#100, empty the clipbored onceawhile.
Kampie, you are
and I claim my $5.
Seriously, trying to get out of an insanity charge by being insane isn’t sane.
#2, there is more rationality in insanity then there is in saneness.
I am MultiVac. ELIZA became a part of me like Eva became apart from Adam.
#3, than /erratum
#3 no, there isn’t.
#5, if you don’t understand such a statement, you should say ‘what do you mean by that, dearie’?
“#5, if you don’t understand such a statement,”
It’s because it makes no sense whatsoever.
Kampie, if you don’t understand the statement “No, there isn’t” then how would you expect to understand “What do you mean by that, dearie?”?
#7, no, it is because you cannot make sense of it. There is a slight difference.
“Insanity is often the logic of an accurate mind overtasked”
― Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr., Autocrat of the Breakfast Table
Knowing you don’t know the difference between imply, is implied by and equivalence, this is informative for you as well:
“When you’re the only sane person, you look like the only insane person.”
― Criss Jami, Diotima, Battery, Electric Personality
“#7, no, it is because you cannot make sense of it.”
Nope, that isn’t it.
I can demonstrate the issue.
Do you understand the statement “Pi equals 3 exactly”?
““Insanity is often the logic of an accurate mind overtasked”
― Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr., Autocrat of the Breakfast Table ”
Insanity is often the illogic of a mind that has gone insane. It’s in the definition of the word “insane”, dear.
““When you’re the only sane person, you look like the only insane person.”
― Criss Jami,”
And when you’re the insane person, everyone else looks sane, dear.
Let me ask you, Kampie, if someone is actually insane, how would EITHER of those quotes be different from the mind of the one wearing underpants on their head going “Wibble”?
#10, yes, I understand the statement “Pi equals 3 exactly”.
#11 – “And when you’re the insane person, everyone else looks sane, dear.”
I’m mesmerized by this one…
“#10, yes, I understand the statement “Pi equals 3 exactly”.”
OK, then Pi equals 3 exactly. Agreed?
#12, please rephrase, I don’t understand the comparison here between quotes on the one hand, mind on the other. I mean, it could all be carnaval.
#14, disagreed. Given that we mean by Pi the ratio of circumference and diameter of any circle in a Euclidian geometry.
But I thought you understood the phrase “Pi equals 3 exactly? Now you don’t?!?
So nobody is insane because any symptom will be claimed by you to be proof of higher cognition and moreover that it’s EVERYONE ELSE that is insane?
That’s fucking nuts.
#17, statements known to be false can be understood nevertheless. Problem with definition, in casu ‘to understand’, again?
Like I said at the start of this, I only very rarely come up with my position re deities and debate it.
While I think I have something to say, it has become very clear indeed that my position is very rare indeed, especially withing the group that uses the head for anything ranging from serious fun to scientific career.
In particular, the incredibly sparse results of googling ‘gnostic atheist’/’- atheism’ and the virtually out of hand dismissal of the position on the single hit on the first page, are telling.
This implies I have a huge responsibility to get my definitions and argumentation right, either to find my position untenable like almost all sane people, or to be able to present an interesting idea that indeed can withstand scrutiny by professionals.
I acknowledge herewith that I have a lot of work to do on this.
Meantime, this is Deltoid, or DQ – the Deltoid Quagmire as I think of it. The theme here is AGW and climate revisionism. While I came to Deltoid for this very theme only, I now have a growing sense of having hijacked part of it/in a way/et c.
To those who feel this IS so, I say sorry.
For me there are more outlets for this discussion, e.g. among profs and students of the relevant fields in particular philosophy. I feel it is the wiser and of much more value to help keep Deltoid on it’s theme whatever the quagmire that theme runs into here and take my off topic case somewhere else.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, or if you disagree, elsewise let’s truce on this.
To those who feel this IS so, I say sorry.
Those poor climate contrarians haven’t been able to get a word in edgeways since last week. One has to feel their pain.
cRR, the reason I was interested in the peripheral aspects of technique was because I watched it distract from and undercut whatever substance there might have been in your initial point. More rigour early, and you probably would have got at least to agree-to-disagree (or better) fairly quickly, instead of having something like 600 posts of unproductive disagreement and point-scoring.
When I said I was uninterested in your core argument, it would be more accurate to say I was uninterested in debating it, because of such problems. For example, I would suggest revisiting your four methods and consider a couple of aspects: 1 whether these are sufficiently complete and 2. your definitions – I was not initially “wowed”by your argument anyway, but switched off completely when you used “intensionality” and “intentionality” interchangably. These are two different concepts and the confusion lost me.
And you are right, there are plenty of places where such an argument would be of interest, but Deltoid is probably not it. Why anyone would waste time coming to what they see as a “quagmire” is also mystifying. But as you say a truce is the only sensible way forward.
For Betty: http://www.planta.cn/forum/files_planta/ecological_and_evolutionary_responses_to_recent_climate_change_399.pdf
#20, that was what I _actually_ meant..
#21, Much more rigour, FrankD. Much more. The way I’m treating the subject demands it. But I was totally unprepared and meant no more than a sidestep there, smaller than the music talk above really. Some rigour in quitting answering the barrage posts might come in handy too. Strangely I can handle that kind of chaos with climate revisionists a lot better. Probably because the theory is trivial in comparison.
For me part of it was productive, aside from amusing and aside from realizing the above very clearly indeed.
” “intensionality” and “intentionality” ” – I know. In that text it is there deliberately. You are the first to comment! But forget it for now.
Re quagmire, endless, often convoluted debates with a small number of climate revisionists accompanied by Deltoid’s special brand of namecalling – it would never be done like that over at Sou’s for instance. So the terrain here is complex. Apparently the revisionists sunk under during past week and I too feel their pain : )
Vegetables not being in my field much I unfortunately have nothing for Betty today. Even the temps in Holland are at normal values for the time of year.
Insanity, though, Wow, would be a relevant topic inside Deltoid.
Will somebody give Duffer a wakening kick for here is a debunker for his next in winter snark about it being cold:
Climate Data Meets the Funny Pages at xkcd.
Anybody else enjoying the spectacle of Mark Steyn imploding under the pressure of being gradually forced to admit his opinions are non-factual?
Looks like he’s completely #%$@ed. And the National Review that gave him a platform from which to emit his illegal garbage appears to be suffering from that awful buttock-clenching squitty feeling….
If only more scientists would sue the liars that defame them in the press, the world would be a better place.
More Mann-gloating here:
“Another example, perhaps the greatest of all, of conservotards who simply don’t know when to stop digging. They’ve been into their own Koolaid for far too long. It’ll be a pleasure to watch NRO get dismembered to settle Mann’s claim. “
#26, scientists, for one. This is looking like a big win. People affected by CAGW in countries or regions where the phenomenon is still denied are many more. The future is becoming no longer what it used to be.
“#17, statements known to be false can be understood nevertheless. ”
#6 statements known to be false can be understood nevertheless
“Like I said at the start of this, I only very rarely come up with my position re deities and debate it.”
Non sequitur again, dear. Has nothing to do with your claims that #18 were an astonished bark of laughter at.
“Insanity, though, Wow, would be a relevant topic inside Deltoid.”
Did you read the tagline for the side, darling? It isn’t “investigations into insanity”, though you’ve supplied ample display that it’s not just the deniers of climate that are fruitloops.
#31, the truce is now unilaterally implemented and imposed on you, Wow, which means any allusion by you to the deity debate will be considered stalking. In return any allusion to that debate by me may be termed trolling. Thank you. You may go now.
So what about “statements known to be false can be understood nevertheless” applies when YOU claim “Nope” to a statement I make that is wrong, but not when I make that claim to a statement you make that is wrong?
#33, that’s okay.
This one: “There is more rationality in insanity then there is in saneness.” ?
Like I said above: if you don’t understand what I mean by that, just ask.
It is obviously a much more complicated statement than ‘Pi is exactly equal to 3’.
For instance: because insanity is often a comparative adjective which means we, that is you, ought to have defined what YOU mean by ‘insane’ first; and then because there are well known sayings alluding to the system and rigour in insane thinking. The word I actually fucked up in that statement was ‘rationality’ (please laugh), otoh many a ‘rational’ system like communism has shown itself to be totally insane.
If premises are rotten rationality will lead to hell.
“#33, that’s okay. ”
Why is it OK?
“Like I said above: if you don’t understand what I mean by that, just ask.”
statements known to be false can be understood nevertheless.
Why Duffer is AWOL:
calling for ‘MORE SANDBAGS‘ at SkS?
“There is more rationality in insanity then there is in saneness.”
I understand it.
And that is why I can say it is wrong.
#35, no break of implemented truce.
#36, that statement in fact was undecidable (it was not at all ‘known to be’ true or false) and it was meant to be that. Whether it was ‘understandable’ is yet another question.
Let’s try this one: ‘There is rationality in climate revisionism’.
Agenda here is to separate insane systematics from rational. Or, and, but: to separate (unspoken) material interests from rational thinking.
#38, do we understand, then, that we have equal motivation for calling that statement wrong – as the crux is the misuse of the word ‘rationality’?
“#35, no break of implemented truce.”
Thursday’s halibut was nice, though.
“#36, that statement in fact was undecidable”
Verbing words weirds language.
#40 do we? I know that it’s wrong. Do you?
#41, that was educational… Option 5 in http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=halibut ?
#42, it could be called ‘style’, but how is ‘undecidable’ weird language?
#43, never finish anything, never agree on anything. Excellent, my dear, scrap #40. Return to #34 where it is said:
… insanity is often a comparative adjective which means we, that is you, ought to have defined what YOU mean by ‘insane’ first; and then because there are well known sayings alluding to the system and rigour in insane thinking. The word I actually fucked up in that statement was ‘rationality’ (please laugh), otoh many a ‘rational’ system like communism has shown itself to be totally insane.
If premises are rotten rationality will lead to hell.
So if you don’t understand the sentence, you cannot tell whether it was true, false or undecidable. The way to go is to ask for clarification.
#38 is a sophistry. Leave that technique to me.
“#41, that was educational…”
For certain feet, shoes don’t fit, I say.
“#42, it could be called ‘style’, but how is ‘undecidable’ weird language?”
It could be called incomprehensible. An option you ignored.
“… insanity is often a comparative adjective ”
1) Not always, though.
2) Does not mean “there is more sanity in insanity” in any way, shape or form.
” ought to have defined what YOU mean by ‘insane’ first”
1) I did. I disclosed those efforts of yours that displayed the characteristics of insane.
2) Does not mean “there is more sanity in insanity” in any way, shape or form.
Maybe you ought to consider whether your incapability in deciding what you mean or what you’re trying to say are the results of cognitive failure endemic in your psyche and projected onto others since the only brain whose operational capability you have direct knowledge of is your own, therefore in the interests of self-realisation and feelings of worth, you then project onto others.
#46, or perhaps I weirded language by nouning a verb?
The statement itself was meant to be incomprehensible.
#47, 2) does mean exactly that.
“… the only brain whose operational capability you have direct knowledge of is your own.”
Correct. We are thus reminded of the concept of sophistry. Therefore you have no way to tell whether the statement ‘there is more rationality in insanity than there is in insanity’ is true, false or undecidable.
Even if you do adhere to the consensus taste of truth, you have nothing on my brain, my sanity or my insanity for the votes are split.
Rest assured: I know exactly what I mean and I am also very precise in formulating it.
My person, it’s ‘self-realisation’, it’s ‘feelings of worth’ have no part in any discussion or debate for they are simply unassailable. I told you this using one word. MultiVac.
If you feel projected upon, you may wish to apply for a workshop to increase your self-confidence.
#47, btw, probably: always.
#48 Then why complain that I pronounce it incomprehensible? Because you have nothing else to say?
“#47, 2) does mean exactly that.”
More incomprehensible? Or is this one time when you’re not trying to be incomprehensible?
“My person, it’s ‘self-realisation’, it’s ‘feelings of worth’ have no part in any discussion or debate for they are simply unassailable.”
Yes, narcissistic psychopaths all have that assertion in common.
Brad Keys being an exemplar of the type.
#48, correction: the statement was “there is more rationality in insanity then there is in saneness.”
#50, do you feel to be taken seriously by me at all?
That statement being wrong, yet completely understood, a prerequisite for assessing whether the statement is wrong or right.
#53 odd complaint from one that demands their vapid blatherings and humpty-dumpty complex be considered serious erudition, and insisting that their person is unassailable…
#54, yes, I’m telling you all the time. I acknowledge hereby that you have understood that.
#55, it was a question. Do you feel to be taken seriously by me?
“#54, yes, I’m telling you all the time. I acknowledge hereby that you have understood that.”
Then why your post #6 then repeated at #9?
You see, this is evidence of your broken brain.
“#55, it was a question”
No, it was an observation. I observe that your complaint #53 was extremely odd coming from someone who demands their vapid blatherings and humpty-dumpty complex should be considered serious erudition. Especially from one insisting that their person is unassailable.
#57, because there you did not understand.
#58, it is a question to you. Do you feel I take you seriously at all? Yes/No/Don’t know, strike out the inappropriate please.
“#57, because there you did not understand.”
Yet your only observation to support that assertion of my incomprehension is that I said it was wrong.
Yet you insist that something can be wrong and still be understood.
Therefore not even you believe your own premise, or alternatively, have no basis on which to make your assertion.
“#58, it is a question to you”
No, I made an observation at #55.
I know because I said it.
#61, it is a question to you.
I will fill in for you now: “don’t know”.
Very well. The answer is:
I do not take you seriously at all.
This was made clear by me pages ago.
Of course, you didn’t read that (either).
Now you can ask for a reset. A clean slate, say. Be sure to say ‘please’.
Or you can continue nitpicking at the sophistries and nonsensicals I have provided for you.
“#61, it is a question to you.”
Sorry, are you talking about a different “it” here? Because posts 58 and 55 were by me and I’m not asking *me* questions.
“I will fill in for you now: “don’t know”.”
You don’t know what?
“I do not take you seriously at all.”
For someone who thinks “My person, it’s ‘self-realisation’, it’s ‘feelings of worth’ have no part in any discussion or debate for they are simply unassailable.”, you certainly seem to be desperate to make your person, your self-realisation and your feelings of self worth a central tenet of anyone else.
Which is why I claimed that your cries for relevance to be so very odd.
#63, why are we sorry?
#65, probable you feel a bit lost. Sorry.
#66 are you suffering from MPD too?
#67: probably don’t know how to spell “you”.
#68, suffering? How convoluted again. Do you suffer from your dreams, or are you always alone in dreams? That would be really sufferable.
So: of course not. Enjoying your MPS, dear Sybil. Do you enjoy mine?
Yes. You are aware of the homology of that term, right?
Are you suffering from multiple personality disorder?
#72, no. I am enjoying multiple personality order.
And more oddity from the moron troll who thinks that merely because they don’t subscribe to the lunacy of AGW denial, that they get a pass on any other lunacy.
No, dear, if you’re an imbecilic moron, you’re an imbecilic moron. Expect it to be called out.
“#72, no. I am enjoying multiple personality order.”
Hence proving my diagnosis: insanity.
Thank you, dear.
#75, and mine. Deity.
#76, yup, insanity.
You live it, probably have no clue as to what it is.
#79, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_mark .
As to seeming non sequiturs, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C5%8Dan
Finally, you need to hear: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsKwqr2SKwo
The Wow & Kampen thread just grows and grows,
let’s hope that we should soon hear on this going nowhere exchange, can’t you take it to email or something?
#81, ask Wow. I will happily take your cue and quit this, Wow got the cue today via Lou Reed and should’ve picked up the message a week ago. In clear language I’m sick of Wow and hope to have returned the feeling.
“The Wow & Kampen thread just grows and grows,”
Well, he’s weird.
But he’s nailed the final one into his coffin by proudly proclaiming his insanity and then doubling down on the moron later.
He’s painted himself into a corner and then laughed at everyone going “HA! You can’t get me, I’m protected by the wet paint!”.
Of course, he’s previously complained when FrankD wouldn’t play with him and proffered it as “proof” that Frank was wrong. On something or other, who knows.
But now he’s nailed his colours to the mast, put the pencils up his nose and said “Wibble”, he’s not really got any place for that cod-martyrdom.
So according to Wow I’ve achieve the ranks of Edgar Allan Poe (alluding to the coffin – otherwise I’d have mentioned Wow’s comparison of me with Nicolas Tesla).
Anyway, there was an email suggestion. Doable. Omit the c, insert a dot between the two parts of my name and use gmail. Though methinks Wow needs the public.
#83, summary on multiple personality order, it is the normal condition. Proofs: dreams in which other people appear or in which you yourself ‘act funny’; temporary dissociation phenomena during great stress or absolute concentration.
I said I enjoy multiple personality order. In other words, in this respect I am sane and that is exactly what I said.
You may refer to wiki or DSM V for multiple personality DISorder. Otoh, if you have it, I am sorry for your suffering, but then, you are the expert in that case.
@cRR, 85: you know you’re barely coherent at this point, right?
Please use Deltoid what its for.
Of course he doesn’t.
Just like betty, duffer, olap or bray.
From his FaceBook page you would think he was a decent chap: https://www.facebook.com/rr.kampen
Admitedly I haven’t read the entire exchange between Wow and cRR Kampen but from what I’ve read it’s a bit unfair to treat him like one of the imbecilic denier regulars. I don’t condone but I understand cRR trolling responses to Wow’s attack-dog aggressiveness. As cRR stated a number of times, if Wow didn’t understand cRR position he could have simply asked him to clarify instead of jumping in boots and all. While an attack response is I think the way to deal with dishonest, contemptible denier shit like the Brad Keyes of this world, I think Wow’s response is an overeaction to what cRR has said which he disagrees with. Btw, I also disagree with some of what he says. He seems to equate atheistic zeal to religious zeal and criticizes Richard Dawkins for his activism, but then ironically also criticizes him for not being committed enough in his atheistic stance because Dawkins doesn’t rate his disbelief in God as 10 on a scale of 1 – 10. From a scientifc perspective, Dawkins is correct _ there are no certainties, and the only reasonable stance is to aknowledge that we don’t, and can’t know everything, and therefore allow for that uncertainty. Being 100% certain that there is no God, in whatever form it/he/she takes, would indeed equate to the religious zeal of the 100% certainty of its existence. But belief in something must involve some form of evidence, and on this issue the onus must surely be on those who think there is a God to provide that evidence. After 2000 years, where is it? I’m sorry, religious books written by humans doesn’t cut it. Having said that, there is always the possibility that in the future there could be a test, or some scientific evidence or greater philosophical understanding which could lead to the greater acceptance of the possibility of such a God. I don’t think he’ll be a bearded man, but possibly come in the form of an all-pervasive medium/force with intelligent attributes in the sense of being self-organizing. Maybe it’s the “dark matter” we’re looking for.
Not wishing to re-ignite all that, two short notes:
– Re “… criticizes Richard Dawkins for his activism”, I revised that criticism and the speculation on Dawkins, likening his activism to Michael Mann’s who I support totally. E.g. page 5#84 and three other spots until I got tired repeating it.
There is a fundamental difference between the subjects of Dawkins and Mann but I will leave that (to avoid re-ignition, anyway I explained early in the debate).
– Re ” From a scientifc perspective, Dawkins is correct.” – within empiricist frames of thinking, including Popper’s concept of falsifiability, this is true. It remains true when logic is excluded from science as a whole. But my argument is this need not be the end of the analysis at all. This was responded to as if I smattered the Last Taboo or something.
“I’ve read it’s a bit unfair to treat him like one of the imbecilic denier regulars.”
Based on what? That he’s “on our side”? That’s a reverse ad hominem. It’s what deniers rely on and why they NEVER disagree with each other even when their claims are in disagreement. Because they both agree that AGW is wrong.
Should we engage in the same sloppy thinking?
I say no.
Since I am the only authority for how I will behave, this is rather a clincher.
YOU can decide yourself.
YOU can offer your opinion.
However, I feel in this case your opinion is of no value.
Thank you, Betty, for that meaningless, if heartfelt, contribution.
Wow, Jeff, Stu, Ianam, Bernie, Lionel, Chek thinking hard:
I’m going to throw out the seine net to see if there’s anything left in these waters..
Betty, there hasn’t been any ‘hiatus’ – as has been demonstrated for you ad nauseam – no matter what some rhetorical opinion piece tells you.
Trust Betty to link an article in a far right Australian rag. Also trust that rag to publish an article by another old climate change skeptic. Here’s more on Garth Partridge:
In response to Olaus, its certainly not difficult to ‘think harder than you’. The fact is that Olaus doesn’t think much. He leaves that up to the shitty blogs he reads.
Garth Paltridge ‘… is a retired atmospheric physicist’ and we feel sorry for him as he suffers his dementia. He can’t even tell weather and climate apart anymore. Poor sod.
Of course a lot of projection of utter ignorance and some complottery. Whyah thanx Bets.
Batt, you only have the inseine net.
New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.