…and this is a 
This must be an example of those emergent properties people talk about. In one of the comment threads, some simple suggestions for new commenters have been formulated. They're pretty good — pay them some heed.
When you post, even if you intend to reply only to PZ or to one other comment on the thread, up to 200 people (or more) will read, and possibly respond to you. Keep this in mind.
As this is a science blog, a greater proportion of the readers and commenters here well- educated, and, if not scientists, are reasonably well-versed in logic, observation, empiricism, debate, and rationality. As such, their responses will likely be pointed, eloquent, articulate, and highly opinionated.
Any comments you make will be judged, and often judged harshly for grammar, intellectual consistency, knowledge of the subject addressed, and openness of tone. Get used it; this is the deep end, not a wading pool.
Commenters who wish to make religious, spiritual, or other arguments are welcome to do so, provided they are willing to respond to the observations and criticisms of other posters, many of whom are experts in their fields. Commenters who argue without insulting other commenters personally or in whole, and who actually respond to counter-arguments will have a stimulating time.
Commenters who begin their interaction on this blog with insults (you're a bunch of jerks), threats (you're all going to hell) or other poltroonery (atheists have no morals) will be responded to in kind by persons who generally have far more experience and education, and certainly a greater vocabulary in both insult and invective.
People often say stuff on the Internets that they would never say to your face. You are strongly urged to get over it.
People do get banned here, although it takes some effort. You can also read my list of grievances. In addition to the vociferous commenters already here who will skewer offenders, keep in mind that I rule this place as a casual dictatorship — if I get annoyed, I bring out the axe. All that's saving some people is that I'm also a lazy tyrant.
One other thing I have to add for the regulars: I have a Three Comment Rule that I don't really enforce very consistently, but would make for a somewhat less hair-trigger environment. Basically, if someone brand new to you shows up and says something annoying, don't jump down their throat right away. Give them a couple of chances to clarify first, and then if they're still painfully stupid, open fire with both barrels.
Comments
Posted by: James F | June 23, 2009 9:31 PM
7. There is no rule 7!
8. Bacon.
Posted by: David | June 23, 2009 9:32 PM
What I think is great is that all the creationists who bitch about censorship are the quickest to censor their blogs and use DMCA claims to silence their critics.
Fucking hypocrites, the lot of them.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | June 23, 2009 9:33 PM
So... wait; my thoughts don't have to rhyme?
You mean I've wasted all that time?
How nice to have some simple rules,
For me and all the other fools.
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 23, 2009 9:33 PM
Ah yes, the continual interaction of so many minds of so many moods and opinions, diegned to get their opinion across to another opinion not deemed worthy to opine on.
At least we are at most times exquisite in our praise or vilification. Pharyngula makes every effort to keep the mind and subject interesting and circular.
Posted by: Bjørn Østman | June 23, 2009 9:34 PM
Occasionally pointed, sometimes eloquent, often articulate, always opinionated.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
June 23, 2009 9:37 PM
If somebody comes in and drops the DI's entire list of scientists who oppose Darwinism, does that count as all three strikes and then some?
Posted by: Douglas McClean | June 23, 2009 9:38 PM
PZ's list of grievances reminded me that "I've got a lot of problems with you people!"
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 23, 2009 9:38 PM
Rule 7:
No, if you're Cuttlefish, then you do have to rhyme.
Posted by: greg | June 23, 2009 9:38 PM
re: number 5. how is "you're all going to hell" a threat? telling people that they will go to a place that does not exist (even in the bible, i think) is childish and stupid, but threatening? not to me.
Posted by: James F | June 23, 2009 9:39 PM
To be serious for a minute....
Welcome, newbies! After you post, hit "Preview" and see what your post will look like. Edit as needed, then hit "Post." You will most likely get a "submission timeout" page. It's cool, your comment got posted. If there's an internet hiccup and your screen freezes before the submission timeout page appears, it probably went through. Reload the main post page and check. Resist the urge to hit the Post button again, otherwise your post will appear in duplicate, triplicate, or worse.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 23, 2009 9:40 PM
Yeah, I think regurgiposting counts as massive fail, and should be met with vigorous outrage right away.
Posted by: Kobra | June 23, 2009 9:40 PM
Okay, I was unaware of the Three Comment rule. I'll stop jumping immediately down peoples' throats now. :P
@6: I vote for "Yes."
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 23, 2009 9:42 PM
James F @ 10
Nice and easy and informative. Hope it connects.
Posted by: Carlie | June 23, 2009 9:43 PM
Also, use whatever language you want, the more creative the insult the better, but be aware that certain terminology will open up a shitstorm derail that will make you wish you had just stayed in bed and watched reruns of Jon&Kate+8 all day. I will not describe that terminology, at risk of causing exactly such a derail. Hang around awhile and you'll figure it out. Or use the search box to look for all your favorite words and see what you can find.
Posted by: Kobra | June 23, 2009 9:45 PM
@7: Haha. Oh man, I remember when PZ posted a sciency blog post with a string of text representing DNA and Cuttlefish said, "How do you expect me to rhyme with TCAGTAC...?" I think that was one of those rare occasions when he responded to a thread without a verse.
Posted by: Josh
|
June 23, 2009 9:46 PM
And what's 9? Don't talk about Pharyngula?
Posted by: Onkel Bob | June 23, 2009 9:46 PM
Brush up on your Dante:
Abandon all hope ye who enter
And your Milton:
No gross, no unharmonious mixture foul,
Eject him, tainted now, and purge him off
About that whiskey bottle, it is empty, right?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 23, 2009 9:46 PM
A link to this needs to go right near the top of the page, PZ, for quick and easy reference for all new commenters. Right up there with the dungeon and blogroll. Would save some people some wasted time, I think.
I would also add a warning that you are likely to see the regular use of coarse language and even, goodness gracious, profanity!!!. If you can't deal with plain-speak, maybe this isn't the place for you. (I'm not sure point no. 6 covers that completely, really.)
Nothing annoys me more than interrupting a good debate with complaints of foul language, especially when framed thusly: "I agree with what you're saying, but I don't care for the language... you catch more flies with honey, blah, blah, blah.." Fucking BARF.
Otherwise, top shelf!
Posted by: Brian | June 23, 2009 9:47 PM
I'm a big fan of things like the Three Comments Rule. Sometimes people are awfully quick to pull out responses like "fucktard", which as an initial response does little to keep things interesting.
Posted by: Kobra | June 23, 2009 9:47 PM
@15: That should have been directed at post number 8, not 7.
@17: That makes for rule 9: Don't waste precious whiskey.
Posted by: John Morales | June 23, 2009 9:49 PM
[more on the mechanics of posting, cf. James @10]
Be aware that the comment submission mechanism 'massages' your input, in particular HTML tags.
Preview is recommended, but before hitting 'Preview', it is a good idea to copy the text box input to the buffer if you're using tags, so that you can change your original input and not the modified input. Repeat before previewing again.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 23, 2009 9:50 PM
I will admit that I am not strictly enforcing the three comment rules at times,its mostly to do with a combination of excessive consumption of brain-toxic beverages,long work days,and the lovely purging effect that pointing out someone being wrong on the internet by using rude language can have. :-)
Posted by: Chris Clarke | June 23, 2009 9:51 PM
Oh noes! Aren't you implying correlation = causation here?
After all, it might just be that you've NOTICED the commenters here who're familiar with things like confirmation bias.
Posted by: Dahan | June 23, 2009 9:51 PM
Hmmm, wasn't aware of the three comment rule thingy. OK. Fair enough.
BTW, it's probably due to the fact I'm on summer break and have shut down my brain in accordance with that, but at first I thought PZ wrote the "three continent rule" instead of "three comment rule" and I thought "Wow! This is gonna be interesting! What the hell do the continents have to do with posting here?" Alas, it wasn't to be. Perhaps someone could come up with such a rule just for fun? You've got to admit it sounds pretty cool.
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | June 23, 2009 9:53 PM
#10 James F
Ramen
Posted by: kamaka | June 23, 2009 9:58 PM
Oh, yes, I'm all for nicey nice on the first three plays. Better yet, we should all co-operate on leading the deluded down the garden path.
"Oh, really, that's an interesting concept, do tell."
"That was good. We want to know more. Please expound upon your idea!"
"I'm not quite getting this, could you please give me more detail?"
"Why would you think such a thing? There's no evidence for what you're claiming, you know."
*sharpens knives*
Posted by: jackdaw | June 23, 2009 10:01 PM
First rule of pharyngula: Don't talk about pharyngula.
Second rule of pharyngula: Don't talk about pharyngula!
Third rule of pharyngula: If this is your first night at pharyngula then you HAVE to fight.
I love Fight Club.
Posted by: Sandra Kay | June 23, 2009 10:04 PM
Hello! Is it ok to jump in and ask questions? Is it still ok if it is a little off topic?
The other day I asked for recommendations for books and got some wonderful suggestions.
I want to ask something. I think I read this is true but want to ask and make sure. Are all scientist atheist? Is it that all REAL scientist are?
Thank you
Posted by: Helioprogenus | June 23, 2009 10:06 PM
The Point of the 3-comment rule is to fish out the trolls?
Well, generally, most trolls make themselves obvious from their first comment. Still, I don't really like the 3-comment rule. I know it's not well enforced, and it's nice to have a lazy dictator at the helm.
Although I try to avoid getting into a jibber-jabbing match with creationist morons who will never add any significance to an argument, I do appreciate the high brow arguments out here.
I know how polarizing the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the US can be, and I know I've had my share of debates with you anti-gun bunnies, but unlike the creationist debate, these could be had among peers of a similar educational background. I've also had issue with you Steven Gould proponents who scare away from adaptationism, but I appreciate your educational level and do enjoy debating. Also, now that I'm on a roll here, I did further enjoy the various opinions as far as the estimates in the terms of the Drake equation. Who needs those pesky flies to swat (believers, credulous fools, irrational nitwits who would flunk 3rd grade science class) when you have actual topics worthy of debate among peers (even thin skinned ones with warts and all)?
Posted by: Rorschach | June 23, 2009 10:08 PM
* must..respect...3... comment... rule...*
That's an interesting question, Sandra ! What made you ask it?
Posted by: SC, OM | June 23, 2009 10:08 PM
Hair!
head!
gets his very own thread!
Way to go!
Posted by: MIKE | June 23, 2009 10:08 PM
I think you're on to something here, kamaka. We could probably get some quality entertainment if we encouraged people to explain their nutty points of view more often.
Of course, the word "evidence" would need to be avoided at all costs prior to dropping the net on them.
Posted by: Carlie | June 23, 2009 10:09 PM
Also, when in doubt about a post you're making, refer here. In fact, you may want to print it out and tape it to the corner of your monitor.
Posted by: Eric | June 23, 2009 10:10 PM
I would suggest adding something like this to (1):
Don't worry -- no one expects you to respond to all 200 people. However, if you wish to be taken seriously, you will be expected to respond to the strongest, most clearly elucidated comments.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 23, 2009 10:11 PM
#28
No.
Ummm... I wouldn't go through the effort of distinguishing... scientists are scientists. The question is more one of some scientists reconciling faith with scientific method. Most of the regular commenters here would take the position that that is difficult to do and remain intellectually honest, as tenets of faith more often than not contradict scientific method... and there have been many good debates on this blog around that very topic.
Posted by: Peter McKellar | June 23, 2009 10:13 PM
Even these rules are barely rules - mostly common sense as derived by the consensus of a community for its orderly and continuing governance - and ratified by PZ. Hardly restrictive while at the same time encouraging diversity and rational debate.
And no idiotic embargo on using both the full extent of the evolving English language - or in extending it where necessary.
It speaks highly of commenters here that other minor spelling errors introduced through speed-typing or developing skills with English do not attract criticism (unless it is the pathological "Teh Stoopid" typing idio(t)syncrasy). Only the ignorant posing as educated should fear ridicule - those that come to learn need not fear such. (Note: Cuttlefish is granted poetic licence to do whatever the fuck he wants to the language)
I would regard PZ's benevolent dictatorship more as an aristocracy - rule by those most capable. But will the cephalapod spawn 100 years from now rule in the same benevolent way? Damn the merits (and demerits) of democracy :(
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 23, 2009 10:14 PM
Sandra Kay @ 28
In my opinion, all real scientists should be atheists.
Posted by: JohnT | June 23, 2009 10:15 PM
PZ wrote:
Well in the spirit of your point #3: For fuck's sake PZ, get it right. Tard. ;)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
June 23, 2009 10:16 PM
Okay, I'll start using the Three Comment Rule.
There should be another comment:
9. Creationists, if you're going to point out problems with evolution, please don't cut and paste from Answers in Genesis. (a) We've seen those claims before and (b) they're refuted in TalkOrigins. Also, if you feel the need to proselytize, don't give us Pascal's Wager. We know how to answer that bit of sophistry.
Posted by: steve s | June 23, 2009 10:18 PM
Noted without comment.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 23, 2009 10:19 PM
So this is, like, a post about a comment on a metathread...no, wait, this is a comment on a thread of a post about a comment on a metathread...not even sure how many 'meta's are called for, and my brain hurts.
more medicine...
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 23, 2009 10:28 PM
Sandra Kay #28 wrote:
No, not all scientists are atheists. The term "real scientist" is ambiguous. I'd say that many real scientists believe in God, but, if a scientist is consistent as a personal rule, he will approach the existence of God as a hypothesis, and the evidence would not warrant theistic belief.
Most scientists who believe in God do not consider the concept as if it were a scientific hypothesis. They will throw it into some other area: aesthetics, morals, values, meaning, or taste. Or, they will hypothesize that it might be hiding in some area of ignorance, or some area which, by definition, can't be tested, and decline to try to come up with a way to test it.
Posted by: Peter McKellar | June 23, 2009 10:34 PM
Sandra Kay @28
As already mentioned by others, no, not all scientists are atheist.
"Reality" is a slippery subject that all scientists should be attempting to describe, regardless of how obscure their research may appear. Rather than saying "REAL" scientists, some people talk about the "Greater Scientists". These are the top thinkers in their fields (by peer acclaim) and include all (science) Nobel Laureates (but many others). Statistics gathered over many decades (and by research for far longer) reveal a rapid and increasing trend of these "greater scientists" being atheists as scientific knowledge improves and their personal research matures.
This trend has been seen both amongst the greater scientists as a group over time, and amongst groups of scientists at various levels of skill when snapshots are taken. The inference drawn is that the more people know about science, the less able they are to live by an ideology they can see is flawed from start to finish. As scientists they tend to formulate better hypotheses about reality that they can test and explore themselves.
Posted by: MartinDH | June 23, 2009 10:36 PM
#4:
Well, if you're Cuttlefish
Then it's our sincere wish
That your posts
to this host
Rhyme
all the time.
Thank you. Try the scampi. I'll be here all week.
--
MartinDH
Posted by: John Morales | June 23, 2009 10:42 PM
Helioprogenus,
I think not — though it's a nice side-benefit.
As I see it, the point is to be newbie-friendly; it is a mechanism to help us avoid jumping to conclusions based on insufficient evidence, and thus to avoid false positives for derision-worthy targets.
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 23, 2009 10:43 PM
Sastra @ 42
Good reply to 28, but I feel it is a shame we have to equate scientists to their feelings of the existence of a god when their very occupation deems it so unnecessary to postulate on that subject. To place that concept in another area as you state, is only to muddle a needless concept and lend credence to an unproven hypotheses. I am not a scientist, but I am an atheist, and if I were to be a scientist, I would not take on any concepts of an imaginary god that would denigrate the very real world of science to a world of imaginary concepts that would compromise reality and honesty.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | June 23, 2009 10:44 PM
The Three Comment Rule is good. Most people who get jumped on or shot down probably deserve it, but at least a rule like that enables individuals who have legitimate points that go against the general grain to elaborate them rather than just being shot down immediately as concern trolls.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
June 23, 2009 10:45 PM
Lucyyyyyyyyy!!!!!!
Posted by: Joe Willis | June 23, 2009 10:50 PM
Your blog is awesome. How do you find time to do it. You can't really be a lazy tyrant.
Posted by: Joe Willis | June 23, 2009 10:52 PM
Your blog is awesome. How do you find time to do it. You can't really be a lazy tyrant.
Posted by: HCN | June 23, 2009 10:53 PM
I saw this and immediately thought of the wonderful example of commenting going from mildly argumentative to total all CAP fail with banning at ScienceBasedMedicine. Start here, and then read how "Jennifer" deteriorates:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=535#comment-21681
New commenters, don't do that.
Also, please try to not take anything personally and at least grow a spine before leaving a comment. When I first went on Usenet back in the old days before blogs (in the 1990s), I actually got upset over some of the stuff thrown at me. Now, I am actually proud that I annoyed John Scudamore (look up Scopie's Law) enough to get my very own tribute page:
http://www.whale.to/a/hcn_.html
Posted by: kamaka | June 23, 2009 10:57 PM
I want to ask something. I think I read this is true but want to ask and make sure. Are all scientist atheist? Is it that all REAL scientist are?
Sadly not. I volunteered for Habitat for Humanity today, and caught a preachin' and prayin' session at the first coffe break. The jebus-speak was led by a chemistry professor from the local university, spewing the usual barf.
I'll be gettin' back to him about this...he brought it up.
Posted by: raven | June 23, 2009 11:02 PM
No. One poll has 40% of biologists as believers, mostly xian. Another one has it at 56%.
Some prominent evolutionary biologists are xians, Miller and Collins among others.
There are many surveys and polls on the subject. Try looking on google or
http://www.talkorigins.org the one stop list of creationist fallacies and lies.
Posted by: John Morales | June 23, 2009 11:02 PM
Peter @36,
That would be a meritocracy.
--
JohnT @38: You have failed to note that PZ is quoting someone else (though he's put it into a blockquote) and thus exhibit a lack of acumen that is much more derisory than a mere typographical error.
Posted by: Eric | June 23, 2009 11:04 PM
"Statistics gathered over many decades (and by research for far longer) reveal a rapid and increasing trend of these "greater scientists" being atheists as scientific knowledge improves and their personal research matures."
This isn't necessarily true.
Eugenie Scott: "Indeed, the percentage of "yes" answers in 1998 is strikingly lower than that in 1914. Does this mean that fewer scientists believe in God? Not necessarily. Consider how specific this question is. To answer "yes" to this question, one would have to believe that God is not only in communication with humankind, which many religious people do believe, but that God is in both intellectual and effective communication. What is the meaning of "intellectual" communication? "Effective" communication? Someone who believed that God communicated with humankind but not "intellectually" (whatever that means) would have to answer "no." Is "effective" used in the modern sense of the word meaning "something that works well", or in the more archaic (1914) use of the term meaning "to bring about"? Do scientists reading this question today interpret it in the same way as those in 1914?
"The clause about answering prayers is also problematic.There are schools of theology that hold that God is personal in the sense of watching over and caring for humankind, but nonetheless, does not answer prayers. We do not know whether members of the general public would respond similarly or differently than scientists do to this definition of God: we do know that there is a wide variety of definitions of God."
Posted by: Holbach
|
June 23, 2009 11:05 PM
HCN @ 51
Yes, Jennifer is a prime example of factual science gone haywire. I'm surprised she didn't interject some religious nonsense into the discussion, seeing as she appears to be unhinged on the current topic and might as well claim her god passed the information on to her.
Posted by: Algo | June 23, 2009 11:16 PM
I know I am going to get mind-raped over the hot coals for this but I hope the pain will be fast.
On #2 you say "As this is a science blog, a greater proportion of the readers and commenters here well- educated...". There should be an "are" between "here" and "well-educated".
You typed fast, which is understandable, however on #3 you say "Any comments you make will be judged, and often judged harshly for grammar,".
Be gentle.
Posted by: JohnT | June 23, 2009 11:20 PM
Swooooosh, it went right over your head by I'd say at least a mile.
Posted by: Chemgirl
|
June 23, 2009 11:20 PM
I want to ask something. I think I read this is true but want to ask and make sure. Are all scientist atheist? Is it that all REAL scientist are?
As a general rule, sweeping generalizations such as that one are nearly never true. If you're wondering why so many "real" scientists (by which I assume you mean "well-known" or "successful") are atheists, it usually in my experience comes down to Ockham's Razor: since I find I don't require the presence of a deity to explain, say, evolution, I accept the simpler solution that there isn't one.
On an unrelated note, what are the tags that create that quote effect like PZ uses in the main post?
Posted by: atomjack | June 23, 2009 11:21 PM
Well, seriously, when I started being realistic about science and religion, I stood there and looked at religion (sceptical at the age of 8 but accepting the brainwashing), and said: "Break point!". Religion is wishful thinking. That mode of thought leads people to do stupid things in all endeavors, not just posting on atheist websites. I for one enjoy sharp logic, though I do think that a little more civility goes a long way...three strikes sounds OK, but you're a lax tyrant, PZ, and some of those folks can smut up your blog tout suite *cough* David fucking Mabus *cough*, but all in all, this is a cool place.
I'm going to grill some bacon on coals Friday; I'll let you guys all know how it comes out.
Posted by: HCN | June 23, 2009 11:24 PM
Sandra Kay @28: One name, Ken Miller (look up Dover trial over the teaching of evolution)
Holbach @ 56: Actually the god calling is often dependent on blog. I noticed that the experience you all have here is much more than I experienced during my years on Usenet (my ISP cut me off, plus it is now a silly place), and on other blogs like Respectful Insolence. I thought Jennifer was a good example of the path to banishment without evoking religion.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 23, 2009 11:26 PM
Actually, shouldn't it be an 'is', rather than an 'are'? Since 'greater proportion' is singular, I'm thinking you'd say (effectively) '...greater proportion here is well-educated...'.
That's just what my inner grammarian is telling me - though I admit it isn't always correct.
Posted by: John Morales | June 23, 2009 11:29 PM
Algo @57, you bring up another point: it is prudent to read (or at least scan) all the previous posts* before raising a point that may already have been addressed.
--
JohnT @58: I had considered you might be engaging in jocosity, but if so, you failed dismally IMNSHO.
And that's another point: people will respond to what you write, not necessarily to what you mean.
--
* admittedly, in hectocomment threads, this may be impractical. But note that all modern browsers implement a search function...
Posted by: Akiko | June 23, 2009 11:32 PM
Oh no, so now I have to become an expert on grammar as well as science? Can't I just pick one thing to excel in? I have no time for flatulence and orgasms.
Posted by: justinaquino | June 23, 2009 11:32 PM
I just got a look at the list of grievance and the other links that followed, I feel so sheltered and I thought 4chan had crass people :lol: . Imagining so much disparaging, one sided POV and extremist remarks to deal with day to day, if it were me I'd have ulcers trying to grow a thick hide for all that crap. Even in the usual threads I usually tro..discuss in just holding on to the self control to be civil is a serious effort.
Many Praises PZ
Posted by: John Morales | June 23, 2009 11:32 PM
Wowbagger @62, you are quite correct.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
June 23, 2009 11:35 PM
Oh, specialisation is so early 2000s.
Posted by: Diana | June 23, 2009 11:36 PM
Sandra Kay - Do I know you? From WAY, WAY, back in the day?
Diana Lee
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 23, 2009 11:37 PM
There are a couple of Firefox add-ons, Text Formatting Toolbar and BBCodeXtra (chose html option) that can do it for you, or [blockquote]Text to be quoted.[/blockquote], where the square brackets are replaced by the lt and gt arrows (shift comma and shift period on a standard keyboard).Posted by: JohnT | June 23, 2009 11:42 PM
John Moronales wrote:
"engaging in jocosity"? ROFL.
"but if so, you failed dismally IMNSHO."
Speaking of fail (in your case it's epic), it seems you know some Interwebs acronyms and abbreviations, but failed to see the last two characters of my original post. Ohhhh, the jocosity of it all.
Posted by: Monado | June 23, 2009 11:47 PM
John T [#38], A greater proportion... is well-educated. The descriptive phrase is a mere distraction.
Posted by: Chemgirl
|
June 23, 2009 11:56 PM
Testing...one...two...three...thank you very much, Nerd of Redhead.
Posted by: Silver Fox | June 24, 2009 12:18 AM
"Someone who believed that God communicated with humankind but not "intellectually" (whatever that means)"
It probably means that God communicates with humankind Modus Angelicus (in the manner of angels); infused not learned knowledge.
Intelligent, learned, articulate commenters? Give them THREE strikes? I've given them ten strikes and they are still swishing the air. You might have commenters here who may not be able to count to three.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | June 24, 2009 12:18 AM
A few thoughts...
Which is what I came up with this time. Add additional wisdom as you see fit.
Posted by: John Morales | June 24, 2009 12:19 AM
JohnT — Heh. Last time I was called "Moronales", it was by truth machine.
Given that it didn't bother me when someone with a formidable intellect wrote it, you may safely assume it doesn't when coming from someone such as you.
I stand by what I wrote, and my perception of your acuity has been reinforced.
PS this is my third response to you.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | June 24, 2009 12:32 AM
Not I. I'll not say anything that I wouldn't say to your face. Of course, I'm more charming & disarming in person, & my booming laugh usually accompanies any commentary.Posted by: truthspeaker
|
June 24, 2009 12:35 AM
In other words, this is not the snugglenet.
Posted by: RPJ | June 24, 2009 12:41 AM
I thought all those rules were self-evident. Perhaps I have been on the Internet too long.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
June 24, 2009 12:42 AM
As an addendum to Nerd of Redhead's comment #69:
You can display the < and < characters by typing < and >.
Posted by: Nutmeg | June 24, 2009 12:54 AM
Oh crazy grammarians. Proportion (the subject of the sentence) is a collective noun. It can be treated as either singular or plural with regard to the verb noun agreement, depending on what conveys the proper meaning to the reader. My preference in this instance (given the later plural noun in the phrase) is for "are"
Posted by: Eric | June 24, 2009 12:58 AM
A three comment rule before I can jump down somebodys throat?!? And I just purchased a new elbow sharpener.
Posted by: Cyberguy | June 24, 2009 1:12 AM
PZ wrote "All that's saving some people is that I'm also a lazy tyrant."
That sounds EXACTLY like the xtian god!!!
Posted by: OperationCounterstrike | June 24, 2009 1:16 AM
What about people who plug their own new blog, which is mostly a VERY ANGRY abortion blog, but also includes occasional science/tech comments as well as discussions of some of the moronic arguments so many activists make? Are we allowed?
Before you say, that would be off-topic to the post you were commenting on, you should first admire how I cleverly made it relevant to this one, by phrasing it as a comment-policy question.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 24, 2009 1:18 AM
Silver 'I am forever grateful to Loki' Fox wrote:
I really should be keeping count of the number of ridiculous unsupported assertions you make; by now the number would no doubt be staggering.
Can you provide any evidence for such communications? Any argument for why, even if such communications existed, why they could not be just as valid as evidence for any of the myriad other gods posited by humanity over the millenia?
I thought not.
Only in your tiny, woo-addled mind, Silver Fox. Here's a hint as to why: it's not a strike when the batter is simply ignoring the loony ground invader standing on the mound continually shouting 'Strike! Strike!' while everyone in the park waits for security to escort him away.
And on the rare occasions you've managed to get a pitch away before a cowardly retreat it always gets hit out of the park - even by the rookies. Heck, even by the bat-boys.
You should probably stick to tiddlywinks.
Posted by: Hairhead | June 24, 2009 1:20 AM
Okay everybody, TIME OUT!
PZ (Peace be upon him) did not make the grammatical error, I did.
I'm Hairhead, daily reader, occasional poster. I took the quickly-disappearing Markus to task in the "Complaints Department" thread, and following a comment by someone else that we should have a FAQ, I quickly (read: quickly) typed out the list above. Then other commenters told me: Yea, it is good, so I emailed it to PZ!
And he quoted me!
Fully!
And didn't grammar-check me (Yahh! Boo!)
Nor give me credit (Double-yahh! Boo! Hey, I have an ego!)
So, once again, the FAQ is mine, as are the mistakes. PZ was merely the unwitting carrier.
And (schoolyard taunting rhythm here) I got quoted by PZ, I got quoted by PZ! (Nyah, nyah, razzzz!!)
So much for maturity.
Posted by: Kel | June 24, 2009 1:29 AM
lol, that comment made my day.Posted by: Eric | June 24, 2009 1:33 AM
I was on the "internet" back when I owned an Amiga 500 with a 1200 baud modem, paying a per minute charge to Compuserve in ADDITION to the charges from the phone company, back before image tags when everything was text. If you want to talk rude just try being a noob interfacing with hostile academicians and technogeeks who assumed that UseNet was their very own property and you were a douche for simply being there. The people on this board are kittens compared to those rump-humping asshats.
Of course back then people were made of sterner stuff, I blame global warming for the human adaptation of thin skin.
Posted by: Jeff S | June 24, 2009 1:40 AM
I would add a further guideline. Disagreeing with PZ or other commenters does not mean someone is a creationist crusader. That is a very poor conclusion that a lot of people here reach prematurely. I think it could easily chase away valued people simply because they have a difference of a opinion on a minor point of a posting.
Attacking people on the internet who disagree with you seems to be the sole purpose of some people, and most people expect it to happen. That doesn't mean it is ignored and for first time commenters it could lead them to be last time commenters.
People just need to think and read before commenting.
Posted by: John Morales | June 24, 2009 1:42 AM
Eric, I was on BBSs with a 300/75 modem back in the day using relayed UseNet, and I bet many of the older commenters are similarly experienced.
Not that one's history (pre-history? :)) is relevant to what one posts now.
Posted by: CG | June 24, 2009 1:50 AM
Can a person get a Molly for one comment? If so, I think I could nominate hairhead next time you get around to giving them out.
Posted by: Eric | June 24, 2009 2:07 AM
John, I am certainly not holding up my pre-history up as some sort of defense. I am simply trying to say that as bad as some might find people here, there was a time when all but the most knowledgeable online were subjected to scorn and ridicule because they hadn't memorized all of the keyboard combinations or couldn't write their own hardware drivers. I remember being mocked for using a mouse to navigate, not just because it was a "fad", but because it showed everyone my ignorance.
Now I consider myself pretty tolerant of anyone who is genuinely interested in debate, hell I find it refreshing, but I will never apologize for being a prick to an obstinate fool. I make no apologies for, nor do I seek to justify my rudeness when I feel the need to serve some up. I gave my pre-historical perspective as a "when I was a kid" illustration of how things are MUCH better now kind of thing.
Posted by: JohnT | June 24, 2009 2:07 AM
Last time? So then, what about all the other times? BTW, I was certain I wouldn't be the first to refer to you as "Moronales"
Perhaps you need another chair to contain your "formidable intellect" or would it serve your enlarged pomposity better?
The unreliability of your perception has been aptly demonstrated. Perhaps you missed my first response to you, it began with "Swoooosh" in reference to you missing the obvious.
BTW, are you related to Kwok? I didn't think his pompous pretentiousness could ever be equaled. Yet, you've exceeded it.
Oh well, there goes the "jocosity."
Posted by: OzAtheist | June 24, 2009 2:12 AM
Shouldn't there be a to between used and it?Hope PZ and his ghost writer can handle rule 3. :)
Posted by: TheVirginian | June 24, 2009 2:48 AM
I should think Rule No. 7 is obvious:
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.
Isn't that what most posters here really want to say to the creationists and god-fearers?
Posted by: Kel | June 24, 2009 2:53 AM
But as for fat, drunk and intelligent... :PPosted by: Peter McKellar | June 24, 2009 2:56 AM
John Morales @54
Agreed re the meritocracy comment, but I plead that I interpreted an Aristocracy as a special form of a meritocracy (and noted with the cephlapod spawn comment that what starts as a meritocracy does not continue that way)
Eric @55. Agreed also - I wasn't happy with the stats myself, but there seems to be very little in solid data.
Posted by: John Morales | June 24, 2009 3:05 AM
JohnT, I here adumbrate our interactions on this thread, so far:
@38, you quote PZ quoting Hairhead with a bolded correction, and go on to say
Where
1. You identify PZ as the author of the error.
2. Your correction was incorrect.
3. Your reference to "point #3" relates to often harsh treatment of poor grammar; hence
4. Your emoticon relates to your reference and your harsh treatment of PZ's putative bad grammar.
@54, I point out it was not PZ who wrote that.
@58, you write that I've missed your point (without stating what the point is). I was and am under the impression that it was an attempted light-hearted jibe relating to "point #3".
@63, I allude to the fact that, if you were trying to make a joke, it fell flat.
@70, you claimed you find me risible, attempted to insult me by mispelling my name as "Moronales", and imputed that I failed to see that you attempted to make a joke by missing your emoticon. This is stupid, inasmuch as you quote me as writing "engaging in jocosity", which clearly evinces my understanding of your intent.
@75, I responded that your vacuous insult didn't bother me, and referred to the previous occasion when "someone with a formidable intellect wrote it", and implied you were doing yourself no favour by your obduracy.
@92, you clearly think I was referring to myself as the "formidable intellect", project your incomprehension unto me, and imagine that my reference to jocosity related to my own posts.
Your turn.
Posted by: Intelligent Designer | June 24, 2009 3:13 AM
yeahPosted by: John Morales | June 24, 2009 3:16 AM
Peter @96, no worries. I was being pedantic.
Agreed, the aristocracy were trained to lead from childhood, and in that sense were meritorious.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 24, 2009 3:50 AM
Sheesh !
Another one who can't admit to being wrong(mistaking HH's post for PZ's)and continues to make a total ass of himself in the process.
JohnT,I suggest you let it rest while you are behind.
Posted by: XD | June 24, 2009 4:25 AM
News of religious stupidity from the UK:
So, this nurse wanted to put patients at risk in order to wear a necklace, which her religion doesn't even demand that she wears.
The NHS has benefited from her departure, IMO.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | June 24, 2009 4:45 AM
Out in the non-internet world dealing with science issues you do have to be restrained in public. And yes, politely giving people enough rope to hang themselves is about as aggressive as you ever want to get.
Posted by: Silver Fox | June 24, 2009 5:33 AM
"Can you provide any evidence for such communications? Any argument for why, even if such communications existed."
No. Because it's a matter of faith and not science, it is an issue of mode of knowing not mode of being. It is knowledge by subjective epistemology not knowledge by objective ontology. To you, that is delusional; I understand that. We have been over this ground before. You apparently continue to insist on living in half a world. That's fine by me.
Posted by: Kel | June 24, 2009 5:37 AM
You apparently continue to insist that reality is something more than it is, yet do not provide anything to demonstrate how you can even possible know this. And people are still going to call you delusional because you do nothing but assert that reality is more than it is without demonstrating that it is more than what we can measure.Posted by: Rorschach | June 24, 2009 5:40 AM
and
While you insist on living in a world,SF, to stay with your terminology,of which one half is entirely fictional,and exists only in your own head.
Posted by: Kel | June 24, 2009 5:45 AM
Please establish that faith is a mode of knowing, or your entire premise is full of shit.Posted by: Rorschach | June 24, 2009 5:45 AM
Or,as Owlmirror would put it :
Translation: Im making shit up in my head and believe in fairies,while sugarcoating it with grown-up words like epistemology.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 24, 2009 5:50 AM
Agreed, the aristocracy were trained to lead from childhood, and in that sense were meritorious. - John Morales
Really? In Britain they were (and indeed still are) trained to speak as if with a plum in their mouths, look down their noses at anyone who works, kill wild animals for fun, and (in the case of the males) drink to excess and get servant gels pregnant.
Posted by: Kel | June 24, 2009 5:52 AM
Guess we shouldn't be surprised. Theists are always looking to say "God did it" and not feel like a complete dunce for doing so. He may feel that he's showing fortitude by appealing to faith, but to quote former theist Dan Barker:
"Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits."
By saying "It's faith, not science" all you are really saying is "I'm going to believe and nothing will ever convince me I'm wrong" and pretending like your delusion is somehow simultaneously a construct of reality (one that we ignore according to you) and beyond reality (one that cannot be verified or falsified)
And people wonder why the "new atheists" come down so hard on religion...
Posted by: John Morales | June 24, 2009 5:55 AM
And Silver Fox brings up yet another point: when you don't know whereof you speak, it's probably better to either keep quiet or be tentative.
"Better to remain silent and be thought fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln.
PS SF: Aren't there many planes of existence, though all but one yet remain to be verified? :)
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 24, 2009 5:56 AM
Silver Fox really ought to have a preservation order slapped on him - such elaborately constructed and carefully maintained stupidity is a rare and precious thing.
Posted by: John Morales | June 24, 2009 6:01 AM
KG @108, point taken. I should've qualified it with "purportedly" or similar.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 24, 2009 6:16 AM
KG,while I see you here,I looked up some studies regarding our discussion on Freud the other day,its OT in this thread...
Here's one.
Another one.
Yet another one.
Probably should go back to the old thread should discussion ensue....
Posted by: Nullifidian | June 24, 2009 6:25 AM
Comfort added, "People that feel strongly about this issue can simply stand on the sidewalk at the main entrance of any college or university with a sign that says: 'Free 150th year anniversary editions of Origin of Species.'"
Or they could have a sign that exhibits proper grammar.
I felt like John Cleese's centurion while reading this. "How many editions and what is the edition commemorating?"
Posted by: Silver Fox | June 24, 2009 6:30 AM
"people are still going to call you delusional because you do nothing but assert that reality is more than it is without demonstrating that it is more than what we can measure."
I understand that some people are uncomfortable living in the world as it is. They become reductionists; cutting the world down to a level they can manage and measure. For them, the richness and expansiveness of the world is not to be. So, anything that can't be measured, seen or touched becomes delusional. It's sad but we've been there before and I understand it.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 24, 2009 6:36 AM
Yep. "No voraphilia on the first date" is one of my rules as well.
Posted by: John Morales | June 24, 2009 6:52 AM
SF @115,
You didn't follow my link, did you?
By your own words, unless you accept the reality of Baator (only one of the many planes), you're speaking about yourself. So, do you accept Baator, or are you one of these reductionists you decry?
"The principal inhabitants of Baator are the devils, fiendish creatures of pure lawful evil; the most populous variety of devils are the baatezu, a race which effectively rules the plane. The devils are in a constant conflict known as the Blood War with the chaotic evil demons. The ultimate rulers of Baator are the Lords of the Nine, also called archdevils or Archdukes; each one rules absolutely over one of the layers. The current political climate of Baator was determined by a civil war known as the Reckoning of Hell.
Besides the devils, Baator is home to evil deities such as Tiamat and Kurtulmak, as well as hell hounds, fire giants, rakshasas, and other evil creatures. A few mortals live in well-defended fortresses in Baator.
Baator is also populated by several types of petitioners, the most common being soul shells. These are ghost-like forms which can be molded by the devils into increasingly horrific and agonized forms; ultimately, their destruction results in their essence merging with that of Baator. Especially evil petitioners become lemures, mindless blobs of molten flesh who serve as shock troops in the Blood War and basic servants to other devils."
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 24, 2009 6:57 AM
Fancy words for I am a delusional ignorant fool. For example, it is not fine by you that we don't agree with you, since you keep trying to get us to follow you in your delusions. Here's the thing SF. The time to prove yourself was months ago. Your failure to prove anything says more about your delusions than anything else. You can keep your delusions--preferably elsewhere, and in case you haven't noticed, I am not the only one saying so. Time for you to leave alone by not posting your idiocy and delusions here.Posted by: David Utidjian | June 24, 2009 7:02 AM
But I think ramming something down their throats is OK. The aphorism, "...rammed down our throats..", if you read any Xtian blogs and forums, is one of their favorites.
-DU-
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 24, 2009 7:04 AM
#117: Don't be silly, John. Silver Fox is able to distinguish imaginary undetectable realms from real undetectable realms using the Large Philosophocon Collider in Texas.
(I kid, of course. There's no such thing as Texas.)
Posted by: SEF | June 24, 2009 7:17 AM
@ Celtic_Evolution #18:
It won't work (not that that should preclude PZ from trying it anyway). The people who are most in need of being informed by it are the very same ones who won't even see it there, let alone trouble to read, understand and act on it.
It's much the same thing with the comment flooders. They either don't read the submission error message properly or they think it doesn't apply to them, that their post is too important to wait, that they're so important no-one will mind them posting the same thing multiple times, that it's too much trouble for them even to consider how they might check on whether or not the post actually went through etc etc.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 24, 2009 7:18 AM
Of course he didn't. He still hasn't finished his homework.
Silver Fox lives in a little fantasy world where he can posit imaginary things as a given and ignore things that we can actually show.
Posted by: speedwell | June 24, 2009 7:20 AM
I don't usually crosspost, but I have stabilized a lot of chat-room newbies with the following advice that I just posted in the "Complaints Department" thread in response to a post of Sitikali's:
Posted by: gdlchmst | June 24, 2009 7:27 AM
@#123
Chuck Norris can reach out of the screen and attack you.
Posted by: speedwell | June 24, 2009 7:32 AM
@124: Chuck Norris can make reality out of fantasy by the electron wind of his body heat, so he doesn't count. Heh.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 24, 2009 7:35 AM
oh please
No chuck norris jokes. I'd rather not have to go through the Internet meme of a couple years ago of hearing his name every second.
Posted by: DPSisler | June 24, 2009 7:41 AM
PZ's word of the day, "poltroonery" . Meriam Websters online dictionary states that this means "cowardice" . Thanks for increasing my vocabulary!
PZ, skepchick posted a short concise guide to HTML formating that I have found helpful for newbie commenters.
From Skepchick.
makes things bold
makes things italics
makes a link
Posted by: gdlchmst | June 24, 2009 7:42 AM
Darn, now I'm sad that I missed that meme.
Posted by: Aquaria | June 24, 2009 7:46 AM
I see Stupid Fuck is still sitting in the back of the classroom picking his nose, eating paste and scribbling 2+2 = 5 in lime green crayon on the walls.
Anyone who thinks that's ad hominem. I don't care. We've tried engaging him honestly and he continues to lie, and pull things around his head out of his ass (a feat of biophysics that doesn't seem possible). Why bother being polite to him anymore? He's a brick wall of stupid--and I realize that's an insult to brick walls, since they usually have a perfectly good use.
Unlike Stupid Fuck.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 24, 2009 7:48 AM
Rorschach,
I've replied to your #113 at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/at_least_the_us_lacks_the_uks.php#comment-1731072.
Posted by: DPSisler | June 24, 2009 7:52 AM
PS And do NOT forget to use Preview! Arrrrgh....
I could not figure out how to display the HTML formatting so here is a link to Skepchick's article
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 24, 2009 7:53 AM
Another good tool is the Text Formating Toolbar for firefox.
It would be great if everyone knew how to blockquote.
It really makes reading people's comments where they are ripping an idiot like Silver fox a new asshole much more pleasant to read.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 24, 2009 8:00 AM
Silver 'Each step brings me closer to Äkräs' Fox wrote:
Hmm, I'm no Owlmirror, but I'll give it a shot.
Translation: 'Yes, Wowbagger, you're correct; I've got nothing whatsoever that differentiates what I believe from what those alien abductees swear the Grey did to them with that probe. But I know some irrelevant philosophical terms that I hope might make you stop pointing out what a vapid pissant I am.'
Translation: 'Deep-down I know I am delusional, but I can't admit that to myself or anyone else, because I realise it would mean I've wasted my life believing a nonsensical fairy-tale. But that won't stop me hating you for being a big meanie and pointing out just how weak my half-assed attempts at justification are.'
Posted by: John Morales | June 24, 2009 8:02 AM
On the subject of HTML help, this is a good reference:
Character references for HTML & XHTML.
DPSisler, that page shows how you can display angle brackets, and lots more besides.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 24, 2009 8:04 AM
I understand that some people are uncomfortable living in the world as it is. Silver Fox
Mr. Irony doesn't pay many visits to Silver Fox, does he?
Posted by: Kel | June 24, 2009 8:06 AM
Oh the irony of this comment...Aside from your bad misuse of the word reductionist, lets look at what the scientific worldview has done in the last 400 years:
Firstly the earth is not the centre of the universe, first it changed to the sun, then it was found the sun is not even in the centre of our galaxy. We have found that there are approximately 400,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy alone, and our galaxy is only one of 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the observable universe.
From this we have seen back to the farthest reaches of space before the event horizon. Seen galaxies 13.2 billion light years away, that's just 500,000,000 years old. And further than that, we have seen the cosmic radiation left over from the big bang - a mere 300,000 years after the initial expansion of space.
And on that note, we know of the origin of our universe. And through looking at the building blocks of nature, we have been able to work out what happened in our universe down to all but 1x10-37th of a second of that happening.
All the while we've been able to discover the four fundamental forces of nature, how stellar bodies act and why. We've discovered how the sun produces energy and worked out the life-cycles of stars. We know from observing elsewhere in the galaxy what course the sun is going to take over the next five billion years of its life.
Meanwhile back on earth, we've been able to date the earth to about 4.55 billion years old. We understand the tides and the relationship the moon has to us. That it isn't a light in the sky, but a reflector of the sun some 380,000km away. And it's only one of a multitude of objects sitting in space.
And we've uncovered the secrets of life too. Not only have we found the answer as to how we came to be, but have looked into the past and seen but a few of the endless forms that were. We've even cracked the genetic code and are able to work out what individual genes do.
And then we come to the atomic structure, while still largely a mystery, the quantum universe has opened up a whole new perspective on reality itself. We've seen phenomena such as quantum tunnelling and wave/particle duality - things that simply don't make sense on the macroscopic level we deal with.
Yet in all that, we've built devices capable of doing billions of calculations per second. We've sent probes beyond the farthest planet. We've eradicated diseases, stopped the spread of viruses and cured the incurable. We've been able to feed billions.
Yet the limitations of view don't stop scientists from looking. Detecting neutrinos sounded impossible, but scientists were able to do it and learn from that process. There's been work to learn more about the nature of quantum physics, and on the flip-side take astrophysics beyond our universe. We are using the laws of nature and mathematics to speculate on what may lie beyond this four-dimensional bubble; to gain a theory of everything - one that is beyond saying "Goddidit".
So I'm not seeing what science lacks. From the tiniest quantum observation to what lies beyond our universe, scientific inquiry has it all. What's it missing? Come on Silver Fox, what is the scientific investigation missing? Because to me, not only does science answer everything your petty religion does, but it goes further. It sees so far because it cares not for preserving cherished delusions. When someone like Newton comes along, his ideas are tentative. Nothing is sacred, and that means we can push knowledge to it's absolute limits. You might call this reductionist, but that just shows that you have no concept of the vastness of the reality that science brings.
Face it Silver Fox, it's not that science isn't grand enough. It's that it's so grand that it shows your questions to be petty and misguided. That your worldview is nothing more than wishing that reality revolves around you. Yet you have the nerve to call us reductionist? Science is illuminating reality and all you are doing is showing how petty the human mind can be.
Posted by: Aquaria | June 24, 2009 8:10 AM
So let me get this straight---Stupid Fuck is basically admitting that faith isn't science.
I hope this means that he will rely only on his faith, rather than on all that science gives him.
So give up your computer, Stupid Fuck, since it's a bundle of science waiting to leap out and grab you.
Give up modern medicine.
Give up climate control in your house.
Give up electricity.
Heck, just wander into the woods, break a stick off a tree, and club some animals until you can come up with enough of them to wear. No, you don't get to use a gun. That's technology, based on science. You can't use flints or knives, and you can't fashion crude needles or use guts for strings--that's science--and that's baaaaaad. Go ahead and don't make any analysis of what water or plant is or isn't safe to consume. Just have any you happen to find. Observing what will kill you or won't is science, and that means nothing to you.
But you won't do these things, will you? You're too much of a coward to actually rely entirely on your faith. No, you fucking scab, you'll leech off the comforts of modern life that science gives us, all the while biting the hand that feeds you.
You're a disgusting waste of humanity.
Posted by: Kel | June 24, 2009 8:23 AM
Have you ever talked to a scientist before? You can accuse us of being reductionist and missing out of the richness and expansiveness of the world all you want, but go watch Cosmos. Go watch the fucking atheist Carl Sagan talk about reality. Go watch a Richard Dawkins program on biology or read one of his books on the matter - especially Unweaving The Rainbow. Go and watch a David Attenborough documentary, watch what that fucking atheist does when surrounded by nature. Life On Earth is a great starting point, especially watch the episode where Attenborough is with the gorillas.I really don't get theists who complain about science not being rich and expansive - the scientific worldview is more expansive than one who derives meaning from God. Just read what Darwin wrote at the end of The Origin Of Species:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
And all someone like you can do is complain that it isn't rich and expansive enough. Why can't you be intellectually honest and say it's not anthropic enough?
Posted by: gdlchmst | June 24, 2009 8:27 AM
I don't think he understands what "reductionist" means. And really, that says it all.
Posted by: gdlchmst | June 24, 2009 8:31 AM
One cannot find grandeur in that which one does not understand. I mean, what do you expect from someone who doesn't know what "reductionist" means?
Posted by: Carlie | June 24, 2009 8:34 AM
I often use this page for copy&paste diacritical/accent/symbol codes, to get back to the advice.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 24, 2009 8:35 AM
Silver Fox doesn't seem to realise that a significant proportion the vast majority of the beauty and splendour and grandeur of the world around us would be denied us if people with his mindset had their way; we wouldn't be allowed to look closely at how anything works because all they want us to think is 'goddidit'.
How does a human life begin? 'God creates it.'
Where do rainbows come from? 'God made them.'
How do birds fly? 'God lifts them up.'
How are molecules formed? 'God waves his magic wand'.
And he has the temerity to call us reuductionist?
Posted by: Kendo | June 24, 2009 8:42 AM
Silver Fox #115:
I understand that some people are uncomfortable living in the world as it is. They become reductionists; cutting the world down to a level they can manage and measure. For them, the richness and expansiveness of the world is not to be. So, anything that can't be measured, seen or touched becomes delusional. It's sad but we've been there before and I understand it. So you decide to give the perfect example of that which you quoted; right?
Posted by: Kel | June 24, 2009 8:43 AM
Exactly!Another fucking atheist Douglas Adams put it best when he said: "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Posted by: gdlchmst | June 24, 2009 8:44 AM
"reductionist" is not an insult. Key insights are achieved in science by reductionists.Posted by: John Morales | June 24, 2009 8:49 AM
Kendo @143, probably not your fault.
As per my #21, the comment preprocessor fiddles with your text box input - one of the things it does is close spans (blockquotes, italics etc) on an empty line, and then helpfully removes your original closing tag.
Break tags (<br>) used to fix this by inserting a break, but apparently that's changed recently and now it helpfully removes that line (but still leaves the span).
Grr.
(Unfortunately, PZ uses the hosted SB blogging system, he has no control over this.)
Posted by: BMcP | June 24, 2009 8:53 AM
As this is a science blog, a greater proportion of the readers and commenters here well- educated, and, if not scientists, are reasonably well-versed in logic, observation, empiricism, debate, and rationality
Once you have an audience behind a pseudonym in a comments section of a blog, Youtube video, LJ post, or any facsimile, all that logic, observation, and rationality goes right out the window in the wondrous explosion of three year old style name calling and emotionalism known as anonymity on the Internet.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 24, 2009 8:55 AM
Carlie@141,
Very useful - thanks!
Posted by: Lulu | June 24, 2009 8:56 AM
Grammatical mistakes should not be harshly judged, since for people like me, english is only our second language. I am fine with people pointing out grammatical errors. But why should you be impolite about it?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 24, 2009 8:57 AM
I expect people to point out my mistakes. As they are often and many.
Posted by: John Morales | June 24, 2009 9:03 AM
BMcP @147, surely not always — unless you consider your own comment has no "logic, observation, and rationality".
So, let's take this very thread for example. What proportion of it supports your contention?
--
<pout> Yeah, #141 is good... but my #134 is better.
Posted by: John Morales | June 24, 2009 9:10 AM
Lulu, I think you will find that, almost always, typographical errors, mispellings and grammatical errors are ignored, so long as what you post makes sense.
I've noticed that it's those who nitpick others' minor errors for rhetorical purpose (or who are particularly egregious) who are beset by the grammar police.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 24, 2009 9:11 AM
Funny how all the concern trolls call name-calling "childish" despite the fact that adults indulge in at as much as children do. Needless to say, we should never do anything that we did as children because that makes us stupid poopy heads.
Also amusing is the trolls' lack of self-awareness as they call us names in the middle of their rants about how terrible we are for calling people names.
Oh noes! Emotions! Rational people don't have emotions. History shows us that emotions never help sway anybody. The best way to convince people of your position is by never showing any feelings while talking about it.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
June 24, 2009 9:12 AM
Most people aren't especially harsh, except when they're met with the retort grammar-Nazi. Acknowledging a genuine mistake will go a long way toward diffusing a situation.
Also, grammatical errors are not necessary a problem in and of themselves, but there are some apparently systematic grammatical errors which appear to be indicative of a certain kind of creationist, anti-scientist, or similar contrarian idiot.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 24, 2009 9:13 AM
I find the grammar nazis to be profoundly pathetic to be honest.
Except for the people that cant spell the name of the blog's owner right when they try to critisize him.
Posted by: John Morales | June 24, 2009 9:15 AM
NBwaW, this is probably not the best thread to ignore the 3CR.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | June 24, 2009 9:20 AM
When you get around to the illustrated list, remember Penny Arcade for point 6.
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | June 24, 2009 9:21 AM
IMNSHO, that's technology too. He has to pray for them to come and die in front of him.
He's not allowed to use any of the simple machines.
Posted by: Fly | June 24, 2009 9:58 AM
Thank you for the advice! I'll try to remember all this if I add any more comments to your site. And it's a very interesting site too, Mr. PZ!
Posted by: Kendo | June 24, 2009 10:04 AM
Oops! I forgot about blockquote's handling of paragraphs. Only the last sentence in #143 is mine, the rest should have been within the blockquote.
Posted by: Carlie | June 24, 2009 10:09 AM
I think the majority only start picking on spelling/grammar when the mistakes are made in the context of telling someone else how stooopid and ignorant and uneducated they are. Because then, it's funny.
Posted by: Pablo | June 24, 2009 10:28 AM
In light of the "deal with it" guideline, I actually have one that is a little more, um, "sensitive." It goes something like this:
"This place is for discussion, and, as such, your opinion is welcome. However, other people's opinions are also welcome, including their opinion that your opinion is silly or wrong."
This is designed to deflect the "I'm entitled to my opinion and you meanies can't criticize it" type comments that often show up. Of course, the "opinion" in question is usually unsubstantiated bullshit.
A second guideline that works pretty well, especially for newbies, is Pablo's First Law of Internet Discussion: "Regardless of the topic, assume someone on the board knows more about it than you do."
It doesn't matter whether it is science, religion, politics, arts, sports, or whatever, I go into a group assuming someone already there (active poster or lurker-posting-occasionally) knows more than I do about it.
Now, as time goes on and you learn the characteristics of the posters in the group, you may come to discover that you do know more than the others about some topics, and in that case you may be the one who knows the most. But going in, don't make that assumption.
It's actually a lot of fun. Bring up a random topic, and you will be amazed at the insight some posters can bring. For example, mention "beach volleyball" and morons like me start talking about our discussions we've had with Karch Kiraly or our friend who brags about the TWO times he went to Kerri Walsh's dorm room at Stanford.
Posted by: fcaccin | June 24, 2009 10:43 AM
Naked Bunny with a Whip (#116):
That would actually be facehugging.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | June 24, 2009 10:48 AM
Bernard @ 154:
Too bad there's not a grammar clause on Godwin's law, no?
Posted by: Silver Fox | June 24, 2009 11:20 AM
"Come on Silver Fox, what is the scientific investigation missing?"
Your question answers itself. It is scientific INVESTIGATION and that's ALL it's ever going to be. You note in your lengthy, exhaustive chronology of scientific DISCOVERY that: We have found, we have discovered, we have looked into, we have learned, etc.
But you have not CREATED one single solitary thing, ex nihilo. You have not brought into existence one thing that you have DISCOVERED, LOOKED INTO, FOUND OR LEARNED ABOUT.
So, it's the epistimic knowledge of source that you're not comfortable with. What you're positing is not about science, its about theology. You're willing to settle for science and even engage in the apotheosis of science in order to protect a position you have elected to take on theology. If you want to deny theology, that's fine; but, you should not use science as a stalking horse. Science is a legitimate process of discovery.
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
June 24, 2009 11:25 AM
Silver Fox @ 115:
The world is rich and expansive. This doesn't mean that added imaginary features are necessary to that richness and expansiveness. Not even imaginary features subscribed to by large numbers of people.
Imagination is not a problem (I'm a big fan, myself)---but mistaking the imagined for the real is a problem.
Posted by: AlgaeGirl
|
June 24, 2009 11:28 AM
Just because science may not be able to create something de novo now, doesn't mean that they won't ever be able to. That is just one more "god-sized hole" that eventually science and innovation will fill in.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
June 24, 2009 11:29 AM
I'd have more sympathy for the anti-pedants if they weren't equally as vociferous as the pedants they so dislike; it isn't an argument until two sides are involved.
Actually, I suppose specifically invoking the term "grammar-Nazi" would fufil Godwin's Law; where are Godwin's Police when you need them?
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | June 24, 2009 11:32 AM
Silver Fox, #65
So? Who said we have to create anything for our work, our discoveries and investigations to have any validity whatsoever? God creates, we learn; good enough for me. I'm not God, I don't want to be God. I'm not about to trust anybody who wants to be God. I'm happy to discover, disclose, learn, run across, and find out about. I'll leave creating, making something that is truly unique and new, to God. It's enough for me to learn about this universe I dwell in.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 24, 2009 11:32 AM
What source? You have shown no physical evidence for one, ergo, it doesn't exist except in your deluded mind. This is what we have been telling you for ages. We don't need your delusion. Keep it to yourself elsewhere. You have nothing to offer us.Posted by: Ranson | June 24, 2009 11:35 AM
Several of the heavier elements on the periodic table would beg to differ.
Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac)
|
June 24, 2009 11:37 AM
Sandra Kay @ 28:
No, and a qualified no. Scientists run from hardcore theistic to hardcore atheistic, all the spectrum between, and includes also those who wouldn't touch the Religion grenade with a long, long stick. It's easier to ignore the debate entirely more in some disciples than in others, though. And some keep their religion and their science in completely separate boxes, switching between them depending on whether they're doing science stuff or social stuff.
As with any bias, the problem comes when you let your biases determine your results, and your interpretation of your results.
Posted by: gaypaganunitarianagnostic | June 24, 2009 11:49 AM
Sum peple spel Baddli becaues their wird thet wey sitsa frm of dyslexia
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 24, 2009 11:54 AM
So, it's the epistimic knowledge of source that you're not comfortable with. - Silver Fox
WTF would that sentence mean, even if you'd spelled "epistemic" correctly?
Posted by: Wilson | June 24, 2009 11:55 AM
Good rules, although it seems to me that the phrase "up to or more" (as in 'up to 200 people (or more)') is utterly meaningless.
I see it all the time, though.
Posted by: DPSisler | June 24, 2009 12:22 PM
* Sigh * You caught me, John Morales. I am a SkepChick shill. Does that make me a bad person?
Posted by: stogoe | June 24, 2009 12:30 PM
The only grammarians that bug me are the prescriptivists. "Ha, ha, your dialect scares and confuses me and therefore it's wrong and you should die". Misspellings are okay by them, but don't you dare use an unfamiliar idiom in their presence. Language is continuously changed by those who speak it. Where would we be today without LOLcats, 'teh' and n00bsp33k?
Posted by: Silver Fox | June 24, 2009 12:34 PM
"WTF would that sentence mean, even if you'd spelled "epistemic" correctly?"
What the sentence means, spelled correctly or not, is that there are different modes of knowledge, different modes of knowing. The mode of scientific knowledge is usually objective ontological. That is, the mode of knowledge corresponds to that mode of being. You know what you can see, touch and/or measure. Epistemic knowledge is ontological to the knower. So, the mode of being for second party is subjective epistemic.
Now, we have been over this ground before. The explanation doesn't change and, apparently, neither does your inability to understand it.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 24, 2009 12:41 PM
SF, the burden of proof has been upon you to demonstrate the reality of those "other modes of knowing" (just verbal salad by the way). You have demonstrated nothing. You have made allegations without evidence. That is why you are a deluded fool. And will remain so until you can get youself out of your delusions. That start with you going and staying away.Posted by: Stu
|
June 24, 2009 12:44 PM
Grammatical mistakes should not be harshly judged, since for people like me, english is only our second language. I am fine with people pointing out grammatical errors. But why should you be impolite about it?
Not to repeat myself, but fuck that. If you can't be bothered to learn the language, stick to blogs in your native tongue until you do.
I am ESL, and I bothered to learn the insane hodgepodge that is the English language. For others to run around making a mockery of it and using "ooh, but it's not my native tongue" as an excuse denigrates that effort. So, very kindly and politely: fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
Posted by: Stu
|
June 24, 2009 12:53 PM
[Citation needed]
[Citation needed]
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 24, 2009 1:01 PM
Silver Fox, Given that your "other way of knowing" is inherently subjective, how do you verify the "knowledge" it yields? I'd be particularly interested in your answer, given that particularly as relates to religion there is violent disagreement even among believers.
The scientific method gives results we can trust. Why should the results of one's own subjective deliberations be trusted by any other person?
Posted by: Carlie | June 24, 2009 1:01 PM
But you have not CREATED one single solitary thing, ex nihilo. You have not brought into existence one thing that you have DISCOVERED, LOOKED INTO, FOUND OR LEARNED ABOUT.
Too bad you have no idea what you're talking about.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
June 24, 2009 1:01 PM
Silver Fox, Given that your "other way of knowing" is inherently subjective, how do you verify the "knowledge" it yields? I'd be particularly interested in your answer, given that particularly as relates to religion there is violent disagreement even among believers.
The scientific method gives results we can trust. Why should the results of one's own subjective deliberations be trusted by any other person?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 24, 2009 1:04 PM
How do you verify your "other ways of knowing" are giving you something other than appealing to your own confirmation bias?
And do your other ways of knowing keep you from completing your homework?
Posted by: Jared Cormier
|
June 24, 2009 1:14 PM
Why does Silver Fox make me think "Sokal Hoax"
Posted by: CJO | June 24, 2009 1:16 PM
Epistemic knowledge
...is a redundant phrase, you useless piece of shit. Why do you persist in making yourself look stupid?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 24, 2009 1:27 PM
Everybody's a prescriptivist; it's just that some of us wish to prescribe a bit more than others.
I insist that "data" is plural. I have been round and round about this many times, even backing off my desire to label others' usage "wrong," but I will not change my mind enough to ever use the phrase "this data."
I know what "begging the question" mean
st, and--I admit--I judge people who use it the "wrong" way.I insist on the real and meaningful difference between "its" and "it's."
It really, really bothers me when people confuse there/their/they're or your/you're or to/too/two, and spelling "lose" as "loose" makes my blood boil (though I almost always refrain from explicit policing).
This is not about accepting new bits of language (like "LOLcats, 'teh' and n00bsp33k"), it's about retaining useful (if sometimes subtle) features of the language instead of letting it "evolve" toward ignorance, apathy, and dumb-down.
Posted by: Michael Dowd | June 24, 2009 1:30 PM
You're the best, PZ. The first thing I read every morning is the daily digest of your posts from the previous day. I find I agree with you the vast majority of the time. Thanks for featuring these suggestions for new commenters. Most helpful. Keep up the great writing and skewering (even if I'm occasionally the one being skewered by you or your regular commenters.)
Posted by: Stu
|
June 24, 2009 1:31 PM
I insist on the real and meaningful difference between "its" and "it's."
It really, really bothers me when people confuse there/their/they're or your/you're or to/too/two, and spelling "lose" as "loose" makes my blood boil (though I almost always refrain from explicit policing).
+1.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 24, 2009 1:33 PM
That's like asking why water is wet or fire is hot.
Posted by: Silver Fox | June 24, 2009 1:40 PM
"You have made allegations without evidence."
Those are assertions not allegations. Evidence to you is objective and measurable. That is the half of the world that you have elected to live with in order to preserve a decision on theology that you have made. Why you have made that decision is known only to you, if indeed it is known to you. I am sure you could give some explanation for the decision but whether or not that would be the reason is debatable. The hit on you is that you are using science to rationalize a decision that is fundamentally theological.
The point being that others have felt no similar necessity to reduce the richness and expansiveness of their world experience to the level of the measurable. The grandeur of life's experience is not measurable. So, most people see no need to live a contracted worldview
Posted by: Angel Kaida | June 24, 2009 1:47 PM
Sven DiMilo,
How do you feel about the Oxford Comma?
:)
Posted by: Jared Cormier
|
June 24, 2009 1:51 PM
I, personally, always use the Oxford Comma.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 24, 2009 1:51 PM
It doesn't matter what they are called, they are figments of your imagination until you show physical evidence otherwise. So, since you have shown nothing, the assertion/allegations are false. As they should be. Your pitiful attempt at an ad populum argument shows how intellectually bankrupt the whole idea is. So SF, either put up the physical evidence for your imaginary diety, or shut the fuck up. That is what an honorable man would do. But then, your a god besoaked idiot...In case you haven't noticed nobody is interested in your delusions. Time for you to go elsewhere.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 24, 2009 2:02 PM
Two completely worthless paragraphs by SF wholly unsupported by anything but your own mind. If you think that making things up in your own mind is expanding your universe, that's fine. I once used to make up things too when I was a child. I had extremely intricate worlds created that I used during playtime. Difference is, I didn't write them down and convince other people they were anything by my own imagination.
But they were and are made up. Just like are doing when you fool yourself into thinking that your fantasies are actually reality.
How do you verify that what you think is another way of knowing isn't you just satisfying your own wants?
How do you verify?
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | June 24, 2009 2:04 PM
Here's a simple question SF, and I'm really curious about your answer. In the "half of the world" that you live in that the rest of us poor souls are missing out on, do you believe that fluffy pink unicorns with golden hooves exist?
If not... why not?
Posted by: Stu
|
June 24, 2009 2:04 PM
Evidence to you is objective and measurable.
Am I the only one that is reminded of "you in the reality-based community"?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 24, 2009 2:04 PM
Big, big fan.
Posted by: Acronym Jim | June 24, 2009 2:33 PM
What's this about Grammar Nazis? My Grammar was not a fascist.
Well, okay she was, but she wasn't a National Socialist.
Posted by: Leon | June 24, 2009 3:49 PM
Wow, very cool--all this time I've been swimming in the deep end. I feel a little more educated for hearing that.
Or is this like the situation in Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme where the main character is so impressed to learn that all his life he's been speaking in prose?
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
June 24, 2009 3:56 PM
There SF. I fixed it.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
June 24, 2009 4:06 PM
Whoops, I forgot to bold:
learn about reality in a methodical way so that we may better understand how to successfully and predictably manipulate it for our perceived benefit.
Posted by: Dixie | June 24, 2009 5:22 PM
@Sven
I have sent 8th graders into high school to enchant and amaze their freshman English teachers with their ability to use lose and loose correctly. I take pride in this and other equally simple victories.
When a weird, mean old woman compares "lose" and "lost" in having only one vowel, then careens, emitting banshee wails, around the classroom searching ridiculous places in search of the lost o, it's hard to forget.
And, if you want to go with a mnemonic for "loose," think of being the guest of honor at a hanging: you'd want a loose noose.
Someday I might admit how I stopped them from using "laid" inappropriately.
Posted by: Carlie | June 24, 2009 5:32 PM
You have killed me, Sven. Killed me, I say.
Posted by: Alan Kellogg | June 24, 2009 5:43 PM
My take on the oxford comma is that it is often a reliable indicator of thinking, helps to set the pattern of speech, and keeps disparate but related sub-topics apart.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | June 24, 2009 5:49 PM
@ Silver Fox, re: seeing the grandeur in the other half of life that you sniff at. A primer.
Go find a pond. Not a puddle. A small pond that has an outlet. Collect a jarful of pond water near the edge. Preferably in a spot that looks yukky. Look around for some dried grass and grab a small handful. Put that in the jar. Put some cheesecloth over the mouth of the jar. Take it home.
Put the jar in a window that does not receive direct sunlight for a couple of days. While that's cooking, obtain a modest, student-type microscope, some glass slides and cover plates. Learn how to use this equipment if you don't already know how.
Prepare a wet slide and mount it on the scope.
Look.
Look some more.
Keep watching.
Now watch yourself going about discovering more things to look at through the microscope.
This may not work for you but it sure fired me up when I was a kid. In fact that old microscope was one of the most influential gifts my parents ever gave me.
Even if you're not interested you should at least get out a little more into the natural world and just be still and look about you. A microscope helps, as does a telescope, but neither are necessary. Your brain, conveniently hooked to your eyes, is quite capable of discerning wonder. And there will always be a kind scientist or science enthusiast to answer any questions you might have.
If you would take advantage of my suggestion and actually observed things that might bring questions to your mind and actually asked someone and truly learned and expanded your mental model of the world around you, do you know what you would actually be doing? I mean, what is looking, observing, noting, remembering, thinking and questioning outside of just a pesky human predilection?
Why, you'd be doing Science!
Happy Trails, Podner.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 24, 2009 5:53 PM
just saw another on another thread:
"who's" and "whose"
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 24, 2009 5:58 PM
Actually, I would interpret it, as I have done before, something more like this:
Translation: I am making believe, and making believe that I'm not making believe, and denying that I am making believe that I am not making believe. And in fancy-schmancy philolsophical GREEK to boot!
Posted by: Kel | June 24, 2009 6:07 PM
Again, you have not established just how theology can lead us to any truth at all. You're just asserting that science doesn't cover it and that theology does without looking at what science actually does cover (life, the universe, and everything) and not considering that theology is nothing more than bad philosophy.What can theology offer us that secular reasoning cannot? What can theology demonstrate to us about the world that secular reasoning cannot? And can theology do this with anything more than unfounded assertions? I would argue that it can't because all it does is use the same cognitive faculties that all of us have then take away any burden of proof - meaning theology is nothing more than guesswork based on gut feelings and cultural indoctrination.
Posted by: Owlmirror | June 24, 2009 6:14 PM
You're making no sense at all, here. You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
At the very least: If you mean "gnosis", write "gnosis". If you mean "revelation", write "revelation". But stop using "epistemic" as if it meant "revelation" and/or "revealed".
PS: The Greek word for "revelation" is "apokalypsis".
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 24, 2009 6:16 PM
was it me?
Posted by: Kel | June 24, 2009 6:25 PM
Again you talk about reducing the richness and expansiveness of life. All we have done is taken away the anthropic view of reality, if that is taking away the grandeur of life to you then all you have is meaning tied to a myth.Again, go watch Cosmos or Life On Earth. Read Unweaving The Rainbow. Do you honestly say that atheists don't have grandeur - or is it that you don't understand how we can have grandeur without God?
Posted by: John Morales | June 24, 2009 6:27 PM
Silver Faux: your feeble disbelief in the Higher Subplanes as revealed by the Ascended Masters is to be pitied.
You have closed your mind to almost all of the true reality - open it to the Higher Truth and escape your blind 'reductionism'.
"... the higher subplanes of the Physical Octave are sometimes referred to as "etheric" and are not normally perceivable by the physical senses. The emotional and mental octaves are also made up of electrons and atoms of feeling and thought substance and differentiated into levels of density and vibratory rate."
Posted by: Kel | June 24, 2009 6:35 PM
It sure is. Now it's your turn to demonstrate that theology, and in particular knowledge ascertained through faith, is a legitimate process of discovery. Come on Silver Fox, demonstrate the validity of faith. It's good to see that you accept science is valid, now it is your turn to show that your method of knowing is valid.In case you haven't realised, people here don't think science is the only way of knowing. But they reject the notion that the way you claim to know is anything more than using gut feelings on cultural memes. How does faith work? how does it bring about previously unknown knowledge? How is it different from just thinking about beliefs? Why isn't faith but a subset of philosophy?
Posted by: Silver Fox | June 24, 2009 7:07 PM
"What can theology offer us that secular reasoning cannot"
Actually it would not have to offer very much in order to offer more than secular reasoning. I am sure you are well aware that reasoning is probably the least reliable property of the brain. It's a by-product of the evolution of the brain, a waste product. In the rather recent extraordinary expansion of the human brain, the driving force was the ability to meet the challenges of difficult environments. Natural Selection and occasional mutations took care of that. Also, the brain was critical in reproduction and sending forth the genetic pattern of the reproducing specie. Essentially, the evolution of the brain was not in the least concerned with developing computers or sending rocket ships to the moon except in so far as these discoveries had to do with survival and reproduction. The brain was not at all concerned with truth except insofar as it had to do with survival and reproduction. So, reason, by and large, is in the genre of evolutionary garbage. It just came along with the stuff that was needed to achieve the main goals. So, much of what science does is a bit player in the grand drama of life. However, we are able to use this garbage to discern through theological and philosophical deliberations, that the Essential Good (God)intended to achieve for humankind and beyond. Essential Good is probably a more accurate designation than God since it has a more accurate teleological connotation.
So you see that theology/philosophy would have to do very little to give you more than secular reasoning ever will.
Posted by: Watchman | June 24, 2009 7:14 PM
Give it up, Fox. That was ridiculous.
What's the waste product? Mental capacities that help distinguish reality from illusion (and delusion), or mental tendencies to zealously believe in things that are forever only imagined?
Posted by: Stu
|
June 24, 2009 7:19 PM
That truly was the dumbest thing I've read today. Congratulations, SF.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 24, 2009 7:21 PM
But you offer nothing. To quote the Mythbusters, "there's your problem." There is nothing there of interest to us. To you, but not us. What part of that statement do you have trouble with. Since it is of no interest to us, you babbling about it is very annoying. Keep trying to defend your nothing idea. PZ is probably warming up his cyberpistol.Posted by: CJO | June 24, 2009 7:22 PM
Fuck! but you're a tiresome git.
So, reason, by and large, is in the genre of evolutionary garbage. It just came along with the stuff that was needed to achieve the main goals.
Who cares. It nevertheless "came along", and it works. Or, do you believe that those epiphenomenal rocketships and computers do not actually operate as intended? You're also not taking into account the intersubjective nature of empirical inquiry, which is at its most basic a set of tools for ameliorating or overcoming entirely the impediments to reason that exist as a result of the evolutionary history that you're now pretending to know the slightest thing about. It's exactly the lack of such intersubjectivity, due to the lack of any referent, that makes theology such a pointless circle-jerk.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 24, 2009 7:27 PM
I hope neither of you was surprised.
I'd love to know where you're getting that little nugget from?
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 24, 2009 7:30 PM
Silver 'won't you join me in a prayer to Xochiquetzal?' Fox, wrote:
Except that any 'knowledge' has to be verifiable, otherwise it is worthless - especially when it comes to religion, because there are so many different belief systems.
A hypothetical: a child has two religious tutors - you (one kind of Christian) and a follower of another religion that we'll call, because it's my analogy, 'Wowbaggerism'.
Coincidence, I assure you.
The religions are not compatible; in fact, they are at odds regarding many of the key behaviours required of each religion - basically, you cannot adhere to the prescriptions of both, even by the most lenient interpretations of the relevant texts. Wowbaggerism requires the denial of Jesus Christ as the son of God as well as the worship of a god who is specifically not the god of Jews, Christians or Muslims - and the penalty for even suggesting the they are the same god is death.
Since there is equal evidence for either (i.e. none) you and the Wowbaggerist both present 'epistemic knowledge' as the rationale for your beliefs.
Which of the two should the child believe, and why?
Posted by: whitebird | June 24, 2009 7:31 PM
@51 - LOL!!
I like the "up your butthole!!!" part the best.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | June 24, 2009 7:37 PM
Per SF:
Aaahhh, yeah. We knew that . . .
I get the feeling that the Glinty Canine thinks that his own sense of wonder, his apprehension of the numinous and his take on getting larger in an ectoplasmic sort of way (spiritual growth) is precisely correct in terms of "how to know the truth" and that anyone else's take is fallible right out of the gate. His justification is that his notions nudge his brain in just the right manner to cause it to make chemicals that make him feel filled with truth. Quite full of it.
That happened to me once. So I quit the meds.
*meds = assigning unanswered questions to a Universal Answering Machine that always gives the same answer. equal to the function of a waste basket.*
Posted by: Cannabinaceae | June 24, 2009 7:54 PM
Dude, one of your many problems is that you think science reduces wonder. Speaking as a person in the science world, I claim, from direct experience, that your perception is a complete fallacy. "Reductionism" is simply a word used to refer to a general procedure, useful in ascertaining* some aspects of what's happening in the universe. The fact that the text string "reduce" can be extracted from it has confused you. Reductionism, when properly applied (i.e. scientifically) magnifies wonder. Knowing what the stars are, knowing how "fairy rings" form, watching an avalanche: pretending that spooks are behind it is limp and cowardly; being aware of the facts and the scale of these occurrences is the real magic.*sorry, I know you'll have to look that one up. Consider it a favor.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | June 24, 2009 7:58 PM
Off topic but perhaps related is this grab from an AP article about the civil unrest in Iran following the recent poll:
One can be wrong, one can be just a bit off mark. One can be nearly correct. In fact womebody can even convince many others that one is nearly correct. Scientists and priests do it every day. Makes me wonder if religion ever produced a home appliance.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 24, 2009 8:02 PM
Several people have made fun of you or expressed sheer desperation because you, as this quote shows, don't know what reductionism means – yet none proceeded to actually explain it. I find that weird, because it's really simple.
The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Right?
Good.
The whole is the sum of its parts plus the sum of the interactions between those parts plus the sum of the interactions between those interactions plus the sum of the interactions between those interactions, and so on. Right?
So, to understand the whole, the easiest way is to start by figuring out the parts, then figuring out their interactions, then figuring out the interactions between the interactions, and so on. Right?
Because... this is what we call "reductionism".
Electrostatic attraction. Next question! :-)
========================
Stu, what you seem to have overlooked is that the spelling of the English language is easier for non-native speakers than for native ones, because the former usually learn the pronunciation of a word at the same time as its spelling or later, while the former learn the pronunciation several years earlier in many cases. That's why native speakers have such trouble keeping who's and whose, its and it's, there, their and they're apart: they know it sounds the same and have had to learn, against all intuition, that they're not spelled the same way, while non-native speakers have had to learn that these words are all pronounced the same, which doesn't show up on a blog anyway.
That's how fucked up the English spelling system is. Reasonable minds can disagree as to whether it needs a reform* or a bloody revolution, but I predict it'll hit the breaking point in the lifetimes of most of us. Already there are placenames and personal names (like Featherstonehaugh, pronounced as if written "fanshaw" – I'm not making this up) that are best read as if they were Chinese characters.
* The example is near the bottom of the page and requires a distinctively American pronunciation. As an example that doesn't require that, but would exclude some mostly American pronunciations, I can offer this.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 24, 2009 8:02 PM
SF, here is a question for you. What, short of us agreeing with you, will it take for you to fade into the bandwidth?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 24, 2009 8:06 PM
as long as it doesn't end up as boneheaded as the Rechtschreibreform, I'm all for it. Damn thing rendered me illiterate in my own language *grumble grumble*
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 24, 2009 8:10 PM
Can we at least wait until explains why people shouldn't choose Wowbaggerism over his sect of Christianity if neither has anything other than 'epistemic knowledge' to justify it?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 24, 2009 8:13 PM
I'd really like SF to finish his homework too.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 24, 2009 8:14 PM
Wowbagger, of course your previously asked question comes first. SF, answer Wowbagger, then me.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 24, 2009 8:18 PM
"Right writing form" if I recall my Deutch correctly.Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 24, 2009 8:27 PM
<lightbulb above head>
Oh, that's what he's talking about...
Owlmirror, OM, for New Order of the Molly. Twice.
Argh. Not that again. Please!
Those whose ability to reason was too unreliable have already died out. If you can't perceive reality well enough, natural selection comes and gets you.
Evolutionary epistemology!!!
You're as ignorant as Plantinga, and that's quite a feat.
And if our deliberations are wrong – internally logically consistent, but wrong –, how do we know?
How can we ever find that out?
===================
Anyway, as mentioned, watch some Sagan, watch some Attenborough (...no, lots of it...), read Science as a Candle in the Dark, read Unweaving the Rainbow, and first of all watch this.
And after you've watched that little video, behold Genesis 1:14–16, and weep at how tiny, bland, uninteresting, pathetic the world imagined by theological reasoning is compared to reality.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 24, 2009 8:32 PM
It's not that bad. Parts of it are rather silly, but the use of ss vs. ß is now, at long last, logical.
Sort of. Translate it into Greek rather than English, and you'll see more clearly... (hint: ortho-graph-ia: "right-writ-ing")
BTW, tch wouldn't be pronounced the way you seem to think it would be.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 24, 2009 8:34 PM
orthography reform, to be precise. and as far as I'm concerned, it made German spelling worse, not better
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 24, 2009 8:40 PM
it is?
sorry, but I still can't get over Känguru. That's just NOT how I pronounce the word :-/
Posted by: Kel | June 24, 2009 8:54 PM
And he starts with that fucking Plantinga bullshit again. SF, there's a thread for that already. Go read it before espousing that same bunk nonsense.
Only for you.It's a bi-product? Given the role higher thinking has played in the ascent of man, it would seem that reasoning is a driving force. Pattern recognition, linking causal events, problem solving, etc. these cognitive skills were vital for our survival. Making tools, hunting for food, building shelter, communicating with others, etc. There's plenty of functionality in our brain that required reasoning skills so for you to call it an evolutionary bi-product is absurd.
Yes, it resulted in a massive increase in the size of the brain. Evolutionary biproduct? Come of it. It was the reason for our survival. Do you think the house you are in builds itself?
Of course not. But building shelter, finding food, crafting tools for the job, impressing members of the opposite sex, etc. all these are directly related to our survival. Again we are talking about the development of the cognitive faculties, not the end product. Did our ancestors need to put rockets onto the moon? Of course not. But they did need to understand the seasons, to understand how to find and gather food, to use tools to hunt and to carry out complex hunting rituals. They did need to find shelter, they did need to have access to water. To avoid predators, to make sure they didn't eat poisonous fruits or come across poisonous creatures.
It wasn't, but you're missing the entire point. Having a big brain helped us survive. Seeing causal patterns, doing complex problem solving, understanding the environment around us - these were essential to our survival and were selected against. Just look at how big the brain has gotten in the 6 million years since our last common ancestor with the chimpanzee. A brain like that must have been selected against.Why do you think that before modern medicine 1 in 5 women died in childbirth? Do you think that maybe there's a reason that having a big brain may have been advantageous considering how important a mother's role is in raising us?
And this is not even getting into how beliefs are selected against in nature. Would you like me to explain that for you too, or do you think you can see how beliefs are selected against on your own?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 24, 2009 8:59 PM
No doubt, since I took reading German back in the undergraduate days (für Chimische Berichte and Beilstein), so much of it is lost through lack of use.Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 24, 2009 9:07 PM
Oh, I'm so stealing känguru and using it from now on. Which is more often than most of the rest of you might, since I live in Australia and all.
Posted by: John Morales | June 24, 2009 9:11 PM
David @227,
Hear, hear!
Supporting what David writes, my perception is that, quite often, commenters for whom English is not a first language are more grammatical and spell better than those for whom it is.
English is my second language (alas, my Spanish has atrophied through disuse), and I well recall my exasperation when learning it.
I'd complain because of the seemingly arbitrary way it's pronounced compared to the spelling* — in Spanish (generally) one can come across new words and know how to pronounce them by its orthography (vowel sounds don't change and so forth [it even includes accent marks]).
For example, I remember watching Dr. Who as a kid (recently arrived from Spain) and being laughed at by my sisters for pronouncing the 'wh' phoneme as in 'why'. My pronunciation still sucks (and my accent is atrocious both in Spanish and English), but that was probably a driving force in my early obsession with language.
--
* which also seemed arbitrary to me, at the time.
Posted by: Kel | June 24, 2009 9:15 PM
As for how beliefs are selected against...
There are two types of errors in regard to thinking, believing a falsehood and rejecting a truth. Now think about the behavioural consequences for both. Say you are at a waterhole and you hear a sound in the bushes. Either that sound is a lion or it isn't. What are the consequences for believing it to be a lion when it isn't, or not believing it's a lion when it is?
Well if it's not a lion and you run away, you'll live to fight another day. And if you don't think it's a lion and it turns out to be, chances are that your life is forfeit. So immediately we can see that type two errors in beliefs are selected against, so the brain would be selected for beliefs right there. But it goes further.
You need water to live, and it takes energy to run away from a would-be predator. So someone who will take flight at any sound would put themselves at a disadvantage over someone who was more discerning and listened for the type of sound. While false positives are not selected against as immediately as false negatives, they do put the individual at a disadvantage so over time natural selection would finely-tune our ability to reason because it is advantageous to do so.
And that's something we can see now. When it comes to the macroscopic immediacy of our lives, humans are by and large very good at reasoning. They can do things like follow instructions to program a VCR, and memorise that for the future. They can use computers and talk to people from the other side of the world. They can find their way to work each day in this modern world that is totally alien to our ancestors.
Consider smoke alarms. Imagine you had one that went off all the time regardless of smoke. It would be useless as it doesn't give you any useful information. Then consider one that never goes off, it again would be useless. What about one that requires a lot of smoke to go off? It would be more useful but still might not be enough to save you. But what about one that goes off more than it should but doesn't go off all the time? Now that one while not perfect would be enough to save you. Better to be safe than sorry.
And even if the brain was not built to reason, you are not establishing that faith is a means to ascertain knowledge. All you are doing is complaining that evolution can't produce the brain, therefore faith works - and that's absolute nonsense. Even if evolution couldn't produce a reliable brain (it can to a limited extent) it doesn't make faith any better. Show that faith works, show how faith works. Come on, no more stalling on red herring arguments. Show how faith can bring about any knowledge at all - because even the way you are framing faith it sounds like philosophy based on gut instinct, which is ironic given how you don't think gut instinct is good for ascertaining truth.
Posted by: Kel | June 24, 2009 9:33 PM
The bullshit of the argument is that it seems to rely on the notion that beliefs and survival behaviours are mutually exclusive. Survival of the genes is the goal, but it would be absurd to think that such an important part of our ability to interact in the world is nothing more than a bi-product of other faculties. Our ability to link causal events, to recognise patterns, to keep this information for the future.
Chimpanzees not only keep track of all the different fruit producing trees in their territory (we are talking about ~12,000 trees all up) but know the seasonal cycles of each individual tree, so at different times of the year it will go to particular trees from memory to get food. The same creatures who will crush nuts on tree roots with rocks and hunt in complex formations for monkey.
You don't think memetic transfer is selected against on evolutionary terms? Then all that shows is how poor your understanding of evolution is. But hey, you've got a belief in God to protect so I think it's beyond you to understand reality for what it is.
Posted by: AlgaeGirl
|
June 24, 2009 9:38 PM
I'd like to nominate Kel for OM! Their rebuttals to SF have been the most comprehensive by far. And they're doing it while being very civil!
Posted by: John Morales | June 24, 2009 9:45 PM
AlgaeGirl, you're not the only one.
Maybe you could subscribe to the feed and keep an eye out for the next Molly nomination post.
--
And another point - thread topics get derailed pretty easily around here :)
I'd complain, but I'm as guilty as anyone...
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | June 24, 2009 9:54 PM
Silver Fox's argument might carry some weight (strange, I know) if there was only one religion - with an identical god of set of gods, beliefs, prescriptions and so forth - ever posited by humanity over the centuries. If that were the case any religious experience by anyone, anywhere, would support his claims of 'special knowing'.
But, as I keep on reminding him, there isn't one religion; there are many, many thousands - some of them contradictory to the point of being mutually exlcusive and impossible to be considered 'versions' of the same thing (despite his weak, unsupported assertions to the contrary).
So, he has to go a step beyond depending on 'special knowing' for justification; he has to be able to support why his 'special knowing' is correct and another's 'special knowing' is incorrect.
I'd like to think I've explained this in such a way that even he could understand, but I won't be surprised if he misses the point completely and starts babbling about 'only one god in unity with a union of itself' again, without realising that that isn't what everyone religious believes and that making such an assertion about his version of god necessitates some kind of support, be it evidential or argumentative.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 24, 2009 10:13 PM
What? Derailment? Alert the NTSB. Oh, not that type of derail...*in high falsetto*Nevermind.
Posted by: Kel | June 24, 2009 10:29 PM
It's a very important point Wowbagger. When a muslim uses faith, a muslim does not go to Christ. When a hindu uses faith, a hindu does not go to Christ. But when a Christian uses faith, a Christian goes to Christ. It may be "reductionist" but there's an underlying pattern when it comes to faith... it confirms whatever cultural meme one is born into.
And this is where I see John W Loftus' Outsider test for faith (for those who haven't read it, google it) as being such a beautiful argument against religion. I meant it in the other thread when I said that science doesn't kill God, because sociology does a far better job than science ever will. When different cultures have different beliefs, when your beliefs are almost always decided upon by the time, location and culture of your birth, and more specifically the religiousity of your parents, what does that mean for your beliefs themselves?
It could be argued that your beliefs are right and all others are not. That purely by accident you were born into the culture with the true belief while all others who differ were not. But given the sheer number of different gods and religions there have been over the course of human history, the chances of being born into the particular true one is remote - and that's on the assumption that one of them is true to begin with!
If one wants to break God down to the god of the philosophers, then maybe I could see Silver Fox's point. But he's not doing that, he's taking the Judeo-Christian construct of God and asserting that God and the god of the philosophers is one and the same. There's nothing to suggest that God is interactive in this world, nothing to support Christ's divinity (let alone existence), that faith is a means to ascertain knowledge, that anything in the church is anything more than the same structure that permeates throughout different cultures. No, Christianity offers nothing that Silver Fox is claiming it to, yet he's trying to piggy-back it on the much more reasonable path of a nebulous construct that is the god of the philosophers.
Yahweh is yet another tribal deity, Jesus is yet another mangod myth. It's nothing more than being obfuscatory to pretend that one is arguing for a sophisticated philsophical version of god while using that diffuse entity to shove the Christian myth of God in there.
Posted by: John Scanlon FCD | June 24, 2009 11:21 PM
There are different modes of 'knowledge':
knowledge and notledge.
Obviously, equally valid means of understanding the world and creating stuff. Yup.
And a tentative formulation of Dahan's (#24) Three Continent Rule:
Be aware that Pharyngula has readers in many nations in regions including (but not limited to) North America, Europe, and Australasia. If a comment strikes you as incongruous or 'offensive' (or comes at an odd time of night) on the assumption that it comes from some particular place, don't forget to question your assumption that it is from that place.
(Ditto for assumptions that the commenter is an atheist, a xian, a liberal, a fucktard etc., which leads to the Three Comment Rule as a corollary.)
Posted by: John Morales | June 25, 2009 12:04 AM
John Scanlon @249, yeah.
I'm kinda surprised I don't see more posters from India (or maybe they just blend in), it's a populous nation with lots of English speaking, computer-literate people.
Posted by: Lungs
|
June 25, 2009 9:46 AM
Hey everyone,
I'm a long-time reader, first-time poster.
I mainly battle it out in the blogs over at the National Post website (www.nationalpost.com) under the banner of Atheist. If you're unfamiliar, it is a popular Canadian conservative newspaper. They have one particular blog titled Holy Post which requires constant monitoring. I try to provide a voice of reason there and I have found Pharyngula to be both a source of information and inspiration.
Anyway, best to all!
Posted by: Kel | June 25, 2009 9:51 AM
CDK007 ftw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLYfH9obFNQ
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 25, 2009 10:53 AM
Yep. ss behind short vowels, ß behind long ones (and diphthongs, all of which behave as if they were long, even though they lack short counterparts).
Huh? How else?
Forget rituals. Tracking is nothing short of a science.
That's how fucked up the English spelling system is.Hear, hear!
Really. It's worse than French, worse than both Irish and Scottish Gaelic, worse than Mongolian-in-the-Mongolian-script, worse than Tibetan… it has the worst orthography of any language that uses an alphabet or syllabary.
The wh phoneme (which only is a separate phoneme from w for some people anymore) is not there in who, and hasn't been for centuries. This word has the h phoneme instead. One more case where the English spelling is a brazen lie from a phonemic point of view – and this is one that's at least etymologically defensible, unlike thumb or island or a long list of other stupidities that one can only learn by heart.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 25, 2009 10:55 AM
Wow, what an interesting blockquote fail: instead of doubly indented, the quote in the quote got singly edented. ~:-| Will wonders never cease.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 25, 2009 10:57 AM
Hey,I didnt know that consciously,and Im a native !!
Jadey,did you??
:-)
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 25, 2009 11:15 AM
To be fair, I was still in school when the reform was introduced, so I had it explicitly explained to me, but then, every little magazine article that tried to explain the reform explained that part. It wasn't very easy to miss.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 25, 2009 11:18 AM
nope. but in my defense, I left Germany permanently in 2002, and stopped paying attention in school in 1999 :-p
and to me, Känguru has the accent on the wrong syllable. the h at the end was there to make the accent on the last syllable, like in English. now the word sounds like a new type of guru, not an Australian animal.
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 25, 2009 11:20 AM
David my dear, I'm not that ancient. We were in school pretty much simultaneously. I just stopped paying attention sooner :-p
Posted by: Rorschach | June 25, 2009 11:24 AM
Ditto !!
:-)
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 25, 2009 11:26 AM
ah fuck, I'm starting to sound like a creobot, all proud of my ignorance.
anyway, I SHOULD have better understanding of the new orthography, because I did have to learn it in school (should have graduated High-School in 2002); but being an underachieving mental case, my education ended for all intents and purposes in 1999 and I always found the new orthography counter-intuitive. so now I'm resentful of it because despite speaking several languages, I'm now only able to write properly in one
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD
|
June 25, 2009 11:26 AM
Silly Fucker wrote:
Me too, but in my case it is caused by acid, or at the right time of year when I can be bothered to gather them, various shrooms.
All you have demonstrated so far is that you are apparently prone to hallucinations of one kind or another without the need of chemical aid. You then attribute this internal voice to some god figure or other and that it is real. Perhaps one day, though I very much doubt it, you will begin to understand why Dawkins titled his book The God Delusion.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 25, 2009 11:31 AM
Hmmm,used to live near this one football pitch.....
Ahem,never mind !
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 25, 2009 11:43 AM
The introduction of the reform started in 1998 :-Þ
Oooh, I see. Everybody puts the accent on the first syllable in German.
Oh man, you're two years younger than I. You… give me such an… adult impression… :-}
Posted by: Qwerty | June 25, 2009 11:44 AM
PZ forgot one important item for those who post vigorously and often. Don't assume that someone who's just posted is a "troll" because their name is similar to someone who has been banned.
I initially posted as "Kenny P" and didn't understand why I was being attached by the "Troll Patrol" until I read that a certain "Kenny" had been banned for gross stupidity.
Posted by: Qwerty | June 25, 2009 11:52 AM
Duhhhh..... I meant "attacked by the 'Troll Patrol.'"
Ahhhhh, I must have gone to the Rev. BDC's Touched Typists School where bacon is served with everything!
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
June 25, 2009 11:53 AM
lol, thanks. Incidentally, I felt exactly the same way when you mentioned once how old you are. Damn overachieving nerd! :-p
but I don't actually think I'm younger than you (my school history is ridiculously complicated). I was born in 1982.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 25, 2009 11:59 AM
Oh. Me too.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 25, 2009 12:01 PM
(Did this comment really not go through? I refreshed twice.)
Oh. Me too.
Posted by: Qwerty | June 25, 2009 12:03 PM
If Cuttlefish could get his wish
And never have to rhyme,
There's be no poem. Perhaps no OM?
Now, that would be a crime.
Posted by: Stu
|
June 25, 2009 12:14 PM
God-damned whippersnappers! Get off my lawn!
*shakes withered knobby old fist*
Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | June 25, 2009 12:42 PM
yukky
Fuck is yukky.
My mom told me so.
Posted by: Carlie | June 25, 2009 3:38 PM
I suddenly feel so old.
Posted by: Kel | June 25, 2009 6:22 PM
I did graduate high school in 2002.Posted by: mas528 | June 25, 2009 6:31 PM
I am probably too late here, and I am probably going to get flamed on and on for this, but this has been a bug in my bonnet for a while:
Re: duplicate posts
If they are doing it maliciously like the poster that wrote the same 3-4 lines in 60-70 posts, then yes, no amount of venom is enough.
In almost any other case, I feel that you all are blaming the victim.
It is far too easy to double post on scienceblogs.
I think that I have seen veteran users who already know about the posting flaw accidentally post more than once.
I do not care that there is an error message. An error message is *not* a substitute for fixing programming flaws.
In an web environment, people tend to scan rather than read. It took me almost nine months to understand that.
As web designers it is incumbent upon us ('us' as in programmers like me, not the biologist type around here) to do all that we can do to try and prevent the user from even being able to make an error.
The blame should go to a long standing bug in the ScienceBlogs posting code.
This bug has been around for at least six months, and if i recall correctly, it has been more than a year.
This is a blog which allows comments. So the blogger and the successive commenters should have a smooth and effortless experience.
Posted by: John Morales | June 26, 2009 8:38 AM
mas528, you have a point. OTOH, the sheer volume of comments is good evidence that it doesn't deter commenters, eh? ;)
So how much incentive is there for SB to fix things? They get plenty of eyeballs on their pages, it's all they can expect. No need to expend more resources to improve it at this point.
</cynicism>
PS I note the sitemeter at the bottom of the page, as I write this comment, registers 50,344,878.
Posted by: DethB4DCaf
|
June 26, 2009 8:32 PM
Several obvious observations..
I'd like to thank Acronym Jim at 200 for this gem of gems:
>>>
What's this about Grammar Nazis? My Grammar was not a fascist.
Well, okay she was, but she wasn't a National Socialist.
I also feel really old now, having graduated from high school before many of the extremely sharp persons who continue to make this blog my favorite place to lurk and randomly leave comments... generally well after others have moved onto other threads (-; (-;
Posted by: caitlan | June 26, 2009 10:30 PM
I skimmed the banned list- how exhausting for you :( .