AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: Ogee

form_srcid: Ogee

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.204.215.209

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Ogee

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 'Ogee%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2006/06/23 03:01:19, Link
Author: Ogee
Very nice work, Mr. Louis.

If this was a boxing match, the ref would be stepping in about now.

Date: 2006/06/24 05:39:31, Link
Author: Ogee
[quote=The Ghost of Paley,June 23 2006,15:40][/quote]
Quote
Forgive me if I find this analogy a bit ironic, as liberals have shown themselves possessed of singularly bad boxing judgement.


Even "liberals" (a label which only the most extremely deranged wingnut fundie would think applies to me) can tell which one's Mike Tyson and which one's Carl Williams.

Date: 2006/08/03 05:42:50, Link
Author: Ogee
[quote=jujuquisp,Aug. 03 2006,09:40][/quote]
Quote (jujuquisp @ Aug. 03 2006,09:40)
Dave's Digs---LOL.
Don't you guys think JanieBelle is hilarious?  She is playing the game like an absolute pro.  Dembski's lapdog has now moved on to becoming Janie's plaything.  This is great entertainment, folks!


It's genius.  There is a ~0% chance that Janie (or alter ego Kate) is actually an ID-friendly bisexual 17-year old teen who posts allusions to lesbian nooners amongst discussions of thermodynamics and evolution.  The O'Leary-bashing, vixen-talk and "open-mindedness" are precisely tailor-made to sucker in everyone's favourite 50-something 2LOT-breaking polymath bachelor, and he's been completely hooked.

I just wonder who it really is and when (if?) and how they will do the big reveal.

Date: 2006/08/14 04:05:30, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (Wonderpants @ Aug. 13 2006,11:44)
Guess he didn't even have enough pride to stay away from Dumbski's blog (and the "Morphodyke", as Janiebelle/DS call her) for long.  :D


Well, Davey-boy has a history of getting badly humiliated each and every time he ventures away from UD (where inconvenient posts never see the light of day and their authors are banned).  This is just his cowardice overcoming his pride.

Date: 2006/08/23 03:32:40, Link
Author: Ogee
[quote=Richardthughes,Aug. 23 2006,00:49][/quote]
Quote (blipey @ Aug. 23 2006,00:34)
 
http://jacquelinepassey.blogs.com/blog/2006/08/dating_tip_qual.html


Small, bizarre world:  I am acquainted with her "recently-ex-boyfriend".

Date: 2006/08/23 09:53:14, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (afdave @ Aug. 23 2006,11:44)
 To do so would be like trying to describe the detailed workings of a train wreck.  We know the train wreck happened, we can see the devastation.  But we cannot say why this particular piece of metal bent in the way it did except in a general way.

As an someone with experience in exactly this sort of area, I call shenanigans on this little bit of bullshit.

Engineers and analysts routinely analyze catastrophic failures like train wrecks and can indeed explain why a particular piece of metal bent (or cracked or split or what-have-you), in the way it did, with very high accuracy.

More to the point, they can quickly and conclusively rule out those scenarios that are utterly incompatible with the weight of evidence.  Just like geologists, biologists, cosmologists, etc. have done with the notion that the Earth is any less than billions of years old.

Date: 2006/08/31 09:15:22, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 31 2006,11:21)
What he is describing is actually pretty close to how we actually do design detection in our everyday life. We look at an event, and we come up with plausible scenarios, and we try to guestimate how likely each one is, and believe the most likely one. That's our day to day heuristic for thinking like that. Newton's laws are kind of like that. They make a gut sense on an everyday basis. And those designey heuristics fail when presented with a selective process of millions of years, just as newton's laws fail when dealing with millions of miles per hour. People in science learn that evidence has to take precedence over the gut. Apparently a lot of engineers don't learn that.

Now, let's not generalize, especially since Davetard is not a real engineer.  His ignorance of such a vast array of subjects makes perfect sense in light of the fact that he's quite uneducated.  No wonder he's so insecure.

Date: 2006/09/03 19:26:18, Link
Author: Ogee
The 'tard wrote:

Quote
Front loading really doesn't require much detailed knowledge of biology


Priceless.

Date: 2006/09/04 06:37:46, Link
Author: Ogee
As was inevitable in any place where he can't delete or ban those who embarass him,Davetard flees.

The 'tard wrote:
Quote
I'm going to bail out of this blog. I didn't think I was going to have to deal with a million little dipshits flaming me here. Since you've abandoned any efforts to stifle the instigators I'm going to bail out. No hard feelings.

Poor baby.

Date: 2006/09/05 10:04:35, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 05 2006,14:11)
Look who've made up.

(you need to scroll down a little)

I though this was cute:

Quote (Davison @ Sep. 05 2006,07:45)
I seem to have misplaced my user name and password, so would you please email those to me on the outside chance that I might change my mind about participating ever again at Uncommon Descent as long as you are in charge there?

Date: 2006/09/08 11:04:11, Link
Author: Ogee
Kudos: one of the most impressive pranks I have ever seen.

Date: 2006/09/13 03:42:30, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote
This renders him basically useless as a scientist,


Not quite; he seems to be quite capable in his domain of physics.  He is, however, a poster boy for cognitive dissonance, and prone to producing classic howlers in defense of the absolute correctness of the Bible.

He also seems to be quite conflicted about the ID crowd:  he recognizes their ignorance, weak arguments and cretinous behaviour, but can't quite manage to condemn or disown them, since they're fellow members of Team Jesus.

Date: 2006/09/15 04:57:44, Link
Author: Ogee
Wow, Dinger's really on a roll over there.  It's as though he's decided to work out his frustrations over his humiliation at UDOJ by going on a Hulk-like rampage of stupid.

Date: 2006/09/18 09:23:02, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (Altabin @ Sep. 18 2006,12:10)
Dozens of Deceitful Deity-Detectors Drone Dopily

Materialists' methods merit masterful monographs on much that matters; meanwhile, maladroit mealy-mouthed ministerials misinform many, mangle medicine & microbiology, make mindless, moronic manifestos and merit much mockery.

Date: 2006/09/18 09:31:27, Link
Author: Ogee
Corrected for repetition:

Materialists' methods mold masterful monographs on much that matters; meanwhile, maladroit mealy-mouthed ministerials misinform many, mangle medicine & microbiology, make mindless, moronic manifestos and merit measureless mockery.

Date: 2006/09/21 06:27:37, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote
thought of bankrupting Wesley Elsberry is appealing enough in its own right so that I may underwrite that personally just for the principle.


Dinger is such an admirable, upstanding human being.

Date: 2006/09/21 06:50:53, Link
Author: Ogee
One comment (roughly "You would do well to familiarize yourself with copyright law") has already been quietly disappeared from that post.

The irony is that, in the likely event that Dinger is wrong about:

- buud having anything to do with UD being dropped from google
- copyright law
- everything else

his ridiculous attempt at playing lawyer will be well archived.

Date: 2006/10/05 03:19:13, Link
Author: Ogee
Davetard never ceases to amaze me with his breathtaking cowardice.  To come right out and say "stop disagreeing with me or you're gone". takes a very special kind of 'tard.  

Then again, if I was an insecure, uneducated blowhard moron who had just been badly humiliated on my own blog regarding my supposed area of expertise, I might be touchy, too.

Date: 2006/10/18 03:52:21, Link
Author: Ogee
Like most, I suspected that GoP wasn't entirely for real.

What I never would have predicted is that the 'real' GoP would prove even more insufferable and contemptible than the put-on.

Date: 2006/10/18 05:31:18, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote
"We know a lot about how stars would,to the point where we know it is extremely dependent on the levels of various nuclear excited states and on the instability of Be[8] and also on the ratio of the electromagnetic to gravitational force strength" is either right or wrong, but it is not God of the gaps.

True.
Quote
And if it is right, my stating that for me it points to a creator is also not "God of the gaps" but a theological conclusion, one that is based on the existence of data, not the absence of data.

False.

Date: 2006/10/18 07:03:23, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (heddle @ Oct. 18 2006,10:52)
It is no different [than] if I sit at the beach and say: "that beautiful sunset reaffirms my faith that God created the universe." It may be nonsense, but it is not filling in missing scientific data with God. In both cases it is a non-scientific interpretation of beauty observed in creation.

Of course, this sort of formulation is quite inoffensive.  I was under the impression that you were arguing that the fine-tuning was evidence that God (1) existed, and (2) had fiddled with the constants to produce our universe, in which intelligent life is (just) possible.  It seems that you have softened your stance significantly on the strength of "cosmological ID".  If you truly feel that it is more akin to an affirmation of faith by warm and fuzzy feelings, you'll have no further argument from me.

Date: 2006/10/18 07:21:44, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Oct. 18 2006,10:59)
I don't know why the aparent fine tuning of the Universe is dissmissed so casually by posters here. As far as I am aware this is an aspect of the Universe that bothers plenty of Astronomers/Cosmologists and Physicists.

There is no questioning the 'fine-tuning problem' (except to the extent that the term implies a tuner).  The issue is with the logic; the ID assertion that this is evidence of divine intervention in the creation of the universe(s) is a non-sequitur.

Date: 2006/10/19 04:38:22, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (heddle @ Oct. 19 2006,08:27)
As I said, "we don’t know how stars work therefore God did it" would be God of the gaps. "We know how stars work and it requires [apparent] fine tuning" is pure science and the extension "therefore I believe it is evidence God designed the universe to support life" is not science at all, nor is it claimed as such.

This is just a semantic shell game, as GCT has already pointed out.  You are essentially saying "We don't know how fundamental laws and constants are determined, therefore God did it".  Since this is a question still quite open to science, it is a classic God-of-the gaps.

Date: 2006/10/19 04:55:44, Link
Author: Ogee
Even in the absence of any direct experimental validation of multiverses (or other, as yet not conceived, naturalistic explanations), it is still preferable to ID, thanks to parsimony.  Given the observation that there exist X universes (where X¡Ý1), we are given:

Multiverse:  X>>1.
ID:  X=1, extra-universal being capable of creating and/or "tuning" universes (and motivated to create carbon-based life) required.  

Cosmological ID has further problems: it is unfalsifiable, even by the existence of multiverses.  As far as ID goes, there is absolutely no difference in principle between a single finite universe in which an infinitesimal fraction is hospitable to life and a multiverse in which an infinitesimal fraction of the universes are hospitable to life.  Just as IDers argue that the fundamental physical laws of our observable universe were deliberately set to permit human-like life, they can argue (with no change in logic) that the meta-laws governing the multiverse were deliberately set to allow for such a universe.

Date: 2006/10/19 05:24:33, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 19 2006,09:20)
Can anyone guess where the authors erred?


Easy one:  they didn't.  

The only thing I can think of is that you have been confused by the mention of P(F|N) here, which refers back to the fallacious ID assertion that P(F|N)<<1 implies P(N|F)<<1, and that F therefore imples -N.

Date: 2006/10/19 06:06:14, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (heddle @ Oct. 19 2006,10:10)
The cosmological ID argument is: if there is just one universe, then it's amazing that the actual value falls in that range.

Note: it says nothing about the source of that value, be it a possibly from a low probability random draw or of unit probability resulting from a fundamental theory.

Ummm... what?!?  Cosomological ID does not argue for design (and thus a designer)?  What exactly does the ID part stand for?  
Quote
You do notice that Susskind, for example, doesn't list three possibilities for explaining fine tuning: (1) its multiple universes or (2) its ID or (3) a future theory that predicts the values of the constants. He correctly offers only the first two possibilities.

That you defend one fallacy (false dilemma) with another (argument from authority) is perfect.  That you and Susskind (assuming he would agree with your interpretation of his words) cannot conceive of even the possibility of an alternate theory accounting for the fine-tuning problem (and not just the values themselves) is irrelevant.
 
Quote
You are also wrong about multiple universes not falsifying [not used in a rigorous sense] cosmological ID as I argue for it. If you detect another universe, I would immediately have to stop arguing that the fine tuning of our universe is evidence for design. Clearly the better explanation is that  we just, quite naturally, arose in one of the fertile universes and so we expect ours to look fine tuned. That would be a slam-dunk rebuttal of cosmological ID.
You are correct, not doubt, that theists would invent variants of the design argument--but the present one, for which I am a proponent, would be dead in the water.

It's encouraging that you would stop arguing it, but this doesn't address the flaws in the underlying logic, which applies as much to a multiverse that gives rise to life as it does to a universe that gives rise to life.  Given that it's an apologetic, you're free to accept or reject it on a purely subjective basis, but why should it be at all persuasive to anyone else?
 
Quote
And the critcism isn't really very strong anyway--if evolution were falsified, biologists wouldn't suddenly become YECs--they would work for a new naturalistic explanation of life's diversity.

Of course, because they are not beholden to a false dichotomy, and because YEC is falsified across a variety of scientific disciplines outside evolutionary biology.
Quote
So it really isn't a valid complaint that IDers would seek a new ID argument--but whether they could find one as good (in my opinion) as the current cosmological ID seems doubful.

The problem isn't that they could find a new argument following the discovery of other universes, it's that they could use the same argument regressed one step:  the multiverse was designed to produce universes fine-tuned for life.  It may be a weaker version of an already weak argument, but that's typical of what happens when science intrudes upon those gaps God thrives in.

Date: 2006/10/19 06:56:41, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Oct. 19 2006,11:32)

What you describe is a form of the weak anthropic principle: we should not be surprised to find ourselves in conditions amenable to our existence.  

The WAP does not in itself do away with the fine-tuning problem, which concerns just how narrow a range of conditions is amenable to any sort of life at all, and how those conditions came to exist not just here, but anywhere.  The issue here is the extent to which it's reasonable to answer that "how" with "God did it".

Date: 2006/10/19 07:26:19, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (heddle @ Oct. 19 2006,11:56)
I’m too bored to comment beyond one observation: do not invoke the fallacy of “appeal to authority” unless you know what it means.


Oh, don't worry, Dave, I know exactly what it means, and anyone who has discussed these matters with you (or read the discussions) will be well aware of the frequency and manner in which you invoke Susskind.

Quote (heddle @ Oct. 19 2006,11:56)
It may be a false dilemma. In fact, one possibility that Susskind did omit was “blind luck.”


Your admission of a third possibility renders the issue moot, but to be fair to Susskind, he never explicitly stated the "multiverses or ID" false dilemma:
 
Quote
Q:  If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design?

Susskind: I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent - maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation - I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature's fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.

Date: 2006/10/19 07:47:01, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Oct. 19 2006,12:15)
Thanks for the explanations.  Let’s see if I get this right…if the number of universes approaches infinity then the probability of one of those universes having the particular configuration for the development of life would approach 1.

If there is a single universe the probability would be almost zero.

That's basically correct, but no one knows what range of values are possible for these parameters, nor what their distributions might be.  Attempting to assign a priori probabilities to such things is dodgy, to say the least.

Date: 2006/10/19 08:00:21, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 19 2006,12:22)
Now ask yourself this question: why would we assume the probability = 1 unless we're interpreting the F merely as "life compatible universe" (the Merriam-Webster definition)?

No interpretation is necessary.  The authors explicitly define F:
 
Quote
Let F="The conditions in the universe are 'life-Friendly,' in the sense described above." Ross, in his arguments, certainly assumes that F is true. So will we (assumption b). The negation, ~F, would be that the conditions are such that life cannot exist naturalistically, so that if life is present it must be because of some supernatural principle or entity.

Try reading more carefully.
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 19 2006,12:22)
Could we assume P = 1 if we explicitly define F as "fine-tuned", with the probability condition attached as in the Barrow definition?

No, but so what?  That's a completley different argument.  Under their formulation, "fine tuning" takes the form P(F|N)<<1.

There is no equivocation.  F is defined as "the universe if life-friendly" throughout.  They prove that observing F cannot undermine N, no matter how small P(F|N) is.  Sorry, no dice.

Date: 2006/10/19 15:50:51, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 19 2006,15:03)
But here's where I get stuck: how does this refute the fine tuning argument in any meaningful sense?   All they're really saying is, "Seeing a universe with natural laws that are consistent with the formation of life makes philosophical naturalism at least as likely as theistic design".

No they're saying that even infinitesimal values of P(F|N) do not support ~N.
 
Quote
So if  P(F/N&L) was meant to describe the probability that the universe is observed to be fine tuned

There's one of your problems right there.  F is not "the universe is fine-tuned"! P(F|N&L)=1 is the weak anthropic principle, that is: if the universe is naturalistic and has life, it must be life-friendly.
 
Quote
But if they mean the looser definition described above, it collapses to the trivial statement that "Seeing a universe with natural laws that are consistent with life forming makes philosophical naturalism at least as likely as theistic design".

No, no, no.  They are making no statement about the relative values of P(N) versus P(~N).  They are showing that fine-tuning does not logically support ~N.

Date: 2006/10/19 15:55:08, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 19 2006,16:01)
Yes, the authors claim to have refuted much of this with a brand-new proof, but as I'll show, this fails too.

I hope this will be of superior quality to your last objection.

Date: 2006/10/19 16:11:18, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 19 2006,17:33)
I think that they're using Bayes' theorem inconsistently because they don't include the fine-tuning portion of the WAP in P(F/N&L) even though it's observed, but are then smuggling in fine tuning by letting P(N/F&L) ->0 after the cancellation. This equivocates the definition of F in my opinion.

As has been clarified (twice now) in the other thread, this is not an equivocation on their part but a misunderstanding on yours .  F is always "The universe is life-Friendly", never "The universe is fine-tuned".  And where are they saying P(N|F&L) ->0 ? They are clearly stating that P(N|F&L) cannot be less than P(N|L).  I strongly suggest re-reading it for comprehension before any further embarassing attempts at rebuttals.

Date: 2006/10/20 10:36:38, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 20 2006,14:23)
<sigh>It's obvious you don't have a clue what I'm talking about.


Ironically, you're showing it's you that has no idea what you're talking about.

I'll obviously have to hold your hand through this:

   
Quote

1) The I-J Theorem is based on Bayes' Theorem;

2) When working with Bayes (and our authors frequently emphasize this point), one must condition your probabilities on all the relevant observations;


OK, so far.

   
Quote
3) As you and I agree, I-J do not count for Fine Tuning in their initial conditional probability; that is, the F in P(F/N&L) does not include the brittleness of parameter values in its definition;


I repeat: so what?  That is not their argument.  Their argument concnerns the effect of the weak anthropic principle on the probability P(N|F&L).  They prove that this probability cannot be diminished by the observation F, regardless of the value of P(F|N) (for which small values correpsond to fine tuning).  I implore you: read the entire article.  You clearly do not understand the purpose of the work, and are harping on some ridiculous idea that 'F' should represent fine-tuning in and of itself.  If you still don't get it, I encourage you to email the authors.  Perhaps they can explain it to you in a manner you will comprehend.

   
Quote
4) This exclusion is crucial to their proof, as you admit:


This is called a "strawman".  I said no such thing in what you quoted, or anywhere else.  An argument in which F represents fine tuning would be an entirely different argument, and one in which P(F|L&N)=1 would not represent the weak anthropic principle!! Again, your objection stems purely from ignorance and fallacy.

   
Quote
5) Therefore, their reasoning might not apply to the real Fine Tuning argument, which accepts observations that I-J don't account for in a proper way.


The accepted formulation of fine-tuning based on those defiinitions of N and F is P(F|N)<<1.  They have shown that the observation of F cannot undermine N, even if P(F|N)<<1 (fine-tuning) is true.  

   
Quote
Hopefully, this will be too transparent to misread.


I would save the arrogance for when you've stopped making gross errors in comprehension.

Date: 2006/10/21 04:54:22, Link
Author: Ogee
Stop whining just because you've been caught out in a stupid objection to a sound argument.  "The universe is fine-tuned" is not a predicate, it is a statement of probability (in this case, P(F|N)<<1).  You do not condition on statements of probability.  

If you don't wish to put up with my "crap", you are welcome to stop posting easily-refuted garbage here.

Date: 2006/10/21 05:11:31, Link
Author: Ogee
As a white man, I feel terribly underpriveleged and discriminated against.  There's no question that in our society minorities (especially blacks and Muslims) have unfair advantages, as proven by their economic dominance of us poor white folk and their disproportionate representation in government.  Of course, some of them are poor, but that's just because of their inferior culture or incapacity to assimilate.  The idea that there is real systemic discrimination against non-whites is just a dirty gay/liberal/intellectual lie.

Date: 2006/10/21 07:26:18, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 21 2006,11:06)
Wrong. Fine tuning is a predicate; its probability depends on other background information (which we don't have). Fine tuning has been observed.

I would love for you to point to the observation that the universe is fine-tuned.

Meanwhile, in the real world, we (including our friend Heddle) know that fine-tuning refers to the apparently very small a priori probability that certain fundamental properties would fall within the life-amenable range.

   
Quote
Its probability depends on TOEs and putative multiverses. Nobody knows the probabilities involved, including Ikeda - Jeffries.
 
Which is irrelevant to their argument, which proves that ~N is not supported by fine-tuning, regardless of those probabilities.  Your inability to grasp this despite repeated explanations is shocking.
   
Quote
You know, the only academics I've encountered with your type of arrogance have all been mediocre. I'm not saying you are, but you might not want to be confused with a backbencher. Just sayin'.

Your brazen ignorance is a sure sign that your exposure to academics has been profoundly inadequate.

Date: 2006/10/21 07:30:05, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 21 2006,11:17)
Does all this provide a way to falsify the fine tuning hypothesis?

It doesn't falsify fine-tuning, but it does falsify the creationist assertion that fine-tuning implies "God did it".

Date: 2006/10/21 09:32:33, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 21 2006,14:01)
Notice that after all the insults, Ogee finally starts rebutting my claim proper. Thanks, all it took was wading through two miles of crap.


I am surprised that you're so prissy and delicate, Ghosty, but I'm not surprised that you would blatantly lie:  I have addressed (and demolished) your argument at every step.  The insults, while well-deserved, are for entertainment purposes only.

 
Quote
Now, if that were the gist of it, I would agree that I-J rebutted the fine tuning argument. In fact, I might even agree that I-J accomplished what they explicitly set out to do; that is, prove that one definition of the WAP, in and of itself, provides no support for the design hypothesis, and in fact may undermine it.


No one gives a shit what you agree with or don't: it's what you can demonstrate.  So far, you're not doing too well on that count.

 
Quote
The problem is, however, that this is not the fine tuning argument as expressed by many of its proponents. Many of the proponents, in fact, do not start from a purely philosophical assumption that the constants would be difficult for a naturalistic universe to achieve (of course it would, try hitting the same target twice blindfolded), but that, based on the empirical observation that many of the constants are very "brittle" (change them a little and you have no universe), the chance of the universe hitting those constants is very small.


Oh, for Christ's sake. How would one would formulate "the chance of the universe hitting those constants is very small"? Oh, yeah, P(F|N)<<1.  That you tried to argue that the fine-tuning argument is NOT a statement of probability and then describe it as "the chance of X is very small" is precious.  You simply cannot proceed from "parameter(s) must take on very specific values for a natural universe to support life" to the fine-tuning argument without rendering it as a probability statement, as you've shown yourself in your Keystone-cops attempt to assert the opposite.

I am starting to suspect that this is just another attention-whoring put-on like your geocentrism nonsense.  It's not a total waste, however:  I get the pleasure of embarassing a dishonest cretin, and we all get a demonstration of the pitfalls of Google-scholarship.

Date: 2006/10/21 09:56:11, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 21 2006,14:15)
Notice that these are observations, not philosophical statements. In other words, I-J attack an analytic strawman while ignoring the synthetic component IMHO.

:D  :D  :D   No one is questioning whether the values and life-compatible ranges of the various paramaters of interest are observations, genius.  No one knows what the a priori probabilities of these values are, or even what the ranges of possible values are, relative to the ranges of life-friendly values.  To get from observations like "if the mass of the electron changed by X%, life would be impossible" to the fine-tuning asssertion you must make a statement on the probability.   You can't hide a probability inside a predicate by semantic abuse.  

I do appreciate the fact that you've quietly conceded that there was no equivocation on the authors' part.

Date: 2006/10/21 10:01:11, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 21 2006,14:56)
You know, an angry person who writes deceptive, poorly researched essays.

You are no stranger to irony, I see.

Date: 2006/10/21 10:16:41, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (ScaryFacts @ Oct. 21 2006,15:12)
The fine tuning argument is agnostic, it doesn't tell us anything about the likelyhood and unlikelyhood of a creator.  True?

That's right.

Date: 2006/10/21 10:47:58, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 21 2006,15:09)
Then why didn't I-J include them in the definition for "F"?

Why would they?  The weak anthropic principle is not concerned with whether or not the universe would support life with different laws and constants.  The weak anthropic principle does concern whether the universe is life-friendly (F), contains life(L), and is naturalistic (N).
 
Quote
That's right,  but these observations should have been included in the initial conditional probability, as Bayes demands. So why didn't the authors do this? They only included "Life" and "Life friendly". These do not encompass the totality of what's observed. It's not just that the values are consistent with life that's observed, it's also that they're narrow. Doesn't mean life is unlikely under naturalistic assumptions, but it does need to be included. They clearly didn't.


Where does Bayes "demand" that observations not relevant to the probabilities of interest be conditioned for?  The existence of life must be conditioned for when dealing with the WAP, while the fine-tuning is accurately represented by P(F|N)<<1.  

Yet another problem for your objections is that the inclusion of these observations in F would change the conditional probabilities: obviously it can't change L (which we know to be 1 and which is used only to condition the other two), so it could only change N, but this is begging the question.  

 
Quote
I'm not: I'm just arguing that the conditional probability predicated on all the observations is low.


Which can't be done without assuming a prioiri that the observations decrease the probability of N, which renders the argument circular.

Date: 2006/10/21 10:59:59, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 21 2006,15:44)
Well, not really. Let's just say that they're applying the proof more broadly than it strictly calls for. "Equivocation" is a little harsh, and if I implied that they were deliberately deceptive, then I apologise. I still think they unintentionally used a strawman definition of fine tuning (a weaker Wap construction*), and then used it to argue against what I consider the authentic fine tuning argument.

I'm quite aware of what you're saying; it's the part where you back it up with something other than bald assertion and misrepresentation that's lacking.
 
Quote
Look, before this argument gets even more pointless, let me admit that I could very well be wrong. I don't think I'm wrong, but I've fucked up before, and God willing, I'll probably fuck up in the future. I just can't see why Ogee is hugging I-J's nuts so badly: dude, they're just a couple of stats guys, not yo' mamma. Just stick to the argument please.

You're a real piece of work: toss an insult and then plead for a civil discussion.  You can stick your hypocrisy and your false civility up your ass.

Date: 2006/10/21 11:47:45, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 21 2006,16:16)

Yes, this is true for at least one definition. I have heard other definitions (for example, I quoted two earlier). But I'm challenging whether their version of WAP really encompasses the argument they think they're addressing, let alone the observations themselves. I've said from the beginning that they've established what their pinched definitions allowed them to establish. I'm just skeptical that their definitions match most theists's.

You are backpedalling and your objections are growing more vague.  I don't care what your opinion is; what can you show?  Where's the fault in that forumlation of the WAP?   Where's your superior alternative formulation?  Where's the beef?
   
Quote
Ogee, I really do understand their paper. I just disagree with their background assumptions.

And?  If you can't show that they're wrong, why should anyone care whether you disagree?
   
Quote
Not necessarily. It could change the likelihood of N (most physicists think it doesn't, and I realise that), but these observations come straight from N's background information. If it didn't, scientists wouldn't be trying to account for it in their inflationary models.

Nonsense.  It is an important problem quite independent of any theological implications.  
   
Quote
In fact, inflation itself is an attempt to address some anthropic coinci-dinks. I can't stress this enough: these observations didn't have to be true. In fact, everything I've read suggested that these facts were initially greeted with surprise.

None of this is news, nor has anything to do with whether fine-tuning implies ~N.
   
Quote
It would be circular if I wanted the low probability built into the assumptions. But as I've said before, I do not believe these anthropic coincidences narrow the likelihood of N by definition.
 
This pattern seems somehow familiar: Ghost has some really devastating points to make and, rest assured, will provide a grand proof (later).

Date: 2006/10/21 11:58:16, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 21 2006,16:16)
Oh my, I'm debating with an idEOlogue.

Of course, because only ideologues are irritated by cretins.  Fuck yourself.
   
Quote
If I'm wrong, I can accept it and move on, but if I'm right, I have a feeling that you're gonna be really depressed. Why? For a group of people who don't believe in ####, you atheists sure like immersing yourself in the furnace.

(1) I'm an atheist?    
(2) You're already wrong.  This is sport.

Date: 2006/10/22 17:10:39, Link
Author: Ogee
Hmm...turns out Ghost's original mistake regarding whether F represents fine-tuning in Ikeda & Jeffrys' arguments exactly mirrors an identical mistake made in the fine-tuned universe Wikipedia article.  Not that Ghosty has any history of getting ear-deep in broken arguments based on half-assed Google scholarship or anything.  I've also noticed another telling trend (probably already detected by others here) that he decides something is wrong (or right) first, and then does the background reading, with predictably lousy results (and, ironically, it's a key trait of a true ideologue).

It's a disappointingly stereotypical creationist M.O. and, in retrospect, horribly boring.  As for the matter at hand, I don't doubt for an instant that GoP has both the time and inclination to post minor re-wordings of the same errors ad nauseam, nor that he will claim victory once I stop responding to his drivel, but my patience for repeatedly correcting those errors (and for letting his disingenuous conduct raise my blood pressure) is at its end.

Date: 2006/10/22 17:47:33, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (creeky belly @ Oct. 22 2006,17:00)
I think youre really limiting yourself, though, if you're only looking at the constants. For instance, what if the divergence of magnetic fields wasn't zero, or what if the gravitational interaction wasn't proportional to the square of the distance. The fact that you can imagine different constants, or proportions, or powers, really has no significance; especially since we really don't understand whether or not the constants are connected to something more fundamental to our universe.
By the way, 4% isn't exactly small either.

You're right, in that no one knows exactly what determines the observed laws and constants, much less a  credible way to estimate their a priori probabilities - although it is generally accepted that these will be (collectively, at least) very low.

The real flaw is in the fallacious and unparsimonious creationist claim that a low a priori probability of life-supporting physics implies divine intervention.  There is simply no way to support that claim except by flat assertion (non sequitur) or by begging the question.

Date: 2006/10/24 04:58:26, Link
Author: Ogee
Religion in Quebec is fairly interesting.  Around 1960, the Quebecois essentially revolted against the extreme and opressive regressiveness of the French-Canadian Catholic church (and its ally, the ultraconservative nationalist Union Nationale party), which was deliberately keeping them relatively poor and uneducated.  One of the most obvious legacies from that "revolution" is Quebecers' awesome use of religious profanity.  

Although the vast majority of Quebecers still identify as Catholic, Quebec society has become  highly liberal and secular (city and street names notwithstanding) - even relative to the rest of Canada.  It's not surprising that the Quebec gov't would intervene to protect the education of children whose only crime is having fools for parents.

Date: 2006/10/26 03:04:19, Link
Author: Ogee
You've hit the nail on the head again, Louis.  GOP is making much of how small a proportion (0.9%) of the prison population is Buddhist.  The priceless part is that he is simultaneously harping about a group representing less than 0.4% of Britain's Muslim population (~6,000 prisoners out of ~1.6 million Muslims).  Worse yet, he's doing a spectacularly bad job of handwaving away the demographic problem.  The vast majority of prisoners are 18-39 years old; not coincidentally 18-39 year-olds are overrepresented by 30-40% (back-of-envelope) among the two largest sources of Muslims (Pakistanis and Bangladeshis) relative to the generalpopulation, according to the histograms in the Ethnicity and Religion report.  Therefore, age demographics alone can reasonably account for about a third of the Muslim overrepresentation in British jails.  Given that Gippy hasn't even started to account for other factors (economics, education, conviction rates), this is quite devastating - and is why he is so very desperate to shift the burden of proof to you.  In all, it's quite hilarious: Gippy has actually managed to undermine a claim that many people (myself included) would have considered quite plausible at the outset.

Date: 2006/11/07 18:53:35, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 07 2006,14:57)
For example, scientific induction works best with phenomena that overlap our sensory world (although instruments may extend the scope of our senses).

I think science is more than happy to leave anything that doesn't "overlap our sensory world" to your "other ways".  :D  :D  :D

Date: 2006/11/08 19:12:15, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 08 2006,17:56)
Certainly, crying "projection" is a cheap shot and should be avoided in a civilised debate.

Poor Ghosty, so delicate, like a flower.  Let's be gentle with  his sensitive soul and at the same time try to live up to his exemplary style of honest and respectful debating.  This goes double for you stupid, immoral "liberals".

Oops.. that's not Ghosty being a mealy-mouthed hypocrite again, is it?  

 
Quote (Louis @ Nov.08,2006,02:03)
Amusingly, it would appear that it is YOU that has the problem since you immediately personal messaged me after the thread was locked and it appears you still can't let go.


You weren't the only person to get one of those.

Date: 2006/11/08 21:04:30, Link
Author: Ogee
"Get the vapours"?  Putting aside the irony of you posting such a few short posts after whining like a baby about being insulted, what's with this anachronistic contempt for women of yours?  You're not some sort of misogynist bigot, are you?

Oh, right.

Date: 2006/11/09 15:50:32, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 09 2006,14:35)
Not only do they detract from your ideas (such as they are), they make you look like a wimp.

Actually, they're rather amusing embellishments on his otherwise systematic destruction of your bullshit.  They're certainly don't smell of wimpiness, especially compared to your unctuous whinging about them.

As for the rest, it's pure, trivial sophistry.  So one can pose a question in a manner so vague that it defies rigorous investigation: so what?  What does this prove about the relative utility of science versus your undefined "other ways" of modeling existence?  For that matter, how does it justify your abject failure to demonstrate that "fine-tuning" supports a supernatural origin for the universe?

Date: 2006/11/09 21:57:48, Link
Author: Ogee
Classic Paley: arrogance in the absence of anything to be arrogant about.

Before we lose track, let's review where Paley initiated his latest mess with this tidy pile of stupidity:
 
Quote
Even assuming that fine tuning is unfalsifiable (and in the strict sense, it probably is), does that prevent us from examining the idea? Since certain observations would remove the need for this hypothesis, fine tuning has content IMHO. Remember, the universe does not exist to fit into our philosophical constructs; it may be too broad to capture by the human mind. Scientism is only one way of viewing things -- it is not necessarily the correct way.


Paley made an insinuation about the applicability of science to the fine-tuning problem - an understandable attempt at diversion, given his miserably incompetent defense of the "fine-tuning, therefore Goddiddit" assertion. Naturally, he got called on it.    

The ensuing red herring regarding whether science can/will resolve "correct" meanings of nebulous words like "better" is an (again, understandable) attempt to drag the discussion into his comfort zone, i.e. where he can saturate the thread with mountains of obfuscatory and fatuous bullshit (and make unintentionally hilarious fist-pumping declarations of victory).

And now we're promised the Nth regurgitation of the crown jewel of all creationist pseudoscience:  the second law argument.  Every time I read Paley, I can't help but think of Voltaire (and not just because V. was a deist and an enthusiastic bigot):

I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it.

Apart from some sort of Davison-grade pathological narcissism, I can't imagine why GoP insists on spending so much time, losing debate after debate, in a forum where he already has zero credibility and commands zero respect.

Date: 2006/11/14 14:21:35, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 14 2006,13:05)
If you want to be molested by someone else, however, you can try David Berlinski, who has whipped a group of Talk Originers in an online debate over the Second Law and another group on the Nilsson-Pelger paper.

Once again, reality and Paley prove immiscible:

Talk.origins trounces Berlinski
Talk.origins slaps Berlinski (Again)
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/blurred.cfm

My most favourite bits:

From Wadkins:
 
Quote
My initial response is what I would now call Randy's rule of thumb:  If you think life, now or ever, violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, then you are a fucking idiot.


From Nilsson:
Quote
Contrary to Berlinski's claim, we calculate the spatial resolution (visual acuity) for all parts of our eye evolution sequence. The functions in Figure 1 display the results. These plots are computer generated, using small increments. Values and units are given on the axes of the plots, and procedures are explained in the legend. The underlying theory is explained in the main text, including the important Equation 1 and a reference to Warrant and McIntyre (1993) where this theory is derived. Yet, Berlinski insists that "Nilsson and Pelger do not calculate the visual acuity of any structure". It would be much simpler for Berlinski if he went just a tiny step further and denied the existence of our paper altogether.

Date: 2006/11/14 18:48:32, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 14 2006,15:42)
Ha, Ha! Ogee, arguing with you is like cuffing a puppy around.

Really?  How's that fine-tuning probability argument coming along?  :D  :D  :D   Shall we queue the violins for your next little bout of whining about being insulted?

   
Quote
So can you rebut Berlinkski's claims, Ogee? If not, then his critique stands as the final word on the matter.


Where did you get this infantile notion that whoever posts the most verbiage or posts the last word wins?  It explains much about your debating style, but doesn't hold water.  As for re-refuting DB, I lack your gusto for clogging the thread with tracts pasted from Google searches.  I am more than content to have pointed to the threads in question (and the talk.origins site) to let the interested reader see for themselves.

Date: 2006/11/14 20:25:24, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 14 2006,19:49)
Since I provided one of the best arguments against the fine-tuning interpretation (I-J's paper) while showing where that rebuttal went wrong (the authors didn't include the observation of low tolerances in the initial probability), I think I'm doing OK.

Err.. you claimed they equivocated, then backpedalled and claimed that the fine-tuning argument is not a statement of probability, and asserted that conditioning on "brittleness" would change the outcome. The demonstration of any of this has apparently been lost in the mail.  If that's "doing OK", I shudder to think what your "doing badly" looks like.
   
Quote
If the last word shows where the first word screws up, then the last word wins.

Sure, IF.  I'm glad you posted Berlinski's response (which I had not read before): it's quite telling, albeit not in the manner you think it is.  Again, I encourage interested readers to compare Berlinski's complaints to the paper itself and evaluate.  

 
Quote
I wish that there were more scientists like Dr. Moran.

This professed admiration of yours for Moran's high standards of conduct might ring a little truer if you were not a documented hypocrite, troll, bigot and liar.

 
Quote
Personally, I think this forum needs more Berlinskis.

So do I: that we're stuck with the likes of afdave and you is depressing.  I would be delighted if some higher-grade pseudoscientists had the stones to operate in a forum like this.

Date: 2006/11/15 01:36:42, Link
Author: Ogee
That's a shame: you almost figured it out for yourself, but let the instruction continue...

You can indeed cancel the first term on the RHS, because it also equals unity:

P(F|L&N&B) = 1.

Why?  Any natural universe known to contain life must be life-friendly.  The conditioning on B cannot reduce the probability of F once L is observed in a natural universe.   Not a good start for demonstrating B is relevant here.

Anyway, this leaves:

P(N|F&L&B) = P(N|L&B)/P(F|L&B)

P(F|(L&B) <= 1

Therefore P(N|F&L&B) >= P(N|L&B)

We once again must conclude that, no matter the degree of "brittleness" assumed or "observed", the additional observation of F cannot undermine N (but could support it). We find that B does not influence this conclusion at all, and that therefore conditioning on B is unnecessary.  Contrast this with conditioning on L, which has a dramatic effect on the probabilities (and, without which, the 1st RHS term could not be cancelled).

Quote
Didn't you understand their proof?


:D  :D  :D

Date: 2006/11/15 17:07:48, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 15 2006,14:06)
Notice that B remains in the denominator on both sides, so this only shows that F increases --or does not decrease-- the likelihood of natualism if we compare our universe to a life-containing one whose laws may or may not be life friendly, but are brittle.


Nonsense.  "Brittleness" is not a property of a particular universe, but a statement on the range of physical parameters constants that will satisfy F, and thus applies for all universes.  

Quote
You need to show that P(N|F&L&B) >= P(N|F&L) to show that B is unimportant.


Actually, I don't:

1)  The positive claim is that B (in conjunction with F) supports ~N.   This has been shown to be utterly unsupported, which is sufficient to reject the cosmological ID argument.

2) Your specific claim that conditioning on B will change the outcome of Ikeda-Jeffery's anthropic principle argument has been competely refuted.

Date: 2006/11/15 17:45:37, Link
Author: Ogee
Worse yet, although it has been granted as an assumption for the sake of argument above, you still have not even established that B is a legitimate predicate, as opposed to a disguised statement about P(F|N).

That your argument fails even if this dubious assumption is granted is pretty indicative of its quality.

Date: 2006/11/15 22:31:29, Link
Author: Ogee
More howlers from our village idiot:
   
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 15 2006,20:02)
Nonsense? Brittleness is simply the observation of low tolerances. Some universes could have tolerances within several orders of magnitude, while others may have very narrow ranges.

Again, total fucking nonsense.  I challenge you to name just one physicist that supports such idiocy.  Absolutely staggering.
       
Quote
F in conjunction with any observation will not undermine N, because we know life exists.

Finally, you get something right (once more today and there's a nice, shiny Broken Clock medal with your pseudonym on it).  This is exactly I-J's point - and it critically wounds cosmo-ID, which holds that the combination of  P(F|N)<<1 and the observation of F undermine N.
       
Quote
This shows how hollow the I-J proof really is, because it demonstrates that, say, finding a transcendental number encoded in DNA, or finding the first verse of genesis inscribed in a nebula, can only support N so long as it's coupled with life and life-friendliness -- or simply life alone! Change B's definition and the proof marches on, undisturbed.

Christ, you're dumb.  First, B cannot support N (or ~N) - a crucial consequence of its irrelevance.  Second, those other observations might have an influence on P(N), but which must be independently established: they have nothing to do with fine-tuning.  Ikeda-Jefferys deals with the cosmo-ID fine-tuning argument: that irrelevancies do not alter the conclusions is hardly a flaw.
       
Quote
Then why are the final probabilities only comparing brittle universes?

"Brittleness" isn't a property of universes, dimwit, it is the constraints on life-friendly physical laws and constants.

Date: 2006/11/16 18:17:13, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 16 2006,11:11)
Neverhteless, I still think you should condition on B, even though this is a continuous variable. Perhaps give tolerance a numeric range?


:D  :D  :D  (emphasis mine) I thought you said that B was a statement, and not a probability?  Statements are not "continuous variables", they are propositions like "the universe is natural in origin" which are either true or false.  Probabilities, on the other hand, are continuous variables, and you cannot condition on a continuous variable.  It's a shame that progress has to come because of your Google-scholar level comprehension, rather than an honest concession, but I'll take it.
   
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 16 2006,08:47)
Let me know when you've replaced your temper tantrum with an actual objection.

Let me know when you've replaced your handwaving and whinging with some actual support for your claims.  

Since you dodged right past it, I'll have to repeat:

"Brittleness" isn't a property of universes, dimwit, it is the constraints on life-friendly physical laws and constants.

I accept your tacit concession that you will not find even one physicist to agree with your absolutely idioitic claim that it's universes that are brittle.  
   
Quote
How would you know what B supports?


I showed above that, even if we grant that B is a legit predicate,  conditioning on B has no influence on the Ikeda-Jefferys argument.
     
Quote
The analysis only compares brittle universes, not brittle universes with non-brittle ones.

Since you respond to refutations of your nonsense with mere repetitions of the same claims, I see no reason not to simply cut-and-paste the points you can't answer:

"Brittleness" isn't a property of universes, dimwit, it is the constraints on life-friendly physical laws and constants.

Let's summarize Paley's foray into fine-tuning thus far:

1) Paley claimed that I-J equivocated on F. This was proven wrong - and shown to probably originate with the source of most all of Paley's "knowledge": Wikipedia. 0 for 1.

2) Paley claimed that conditioning on "brittleness" would collapse the I-J argument.  I proved above that it doesn't change it one whit.  Paley has provided exactly zero evidence in support of his assertion.  0 for 2.

3) Paley claimed that his (as-yet not precisely defined) "brittleness" statement is a legitimate predicate, which could be conditioned upon in Bayesian probability arguments.  He accidentally admitted that this is false.  0 for 3

4) Paley claimed that "brittleness" is a property of specific universes, as opposed to life-permitting physics.  Aside from its rather obvious inanity (and total lack of support among those who study "fine-tuning"), Paley has provided exactly zero evidence in support of this assertion.  0 for 4.

Ouch.  Given this kind of performance, it's understandable that Paley has attempted to distract from these failure and fallaciously shift the burden of proof regarding his positive assertion that "brittleness" changes the probability that the universe is natural in origin.

Date: 2006/11/27 14:28:58, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 27 2006,12:51)
I'm still waiting for Ogee's response to my last rebuttal....so what's your point again?

That was a rebuttal?  You've convinced no one: no further response will be required, if that's the best you've got.  Why on Earth would I waste more time prompting repetitions of inane bullshit from a discredited, iron-skulled cretin?

Date: 2006/11/27 15:44:13, Link
Author: Ogee

Date: 2006/11/29 10:05:52, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (Freelurker @ Nov. 29 2006,00:33)
Dave's professional engineering experience does not give him experience with the question at hand.

There's also the minor issue that DT has no professional engineering experience (or education).  There is no forum on Earth (except UD) where he would be accepted as an expert on design or the practise of engineering.

Date: 2006/11/29 11:06:45, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 29 2006,10:25)
  You will find that he is the sole or joint holder of 4 patents:
<snip>
None seem related to biology.

I'm aware of DT's patents; they're nice and all, but being involved in (or even leading) the development of a novel bit of code or motherboard arrangement does not an engineer (or design "maven") make.  'Tard poses as qualified "as an engineer" to offer a "professional opinion" on design detection.  He's not (qualified, or an engineer).  If he was presented as an expert on design or engineering in court, for instance, he would be eviscerated.  

The leap to biology is another problem entirely.

Date: 2006/11/29 11:11:38, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (k.e @ Nov. 29 2006,10:59)
Does he qualify to be a full (degree qualified and professional standing) member of the IEEE?

You don't have to be an engineer to be a full member of IEEE:  technicians and programmers can become full members with sufficient experience.

Date: 2006/12/03 19:42:47, Link
Author: Ogee
This was just too stupid to let slide:
   
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 30 2006,13:50)
I suspect that I-J's conclusion is not only limited, but tautological, because the existence of life implies "life-friendly" laws.

P(N|L)=P(N|F&L) [because L implies F]

You cannot make that equation unless L requires F (that is, P(F|L)=1), which is only the case if N is true (this cannot be assumed when evaluating conditional probabilities of N!;)   Of course, what follows is trivial due to this fallacy.  Your 'suspicions' are once again shown to be based on pure ignorance.

Date: 2006/12/08 14:37:11, Link
Author: Ogee
Some better questions:

Is there any evidence that the there is such a thing as a "configurational entropy hurdle"?  Is this an accepted concept in chemistry or physics?  Is there peer-reviewed support of this sort of work?

Good luck!

Date: 2006/12/08 14:56:01, Link
Author: Ogee
To put this in perspective, using this sort of energy calculation, a 300-page novel contains about 1,000,000 characters, from a set of about 65 (including spaces, punctuation, capital and small letters).

The "configurational entropy" of one specific arrangment of those 1M characters is 0 (ln1=0).

The "configurational entropy" of a random distribution of 1M letters from a population of 65 is:

k * (1e6)!/ 65 / 15385!

Which is a number somewhere around 10 ^ 3,000,000 ergs/letter.

OMFG!!! WHERE WILL THIS ENERGY COME FROM!??!?!! NOVELS ARE IMPOSSIBLE!!!! GODDIDDIT!!!!

Date: 2006/12/22 17:40:18, Link
Author: Ogee
I've been splitting atoms for fun and profit in Toronto for almost two years, after five years of grad school and postdockery in Montreal.  Lived in Vancouver prior to that for most of my life (but was born in Montreal).

Date: 2007/01/08 08:58:08, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (jujuquisp @ Jan. 08 2007,07:22)
"If you can't do, teach"???????   LOL, I work in an academic clinical setting.  I have to "do" in order to "teach" everyday.  

You'll have to forgive Davetard:  he has absolutely no clue as to what real engineers, much less scientists or engineering professors, actually do for a living, or what goes on at universities.  I have never encountered anyone so transparently insecure about their lack of credentials or education.

Date: 2007/01/09 14:24:51, Link
Author: Ogee
He is probably converting his stock-option lottery winnings into a one-year hourly rate.

Date: 2007/01/12 18:54:17, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 12 2007,17:29)

You know, somehow I knew DaveTard would look like that. My Comic Book Guy guess wasn't too far off the mark.

To me, he kind of looks like an older, fatter, dumber Stephen Root.

Date: 2007/01/17 10:34:00, Link
Author: Ogee
GoP is a consistent and proven liar and troll.  Even  post-"coming out", his posts on race/religion/immigration/liberals/etc, and misogynistic language betray a pretty thinly-veiled bigotry.  His claims to be pro-science are inconsistent with his ineffectual but dogged attempts to defend  idiocies like cosmo-ID and creationist 2LOT arguments against evolution and abiogenesis.  His penchant for tossing insults, acting like an utter bastard, and then playing the wounded innocent when insulted in return, is pathetic.

All that said, I don't think banning is the answer (yet).  Louis, I think your methods (and my own prior to ignoring him) are counter-productive.  The massive diatribes, while largely accurate and sometimes entertaining, are exactly what he, being a rather obvious preening attention whore, wants.  Ignoring him worked very well over most of the last little while, and should be the preferred tactic.  If he shuts up, good.  If he shapes up, even better.  If he continues to act like an ignorant arsehole, he'll eventually end up banned.  None of it is worth raising your blood pressure, or leaving the board, over.

Date: 2007/03/14 10:20:14, Link
Author: Ogee
It's legitimate question whether Hitler was genuine in his religious posturing, or whether he merely found Christianity to be a useful tool in motivating genocide.

Date: 2007/03/20 13:21:18, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 20 2007,11:23)
DaveTard:

   
Quote
If I weren't banned at Pharyngula, Dispatches, Panda's Thumb, ATBC, I'd get down in the mud with them. I was sergeant in the USMC and Marines aren't exactly famous for being delicate and refined. The fact of the matter is they can dish it out but they can't take it and if any of them don't believe that then I challenge them to unban me at those sites. Even though I'm vastly outnumbered they still can't deal with me. On blogs I try to follow the rule "When in Rome do as the Romans do." Larry Moran's evolution blog is the only one where I'm still tolerated. Moran has a thick skin and for that he has my respect. Red State Rabble is a real joke. Witless, classless wimp Pat Hayes doesn't even enable comments. If not cowardice I'm not sure why since he doesn't have any semblance of refinement to guard.

9:49 AM



oh Dave, what about Alan Fox's neutral venue?

Edit: Quote from FTK's blog.

That's hilarious, given how DT squealed and whined like a little piggy when insulted at Alan's blog and at UDoJ.  I love the tough guy Marine act coming from a tubby yellow-bellied (or maybe those are just cheezy-poof crumb-stains?) REMF who speedily bans anyone who exposes his considerable inadequacies over at UD.  I suppose being a hypocrite is small beans when you're already a known cretin, bigot, coward and all-round uneducated moron.

Date: 2007/03/29 11:54:27, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 29 2007,06:52)
Atheism may not be formalized but it has it's own belief system, influences and preachers.  We can disagree about this all day long but atheism is a religion, pure and simple.  The central claim can not be supported in any quantitative way and is just accepted as a matter of faith.  So we're dealing with a belief system that moves the authority internally rather than externally and is attempting to displace the other religions.  

Ridiculous.  Atheism is no more a religion than is disbelief in Harry Potter or Santa Claus.  There is absolutely no reason to privelege your preferred fantasy character.

Date: 2007/03/30 08:56:35, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (skeptic @ Mar. 29 2007,16:31)
Now, Ogee raises a good point and to that I would say that it all comes down to a level of acceptance or organization.  If there was an organized Church of Harry Potter (which we call now a fan club) that was accepted by it's members as a true belief and reaches a critical mass of acceptance in the community then it is a religion.  As an example, I would present the Church of Scientology.  What I would consider the fantasy of a science fiction writer is accepted by many (including the US Govt) as a valid religion.  I would put Scientology in the same catagory that you place Harry Potter.

Good for you, "skeptic" (as ironic a handle as I've ever seen).  It's a shame that you completely missed the point.  Scientology is a religion.  Nonbelief in Scientology is not, just like nonbelief in Harry Potter, Superman, Zeus invisible pink unicorns, or the aforementioned tasty caramel moon.  There is absolutely nothing special about your superstition of choice that transforms nonbelief in it into religion.  Get over it.

Date: 2007/04/03 16:59:54, Link
Author: Ogee
Wow.. a crowd of skeptics booed (booed!) and murmured (Murmured!!!) once Abanes started in with the creationist drivel.  Where were the police?

Date: 2007/04/03 18:59:15, Link
Author: Ogee
I probably wouldn't hiss or boo, despite the fact that presenting tornado-in-a-junkyard grade arguments to a savvy crowd is an insult.  

But I thought you were going to prove to us that atheists are hiding some dangerous/religious agenda.  If the best you can do is an anecdote about a skeptics' society audience booing some moron peddling anti-science, I'm thoroughly unimpressed.  

As for etiquette, I'll take forthright rudeness over smarmy condescension anyday.

Date: 2007/04/03 21:10:59, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 03 2007,19:29)
To be honest, I'm not sure the crowd recognised how slipshod his arguments really were. The people I talked to afterwards didn't seem very knowledgeable about the subject. I've noticed this trend at other conferences.

Sure you have.  
   
Quote
I'm arguing that atheists base their opinions as much on emotion as on cold logic, that their behaviour in private demonstrates this (of which this anecdote is only one example), and that many of their organisations become more inflexible and rigid in their dogma over time.

It's a shame, then, that your story, even accepted at face value, doesn't support this assertion.
   
Quote
I notice you ducked the question. Here it is again: do you find the crowd's behaviour acceptable or don't you?

As described, no.  But it is understandable, and your depiction is suspect.  More to the point, it does nothing to support your claims that skepticism/atheism is mostly emotional, much less religious or dangerous.

Date: 2007/04/03 21:23:23, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ April 03 2007,21:02)
....which of course remains unanswered. Don't worry Ogee, I didn't expect one.


You mean in between your two posts 90 minutes apart?  

I do occasionally have more pressing demands on my time than sparring with trolls.

Date: 2007/05/04 07:57:22, Link
Author: Ogee
A penny's worth of free advice for Louis, et al:

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
- George Bernard Shaw

Date: 2008/02/22 12:19:31, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote
ID at least attempts to place some bounds on what chance & necessity can and cannot do with reasonable certainty and by bounding the process it enables some predictions to be made about the future instead of throwing in the towel and saying we can’t predict anything because it’s all a matter of inscrutable chance.

ID prediction:  God did it, and we think he might do it again?
Oh, and the irony of an IDiot using terms like 'inscrutable' and "science-stopper'...

Quote
This is what happens when scientific theories become scientific dogma immune to contrary evidence and criticism by virtue of being uncontestable fact. It happened to Sigmund Freud’s theory, it happened to Karl Marx’s theory, and the last holdout of post-modern enlightenment is Darwin’s theory.

Wow, was Darwin ahead of his time or what?.. a 19th century postmodernist!

Date: 2008/02/26 19:14:41, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 26 2008,15:04)
Religious agendas aside, I really do believe that people like Sternberg, Dembski, Marks, Berlinski, Gonzalez, Behe, etc are sincerely seeking the truth. That may be difficult for some of you to accept

Hmmm, yeah.. that would be because it is demonstrably untrue.

Date: 2008/02/27 15:04:53, Link
Author: Ogee
Quote (kevinmillerxi @ Feb. 27 2008,11:20)
Apart from that though, I agree that the best Panspermia can ever be is a hypothesis, because it doesn't answer the ultimate question of how life originated in the universe, just how it originated on earth.

I guess we needn't ask whether you understand the distinction between hypothesis and theory.

 

 

 

=====