AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: eigenstate

form_srcid: eigenstate

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.81.88.93

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: eigenstate

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

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #7

Date: 2011/11/17 19:48:45, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (Learned Hand @ Nov. 17 2011,17:06)

ONLOOKERS.  Regrettably, the poor conduct of the atheistic and materialistic hyperskepticalists has now progressed beyond all bounds of civilized behavior.  

1.  Observe, please, the reference to the "ball" being in KF's "court."  Wikipedia, always a reliable reference, informs us that the root form of the word "ball" "may have been a cognate with the Latin foll-is in the sense of a 'thing blown up or inflated.'"  It is therefore apparently that OMITSDDI is calling KF inflated, as in full of hot air, as in by implication and reverse nonimplication a liar.  

2.  Moreover, the wikipedia page for "court" refers to "inquisitorial systems," clearly making OMITSDDI's comment an accusation that KF is an inquisitor, in other words a torturer, which is base slander, as torture is an atheistic and materialistic practice.

3.  Such vicious, uncivilized, brutal attacks on KF's righteous person are in no way justified by the simple fact that he has not told the truth, about which atheists can not complain in any event, being unprincipled dog-botherers and child molesters who love nothing more than making unwarranted personal insults.

4.  As with eigenstate, these vicious, unwarranted (and indeed, prohibited by the lack of materialist warrant) attacks on KF's integrity are utterly transparent.  Onlookers need only google a word or phrase used in these hyperskepticalists' sub rosa attacks, select an offensive word or phrase from one of the resulting results, and observe the ad hominem strawman that results once that word or phrase is substituted into the original comment.  

5.  This will no longer stand.  I urge you, please, look at your conduct and see what grievous harm you are doing to all concepts of truth and dignity, before you provoke a just and righteous bloodstorm of retribution.  

6.  BYDAND.

6(a).  I MEAN IT.  BYDAND.

--Learned Focus

(P.S.  Seriously.  BYDAND.)


LOL. That's worth registering just to give that a thumbs up.

So, that engagement didn't last long.

Date: 2012/01/23 20:22:37, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 23 2012,17:45)
I present to you......

dFSCI!

gpuccio:
   
Quote
I have uploaded my scatterplot of Durston’s data about sequence length and functional complexity at imageshack. Here is the link:


It's a start! :P

Geez, I feel like an idiot -- maybe here's the place to receive my "twenty lashes" for getting suckered by gpuccio in taking this dFSCI nonsense seriously enough to critique it on info theory terms:

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-foundations-11-borels-infinite-monkeys-analysis-and-the-significance-of-the-log-reduced

-chi-metric-chi_500-is-500/comment-page-1/#comment-416763]eigenstate is a chump[/URL]

Many years ago I had an acquaintance give me the whole schpiel on homeopathy. I was not familiar with the term, and for a good bit, was keenly interested, as this acquaintance wasn't talking about the formulation of homeopathic medicines, but discussed the "proven results", and how certain medicines had been found to be effective against particular ailments, with the novel insight that "like cures like".

Well, "like cures like" didn't match anything I knew about medicine (which, admittedly, isn't very much), but I kept listening, intently. At length, I got around to asking who made the medicine.

"We do", she said. "Although you don't have to make it yourself, you can buy it premade." Whereupon I learned that the cure for "mercury poisoning" per homeopathy was a 100,000:1 water dilution of mercury.

"You mean, all this is based on... you just..."

*face palm*

I have the exact same feeling now. dFSCI makes homeopathy look grounded by comparison. So gpuccio is the "homeopathic practitioner" of the ID world. That's too bad for him, but really, it's just an embarrassing joke on me to get led down the yellow brick road that far.

I am chump, I'm sorry to report.

Date: 2012/01/24 08:25:17, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (The whole truth @ Jan. 23 2012,21:46)
I don't think you should feel like a chump at all. If anything you should feel good about the way you have dissected and exposed the absolute bullshit in the IDiot-babble that is spewed by gpuccio, kairosfocus, etc., and I must say that watching kairosfocus having his childish (and very revealing) meltdowns 'in the teeth' of your demolition of his bald assertions has been thoroughly enjoyable.

I appreciate you putting in the time and effort to take on the IDiots and showing how non-evidential and ridiculous their claims are, and I'm sure that many other people do too.

Thanks for the positive feedback. I don't mind taking time to take up an issue like that, it's just that I really should have figured out there's no there, there, far earlier than I did.

Date: 2012/01/24 20:37:27, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 24 2012,13:20)
Welcome, eigenstate!
Thanks for making me think and learn over at UD.

You do realise that the administrators of UD patrol our forum and check for familiar names, earmarking them for blocking?

Hi Kattarina98,

Yeah, I'm aware. Been lurking/reading there and here since the early days of DaveScott. I know how creationist "moderators" are, and have lots of experience with that elsewhere.

If there are useful things to learn at UD, it's not the power of dFSCI, but rather the dynamics of ID as an activist movement. There is no way to be pandering, obsequious or servile enough in one's *style* to protect one from bannination for being a critic offering critques. So, while I'm all in favor of focusing on the ideas and concepts, and not getting bogged down in personalities and ad hom, trying to please the mods at UD is futile, and it debases you in the process.

So, just planning on talking about topics I'm interested and know a little about. That's enough to get me banned, eventually, I know. "Diffaxial", among many others, provided a clear case that trying to mind p's and q's and be extra, super polite can't save you. Only ceasing or watering down your criticism will appease the gods of UD.

I don't worry about it. I expect hypocrisy, abuse, bannination, eventually, no matter how grown-up I behave. Why should my case be different?

Thanks for the heads up, though. If the UD gods want to indulge their spite as a result of reading this, that will be no less petty than what eventually gets me censored if I'd stayed away from here out of fear. This way, I can skip the fear and worrying part. Better that way!

Date: 2012/01/29 20:00:57, Link
Author: eigenstate
Thinking that StephenB found a nice rehab center or a yoga spa for the last several months, convalescing, getting the bile out of his system, reconnected with a centered life, far from UD?

Nope

Quote
Why do you wander around in a linguistic fog? Come on out into the clear air of rationality and explain your terms and define the relationship between (among) them.


plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose....

Date: 2012/02/02 22:22:09, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 02 2012,21:40)

Any takers that Timeatus is Dembski's UD sock?

Asshole.

I don't think Dembski has the ability to even fake the elements of congeniality Timaeus shows (see, for example, his exchange with aiguy_again).

I can see the cogency of the appeals to authority you cite here, etc., but in my view, Dembski's soul has degenerated too far to muster that kind of friendly banter, even if it were to be for the purposes of "setting up" Dr. Liddle, or whoever.

But, that said, given some fairly blunt things I just said about Dembski, I guess maybe that's one (inadvertant) test. Does anyone think Dembski would suffer such assessments on (what was, once) his blog? He's really, thin-skinned, and he's thin-skinned even when dealing with people with credentials and stations in the scientific community that command some good will and forebearance. He won't suffer mere critics on his blog, especially ones that go after his ideas/advocacy in particular.

So we'll see, I guess.

I don't think Timaeus' congeniality, where he shows it, is fake. The resentment dynamic is strong in him, too, as he let show with Dr. Liddle just today. With Dembski, it metastasized long ago, and spread throughout.

Date: 2012/02/03 08:18:21, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 03 2012,06:16)
 
Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 02 2012,23:22)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 02 2012,21:40)

Any takers that Timeatus is Dembski's UD sock?

Asshole.

I don't think Dembski has the ability to even fake the elements of congeniality Timaeus shows (see, for example, his exchange with aiguy_again).

I can see the cogency of the appeals to authority you cite here, etc., but in my view, Dembski's soul has degenerated too far to muster that kind of friendly banter, even if it were to be for the purposes of "setting up" Dr. Liddle, or whoever.

But, that said, given some fairly blunt things I just said about Dembski, I guess maybe that's one (inadvertant) test. Does anyone think Dembski would suffer such assessments on (what was, once) his blog? He's really, thin-skinned, and he's thin-skinned even when dealing with people with credentials and stations in the scientific community that command some good will and forebearance. He won't suffer mere critics on his blog, especially ones that go after his ideas/advocacy in particular.

So we'll see, I guess.

I don't think Timaeus' congeniality, where he shows it, is fake. The resentment dynamic is strong in him, too, as he let show with Dr. Liddle just today. With Dembski, it metastasized long ago, and spread throughout.

It's not a perfect fit.

Yet, vis phony congeniality, isn't this what we might expect? It is certainly Dembski's pattern to dissolve into torrent of petulant bitterness when sufficiently provoked. And the resentment motivating this particular tirade is very telling:
   
Quote
I think you are misusing your time. This is part of the cause of the friction you are feeling from me. I know many very fine scientists and scholars who, despite sterling academic records and substantial publications, never got university positions, and would kill to get one, and, if they got one, would never fritter away so much potential research time for the joys of internet blood sport.

This is thinly disguised jealousy of Liddle's academic position. And what is it that Dembski just lost?

Yeah, that does fit, the hostility in terms of academic station. I'd expect that to be a thinly veiled axe for grinding if it was Dembski -- er, I guess I'd really expect it to be an axe he's grinding away hard on, if not swinging wildly, but I can see him trying to keep a lid on it, and this could match, here.

I guess if Dembski was going to work a sock, I'd expect it to be thoroughly trollish, abusive. I agree that if his goal was to line up critics like Lizzie for engagement and then a (series of) slam(s), the obviously trolling mode wouldn't work. It seems a lot of work in "setup" that way, where being just an outright troll would afford so many chances at venting his spleen.

I've misjudged his self-control if it *is* him, and I'm not banninated in response to having his ego pricked by the things I've said about Dembski. When he was actively posting and "moderating" at UD back in the day, he had a hair-trigger on his banninator.

Date: 2012/02/03 08:21:08, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 03 2012,03:28)
@eigenstate - good work! I particularly liked the piece about the bees, and the 'ends' through which information operates.

I myself have spent many a happy hour composing detailed posts, largely for my own amusement ... and then simply binning them. I have neither time nor energy to pursue the case, or deal with the inevitable bad-faith backwash, while the thread scrolls steadily off the bottom of the list. But yourself and Liz and others make UD a worthwhile read.

Thank you, sir, appreciate a kind word. I don't have the breadth or depth that a lot of the long-since-banninated posters I really enjoyed reading at UD have, but there's a pervasive problem on the subject of information and information theory, and that's something I can weigh in on, do my part, so to speak.

Date: 2012/02/03 23:42:14, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 03 2012,20:24)
Eigenstate:
   
Quote
Diffaxial, if you remember him, was positively withering, and yet, almost embarrassingly obsequious (made me cringe, any way).

You might find his steps a bit mincing. But he was just avoiding the turds.

Yes, and I know why that is, and respect the excruciating effort that must have taken. Reading that again, it sounds more critical of "Diffaxial" than I intended. I saw it as a kind of painstaking experiment to see just how "mincing" one had to be in bringing the substantive criticism to survive the banninator's blade. Answer: one cannot "mince enough" to carry the criticism and survive, over time.

Date: 2012/02/04 10:12:06, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 03 2012,20:24)

Diffaxial posted about eight months or so during which he had some blistering exchanges, particularly with StephenB. To be honest, after all that I was surprised when he was banned. He was reincarnated a few more months as Voice Coil. A few other characters sounded suspiciously like him, and made only brief appearances.

Some time later Clive Hayden, who moderated UD during that period (but seems to be missing in action for the last six months or so), entered a discussion on moderation at UD that arose at Biologos. You can read his post-hoc rationalizations here. The discussion starts on comment page 19 and continues to the end of the thread.

Cool, thanks. The exchanges with StephenB I remember well. Hadn't seen the back forth with Hayden at Biologos, so that'll be something interested to go read.

I'm particularly interested in which UD partisans venture out of the safe confines of UD and how they fare when they do. I know DaveScot didn't do too well when he didn't have the Banninator in hand. It would be entertaining to see Arrington or KF or Upright Biped have to operate on more neutral ground.

Date: 2012/02/04 10:33:21, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 04 2012,10:24)
Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 04 2012,11:12)
I'm particularly interested in which UD partisans venture out of the safe confines of UD and how they fare when they do. I know DaveScot didn't do too well when he didn't have the Banninator in hand. It would be entertaining to see Arrington or KF or Upright Biped have to operate on more neutral ground.

Then this should be a treat. Here several UD regulars, as well as others you know from AtBC, interact on the open savannah with no cover. Once again, it comes down to an extended and intense exchange between yours truly and StephenB, from which SB fled in the end.

Heh, that's great, thanks. I thought perhaps AtBC had a thread cataloging "UD partisans in the wild", but didn't see anything. I'm just reading through the Biologos exchange here as I pretend to catch up on office work this morning. Now I won't get anything done this morning.

It's a high class problem.

Date: 2012/02/04 10:41:00, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (Patrick @ Feb. 04 2012,10:22)
 
Upright BiPed showed up on Lizzie's blog for a short period.  Once the obfuscatory language surrounding his "semiotic argument" was pared off, it turned out (Shock!  Horror!) that there is no there there.

I did see that one, thanks. That pretty much fixed the limits (for me) on what could be expected from him on UD regarding his big ideas about semiosis.

Date: 2012/02/04 12:21:17, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 03 2012,20:24)

Some time later Clive Hayden, who moderated UD during that period (but seems to be missing in action for the last six months or so), entered a discussion on moderation at UD that arose at Biologos. You can read his post-hoc rationalizations here. The discussion starts on comment page 19 and continues to the end of the thread.
(***esoterica warning***)

In reading through your link to Biologos and Clive Hayden's non-defense of his use of the ban hammer, I'm struck by this post of his, near the end of the thread:

 
Quote
Clive Hayden - #22717
July 20th 2010

Let me clarify. When I’m aware that someone is a sock puppet, I have, in the past, allowed them to continue posting, granted that they are sincerely there for a sincere discussion. Which, it should be noted and remembered, I do not have to allow even for this leniency.  <b>So when I check elsewhere and see that they are not, I use my discretion and ban them again. The ban is fully justified by the fact that they’ve been banned before; I need no other justification.</b> I have allowed sock puppets such as Reciprocating Bill and Nakashima to post comments, though I knew they were sock puppets, in hopes that they would be sincere about their motives, which is, in my opinion, pretty considerate of me, so when I see the way they mock and chide UD and it’s participants at After the Asylum Closes, even though their posting is a privilege considering they’ve been banned before, I ban them for being a sock puppet that should’ve stayed banned in the first place. My justification is that they have already been banned; I don’t need any other justification. If anything I ought to be thanked by you who’ve been banned for allowing a known banned person to continue to post. I am under no obligation to do that.


(my emphasis)
Those of us raised as Christians can spot the parallel with the Christian doctrine on damnation. As it happens, I'm exchanging emails with a Christian relative just now who is reminding me that God doesn't need a relevant reason for damning, a particular incident or pattern. We are "pre-damned" under the curse of Adam.

This is the theology that Clive lives under. God already "has him", per Adam, and God doesn't need any more reason, beyond that. He can be as arbitrary as he likes, as all God's kid's are - pre-damed. It can't go wrong, it can only possibly result in leniency or clemency on occasion.

And the Clive-God now has you. You are "pre-damned" per the original sin assigned under DaveScot (never mind the caprice evident in that incident). You can't complain, because Clive's caprice can't reflect badly on him, you're "damned" to begin with. You really should thank him (and he at one point asked for this) for just the grace of letting you live as long as you did. It's not a problem, his arbitrary whims, if they are grounded in your pre-damnation. The only thing that can happen is glorious mercy, a touch of leniency which you don't deserve.

I couldn't miss the parallels. Christians shrug at the vicious pettiness and caprice of Yahweh. All men deserve damnation as the baseline, anyway, so man has no cause for protest. Clive's just going all Yahweh on you and others. It's good to be God, I guess.

That post, anyway, clarifies and explains a lot of the UD moderating craziness. The critics all begin with "deserving bannination", and so there really isn't anything to mitigate the impulse to censor or ban. You (and let's be clear, I really mean *I*, somewhere in the future) should have been banned at the outset. Banning later, for any reason isn't unfair or hypocritical in their view, it's just a little less "unjustified grace" shown to you than otherwise might have been shown.

Date: 2012/02/05 00:38:29, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (dvunkannon @ Feb. 04 2012,23:12)

It remains that this is post hoc excuse making by Hayden. It is hilarious that he thinks "I can be arbitrary because I am the piss pot God of UD" is a valid excuse for childish behavior, such as banning those that reveal his favorites (StephenB) to be whited sepulchres. Hayden banned Diffaxial and Nakashima before knowing they were socks for previously banned individuals.

No doubt about the post-hockery, there. I just think that exchange reveals Clive's need to coat his hypocrisy in smarmy self-righteousness; DaveScot didn't give a fuck about that, he'd just ban your ass, and didn't need all the pretense. I guess if I am going to be served a tall glass of cowardly hypocrisy, I like it served straight up.

Everybody knows what Clive did, and how he operates. I just find the exchanges like RB pointed me to at Biologos fascinating, such complete bullshit, post after post from him. I think in some way it's cathartic though, as it just gets Clive to debase himself a little more every time.

Date: 2012/02/05 17:18:05, Link
Author: eigenstate
Over at Mike Gene's blog, Mike Gene has a post up about Genmonicus' "testable predictions" for ID, specifically about cytosine as a "design choice" for a front-loading designer:

A reason for cytosine deamination

Just in case anyone is interested in Gene's take on that. Gene "would not agree with genomicus" regarding cytosine deamination.

No time to comment there tonight with the game starting, etc. but FYI.

Date: 2012/02/07 13:40:06, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (carlsonjok @ Feb. 07 2012,09:46)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 07 2012,09:18)
I have a hard time standing up for someone who isn't willing to stand up for themselves, unless they're unable to for some reason, but I really don't think that EL is unable to. I would think that she should realize that showing any weakness to those arrogant god-wannabes is not going to do any good. Like you said, she will never make mullings (or any other IDiot) see what he is, and especially when she caters to his dictatorial insanity in any way. I also think that gordo and the other IDiots will do just fine at showing how fucked up they are without her dissecting their arguments at UD. .

I believe you have made two fatal errors here. First, you are assuming she is being submissive. Second, you are assuming she is arguing with them in order to convince them that they are wrong.

On the first count, I see EL's debating style as a form of jujitsu.  They (and apparently you) expect a frontal assault. But, rather than giving them what they want (an excuse to ban her), she kills them with kindness.  She is able to effectively eviscerate them without even their knowing it.  Their continued outrage and insults only make them look the worse, while her calm tone adds more weight behind what she is saying.

To the second point, I am pretty sure she knows that she will never convince them of anything.  However, her comments will stand as a testament to reason for future onlookers (!) to see as long as UD stands.  All they have is sciency sounding arguments that, when left by themselves, are convincing to the incredulous.  Her comments, and the vile responses they receive, lay bear the ignorance and mean-spiritedness at the core of UD. So, it is far better to have her there, pulling apart their "arguments" than it is to leave them alone for future websurfers to find convincing in the absence of any counterpoint.

In short: Elizabeth is a fucking ninja.


This.

Date: 2012/02/08 14:40:29, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 08 2012,10:27)
 
Quote (eigenstate @ ,)

Biology is sun-powered.

Well, except where it's thermal-vent powered.  Not that that changes the situation re:SLoT.

Yes, good point.

Date: 2012/02/12 00:01:04, Link
Author: eigenstate
My post to Barry, which I suspect may not be preserved over there, given the current dynamics:

 
Quote

Theoretically, yes. In practice, the probabilities are so vanishingly small it's indistinguishable from no.

Scale matters; superposition is fragile with respect to other elements in the system that force a classical resolution. Recent experiments have provided experimental verification that macroscale objects can be put in superposition (see <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html">here</a>):

   
Quote

But although the rules of quantum mechanics seem to apply at small scales, nobody has seen evidence of them on a large scale, where outside influences can more easily destroy fragile quantum states. "No one has shown to date that if you take a big object, with trillions of atoms in it, that quantum mechanics applies to its motion," Cleland says.


The "paddle" object in this experiment was just 30 micrometers long. But that's freaking HUGE compared to the Planck length. Jupiter is just so many orders of magnitude bigger than that, that the prospects for superposition in that case become ONLY theoretical. Too many resolving influences make it statistically impossible.

The linked article describing the experimental evidence for QM weirdness "scaling up" includes this comment from a physicist at the U of Oregon:
   
Quote

"It's wonderful," says Hailin Wang, a physicist at the University of Oregon in Eugene who has been working on a rival technique for putting an oscillator into the ground state. The work shows that the laws of quantum mechanics hold up as expected on a large scale. "It's good for physics for sure," Wang says.

So if trillions of atoms can be put into a quantum state, why don't we see double-decker buses simultaneously stopping and going? Cleland says he believes size does matter: the larger an object, the easier it is for outside forces to disrupt its quantum state.

(emphasis mine)

Those wacky physicists, I tell ya.

On an LNC-related note, this from the same article:
 
Quote

Next, the researchers put the quantum circuit into a superposition of 'push' and 'don't push', and connected it to the paddle. Through a series of careful measurements, <b>they were able to show that the paddle was both vibrating and not vibrating simultaneously</b>.

(emphasis mine)

Sound familiar, StephenB (and Barry, if you've been reading our exchange)? I will note here that champignon's comment on this being best viewed as a  Law of the Excluded Middle issue is a point well taken. But that notwithstanding, you have QM weirdness in the real world ostensibly misbehaving against our propositional logic. "Vibrating" and "Not Vibrating" in the same sense, for the same object at the same time.

Here's another example from a similar experiment (<a href="http://www3.amherst.edu/~jrfriedman/NYTimes/071100sci-quantum-mechanics.html">link</a>), where Dr. Anthony Leggett of U of Illinois, Champaign, Urbana weighs in on a solar system body -- not Jupiter but the moon (the moon was the example Einstein initiated these questions with: "does the moon exist if no one is looking at it?"  :

   
Quote

For Dr. Leggett, quantum mechanics at the macroscopic level is still uncertain -- and troubling. "It may bother me even more now," Dr. Leggett said. "I'm interested in the possibility that quantum mechanics, at some stage, may be wrong."

A few physicists have devised so-called macrorealistic theories to resolve the ambiguities of quantum mechanics. "What you get in quantum mechanics is not what you see," said Dr. Philip Pearle, a professor of physics at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y. "Schrödinger felt this acutely. He himself felt something with quantum mechanics was wrong."

Dr. Pearle and colleagues in Italy propose to add a term to Schrödinger's equation that, in effect, constantly jiggles the fabric of the universe. Atomic-scale objects only jiggle a little and thus remain a blur, which preserves the predictions of quantum mechanics. Larger objects, like people or the Moon, jiggle more and quickly fall into a definite here and there, which corresponds to everyday experience.

(emphasis mine)

Barry, if you've read my earlier responses to StephenB on this, you will recognize the same ideas quoted here in my answers. Jupiter has a virtually zero statistical basis for avoiding decoherence, hence it will ALWAYS be there in the full, classical (non-superposition) sense.

Lastly, this, regarding the LNC-problematic nature of this second expirement:

   
Quote

The experiment combines two possibilities, known as a quantum superposition, for the direction of the flow of electric current: clockwise around the loop or counterclockwise.

The researchers measured an energy difference between the two states of the loop, a sign the current was a quantum superposition and not simply flipping directions.

Just as the cat is neither alive nor dead but a ghostly mix of the two possibilities, the current flows neither clockwise nor counterclockwise, but is a mix of the two possibilities.

(my emphasis)
Note that per superposition, this is not simply a matter of a "bi-directional current". This is two otherwise exclusive one-way directions happening at the same time, exclusive states superimposed:
   
Quote

A measurement always gives one of the two possible answers, clockwise or counterclockwise, never a zero cancellation.


Glad to have the opportunity to settle this once and for all! Statistically, it will never happen for Jupiter, but it remains a theoretical possibility. It's the same as wondering if I could fairly shuffle and deal a 52 card deck and deal the cards out, producing the same exact card order as the first shuffle a billion times in row. In theory, it cannot be eliminated as a possibility. As a practical matter, the odds are insdistinguishable from zero.

Date: 2012/02/12 00:09:23, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (REC @ Feb. 11 2012,21:47)
On closer inspection, I might have misspoken. It looks like Barry did NOT give eigenstate an opportunity to respond to the new thread calling him out.

Based on timestamps of comments, looks like eigenstate was red inked prior to even being asked about Jupiter, which Barry proceeds to start a new thread on:

 
Quote

“Can Jupiter exist and not exist at the same time?  That’s a “yes or no” question eigenstate.  How do you answer it?


Which is asked here:
 
Quote
StephenB February 11, 2012 at 5:26 pm
As always, eigen, you miss the obvious point, which you seek to camouflage in a linguistic fog. Can Jupiter exist and not exist at the same time, or can it not? If not, why not?


Link

Which is umm....a minute after this:
 
Quote
Barry Arrington February 11, 2012 at 5:25 pm
eigenstate complains bitterly on this site about being denied a fair opportunity to complain bitterly on this site and fails to see the irony of his project. It is useless to try to reason with such as he.


Banned, then interrogated?

I run several wordpress blogs for work, and you can set up the posting rights with fine granularity like this -- before I logged in tonight, the comments were disabled, and when I logged in, I had a combox.

I posted a response, which I spammed into the thread here just in case, but it's in a moderating queue, as it didn't show up quick like it normally does.

Date: 2012/02/12 01:15:37, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (REC @ Feb. 12 2012,00:37)
If it appears, hope that it isn't snipped to "Theoretically, yes" followed by mockery.

Remember, these are the looks improbable=God crowd.

Well, I actually contemplated that, and wrote the first two sentences so that they were short and clear, and could stand on their own if Barry were to censor the rest. I made "Theoretically, yes" the first sentence, because although it's unfair and incomplete to represent as my answer, it's the best two word answer I could give, if I was limited to just that.

Like I said a couple weeks ago, I'm not näive about how UD works, I'm a new poster, but have been reading a long time. Before my first post there, I'm resigned to the outcomes that happen, and understand going in there is no way to placate them or tiptoe them satisfactorily, even if I wanted to. I just say my piece, and what happens, happens. I really can't be surprised, or even disappointed, because my expectations have been calibrated by the experience of reading over there for a good while.

I will make the non-ambitious prediction that now eigenstate is just that much less worth any engagement because, you know, he thinks Jupiter just randomly goes missing at different times, and comes back into existence just as randomly. That guy is wack!

@Reciprocating Bill (upthread), got ya, will do (if possible!) on the questions -- I remember the exchange you linked to.

Date: 2012/02/12 15:09:36, Link
Author: eigenstate
LNC thread
 
Quote
Further update: Eigenstate has run for cover.
The genesis of this post was the StephenB’s accusation that eigenstate refused to concede the law of noncontradiction: “For you [i.e.,eigenstate], the law of non-contradiction is a “useful tool” except on those occasions when it reveals the poverty of your non-arguments, at which time, it can be safely discounted. That position alone renders you unfit for rational dialogue.”

Surely not, I thought to myself. No one can argue logically and at the same time ever deny the law of noncontradiction, because the law of noncontradiction underlies ALL logical arguments. So I put this post up to give eigenstate a chance to refute StephenB’s accusation. I know eigenstate came back onto this site after I put up this post, because he commented on another string after this post went up. Yet he refused to answer the question. I can only conclude from this that StephenB is correct. Eigenstate and his ilk are not acting in good faith. They feel free to spew their nonsense, but when they are confronted with a challenge they cannot meet they run away. He is not, as StephenB points out, fit for rational dialogue, and you will not see him on this site again.

Well, that's Barry for ya. Is anyone surprised?

Ran away, heh. For all the frustration of that kind of childishness from Barry, there's something, something similar to schadenfreude, that's gratifying in a situation like this. I guess there's some payoff in just knowing that Barry chooses to debase himself like that in such situations. And he knows that I know that he's had to be a shit to deal with this. It would be better, overall, if he'd just engage on the merits, but in the absence of that...

It was a good, short run, and ended just as I predicted here, previously.

@Reciprocating Bill, I did post a reply to StephenB last night with a couple friendly reminders on the original thread where we went at it regarding LNC, but I don't see the post there this morning. Other posts to nullasalus and mike1962 went through, so, dunno what happened. Maybe StephenB has special defenses in place from coward like me, now. You never know when you might need to make your opponent run away...

Date: 2012/02/14 16:10:13, Link
Author: eigenstate
ScottAndrews2 should be credited with showing some courage and clear thinking here:

 
Quote

It’s been fun, but I’m not comfortable with this. While I agree that it’s absurd to argue that the moon can exist and not exist, I’m not comfortable debating someone if they are required to humiliate themselves by repeating a one-word answer. I understand the reason, but it feels too much like submission, like staring a dog in the eyes until it looks down. But I’ll keep reading all the excellent posts and comments.

 
Quote

Can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?


Yes.


I take it he is answering Yes because that's what he really thinks, not because he has been put in a vice by a blog admin.

But he gets to a basic problem for Barry's behavior. I didn't expect to see anything like this come up (ben h deserves some knucks for pushing back, too -- he's just new enough that I'm not sure where he's coming from... could be a sock, etc.) from the pro-ID regulars.

OnEdit: JohnW beat me to the punch on SA2, I see



Date: 2012/02/14 23:53:31, Link
Author: eigenstate
Dismayed but not surprised by William J Murray:

 
Quote

No, we need to teach them there is a limit to the foolishness adults will tolerate; if they will not learn, then at least we have rid ourselves of the foolishness. Take a lesson from history: appeasement doesn’t work.

Yes, appeasing the science geeks on an ID blog is a recipe for what? If we sense weakness, we'll... what? Starting posting charts and graphs? There's something deeply twisted about the idea that letting your opponents, or just those who have different beliefs post and debate is "appeasement".

*cues the tanks of the Army of Science to begin rolling into the Sudetenland*

OnEdit: forgot to mention who I was referring to.



Date: 2012/02/16 00:44:12, Link
Author: eigenstate
Question for Eric Anderson:

Quote
The tautology problem is very real. It is frankly disappointing to see so many critics of evolutionary theory shy away from it. The just-so stories come up all the time and are largely based on the tautological formulation, and it is absolutely appropriate to point out when this circular reasoning is being used.


Why is e=mc^2 important as a tautology? It is a tautology, right? Of course it is.  "Survival of the fittest" is similarly tautologous (fittest = those that survive), and is important for the same reason. The tautology is not argument, not syllogism, but an *effect*, a *product* of the model, in both cases.

Date: 2012/02/16 10:05:04, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 16 2012,01:29)
Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 15 2012,22:44)
Question for Eric Anderson:
 
Quote
The tautology problem is very real. It is frankly disappointing to see so many critics of evolutionary theory shy away from it. The just-so stories come up all the time and are largely based on the tautological formulation, and it is absolutely appropriate to point out when this circular reasoning is being used.

Why is e=mc^2 important as a tautology? It is a tautology, right? Of course it is.  "Survival of the fittest" is similarly tautologous (fittest = those that survive), and is important for the same reason. The tautology is not argument, not syllogism, but an *effect*, a *product* of the model, in both cases.

Eigenstate, I'm not sure why you think E=mc2 is a tautology.  It's not true by definition, and it's empirically falsifiable.  Could you elaborate?

@keiths,

"Survival of the fittest" is NOT just a truism, but is a equivalence borne of Darwin's hypothesis concerning adaptation to the environment based on the variability of heritable traits.  Which is just to say (and this is my point to Eric) that "fittest = those who survive" is just as empirically falsifiable as "e=mc^2".

"Survival of the fittest", per Darwin, or whoever that guy was who coined the phrase on reading Darwin, and which Darwin eventually picked up on, is predicated on the differential survival based on traits passed down through reproduction. It does NOT mean (and I know you know this) "survival of the most muscular". A trivial interpretation of "survival of the fittest" would be compatible with "fittest are those species God favors", or "those with the biggest brains", etc. That is not part of the equation for evolution, and if either of those explanations obtained empirically, Darwin's ideas of survival of the fittest would be falsified, just as through as if energy was not convertible to mass at the speed of light squared, empirically.

This is why "survival of the fittest" is considered problematic in discussion evolution. There is an equivalence there, a translation, but it's based on heritable traits driving differential survival. So when a critic, or anyone, gets on about "survival of the fittest" being a tautology, it's ONLY a problem if they equivocate on what those terms mean for evolution.  That's the basis for comment to Eric: it's a tautology in the same way as e=mc^2. It's a production, and equivalence for sure, but it's based on reality-grounded, empirical principles (and both are falsifiable).

Date: 2012/02/16 10:22:12, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 16 2012,08:21)
KF treats the moon as a wavicle and calculates a non-zero probability for superposition. Will he be banned?

Hah, yes, had a grin at that one.

I can't tell if he's just not aware that he's now recapitulated my answer, or whether he just thinks it's reasonable because he still has the right magical view of the tools of classical logic.

Date: 2012/02/16 12:24:41, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (Bob O'H @ Feb. 16 2012,10:51)
 
Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 16 2012,10:05)

"Survival of the fittest", per Darwin, or whoever that guy was who coined the phrase on reading Darwin, and which Darwin eventually picked up on, is predicated on the differential survival based on traits passed down through reproduction. It does NOT mean (and I know you know this) "survival of the most muscular". A trivial interpretation of "survival of the fittest" would be compatible with "fittest are those species God favors", or "those with the biggest brains", etc. That is not part of the equation for evolution, and if either of those explanations obtained empirically, Darwin's ideas of survival of the fittest would be falsified, just as through as if energy was not convertible to mass at the speed of light squared, empirically.

The problem, though, is how you define fitness. if you define it as ability to survive then you have a tautology.

The way out of this is to define fitness as a function of survival and reproduction, something which can be estimated without reference to what eventually evolves. Then we can ask whether the trait (or whatever) with the greatest fitness is the one which comes to dominate the population.

BTW, "survival of the fittest" we coined by Herbert Spencer.

Herbert Spencer, right, thanks -- I could have Googled that in the time it took me to type out that I couldn't recall.

I agree with your "way out" and understand that to be primarily a practical problem, a problem that is just exceedingly complex, but not intractable conceptually.

For example, if we ask "will this trait contribute to fitness"? The answer, in a "lazy" way is: dunno, let's just wait and see. And while I call that "lazy", that's pretty harsh, because the program for really calculating it is terrifying complex. But I don't see any voodoo there, just lots and lots of variables and parameters that are impractical to capture.

If you were going to calculate fitness for a trait in a completely forward-looking sense, what would you need to do:

1. Know all the other traits configured for this organism's DNA.
2. Model the genetic and epigenetic outputs as a realized organism.
3. Know the operating environment for this organism -- what are the physical contexts for this organism's life, survival and reproduction?

#3 then, reduces to calculations in terms of physics.  It's unthinkably complex to try and model in practical terms (it's not too hyperbolic to say you'd need a quantum computer the size our universe to really capture it all), but this would not need to simply rely on retrodiction.

If we were "super-brained" and could fulfill #1-#3, we would have a predictive framework that could take, at the level of hard, physical stereochemisty, some discrete inputs, plug them into the DNA for an (yet to be born) organism, and score the fitness of those inputs.  A 'hard' prediction that we could test empirically.

I'm under no illusions about the practical difficulty of doing that, but "fitness" is not magic. It's just physics. We don't look at a hurricane and say "that's magic" because it's stupendously difficult to model and predict in detail. It's a problem of scale and complexity, not magic or conceptual intractability.

Date: 2012/02/16 15:44:21, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (iconofid @ Feb. 16 2012,15:16)
 
Quote (Ptaylor @ Feb. 14 2012,14:51)
Barry's latest (emphasis added):
         
Quote
The law of non-contradiction (“LNC”) states that for any proposition “A,” A cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same formal relation.

The existence of the LNC is the very basis of all argumentation, and anyone who denies it also denies meaning, order, truth and logic. For obvious reasons, therefore, it is not only useless but also affirmatively harmful to the search for truth to argue with someone who refuses to admit unambiguously the LNC. Arguing with a person who denies the basis for argument is self-defeating and can lead only to confusion. Only a fool or a charlatan denies the LNC, and this site will not be a platform from which fools and charlatans will be allowed to spew their noxious inanities.

For that reason, I am today announcing a new moderation policy at UD. At any time the moderator reserves the right to ask the following question to any person who would comment or continue to comment on this site: “Can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?” The answer to this question is either “yes” or “no.” If the person gives any answer other than the single word “no,” he or she will immediately be deemed not worth arguing with and therefore banned from this site.

We will start with Petrushka to demonstrate the application of the policy. Petrushka, can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?

My opinion: bizarre.


I don't know if anyone has pointed this out yet because I'm replying to a post on page 98 of the thread, but Barry has just denied the existence of an omnipotent God. He has also effectively banned anyone who believes in such a God from defending its ability to make the moon simultaneously existent and non-existent.

I'm banned from U.D., but had I been Petrushka, I'd have relished pointing this out.

Ignoring the physics for a moment, the knife could be stuck in this way:

"Only someone who believes in an omnipotent god could answer yes to that. And who believes in miracles these days?"

I wonder if this has occurred to any of the god squad at U.D.

Does anyone with a surviving sock want to make the point?

Hi iconofid,

Orthodox Christianity doesn't conceive of "omnipotent" in ways that allow self-contradictory propositions.  They just laugh, and with some warrant, when you ask if "God can create a rock so heavy he can't lift it", or "make a square circle". Even (especially) God is not potent in that way, because it's not a potency at all, but instead a conceptual error in the asking of the question.

An omnipotent God would not be able to make a moon exist and not-exist at the same time, and in the same (classical, we must note) sense. That's a contradiction in terms, rather than an ability or a potency. "No be able" is a bit of a language trick we play on our selves there,  because "make a square circle" does not resolve against "able" or "unable".

Date: 2012/02/16 16:13:54, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 16 2012,13:08)
Which is to say, not a tautology at all.  "Survival of the fittest" would be a tautology only if biologists defined the "fittest" as "those who survive".  E=mc2 would be a tautology only if m were defined as E/c2.  Physicists don't define m in that way, and so E=mc2 is not a tautology.

Yes, and in your saying that, I guess I was being "too clever by half", in saying that fitness is tautological in the same way (or, more precisely, non-tautogological in the same way) as E=mc2. Even so, both are
covertabilities and productions, "effects" of the underlying physics, not definitions of the forces themselves. That is the connection I support as "tautological", although I grant that maybe insisting on "equivalencies" or "conversions" would be better terminology.
 
Quote
Right.  It just seems odd to me that you would call it a tautology when it's falsifiable. "A falsifiable tautology" is an oxymoron. To use the classic example, we don't need to examine a single actual bachelor in order to determine that "all bachelors are unmarried" is a tautology.  It's true by definition.

I accept your point, but there's overloading going on here, or a tautology within a non-tautology.

If we stipulate that the fitness in the "looking forward" sense we agreed on here is NOT tautological, then it remains true, nonetheless, that looking backward, once we understand that, that whoever survives by our observation is, by definition, "the fittest".

Maybe it helps to put it this way. The process, in principle, is non-tautological. But in practice, whatever survives we label as "most fit". In that sense, constrained to the dynamics of fitness as the outworking of differential survival via variable heritable traits, we do apply a tautology, or at least we say that whatever survived is the most fit.

Without doing all the calculations, which we COULD do, in principle, we are left in practice with a tautological response: "oh, well if these are the ones that survived, then they are by definition the most fit".

They are not "by definition the most fit" if we suppose it's because they simply had more muscle mass and that is our rule, or that "God wanted these ones to survive, and made it so".  The tautology is limited to the outcomes of the non-tautological processes we've discussed above as "fitness".

We can't do the math, or make forward predictions with any precision, so we are left with seeing who survived and reproduced, and applying "fittest" as retrodiction.



Date: 2012/02/16 17:00:20, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (iconofid @ Feb. 16 2012,16:21)
 
Quote (eigenstate @ Feb. 16 2012,15:44)

An omnipotent God would not be able to make a moon exist and not-exist at the same time, and in the same (classical, we must note) sense. That's a contradiction in terms, rather than an ability or a potency. "No be able" is a bit of a language trick we play on our selves there,  because "make a square circle" does not resolve against "able" or "unable".

Is it a contradiction in a non-classical world?

I don't think the formulation is such that you have established meaning for "contradiction" yet. I may be wrong, I think your two states "exist" and "non-exist" for God are not operationally defined and so, there isn't any clear semantics underwriting the term "contradiction" there.

An example may be helpful. If, in an experiment, a supercooled membrane of some kind is set into superposition such that the membrane is simultaneously, "vibrating and not vibrating at the same time, and in the same sense", that is a contradiction only insofar as we can establish what "vibrating" and "not vibrating" mean, and tie both of those meanings to our observations. To the extent we can empirically identify both states (with the grounded meanings involved for "vibrating" and "not vibrating), at the same time, for the same membrane, you have at least an apparent contradiction, or a physical phenomenon that is not well modeled with the classical understanding of "vibrating" and "not vibration" being logical (exclusive) negations of each other.

With God "existing and not-existing at the same time, and same sense", you're pretty much hosed from the get go. The existence of God is a non-starter -- what does that mean? It isn't amenable to descriptions in natural, observable characteristics like "vibrating membrane". As far as I can see, it's not meaningful at all, a term used all the time that conceptually signifies nothing.

Until your terms you use as the predicate for any putative contradiction (or not) are more clearly defined, and grounded in meanings and concepts that can actually support one value negating the other, I think you just don't have anything to work with.

"Not even true/false",  one might say.

Date: 2012/02/16 21:14:07, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (iconofid @ Feb. 16 2012,18:13)
We seem to have gone from god making the moon both exist and not exist at the same time, to god both existing and not existing at the same time (which is an interesting idea). I'm not suggesting that a god can exist myself, but looking at the suggestion that god could play around with the state of the moon from the POV of believers.

Let's look at your analogy. Why, from the point of view of Christians, can't their god make the moon both vibrate and not vibrate at the same time? That would seem to be sufficient to drive our Barry crazy, because he would certainly see it as incompatible with the LNC. Can it be argued that there are laws that override god's choices about the nature of the physical world he has created?

I certainly think it might be worth someone suggesting it on U.D. just to see what happens (I'm banned, as I mentioned above, and I see you've now joined the club - welcome).

I can see your point here. I guess I think that once you buy into the whole God thing, all the restraints are off in this area, anyway, and "contradiction" really doesn't pose much of an issue, because you are trafficking in a whole domain where everything is made, fabulous, and unattached to our real-world, objective experience.

But even so, I see how your posing something like that would highlight difficulties with ideas about God's power. In terms of God playing around with human experience, well, again, anything goes, there. An omnipotent trickster God can mess with people's heads in all sorts of exotic ways.

I just don't see any of that kind of exchange as a serious or thoughtful exercise. Not saying you don't have a point to be made in there, but I think if you are talking about God's existence, on their terms, the terms and concepts are all pretty much empty to begin with.

As someone raised in a devout Christian home, and one in regular dialog about this kind of thing with the Christians I am surrounded by in my family, extended family and community, I will predict these kinds of challenges will fall on deaf ears. God is exempt from any of that, in any case. God's ways are mysterious, and the "mysteries" of ideas like the Trinity (as has been pointed out) are really not problems, just pointers to how much higher God is than we, etc.

Date: 2012/02/18 21:38:23, Link
Author: eigenstate
Pathetic is WAY too charitable to describe GilDodgen's "doubts" of his doubts of evolutionary theory:
Quote
The history of evolutionary theory has included quite a number of skeptics (the Wistar dudes were no dummies, and even Gould had reservations, until he was forced to recant), including Charles Darwin himself, who observed that the fossil record did not comport with his assumption that nature makes no jumps, but speculated that future investigation would reveal that the fossil record really was infested with the transitional intermediates his theory required.

Finally, I propose what I call the trajectory of the evidence. When a scientific theory is correct, the more we learn, the more the theory should have explanatory power, but the opposite has occurred concerning orthodox evolutionary theory. The more we learn about the incredible engineering sophistication found in even the simplest living cell, the more I’m inclined to be skeptical that the probabilistic resources could have been available to accomplish such a task through the proposed evolutionary mechanisms.

I thus defend the rationality of my skepticism.

He's been invited over and over to maybe just scratch the surface regarding his doubts about "probabilistic resources". No dice. Just a bunch of handwaving hoping everyone is too stupid to notice he won't even try a little bit to defend his doubts.

Doesn't rise to 'pathetic', even. This is how a fraud gives the audience and his critics the middle finger, by typing up hundreds of words that purposely avoid and evade what he claims to defend. Maybe you could just start with some of the probabilities you're concerned about, asks olegt, politely.

Fuck you, olegt, says Gil, and thanks for letting me defend my doubts by tell you all to fuck off.

Date: 2012/02/19 11:04:55, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 19 2012,03:09)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Feb. 19 2012,01:24)
I think it stinks that EL moved your comment to "Guano". By doing so she's saying that your comment is shit. Frankly, I wonder about her motives, and standards (or lack thereof). She's more protective of and submissive to the IDiots than she is with the people who speak the truth to or about them.

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

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

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

hth.

I understand this distinction, and appreciate its value in these contexts. That's why I posted my complaint about Gil's response here rather than on your thread; clearly, I am questioning Gil's good faith in posting what he did, and would be overtly violating your policy over there.

But for all the nobility of that policy (and I do think it is a noble policy), it's very easily gamed. Woodbine's comment is moved, and on the merits per your rules, but Gil's "fuck you" stands. I get the algebra, but you end up getting trolled by Gil and whoever has no reservations about actually posting in bad faith as "survivors" of the thread.

Posting accusations of bad faith on the part of others is toxic to discussion (rule 1). I totally get that -- been there, done that, over and over in places where I have to host/admin. But posting in bad faith on one's own part is similarly problematic. There isn't any remedy, though, for posting in bad faith, because you/we have to violate rule 1 to address it.

The best response to these problems, I've learned, is just to be persistent in focusing in on the merits of the argument, or the weakpoints of the argument that need to be challenged, and hope for the best. If Gil is gonna be weasel, he's gonna be a weasel. You won't get anything more than the middle finger he just posted, but readers who are paying attention will come to the appropriate conclusion.

I do note, in passing, that the policy seems to working well already toward one good end -- TSZ is sucking discussion out of UD, and developing it there (see recent participation by UD regulars like Maus, Aleta, et al). That just shrinks the amount of thought and time investment Barry and Friends have control over, and that's a good thing.

I also know that you have to be well aware of getting a "fuck you" poorly disguised in smarmy, biographical hand-waving prose when you get one. So it's not like this is a revelation to you. You know exactly what you're doing, here.

Date: 2012/02/19 13:08:06, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 19 2012,12:27)
tbh I don't see anything "noble" in the policy, especially.  As I keep trying to emphasise the rules are not moral rules, merely rules intended to try to keep discussion focussed on the actual arguments, rather than on the motivations.

OK, I guess it's a semantic difference, only, then. That's quite a noble goal, I say. If you read some of my more tiring jeremiads at UD and elsewhere, it basically reduces to "why can't we keep focused on the actual substance"?

This is where Gil Dodgen put himself in the kill zone. If the discussion were to focus on the actual arguments, on the "simple math" that he claims is untenable, he's toast. And he knows it. He had to sit there, intimidated by olegt simple and straightforward request and think: <i>how to respond?</i>

One one hand, he could just not respond at all. Given that he'd perhaps like to keep posting at TSZ, simply not responding is likely to haunt him, as members who got left hanging are likely to remind him that he never responded as he'd said he would.

On the other hand, if he did try to respond on the merits, and make some noises about the odds of this happening or that, and olegt is just waiting, next time he check in from real life, to see Gil's nonsense, and unceremoniously dismantle it as the bullshit it is. A dozen more, including you (politely, of course), are ready and waiting to do the same, and Gil knows that course only brings discredit and humiliation on the merits.

Gil resents both of these options, and so goes with the "fuck you, I'll give you a non-answer that I will pretend is a solid answer, and you can't call me on it, because my motives are protected by the policies of this place". I again approve of that policy, and enjoy such protections (even if I expect more of myself than to have to hide behind them constantly by answer in ways that others understand me to be posting in bad faith).

Gil's resentment and animus, not just for the people he's talking to, but for the process, the kind of debate and analysis that threaten his superstitions, and more importantly, his narcissistic life narrative, are such that you and we will get the middle finger. Every time.
Quote

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

I don't dispute this. But the problem I'm looking at with Gil's response is far more basic than that. He's a good Christian boy who's not going to say "fuck off, Liz" in those words, but as a former Christian yourself like me (right?), you know as well as I do that Christians are as capable as anyone at saying "fuck off", just without using those words.

Woodbine's post went to the guano section, for reasons I understand and agree with. But there was nothing approaching the kind of "fuck you" Gil deposited on your thread, and which stayed there.

I get that, not trying to re-argue that. What I'm saying is that you can't show the badness of arguments that aren't given in the first place. Gil doesn't argue. He just opines about his magical mystery tour through life, toward his God. ID is just a prop, not something he's arguing for, just something he dresses up in.

So you are confronted with banal faith testimonies. What do you think you can do with that? Can you take that apart and show the badness of the argument? I suggest you cannot. All you can do, is get sucked into the fluff, disputing Gil's "trajectory of the evidence" and other hand-waving nonsense. There's not any badness there to show, it's just an empty vessel, a wild goose chase to see who will follow.

That's fine, and your patience with all that is admirable. And I note you did, and you do work patiently and persistently to funnel your interlocutors back to the real substantive questions.

 
Quote

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

Fair enough. I'm just started to read through his paper, but will likely just skip to the parts olegt suggested were at the core, so painful is the document to read.

 
Quote

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

Yes, but just in the little way I've made into the Abel paper, he's at least wrong. Gil's not even wrong, because Gil has too much much contempt for you, olegt, and everyone else who wants to focus on the merits of his claims to even put anything out there that you can evaluate.  He won't deign to put his ideas at risk in front of you -- fuck off, olegt, I'm not about to stoop to you pathetic level of detail..., etc.

Abel is highly confused, clearly, but at least he is saying things we could take apart and show to be wrong, against the available evidence, inconsistent, etc.

Date: 2012/02/19 21:04:31, Link
Author: eigenstate
Brent resents Aleta choosing to "retreat back to quantum physics":

Quote
Throughout the thread, I often referred to the LNC where it would probably have been more proper to refer to the LoI (law of identity) because they are so interrelated. But, I think it is wiser to first press this LoI upon Aleta and those who look to quantum mechanics for an escape hatch from reality.


Heh. No comment needed on this one, I think.

Date: 2012/02/22 12:53:46, Link
Author: eigenstate
Just stopping in to note that Lizzie's blog has now sucked what little oxygen there was out of the room at UD.  Not even boring anymore, just read the names of commenters in the "recent comments" list.

There's lots of screwy stuff at TSZ now, too, but that goes with the territory, and anything interesting and thoughtful, pitched on both sides, has moved over there.  

Barry's litmus test is already, just in a week or so, starting to reap what it sowed. Couldn't happen to nicer guy or a better blog.

Date: 2012/03/05 14:33:46, Link
Author: eigenstate
Too bad for Elizabeth, and the TSZ. I don't know how you guys do it, Joe's trolling is just WAY too damn fatiguing and boring to deal with.

Really, life is to short to live as troll fodder for Joe.

And that's what TSZ has become, now. It's Joe's forum, now.

I wanted to post on the GA thread -- I am one who has invested, personally, several person-years, and many more person-years have been put in by my team, on commercial applications of genetic algorithms. It's an interesting, underdeveloped topic.

But I'd be a fool to waste my time on that thread.

Joe has the upper hand, at this point. The advantage goes to the troll in these situations. It takes a collective commitment to not feed the troll to stem the problem, and Joe's a very capable troll.

I thought Felsenstein's post was good, but what's the point? As soon as any attention gets invested in it, Joe just moves over there, and the post is nullified.

Date: 2012/03/06 11:43:30, Link
Author: eigenstate
Just putting this in the thread, in case Tiggy's thread eventually gets nuked -- a Cornell reference in Dembski's CV on the boondoggle:

Quote
No less that head IDiot William Dembski has gone the same route. From his CV:

PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
2011 “A General Theory of Information Cost Incurred by Successful Search,” presented 31 May 2011 at Biological Information: New Perspectives (international conference at Cornell University, 31 May – 2 June 2011).

link

The whole Intelligent Design Creation movement is based on such intellectual dishonesty.

- T


Here's the link Tiggy supplied:

http://www.designinference.com/documen....ski.pdf

Date: 2012/03/07 18:46:47, Link
Author: eigenstate
So, I just posted at TSZ, on a thread started by WJM. It didn't immediately show up. Are TSZ posts all moderated, now, or is this up to the thread owner?

I'm registered there, etc. I recall the posting being "immediate" which is cool.

Did this change, anyone know?

Date: 2012/03/07 22:03:17, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 07 2012,19:11)
Yes, it changed due to you know who. First posts are moderated. After that it should go smoothly.

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

OK thanks.

Date: 2012/06/14 20:03:43, Link
Author: eigenstate
So I scanned here a bit wondering if this was covered, but didn't see anything.

On the Matheson issue, I read this:
http://www.mlive.com/news.......ro.html
and while it appears the guy has a particularly acute lack of good judgment, a "multi-year sexual relationship" does NOT jibe with the kind of warning Sal is going on about.

It may have been inappropriate in terms of the policies of a fundamentalist religious school, but am I right in understanding that Sal is committed to getting the word out that this Matheson... monster might be engaging in consensual sexual relationships with adult members of the opposite sex, and the public needs to be warned about this?

This seems bizarre, even for Sal.

Or was there some allegation/evidence of assault/rape/abuse on Matheson's part that I've missed?

Date: 2012/06/14 21:23:30, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 14 2012,20:45)
Quote (eigenstate @ June 14 2012,20:03)
So I scanned here a bit wondering if this was covered, but didn't see anything.

On the Matheson issue, I read this:
http://www.mlive.com/news.......ro.html
and while it appears the guy has a particularly acute lack of good judgment, a "multi-year sexual relationship" does NOT jibe with the kind of warning Sal is going on about.

It may have been inappropriate in terms of the policies of a fundamentalist religious school, but am I right in understanding that Sal is committed to getting the word out that this Matheson... monster might be engaging in consensual sexual relationships with adult members of the opposite sex, and the public needs to be warned about this?

This seems bizarre, even for Sal.

Or was there some allegation/evidence of assault/rape/abuse on Matheson's part that I've missed?

I'm going to have to disagree on this one.

Misuse / abuse of the teacher-student relationship is an extremely serious violation of ethics and will get even a tenured professor fired at virtually every school in the country.

A number of years ago my then 18 year old niece was a freshman at a major midwestern U. when she became physically involved with her 40-something English professor.  She was very immature and naive and was the victim of a predator. They had a year+  affair that only ended when the school found out about it and demanded the jerk's resignation.  He was married with 3 kids, and it later came out that he was a serial womanizer who had numerous affairs with his freshman students over the years.

If screwed my niece up mentally big time, she ended up dropping out of school over it and drifting for years.  Fortunately she's now married and has a normal life, but only after going through some serious shit.

If Matheson and this coed were serious he should have resigned, or she should have transferred to another school.  Matheson is a good spokesman for science but he's going to have a hard time finding another teaching gig, and rightly so.

I have no problem with Matheson being fired; as I understand it from a colleague who recently left the local university here, that's a clear firing offense for someone in Matheson's position, for a secular university just as much as a religious fundamentalist one.

That wasn't (as I understand it), the basis for Sal's warning. Beware of profressor's ethical lapses and breach of employment contract! Etc.

If we are talking about abuse of power -- situations where a professor uses grade authority, placement recommendations, or other forms of 'leverage' upon those s/he has power over for exploitive reasons, that's a big problem. And as far as that goes, worth a warning about the proclivities of that person to abuse their power.

And maybe that is the charge. That is what I was asking. But I'm not aware of such a basis for warning.

To read Sal, this guy is a sexual assault threat, something the student body needs to be warned about for their safety, or the women at least.

As for your niece, that sounds a terrible situation. As I said above, where power is abused and exploited, bring it down on the guy.  But if we are talking about adult women who are responsible for themselves, noting that Professor SoAndSo is a lech doesn't seme a problem, but it's not a personal security concern, if this is a consenting relationship, developed without coercion, however ill-advised or unethical it may have been on the professor's part.

As one who was raised in the Calvinist culture (the theology, not referring to the school, here), there's a very strong undercurrent of misogyny and condenscion towards women; they aren't smart enough or strong enough to think and act on their own at 19, per their religious superstitions, and thus must be "protected" and warned like they were young children.

Date: 2012/06/15 11:27:44, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 15 2012,06:24)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ June 14 2012,21:45)
     
Quote (eigenstate @ June 14 2012,20:03)
So I scanned here a bit wondering if this was covered, but didn't see anything.

On the Matheson issue, I read this:
http://www.mlive.com/news.......ro.html
and while it appears the guy has a particularly acute lack of good judgment, a "multi-year sexual relationship" does NOT jibe with the kind of warning Sal is going on about.

It may have been inappropriate in terms of the policies of a fundamentalist religious school, but am I right in understanding that Sal is committed to getting the word out that this Matheson... monster might be engaging in consensual sexual relationships with adult members of the opposite sex, and the public needs to be warned about this?

This seems bizarre, even for Sal.

Or was there some allegation/evidence of assault/rape/abuse on Matheson's part that I've missed?

I'm going to have to disagree on this one.

Misuse / abuse of the teacher-student relationship is an extremely serious violation of ethics and will get even a tenured professor fired at virtually every school in the country.

A number of years ago my then 18 year old niece was a freshman at a major midwestern U. when she became physically involved with her 40-something English professor.  She was very immature and naive and was the victim of a predator. They had a year+  affair that only ended when the school found out about it and demanded the jerk's resignation.  He was married with 3 kids, and it later came out that he was a serial womanizer who had numerous affairs with his freshman students over the years.

If screwed my niece up mentally big time, she ended up dropping out of school over it and drifting for years.  Fortunately she's now married and has a normal life, but only after going through some serious shit.

If Matheson and this coed were serious he should have resigned, or she should have transferred to another school.  Matheson is a good spokesman for science but he's going to have a hard time finding another teaching gig, and rightly so.


What creates an actionable problem for professional ethics is the presence of a dual relationship, and the potential for exploitation of the power imbalance in the relationship. If Matheson were a prof in a different department with no role to play in the student's academic life then there probably is no ethical violation, because there is no dual relationship.

If he was in her department, teaching courses she has taken or needs to take, functioning as an advisor or otherwise involved in or potentially involved in her academic life then there probably is an actionable ethical violation due to the potential for exploitation.

I'm not noticing an abundance of facts pertaining to this situation (which came to light more than a year ago, BTW) one way or another.

I'm really just wondering where the facts are that Sal (or others) are that I'm missing that would be dispositive on that. I guess I read this article and thought: here's a prof that made some contact with a student, asked her out a year later, they got involved, things fell apart, and now the student is angry.

For all I know, there might be a "dual relationship" involved, but where is all this covered? Apparently, it's not easily obtained and I just missed it. A relative of mine at the university I went to now more than 20 years ago got involved as a junior with a professor who she had had a class with as a freshman. It, too, ended badly, and was a big problem for the professor (dont' remember and didn't care that much what happened to him). But this was something she pursued, and there was no "dual relationship". Still dumb, and problematic for that prof. But warning the campus about the professor as some kind of sexual assault or predator threat would have been ridiculous.

There does not seem to be very much to go on factually in this case. Unsurprisingly, this isn't hardly an obstacle for Sal.

Date: 2012/06/23 21:47:28, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 23 2012,17:54)
I love watching Upright Biped and kairosfocus just annihilate the trolls who pollute U.D. It's such a joy. kairosfocus is especially brilliant. It's no wonder he's so hated here. He's like LeBron James -- so brilliant at what he does that it's almost scary.

Every single one of you who have had the balls to face kairosfocus in the debating circle  have been severely trounced. Every one of your claims have been demolished. He is a one-man, Darwinist-destroying machine.

How many of you wake up in the middle of the night with cold sweats after having nightmares of kairosfocus? Be honest. His superior intellect scares you.

Comedy Gold, dude.

Seriously, though, what do make of the fact that KairosFocus has a whole group of critics who would very much like to engage, and let the best ideas and arguments, win, etc., but the only place Kairos is to be found are in places where he can control and silence those critics?

I know KF is a coward without the courage of his convictions, and painfully aware of his weakness in any setting where the playing field is level, but I'm always intrigued as to how this fails to register in the minds of the of the faithful.

Does it suggest anything that KairosFocus would be welcomed here and descended upon with great vigor with science and other features of reality, if he had the courage to do so? Doesn't it seem a bit tone-deaf to make the claims you do, when those who have been... "demolished" would be quite happy just engage in a to-the-point debate, and KF just hides behind Barry's skirt at UD?

Date: 2012/06/24 02:36:01, Link
Author: eigenstate
meanwhile, over at UD, this classic bit of trolling from "lastyearon":

 
Quote
I haven’t read the book, so a couple questions…

Anne, do you explore the possibility that the first human female was made from the rib of the first human male? I’m interested to know what genetic evidence you might have found regarding that.

Also, were you able to uncover any evidence suggesting linguistic capabilities of snakes at or around the time of the first humans?

Thanks.


Which, lol, elicited this response from "gauger", ostensibly Anne Gauger herself:
 
Quote
No, but I am learning something about snake pits.


I use "trolling" advisedly; it's not a serious question in the sense that it seeks a real answer. It is designed (and this one, well) to convey ridicule. But there's something like a "corollary to the Poe Principle" in this. To troll someone like Gauger, all you have to do is ask straightforward, relevant questions. Trolling Gauger and just asking Gauger innocent, obvious questions are as hard to distinguish as creationist arguments and parodies of same.

This kind of tard is "self trolling", so to speak, I think.

Anyway, I'm surprised they left that post up there. It really twists the knife in back of Gauger's ridiculous position, arguing scientifically for the 'possibility' of a "real genetic Adam & Eve", while throwing out all the standards she's trying to prosecute this case with when it comes to her own beliefs.

Date: 2012/08/09 21:02:54, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 09 2012,07:21)


Someone turn Gil over, he's done on that side now.

And "News". Really? You do know that Gordon will be all over this one right?
   
Quote
where such women sold their smelly wares.


ho ho.

Heh. I'm surprised at how much leeway they give bartax. I see bartax has seized on one of the lies that rubs my fur the wrong way from Dodgen, this poseur thing about being a nihilistic atheist. Yeah, right. Well put by bartax, the nihilistic atheist kid who you just kid get pried off the piano perfecting his current favorite impromptus, mazurkas and nocturnes long enough to eat his macaroni and cheese.

Yeah, that works as a narrative. And he shows all the marks of being a *former* nihilistic-atheist.

Who is the guy Gil reminds me of? Oh, yeah this guy -- Mike Warnke the "evil Satanist" who got saved by Jesus, much to the glory and wide admiration of Mike Warnke. Truly a remarkable journey to the light.

Except it was all fake, made up for attention-getting purposes, to impress the faithful with a confidence-game testimony.

I don't know if that kind of psychological desire or problem has a specific name, but whatever it is, Ms. Dodgen has it.

OnEdit:spelling



Date: 2012/08/12 20:45:58, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 12 2012,19:45)
I think he maybe took a step back, realised he was making up personas, threatening people with violence, being moderated by both sides and posting pictures of women's genitals to get a reaction and thought it wasn't good for him. At least I hope that's what happened. Maybe he can channel his considerable energies into something more positive.

Had to go look to see for myself. Amazing.

I thought I felt a disturbance in the tard-force... as if a million epithets and confused hostilities all cried out at once.


Seriously, though, my instinct on this was that someone (like an employer, or prospective employer) got wind of his blog, forcing Joe to take it down post haste (along with the copy/backup site).

Date: 2012/08/25 22:05:00, Link
Author: eigenstate
So, Barry said this today on UD:

Quote
Maus, a coward forfeits his right to be taken seriously.


That is all.

Date: 2012/08/28 16:45:20, Link
Author: eigenstate
So, Barry is using "9x9=81" as his example of "self-evident"???

Even for a tard-mine, this is pretty precious.

"9x9=81" is a perfect example of what is NOT self-evident. We may recognize the answer by familiarity, but only as the product of working it out previously (learning your multiplication tables as a kid, typically). The "mathematical truth" of "9x9=81" can be demonstrated by applying the math rules, but that is the only basis for its truth. There's perfectly NOTHING "self-evident" about the symbols, the rules, or the truth of the statement.

Consider:

"the square root of of 35,408,973 is greater than 5,000"

That's a true statement, and it's exactly as "self-evident" as Barry's "9x9=81". It's evaluated based on simple calculations, but it must be calculated, the very negation of "self-evidence".

Never mind that Barry's choice confuses analytically true propositions (true by definition and rule) with propositions about the real world. Tautologies are true by definition. Barry clearly does not have a basic understanding of the terms he is using, here. He's thinking it's something like "demonstrably true" or "indisputable", but this is not what "self-evident" signifies.

If I see something that has a "tree-like" appearance, it may or may not be a tree. But whatever the case about the kind of object that is appearing to me, it is "self-evident" that I am experiencing a "tree-like" appearance. It's transcendentally true that I'm having such an experience on any further question of what that "tree-like" appearance actually represents in the extra-mental world.

Just sayin'. I'm just amazed, not that Barry would bungle his presentation so badly, but that UD has gotten to a point that no one, or just the odd outlier is in a position to point out the conspicuous FAIL on Arrington's part. UD is migrating toward a "North Korean" model of tard mining, where there's no one left to even point out the silliness on the critics' side, silliness that's trivially identified.

Fools.

OnEdit: I see BillB has linked to a comment from "A Gene" which does point this basic problem out to Barry. Kudos to "A Gene", and a nod to BillB for the link. Should have read the whole thread here before I posted.



Date: 2012/08/28 16:58:16, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (dvunkannon @ Aug. 28 2012,16:20)
Quote (BillB @ Aug. 28 2012,17:13)
Quote (keiths @ Aug. 28 2012,22:03)
A Gene is toying with Barry:
 
Quote (A Gene @ August 28 2012, 2:38 pm)
Barry, we can give reasons for why 9×9=81. It’s also not self-evident (we have to learn our multiplication tables). So the two aren’t comparable.

BTW, I trust you know that 9×9=23 is correct, even if for a slightly odd reason.

Goddamit, I wish I was better at maths.

Base 39?

In hexadecimal, which is how I think/have thought for substantial parts of my programming work, 09 x 09=51 (as a convention, hex is written with a leading 0 for padding single digits). I never learned hexadecimal multiplication tables as a grade schooler, but through regular use, I know most of the hex multiplications up to 0F x 0F (=E1) by sight recognition -- too much working with binary file format coding back in the day! -- but they are not "self-evident". They are, rather, just familiar.

Would Barry say 0Fx 0F = E1 or 09 x 09 = 51 is "self-evident"? I think merely considering that question, once he understood what math was being presented, would make clear his error.

Fool.

Date: 2012/09/04 18:21:06, Link
Author: eigenstate
Meanwhile, KF over at UD:

Quote
I have a national sci edu crisis to deal with, so I have to be selective.


Gonna have to cut the tard down to just 10,000 words or so today, on account of the National Science Crisis That Is Threatening Monserrat's Very Existence and By Extension, Really the Remains of the British Empire, and all.

OnEdit:Linky



Date: 2013/05/11 09:46:14, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (hotshoe @ May 11 2013,09:03)
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 11 2013,05:22)
Paging Lizzie. Your domain name requires attention.

Oh that's sad.  Seems like never-ending trouble for Libbie's site.  What got broken this time?

But I must confess I'm relieved it's not just something wrong with me or my computer ...

The domain is expired - if you do a whois on the name, you can see it's been moved to hosting at the "expired" domains servers at register.com:

link

. It just needs to be renewed. It's in the protection window where it's expired but is not available to purchase by someone else, but this only happens for a few days.

Date: 2013/05/24 10:56:32, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (Febble @ May 23 2013,06:18)
I think KF is a classic example of what happens when you become so convinced that there is a conspiracy against your own views that you cut yourself off from any possibility of being persuaded by a counter-view.

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

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

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

[/soapbox]

I think the problem is more severe than you've cast it here; not only are KF's views a prophylactic against being *persuaded* by alternative/opposing views, they confound attempts to even engage and understand them, persuasion notwithstanding. As a member of an extended family "clan" with a good number of fundamentalist Christians in it, I get to see the not-persuaded-no-matter-what-you-say thing up close and personally, regularly. In many of those cases, though, these relatives are quite able to understand and engage on the subject.

KF is not able to actually engage on the merits. It's a "farther gone" case than just putting oneself beyond liability to persuasion or at risk of doubting one's worldview, etc.

Sorry your site's down, I really enjoy reading TSZ, hope to find time to participate some this summer. As a web geek, I feel like I should be volunteering to help. I know there's many others here with mad skillz if you need, but if I can help you with the humdrum stuff of blog hosting/admin/maintenance, I'd be happy to help out.

Date: 2013/05/24 13:59:55, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (Febble @ May 24 2013,12:08)
Quote (eigenstate @ May 24 2013,10:56)
Sorry your site's down, I really enjoy reading TSZ, hope to find time to participate some this summer. As a web geek, I feel like I should be volunteering to help. I know there's many others here with mad skillz if you need, but if I can help you with the humdrum stuff of blog hosting/admin/maintenance, I'd be happy to help out.

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

grrrr.

OK, well my offer is solid; if I can help you with the infrastructure, I'm ready. I'm off for a long Memorial Day Weekend, so have much more time than I normally do for the next three or four days.

I'll PM you my email etc. if you want to let me help out.

Date: 2013/05/25 10:51:08, Link
Author: eigenstate
TSZ appears to be back up and functional now.

Date: 2013/06/01 09:33:17, Link
Author: eigenstate
Meanwhile, CharlieD maneuvers himself under the ban hammer at UD:

Quote
Thats why youre Christian? Really? Those points from JLA speak to a specific religion? Why not bhuddism, judaism, muslim, etc?
Oh thats right, its because you blindly accept what has been put before you by your church. Gotcha.

Date: 2013/06/04 11:54:35, Link
Author: eigenstate
This is a pretty good summary of the pwnage RDFish has visited upon StephenB in the past week or so. If you've been following this exchange, it's been a pretty good beatdown for StephenB, made all the more dramatic by RDFish's civil and engaging tone.

Quote

Here’s a nice summary of where you have failed to respond to my arguments.

1) To say that “something receives existence” entails a logical contradiction (because it presupposes existence)
2) “Potential existence” is an incoherent concept (except in the most banal sense of one existing thing being shaped into something else)
3) LoC cannot be logically derived from the LNC (because existence is not a predicate)
4) Knowledge can never be absolutely certain (because epistemology is not solved)
5) Logic cannot be formally mapped to abstract questions of existence, e.g. the origin of the universe, the nature of causality, the problem of free will, etc, and so the Rules of Reason do not produce objectively true answers to these questions.

Date: 2013/06/05 11:30:59, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 05 2013,11:00)
 
Quote (Febble @ June 05 2013,10:56)
 
Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 05 2013,10:53)
It's called, "Deception by Omission".

I'm still not sure what you mean by "cowardly".  Do you mean that I (or the people who post there) are hiding something they are frightened to show?

Your cowardly by not letting the people from the other side post.

If any cowardice exists, it's to be found in the ID advocates and admins at Uncommon Descent. ID apologists at UD are both heavily committed to real ideological censorship -- not moderation to control hate speech, spam, verbal abuse, etc, but banning users and deleting content because it is *ideologically* offensive -- and also conspicuously unwilling to venture outside the safe confines of UD where the admins will tolerate their abuses, and protect them from any persistent ideological challenge.

At TSZ, the problem is the reverse. It's difficult to find IDers who are willing to venture out of UD and engage in an open conversation, to participate in a two-way exchange. William J. Murray and a couple of other sporadic posters (Blas?) show that it can be done, and all the better for the discussion at TSZ, but the real take-away from TSZ is that UD's denizens are a group that is only able/comfortable in a setting where they are protected from critique and challenge. TSZ would flourish all the more if the UD crowd had the fortitude to actually engage their critics.

Similarly, UD would flourish in the "it's interesting and educational" sense if it could find the courage to tolerate critics in its discussions. It would be a PR and political disaster for ID, as ID can't hold it's own in a fair fight between ideas. But it would be an interesting spectacle, and has been at times when UD had brief lapses in censorial and bullying responses.

Just look at the "doors". At TSZ, the door is wide open and the welcome mat is out. Even if you get way off topic, or personally nasty, even then you don't get banned, or your posts disappeared; you get those posts quarantined, moved to the side, but still available (which is wise, because it stops short of censorship, and leaves the "incriminating posts" available to be judged by the fair reader).

At UD, as soon as you become a bit difficult to deal with ideologically, you are banned. UD keeps a small cadre of "token" critics around, for appearance's sake, but these are few in number and tolerated because their criticism can be kept to manageable margins. If UD were to open up to all interested parties, they would be overrun with critics, many of them exceedingly polite and civil, but devastating in their critiques of ID and defenses of science against ID's attacks against it.

I'm not sure where you got the impression you did -- perhaps you are only familiar with TSZ and not familiar with Uncommon Descent -- but you have the facts backward. TSZ is as open and tolerant a forum as you are likely to find on the net.

Date: 2013/06/05 13:39:26, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 05 2013,12:38)
If anything, the policies at TSZ favor the creationists. Sal is impervious to reality. He looking to bolster YECism, facts and science be damned. He's very polite because he's fishing - he's trying to find weaknesses that he wants to use to cast doubt on science and thus promote YECism. And he will the quotemine and crow that "Dr. such and such couldn't answer my.." even if that's not what's happened -He's done this before, but the TSZ rules say we must assume he's acting in good faith.

Yeah, TSZ is cool because it's very liberal and generous, but isn't naïve about it can be exploited as a platform (if a small one). I don't think Sal fools many people with his schtick -- anyone remember that guy Perry Marshall from "cosmic fingerprints" or some such that went to IIDB to run the gauntlet of skeptics? He got cut to shreds, but on his narrative, he emerged unscathed, and the critics by silence and critique just showed how right he was. IIDB was a cynical PR strategy of sorts.

That's Sal, and I think that's not hard to pick up. But I think it should be satisfying thing for the denizens of TSZ to be able to tolerate that kind of thing, annoying as it is. It's a natural "cost of doing business" of liberal community policies.

Date: 2013/06/27 14:33:14, Link
Author: eigenstate
Lizzie's recent response to KF is worth noting in passing:


Quote
And this: “cultural watershed direct attack on core sexual identity, family and marriage” is, in my view, complete rubbish. That doesn’t matter – you are entitled to express it. But you shouldn’t be surprised if the response is disgust and anger. There is no “cultural direct direct attack on core sexual identity”. What there is, thank goodness, is increasing understanding and tolerance of the biological fact that possession a Y chromosome does not determine whom you will, or should, love, and which gender you will, or should, identify with. As a result we now recognise that while most people’s gender identity is congruent with their chromosomal sex, gender identity results from a complex cascade of in utero hormones, and may not. Similarly, while most people are attracted to the opposite gender, some people’s sexual orientation is towards the same gender. Again, in utero hormones seem to be important. But whatever the biological determinants, there is no evidence whatsoever that tolerance of gay and transgender people is any threat whatsover to the heteronormal community, and sadly rather too much evidence that the reverse is still in operation. That’s why people get angry when they read views like yours, however principled. It is a principle based on no good evidence at all.


The whole thing is worth reading.

Date: 2015/08/12 17:48:31, Link
Author: eigenstate
Quote (Richardthughes @ Aug. 12 2015,16:15)
Bonus Bonus Barry:

 
Quote
...Eigenstate’s summary of the materialist worldview is spot on. That his nihilism is also itself self-evidently evil should give him pause. It does not. He is proud of it. Believing there was no ultimately difference between Hitler and Mother Teresa makes him feel all grown up and sophisticated. Not like us childish Christians, who naively believe in things like justice. He really is a disgusting little maggot. But he’s our disgusting little maggot, and I am glad we have him to serve as a bad example from time to time. Thanks E.

I, like you, I'm sure, run across a lot of "Barry" types on the Net.

The epithets and denigration are so.... banal, though. His "dislikeability" really is function of his just being... boring. I can think of other much more nasty characters, who at least had the good grace to be somewhat original or creative.

DaveScot was, for example, at least mildly interesting, and at least could provide a little surprise in his language/responses.

I regularly get the sense that I'm taking a kind of "Creationist Turing Test" when engaging Barry. A badly coded one.  It works for Barry, though, I guess. Being a shallow bore is a good prophylactic against critics, yeah? Who wants to invest their free time engaging that more than on an occasional drive-by basis?

Date: 2015/09/14 00:37:49, Link
Author: eigenstate
From the obnoxious "Nihilsm"  thread at UD:

Quote
@Barry,

Here’s the tautology I’m interested in from you, analogously:

If the God you worship somehow demanded that torturing infants was holy requirement of the faith, as a most necessarily good act in service to his divine will, would you be morally obligated to torture infants?

More simply, even: if God obligates you to torture infants for fun, would you be so obligated?


Heh. Will be interesting to see if Barry responds, and if so how.

 

 

 

=====