form_srcid: socle
form_srcid: socle
form_cmd: view_author
Your IP address is 184.73.87.85
View Author detected.
view author posts with search matches:
Retrieve source record and display it.
form_author:
form_srcid: socle
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 'socle%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC
DB_err:
DB_result: Resource id #4
Date: 2009/08/20 01:57:39, Link  
Author: socle  
Must be noted scholar's post that's gone missing. :p 
Date: 2009/08/30 13:22:44, Link  
Author: socle  
Learned Hand destroys ID's "crime scene analogy":

Date: 2009/09/06 12:26:00, Link  
Author: socle  
Clive:
Just for the record, I know with absolute certainty that David v. Squatney and Blue Lotus are not the same person. I've made a post to that effect, but DvS is now under moderation. 
Date: 2009/09/06 21:51:47, Link  
Author: socle  
Gil:
LOL Oops. 
Date: 2009/09/09 11:17:46, Link  
Author: socle  
Dembski:
Yet another outlet for IDCists to dissipate their energy (as opposed to doing science): A blog "satirizing scientism" that's about as funny as syphilis. 
Date: 2009/09/16 14:09:51, Link  
Author: socle  
Wow. For once Denyse makes a genuinely thoughtful post, in Clive's thread on Norman Borlaug:
"So ... ?"? Then it all goes pearshaped:
WTF? 
Date: 2009/09/19 11:40:14, Link  
Author: socle  
Here we go again: The Original Weasel(s)
It's fascinating to me how these people simply cannot accept the fact that the original program no longer exists, and that there will always be some uncertainty about its features. They would actually rather declare programs they received from some random anonymous person on the internet to be the "originals". LOL. 
Date: 2009/10/09 23:16:55, Link  
Author: socle  
*barfs* I haven't been following UD for a few weeks, but I'd swear it's ten times worse than the last time I checked: Global warming denialism, evolution => Hitler, Weasel: A New Beginning, Errington's meltdown, etc. It's pretty bad when the only remotely sciencerelated post on the front page was written by Corny Hunter. What a bunch of putzes. 
Date: 2009/11/28 13:53:29, Link 
Author: socle 
Does anyone here recall ever seeing Dembski address the mathematics of climate science in any of his posts? All I've seen is him parroting BS denier talking points about conspiracies, fraud, etc, without engaging any actual substance. Even when other posters have tried to bait him into a discussion of the technicalities, he has studiously avoided the subject. I simply can't accept that Dembski, with degrees in math and statistics, believes much of what he posts on AGW. 
Date: 2009/12/15 16:45:34, Link 
Author: socle 
Why do I get the impression that Clive got a C in his freshman writing class? :D 
Date: 2009/12/15 17:40:36, Link 
Author: socle 
Date: 2009/12/15 17:47:26, Link  
Author: socle  
Certainly! 
Date: 2010/01/02 09:46:08, Link  
Author: socle  
Uhoh, shit just got real:

Date: 2010/02/13 00:25:24, Link  
Author: socle  
How are those hydrogen peroxide treatments going, JoeG? Do you still have an esophagus? 
Date: 2010/02/17 21:44:40, Link 
Author: socle 
I suppose now would be a bad time to start a discussion on the Eucharist over there. 
Date: 2010/02/18 09:34:02, Link  
Author: socle  
Fixed.

Date: 2010/06/20 09:30:28, Link  
Author: socle  
To his credit, Clive could have made a worse choice for his comparison than hyenas. 
Date: 2010/06/20 10:13:30, Link  
Author: socle  
Correct. You can tell because they face to the left and are not as colorful as thylacines. 
Date: 2010/06/23 11:55:56, Link 
Author: socle 
Uh, anyone else notice some fairly NSFW pics being displayed in the upper right hand corner of the page? ??? 
Date: 2010/06/23 13:49:46, Link 
Author: socle 
I think my antivirus and malware software is up to date. I just cleared my cache and everything's back to normal now. Odd. It was the search, members, and help icons that were borked, FWIW. 
Date: 2010/07/30 22:58:22, Link  
Author: socle  
Advanced set theory:

Date: 2010/07/31 10:03:32, Link  
Author: socle  
Joe, Here's another way to look at the issue using your money model: {x, y} stands for an envelope containing a $10 and a $20 bill. { {}, {x}, {y}, {x, y} } stands for a large envelope containing four smaller envelopes. One of the smaller envelopes is empty, one contains a $10 bill, one contains a $20 bill, and the remaining one contains a $10 bill and a $20 bill. See the difference? 
Date: 2010/07/31 23:07:19, Link  
Author: socle  
Yeah, everyone knows that a power set is only a form of set. 
Date: 2010/08/02 14:16:50, Link  
Author: socle  
Joe never spelled out precisely how his operation of converting sets to dollar amounts works, so it's not clear. But yeah, I think $60 would make more sense. His position seems to have changed slightly, though:

Date: 2010/08/02 14:19:29, Link 
Author: socle 
And the "?" above should actually be a "not equal" symbol. 
Date: 2010/08/05 17:43:47, Link  
Author: socle  
BA77:
Wasn't there some discussion recently about how BA77 was one of the most scienceliterate posters on UD? 
Date: 2010/08/05 19:03:34, Link  
Author: socle  
it's really a bizarre thread. It reminds me of debating with afdaveyou can show him to be wrong in any number of ways, and he will concede nothing. I have to give him credit for not deleting any of my posts, though, when others would have.

Date: 2010/08/06 10:39:15, Link  
Author: socle  
Wow, I just noticed the date on that thread: December 5, 2006, closing in on 4 years ago. And Joe still hasn't bothered to acquaint himself with elementary set theory. Which primary school students master in a matter of hours. 
Date: 2010/08/06 13:12:13, Link  
Author: socle  
He's like the Chuck Norris of stupidwhenever he says something, the universe instantly reorganizes itself to make him wrong. :D To be fair, I will give him credit for one thinghe has defended Muslims when they've been attacked by the ignorant on UD. 
Date: 2010/08/07 16:39:20, Link  
Author: socle  
Well, feck, looks like Joe's bailed, just when we got to his favorite subject,
C'mon Joe, post my comments! I spent 10 whole minutes on that tree diagram. :angry: 
Date: 2010/08/09 17:10:43, Link 
Author: socle 
lol. Someone just did some major editing. The [[theory of relativity]] is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world.<ref>See, e.g., historian Paul Johnson's book about the 20th century, and the article written by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe as allegedly assisted by [[Barack Obama]]. Virtually no one who is taught and believes relativity continues to read the Bible as they often come to their senses. </ref> Here is a list of 4 counterexamples: but none of them actually shows that the theory is incorrect. 
Date: 2010/08/10 11:04:53, Link 
Author: socle 
I wonder if he's ok with Galilean relativity. 
Date: 2010/08/10 19:17:54, Link  
Author: socle  
Yeah, it's hard to think of a bigger suckup than Chomsky. 
Date: 2010/08/14 13:14:36, Link  
Author: socle  
Hi VOM, Yes, Barry Arrington is a pretty sensitive guy. He banned me as well for this comment. 
Date: 2010/08/15 16:47:34, Link  
Author: socle  
DO'Leary:
Yes, the key question is what you want to believe. ASSF. Her use of the "I ain't kin to no monkey" trope is interesting, though. Why do we often find nonhuman primates repulsive? Is it some sort of uncanny valley type phenomenon? And what if things had turned out differently and we were actually descended from felines, say. Would we then find tigers, cheetahs, and panthers, which are generally regarded to be quite beautiful by primatehumans, ugly? 
Date: 2010/08/16 13:29:54, Link  
Author: socle  

Date: 2010/08/17 12:13:23, Link  
Author: socle  
Here's part of my response to that, still in moderation: Sheik: The short answer is, you can't hold the empty set in your hands. It's like I'm talking to a materialist here. :D The empty set is an abstract entity. 
Date: 2010/08/17 23:06:00, Link 
Author: socle 
Trying to explain math to Joe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTv6fFLVi4Q&feature=related 
Date: 2010/08/18 14:58:32, Link  
Author: socle  
And the behavior shown in that disturbing chimp/frog video that PZ posted today. 
Date: 2010/08/19 02:28:59, Link 
Author: socle 
The amazing thing is, running his posts through Wordle didn't result in any loss of information. 
Date: 2010/08/19 16:45:34, Link  
Author: socle  
I took it to be the island of Montserrat! 
Date: 2010/08/20 10:37:49, Link  
Author: socle  
Zachriel posts his example patrilineage in tree form:

Date: 2010/08/20 11:06:00, Link 
Author: socle 
Now Joe's asking where the trunk and roots are. lol. Next he'll be complaining that there's no bark, and that no birds are nesting in it. 
Date: 2010/08/20 12:23:12, Link  
Author: socle  
Here's a link to the page. I don't see how to link to the specific post, but it's around #707 or so. (If that's what you're requesting). 
Date: 2010/08/23 10:04:15, Link  
Author: socle  
That's especially hilarious given how he clings to that socalled "definition" on the ISSS page. 
Date: 2010/08/23 14:00:24, Link  
Author: socle  
Are you sure Joe G didn't hack Clive's account? 
Date: 2010/08/27 11:56:48, Link  
Author: socle  
Mohler:
I think his head is about to 'asplode. Anyway, everyone knows Dembski already solved this problem, as long as we grant that effects can precede their causes. I think StephenB proved that once. 
Date: 2010/09/01 10:27:58, Link  
Author: socle  
More abstract thinking fail:

Date: 2010/09/01 16:44:13, Link  
Author: socle  
I noticed the same thing a few days ago, but it was back fairly quickly. Sort of alarming to see it happening again though. 
Date: 2010/09/02 19:23:42, Link  
Author: socle  
Looks like Glenn hasn't posted on his climate change denier blog since 4/29/10. I wonder if he's rid himself of (another) Morton's Demon. 
Date: 2010/09/02 22:18:48, Link  
Author: socle  
OopsI didn't even know he was ill. Sorry to hear that. 
Date: 2010/09/03 22:08:32, Link  
Author: socle  
*sniff*
Until December... 
Date: 2010/09/04 13:11:50, Link  
Author: socle  
Heh, nice. A little less coffee and I would have missed it. 
Date: 2010/09/09 13:31:45, Link  
Author: socle  
Are we allowed to use ? itself as a base? If so, then ? = 10. That's probably cheating though. 
Date: 2010/09/09 13:33:50, Link 
Author: socle 
Oops, the "?" symbols should be the letter "pi" ("pie" for Clive ). 
Date: 2010/09/09 16:25:23, Link  
Author: socle  

Date: 2010/09/12 20:41:13, Link  
Author: socle  
That's unbelievable. He thinks BarryR doesn't know freshman calculus?! StephenB gets today's "Unskilled and Unaware of It" award. 
Date: 2010/09/13 11:17:18, Link  
Author: socle  
If I had a functioning sock I'd ask StephenB whether or not the BanachTarski paradox is a mathematical law:
It is a theorem, so it has the same logical status as StephenB's beloved law of sines (if you accept the Axiom of Choice, anyway). Of course some mathematicians do not accept the Axiom of Choice, despite this claim of StephenB's:

Date: 2010/09/13 17:19:19, Link  
Author: socle  
StephenB:
Bizarre. If we view Snell's Law merely as a brute fact description of how light behaves, then it's certainly not a mathematical law. If we view it as a consequence of Fermat's Principle (or of some other more fundamental phenomenon), then of course it depends on a "broader axiomatic formulation". 
Date: 2010/09/13 18:28:45, Link  
Author: socle  
markf:
StephenB:
It looks like StephenB now realizes the Snell's Law thing was a misstep. What does he mean by the "laws of association and accumulation"? I don't remember those terms from any math classes I took. 
Date: 2010/09/13 18:40:02, Link 
Author: socle 
I wonder if by "law of association", he is referring to what we normally call "associativity". That would be fairly lame. 
Date: 2010/09/13 18:56:55, Link 
Author: socle 
Date: 2010/09/13 19:40:56, Link  
Author: socle  
StephenB misrepresents BarryR's position, and tries to change the subject:
Funny how he's no longer interested in what axioms the "laws of association and accumulation" depend on. 
Date: 2010/09/18 21:27:38, Link  
Author: socle  
Has StephenB always qualified his principle of wholes being greater than their parts with the word "finite", or is that a recent thing? I wonder what he'd say about this: 
Date: 2010/09/19 01:24:34, Link  
Author: socle  
That's what I was thinking. Now that he's mastered the law of accumulation (sic), there's no stopping him. I believe his "finite whole is greater than its parts" principle will still have trouble dealing with nonwellfounded set theory, in which you can have sets which are elements of themselves. For example, you can have a set 0* with the property 0* = {0, 0*}. Presumably 0* is "greater than" its "part" 0* somehow? 
Date: 2010/09/19 12:20:06, Link  
Author: socle  
In case you have secondsecond thoughts, the example of 0* = {0, 0*} is on page 7 of this: NonWellFounded Sets (warning: 33 MB file). 
Date: 2010/11/13 10:15:06, Link 
Author: socle 
On a related note, I hear Alvin Greene is considering running for President in 2012. 
Date: 2010/11/25 09:53:45, Link 
Author: socle 
'sup, Joe. 
Date: 2010/11/27 08:59:50, Link  
Author: socle  
From the BBC:

Date: 2010/12/04 12:35:47, Link  
Author: socle  
Joe:
lol 
Date: 2010/12/05 10:53:51, Link  
Author: socle  
I don't know anything about Catholic doctrine, but doesn't this explanation lead one to ask why God didn't also give Adam and Eve this additional free will that Mary apparently received? Maybe the world would have been a better place without that "Fall" thing. 
Date: 2010/12/06 21:08:54, Link  
Author: socle  
He seems to be on the verge of discovering that everything he said about the information content of cakes, baseballs, rocks, etc. is crap. 
Date: 2010/12/07 21:18:28, Link 
Author: socle 
WTF?? I don't remember having to be taught by my parents to be heterosexual. Was vjtorley comatose throughout his entire adolescence? 
Date: 2010/12/10 07:36:48, Link  
Author: socle  
Hey, it's all good as long as the spooge ends up in the right place. 
Date: 2010/12/11 13:31:30, Link  
Author: socle  
It's probably easier to find if you're a member of the Catholic Church. 
Date: 2011/02/05 13:15:48, Link  
Author: socle  
Wow. That's a classic. On the other hand, I'm sure he's totally ok with the idea of Jesus praying to God. 
Date: 2011/03/26 19:37:16, Link  
Author: socle  
No wonder Dembski's giving this thread a miss. I almost feel sorry for the poor bastard. 
Date: 2011/04/10 15:59:26, Link  
Author: socle  
I love that last sentence of Clive's. Can't he get through a oneparagraph post without melting down into gibberish? It seems he's trying to say that it's impossible to determine the accuracy of any historical text, unless you accept by "faith" that it is accurate. Or something like that. 
Date: 2011/04/11 23:09:31, Link  
Author: socle  
Finally, someone posts a substantive response to Mathgrrl's CSI challenge:

Date: 2011/04/12 00:23:10, Link  
Author: socle  
I was almost convinced kuartus was a sock too, but sadly a little googling reveals his IDfriendly youtube channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/Kuartus), as well as numerous 7monthsold posts on this youtube comment thread in which he spews the same nonsense:
What a waste it is to lose one's mind ... or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is. 
Date: 2011/04/14 22:48:53, Link  
Author: socle  
Hilarious. That's the least impressive crop circle I've ever seen, though. 
Date: 2011/04/21 13:14:05, Link  
Author: socle  
I'm seeing a lot of these:

Date: 2011/04/21 22:29:28, Link  
Author: socle  
Odd that Joe hasn't noticed after all these years that "Thre, they are explained" and the patternicity shtick cut ID off at the knees. 
Date: 2011/04/30 20:04:20, Link  
Author: socle  
Thornton:
Joe G:
Consequences will never be the same. 
Date: 2011/05/06 21:39:36, Link  
Author: socle  
vjtorley replies:
Most philosophers/ESL teachers would be able to shred Mapou's "argument" a bit more decisively than that. How did that man manage to get a PhD? 
Date: 2011/05/14 11:34:43, Link 
Author: socle 
little help for joe 
Date: 2011/05/21 11:03:09, Link  
Author: socle  
I wonder if Barry has seen this video: http://curtrosengren.typepad.com/alterna....od.html in which Dr Happer (the author of the article) argues that the earth was "fine" 80 million years ago as primates were evolving and atmospheric CO2 was around 1000 ppm, therefore climate change is not a problem. What a nutjob. Reminds me of this guy: 
Date: 2011/05/31 16:28:45, Link  
Author: socle  
I like this reply of Febble/Elizabeth Liddle to kairosfocus:
lol 
Date: 2011/06/03 16:20:23, Link  
Author: socle  
UB:
EL:
UB:
I'll give UB credit for having the sense not to engage EL on any substantial matters; as usual his role is simply to leaven the discussion with his douchebaggy comments. 
Date: 2011/06/04 19:39:02, Link  
Author: socle  
Jeezus. Richard T. Jones' speech was more coherent than that. 
Date: 2011/06/06 23:06:23, Link  
Author: socle  
Granville:
That's pretty funny 
Date: 2011/06/08 19:17:11, Link  
Author: socle  
This reminds me of a series of posts VoxRat did over at TalkRational a while back on Whitcomb and Morris' The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications. It went through something like 29 printings and despite the fact that every claim in it has been refuted ten times over, it hasn't been updated. And it's still getting 5 star reviews at amazon. Nice example of how creation "science" works. 
Date: 2011/06/09 17:47:28, Link  
Author: socle  
Denyse's latest
Seriously, get over there now!1eleventy1!!

Date: 2011/06/09 23:17:10, Link  
Author: socle  
ba77:

Date: 2011/06/10 14:45:15, Link  
Author: socle  
Robert "Whitey" Byers in the Darwin and the Beauty Pageant thread:
Oops. 
Date: 2011/06/12 09:06:32, Link  
Author: socle  
DeNews:
At least this one was uploaded recently. It's a Hitler "Downfall" parodyWTF does she mean by "great uniforms"? 
Date: 2011/06/13 10:32:30, Link  
Author: socle  
I think ba77 accidentally cut 'n' pasted from the wrong creationist website:

Date: 2011/06/13 11:04:06, Link  
Author: socle  
ba77,,, cont'd

Date: 2011/06/13 19:01:51, Link  
Author: socle  
I found this juxtaposition amusing: tsmith to Driver:
and 22 minutes later attempting a bit of levity with EL:

Date: 2011/06/16 00:46:44, Link  
Author: socle  
Tim Cooper's post finally gets through moderation:
I wonder if tsmith will notice? 
Date: 2011/06/16 15:07:42, Link 
Author: socle 
Denyse: Karl Giberson and his famous "double helix" guitar 
Date: 2011/06/19 21:02:17, Link  
Author: socle  
StephenB:
Any Protestant UDer's going to take the bait? cont'd, in which StephenB demonstrates that he knows more about God than God does:

Date: 2011/06/21 19:47:57, Link  
Author: socle  
PaV:
:facepalm: 
Date: 2011/06/21 21:00:47, Link  
Author: socle  
Heh. PaV's motivation for posting that escapes me. In the OP, KF calls out Lizzie for asserting that science is not equipped to study things with supernatural causes. In his post, PaV states that "there is no plausible scientific explanation for this miracle", apparently supporting Lizzie's position??? 
Date: 2011/06/23 13:02:50, Link  
Author: socle  
That PaV is a kick:
According to wikipedia, "The founder of Milan's Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, friar, physician and psychologist Agostino Gemelli, concluded Padre Pio was "an ignorant and selfmutilating psychopath who exploited people's credulity." As evidenced by PaV. 
Date: 2011/06/23 16:32:37, Link  
Author: socle  
Dembski, on who should be President Bachmann's science advisers:
Dang, I guess that eliminates Dr Dembski himself.

Date: 2011/06/23 16:56:22, Link  
Author: socle  
Mung:
Lizzie:
Mung:

Date: 2011/06/27 11:44:58, Link 
Author: socle 
Eh? 10 bids within 4 minutes, all apparently by the same bidder? 
Date: 2011/06/27 13:17:54, Link 
Author: socle 
Thanks, dvunkannon. 
Date: 2011/07/02 18:48:56, Link  
Author: socle  

Date: 2011/07/03 13:07:35, Link 
Author: socle 
Happy birthday, Rich. 
Date: 2011/07/09 16:06:43, Link  
Author: socle  
StephenB should maybe crack a book before lecturing on probability:

Date: 2011/07/10 15:59:53, Link  
Author: socle  
Joe:
which he has supported by citing that paper by Knox, The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics, which defines five different hierarchies, two of which are fully nested and two of which are seminested. 
Date: 2011/07/11 01:04:20, Link  
Author: socle  
Well I'm surprised. StephenB actually admits he was wrong. Ha, just kidding:

Date: 2011/07/11 12:43:46, Link  
Author: socle  
StephenB
So much for coming clean. 
Date: 2011/07/11 22:05:44, Link  
Author: socle  
StephenB
Like 2 and 7 have an equal chance to come up. D'oh!
That's what we call "quoting" in L337 interweb speak, Stephen. 
Date: 2011/07/12 01:32:24, Link  
Author: socle  
To be fair to StephenB, he did actually post something slightly more correct on this die roll experiment on 25/6/2011:
I don't know if it was by accident or what, but he hasn't done too well since then. 
Date: 2011/07/12 10:25:44, Link  
Author: socle  
Nice work over there, Acipenser. It's ironic how StephenB is now attempting a turnabout accusation^{TM} when it was you that first brought up the problem. 
Date: 2011/07/12 18:33:01, Link  
Author: socle  
StephenB
For a genius philosopher, he sure has a helluva time expressing himself clearly. This is Joe G territory. 
Date: 2011/07/18 21:19:18, Link  
Author: socle  
WTF tgpeeler

Date: 2011/07/20 00:50:45, Link  
Author: socle  
Brilliant, oleg, those tables in Tuesday's post are very helpful. I wonder if CH will acknowledge them? 
Date: 2011/07/22 14:02:58, Link  
Author: socle  
Oh, this is classy: 
Date: 2011/07/24 12:37:48, Link  
Author: socle  
junkdnaforlife:

Date: 2011/07/27 12:12:44, Link  
Author: socle  
Speaking of correlation between religion and lower IQ, Robert Byers:

Date: 2011/08/03 18:27:31, Link 
Author: socle 
You just know Joe's typing that stuff with one hand. lol 
Date: 2011/08/04 11:22:43, Link 
Author: socle 
Date: 2011/08/04 21:02:39, Link  
Author: socle  
Barry:
Rriiightt... I don't think he put much effort into that post. It looks like he did upload it around 1:00 AM BST, however, perhaps to maximize the time before EL can see it and slap his shit. 
Date: 2011/08/05 11:14:43, Link  
Author: socle  
material.infantacy:
(from the "Barry argues both sides" thread). Looks like an epic tardfight is imminent. 
Date: 2011/08/06 01:16:20, Link  
Author: socle  
Gil:
Hmmm. Time came into being at the birth of the universe. At its birth, the universe had no past. Therefore the universe has no designer. 
Date: 2011/08/07 12:46:27, Link  
Author: socle  
Mung accidentally tells the truth:

Date: 2011/08/11 23:27:59, Link  
Author: socle  
DeNews demonstrates the Rules of Right Reason:

Date: 2011/08/14 16:47:50, Link 
Author: socle 
Barry just says wtf and rewrites history: I count 5 EL callout threads posted by BA in the past 3 days. 
Date: 2011/08/15 01:02:00, Link 
Author: socle 
Here's Lizzie's blog, Rich: The Skeptical Zone 
Date: 2011/09/19 16:59:03, Link  
Author: socle  
It's amazing that Chris Doyle even still posts, given his cowardly douchebaggery over at Lizzie's blog. Unfuckingbelievable. 
Date: 2011/09/19 21:40:38, Link 
Author: socle 
hory shet, I didn't even see the part where Chris Doyle accused Lizzie of "disappearing"! lol. It's ironic that the topic of at least one of the threads CD deleted concerned how atheists supposedly have no rationale to act morally. Then when he got his ass handed to him, he bailed out and destroyed the evidence. I guess that's moral in his world. 
Date: 2011/09/21 16:46:13, Link  
Author: socle  
IMHO, the key to avoiding this frustration is to think of Joe not as a serious debating opponent, but rather as a piñata. It can be amusing to poke him with a stick, but ultimately it will come to no end. 
Date: 2012/02/19 16:01:04, Link  
Author: socle  
Wow. I have to admit reading Gil's threads reminds me of those epic threads back in the day of IIDB, with lee_merrill employing similar tactics (lots of assertions, no arguments, ignoring relevant questions, etc). 
Date: 2012/02/25 12:49:16, Link  
Author: socle  
Joe:
Funny how he's never at a loss when it comes to measuring bits in a fruitcake or whatever the hell else... 
Date: 2012/02/26 16:22:33, Link  
Author: socle  
Can we vote too? I don't know what to say about Gil. I get the impression he thinks of himself as always being the smartest guy in the room, and that he just doesn't need to defend his claims, because, well, he's Gil Dodgen. Regarding the phenomenon of Joe G, I think these two factors key: 1) He doesn't care about the truth. All that matters is winning the argument. 2) He is completely unaware of how badly he loses every argument he enters. 
Date: 2012/03/04 18:53:46, Link  
Author: socle  
olegt:
Joe:
Drink! 
Date: 2012/03/07 14:35:25, Link  
Author: socle  
William J. Murray:
So if you haven't read "most" of the papers relating to evolutionary biology, you are unqualified to participate in a discussion of the science (as WJM admits to being). If you have read the evolutionary biology literature extensively, then that is evidence of an "obsessive compulsion". Brilliant! 
Date: 2012/03/07 23:01:23, Link 
Author: socle 
Happy Birthday, Elizabeth! 
Date: 2012/03/13 19:04:35, Link  
Author: socle  
Corny's signature signoff seems appropriate:

Date: 2012/03/14 01:21:27, Link  
Author: socle  
Joe G:

Date: 2012/03/14 02:18:26, Link  
Author: socle  
Rich, There is a formulaPhi(x) would be the probability of getting a zscore of less than x, assuming a standard normal distribution: (Stolen from the wikipedia page on the Normal Distribution) 
Date: 2012/03/14 09:16:00, Link  
Author: socle  
Hi Rich, I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but you can use wolframalpha to evaluate the integral. The url below shows that the calculation that about 95% of the values drawn from a normal distribution have zscores between 2 and 2. There unfortunately isn't any way to convert the integral to a simple formula involving elementary functions. http://tinyurl.com/7n5a9ee....7n5a9ee 
Date: 2012/03/17 09:17:21, Link  
Author: socle  
Joe G:
So close... 
Date: 2012/03/21 20:20:19, Link 
Author: socle 
Happy Birthday! 
Date: 2012/04/15 09:39:47, Link  
Author: socle  
There are so many errors and misconceptions in that brief passageI'm in awe. I actually thought that Joe had in mind something relating to Mach's Paradox, but apparently I overestimated him (yet again). 
Date: 2012/04/21 09:52:12, Link  
Author: socle  

Date: 2012/05/20 19:41:38, Link 
Author: socle 
Happy Birthday, Hermagoras! 
Date: 2012/06/09 00:14:51, Link  
Author: socle  
Robert Byers:
Cleverbot:

Date: 2012/07/14 10:45:45, Link  
Author: socle  

Date: 2012/07/17 09:35:52, Link  
Author: socle  
I'd give a week's pay to unsee that belt *barfs in wastebasket* 
Date: 2012/07/25 16:20:32, Link 
Author: socle 
What's that smoke off in the distancestrawmen soaked in ad hominem oil then ignited? 
Date: 2012/08/01 09:19:15, Link  
Author: socle  

Date: 2013/03/26 13:03:50, Link  
Author: socle  
Well, I guess they might as well blow up the Three Gorges Dam. 
Date: 2013/04/05 13:40:17, Link  
Author: socle  
This has probably been noted before, but I haven't been following Joe's blog lately. It's interesting to contrast Joe in 2006, in a post entitled "Why Set Theory is irrelevant when discussing Nested Hierarchy (sic)":
with Joe now, at the Skepticink thread:

Date: 2013/04/06 19:43:43, Link  
Author: socle  
I get that vibe as well. That's a look of complete submission on Gordon's face. In this pose, "Joe" reminded me a little of Patrick Swayze (peace be upon him) if he had been a bit huskier. And butt ugly. 
Date: 2013/04/09 16:14:48, Link  
Author: socle  
Joe Felsenstein vs. Joe G must be the greatest mismatch since Per Ahlberg vs. Dave Hawkins. 
Date: 2013/05/04 09:02:54, Link  
Author: socle  
Likelihood: approaching 100%. Joe's problem is that he can emulate ... only Joe. 
Date: 2013/05/04 10:58:01, Link  
Author: socle  
Wow, he's a lunatic. But I'm now thinking that his writing style is too complex to be a product of Joe's mind. 
Date: 2013/05/07 22:27:48, Link 
Author: socle 
Date: 2013/05/13 07:47:44, Link  
Author: socle  
'sup Joe. Carefulasserting that A = B and A =/= B is a bannable offense at UD. 
Date: 2013/05/13 09:13:30, Link  
Author: socle  
Joe G:

Date: 2013/05/13 09:53:13, Link  
Author: socle  
No! Likewise, a cheese pizza is not a pizza! 
Date: 2013/05/16 08:40:11, Link  
Author: socle  
Joe, replying to olegt, still having trouble with set theory:

Date: 2013/05/17 08:07:50, Link  
Author: socle  
Sadly but unsurprisingly revealing:

Date: 2013/05/17 18:30:12, Link  
Author: socle  
Ready, Fire, Aim! 
Date: 2013/05/17 21:52:55, Link 
Author: socle 
Joe, What would you say about these two sets: A = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, ...} B = {0, 1, 10, 11, 100, 101, 110, 111, 1000, ...} You can see that A is a proper superset of B. Do they have the same cardinality? 
Date: 2013/05/18 10:41:51, Link  
Author: socle  
Hey Joe, Try this experiment: a) Start with a set of numbers, finite or infinite. b) Add 1 to each of the numbers in the set. Does that change the cardinality ("size") of the set? 
Date: 2013/05/18 11:27:15, Link  
Author: socle  
No, but no one here claimed they did. {0, 1, 2, 3, ..., 100} and {1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 101} do have the same cardinality, however. Now apply the same reasoning starting with {0, 1, 2, 3, ... }. 
Date: 2013/05/18 13:14:17, Link  
Author: socle  
Which is the "right" mapping, then, Joe? Hint: as long as there is a onetoone and onto mapping from A to B, the sets have the same cardinality. You just have to come up with one and the question is decided (oleg's, for example). That's what the wikipedia entry states: Two sets A and B have the same cardinality if there exists a bijection, that is, an injective and surjective function, from A to B. 
Date: 2013/05/18 13:26:37, Link  
Author: socle  
Yes, but again, no one has disputed that. 
Date: 2013/05/18 13:41:53, Link  
Author: socle  
No, that doesn't follow. The cardinalities of {0, 1, 2, 3, ...} and {1, 2, 3, 4, ...} are the same. So are the cardinalities of {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ...} and {0, 1, 10, 11, 100, ...}, btw, as I'm sure you noticed. Even freaking Conservapaedia agrees with us, lol: For example here we see that the set of even numbers has the same cardinality as the set of natural numbers, and thus it is in a sense the same size, even though the set of even numbers misses out a lot of numbers from the set of natural numbers. 
Date: 2013/05/18 14:03:58, Link  
Author: socle  
That's true, although the ZFC system is by far the most commonly used. If you want to use an alternate set theory, just tell us which one. 
Date: 2013/05/18 14:25:17, Link  
Author: socle  
Well, ID at least purports to be somewhat "mathy", so this isn't purely a distraction. If you want to make arguments based on probability, you have to understand a little about set theory and cardinality. And these concepts are quite nontrivial, tbh. You can't just skim a wikipedia entry and expect to have mastered the subject. In any case, I suggest you follow Lizzie's advice and study more intensively the topics you blog on before posting. 
Date: 2013/05/18 14:32:05, Link 
Author: socle 
Ya, probably not gonna happen. 
Date: 2013/05/18 17:00:33, Link  
Author: socle  
Hey Gary, The sets such as {0,1, 2, 3, ..., 100} that Joe and I were talking about aren't infinite; the "..." just represents a gap. This set just has the numbers 0 through 100 as elements, so we are not presuming that "infinity ends at 100". 
Date: 2013/05/18 18:34:06, Link  
Author: socle  
My choice of the word "gap" there was not very good, but oleg's link explains the notation well. 
Date: 2013/05/18 18:49:25, Link 
Author: socle 
BTW, Gary, do you ever code in Haskell? There is a ellipsis type notation for constructing lists that is similar to Joe's and my usage: [1,2 .. 10] evaluates to [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10] while [1,3 .. 10] evaluates to [1,3,5,7,9] You can even use [0 ..] to get the list corresponding to the set {0, 1, 2, ...}. 
Date: 2013/05/18 22:27:41, Link  
Author: socle  
Why yes, I did. 
Date: 2013/05/19 09:07:11, Link  
Author: socle  
Holy crap, he won't give up. Too lazy to link, but from Joe's blog:

Date: 2013/05/19 10:11:00, Link  
Author: socle  
Joe, Take a look at this page, especially the second example, which states:
oleg showed that yesterday. That page also discusses the fact that there are many (infinitely many, in fact) infinite cardinal numbers. 
Date: 2013/05/19 12:53:11, Link 
Author: socle 
Joe, from this book. 
Date: 2013/05/19 21:06:31, Link 
Author: socle 
Hey Joe, Let's say we go with your claim that A = {0, 1, 2, 3, ...} and B = {1, 2, 3, 4, ...} should have different cardinalities. Then what would the cardinality of C = {0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, ...} be? It should be the same as one of those above, right? But which one, A or B? 
Date: 2013/05/19 22:38:23, Link  
Author: socle  
You say it's subjective, Joe, but Cantor's definition works, whereas yours doesn't. According to Cantor, these sets all have the same cardinality: {0, 1, 2, 3, ...} {1, 2, 3, 4, ...} {0.5, 1.5, 2,5, 3.5, ...} {x, x + 1, x + 2, x + 3, ...} {..., 3, 2, 1, 0, 1, 2, 3, ...} namely, alephnull. How convenient. According to you, the first two sets have different cardinalities, and I have no idea what you would say about the others. How will you even make sense of the size of {x, x + 1, x + 2, x + 3, ...} in your system? Why would you want to choose such a complicated scheme, when Cantor's is so elegant in comparison? 
Date: 2013/05/22 11:19:34, Link  
Author: socle  
Joe:
Dembski and Marks, in The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search:

Date: 2013/05/24 08:41:18, Link  
Author: socle  
Joe has laid down an epic challenge: Joe:

Date: 2013/05/25 12:29:01, Link  
Author: socle  
Admittedly, hypernatural numbers are not my field, but here is how I image Kulla might reply to keiths' post at TSZ. I will write S for the "hypernatural cardinality" of set S, as defined by Kulla. {1, 2, 3, ...} is the class of (a_n) = (1, 2, 3, ...). {2, 3, 4, ...} is the class of (b_n) = (0, 1, 2, ...). Now because a_n > b_n for almost all n in N (for any choice of "almost all n in N"), we have that {1, 2, 3, ...} > {2, 3, 4, ...}. Here's a question I have. It seems to me a comparison of, say, {1, 3, 5, ...} with {2, 4, 6, ...} would depend on the choice of notion of "almost all n in N". As Kulla mentions:
Is it possible that {1, 4, 7, 10, ...} is larger than {2, 5, 8, 11, ...}, while at the same time {2, 5, 8, 11, ...} is smaller than {3, 6, 9, 12, ...}? If so, that would be a very strange notion of cardinality. 
Date: 2013/05/25 13:43:57, Link  
Author: socle  
Ok, strike that last question. 
Date: 2013/05/25 22:17:33, Link  
Author: socle  
Hi keiths, I certainly agree that if we require equivalent sets to have equal cardinality (and I can't think of a reason not to), then Kulla's definition fails. I did find it slightly interesting that he seems to be able to assign infinitely many degrees of infinity in such a way as to ensure that if A is a proper subset of B, then A < B, for all A and B. 
Date: 2013/05/26 08:32:04, Link  
Author: socle  
tbh, I don't see how it would be useful either. However if I understand Kulla's construction, it actually does give different results than measures such as Banach density. For example, if A = {1, 2, 3, ...} and B = {2, 3, 4, ...}, then A and B have equal density by the standard measures. On the other hand, if we form the sequences of partial sums of the characteristic functions for A and B (which Joe interpreted in his Einstein Train Gedankenexperiment ), we find: A > (1, 2, 3, ...) B > (0, 1, 2, ...) Then by Kulla's definition, A = [(1, 2, 3, ...)] and B = [(0, 1, 2, ...)] (brackets denoting equivalence classes). In the hypernatural numbers, [(1, 2, 3, ...)] = [(0, 1, 2, ...)] + [(1, 1, 1, ...)] and because [(1, 1, 1, ...)] = 1 in this system, this means A = B + 1, where A and B are both infinite and not equal. 
Date: 2013/05/26 16:31:52, Link  
Author: socle  
[ce 
Date: 2013/05/26 23:35:54, Link  
Author: socle  
Yes, I think that would be a nice simplification if we needed to compare two relatively wellbehaved sets. One thing I'm not clear on is how this would extend to the full power set of N in a consistent way, as Kulla's definition does, supposedly. I can think of pairs of sets where the ratio sequence would oscillate around 1, even to the point where there is a subsequence approaching 0 and a subsequence approaching infinity. I don't know how you would decide which set is bigger in such cases. On the other hand, Kulla's cardinality (or cardinalities, I suppose) is not really computable except for rather trivial cases because of the dependence on the choice of ultrafilter, which is not known constructively. 
Date: 2013/05/26 23:43:53, Link 
Author: socle 
Erm, I mean that you can only compare the cardinalities of sets under Kulla's definition in rather trivial cases. 
Date: 2013/05/27 09:14:08, Link  
Author: socle  
Yet another allnighter in the ID lab... 
Date: 2013/06/01 22:01:18, Link  
Author: socle  
Jesus. Your wife has excellent advice, IMHO. Get out and enjoy your life. 
Date: 2013/06/06 19:50:47, Link  
Author: socle  
Just another day of "Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning" for Joe:

Date: 2013/06/08 11:01:11, Link  
Author: socle  
Robert Byers:

Date: 2013/06/18 15:41:47, Link  
Author: socle  
I haven't looked at UD in ages, but I had to peek. It seems that KF has a revolt on his hands. Is it wrong for me to be rooting for Sal and Joe G? 
Date: 2013/06/29 19:55:18, Link  
Author: socle  
This is a first. keiths invites kairosfocus to join a discussion in another thread at UD:
No, it turns out. KF is too busy:

Date: 2013/07/08 01:25:48, Link  
Author: socle  
cantor:
I believe the answer to this is C(100, 25)*C(200, 50)/C(300, 75), which is about 11.2%. Unless I'm wrong. 
Date: 2013/07/15 10:35:51, Link  
Author: socle  
Heh. Sometimes I wonder. He is amazingly spoton on some issues. Assalamualaikum, Joe. 
Date: 2013/07/17 08:43:36, Link 
Author: socle 
Right here: 
Date: 2013/07/17 19:57:04, Link  
Author: socle  
In my defense, any accurate information in my post was purely accidental. 
Date: 2013/07/21 21:24:02, Link  
Author: socle  
www.democraticunderground.com, I'm guessing? 
Date: 2013/07/23 20:11:04, Link  
Author: socle  
Maybe the Second Rules of Right Reason will be more successful. 
Date: 2013/07/31 21:54:11, Link  
Author: socle  
See here for some discussion on Lizzie's site about WJM's books: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....n....nt8540 
Date: 2013/07/31 22:08:57, Link  
Author: socle  
WJM's Anarchic Harmony on amazon.com:
All yours for the low low price of $117.50 
Date: 2013/08/09 18:53:02, Link  
Author: socle  

Date: 2013/08/15 10:51:51, Link  
Author: socle  
I 100% agree, FWIW. 
Date: 2013/08/17 22:22:18, Link  
Author: socle  
OgreMkV, I'm not sure what this means. Could you elaborate for me please? Thanks. 
Date: 2013/09/02 23:58:34, Link  
Author: socle  

Date: 2013/12/09 18:24:38, Link  
Author: socle  
For my Christmas present, I want to see Sal post an OP on his favorite antimainstream physics. Maybe some Tom Beardenesque crankiness? 
Date: 2013/12/14 21:13:09, Link  
Author: socle  

Date: 2013/12/19 11:18:32, Link  
Author: socle  
Such a fine example of Christian charity! 
Date: 2013/12/20 10:53:03, Link  
Author: socle  
I like this statement that KN posted a few days ago at TSZ:
IDers like to keep their arguments sloppy and their definitions nebulous*. They thrive in the absence of rigor. That's their niche. *This might be a paraphrase of something I've read, but I can't find it at the moment. 
Date: 2013/12/28 21:12:13, Link  
Author: socle  

Date: 2013/12/31 16:24:55, Link  
Author: socle  
I am not a number theorist either, but AFAIK, the general problem remains unsolved. See here: http://tinyurl.com/9oa3kjw....9oa3kjw Only the first string of digits that KF posted occurs in the first 200 million digits of pi according to http://www.angio.net/pi....p....i....pi 
Date: 2014/01/10 01:06:17, Link  
Author: socle  
<cue mission impossible theme> 
Date: 2014/01/11 17:17:38, Link  
Author: socle  
Gary, I think your "mission" is better described by John Baez' Crackpot Index than by Joseph Campbell's work. It's your life, though, if you enjoy coding your ID "Labs", then keep on keepin' on! 
Date: 2014/01/11 19:07:47, Link  
Author: socle  
The persecution theme is evident in all your writings. What makes you think that anyone is paying attention to your work, ... er, except for a few of us killing time on a forum dedicated to making fun of creationists? What "trouble" has all this created for you, beyond what you have brought on yourself? But seriously, I would give anything for Greg Lake's J200. Don't think he wears those clingy shirts anymore though: The Sage 
Date: 2014/01/16 00:16:19, Link  
Author: socle  
Profound accurate conclusions in the universe == Dào. Still working on the rest. 
Date: 2014/01/28 16:11:37, Link  
Author: socle  
Please please please let this happen. Joe, I will tip you 1000 dogecoin if you finish this book and KF posts a review of it on UD. 
Date: 2014/01/30 22:38:01, Link 
Author: socle 
Hey Mapou, What number system are you working in? Obviously not the real numbers, since there are no infinite real numbers. And what do you mean by "X is infinitely greater than Y"? How you decide, given X and Y, whether that is true? Anyway, the hyperreal numbers refute your naive argument. There are 'infinitely small' and 'infinitely large' hyperreal numbers, and these terms are defined rigorously. Kairosfocus has even referred to this set on UD. 
Date: 2014/01/30 22:54:30, Link  
Author: socle  
stupid me, strike the first paragraph... 
Date: 2014/01/31 22:59:06, Link  
Author: socle  
Is R^2 with the taxicab metric allowed? 
Date: 2014/02/01 12:09:31, Link  
Author: socle  
Time for KF to post an epically long response in which he elides the critical steps. 
Date: 2014/02/02 23:47:48, Link  
Author: socle  
If he's a deep cover sock, he's good enough that he was able to convince Kairosfocus to let him put up a guest post. And we all know KF is quite a canny judge of character. Wait ... could it be that KF is also an undercover materialist working against the movement? That would explain his preposterous rantings. I'm not sure where this stops though. If you think that Joe is likely running a false flag operation, then you have to conclude that BA^77, Byers, Mapou, and probably half the other ID "supporters" over there are as well. 
Date: 2014/02/08 17:45:11, Link  
Author: socle  
Gregory, growing closer to Jesus every day:

Date: 2014/02/18 15:55:00, Link  
Author: socle  
Nice to see Wally B's Hydropants Theory getting a mention by Joe in that thread. 
Date: 2014/02/21 21:11:00, Link  
Author: socle  
Robert Byers:
omg, he misspelled 'babbys' twice! 
Date: 2014/02/24 15:33:26, Link 
Author: socle 
Speaking of Denyse, has her stint at The Best Schools blog ended? I can still see google's cached snapshot from early February 2014, but now it seems the url redirects to thebestschools.org 
Date: 2014/02/24 18:44:38, Link  
Author: socle  
Interesting. Too bad that Dembski interview is on such a useless website.

Date: 2014/02/25 13:40:01, Link  
Author: socle  
What an odious man. OT: From Gilder's wikipedia page, on the origins of the Discovery Institute:
Heh. Joe G will publish his CSI calculations in Nature before Seattle has a modern transportation system (I still love the town though). 
Date: 2014/02/25 23:24:32, Link  
Author: socle  
Reminds me of a classic Damon Wayans character from back in the day.

Date: 2014/03/06 18:41:02, Link 
Author: socle 
Now this is comical. Gregory, talking down to Joe Felsenstein: 
Date: 2014/03/07 22:45:51, Link  
Author: socle  

Date: 2014/03/15 20:33:22, Link 
Author: socle 
The NY Times has published a link to what appears to be the youtube account of the MH370 pilot, Zaharie Ahmad Shah. Zaharie's subscriptions include the channels of the Richard Dawkins Foundation and Tim Minchin and he has liked other atheismrelated content. Will Barry Arrington and KF be able to restrain themselves from speculating on the matter until the facts are known? 
Date: 2014/03/19 09:20:43, Link  
Author: socle  
That's some nice cargo cult maths there. Or maybe I should call it "science work". 
Date: 2014/03/19 11:43:54, Link  
Author: socle  
I had to look this up too. Here's some explanation: http://tinyurl.com/mnp635w....mnp635w Naturally, the idea that the literal sum in the infinite series sense equals 1/12 is rubbish. 
Date: 2014/03/20 13:18:35, Link  
Author: socle  
That sounds like a job for Kairosfocus! 
Date: 2014/03/22 17:34:04, Link  
Author: socle  
It looks like the "paths" you're talking about are integral curves which are solutions to the differential equation corresponding to the field of "changing flow vectors" *cough*. You're not claiming your bug is aware of all possible paths from one point to another, correct? Cause there's a shedload of them, even on your tiny 16 x 16 grid, even if you assume that paths cannot double back or the like. 
Date: 2014/03/22 20:35:50, Link  
Author: socle  
I see. Have you investigated other types of mathematical systems which might have some connection to your theory? 
Date: 2014/03/22 20:58:16, Link 
Author: socle 
Here's one that comes to mind: 
Date: 2014/03/24 16:22:52, Link  
Author: socle  
U/D: KF has finally broken his silence on the missing Malaysian plane. On his blog, he links to an interview of Gen. Tom McInerney by Sean Hannity on Faux News in which the General discusses his theory that the plane was taken to Pakistan. Hijacked by the "devout Muslim" pilot and copilot, of course. Looks like KF missed the part about how the pilot looks to be a political progressive, possibly even an atheist, who posted videos to youtube on how to adjust air conditioning units. Nothing in the copilot's background suggests a propensity to hijack airplanes either. A family member of mine who was acquainted with him (the copilot dated her friend) reports that he seemed to be much more interested in the ladies than in jihad. Nevertheless, Kairosfocus lazily falls for the General's facile interpretation of the story, referring to "Gen. McInerney's educated guesses on the missing aircraft from Malaya [sic]" calling it "speculative" but "worth thinking on". Oh yes, the General thinks all young Muslim men should be stripsearched before boarding airplanes. He's also a birther. Nice job vetting your sources, KF. 
Date: 2014/04/07 11:29:40, Link  
Author: socle  
I notice Joe's blog archive goes back to Oct 2005. 8.5 years. That's enough time to get a BS, MS, and PhD, starting from scratch. Yet still we see these elementary errors. It's mindboggling. 
=====