form_srcid: Ogee
form_cmd: view_author
Your IP address is 38.107.191.99
View Author detected.
view author posts:
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 172.30.180.164 |
| 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 69.194.24.186 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
[quote=The Ghost of Paley,June 23 2006,15:40][/quote]
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 172.30.180.254 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
[quote=jujuquisp,Aug. 03 2006,09:40][/quote]
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 172.30.180.237 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
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 172.30.180.251 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
[quote=Richardthughes,Aug. 23 2006,00:49][/quote]
Small, bizarre world: I am acquainted with her "recently-ex-boyfriend". |
| Date: 2006/08/23 09:53:14, Link 172.30.180.251 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
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 172.30.181.19 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
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 69.194.24.186 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
The 'tard wrote:
Priceless. |
| Date: 2006/09/04 06:37:46, Link 69.194.24.186 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
|
As was inevitable in any place where he can't delete or ban those who embarass him,Davetard flees. The 'tard wrote:
Poor baby. |
| Date: 2006/09/05 10:04:35, Link 172.30.181.19 | ||||
| Author: Ogee | ||||
I though this was cute:
|
| Date: 2006/09/08 11:04:11, Link 69.194.24.186 |
| Author: Ogee |
| Kudos: one of the most impressive pranks I have ever seen. |
| Date: 2006/09/13 03:42:30, Link 172.30.181.19 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
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 172.30.181.65 |
| 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 172.30.181.65 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
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 172.30.181.65 |
| 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 172.30.181.65 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
Dinger is such an admirable, upstanding human being. |
| Date: 2006/09/21 06:50:53, Link 172.30.181.65 |
| 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 172.30.181.15 |
| 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 172.30.181.20 |
| 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 172.30.181.20 | ||||
| Author: Ogee | ||||
True.
False. |
| Date: 2006/10/18 07:03:23, Link 172.30.181.20 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
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 172.30.181.20 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
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 172.30.181.20 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
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 172.30.181.20 |
| 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 172.30.181.20 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
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 172.30.181.20 | ||||||||||
| Author: Ogee | ||||||||||
Ummm... what?!? Cosomological ID does not argue for design (and thus a designer)? What exactly does the ID part stand for?
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.
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?
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.
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 172.30.181.20 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
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 172.30.181.20 | ||||||
| Author: Ogee | ||||||
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.
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:
|
| Date: 2006/10/19 07:47:01, Link 172.30.181.20 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
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 172.30.181.20 | ||||||
| Author: Ogee | ||||||
No interpretation is necessary. The authors explicitly define F:
Try reading more carefully.
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 74.100.76.59 | ||||||
| Author: Ogee | ||||||
No they're saying that even infinitesimal values of P(F|N) do not support ~N.
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.
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 74.100.76.59 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
I hope this will be of superior quality to your last objection. |
| Date: 2006/10/19 16:11:18, Link 74.100.76.59 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
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 172.30.181.20 | ||||||||||||
| Author: Ogee | ||||||||||||
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:
OK, so far.
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.
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.
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.
I would save the arrogance for when you've stopped making gross errors in comprehension. |
| Date: 2006/10/21 04:54:22, Link 74.100.76.59 |
| 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 74.100.76.59 |
| 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 74.100.76.59 | ||||||
| Author: Ogee | ||||||
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.
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.
Your brazen ignorance is a sure sign that your exposure to academics has been profoundly inadequate. |
| Date: 2006/10/21 07:30:05, Link 74.100.76.59 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
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 74.100.76.59 | ||||||
| Author: Ogee | ||||||
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.
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.
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 74.100.76.59 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
 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 74.100.76.59 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
You are no stranger to irony, I see. |
| Date: 2006/10/21 10:16:41, Link 74.100.76.59 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
That's right. |
| Date: 2006/10/21 10:47:58, Link 74.100.76.59 | ||||||
| Author: Ogee | ||||||
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).
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.
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 74.100.76.59 | ||||
| Author: Ogee | ||||
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.
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 74.100.76.59 | ||||||||||
| Author: Ogee | ||||||||||
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?
And? If you can't show that they're wrong, why should anyone care whether you disagree?
Nonsense. It is an important problem quite independent of any theological implications.
None of this is news, nor has anything to do with whether fine-tuning implies ~N.
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 74.100.76.59 | ||||
| Author: Ogee | ||||
Of course, because only ideologues are irritated by cretins. Fuck yourself.
(1) I'm an atheist? (2) You're already wrong. This is sport. |
| Date: 2006/10/22 17:10:39, Link 74.100.76.59 |
| 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 74.100.76.59 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
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 172.30.181.20 |
| 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 172.30.181.20 |
| 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 74.100.76.59 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
I think science is more than happy to leave anything that doesn't "overlap our sensory world" to your "other ways". |
| Date: 2006/11/08 19:12:15, Link 74.100.76.59 | ||||
| Author: Ogee | ||||
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?
You weren't the only person to get one of those. |
| Date: 2006/11/08 21:04:30, Link 74.100.76.59 |
| 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 74.100.76.59 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
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 74.100.76.59 | ||
| 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:
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 172.30.181.20 | ||||||
| Author: Ogee | ||||||
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:
From Nilsson:
|
| Date: 2006/11/14 18:48:32, Link 172.30.181.20 | ||||
| Author: Ogee | ||||
Really? How's that fine-tuning probability argument coming along? Shall we queue the violins for your next little bout of whining about being insulted?
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 74.100.76.59 | ||||||||
| Author: Ogee | ||||||||
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.
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.
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.
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 74.100.76.59 | ||
| 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).
|
| Date: 2006/11/15 17:07:48, Link 74.100.76.59 | ||||
| Author: Ogee | ||||
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.
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 74.100.76.59 |
| 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 74.100.76.59 | ||||||||
| Author: Ogee | ||||||||
More howlers from our village idiot:
Again, total fucking nonsense. I challenge you to name just one physicist that supports such idiocy. Absolutely staggering.
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.
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.
"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 74.100.76.59 | ||||||||
| Author: Ogee | ||||||||
(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.
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.
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.
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 172.30.181.134 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
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 74.100.76.59 |
| Author: Ogee |
 |
| Date: 2006/11/29 10:05:52, Link 172.30.181.134 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
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 172.30.181.134 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
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 172.30.181.134 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
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 74.100.76.59 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
This was just too stupid to let slide:
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 172.30.181.27 |
| 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 172.30.181.27 |
| 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 74.100.76.59 |
| 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 172.30.181.33 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
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 172.30.181.33 |
| 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 74.100.76.59 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
To me, he kind of looks like an older, fatter, dumber Stephen Root. |
| Date: 2007/01/17 10:34:00, Link 172.30.180.181 |
| 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 172.30.181.9 |
| 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 172.30.181.9 | ||||
| Author: Ogee | ||||
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 172.30.181.9 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
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 172.30.181.9 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
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 74.100.76.59 |
| 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 74.100.76.59 |
| 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 74.100.76.59 | ||||||
| Author: Ogee | ||||||
Sure you have.
It's a shame, then, that your story, even accepted at face value, doesn't support this assertion.
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 74.100.76.59 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
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 172.30.180.53 |
| 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 216.191.79.11 | ||||
| Author: Ogee | ||||
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'...
Wow, was Darwin ahead of his time or what?.. a 19th century postmodernist! |
| Date: 2008/02/26 19:14:41, Link 216.191.79.11 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
Hmmm, yeah.. that would be because it is demonstrably untrue. |
| Date: 2008/02/27 15:04:53, Link 216.191.79.11 | ||
| Author: Ogee | ||
I guess we needn't ask whether you understand the distinction between hypothesis and theory. |
=====
?