they are all like this) where you can extract from it what you need.  I extracted from it what I needed, and I still find it useful.

And I like to cite my sources.

Date: 2012/03/21 15:26:44, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 21 2012,14:11)
I can see the points, but I don't agree with them.  I was raised in a liberal baptist church... which means that we weren't fundies like some, but more so than most.

I have a very different view of Christianity.  Admittedly, it's a view shared by the fundamentalists.  The view is that you cannot really separate Jesus and God from the other concepts of Christianity.  

Of course, this is pretty much the same reasoning used y fundamentalists who declare that Catholics aren't Christians.  And from that point of view, they are correct.  There are a lot of major concepts that Catholics don't do and some that Catholics do that are against the primary teachings of Jesus.  Then there's that whole "other Bible books" issue.

In my mind, which has been known to be wrong, Christianity is the Christ centered (well, really Paul, but that's another story too) religion.  Without Christ, there is no Christianity.  Much like, without Allah, there is no Muslim religion.

Without God, Jews might still exist because it's both a religious affiliation and a cultural system.  

Take the Golden Rule as an example.  It would totally exist, even without Christ.  OK, maybe it's a particularly well worded version.  But the Code of Hammurabi, Confucius, Mozi, the Middle and Late periods of Egypt, Ancient Greece, etc. etc. etc. all had versions of the same thing.

The only thing different about the Christian version is Christ.

We'll probably agree to disagree.  I really have no horse in this race.  It may be much more of a cultural thing than I'm aware of, having been raised in a nearly fundamentalist church.  I'll have to think on that.

Oh I don't disagree with any of that.  It's just that if I had to describe the flavour of humanist I am (and I prefer humanist to "atheist" - I still have some kind of meaningful referent for the signifier "God"), it's Christian, not out of conviction, especially, but because that's the religious tradition whose apples I stole.  And there are plenty of apples, especially if you spent time, as I did, in contact with Quakers (I was at a Quaker boarding school).  We had to learn, by heart, a bible verse or other piece of improving poetry or prose, each morning, before breakfast, and recite, en masse, during.  But the verses were carefully cherry picked to emphase all the lefty bits of Christianity, so I left school both a Christian, a Marxist, of sorts, a pacificist, and excited about non-violent civil disobedience in support of civil rights, against apartheid, the bomb, and all that stuff.

In the sixties and seventies, Christianity could be quite radical.  We made love, not war, and my brand of love included love thy neighbour as thyself.

It saw me through more than half a century.  Then I read Dennett.

Date: 2012/03/21 15:27:55, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 21 2012,13:49)
Quote
where you can extract from it what you need.


To quote Tom Lehrer, "Life is like a sewer. What you get out of it depends on what you put into it."

Well, there's some good shit in there.

Date: 2012/03/22 04:00:52, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 21 2012,15:43)
Quote (Febble @ Mar. 21 2012,13:26)
Oh I don't disagree with any of that.  It's just that if I had to describe the flavour of humanist I am (and I prefer humanist to "atheist" - I still have some kind of meaningful referent for the signifier "God"), it's Christian, not out of conviction, especially, but because that's the religious tradition whose apples I stole.  And there are plenty of apples, especially if you spent time, as I did, in contact with Quakers (I was at a Quaker boarding school).  We had to learn, by heart, a bible verse or other piece of improving poetry or prose, each morning, before breakfast, and recite, en masse, during.  But the verses were carefully cherry picked to emphase all the lefty bits of Christianity, so I left school both a Christian, a Marxist, of sorts, a pacificist, and excited about non-violent civil disobedience in support of civil rights, against apartheid, the bomb, and all that stuff.

In the sixties and seventies, Christianity could be quite radical.  We made love, not war, and my brand of love included love thy neighbour as thyself.

It saw me through more than half a century.  Then I read Dennett.

Curious. I was a young Quaker (a quacker).* The meeting I attended was very 'old school' plain unscheduled. Not too many then, not very many now. The notion of memorizing bits of the Bible would have been very frowned upon. And those old Quakers sure could frown. They had "frown" down.

Of course, I am older now than they were then, and I wager I could out frown most of them.

* That was a Quaker joke. Here is another;

One morning Farmer John's cow kicked over the milk pail just as he had finished draining her. It was the third time in a row she had done this.

Brother John said, "Thou know I shall not beat thee. But, Thou might not have considered that if you do not mend your ways, I will sell thee to the Baptist down the road, and he will beat thee very well!"

Ours had "frown" down too.  Boy, did they.

Not sure where the bible-memorising thing came from, it was an old school tradition.  The school was called "The Mount" and if you could memorise the whole of the Sermon on the Mount you got a Complete Shakespeare.

But the passages were highly selected.  Some psalms, and bits of Isaiah were all we got from the OT, and, as I said, all the lefty bits of the NT.  The best bits of Paul.  The more PC parables.

But the best parts of all, of course, were the silences. I still like those.

Date: 2012/03/22 04:04:06, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 21 2012,17:13)
Quote
"Thou know I shall not beat thee."


My version involves a Quaker, upon finding an intruder in his home:

"I would not harm thee for all the world, but thou standest where I am about to shoot."

The modern version, of course is:

"Speak the truth in love...."

ugh

Date: 2012/03/22 06:03:57, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (CeilingCat @ Mar. 22 2012,05:04)
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 22 2012,04:19)
     
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 21 2012,14:50)
       
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 21 2012,12:14)
Fascinating. A journal for scientists - but looks like even a layman with love love and respect for science can find much to make his mouth water there.

This is on the Uncommonly Dense thread because you're visiting from Opposite World, yes?

I am afraid I miss your point. WRT thread, I thought I was posting on the same thread where I found the link. If not, I made a mistake and pray for forgiveness.

You haven't done anything wrong.  Since Barry's last spectacular blowup, in which he banned everybody in the Free World and his mother (she didn't want anything to do with UD anyway), this thread is no longer the Uncommonly Dense thread, it is The Thread That Was Formerly Called The Uncommonly Dense Thread.  

Basically, Barry caused a ginormous Tard Overflow which greatly Disturbed the Farce and kind of took the whole point out of laughing at the Volunteer Retards at Uncommon Descent.  Our laughter and scorn are as nothing compared to Barry's self inflicted damage.  

Now we're just watching their decline and making side bets on whether they eventually 404 into oblivion or lose all connection with their data base first.

It's the end of an era and another failed dream of Dr. Dr. GuessIDon'tWantAnAcademicCareerAnyway.

Why are random ancient threads showing up in the "Daily Popular"?  Some kind of feedback loop in bot algorithms?

(OK, I admit I clicked.....)

Date: 2012/03/23 09:52:37, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 22 2012,20:29)
Hi Liz,

Could you grant me posting privileges at TSZ?

Thanks.

Done.

Date: 2012/03/24 15:15:19, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 24 2012,07:10)
Liz,

I am experiencing a technical problem with comments. For example, WordPress won't let me post this fairly innocuous reply on the thread about the 2nd law. I preserve the WordPress formatting.
   
Quote

I'd like to discuss this excerpt from Sewell's ENV piece:
<blockquote>There are some problems, however. While one can certainly define a "poker entropy" as S_p = k_p log (W) and have a nice formula for entropy which increases when probability increases, why should the constant k_p used be equal to the Boltzmann constant k_B? In fact, it is not clear why poker entropy should have units of Joules/degree Kelvin. In the case of thermal entropy, the constant is chosen so that the statistical definition of thermal entropy agrees with the standard macroscopic definition. But there is no standard definition for poker entropy to match, so the constant k_p can be chosen arbitrarily. If we do arbitrarily set k_p = k_B, so that the units match, <strong>it still does not make any sense to add poker entropy and thermal entropy changes to see if the result is positive or not. It is not clear how the fact that thermal entropy is increasing in the rest of the universe makes it easier to get a highly improbable poker hand.</strong> Of course, all these problems also exist with respect to Styer and Bunn's analyses of the entropy associated with evolution; at least with poker entropy we don't have to take wild guesses at the probabilities involved.
</blockquote>
The confusion over the units, while funny, is a minor problem. It's the highlighted two sentences that are most interesting.


On a related note, could you add a thread opening privilege for me as well?

Done.

I still haven't got to the bottom of WordPress logic regarding holding posts for moderation.

But I do check in pretty regularly, and release the hostages asap.

The system does allow control over the flow of Joe G posts, so I'm inclined to put up with it for now.

ETA: I inserted the text of your post above into your "test" post:

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....nt-8988

which neatly allowed me to preserve your authorship :)



Date: 2012/04/01 16:59:09, Link
Author: Febble
"The Best Schools" likes it:

http://www.thebestschools.org/blog.......ogetics

Shame about : "The biggest drawbacks are that its famous founder, Norman Geisler, no longer teaches there and that the school has only TRACS accreditation, lacking accreditation from the more-recognized SACS or ATS."

What is this "The Best Schools" thing?  It's weird.

They even mistake a UK diploma mill based in Oxford for Oxford University!*

Is it in fact the PR arm of SES?

ETA *my bad.  Apparently the "Oxford diploma mill" is Wycliffe Hall, a Permanent Private Hall of Oxford University.



Date: 2012/04/02 06:09:30, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Doc Bill @ April 01 2012,18:03)
Dembski is a fascinating character to me, in a train wreck sort of way.  Here's a guy who paid his dues in Chicago to earn a PhD in math and another one in philosophy, and those of use who have traveled this road know that you have to do certain things to reach the end, so congrats to Dr. Dr. for that work.

And then he threw it all away which is the fascinating, on-going train wreck.  Why?  He could have picked up a tenure track job in math or philosophy or both at a small or large university and settled into a nice, long, steady, anonymous career and that would have been that.

But, no.  He appears to have bought into a cult that fed his very large ego and he went downhill from there.  He had a brief chance at normalcy when offered the director's position at Baylor, but he managed to fuck that up, too, but not from academic ineptitude, rather from his penchant of taking Jackassedness to an art form.  And that seems to be his m.o. to this day.

Perhaps one of our trained psychologists can weigh in on the self-destructive personality type exhibited by Dembski, at least, that's my personal, untrained observation.

Well, as I understand it, his thesis for his philosophy PhD was "The Design Inference".

Which is clever, but fallacious.

So he had the choice of sticking with a fallacious argument and not getting very far, or following the light and using his considerable analytical skill.

But it's hard to give up a good argument, especially if you got it published and lots of people liked it.

And very tempting to keep trying to rescue it, which, as I see it, he continues to try to do, and to tell yourself the flaws are fixable.

I think it's quite sad.  I'm actually enjoying No Free Lunch.  It's a good effort.  It just doesn't work.

Date: 2012/04/02 07:51:14, Link
Author: Febble
Well some things are easier seen as fallacious from one PoV than another.

The Design Inference passed both the PhD examining committee and the CUP reviewers.

Date: 2012/04/02 08:17:51, Link
Author: Febble
Sorry guys, I think the 2011 bump was probably me.

I can even tell from that graph when we went on holiday :o



Date: 2012/04/10 10:32:19, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (REC @ April 09 2012,11:13)
Thought I'd take a peek at the UD daily popular page hits-

#1 Shroud of Turin (all science!)

#2 "A Scoville Scale for Dangerous Questions"
Wtf-a post from 2007? So I googled it. Scoville+Dangerous yields that post as the second hit in google, and the first in google image.

So except for when posts on scary gays/atheists or the shroud outranks it, traffic looking for dangerous hot peppers that took a wrong turn is their "daily popular."

Edited to add: Should we vote on the most embarrassing UD post of all time, and click the hell out of it someday?

I couldn't understand why that Scoville scale post kept showing up!  That's hilarious!

Date: 2012/04/11 08:32:05, Link
Author: Febble
You mean ID-friendly US prez hopeful?



Date: 2012/04/24 08:01:28, Link
Author: Febble
It's got nothing to do with his whining, it's just got to do with when I've got time to go through the backlog and sort them into guanoables, sandboxables and stayputables.

He posts a lot, so they mount up.

Also dealing with them in batches stops them dominating the New Comments list, and, to some extent, from disrupting conversation.

As for posting privileges, he has them, but his posts are also subject to moderation.  However, in his own threads he is free to post without moderation (just the way the software works).

If people don't want to respond to him, I suggest they ignore his posts and comments :)

There is plenty other interesting stuff.

Joe G: if you are reading this, please note that I have no intention of censoring your contributions (i.e. not promoting them at all), but my problem is that they are often a) rude b) copious and c) irrelevant to the thread.  If you can be respectful and relevant, I don't mind if you are prolific, but right now the SNR from you is too high and the N too loud for the health of the site.

Date: 2012/04/24 09:43:50, Link
Author: Febble
Thanks :)

Date: 2012/04/24 11:09:34, Link
Author: Febble
Heh, I just made that comment!

Date: 2012/04/27 16:34:46, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Turncoat @ April 27 2012,16:27)
Forgive an ad for what I suspect is the most devastating post I'll ever make to my blog. Other folks have pointed out that "active information" is nothing but a performance measure. But I show that Marks has stated outright his misunderstanding of the NFL theorems, and explain how his misrepresentation of performance as information follows. All of you will understand the most important parts of the post, and many of you will understand all of it.

Sorry that I haven't been coming around to play. Keep giving 'em hell.

Ooh, can I crosspost it at The Skeptical Zone - or would you like to?

Date: 2012/04/27 17:02:09, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Turncoat @ April 27 2012,16:50)
Quote (Febble @ April 27 2012,16:34)
 
Quote (Turncoat @ April 27 2012,16:27)
Forgive an ad for what I suspect is the most devastating post I'll ever make to my blog. Other folks have pointed out that "active information" is nothing but a performance measure. But I show that Marks has stated outright his misunderstanding of the NFL theorems, and explain how his misrepresentation of performance as information follows. All of you will understand the most important parts of the post, and many of you will understand all of it.

Sorry that I haven't been coming around to play. Keep giving 'em hell.

Ooh, can I crosspost it at The Skeptical Zone - or would you like to?

I'd like very much for you to do that. Thanks so much.

Thanks!

Done:

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....4

And I've added your blog to my blogroll!  Hope that's OK.

Date: 2012/05/06 14:53:47, Link
Author: Febble
I've posted a piece about Hunter and Dembski here:

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....7

Date: 2012/05/11 03:50:00, Link
Author: Febble
IQs are age-normed.

Date: 2012/05/12 06:23:02, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Kattarina98 @ May 12 2012,02:05)
I found the meaning of "tunie".
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.....m=tunie

I've bookmarked an array of slang dictionaries and need them daily; in grammar school, we didn't get beyond Macbeth.

Yeah, the link was to a female crotch shot.

I have suspended him and announced a rule against porn links, which he needs to undertake not to violate as condition of reinstatement.

Thanks for the heads-up - I guess I should have checked the link earlier.

Date: 2012/05/12 10:16:37, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 12 2012,10:03)
Quote (Febble @ May 12 2012,06:23)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ May 12 2012,02:05)
I found the meaning of "tunie".
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.....m=tunie

I've bookmarked an array of slang dictionaries and need them daily; in grammar school, we didn't get beyond Macbeth.

Yeah, the link was to a female crotch shot.

I have suspended him and announced a rule against porn links, which he needs to undertake not to violate as condition of reinstatement.

Thanks for the heads-up - I guess I should have checked the link earlier.

Very obvious death by cop

Yes, I think so.  He seems to have been trying to get banned for a while.

But he now knows what the deal is, what he has to do to get back, and, surely, that it's an obviously reasonable request.

Nobody should booby-trap another person's site, and the implicit misogyny was just bloody rude.

Date: 2012/05/12 10:46:23, Link
Author: Febble
Well, his second attempt at death by cop worked.

Poor silly bugger.

Date: 2012/05/13 13:19:46, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (fnxtr @ May 13 2012,12:14)
Quote (sledgehammer @ May 13 2012,09:26)
Quote (Quack @ May 13 2012,05:16)
Since reading the Playboy Magazine in the 1960's,  I've always thought of that as beaver shots, a great excuse when you're taking a gun along when going hunting.

Not to put too fine a point on it ( but this is the JoeG thread after all) in the 60's, we would have classified JoeG's contribution as "split beaver" (to over-extend the hunting analogy, what happens after the beaver was spotted and bagged).
Playboy, in the 60's, rarely showed pubic hair as a matter of policy until the early 70's, and never showed "split beaver".  Nowadays, you rarely see pubic hair at all, even on split beaver, except possibly as a "Brazilian" (beaver with a Mohawk).
 IMO, a pelt-less beaver in just another rodent, i.e. a naked mole-rat.

Grrr. Why do so many women want to look like underage porn stars? Meh. Maybe it's just a hygiene thing. I dunno.

tbh the thing that bugged me wasn't so much the shot as the misogynistic title.

Apart from the fact that he posted a link to an NSFW image without a warning of course, which is why he is banned.

Date: 2012/05/14 04:31:23, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (REC @ May 13 2012,17:23)
Where's the red-herring tank?

marinating in the ad hominen oil?

Date: 2012/05/14 16:50:44, Link
Author: Febble
posted to Joe's Blog:

The reason it isn't posted, Joe, is that I banned you because first you posted a porn link to a misogynistically titled female crotch shot, then, instead of agreeing not to do it again, you added insult to denial.

I'd have been quite happy to have published your post at some point.  But obviously I won't now.

Well, I guess I might, but there doesn't seem much point when you can't post there, and you've posted it here anyway.

(cross posted to AtBC)

Date: 2012/05/29 11:53:29, Link
Author: Febble
I made a transcript here:

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....t-14178

I'm not sure why.  I guess I was fascinated.  I think it has its own internal logic actually.  It just isn't premised on anything that is actually true.

Date: 2012/06/14 14:58:35, Link
Author: Febble
They could pass for cousins.  Something about the eyebrows.

Date: 2012/06/16 06:58:08, Link
Author: Febble
Cornelius has jumped the shark for me here:

http://tinyurl.com/bull2wp....bull2wp

I hope there will be a response on Pharyngula.



Date: 2012/06/16 09:28:41, Link
Author: Febble
I guess.

I think I'd repressed the memory.

Date: 2012/07/13 06:24:59, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (CeilingCat @ July 13 2012,00:59)
Robert Byers gets Quote of the Day, ID Division, for #18:    
Quote
Evolution has no proof marsupials are anything other then pouched placentals.

Except that marsupials don't have placentas.  But they do have pouches, so under ID Logic™, he's half right.

Quarter right.

Only the females have pouches.

Date: 2012/07/16 05:51:59, Link
Author: Febble
So does Cornelius get some kind of retainer from the DI to write that blog?

He seems a to have a quota to fill, like news on UD.

Date: 2012/07/16 06:02:22, Link
Author: Febble
This must be one of the stupidest posts I've ever seen at UD.

It's a kind of filo pastry of stupidity.

Date: 2012/07/16 06:28:33, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (olegt @ July 16 2012,06:13)
Quote (Febble @ July 16 2012,06:02)
This must be one of the stupidest posts I've ever seen at UD.

It's a kind of filo pastry of stupidity.

We expect no less from Denyse. This self-described science journalist once wrote that she "wouldn’t be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified."

Golly, I thought that was either apocryphal or Denyse actually being quite witty.

Looks like she really meant it.

OK, by comparison, thinking that because epigenetics and environment make monozygotic twins different means that you can't use twin studies to quantify heritability is quite smart.

Date: 2012/07/16 07:04:43, Link
Author: Febble
Well, he must put up his posts late at night US time, while I'm having my breakfast coffee, so I often get first post :)

He's pretty good about not banning people though, I have to hand it to him.

Date: 2012/07/28 12:58:25, Link
Author: Febble
It occurs to me that perhaps Cornelius' tolerance of dissent is just that he hasn't figured out how to ban people.

Date: 2013/03/23 12:42:20, Link
Author: Febble
Sorry, yes it's a very cheap hosting service.

Date: 2013/03/28 15:45:44, Link
Author: Febble
To be fair, KF was probably thinking of the Expelled, not the banned from UD.

Date: 2013/04/01 09:09:31, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Patrick @ April 01 2013,08:36)
Quote (Driver @ Mar. 31 2013,10:38)
Or just ask him about magenta.


Magenta is quite underrated.


It's my favorite example.

That, and yellow.

Date: 2013/04/17 03:17:26, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ April 16 2013,20:47)
Yes, I really am pushing their buttons, aren't I?   But I haven't crossed a line yet -- I've just been really annoying -- so it's hard for them to justify banning me.  I figure, I'll get banned only if I lose my temper and say something crass or insulting.  As long as I can keep my cool, what can they do except hope that I eventually go away?

You have no way of knowing whether you've crossed a line or not, because the line is redrawn daily wherever Barry wants it to be.

In fact it took Barry a few days after he'd banned me to figure out a reason, and when he did it was for something I'd never said.

Date: 2013/04/21 03:08:03, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ April 20 2013,16:25)
A few of you had said that you're enjoyed what I was contributing to Uncommon Descent, so I feel some small obligation to let you know that I just can't do it anymore.  When I saw that Arrington has basically 'called me out', it struck me just how much of a bully he is.  I don't like bullies, I certainly don't respect them, and I don't want to feed his ego by giving him any attention.  And I don't like what's happening to me through my participation in Uncommon Descent.  It's not just mere stupidity or foolishness, but something much more pathological, and psychopathologies are communicable diseases, contracted by communicating.  So for the sake of my own basic psychic hygiene, I'm withdrawing from my involvement there.   They'll need to find someone else to pick on.

Yes, he is a bully.

I do hope you will continue to post at TSZ, though.  I've got lots of questions to ask you!

ETA: I'm Lizzie.



Date: 2013/04/26 05:01:13, Link
Author: Febble
Only 5,681, and quite a lot of that is title:


FOR RECORD: AF’s insistent strawman misrepresentation tactics and false accusation of fraud (“CSI is a bogus concept so it would not figure in anyone’s calculations . . . “) exposed . . .


Comments are closed.



Date: 2013/05/04 04:14:19, Link
Author: Febble
I lost count of the number of spontaneous abortions I had.  Some of them were only diagnosed post hoc, as I'd lost the pregnancy before testing -  early pregnancy testing was expensive in those days, and they'd take a blood sample as soon as I thought I might be pregnant, and then test it later if I bled.  I got as far as 10 weeks a couple of times.

Luckily my very last egg, stayed put, and my son turns 20 later this year.

bpragmatic: fuck you.



Date: 2013/05/11 03:06:22, Link
Author: Febble
The emoticon went crazy, and added words to your last paragraph?

Awesome!

Date: 2013/05/11 09:52:15, Link
Author: Febble
I'm trying to sort it out.  It's supposed to renew automatically, but something's gone wrong with the paypal account, I don't know what.

They should be getting back to me shortly.

Date: 2013/05/11 15:04:19, Link
Author: Febble
The card is in date, the problem seems to be with paypal, and they won't take the card.

There is nothing wrong with paypal either, and register.com successfully took some money from it yesterday.

I don't know what the problem is.  It's bloody annoying.

Date: 2013/05/11 16:03:47, Link
Author: Febble
Apparently they can't sort it out until Monday.  Bummer.

The person at register.com even tried to reinstate it for $0, but the payment wouldn't go through.

I have no idea what the problem is, but it seems to be at their end.

Date: 2013/05/12 04:33:32, Link
Author: Febble
The problem is not with the hosting service this time, which isn't great (webhostingpad), but is cheap, and my contract extends until next year.  When it expires I will probably go for a fancier hosting service.

The problem this time is with the domain name,  with register.com.  For some reason they can't process my payment for the domain name renewal, and their billing department only works weekdays.

I hope it will be sorted out on Monday.  The problem may be with paypal, but from what I can see from my paypal account, there is no problem, and register.com successfully took out a payment for my domain name insurance on Friday.  So it is a very irritating mystery.  Apologies to all.

Date: 2013/05/12 04:36:36, Link
Author: Febble
I have to say that webhostingpad were great about sorting out the hack - they found the malignant code very quickly.  Too late to save the user database though.

But they do seem to have a lot of down time.  I think I'll see my contract out though.

Date: 2013/05/12 05:09:44, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (keiths @ May 11 2013,17:01)
Quote (Febble @ May 11 2013,14:03)
Apparently they can't sort it out until Monday.  Bummer.

The person at register.com even tried to reinstate it for $0, but the payment wouldn't go through.

I have no idea what the problem is, but it seems to be at their end.

Lizzie,

I'd be happy to make the payment from my PayPal account while you wait for them to sort things out.

PM me with the necessary details if you'd like me to go ahead.

Thanks keiths.  I'm not even sure if that would work - I tried using my son's credit card, but that also stalled.  There seems to be some hold on my account.

Register.com has promised that the problem is at the top of the list for Monday morning. I think we just have to wait.

Date: 2013/05/13 07:22:20, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 13 2013,06:29)
@ Lizzie

You might take a look at OVH.com as a hosting service. They throw in domain name registration for free which makes life simpler. I have used them as a service provider for 8 years or so with never a problem.

Thanks, I will.

Date: 2013/05/13 07:51:16, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (olegt @ May 13 2013,07:33)
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,07:32)
Quote (olegt @ May 13 2013,07:31)
Wikipedia: Two sets are equal (one and the same) if and only if every element of one is an element of the other.

Two sets- what part of two sets don't you understand, oleg?

Joe, you understand what "one and the same" means? Apparently not. LOL

Joe, you know that violating the Law of Identity is a banning offence on UD?  Even if you do it on a different site!

A set cannot be A and not-A, right?

So if the set A = {1 2 3} and the set B = {1 2 3}

B=A, right?

So B cannot also be not-A?

That means that "B" and "A" must be different names for the same set, right?

Whereas "Joe's cheese pizza" and "Lizzie's cheese pizza" are not names for the same pizza.  They are names for different pizzas.  Unless we agree to share a pizza, in which case they will be two names for the same pizza, just like A and B are two names for the same set!

Date: 2013/05/13 07:59:21, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,07:41)
Quote (Andy Schueler @ May 13 2013,07:40)
 
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,07:37)
 
Quote (Andy Schueler @ May 13 2013,07:36)
   
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,07:34)
Perhaps oleg should just reference support for his claim by finding something that says a set is a superset of itself.

He did. But you don´t get it because you have no reading comprehension above the 4th grade level.

No, he didn't. And you shouldn't be talking about reading comprehension...

Yes he did, and repeating "fuck you asshole, your link supports what I said" ad nauseam doesn´t change that.

Reference it then, asshole.

Here you go, Joe:

http://planetmath.org/superse....uperset

Quote
Every set is a superset of itself, and every set is a superset of the empty set.

Date: 2013/05/13 08:04:05, Link
Author: Febble
or try:

http://tinyurl.com/cmjr6re....cmjr6re

Date: 2013/05/13 08:34:07, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,08:00)
Quote (Febble @ May 13 2013,07:51)
Quote (olegt @ May 13 2013,07:33)
 
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,07:32)
 
Quote (olegt @ May 13 2013,07:31)
Wikipedia: Two sets are equal (one and the same) if and only if every element of one is an element of the other.

Two sets- what part of two sets don't you understand, oleg?

Joe, you understand what "one and the same" means? Apparently not. LOL

Joe, you know that violating the Law of Identity is a banning offence on UD?  Even if you do it on a different site!

A set cannot be A and not-A, right?

So if the set A = {1 2 3} and the set B = {1 2 3}

B=A, right?

So B cannot also be not-A?

That means that "B" and "A" must be different names for the same set, right?

Whereas "Joe's cheese pizza" and "Lizzie's cheese pizza" are not names for the same pizza.  They are names for different pizzas.  Unless we agree to share a pizza, in which case they will be two names for the same pizza, just like A and B are two names for the same set!

Lizzie,

Go fuck yourself. Being equal does not mean they are the same set. They are still set A and set B. You are still comparing A to B.

But even if a set can be a superset of itself, so what? What does that mean wrt nested hierarchies?

Well, what it means that we can arrange living things very nicely into non-overlapping nested sets, which is what Linnaeus noticed, and did.  

Let's put all the living things we know about into a vast superset containing: organisms that have cells and DNA.

This set contains two subsets:

Organisms without nuclei (prokaryotes) and Organisms with nuclei (eukaryotes)

Within each of these subsets we have further subsets, and so on.

What is noticeable how easy this process is - organisms fall very readily into these nested, non-overlapping subsets.  Occasionally we find something that doesn't seem to do this, and we ask why?  But the remarkable thing is just how non-overlapping the natural sets are, and how, when we do find an apparent overlap, there turns out to be a mechanism that accounts for it.

This doesn't prove evolution of course, but it does require some kind of explanation.  Design is not an obvious explanation, because when we do the same with designed things, although we do get a fair degree of nesting, we find far more frequent overlapping sets.  This is, of course, because human designers can translate an innovation from one design "lineage" to another.

The remarkable lack of overlap that we observe in the sets of living things suggest that whatever created their diversity, it was some process that could not transfer an innovation in one set across the boundary to another set, suggesting that  innovations in living things pass pretty strictly down the line of inheritance.  So any Design hypothesis should probably assume that the Designer, or Design process worked on creating heritable innovation online, as it were, as needed, working with what was already there, rather than designing each organism either from scratch or from a set of optimised modules.

Date: 2013/05/13 08:48:32, Link
Author: Febble
To be fair to Joe, while it is true that if A={1 2 3} and B={1 2 3}

A is a superset of A
A is a subset of A
A is a superset of B
A is a subset of B
B is a superset of B
B is a subset of B
B is a superset of A
B is a subset of A

all these are "Improper supersets" or "Improper subsets".

A "Proper superset" is a superset that is not the entire set, and a "Proper subset" is defined as a subset that excludes at least one member of the set of which it is a subset.

Interestingly, the empty set {} is a Proper subset of both A and B, and all non-empty sets are Proper supersets containing the empty set.

(Hope I got that right.)



Date: 2013/05/13 08:51:16, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (olegt @ May 13 2013,08:50)
Quote (Febble @ May 13 2013,08:48)
To be fair to Joe, while it is true that if A={1 2 3} and B={1 2 3}

A is a superset of A
A is a subset of A
A is a superset of B
A is a subset of B
B is a superset of B
B is a subset of B
B is a superset of A
B is a subset of A

all these are "Improper supersets" or "Improper subsets".  of these are "Proper supersets" or "Proper subsets".

A "Proper superset" is a superset that is not the entire set, and a "Proper subset" is defined as a subset that excludes at least one member of the set of which it is a subset.

Interestingly, the empty set {} is a Proper subset of both A and B, and all non-empty sets are Proper supersets containing the empty set.

(Hope I got that right.)

That's right, Lizzie, and I mentioned proper v. improper sets up the thread. A set is its own superset, but not a proper one.

Ah, sorry, missed it.  Got a bit boggled by all these nested quotes/sets!

Date: 2013/05/13 09:02:06, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,08:55)
Quote (olegt @ May 13 2013,08:46)
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,08:45)
 
Quote (olegt @ May 13 2013,08:42)
 
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,08:40)
What does it have to do with nested hierarchies, oleg? If it has nothing to do with it then you are just an asshole for even bringing it up.

Doesn't matter at this point. You have for a long time argued against this statement. What's your position on it now?

Of course it matters, oleg. YOU brought up nested hierarchies and then switched it to this.

And don't blame me because I provided references that supported my claim.

But what is your claim, Joe? That a set cannot be its own superset? Come on, spit it out! :)

My claim is a set cannot be its own proper superset.

Cool.  Because clearly improper super and subsets are irrelevant to nested hierarchies of living things.

Clades consist of a superset containing nested proper subsets, where each subset excludes organisms in the superset that contains it on the basis of an additional criterion, such as "must have a backbone to be in this subset" or "must have flow-through lungs to be in this subset".

Date: 2013/05/13 09:05:24, Link
Author: Febble
I wouldn't push it, Joe!  After all, "improper superset" and "proper superset" are subsets of "superset"!

But at least we are all on the same page now.

Date: 2013/05/13 09:40:01, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:35)
Quote (olegt @ May 13 2013,06:30)
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,06:19)
 
Quote (olegt @ May 12 2013,11:59)
And is a set its own superset?

So many questions, Joe. So little time.

Are all sets nested hierarchies?

Not all sets are nested hierarchies, Joe.

Now you answer my question. Is a set its own superset?

No,  a set is its own improper superset. That is if olegt really wants to be technical and precise.

I have to ask, Joe: is an improper superset a superset?

Date: 2013/05/13 12:21:43, Link
Author: Febble
OK, the domain name has been renewed.

Not sure how long it will take for the site to work. Hopefully not too long...

Date: 2013/05/13 12:23:53, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (socle @ May 13 2013,09:53)
Quote (Febble @ May 13 2013,09:40)
   
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:35)
   
Quote (olegt @ May 13 2013,06:30)
     
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,06:19)
     
Quote (olegt @ May 12 2013,11:59)
And is a set its own superset?

So many questions, Joe. So little time.

Are all sets nested hierarchies?

Not all sets are nested hierarchies, Joe.

Now you answer my question. Is a set its own superset?

No,  a set is its own improper superset. That is if olegt really wants to be technical and precise.

I have to ask, Joe: is an improper superset a superset?

No!  Likewise, a cheese pizza is not a pizza!


Well, to be fair, I've had improper pizzas that weren't exactly pizzas....

Date: 2013/05/13 12:25:37, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (socle @ May 13 2013,09:53)
Quote (Febble @ May 13 2013,09:40)
   
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:35)
     
Quote (olegt @ May 13 2013,06:30)
     
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,06:19)
       
Quote (olegt @ May 12 2013,11:59)
And is a set its own superset?

So many questions, Joe. So little time.

Are all sets nested hierarchies?

Not all sets are nested hierarchies, Joe.

Now you answer my question. Is a set its own superset?

No,  a set is its own improper superset. That is if olegt really wants to be technical and precise.

I have to ask, Joe: is an improper superset a superset?

No!  Likewise, a cheese pizza is not a pizza!


Well, to be fair, I've had improper pizzas that weren't exactly pizzas....

Date: 2013/05/13 13:34:13, Link
Author: Febble
They say 12-24 hours.

Date: 2013/05/13 14:50:11, Link
Author: Febble
Working intermittently for me.  I expect it'll settle down.

Date: 2013/05/14 09:21:10, Link
Author: Febble
It's still intermittent for me.  I guess the bugs will get out of the system eventually.

I've been having a hilarious conversation with what seems to be a support-bot at register.com.

I've given up trying to get any sense out of it.  Now it just posts:

Quote
Recently you requested personal assistance from our on-line support center. Below is a summary of your request and our response.

If this issue is not resolved to your satisfaction, you may reopen by replying to this email.

Thank you for allowing us to be of service to you.


And when I do, I get the same message back.

Date: 2013/05/14 10:38:41, Link
Author: Febble
After the human species goes extinct, will the internet keep on going, sending useless messages from bot to bot?

Date: 2013/05/14 12:28:50, Link
Author: Febble
Oh yes!  I'd forgotten.

Blimey.  It seemed so much less plausible when I read it back when.

Date: 2013/05/15 05:35:22, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (The whole truth @ May 15 2013,05:33)
I would be interested in seeing what Elizabeth Liddle thinks about whether gordo and/or joey can be accurately labeled as psychotic and/or psychopathic.

I don't think any one can label anyone with a psychiatric diagnosis on the basis of what they write on the internet.


So, no.

Date: 2013/05/15 13:05:11, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (The whole truth @ May 15 2013,11:03)
Quote (Febble @ May 15 2013,03:35)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ May 15 2013,05:33)
I would be interested in seeing what Elizabeth Liddle thinks about whether gordo and/or joey can be accurately labeled as psychotic and/or psychopathic.

I don't think any one can label anyone with a psychiatric diagnosis on the basis of what they write on the internet.


So, no.

So then, law enforcement/government/medical agencies that employ psychologists or psychiatrists to analyze what some people say on the internet, and to diagnose and/or treat those people, sometimes with the approval of the person being diagnosed/treated, shouldn't be doing that?

You are aware, aren't you, that what some people say on the internet can be used to diagnose mental illness (or the lack thereof) in criminal cases, and that in some cases what people say on the internet, or just look at, is much of or the entire basis for diagnosis, prosecution and/or sentencing/treatment?

If you don't want to state your opinion because you're concerned about your professional position and being sued (or some other response) by gordo or joey, I'd rather that you just say so. Frankly, I think that the reason you stated is a cop out. gordo and joey have extensive backgrounds on the internet and they have been spewing essentially the same shit for a long time. It should be easy for someone with your background to say whether they can accurately be labeled as psychotic and/or psychopathic.

I also think that if you really believe that they can't or shouldn't be diagnosed by what they say on the internet and if you're concerned about your professional position, lawsuits, etc., then you shouldn't say anything whatsoever as to whether they are dishonest, accusatory, ignorant*, or anything else that could be seen by them as an informal diagnosis of their mental condition by someone who shouldn't do that in a non-clinical setting because of their professional position. Of course if you were to restrict yourself to that extent you wouldn't be able to effectively argue against anything they say. I feel that you should be able to argue against anything they say in pretty much any way, including being unafraid to state your opinion about their mental condition.

*Whether you use those words or not.

By now you may think that I'm inconsistent, or worse. In some of my comments I appear to be defending you while in others I appear to be giving you a hard time. Some things really bug me so I often speak up about those things, no matter who is involved.

No, you can't make a psychiatric diagnosis on the basis of what someone posts on the internet.

Not that I'm a clinician anyway.  And not that psychiatric diagnoses are clear-cut anyway.  

But here are some internet diagnoses you can use:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed.....dex.htm

Date: 2013/05/15 14:56:29, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (The whole truth @ May 15 2013,14:26)
[/quote]
Quote (Febble @ May 15 2013,11:05)
   
Quote (The whole truth @ May 15 2013,11:03)
     
Quote (Febble @ May 15 2013,03:35)
       
Quote (The whole truth @ May 15 2013,05:33)
I would be interested in seeing what Elizabeth Liddle thinks about whether gordo and/or joey can be accurately labeled as psychotic and/or psychopathic.

I don't think any one can label anyone with a psychiatric diagnosis on the basis of what they write on the internet.


So, no.

So then, law enforcement/government/medical agencies that employ psychologists or psychiatrists to analyze what some people say on the internet, and to diagnose and/or treat those people, sometimes with the approval of the person being diagnosed/treated, shouldn't be doing that?

You are aware, aren't you, that what some people say on the internet can be used to diagnose mental illness (or the lack thereof) in criminal cases, and that in some cases what people say on the internet, or just look at, is much of or the entire basis for diagnosis, prosecution and/or sentencing/treatment?

If you don't want to state your opinion because you're concerned about your professional position and being sued (or some other response) by gordo or joey, I'd rather that you just say so. Frankly, I think that the reason you stated is a cop out. gordo and joey have extensive backgrounds on the internet and they have been spewing essentially the same shit for a long time. It should be easy for someone with your background to say whether they can accurately be labeled as psychotic and/or psychopathic.

I also think that if you really believe that they can't or shouldn't be diagnosed by what they say on the internet and if you're concerned about your professional position, lawsuits, etc., then you shouldn't say anything whatsoever as to whether they are dishonest, accusatory, ignorant*, or anything else that could be seen by them as an informal diagnosis of their mental condition by someone who shouldn't do that in a non-clinical setting because of their professional position. Of course if you were to restrict yourself to that extent you wouldn't be able to effectively argue against anything they say. I feel that you should be able to argue against anything they say in pretty much any way, including being unafraid to state your opinion about their mental condition.

*Whether you use those words or not.

By now you may think that I'm inconsistent, or worse. In some of my comments I appear to be defending you while in others I appear to be giving you a hard time. Some things really bug me so I often speak up about those things, no matter who is involved.

No, you can't make a psychiatric diagnosis on the basis of what someone posts on the internet.

Not that I'm a clinician anyway.  And not that psychiatric diagnoses are clear-cut anyway.  

But here are some internet diagnoses you can use:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed.....dex.htm

So no one has ever been diagnosed and/or convicted of pedophilia (for example) solely on what they said or even just looked at on the internet?


Possessing child porn is an offence in many jurisdictions.  So, clearly, if you have child porn on your computer, that is evidence that you have committed an offence.

Subsequently, someone may, or may not, diagnose you with a psychiatric disorder.

Quote

"As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ophilia

Some psychological/psychiatric diagnoses are clear cut enough to put people in prison or mental institutions, and/or to put them on very tight restrictions, powerful drugs, and other 'treatment' whether they like it or not.


If people are putting people in prison or mental institutions on the basis of lawful internet posting then I'd like to know about it.

Quote
With that link are you saying that I'm going about it all wrong and instead should try to reason with deranged, unreasonable IDiot-creationists who have never shown the slightest trace of honesty and decency toward people who disagree with them?


Of course not.  I'm saying that we have a range of perfectly valid diagnoses that can be applied to internet posters!  They just aren't psychiatric diagnoses.

Date: 2013/05/16 13:50:48, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (damitall @ May 16 2013,12:17)
KF is now ranting about "progressivist" anti-Christian bias in education (another huge URL that makes you tired just reading it)

DonaldM asks questions of us.

Quote
1. How do you know scientifically (and I emphasize “scientifically” here because I want to make it clear that theological, metaphysical or philosophical opinions – while important for other reasons – have no bearing on the question at hand) that the properties of the Cosmos are such that any apparent design we observe in natural systems can not be actual design, even in principle?

2. How do you know scientifically that Nature (or the Cosmos) is a completely closed system of natural cause and effect? (Recall Dawkins claim that a universe superintended by a Deity would look much different than ours as he says in The God Delusion several times)

3. How do you know scientifically that the properties of biological systems are such that any apparent design we observe in them can not be actual design, even in principle? (The Blind Watchmaker and Dawkins’s claim that “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance [emphasis mine] of having been designed for a purpose.”)

4. How do you know scientifically that no supernatural being, if such actually existed, could ever take any action within nature itself that would produce observable phenomenon or effect any change in the arrangement of matter or energy anywhere in the Cosmos?


I guess the answer to each one is "Scientifically, we don't know. Just as soon as you've worked out a way to investigate these things scientifically, let us know. In the meantime, absent any evidence for supernatural designers, we'll carry on with something useful, thanks."

heh.  I just did a post about that.

I must get something more interesting up.  Nagel, and Krauss.

Date: 2013/05/17 02:54:54, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (The whole truth @ May 16 2013,20:39)
Quote (Febble @ May 15 2013,12:56)
Quote (The whole truth @ May 15 2013,14:26)

 
Quote (Febble @ May 15 2013,11:05)
     
Quote (The whole truth @ May 15 2013,11:03)
       
Quote (Febble @ May 15 2013,03:35)
         
Quote (The whole truth @ May 15 2013,05:33)
I would be interested in seeing what Elizabeth Liddle thinks about whether gordo and/or joey can be accurately labeled as psychotic and/or psychopathic.

I don't think any one can label anyone with a psychiatric diagnosis on the basis of what they write on the internet.


So, no.

So then, law enforcement/government/medical agencies that employ psychologists or psychiatrists to analyze what some people say on the internet, and to diagnose and/or treat those people, sometimes with the approval of the person being diagnosed/treated, shouldn't be doing that?

You are aware, aren't you, that what some people say on the internet can be used to diagnose mental illness (or the lack thereof) in criminal cases, and that in some cases what people say on the internet, or just look at, is much of or the entire basis for diagnosis, prosecution and/or sentencing/treatment?

If you don't want to state your opinion because you're concerned about your professional position and being sued (or some other response) by gordo or joey, I'd rather that you just say so. Frankly, I think that the reason you stated is a cop out. gordo and joey have extensive backgrounds on the internet and they have been spewing essentially the same shit for a long time. It should be easy for someone with your background to say whether they can accurately be labeled as psychotic and/or psychopathic.

I also think that if you really believe that they can't or shouldn't be diagnosed by what they say on the internet and if you're concerned about your professional position, lawsuits, etc., then you shouldn't say anything whatsoever as to whether they are dishonest, accusatory, ignorant*, or anything else that could be seen by them as an informal diagnosis of their mental condition by someone who shouldn't do that in a non-clinical setting because of their professional position. Of course if you were to restrict yourself to that extent you wouldn't be able to effectively argue against anything they say. I feel that you should be able to argue against anything they say in pretty much any way, including being unafraid to state your opinion about their mental condition.

*Whether you use those words or not.

By now you may think that I'm inconsistent, or worse. In some of my comments I appear to be defending you while in others I appear to be giving you a hard time. Some things really bug me so I often speak up about those things, no matter who is involved.

No, you can't make a psychiatric diagnosis on the basis of what someone posts on the internet.

Not that I'm a clinician anyway.  And not that psychiatric diagnoses are clear-cut anyway.  

But here are some internet diagnoses you can use:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed.....dex.htm

So no one has ever been diagnosed and/or convicted of pedophilia (for example) solely on what they said or even just looked at on the internet?


Possessing child porn is an offence in many jurisdictions.  So, clearly, if you have child porn on your computer, that is evidence that you have committed an offence.

Subsequently, someone may, or may not, diagnose you with a psychiatric disorder.

 
Quote

"As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ophilia

Some psychological/psychiatric diagnoses are clear cut enough to put people in prison or mental institutions, and/or to put them on very tight restrictions, powerful drugs, and other 'treatment' whether they like it or not.


If people are putting people in prison or mental institutions on the basis of lawful internet posting then I'd like to know about it.

 
Quote
With that link are you saying that I'm going about it all wrong and instead should try to reason with deranged, unreasonable IDiot-creationists who have never shown the slightest trace of honesty and decency toward people who disagree with them?


Of course not.  I'm saying that we have a range of perfectly valid diagnoses that can be applied to internet posters!  They just aren't psychiatric diagnoses.[/quote]
You're dodging the point.

I have a question for you and anyone else who doesn't like the terms psychotic and/or psychopathic being applied to gordo, joey, and other IDiots:

Is it because you think that the application of either or both of those terms confirms that the persons they're applied to have a 'disease' that they cannot help, and that if those terms are applied to gordo, joey, and other IDiots, especially by someone with a psychological/psychiatric education and research background, it could or would make you feel bad for some or all of the negative things that you've said to or about gordo, joey, and other IDiots?

I'm not dodging any point.  If I haven't addressed your point, it's because I've missed it, not that I've dodged it.

The answer to your question is no.

OK?

Date: 2013/05/17 05:15:25, Link
Author: Febble
I'm not trying to be stroppy, TWT, it's just that you asked my opinion, and I gave it, which is that you can't make a psychiatric diagnosis on the basis of internet posts.

That is simply true.  To make a psychiatric diagnosis you need to a detailed interview and examination by a psychiatrist.  You can suspect a psychiatric diagnosis in the absence of other information, but you can't actually make a diagnosis, and I suggest you'd be frequently wrong.  KF and Joe G could be AtBC trolls for all we know :)

As for the issue of whether a psychiatric diagnosis gives impunity - no, it doesn't, in my view. I don't think moral responsibility is a function of your diagnostic state.  I don't even think that psychiatric conditions are binary anyway - most people lie on a continuum, and between well and ill is essentially arbitrary - in fact, I'd say the only sensible place to draw it is where causes undue distress or danger to yourself or others.

And even that is fuzzy.

And in fact "psychopathy" is not even a psychiatric diagnosis.  It's usually measured on a scale, and if you score high, it can indicate a personality disorder, which is.  But not necessarily -which is why you can't make a psychiatric diagnosis on the internet!

Peace.

Lizzie

Date: 2013/05/17 07:51:11, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (The whole truth @ May 17 2013,07:02)
Elizabeth, I want to think about what you've said. I'll get back to you later.

No problem :)

And in the mean time, I see I have provoked another Joe G meltdown on UD :)

Maybe "meltdown" should have an entry in DSM VI?

Date: 2013/05/17 09:47:00, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ May 17 2013,09:34)
Quote (Febble @ May 17 2013,07:51)
And in the mean time, I see I have provoked another Joe G meltdown on UD :)

Maybe "meltdown" should have an entry in DSM VI?

JoeTard has been quite obsessed with you the last month or so Dr. Liddle.  I agree intelligence is quite attractive, and you are still quite the coug  ;)  but JoeTard's fixation is all negative. Fully half of his posts at his blog and at UD have been taking cheap shots knowing that you can't respond.  I think it just eats at his craw daily that he's the only one who ever got himself banned from TSZ.  :p

Yeah, that's weird.  I assume he posted that link so I'd ban him.  Maybe he really thought I wouldn't.

Date: 2013/05/17 17:06:12, Link
Author: Febble
I've also seen some really good science from people who were mentally ill.

In fact I'm not sure I've met a scientist who was entirely sane.  
And as for mathematicians...

Date: 2013/05/18 09:20:11, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (k.e.. @ May 18 2013,05:33)
Quote (Henry J @ May 18 2013,08:37)
Quote (k.e.. @ May 17 2013,23:08)
I wonder if Joe would do any better than AFDave on imaginary numbers?

That's a complex subject.

yeah he couldn't conjugate them

'cos it's a sin.

Date: 2013/05/18 11:06:56, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (olegt @ May 18 2013,09:56)
Quote (Febble @ May 18 2013,09:20)
Quote (k.e.. @ May 18 2013,05:33)
 
Quote (Henry J @ May 18 2013,08:37)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ May 17 2013,23:08)
I wonder if Joe would do any better than AFDave on imaginary numbers?

That's a complex subject.

yeah he couldn't conjugate them

'cos it's a sin.

Absolute rubbish. That's not even an argument.

It's tangential, agreed.

Date: 2013/05/18 11:09:15, Link
Author: Febble
Hey, Joe!  Why don't you ask Kairosfocus how he computes P(T|H) for FSCO/I?

I've been googling all afternoon and I can't find it.

Date: 2013/05/18 11:32:41, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Joe G @ May 18 2013,11:18)
Quote (Febble @ May 18 2013,11:09)
Hey, Joe!  Why don't you ask Kairosfocus how he computes P(T|H) for FSCO/I?

I've been googling all afternoon and I can't find it.

Hi Lizzie,

I have explained why you are full of shit. Deal with it.

Joe, just because you (or kairosfocus) have "explained" something, doesn't mean you are correct.

In this case, you are incorrect.

That's no shame, but failing to consider it possible is.

Look up Countably Infinite sets

Date: 2013/05/18 13:35:31, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Joe G @ May 18 2013,13:01)
Quote (Febble @ May 18 2013,11:32)
Quote (Joe G @ May 18 2013,11:18)
 
Quote (Febble @ May 18 2013,11:09)
Hey, Joe!  Why don't you ask Kairosfocus how he computes P(T|H) for FSCO/I?

I've been googling all afternoon and I can't find it.

Hi Lizzie,

I have explained why you are full of shit. Deal with it.

Joe, just because you (or kairosfocus) have "explained" something, doesn't mean you are correct.

In this case, you are incorrect.

That's no shame, but failing to consider it possible is.

Look up Countably Infinite sets

Lizzie,

You don't have a clue. For example, Dr Nim works as designed. It's decision making traces back to its creator(s) and designer(s). It is an extension of their agency.

Next science is not conducted via one photograph. Scientists get to look at what they are trying to figure out. Now if the glacier carves a happy face into a rock, then you will have something- or if the ash pattern was that of a smiley face, tehn you would have a point.

However it is obvious to all IDists that you are totally fucking clueless wrt everything ID.

And that you cannot address my explanations that you are full of shit, pretty much seals the deal that you are.

You are more than welcome to try to respond on my blog- or even here or on your own blog. But your hand-wave is pure cowardice.

Joe, if you read more than the first sentence of stuff, then you'd know more.

just sayin'

Date: 2013/05/18 16:43:24, Link
Author: Febble
I don't think Joe is stupid, and he's made some good points occasionally.

His main problem is that he doesn't know what he doesn't know.

And his manners are terrible.

Date: 2013/05/19 03:57:46, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (k.e.. @ May 18 2013,20:46)
Quote (Febble @ May 19 2013,00:43)
I don't think Joe is stupid, and he's made some good points occasionally.

His main problem is that he doesn't know what he doesn't know.

And his manners are terrible.

Joe thinks out of his ass and plainly has a very poor if not even high school education. IF he did actually get through one it would have been at the bottom of the class with fails in ALL science like subjects.

He doesn't know what he doesn't know because he can't and pathologically refuses to learn.

He drank the cool aid and took easy way out.

He might learn something if he actually shut up and listened instead of shouting everyone down that HE is RIGHT. That might work when ordering a beer in some slum but not in a class that has an exam at the end.

If you think he's not stupid what is your explanation for why can't he make the basic abstract connections and simple jumps you would expect of a freshman? He wouldn't get through the first week of a Math degree.

Joe is the poster-boy for stupid (ID) America.

They are fish in a barrel waiting to be shot.
If he wants to come here for a perpetual wedgie then that's his problem, its recorded for posterior-ty.
Along with the cover ups and lies on his blog.

Hat tip to Steve Story for the latest meltdown.

The question and his abject lack of understanding of the question's MEANING is the difference between ID and science.
YEC's took the cool aid and carbon dating is just some post modernist "thruthiness".

That is the problem and education unfortunately is not the answer.
It's a war.
That's how Joe and ID see it and what 'science' fails to understand.
Joe and ID would rather steal and destroy than toil to bring about their theocratic dystopia.
All Joe is, is a willfully ignorant petty tyrant.

I just meant that he's got the smarts to learn if he would.

But the first step in learning is, as you say (and I said), knowing what you don't know.

Or at least being prepared to find out that there's something you don't know.

And of course being prepared to find out that what you thought you knew isn't necessarily so.

I think myself it's perfectly reasonable, if you don't know the conventions, to think that "mol" must be short for molecule, or to think that the set from 1 to infinity is smaller than the set from 0 to infinity, or that an "improper" "set" isn't really a ("a proper") superset, or that "water" means H2O in liquid form, not solid form.

Plenty of people aren't smart enough to be even wrong about those things (and actually we say "water turns to ice" in normal English, so that distinction seems valid to me).

The trick is to see that perhaps there's more than one way of looking at these things, and that there are conventions of notation that you aren't aware of, and that people from different traditions use words in different ways.

It's that blindness I find terrifying, but it's not confined to theocrats.

And it's not confined to people as rude as Joe.  And tbh, I'd rather Joe's vulgarity than the arrogant pomposity of Eric Anderson's ignorance.  At least Joe steps outside his bubble.  Eric won't even, it seems, dare read a dissenting view.

Date: 2013/05/19 03:59:32, Link
Author: Febble
*is aware that the above probably reads like arrogant pomposity*

Date: 2013/05/19 07:34:59, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 19 2013,07:29)

Yeah, the viciousness is nasty.

And the misogyny.

Date: 2013/05/19 10:07:02, Link
Author: Febble
Joe always reminds me of Boney and the carol-singers in Laurie Lee's Cider with Rosie

Quote
As the night drew on there was trouble with Boney. ‘Noel’, for instance, had a rousing harmony which Boney persisted in singing, and singing flat.  The others forbade him to sing it at all, and Boney said he would fight us.  Picking himself up, he agreed we were right, then he disappeared altogether.  He just turned away and walked into the snow, and wouldn’t answer when we called him back.  Much later, as we reached a far point up the valley somebody said  ‘Hark!’, and we stopped to listen.  Far away across the fields from the distant village came the sound of a frail voice singing, singing Noel, and singing it flat – it was Boney, branching out on his own.


Apart from the "agreed we were right" part.



Date: 2013/05/20 06:22:28, Link
Author: Febble
If you are, so am I.

Date: 2013/05/20 07:07:12, Link
Author: Febble
Ah yes.  It's finally crossed the Atlantic.  Cool.

Date: 2013/05/20 07:08:30, Link
Author: Febble
In a Westerly direction I would point out.

Date: 2013/05/20 08:00:28, Link
Author: Febble
Ah.  So did Ian Richardson travel south, or Kevin Spacey? Urquhart or Underwood?

Date: 2013/05/20 08:03:42, Link
Author: Febble
It might be an emergency dump of dead cats ordered in to smother the incipient conflagration over Specification and Space-Time.

Date: 2013/05/20 08:25:46, Link
Author: Febble
Me me pick me!

I know!

What you do is is you figure out what the proportion of meaningful patterns is out of the total number of possible patterns, and you take the negative base two log!

Date: 2013/05/20 08:34:21, Link
Author: Febble
And to save time I put DAFT PUNK into an anagram finder, and there was only one entry.

And as DAFT PUNK has uniformly distributed alphabet of 8 symbols, it has 3 bits per letter (if we ignore the space) which gives us 24 bits of Shannon Information.

And, because only one of the possible sequences is specified, it also has 24 bits of CSI.

Date: 2013/05/20 08:35:52, Link
Author: Febble
Or, depending on your definition, it doesn't have CSI, because 24 is less than 500.

But its Specified Complexity is 24 in bits.

*needs to get a life*

Date: 2013/05/20 08:49:42, Link
Author: Febble
I'd say that was 1 out of 3.  

1.6 bits of CSI.

Date: 2013/05/20 08:50:48, Link
Author: Febble
Also, one is not a superset of the other.

Date: 2013/05/20 08:51:43, Link
Author: Febble
Bleak House, that is.

Date: 2013/05/20 08:54:50, Link
Author: Febble
Ooh, lots in Dutch:

Daf Punkt
Dank Puft
Dankt Puf
Paf Dunkt
Paft Dunk
Knap Duft
Knapt Duf

Date: 2013/05/20 08:55:55, Link
Author: Febble
And Swedish!

Fda Punkt
Tak Pfund
Kta Pfund
Akt Pfund
Fda Kpt Nu
Dpa F Knut
Pad F Knut
Fda Kn P Ut
Fda Kp N Ut
Knda F P Ut
Nda F Kp Ut
And F Kp Ut
Dna F Kp Ut
Dan F Kp Ut
Dpa F Kn Ut
Dpa Fn K Ut
Pad F Kn Ut
Pad Fn K Ut
Fan D Kp Ut
Fan Dk P Ut
Fat D Kp Nu
Ka Dpt F Nu
Knpa D F Ut
Kap D Fn Ut
Kap Nd F Ut
Kpa D Fn Ut
Kpa Nd F Ut
Fda K N P Ut
Nda F K P Ut
And F K P Ut
Dna F K P Ut
Dan F K P Ut
Dpa F K N Ut
Pad F K N Ut
Fan D K P Ut
Ka D Fn P Ut
Ka Nd F P Ut
Nka D F P Ut
Kan D F P Ut
Kap D F N Ut
Kpa D F N Ut
Ta D F Kp Nu
Ka D F N P Ut

Date: 2013/05/20 09:22:32, Link
Author: Febble
Absolutely.  Shannon Information in bits tells you the maximum the Specified Complexity can be.

It's what you'd get if the specification was absolutely unique.

The larger the set of Targets, the smaller the SC will be in bits.

However, that's not all you need for CSI (golly I actually forgot it myself, temporarily, I'm so used to IDists forgetting it).

To get CSI, you also need to know the probabilty of finding the Target given some search hypothesis (what Dembski calls P(T|H).

That might be random independent draws, in which case CSI will the SC (or rather, will be Yes if SC exceeds 500).

But you've also got to take into account other non-design searches, such as Darwinian and other materialistic mechanism when computing p(T|H).

The more likely T is, given H, the smaller SC is, and the less likely it is to hit the threshold.

So, all you've got to do now is figure out how likely it is that you will observer your Target if your non-design hypothesis is true (p(T|H) and you will be able to read out whether your design hypothesis is false!

Date: 2013/05/20 09:29:53, Link
Author: Febble
The weird thing is that CSI, or "chi" is not a number, it's a state.

If the number you get when you do the math is greater than a certain value, you "have" CSI, and the thing can only have been Designed.

If it isn't, it might have been, but it might not.

But the real problem for CSI (or any of the other things, FSCO/I, or whatever) thing isn't the Specification, though that's pretty intractable, or the Seth Lloyd number, which I think Dembski actually got wrong, but p(T|H), which I keep calling the eleP(T|H)ant in the room (because I like to recycle, and I drive a Prius) - even if you solve all the other parts of the equation, you are still stuck with the fact that you can't compute CSI unless you know how likely it is all possible non-design hypotheses, including ones you haven't even thought of yet, would result in your data.

In other words, you can only conclude that a thing was designed if you know that it is extremely unlikely that it wasn't.

At least, using CSI.  There are other methods, of course.

Date: 2013/05/20 10:00:02, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 20 2013,09:48)
"The target" or "A target"?

It seems to me that is the critical issue here.  Yes, a system may be complex and highly specified.  But if the system really is random (which evolution isn't) and other results are also complex and highly specified (but not for the same function), then that should basically mean that ID is wrong.

Like I said, there are some 720+ HLA-B alleles.  Compared to the random search space, that's a pretty small number.  But compared to a highly specific sequence, that's a huge number.  Plus, the IDists (or anyone for that matter) haven't determined that nothing else with a DNA sequence of that length, is useless.  

I'm repeating myself... unlike Joe, I'm sure you can remember my argument and points.

A target.

I think IDists stipulate that there's more than one needle in the haystack.

Date: 2013/05/20 10:25:55, Link
Author: Febble
Yes.  And that's before you even start on which tissues a given protein is expressed in, and what function(s) it may play in helping (or hindering) the organism's chances of successful reproduction.

But even that problem pales into insignificance when you realise that you've got to not just count the number of possible functional proteins but the probability that they can be accounted for by "Darwinian and other material mechanisms".

In other words, know your conclusion before you start to calculate :)

Essentially what CSI (and Fwhatevers) boils down to is:

If the probability of a pattern not being designed is p<1/10^150, then we must infer design.

tbh, I'd be happy with an alpha of considerably less than 1/10^150.

ETA a couple of zeros.  oops.



Date: 2013/05/20 15:18:22, Link
Author: Febble
Well, he could prove us all wrong by citing where anyone said anything even closely resembling "infinity is infinity you idiot!"

I don't recall anyone saying that all infinities had equal cardinality, only that Joe's two sets did.

Which they do by any definition of cardinality that I'm aware of other than Joe's.

Date: 2013/05/20 16:07:08, Link
Author: Febble
um 1/10^150.

Sorry.

Date: 2013/05/21 10:35:26, Link
Author: Febble
That's a shame that Denyse O'Leary has started spamming UD again.  When it moves slowly, the occasional interesting OP or thread stays around for awhile.

Ah well, it's not as though I haven't got better things to do.

Date: 2013/05/23 06:09:57, Link
Author: Febble
timothya: are you still having problems?

Date: 2013/05/23 06:18:36, Link
Author: Febble
I think KF is a classic example of what happens when you become so convinced that there is a conspiracy against your own views that you cut yourself off from any possibility of being persuaded by a counter-view.

Once you consider that all counter-views are, a priori, not to be trusted, then you have painted yourself into a corner.

It's not unique to religious people, or to the right.  I saw it happen on the left over the idea that Kerry had really won more votes than Bush, but that those votes had been stolen electronically.  Anybody proposing a counter-view was a priori considered a shill for Bush, and any counter-fact a fabrication.

Once you distrust all sources that tend to infirm your own conclusion you are stuck with it, whether it's right or wrong.  That's fundamentally why free speech and freedom of information are so important.  Not because they are prime "human rights" (freedom from hunger and poverty are more important IMO) but because when they are undermined, knowledge becomes impossible.  And knowledge is good.

[/soapbox]

Date: 2013/05/23 06:19:35, Link
Author: Febble
obvioulsy

Date: 2013/05/23 07:30:28, Link
Author: Febble
sets are the new mudkips?

Date: 2013/05/24 06:10:06, Link
Author: Febble
Well, a series of coin tosses is a vector, not a set, surely?

You can have a set of vectors, but a vector is not a set.

Date: 2013/05/24 07:50:37, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (JonF @ May 24 2013,07:22)

Trying to sort it out now.

Date: 2013/05/24 09:09:34, Link
Author: Febble
Hope to be back online with a new host shortly.

Date: 2013/05/24 10:10:12, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 24 2013,09:55)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ May 24 2013,09:44)
Quote (Febble @ May 24 2013,09:09)
Hope to be back online with a new host shortly.

Still, the "Account Suspended" error.

If the host is  hanging it could be a couple of days.

I hope not.  Last time something similar happened, they unsuspended it quite quickly, and when they do I will do the transfer.  The new host said it would only take a few hours.

Date: 2013/05/24 12:06:28, Link
Author: Febble
oh lord, you are right.

Well, right now, webhostingpad have stopped responding to emails.  I will be glad to move.

Date: 2013/05/24 12:08:46, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (eigenstate @ May 24 2013,10:56)
Sorry your site's down, I really enjoy reading TSZ, hope to find time to participate some this summer. As a web geek, I feel like I should be volunteering to help. I know there's many others here with mad skillz if you need, but if I can help you with the humdrum stuff of blog hosting/admin/maintenance, I'd be happy to help out.

Thanks!  I may well call on you for that.  Right now, I can't get at the site at all, back end or front.

grrrr.

Date: 2013/05/24 14:01:32, Link
Author: Febble
Yes.  There's a message on the site.  When I submitted the ticket they said:

Quote
Your account has been suspended because it was in violation of our abuse terms at http://www.webhostingpad.com/abusete....ms.html

All accounts will be only allowed to use 10% of CPU and memory and can not exceed a session longer then 10 min. This includes; but is not limited to; all database uses, email, cron jobs, and any other protocol sessions.


Then they said:

Quote
What are the steps you can take to avoid this from happening again?


So I said I would transfer to a different host.  But I can't get any further than that, and there are no support agents available right now.  I am emailing them every hour.

Date: 2013/05/24 15:33:47, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 24 2013,14:06)
Probably a bad move to tell them you are leaving. That could trigger the sales team.

I once spent three days trying to cancel long distance service with AT&T. At the end they asked a question I didn't understand. i gave the wrong answer and had to start over.

That's possible.  I've also phoned them twice now, and the person I spoke to completely unhelpful.

I'm still just waiting for a reply.  If they don't want my site on their server then they need to give me access so I can get it off there!

Date: 2013/05/24 15:55:23, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 24 2013,15:45)
Do you have any kind of local backup?

Some but not all.

I think eventually I'll get access, but right now, they are not responding to emails.

Apparently they are well known for this (duh).  It happened once before, because a plugin I had was consuming too much of their CPU.  But they did stay in contact, and eventually I tracked it down.  This time I can't even figure out what the problem is because I can't get at the cpanel!

I've been emailing them hourly.  The guy on the phone said I'd just have to wait my turn.

grrrrrrrrr

Date: 2013/05/25 04:11:49, Link
Author: Febble
OK, well I now have ftp access so I have a complete backup of the site as it last was.

Phew.

Now to transfer it to the new host....

Date: 2013/05/25 05:48:37, Link
Author: Febble
Looks like he got an MS, and learned that YEC is probably not correct.

Cool.

Date: 2013/05/25 09:15:24, Link
Author: Febble
Update:

Transfer to new host is ongoing, but nearly complete.

Date: 2013/05/25 10:19:13, Link
Author: Febble
I have your penguin safe :)

Right now there are some missing files from the download.  This is a bit of a marathon.  We'll get there, I think.

Date: 2013/05/25 12:47:12, Link
Author: Febble
I've transferred the domain, but it may take a while to propagate, and right now we are still missing some files, which webhostingpad says they have provided, but for some reason we can't download.

working on it....

Date: 2013/05/25 13:09:36, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (The whole truth @ May 25 2013,12:54)
TSZ shows up for me now.

ETA: I just went back to TSZ and found that I still can't get to any comments. I'm not trying to rush you Elizabeth, I'm just letting you know what I'm encountering so that you know what is working, for me at least.


ETA: Hmm, now when I go to TSZ, all I get is the account suspended page. Ain't the internet wonderful? :)

It's useful, thanks.

I have a temporary URL, which gets me to the site, but not formatted.

Hope things will be sorted soon.

Date: 2013/05/25 15:13:50, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (keiths @ May 25 2013,14:34)
Lizzie,

It seems like the old DNS entries are still propagating.

Did you change the entry at register.com to point to the new IP address, or are you using a new domain registration service altogether?

If the latter, then it's possible that the old and the new services are sending out conflicting DNS entries for your URL.  Which IP a user gets depends on which DNS entry was the last one received by his or her DNS server.

The first thing.

hooboy.

Date: 2013/05/26 02:33:31, Link
Author: Febble
Why does Denyse think that neuroplasticity is a problem for "materialists"?

Quote
Neuroplasticity findings are much avoided because they imply that what we think is real and has an effect.


"Avoided"?  Geez, we discovered it!

Date: 2013/05/26 04:21:38, Link
Author: Febble
That's a shame.  I've got penguins again, but it took overnight for me.

I did the dnsflush flushdns thing.  dunno if that helped.

Hey that google dns thing is awesome!  My internet experience is transformed!  Thanks midwifetoad!



Date: 2013/05/26 04:31:39, Link
Author: Febble
In sort of fairness to webhostingpad they were quite good over the hack.  And also, the last outage was the domain registrar (register.com) not webhostingpad.

The big problem with webhostingpad that they have these rules about how much service you can have, with no way of warning you when you are sailing close to the wind.

Which makes it useless, really.  And they don't tell you how to fix it, and once your account is suspended it seems you go to the bottom of the support priority queue.

Presumably they won't refund my remaining year's subscription, which makes them not even so cheap.   And loads of downtime of course.  Hope that will improve now.

Date: 2013/05/26 05:14:09, Link
Author: Febble
Well for a Canadian, and one who has actually co-authored a book on neuroscience, you'd have think she'd have a greater acquaintance with Donald Hebb.

Or perhaps she thinks that LTP and LTD result from non-material processes that is only coincidentally correlated with the firing of a synapse.

Or that the firing of synapses are unrelated to thought.

Or something.

It's weird.

Date: 2013/05/26 06:08:05, Link
Author: Febble
Try: TSZ

Date: 2013/05/27 06:48:09, Link
Author: Febble
I'm sure Axel is a troll.  

He was a sort-of troll at Democratic Underground as well. He was banned as KCabotDullesMarxIII, but seems to be reinstated as Joe Chi Minh.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss....#432474

But his schtick then was that Kerry was robbed of victory in 2004.

I find his DU persona somewhat more convincing than his UD one.

Tiresome in both, though.

ETA: maybe he isn't - maybe he really does have a very odd set of convictions:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Joe%20C....%20Minh

Still tiresome.



Date: 2013/05/27 06:58:42, Link
Author: Febble
With comments closed on KF's rants about me, Mung is reduced to spamming one of News's more bizarre posts:


Quote
OT: So EL is a lying liar who is “a lying hypocrite-with-respect-to-reason, who will say anything and its opposite.”

see here

Any chance UD will ever admit it was wrong in banning those who pointed out this fact long ago and issue an apology?


The demonisation is quite perplexing.

Date: 2013/05/30 09:08:51, Link
Author: Febble
Talking of Joe and Dembski - Joe is always saying I'm too chickenshit to write to Dembski.

Actually, I've done so twice now.

No response.

Who is a chickenshit again?

Date: 2013/05/31 02:57:12, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (CeilingCat @ May 30 2013,14:09)
Quote (REC @ May 30 2013,13:35)
 
Elsewhere is here:

Sal's Creationist Website

Launched recently, what content there is Sal's. And I'm no super-sleuth--my browser displays URLs to linked pictures. His Master's graduation pics are hosted there.

UD and ID are too weak to survive independently from their creationist origins....and Sal's got em--less science, more preaching, more Gish gallops.

More than a website.  It's Sal's Creationist University!
       
Quote
The mission of Creation Evoution Universtity is to provide online college-level resources for students, teachers and seekers interested in the topics of evolution, creation and intelligent design.   The website provides online course materials for students at the undergraduate and graduate level.   In addition to the course materials, the website houses a repository of scholarly articles, discussions and forums for ongoing research and educational projects.

Enroll your kids now!

Well he should probably learn to type "evolution" and "university" properly, before the site goes live.

Or at least use a spellchecker.

Not that I'm one to talk, but getting those particular words wrong looks a little silly.

Date: 2013/05/31 17:28:49, Link
Author: Febble
tbh, hatred isn't something I really understand.

Never have.  So I could be wrong :)

Date: 2013/06/01 04:36:32, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (The whole truth @ May 31 2013,21:31)
If she were a man, would the photo have bothered you as much?

Speaking personally, no, it wouldn't.  That's because there is a huge assymmetry in the way society associates beauty with personal quality. Lack of youth or beauty, or can hamper a woman's career in a way that simply does not hamper a man's.  Look at any tv show.  How many elderly ugly men do you see?  How many elderly ugly women?  What do the scars of injury do to a man's charisma, as opposed to a woman's?

Scribbling on a photo seems a pretty shoot-yourself-in-the-foot tactic to me anyway, but yes, I do think it is more offensive to do it to a woman, especially a middle-aged woman, than to do it to a man.

Date: 2013/06/01 12:45:59, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (midwifetoad @ June 01 2013,06:15)
Unless it's a BBC show.

The BBC is better than most, but still not good.

Kirsty Wark is a star, though.  Long may she rule.

Date: 2013/06/01 12:47:16, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 01 2013,09:38)
Alright, before the nonsense goes the way it always goes, this is the UD thread, let's get it back on topic. Take the feminism wars to the BW where they belong.

oops sorry.

Date: 2013/06/01 16:03:08, Link
Author: Febble
Interestingly, Joe says:

Quote
How can the LKN stop growing when all that has to be done to prevent that is add 1 to it?

And the onus would be on the person saying such a thing is impossible- ie it will become stuck.


I wonder if he would also ask why microevolution should stop, when all it has to do to keep going is to what it has been doing?  And that therefore the onus is on people claiming that microevolution is possible, but that macroevolution isn't, to demonstrate what would stop it?

Date: 2013/06/02 03:58:55, Link
Author: Febble
I guess my point is that no matter how equally we try to treat people, as long as inequality exists, the effects of ill-treatment will not be be equally felt.

And there is a fair bit of actual research that suggests that youth and beauty, or lack of it, tends to have more impact on the careers of women than on men.

Date: 2013/06/03 01:47:11, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (fnxtr @ June 02 2013,11:41)
"Don't photoshop O'Leary's image because she's a woman" ?

Really? Here?? Really?

I'm having a hard time understanding why she's not as viable a target as, say, Potassium Fluoride or GI Joe.  The Three Stooges wouldn't be as funny if they all looked like George Clooney. Or Maria Sharapova.

As Lou FCD said, we got all kinds here. An "I'll be in Scotland before ye" kind of thing.

(shrug) More tea? Gosh it's windy in there...

I didn't say that.  TWT asked if we'd find it as offensive if it had been a man.

I said I probably wouldn't, and explained why.

I didn't say he shouldn't do it.  Just noted why I found it more offensive.

My main criticism is that it's a counter-productive strategy. But TWT is entitled to disagree.  I'm certainly not trying to stop anyone doing anything.

Date: 2013/06/05 10:49:13, Link
Author: Febble
Cowardly in what sense, Thrinaxodon?

Date: 2013/06/05 10:56:05, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 05 2013,10:53)
It's called, "Deception by Omission".

I'm still not sure what you mean by "cowardly".  Do you mean that I (or the people who post there) are hiding something they are frightened to show?

Date: 2013/06/05 11:08:49, Link
Author: Febble
Anyone can post! (except for a single person who used to post there, and whom I banned for posting a porn link).

The only thing is, as with most sites, you have to register, but there is no approval process.  Are you having a problem with registration?  If so, let me know here, sometimes things go wrong.

Cheers

Lizzie

Date: 2013/06/05 11:53:38, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 05 2013,11:51)
No. This website, doesn't delete any content (other than spam).
http://members3.boardhost.com/john412....john412

Cool.

But nor do I delete content at TSZ, other than spam.

Did you not realise that?

Date: 2013/06/05 11:58:11, Link
Author: Febble
And to amplify what eigenstate said: yes, I do move posts occasionally to a publicly visible forum (not deleted), but that's only when the rules are violated, and the rules are their primarily to keep both sides from "beating each other up".  Since the porn-poster was banned, most of the posts in "Guano" have been from the non-ID side, I think.

In any case, you can check because they are still there :)

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....e_id=57

Date: 2013/06/05 11:59:24, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (olegt @ June 05 2013,11:57)
This troll seems to have a chip on the shoulder.

I'm wondering if he/she has confused TSZ for some other site :)

Date: 2013/06/14 03:05:04, Link
Author: Febble
I think Stephen is confused about uses of the word "consistent"

Quote


RDF: You do not agree that saying “X receives existence from Y” is a logical contradiction brought about by treating existence as a predicate; I disagree (along with virtually all logicians).

RDF: I claim that the majority of logicians agree that existence cannot be treated consistently as a predicate.

This switching of conditions will not do. I know how you like to move the goalposts. Your first claim was that existence cannot be logically used as a predicate at all and that virtually all logicians agree. Your second claim, revised after being challenged, is that it cannot be “consistently” treated as a predicate.

I want a citation or credible proof which indicates that “virtually all” logicians agree that existence cannot, in any way, be treated as a predicate, which was your first claim. You need to show, at the very least, that most logicians take that position.


Presumably RDFish meant, in his second formulation, if you treat existence as a predicate you will be unable to be logically consistent, not that you can occasionally treat existence as a predicate, but not "consistently".

I'm not sure why StephenB is attempting to defend the proposition that a thing can receive existence.

Does that mean that before it receives existence it isn't doesn't exist?

But it has to exist to be a thing.

I don't know about citations, but StephenB would seem to be violating his own Rule of Right Reason right there.  Maybe RDFish should cite StephenB?

Date: 2013/06/14 04:58:40, Link
Author: Febble
Well, I've known a few eminent Thomist theologians and philosophers (including those who worked on the Oxford Blackfriars edition) and none of them made logical whoopsies like that.

Date: 2013/06/14 05:11:43, Link
Author: Febble
Well, I guess there's the existence vs essence thing.

OK, fair enough.

Date: 2013/06/14 05:14:03, Link
Author: Febble
I guess it depends what the meaning of is is.

Date: 2013/06/14 12:20:49, Link
Author: Febble
I guess that any thing that could exist is a potential thing until it does.

Date: 2013/06/28 07:51:46, Link
Author: Febble
I'm not seeing any defenders.

Date: 2013/06/28 18:09:19, Link
Author: Febble
This seems to be his primary source.

http://www.mygenes.co.nz/downloa....oad.htm

Sheesh.

Date: 2013/06/29 04:23:20, Link
Author: Febble
"Darwin's theory must be wrong because he inspired the death camps": ad hominem

Date: 2013/07/02 06:09:05, Link
Author: Febble
Does anyone know who did write to Springer?

Bob O'Hara did, I know.

Sparc?  Did you post the text of your letter and/or the response?

I don't see where Nick did.  Anyone?  And what about that boycott?

Not accusing people, I just like facts.

And yes, the irony of being accused of being a fascist and a censor, goaded with jeers of "Arbeit macht frei" in the same thread/topic as I am simultaneously accused of NOT censoring a post at TSZ in which OMagain responds to Kairosfocus's likening of Alan Fox to a German Nazi enabler, and which he noted Kairosfocus' anti-homosexuality was also a Nazi agenda, is not lost on me.

Or, at, any rate, renders any irony meter within a few million miles non-functional.

As Tom Lehrer said, when Kissinger got the Nobel Peace prize: satire is dead.

Date: 2013/07/15 02:12:18, Link
Author: Febble
For record:

Kairosfocus, Denyse O'Leary, and Joe G all make good points on that thread.

Date: 2013/07/15 09:10:51, Link
Author: Febble
Joe G is walloping WJM!

Go, Joe!

Say what you like about Joe he gets some things right.

He's not one of you guys is he?

Date: 2013/07/15 11:11:25, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (midwifetoad @ July 15 2013,09:24)
Quote (Febble @ July 15 2013,09:10)
Joe G is walloping WJM!

Go, Joe!

Say what you like about Joe he gets some things right.

He's not one of you guys is he?

I hate to say this,  but Joe's last post was entirely fact free. One can argue all day long about the morality  of shooting someone,  but the law deals with facts and testimony.

I have been on a Florida felony jury. I ignored the news stories about the Zimmerman case an read only transcripts of what the jury heard. There is simply no way he  could have been found guilty by a jury following the judges instructions.

That's interesting.  

I wasn't so much commenting on his facts (I don't know the facts anyway), but on his ethics.

I'm with him on the ethics.

But then I'm a Brit and the whole thing looks totally bizarre to a Brit.

Apart from Trayvon Martin not calling the police. That is all too familiar.

Date: 2013/07/15 13:06:41, Link
Author: Febble
That's very interesting, midwifetoad.  Also your other posts make me very glad I live here, corrupt though things are here as well.

I think our checks and balances are slightly superior though.

Date: 2013/07/15 15:11:36, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (dvunkannon @ July 15 2013,14:09)
OK, I know I've been away too long, getting my TARD jollies from WUWT and Steve Goddard's Real Science (sic) blog. Now I come back to UD and see Febble and Mark Frank posting there? WTF? What happened to the great purge based on the Law of Non-Contradiction? Are we all welcome again in the hope for more traffic? Should I dust off my Nakashima suit?

I can feel another purge coming on....

Date: 2013/07/16 04:26:13, Link
Author: Febble
Quote
FYI-FTR, # 2: KeithS of TSZ and other objecting sites, inadvertently shows the self-referential absurdity of evolutionary materialism and its fellow traveller po-mo ideologies regarding first principles of right reason and other self-evident first truths


Is this a record for post-title length?

Date: 2013/07/19 07:35:16, Link
Author: Febble
There seems to be a current attempt from several quarters to imply that TSZ censors posts, or that banning for posting porn links is somehow equivalent to banning for posting a dissenting view.

Or even equivalent to banning for incivility.

And if that doesn't stick, there's KF's slander complaint, for which, in comparison, there are massive equivalent, and with knobs on, counterparts at UD, many of them in KF's own posts.

Date: 2013/07/19 10:50:46, Link
Author: Febble
I think that KF genuinely doesn't get it.  He doesn't understand why his long posts don't instantly inform anyone who reads them as to the error of their ways.  He doesn't understand why his reasons for objecting to homosexuality do not deserve exemption from criticism.

He doesn't understand why anyone could think differently from the way he does, if they have read his posts and are apparently smart enough to be able to understand them, unless they are being deliberately dishonest.

He has boxed himself into a corner from which there is no escape: any possible evidence against his opinion comes from sources he does not trust.

Once you have got yourself into a position in which there is no possible evidence you would accept as a rebuttal to your opinion, you are in a Black Hole from which no light can escape, and you will post only Hawking radiation until you are gone.

Date: 2013/07/19 13:12:00, Link
Author: Febble
Tax pounds.

And I did point out that it's an excellent example of how people find it perfectly natural to mandate their government to help others in need, without requiring the threat of eternal damnation if they don't.

Date: 2013/07/19 13:57:36, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 19 2013,13:26)
serious question

What is the fun in engaging Gordon, for you?

None.

Date: 2013/07/20 02:59:56, Link
Author: Febble
The name of the image file was something like "nasty vagina".  I didn't click on it until someone alerted me (I wouldn't click on a link embedded in an insult).  When I did, I found the image and its misogynist filename.

Date: 2013/07/21 02:05:21, Link
Author: Febble
Yeah.  There is something very sick about that place.

I do understand the rationale of having a place primarily to "serve the ID community", but the interesting thing is that with the slightly weird exception of Cornelius Hunter's blog, there isn't any place I know of where ID proponents tolerate debate at all.

Which makes all this allegation of "censorship!" by Matzke doubly odd.  Trebly odd when combined with calls for me to delete "slander" on TSZ.  Quadruply odd when those calls are embedded in egregious slander of "Darwinists".

Date: 2013/07/21 05:14:12, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (didymos @ July 21 2013,03:20)
Quote (Febble @ July 21 2013,00:05)
I do understand the rationale of having a place primarily to "serve the ID community", but the interesting thing is that with the slightly weird exception of Cornelius Hunter's blog, there isn't any place I know of where ID proponents tolerate debate at all.

Cornelius mostly seems to allow comments because he can turn around and use them as the basis for a post about how mired in "religion" all the evolutionists are.

My sense is that Cornelius just doesn't care.  I don't know if he's paid to write his columns, or whether it's part of his job description, but I don't think it bothers him what happens in the comments, as long as he fills his quota.

Date: 2013/07/21 08:30:31, Link
Author: Febble
I think that is true.

At least some IDers seem to want some kind of scientific endorsement for their faith.

I don't think that's true of Dembski, however.  I think he just knows that he's got a market for his product.

Date: 2013/07/21 12:17:47, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 21 2013,11:07)
Quote (Febble @ July 21 2013,08:30)
I think that is true.

At least some IDers seem to want some kind of scientific endorsement for their faith.

I don't think that's true of Dembski, however.  I think he just knows that he's got a market for his product.

Dembski was just as eager as his fellow DI Fellows in 1997 to try and get an explicit recognition that ID was scientific in nature.

I haven't interacted personally with Dembski since the Greer-Heard Forum in 2006, so I can't speak to his most recent endeavors. But in my experience, I haven't had the feeling that Dembski was insincere. He certainly has an unwarranted self-assessment of his contributions and what those should be worth in term$ of money, but I don't think it is solely about the Benjamins for Dembski, or hasn't always been so.

Actually I meant something slightly more generous.  I don't think Dembski is essentially insincere.  I just think he's theologically nimble enough to retain his faith were he to conclude that his inference was fallacious (I think he's even said as much).  It's easy enough to do.

But he doesn't have much incentive to do that, as he has a market of people who may be more needy of a scientific prop than he is.

And you do have to doubt the intellectual honesty of people who simply will not enter debate outside safe zones.

That's the glaring assymmetry in the debate (well,to an outside observer, knowing nothing of the actual merits of the argument).

Date: 2013/07/21 12:19:36, Link
Author: Febble
Well, not the spelling of "Merriam", obviously.

Date: 2013/07/21 14:20:18, Link
Author: Febble
News:
Quote

Multiverse (artist’s concept above) still froths restlessly somewhere.

Yes, the standard model of the universe is safe, if experimental physics matters:


wtf?

Date: 2013/07/21 17:18:40, Link
Author: Febble
I'm absolutely convinced that the UD denizens (or "ilks" I think is the technical term - amirite?) are frightened.

Ironically, I've seen it before - among people who really thought that Kerry had won the US presidential election in 2004, and had been robbed of it by Rethuglican Dirty Tricks, and that you guys were forever doomed to be ruled by the likes of the  Ahmanson family et al (owners of DIEbold voting machines!!! And the DI!!!!)

Democracy is dead!!  Flee to Canada!!!!

The parallels are salutary.  It's not a right-wing thing, or a theist thing, it's a conspiracy thing.  It seems to be hard-wired.  Maybe the damn thing evolved.

Date: 2013/07/21 18:55:14, Link
Author: Febble
There's a kind of elegance in the symmetry of moving from DU to UD.

And Axel, bless him, has been in the opposite corner in both places :)

Date: 2013/07/22 01:34:20, Link
Author: Febble
Yep, Democratic Underground.

My friend Mark Lindeman wrote a paper called Exit Poll Fundamentalism on the whole caper.

It was salutary.

Date: 2013/07/30 02:27:08, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Driver @ July 29 2013,22:51)
Quote (didymos @ July 30 2013,04:41)
(of course, it goes without saying, the Christian variety).

William is the high priest of his own religion.

High priest and sole practitioner, I think.  

He doesn't claim to be a Christian.

Date: 2013/07/31 14:31:40, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (dvunkannon @ July 31 2013,10:43)
SciAm has an article this month on reality that kicks StephenB's Rules right in the stones.

Link?

Date: 2013/08/19 09:55:39, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (The whole truth @ Aug. 19 2013,05:26)
Driver asked:

"Is "sexual assault after the fact" a huge problem?"

YES. It is a HUGE problem for all the men who are falsely accused and/or prosecuted/convicted for rape or other sex related crimes just because some women decide that they didn't want to fuck a guy AFTER they willingly fucked a guy.

And then there are the women who accuse a guy or guys of rape or other sex related crimes even though the guy(s) never raped or even touched the woman.  

Yeah, rape sucks, but so do false, life ruining accusations/convictions.

There's "huge" as in "a huge problem for the victim", then there's "huge" as in "a huge number of victims".

I agree that a false accusation of rape can be as damaging to the victim as rape.

The question is which happens more often.

And therefore which is more likely in a contested case.

Date: 2013/08/20 15:25:33, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (The whole truth @ Aug. 20 2013,06:14)
By the way, are you aware that the number one sexual fantasy of women is the rape fantasy?

What are you implying here? That women enjoy being raped?

If so, let me explain something to you:  

To be raped is to be involuntarily forced to have sex.
To have a rape fantasy is to voluntarily imagine being involuntarily forced to have sex.

Note:  

The first is involuntary, and is done to you.  You have no control and it is dangerous.
The second is voluntary and you do it. You are in control and it is safe.

Date: 2013/09/02 09:13:24, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Driver @ Sep. 02 2013,06:09)
I don't know what it is that makes a few people feel they have to isolate VJ Torley as some exception at UD, more deserving of respect. There have been such comments here at AtBC too. Yet, his articles are unfocused, his loggorhea severe, his theology hilarious, his science as biased and as inaccurate as that of any creationist, his pomposity striking, and his fustiness tangible.

He's a generous and sincere human being in my experience.

That marks him out from at least some regulars at UD.

Date: 2013/09/19 03:08:53, Link
Author: Febble
Site is down right now.  I've pinged eigenstate, hope to sort soon.

Date: 2013/09/19 06:19:59, Link
Author: Febble
Back up.

Date: 2013/09/19 08:55:40, Link
Author: Febble
Yes, he does seem to be truly paranoid.

In fact, you raise a good point.  As I seem to be the one he is most obsessed with right now, I should probably get out of his way, at least until his child is better.

Date: 2013/09/20 16:32:07, Link
Author: Febble
It doesn't make any difference to William's statement whether we did, or did not, evolve with an instinct to rape.  We probably did.  We probably also evolved with an instinct to defend others against rape.

That does not mean that  "rape is nothing more than a perfectly natural means of genetic distribution".

It is a great deal more than that, and I do not know of a single "Darwinist" who thinks it is not a morally reprehensible violation of the autonomy of another human being.

Notwithstanding that it is allegedly commanded by God in the OT.

Date: 2013/09/20 16:36:27, Link
Author: Febble
I'm really curious about that photoshop.

I can't find the quotation anywhere else on the web, so I think William must be the author.

If so, either he did the photoshop and sent Box the link, or Box did it him/her-[him, shurely?]self.

Date: 2013/09/20 17:49:32, Link
Author: Febble
Yeah, I'd missed those earlier ones.

So, it's Box.  Well, it slightly ameliorates the offense that he made it so easy to recognise the fake.

The hypocrisy, and the lack of self-reflection, is really quite extraordinary.

Date: 2013/09/22 07:05:50, Link
Author: Febble
Confused of Toronto first posts a "news" item claiming that we cannot know whether a metaverse theory is true, by dint of justaposing the her own question: Can we know if this is true? with an answer given to a quite different question, and which starts with the words "Probably not,..." THEN posts a new "news" item, reporting the same study, on which she comments that while it may  not hold up, it is "interesting stuff".

I'm not sure if she just hasn't noticed that both items are about the same paper, or whether the second post is an attempt to "correct" her howler in the first.

Date: 2013/09/22 09:07:40, Link
Author: Febble
She likes to describe herself as a "hack", but to me, she doesn't rise nearly that far.

If you understand so little about the area you are reporting on that you cannot discriminate between two news reports about the same event, then you have no business claiming to be a "hack" at all.

Date: 2013/09/26 14:35:59, Link
Author: Febble

Date: 2013/09/28 05:30:34, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (timothya @ Sep. 27 2013,16:43)
Please tell me the UD thread quote from William Lane Craig is a fraud:
 
Quote
Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God’s commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder. The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God’s command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong.

On divine command theory, then, God has the right to command an act, which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been sin, but which is now morally obligatory in virtue of that command.

Surely it must be. It can't really represent how he constructs his morality.

No, it's real.

Slaughter of the Canaanites

It's mind-boggling.

Date: 2013/09/28 05:52:57, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Kantian Naturalist @ Sep. 27 2013,16:56)
It might not be what actually grounds Craig's moral sensibilities, since I (naively) assume he relies on the same basic combination of primate empathy and human rationality that we all use, but it is definitely central to his self-understanding of his moral sensibilities.  In other words, the quote is not a fabrication or taken out of context.

Also, his claim rests on the unspoken assumption that it is possible to tell for sure that a command is from God.

He doesn't say how you tell, and would surely, in practice, agree that if someone (as they do) claimed they murdered a prostitute because they received a divine command, they suffering from a severe psychotic illness, even though they might have no other symptoms other than apparently believing that command (cf Peter Sutcliffe, whom no-one dreamed was ill).

In fact, people do the opposite of Divine Command Theory in practice - they discern divine command because it is consistent with their moral principles.

I'm sure WLC does the same.  But he does not confront this problem.

In fact he compounds it by saying that you have to get the right God.  Then he says you know you have the right God because the right God is all-loving.

So how were the Israelite supposed to know they'd got the right God?

WLC doesn't say.

Date: 2013/10/02 03:34:40, Link
Author: Febble
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Just joining the queue to get a fuck you from TWT.

Criticism or lampooning of KF's views and attitudes seems fair game.

Making up scurrilous crap not just about him but about his family is something else entirely IMO.

It's just shitty.

Date: 2013/10/12 06:29:55, Link
Author: Febble
Joe seems to have vanished.

Annoying though he is, I hope he's OK.  Anyone record a sighting?

Date: 2013/10/20 13:10:09, Link
Author: Febble
The evidence for bigfoot is looking up, though.

Date: 2013/11/19 16:11:26, Link
Author: Febble
Anyone know where he is?  He seems to have vanished.  I do hope he's OK.

Date: 2013/12/20 13:44:14, Link
Author: Febble
I think something pretty serious must have happened to him.

:(

I was actually kind of fond of him, in a way.  He was rude and pugnacious and as stubborn as hell, but never pompous or hypocritical.  You can't but love an ID supporter who posts porn links on your own site.

Date: 2013/12/21 03:44:27, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Learned Hand @ Dec. 20 2013,16:21)
Quote (Febble @ Dec. 20 2013,13:44)
I was actually kind of fond of him, in a way.  He was rude and pugnacious and as stubborn as hell, but never pompous or hypocritical.  You can't but love an ID supporter who posts porn links on your own site.


Perhaps absence has made the heart grow fonder. Hope he's alright, though.

Well, he was certainly hard work to have on my site.  While I wouldn't have banned him simply for posting stuff that constantly required removal to "guano", it was something of a relief when he posted something that really did require a ban (I wasn't going to have links on my site leading to NSFW material).

So I probably became somewhat fonder of him when I didn't actually have to clean up his messes any more.

But that said, I honestly did have a grudging admiration for the way he tried to figure stuff out, and make his case.  He loved his posting privileges at TSZ.  And I don't think he lacked smarts, though he did lack information.  But like many people, he didn't know how to back down.

I'm using past tense, because I think he's dead.  And that makes me sad, because I think he had kids, and he seemed like a good dad, frisbee and all.

Date: 2013/12/30 08:21:16, Link
Author: Febble
Well, that's good to see, and he can now have the fun of reading his obits :)

Welcome back to the internets, Joe!

Date: 2014/01/03 07:56:56, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 02 2014,14:36)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 02 2014,14:33)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 02 2014,14:01)
Aww. He's having a little meltdown on his blog. I don't think he liked my ID predictions, although he didn't actually address them..

Damn.  It's been more than a year and he's still tragically butthurt over being the only person ever banned from TSZ.   :D  :D  :D

Emotionally a child. Intellectually a child.

A sparky child, nonetheless.

Date: 2014/01/04 07:53:31, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 04 2014,06:17)
Corny's lying has become rather sloppy - why else would he build a strawman and demolish it with a quote right in the next sentence:
   
Quote
One piece of evidence evolutionists point to is the high similarity between the human and chimpanzee genomes. The two genomes are about 95% the same and evolutionists say this shows how easily the human could have evolved from the chimpanzee. Evolution professor Dennis Venema explains:

   
Quote
For example, humans and our closest relatives, chimpanzees, have genomes that are around 95% identical, and most of the DNA differences are not differences that actually affect our forms. So, small changes accruing over time since we last shared a common ancestor was enough to shape our species since we parted ways – there is no evidence that evolution requires radical changes at the DNA level.


Will his followers notice? Bets are on.

TARD starts here at UD and continues here at his blargh.

I really don't think Hunter is very bright.  My hunch is that he doesn't understand the science very well, that's why he thinks  it doesn't make sense.

He probably didn't even notice the error.

Date: 2014/01/04 21:22:01, Link
Author: Febble
"News" on the UD "newsdesk" is, apparently, a six year old TED talk by Garrett Lisi.

Cool and all, but not exactly "new".

Date: 2014/01/05 16:02:48, Link
Author: Febble
geez.

That's all I have to say.

Date: 2014/01/05 16:37:19, Link
Author: Febble
It just dawned on me that ID is dead.

Dembski is off all radar.  He doesn't even show up in the search box at South Carolina bible college or whatever. The last post on the Design Inference is a year old.

Meyer's book went up like a firework and came down with the stick.  

Most of the static websites are moribund.  UD has banned virtually all dissenters.  The few brave enough to wander over to TSZ bail out after a couple of rounds.  The biologic institute inflates its "selected publications" with publications that have nothing to do with the biologic institute and seems to be doing no more than pretending to produce output.

Bio-Complexity is moribund.

Behe doesn't seem to have much to say.

The big guys won't come out to debate.  The small ones mostly won't leave heavily censored sites.  Even the UD newsdesk peddles 6 year old stories as "news".

And all the threads are about religion.  Or tossing coins.

I don't know why I hadn't seen it before.

It's dead.

Date: 2014/01/05 16:51:21, Link
Author: Febble
But much more overtly not-science, surely?

ID had this sciencey-mathy-PhD-ey look.

Date: 2014/01/08 05:00:47, Link
Author: Febble
I have it all.

Date: 2014/01/23 04:16:09, Link
Author: Febble
I have to say, I find it a bit annoying (but "revealing" as KF would say) that UD bans me, lets vjtorley post nice posts commenting on my posts at TSZ, which I can't comment on at UD, and yet the commenters there can "paraphrase" my views, without link, so that they make no sense whatsoever, and then congratulate themselves on the vacuity of the paraphrase.

Phoodoo:

Quote


William,

I thought Lizzie argument of why we should see humans as anything more than chemical oddities if one believes in evolution, is particularly unsophisticated. Basically her idea is that, well, we can call humans special, because we feel they are special. And her biggest cop-out, well, they have “emergence”. A completely vague, and unexplainable science term which tries to make sense of how a bunch of ants can make something smart, or how our individual brain cells can put together a complex thought.

She kept trying to say, “well, they are emergent, see, so that is where we get our moral ideas.” I think she didn’t even have a clue what she was trying to say, but simply was trying to throw out some concepts and hope they deflected the problem of finding morality in a completely materialist world.

If we are all just different mixes of chemicals, all the talk in the world about emergence doesn’t erase the fact that its just chemicals creating the illusion of value.

The fact is, science doesn’t even know what emergence is, they have no idea how ants make complex decisions, and how individual brain cells, add up to consciousness. Its a complete mystery,and she is using it as a defense for pulling morality out of thin air.

Eric A:
Quote


phoodoo:

Thanks for calling out the “emergence” business. It is amazing how many people buy into the “emergence” buzzword as though it were some kind of actual explanation.

Emergence, without more explanation of what is actually going on at the micro and macro level, is just another way of restating the old evolutionary storyline:

Stuff Happens.


Needless to say, I have never said that humans "have" "emergence".

geez.

Date: 2014/01/23 05:15:08, Link
Author: Febble
I've certainly talked about emergence - I think it's really important. But I don't think it's a property that things have.  I think a way of indicating that wholes have different properties from their parts.

The properties of a carbon dioxide molecule are different from those of atomic carbon or oxygen.  So to that extent, its properties are "emergent" from the configuration of its more fundamental components, which in turn have properties that "emerge" from their more fundamental components, and so on.

I don't think it's even controversial.  Wholes have properties not possessed by their parts, and they have them by virtue of their configuration, not by possessing Magic Parts.

And we call these properties "emergent" properties because nothing is added that wasn't there originally, unless you call the configuration "added".  In which case what has been "added" is good old "information", which is lost when the configuration is destroyed.

But then IDists consider "Information" to be "Magic Parts".

Date: 2014/02/15 14:51:35, Link
Author: Febble
He didn't seem to think it was a minor point, in which case it's not a minor error to get it wrong.

Date: 2014/02/16 06:26:14, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (Joe G @ Feb. 15 2014,18:08)
Genetic algorithms are goal-oriented. They are designed for specific purposes. For a GA to design an antenna, for example, all of the information for that antenna has to be programmed in and the offspring are compared to that. They employ a targeted search and cumulative selection to achieve a pre-specified result, ie the specification of the antenna required.

Dawkins’ “weasel” is unable to design an antenna because it isn’t designed to. Only GAs specifically designed to design an antenna can do so. Dawkins' weasel wouldn't have found the target sentence if that wasn't front loaded into the program. The antenna program never would have designed the proper antenna if the specifications for that antenna wasn't front loaded into the program. Got that, dipshit?

Jo, the only way in which a GA differs from a "natural" evolutionary scenario is that the designer of the GA usually has a problem or set of problems that she wants to solve.

In nature we have no particular reason to think that the world was set up so that some Designer could find a better way of flying, or swimming, or invading the guts of small children, but it might have been.

But it doesn't matter, because in both cases, from the point of view of the population of organisms (virtual or biological) the problem it has to "solve" is simply how to leave viable offspring in the environment in which it finds itself.

The fact that in a GA the environment was set up by a designer to solve her own problem as a byproduct, and in nature it may not have been, is irrelevant.

The designer of a GA may have a goal, but the evolving population's only "goal" is to survive in that environment.  If someone accidentally alters the fitness parameters of the GA, the population will evolve to survive in the new environment, possibly by evolving a maximally bad antenna, or one that only receives signals in some random set of bands.  In fact one problem that GA designers encounter is that populations find ways of surviving and breeding in the artificial environments that do not solve the problem the designer wanted solving.

Just as setting up a natural environment with high trees in the hope of evolving a solution to the problem of flight might get you fruit-bats or flying squirrels, but might instead only get you organisms that are extremely good at grasping branches (e.g. spider monkeys), or bouncing unharmed when they hit the ground (e.g. hedgehogs).

For either a GA or natural evolution to result in a population that evolves functions that help its members survive in the current environment, all you need is an environment that has resources that can be accessed by enhanced functions, or threats that can be avoided by enhanced functions.  It doesn't matter to the process or the population what those resources or threats are.  

If you are a designer, you might want to set them in such a way that the evolving population will have to solve your problem (e.g. making a better antenna) in order to solve theirs (surviving and breeding).

Just as a farmer sets up his selective breeding program in order that the evolving population of cows solves his problem (improving milk yields) while also solving theirs (making the cut into the breeding pool).

In other words, the "goal" of a GA is not the "goal" of the virtual critters within the GA.  You are confusing the two.  The population of critters has no "goal" in either case, apart from leaving viable offspring.

That a designer has an ulterior goal in solving some problem of her own, and has set up the resources and threats of the environment so that by adapting to it, the evolving population is likely to solve it as a byproduct, is irrelevant to whether adaptive evolution occurs.  It will occur whether or not it solves somebody else's problem or not. And as a GA designer, it can be frustrating when your own goals aren't met.  It won't mean that adaptive evolution hasn't occurred - but it might mean that the adapting population found a solution to surviving in your carefully engineered environment that didn't happen to solve the problem you wanted solving.

BTW, Weasel is special case, because genotype, phenotype and fitness function are identical.  It's just a toy.  It's a perfectly good toy, and it illustrates the principle of adaptive evolution perfectly well (the evolving population of letter strings have to compete for "resources" in an environment in which those resources more available for strings that more closely resemble the phrase "Methinks it is like a weasel"), but it lacks key features of both natural evolution and practically useful GAs.

Date: 2014/02/16 16:08:07, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 16 2014,08:50)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 16 2014,04:44)
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 15 2014,14:51)
He didn't seem to think it was a minor point, in which case it's not a minor error to get it wrong.

And now he's had a meltdown / gone to Plato's Cave. Sadly predictable, must do better.

Followed by this pitiful, lame rationalization:
Quote
F/N: Onlookers, remember that it is normal for citation to be fairly brief, as issues of permissions easily arise. I am in effect implicitly appealing to the doctrine of fair use in giving a much more extensive cite, but a publisher can challenge that a cite is excessive. And, in the days when cites were on paper, every word added materially to costs. KF

Whereas these days, adding words is much cheaper presumably.

Date: 2014/02/25 16:39:48, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (DiEb @ Feb. 25 2014,16:22)
Quote (Driver @ Feb. 25 2014,08:05)
Quote (timothya @ Feb. 25 2014,07:37)
Is it just me or do you think it passing strange that the Carroll/Craig debate happened without acknowledgement, advertising or commentary by anyone at UD or EN&V? I may have missed their references, but what gives when one of the DI Fellows makes a big noise with a prominent cosmologist and then . . . nothing?

Craig was destroyed.

Is there any footage free available?

Oddly, no, as far as I can tell, although somewhere I saw someone anticipating that it would eventually be posted.

Date: 2014/03/01 06:29:37, Link
Author: Febble
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 28 2014,08:00)
Here's the criag carrol debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?f....tAwH33k

Well, that was a pretty unambiguous win for Carroll.

 

 

 

=====