Poe's Law gets invoked a lot here, and of course we all know Godwin's Law, but did you know the other eight laws in this list of internet rules and laws? I understand that if you violate them, the internet police will slap you with internet fines, and if you're a very bad person, you can even be served with time in the internet dungeon.
Search
Profile
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.
Random Quote
Many years ago Christian pioneers had to fight savage Indians. Today missionaries of these former cultures are being sent via the public schools to heathenize our children.
[Phylis Schlafly's Eagle Forum]
Recent Posts
- Biology teaches that sexual deviancy is normal
- Mary's Monday Metazoan: Ambition!
- Our illness is their profit
- Friday Cephalopod: NUMBERLESS HOSTS!
- Dear Jezebel
- There Will Be Blood?
- Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation
- Friday Cephalopod: Feasibility trial successful
- Making excuses
- More bad science in the literature
A Taste of Pharyngula
Recent Comments
- Day2u on American political conservatism impedes the understanding of science
- David Marjanović on Our illness is their profit
- David Marjanović on Biology teaches that sexual deviancy is normal
- David Marjanović on More bad science in the literature
- Stanton on Biology teaches that sexual deviancy is normal
- David Marjanović on Zooming in on the Origin of Life Science Foundation
- Jeanette Garcia on Mary's Monday Metazoan: Ambition!
- sandra - juegos de mario on Our illness is their profit
- Owlmirror on More bad science in the literature
- Tumara Baap on Our illness is their profit
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
Blogroll
Other Information
« What took him so long? | Main | Doug Wilson is a nasty piece of work »
More articles by PZ Myers can be found on Freethoughtblogs at the new Pharyngula!
I didn't know we had a rule book!
Category: Weblogs
Posted on: October 27, 2009 9:40 AM, by PZ Myers
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/123351
Leave a comment
HTML commands: <i>italic</i>, <b>bold</b>, <a href="url">link</a>, <blockquote>quote</blockquote>
Comments
Posted by: nathaniel-tagg.myopenid.com
|
October 27, 2009 9:52 AM
Didn't you hear? Geocities shut down.
(rimshot)
Posted by: Thomas | October 27, 2009 9:54 AM
There is also Halibut's law: The the degree of inflexibility, emphatic-ness or un-subtlety of a statement made on an internet forum is generally inversely proportional to the poster's qualifications to make said statement.
Posted by: The Science Pundit
|
October 27, 2009 9:57 AM
I had heard of Rule 34 before (back when Dragons Having Sex With Cars was going around teh webz), but Danth's Law is new to me and I like it!
Posted by: Cycle Ninja
|
October 27, 2009 10:02 AM
The example that went with Danth's law is completely priceless.
So PZ, what would Myers' Law state?
Posted by: Sastra | October 27, 2009 10:13 AM
Very nice list. Here are a few more Internet Laws - or laws which have something to do with our discussions:
Formosa's Law
"The truly insane have enough on their plates without us adding to it." That is, flaming someone with an obvious mental problem can't make it any better.
Rennie's Law of Credibility
Scientists don't always know best about matters of science-but they're more likely to be right than the critics who make that argument.
1st Corollary to the Law of Credibility
The first job of any scientific fraud is to persuade the public that science is itself unscientific.
2nd Corollary to the Law of Credibility
Any iconoclast with a scientifically unorthodox view who reminds you that Galileo was persecuted too…ain't Galileo.
(John Rennie)
Raymond's Law of Consequences
The road to hell has often been paved with good intentions. Therefore, evil is best recognized not by its motives but by its methods. (Eric S. Raymond)
Humphrey's Law of the Efficacy of Prayer
In a dangerous world there will always be more people around whose prayers for their own safety have been answered than those whose prayers have not. (Nicholas Humphrey)
Dawkins's Law of Adversarial Debate
When two incompatible beliefs are advocated with equal intensity, the truth does not lie half way between them.
Brooks' Second Law
If you don't have a solid example then your theory is not a good theory. (Rodney Brooks)
Blackmore's First Law
People's desire to believe in the paranormal is stronger than all the evidence that it does not exist.
Posted by: Quidam
|
October 27, 2009 10:14 AM
There's also Rule 42
There is no meaning to life spent on the internet
Posted by: Alpharabius | October 27, 2009 10:19 AM
But aren't these akin to "scientific" hypothesis on natural phenomenon. More like
Moore's law for transistors
Newton's law of gravity
and of course the "laws" of natural selection.
They really should be called the
"Theory of behavioral interaction among otherwise rational biological organisms when communicating over electronic networks."
I guess I need a smiley face here in order to satisfy Poe's law
Posted by: Karl | October 27, 2009 10:30 AM
Karl Withakay's Laws of Concern Trolls:
More often than not, when someone says they don't have an opinion on something, it usually means they really do, but deny it so they can maintain the appearance of impartial objectivity
When someone prefaces a comment by stating what they are not, or what they don’t believe, or what they’re not sure of, it tends to be followed by a statement that shows they do have an underlying true belief and their preface was dishonest BS?
Posted by: FlameDuck | October 27, 2009 10:45 AM
I'm so tired of people comparing Godwin's law and "reductio ad Hitlerum", and automatically assuming that a comparison with Hitler is an automatic argumentative loss, unwarranted or unsubstantiated.
For example comparing Bush to Hitler is clearly wrong, because Hitler actually served his country when it called him to arms (WWI), he was an competent statesman and charismatic leader (Peace in our time, Molotov-Ribbentrop, Heim ins Reich), and he declared war against powerful nations like France and the UK who where roughly technologically equivalent, and where neighbouring states. Not all this unmanned drones and cruise missiles against a bunch of pickup's and AK's, half the way around the world.
On the other hand comparing PETA to the Nazis, and Ingrid Newkirk to Hitler is spot on.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 27, 2009 10:51 AM
Damn. I knew I should have cooked up a rule with wider applicability.
Posted by: kopd
|
October 27, 2009 10:56 AM
I compare it more to "argumentum ad nazium" because some believe that just repeating a comparison to Hitler/Nazis proves their point when it in fact proves nothing, and therefore those people can be ignored as they have no valid points.
Posted by: daveau
|
October 27, 2009 11:08 AM
I'm glad that I can finally put a proper name to the phenomenon known as Skitt's Law.
Posted by: llewelly | October 27, 2009 11:11 AM
Alright!!!!! Now I'm a superhero!!!!!Posted by: Adam C.
|
October 27, 2009 11:32 AM
Internet Dungeon? That one of those S&M porn sites? Which rules do I need to violate to get sent there?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 27, 2009 11:41 AM
Quoth the Left Sidebar:
Priceless.
So useful to explain natural selection!
Well, he didn't serve Austria-Hungary directly, he served Germany… but they were allies, and it was the same war.
Who was it again who coined Rule 34b? ("If you can think of it, Japan has done it – with schoolgirls.")
Posted by: Jennifer Ouellette | October 27, 2009 12:53 PM
They're really more like guidelines. :)
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
October 27, 2009 12:55 PM
So all I have to do is say "Pirate" to get out of them? That's easy then.
Posted by: Dr. I. Needtob Athe | October 27, 2009 12:57 PM
Rule #6 led me to the Lenski Dialogue, which is much more interesting to read. I wouldn't be surprised if it was discussed here long ago before I arrived.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Lenski_dialog
Posted by: Dancaban | October 27, 2009 12:59 PM
Hitler wasn't a politician. He did exactly what he said he would do.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 27, 2009 12:59 PM
It was.Posted by: Jack
|
October 27, 2009 1:36 PM
Rule 34 is so true. Why, I've even seen Pope Benedict porn.
(Okay, I haven't really but I wanted to plant that disturbing idea in a few heads. I'm mean like that)
Also, what Flameduck said. Too many people think that simply parroting the word "Godwin" when Hitler or the Nazis are used to make a point is enough to invalidate an argument. It isn't: it is sometimes perfectly valid to do so.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
October 27, 2009 1:49 PM
Bill Donohue is scouring the internet for it right now! ...As research for his next scathing article, of course.
Posted by: Tom Rooney
|
October 27, 2009 2:00 PM
The socialist internet rulers with their internet rules are taking away my internet freedoms. The jack-booted internet police will need to pry my internet gun out of my cold dead internet hands!
Posted by: TheBiologista | October 27, 2009 2:02 PM
Uh oh... they invoked 4ch*n.
Posted by: Michael Bowen | October 27, 2009 2:15 PM
Bowen's Law of E-mail:
Each FWD: on an unsolicited e-mail reduces the chance the e-mail is accurate by 90%.
Posted by: Hampus | October 27, 2009 2:37 PM
I always worry that mentioning rules 1 and 2 is a violation of those same rules.
Posted by: Hampus | October 27, 2009 2:40 PM
@21
Don't do it, anon! Please, have mercy!
Posted by: Jimmy Groove
|
October 27, 2009 3:50 PM
I can't believe they left out Groove's 3 Laws of Argument (alright, I can believe it, because they were never that popular.)
Groove's First Law - Argument by assertion doesn't work -- This refers specifically to people who continue to make the same assertion over and over again, and who never supply any of the logic or data which would back up that assertion. Obviously a person can make an assertion (I just did), but an assertion with no willingness to support it is powerless. Atheists don't say "Atheism is true, so there!" but yet many theists think they can do the equivalent with their religion and it will have an impact.
Groove's Second Law - Arguments which could equally support contradictory positions cannot be used to support your own position -- This in particular applies to arguments like watch/watchmaker and the like, in which someone tries to argue that the universe needs a creator,so it has to be the Christian God, ignoring all the other possibilities even if the postulated need for the creator was true.
Groove's Third Law - Arguing your position with someone is not effect unless you make an attempt to understand their position -- Most violations of other rules come down to this one. Rather than trying to empathize and seeing where the other person is coming from, a person responds only to their own view of that person, a few which is often completely inaccurate. This is a hard law because total empathy is impossible, but that does not excuse a complete lack of attempt. And note that while this certainly has an emotional element to it, it isn't just that; understanding the logic someone is using is critical to explaining your position as well.
Posted by: Phodopus
|
October 27, 2009 4:23 PM
Maybe I've missed it in one of the previous posts, but I think there oughta be a law,
"The more a poster tries to get away with homophobic, racist or similar views, the more likely it is that he will state that his/her best frieds belong to said group"
hm, unfortunately its not limited to internet discussions at all...
Posted by: Rrr | October 27, 2009 4:26 PM
Whoa there on the cannibaloney! :-)
Posted by: Jimmy Groove
|
October 27, 2009 4:27 PM
Sounds like we just got Phodopus' First Law.
Posted by: Tom Davidson | October 27, 2009 4:33 PM
I'm incensed!
The law given as Skitt's Law in the link above, with a reputed origin of 1998, is in fact Davidson's Law. I can demonstrate prior art on the Internet from 1996, and no doubt could find USENET priors from even earlier if I were bothered to track down an archive. :)
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | October 27, 2009 6:15 PM
I have a small law, relevant to my interests.
Cath's Law: Any discussion of a new species must eventually include speculation as to how it would taste.
Posted by: Kel, OM | October 27, 2009 6:34 PM
That sounds like Darwin's law to me ;)Posted by: Phodopus
|
October 27, 2009 6:43 PM
Indeed. Also, maybe alongside a short description of how stupid and therefore easy to kill it was and how the resulting dish would be received in English society. Oh well, I forgive him, he was young and hungry, and also in the Pampas.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
October 27, 2009 7:00 PM
Personally I prefer the virtual stoning imposed by the Internet Morals Squad.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 27, 2009 7:32 PM
Destroy all monsters. Ignore all rules.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
October 27, 2009 7:40 PM
I've always liked Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap.
Posted by: Rorschach | October 27, 2009 9:09 PM
Rorschach's law :
As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of someone confusing "Fuck you stupid asshole" with an ad hominem attack approaches 1.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | October 27, 2009 10:42 PM
Cole's Law:
. . . I'll get my hat . . .
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot
|
October 28, 2009 1:04 AM
Sorry Hampus (#27)
You know the rules... no exceptions
Posted by: Midnight Rambler
|
October 28, 2009 1:43 AM
Somebody in the comments section at the Telegraph posted it (is it really original though?):