In the comments to a previous post, "rebel scientist" Louis Savain made the following statements:
I have made a falsifiable prediction about the human cerebellum based on my interpretation of certain Biblical metaphors. If you can falsify it, do so. Otherwise, your lame attempt at ridiculing my person is just that, lame. You wanted falsifiability, you’re gonna get it. Lots of it.
I commented:
Excellent. I expect to enjoy reading your research papers in neurobiological journals.
and he retorted with:
Forget it. I believe in going directly to the customer, i.e., the public whom you despise, but who ultimately pays for all science research. They are my peers. I’ll stay away from politically-correct publications, thank you very much. Like I said, see you around. And stay tuned. ahahaha...
More or less typical crank tactics - avoid peer review because, well, it’s inconvenient to actually have to argue with scientists. The good news is that there is a new journal that might be sympathetic to Savain's research. What makes Savain unique is the laughter. Lots of laughter. As he says later in the thread, "ahahaha... ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... ahahaha..."
It turns out that Savain is also frequenting Uncommon Descent (as Mapou) where he states:
Indeed, the whole peer-review system was designed as a control mechanism intended to exclude a large part of humanity from taking part in the scientific enterprise. This is incompatible with the ideals of a democratic society, in my opinion. We did not get rid of one dictatorship to succomb [sic] under the tiranny [sic] of another.
That's like arguing the NFL draft is a tyranny because it prevents Joe Sixpack from playing on Sunday. What makes this even more amusing is that Savain then congratulates DaveScot for censoring a comment because UD is "not a public forum"!
Now Afarensis has stumbled across Savain’s latest prediction of the fall of Darwinism:
Assuming that the ID hypothesis is correct, one can argue that, since humans are the dominant species on earth, the designers must have had a special interest in us when they began their project. My hypothesis is that they are conducting an experiment, the purpose of which is to distinguish between believers and deniers. Given their vast intellect, it is certain that they anticipated the current conflict. If so, it is highly likely that they would have left us a secret message, a message so powerful that its mere publication would cause the collapse of the materialist fortress.
Anyone who has browsed Savain’s website will not be surprised to see that the secret message is left in no other scientific source than the Book of Revelation. Yes, that Book of Revelation. The one with the Seven-headed Beast and the Whore of Babylon. And horsemen.
This secret message will have a practical use - it will bring the demise of Darwinism. Savain continues:
My goal is to use my understanding of the metaphorical texts to design and build a true artificial intelligence. The Christian AI! It is only a matter of time. When that happens, the Darwinian walls will come crumbling down like the old walls of Jericho. Sweet revenge.
At this point you should be hearing the laughter in your head. Savain probably is.
[image source] [HT to Afarensis]
Humanities & Social Science
Brain & Behavior
Comments
Unfortunately for him, science is not a democracy. When the whole of humanity believed the earth was flat, it wasn't. ahahaha
Posted by: The Ridger | January 13, 2008 11:10 PM
hey, just what i wanted to read about on a website called SCIENCEblogs... rantings about some douchebag
Posted by: person | January 14, 2008 12:19 AM
Lighten up, Francis. No one forced you to read this.
Posted by: John Lynch | January 14, 2008 2:14 AM
I happen to like rantings about douchebags. They're funny.
Plus, big public rantings about douchebags serve an important function in that they help keep the public informed so that there is no possible way that the douchebags could make a credible run for high public office.
oh wait.
Well, they're still funny.
Posted by: JanieBelle | January 14, 2008 7:55 AM
I'm with JanieBelle. Public ridicule of bizarro ideas helps to expose them for what they are and help keep people from falling victim to them.
I have to give him credit for saying hypothesis instead of theory--and consistently, too. That's pretty rare among creationists. The congratulations end there, though--he tells us most of what we need to know about his ideas when he excuses himself from the peer-review process.
Posted by: Leon | January 14, 2008 3:37 PM
Does this guy remind anyone else of Professor Chaos on South Park
Posted by: PCS | January 14, 2008 4:43 PM
Ditto to JanieBelle and PCS.
Oh yeah, ahahahaha, too.
Posted by: Chris | January 14, 2008 5:29 PM
I'm with the other rubberneckers...you want to turn away at the carnage, but you recognize the car as belonging to that drunken cretin who almost hit you earlier, so sympathy is not so forthcoming. You hope to see a big ol' bump on his noggin...Aha haha ha!
Posted by: trog69 | January 14, 2008 5:37 PM
Um, okay. He's going to build an AI based on Revelations.
Right. somebody get this guy some nitrous oxide.
And a couple of computer science textbooks.
And an MP3 of Nelson laughing.
Ha HA!
Posted by: DLC | January 14, 2008 6:46 PM
Holy crap, this guy is a serious fucking kook. At he least he's explicit in stating that he'd rather not deal with actual scientists, most cranks I encounter dance around that point and mumble something about "academic censorship".
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 14, 2008 7:39 PM
Still not quite as kooky as the time cube guy. That's the standard to beat. It's not easy to be raving lunatic. There's some serious competition out there.
Posted by: JW | January 14, 2008 8:34 PM
Let's cut him some slack by giving him all of Ben Stein's Money.
Posted by: Russell | January 14, 2008 10:22 PM
Please, humanity has seen enough starts of holier-than-thou wars.
Posted by: Stanton | January 15, 2008 12:46 AM
Assuming that the ID hypothesis is correct, one can argue that, since humans are the dominant species on earth, the designers must have had a special interest in us when they began their project. My hypothesis is that they are conducting an experiment, the purpose of which is to distinguish between believers and deniers. Given their vast intellect, it is certain that they anticipated the current conflict. If so, it is highly likely that they would have left us a secret message, a message so powerful that its mere publication would cause the collapse of the materialist fortress.
Is this a competition for "How many untestable assumptions can one squeeze into one paragraph"?
Posted by: Hawks | January 15, 2008 12:55 AM
I don't want to disturb the autodafé, but...
John, what exactly has Louis done to you except
posting questionable commentaries that he deserves
that you publicly and offensively ridicule him ?
Posted by: TSK | January 15, 2008 4:46 PM
TSK,
It's his fault for being a kook.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 15, 2008 6:11 PM
Hi Tyler,
I have heard this justification before.
So let's change a word:
It's his/her fault for being a nerd/geek.
Sounds common, doesn't it ? Do you or
others remember which kind of...activities
were defended by this phrase during school ?
And nerds/geeks are theoretically able to stop
their socially awkward behavior, right ?
Posted by: TSK | January 16, 2008 11:18 AM
TSK,
I do think that there are times when disrespect is warranted. I have never felt bound to respect willful ignorance and dissembling.
Having said that, I also do not agree with Tyler that being a "kook" is sufficient. However, willful ignorance and deliberate dissembling are much more than merely being kookie.
Jim51
Posted by: Jim51 | January 17, 2008 2:56 PM
Please note that by "kook" I basically mean someone who is deliberately dishonest and self-congratulatory over peddling nonsense. I don't mean someone who is genuinely mentally ill. As someone who suffers from a mental illness I would never condone such behavior, but I have seen no solid evidence that Mr. Savian is genuinely mentally ill.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | January 18, 2008 7:16 PM
Jim,
your post does not address an important point: One is relatively free in his options to show "disrespect". And it is considered ethical if these options vary with the degree of the offense, the reaction of the offender and most of all stop confrontations and revenge. My personal favorite is that if a person wants to attack and fight me, I will never answer that person again. Works like a charm, the attacker thinks he has defeated me and I have my peace.
A blog must expect that sometimes a commenter will come up with rather unorthodox views and I for myself cannot find an ethical reason to pillory him for that.
This view seems to be not shared on other blogs, unfortunately even (or because ?) on the most prominent ones. I don't change anything and recognizing that I will stick more and more to blogs which I find personally comfortable.
John, I am not a goody-goody, so don't take my view as a sermon, but a hint.
Posted by: TSK | January 18, 2008 10:02 PM
Interesting discussion here about this guy Louis Savain, especially those who want to call him a kook because of his unethical and dishonest ways.
Well, to add to the discussion, I actually caught this guy a few years ago on Digg with multiple accounts that were in direct violation of the ToS, and he just laughed them off. Check out the comment stream to this story to see what he did:
http://www.digg.com/general_sciences/It_s_Here_The_First_Mass_Producible_Quantum_Computer_Chip?t=618370#c618370
As I just mentioned elsewhere, this guy, like us all, have the 1st amendment that protect us from spouting whatever stupidity we all like. More power to him. But he's a verifiable liar and his inconsistant ethical lapses only serve to reinforce the fact that he types nonsense. Yet, manages to drive traffic his way. Too bad he'll never realize how insignificant he really is.
Posted by: Motorbikematt
| January 22, 2008 2:29 AM