Sandwiched between Jodie Foster and Steve Pinker

These intuitive arguments concerning the imperfection of the universe don't really achieve anything substantial.

These arguments are neither intuitive nor about "imperfection." The nature of the cosmos as currently understood and the story of the emergence of humans do not provide evidence for a SAP/fine-tuning argument.

I estimate that about 10 to the -11 of a percent of the observable universe is life-friendly. But maybe that's superb for a typical logically possible universe.

And it's estimated that about 90% of the universe is dark matter - the universe is clearly well suited to its existence. So again, why is there no fine-tuning argument seeking to account for that? The people trying to understand dark matter are, I'd wager, far more likely to develop insights into the formation of the universe than those who out of vanity put carbon-based life (and human life in particular) at the center of their analyses. But you can pick anything that exists or has existed in the universe and view it in these terms. It's completely arbitrary, and you haven't justified your selection on any scientific basis (nor could you, because it comes straight from religion).

For example, it's very difficult to see how more than 0% of a universe operating by Newtonian mechanics could be life-friendly.

Yes, if things were different, they would be different. The fct that te more we understand about our universe the less significant and the more incidental we appear to it doesn't stop people from insisting that we're central. And apparently no evidence or careful consideration will sway them from this religious view. Anything can be seen as consistent with this idea.

It's impossible to know how "good" our universe is in the sea of possible universes, unless you actually do the analysis. Some physicists who have conclude that our universe is surprisingly well-suited to life.

"Surprisingly well-suited"? Idiotic. We know that adequate conditions exist for carbon-based life somewhere in the universe because it exists, just as adequate conditions exist for any number of things, because they also exist. To go from this to fine tuning for one phenomenon requires an arrogant leap of faith.

Oh, piss off. I said I'm an atheist. Not my fault you're too stupid to understand any argument that's more subtle than vilifying anyone who doesn't share your position.

If you are a true atheist, then shut up about your imaginary deistic god. After all, this is an atheist blog. If you keep talking incoherently about your imaginary friend, then you are a godbot. See, logic 101. So, which are you?

Oh, piss off. I said I'm an atheist.

Such anger! Such vulgar language! Your atheist self-identity really means a lot to you, I guess.

But you can pick anything that exists or has existed in the universe and view it in these terms. It's completely arbitrary, and you haven't justified your selection on any scientific basis (nor could you, because it comes straight from religion).

Straight from religion? So, allegedly atheist physicists like Weinberg and Susskind, who've devoted much time and effort to the anthropic principle and don't think the focus on human life is "arbitrary", are getting their ideas "straight from religion".

Yes, if things were different, they would be different. The fct that te more we understand about our universe the less significant and the more incidental we appear to it doesn't stop people from insisting that we're central.

A highly debatable point. As has been mentioned earlier on this thread, some first-rate physicists believe the very existence of the universe hinges on human consciousness. This ia a conclusion physicists have been fighting since the 1930s, without any distinct success.

"Surprisingly well-suited"? Idiotic. We know that adequate conditions exist for carbon-based life somewhere in the universe because it exists, just as adequate conditions exist for any number of things, because they also exist. To go from this to fine tuning for one phenomenon requires an arrogant leap of faith.

Thanks, you've proven you haven't the first fucking clue just what on Earth you're talking about. You apparently think you can sidestep decades of extremely recondite debate among some of the worlds greatest scientists with a few glib, lazy little slogans.

This one looks familiar...but I can't quite tag him.

Well Therion just proved himself to be liar, since he continued his flawed godbot argument. He is no atheist. We don't give a shit what other people think. Argument from authority is irrelevant, as we think for ourselves. Try another forum. You have used up your goodwill here.

Straight from religion? So, allegedly atheist physicists like Weinberg and Susskind, who've devoted much time and effort to the anthropic principle and don't think the focus on human life is "arbitrary", are getting their ideas "straight from religion".

I'm not going to get into these arguments about the assorted variants of the AP that have nothing to do with deism. Any chosen focus is arbitrary, and can only be justified in terms of the larger question(s) you're trying to answer. You have to be blind not to recognize the religious origins and continuing relationship; Freeman certainly makes these very clear. (On a much smaller scale, would you seek to understand earth history from a human-centric perspective because we eventually evolved here?)

A highly debatable point. As has been mentioned earlier on this thread, some first-rate physicists believe the very existence of the universe hinges on human consciousness. This ia a conclusion physicists have been fighting since the 1930s, without any distinct success.

Please.

Thanks, you've proven you haven't the first fucking clue just what on Earth you're talking about. You apparently think you can sidestep decades of extremely recondite debate among some of the worlds greatest scientists with a few glib, lazy little slogans.

Your entire argument appears to lack substance and to rest on your awe of smart dudes. You're one of these people who, if someone's not following your script and arguing in precisely the terms you've come to expect, throws a little "respect their autoritah" tantrum.

Well Therion just proved himself to be liar, since he continued his flawed godbot argument. He is no atheist.

I argue that (a) quantum mechanics has given us reason to consider whether human consciousness has special priority in the universe, and (b) the notion of fine-tuning mightn't in fact be dismissible bullshit. This, apparently, makes me a "godbot" who was lying about being an atheist. What a simplistic, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, ignoramus Neanderthal dullard this Nerd of Redhead is.

From Wikipedia, by the way (sorry - can't help myself):

In a lecture titled "The Confusion of Cause and Effect in Bad Science," the paleophysicist Caroline Miller said:[51]

"The Anthropic Principle is based on the underlying belief that the universe was created for our benefit. Unfortunately for its adherents, all of the reality-based evidence at our disposal contradicts this belief. In a nonanthropocentric universe, there is no need for multiple universes or supernatural entities to explain life as we know it."

...Steven Jay Gould [55] [56], Michael Shermer[57] and others claim that the Anthropic Principle seems to reverse known causes and effects. Gould compared the claim that the universe is fine-tuned for the benefit of our kind of life to saying that sausages were made long and narrow so that they could fit into modern hotdog buns, or saying that ships had been invented to house barnacles. These critics cite the vast physical, fossil, genetic, and other biological evidence consistent with life having been fine-tuned through natural selection to adapt to the physical and geophysical environment in which life exists. Life appears to have adapted to physics, and not vice versa.

This includes the evolution of consciousness, of course.

Any chosen focus is arbitrary, and can only be justified in terms of the larger question(s) you're trying to answer. You have to be blind not to recognize the religious origins and continuing relationship; Freeman certainly makes these very clear.

Lots of people who take seriously the anthropic arguments and fine-tuning aren't the slightest bit religious. Your notion is clearly preposterous.

All this stuff about how focusing on human life is "arbitrary" seems to miss the point of the anthropic principle altogether.

Your entire argument appears to lack substance and to rest on your awe of smart dudes. You're one of these people who, if someone's not following your script and arguing in precisely the terms you've come to expect, throws a little "respect their autoritah" tantrum.

Since we're talking about physics, and since neither of us are qualified as professionals in that area of expertise, it seems legitimate to pass the buck to professional physicists somewhat, yes. I cited not only mystical physicists, but also reputedly sober-minded atheist physicists with no mystical views at all. It is the height of arrogance to assume you don't need to pay them any attention and can just say whatever you feel like, straight off the top of your head.

These critics cite the vast physical, fossil, genetic, and other biological evidence consistent with life having been fine-tuned through natural selection to adapt to the physical and geophysical environment in which life exists. Life appears to have adapted to physics, and not vice versa.

Not only wrong and ignorant, but hilariously wrong and ignorant. What a schoolboy howler.

Therion, all your arguments are mental masturbation. There is no connection until the physical evidence is available to scientifically show the connection. I know that, since I have been a working scientist for 30+ years. Your speculation until then is bullshit. We have told you that, and your inability to understand us says something about your lack of intellect. We are bored with your inane speculation. Take it elsewhere.

Lots of people who take seriously the anthropic arguments and fine-tuning aren't the slightest bit religious. Your notion is clearly preposterous.

You really are dense. I never said every person who "takes seriously" the AP in any form is religious. (Gah, it's like arguing with heddle). The connection to religion (or, in diluted form, simply the arrogance characteristic of it) is obvious.

All this stuff about how focusing on human life is "arbitrary" seems to miss the point of the anthropic principle altogether.

Once again, any focus is arbitrary. What we claim needs to be explained should rest on empirical evidence and the questions we seek to answer, and not on assumptions. I want to hear the scientific justification for focusing on the fact that the universe permits in at least one place the formation of carbon-based life in seeking to understand the origins and formation of the cosmos - not that this is nontrivial, but why it's preferred to a Dark Matter Principle or any other principle derived from or more in keeping with the evidence.

Since we're talking about physics, and since neither of us are qualified as professionals in that area of expertise, it seems legitimate to pass the buck to professional physicists somewhat, yes.

We're talking about more than physics, and you're referring to a subset of people. As has been pointed out to you above, scientists, including brilliant ones, can think dumb things that are not really supported by the evidence. It happens all the time. They can also waste a great deal of time on trivialities and dead ends. So the fact that some people who hold an idea are smart, "first-rate," or whatever fawning adjectives you want to cling to has no bearing on the value of the ideas. You really need to try to separate ideas and arguments from people.

I cited not only mystical physicists, but also reputedly sober-minded atheist physicists with no mystical views at all.

So?

It is the height of arrogance to assume you don't need to pay them any attention

How is making arguments about what they're saying paying them no attention?

and can just say whatever you feel like, straight off the top of your head.

Respect their autoritah!

Second vote for bored.

*Thank goodness I found that cache of munitions earlier this morning*

*Peeks up from trenches*

*Looks like the local civilians are out and about. I may be able to blend in undetected to get within striking range*

*Creeps up very very slowly*

Then....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTkB9kRCU6U

Not only wrong and ignorant, but hilariously wrong and ignorant. What a schoolboy howler.

How so? And what is your response to Caroline Miller?

*rolls out from behind cover*
*rises to a knee*
*squeezes off a round and drops back*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rfD8NQLO8w

*UGGGH*

How dare you fire that at us?!
I can ban you from the spanking couch Bastion.

He was aiming for me, Patricia. Sorry if you got some of the WP on you.

Hummm. Very well, but I am going to keep my eye on his paddle for the rest of the day.

THAT sort of kack plays hell on my ruby slippers.

*squeezes off a round and drops back*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rfD8NQLO8w

What?! You think you can do damage by refiring the ammo used by Ichthyic way back in #375?!

Ha! My last shot seems to have addled my opponent!!

Now before he can recover...another crime catapult...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZL_tZxyBDo

As has been pointed out to you above, scientists, including brilliant ones, can think dumb things that are not really supported by the evidence. It happens all the time. They can also waste a great deal of time on trivialities and dead ends. So the fact that some people who hold an idea are smart, "first-rate," or whatever fawning adjectives you want to cling to has no bearing on the value of the ideas. You really need to try to separate ideas and arguments from people.

You keep going on about this. You're missing the boat. My point isn't merely that they're "brilliant". I don't think you understand that by pooh-poohing the anthropic principle you stand against the vast majority of physicists. (And not only physicists, but also, for instance, Richard Dawkins, who has mused about the anthropic principle in at least two of his books.) This doesn't prove you're wrong, but it does suggest that you should adopt a more deferential and less cocksure tone. It seems unlikely that all these people have been for years falling foul of some elementary blunder that you can expose in a few haughty sentences. A priori, isn't it more probable that you're simply not understanding something properly or are ignorant of a few important details?

Might respond to the rest of your post later.

Hey, if you can pick up unspent ammo off the ground, so can I!

I can ban you from the spanking couch Bastion.

*gasp*

Oh, please, please, please...anything but that!

What can I possibly do to make this up to you?!!

*pop*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpPdLb69-qk

Therion, we defer to nobody (except for PZ, as this is his blog). What part of that don't you understand?

...it does suggest that you should adopt a more deferential and less cocksure tone...a few haughty sentences...

Damn, that sexist crap sure sounds familiar.

Hey, if you can pick up unspent ammo off the ground, so can I!

Bah! I laugh at your impotent recycled weaponry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-L0NpaErkk

Bastion - You could go fire at something worth while *cough*troll *cough on the Creationists are liars thread.

Apparently Therion is putting forth the proposition that (s)he, Therion, is incompetent to judge the usefulness of the anthropic principle, since Therion in not a physicist.

In this, Therion is entirely correct. Therion is not a physicist. Neither is Therion competent, in any respect so far demonstrated.

Bastion - You could go fire at something worth while *cough*troll *cough on the Creationists are liars thread.

Thy will be done.

I want to hear more about Jodie Foster sandwiches, because this deism subthread has started to get a little boring for me too.... Alas, and I hate terrible music.

Therion @ #508:
"(a) quantum mechanics has given us reason to consider whether human consciousness has special priority in the universe, and (b) the notion of fine-tuning mightn't in fact be dismissible bullshit."

Let's get this straight: I'm only a lowly musician, but I can understand why your (a) argument is either stated very poorly or is utterly garbage. Let me try to explain it simply: photons bouncing off particles into our eyes doesn't give humans or our consciousness "special priority in the universe". Every animal species (or almost every one, I assume) can observe with one sense or another, and I'd argue that entails at least a basic form of consciousness. There goes human priority. Your (b) argument seems to have been well-demolished already, and you haven't been pushing respect for fine-tuning quite so much as deism anyway.

To reiterate:
Me: an unemployed agnostic-atheist musician who loves learning about science, bacon, and atheist babies wielding bacon-torches.
Heisenberg: found some BS compelling.
Dyson: found some BS compelling.
Einstein: found some BS compelling.
Me: still not caring.

this deism subthread has started to get a little boring for me too.... Alas, and I hate terrible music.

What about puns? Or has their already been enough pun-ishment on this thread?

A highly debatable point. As has been mentioned earlier on this thread, some first-rate physicists believe the very existence of the universe hinges on human consciousness.

This has always struck me as the height of hubris. For centuries science kept showing us that we are not the center of the universe. Now some egotistical people are claiming "oh no, humanity is the center."

I have no problem with the Weak Anthropic Principle. It's obvious that the universe is capable of supporting sentient life because we're here. If the universe was incapable of such support, we wouldn't be here. It's like the old joke "If your parents didn't have any children, chances are good you won't either."

However the Strong Anthropic Principle insists that we must be here. As I said previously, it's based on the idea that "I'm the most important thing in the universe, the universe revolves around ME, therefore I am the sole reason for the existence of the universe." Which is so much narcissistic bullshit.

Here's one just for Bastion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpE3Fv9W--A

And one to keep Josh's head down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG1SVKipKZE

Then your response to SAWells @ #471 is just bizarre. With whom are you arguing? I think you're confused.

I was playing devil's advocate; it's something I do a lot. Trying to understand the other person's point of view.

SC posted an objection to fine tuning. I pointed out that his objection is irrelevant - a fine tuned universe would look like the one we are in.

The argument I gave (that a fine tuned universe which allows humans to evolve in it is necessarily going to be old, and will go through a phase with humans on one planet) has been presented by numerous writers as an example of the Anthropic Principle. I may be doing a shitty job of putting it forward.

In other words: SC put forward a bad argument against Therion's deism. Without being on Therion's side, I was trying to point out that his argument was flawed.

Of course it's going to be on one tiny planet... the chance of humans evolving separately on multiple planets would be insane.

Not if the universe were really finely-tuned for them. A lot of things are not confined to one small part of the universe.

Now you are mis-representing the fine-tuning argument; it's based on the laws of physics we understand now, and saying that a handful of important constants were adjusted to be "just right".

This means that evolution would still be the only way for a species to come about, and evolution will not produce the same species on multiple planets. No matter what level of fine-tuning you imagine. Analogous species, yes. The same, no.

And one to keep Josh's head down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG1SVKipKZE

Oh you did not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3SfcANH-9A

Here's one just for Bastion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpE3Fv9W--A

You need to resort to 60s era weaponry?! Is that in the rules of engagement?!!

Surely, you can't have exhausted your supply of 70s bombs yet. I haven't. I've still got some good stuff in my arsenal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izQB2-Kmiic

*pops up*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmExAiCcaPk

Josh,

I see your Helen Reddy, and raise you...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8arLxJMjpA

Now I'm forced to use a couple of bombs that I'd hoped would remain stored in the bunker:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZuVHQcZlNA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9K4BKkLaCI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-KPGh3wysw

'Tis. I sneer at your http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZuVHQcZlNA and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9K4BKkLaCI.

Now, go ahead, punk, peek. I dare you. [Warning to Patricia. Put on your crocs!!!]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGNdvKvbxYQ

*pops*...*pops*...*pops in*
Ichthyic monk technology is hard!
Just popped in to add absolutly nothing to this conversation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgkSvIqbWvc

**poop...*pops out*

You keep going on about this. You're missing the boat. My point isn't merely that they're "brilliant". I don't think you understand that by pooh-poohing the anthropic principle you stand against the vast majority of physicists. (And not only physicists, but also, for instance, Richard Dawkins, who has mused about the anthropic principle in at least two of his books.)

I think we need to establish clearly which variant of the AP we're talking about and what you mean specifically when you use terms like "flirted" or "mused about."

This doesn't prove you're wrong, but it does suggest that you should adopt a more deferential and less cocksure tone.

Nah.

It seems unlikely that all these people have been for years falling foul of some elementary blunder that you can expose in a few haughty sentences.

Highly unlikely, but it would be totally friggin' cool.

Now you are mis-representing the fine-tuning argument; it's based on the laws of physics we understand now, and saying that a handful of important constants were adjusted to be "just right".

This means that evolution would still be the only way for a species to come about, and evolution will not produce the same species on multiple planets. No matter what level of fine-tuning you imagine. Analogous species, yes. The same, no.

In fact, I think most have retreated from the idea that it's about humans, and suggested that it's about "sentient life."

Your other recent post hurts my head. I can't figure out what you're saying or to whom you're saying it, to be honest.

I spit upon your feeble parry with "Timothy." I like that song. I listen to it every morning as I put shredded baby on my breakfast Cheerios.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfVJ11GXzXQ

OK Just to muddle the waters amongst combatants.

Mathematics is a language that helps us see sub-atomic particles.
When in fact the community treats the results as a wave of matter/energy.
To postulate:If all matter/energy was in harmony you would not be able to percieve.It is only due to dis-harmony that we exist at all.
And if everything was in harmony in the begining,well...inconclusive.
This view is no more relevant or no less than CMB.

However, it does lend a tone to religion or this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHNfRV0OtPo

*pops*...out

Gee, thanks for all the great music guys. What can I do but repay you in kind?
1
2
3
Does that count as going nuclear?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4UgcOPx2o0

*lieing on the floor concussed*
*reaches for the det button*

*gasp*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K37BhzM0I8I&feature=related

And not only physicists, but also, for instance, Richard Dawkins, who has mused about the anthropic principle in at least two of his books.

I think we need to establish clearly which variant of the AP we're talking about…

Absolutely. This version is not the one that I've heard Dawkins espouse. Dawkins's version of the anthropic principle is essentially the tautology that the universe that we're in must be the kind of universe that supports human life because we're in it and able to talk about it; had it been otherwise, we wouldn't be here to perceive it, so discussion of its likelihood is a bit daft. IIRC, he and Steven Weinberg discuss this, and agree, in the Voices of Science interview.The version being discussed here seems to be that “the universe is how it is because of our presence” — a very different notion that reverses cause and effect, and reeks of religious anthropocentrism, mysticism and teleology — a perversion of the anthropic principle as I understand it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI

*sees the blood everywhere*

*shakes head*

You all can run if you like--you're just gonna die tired.

*puts team ball cap on*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C-eVa4eweA&feature=related

Take this, vile varlet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AM4ADoVc6TU&feature=related

Sorry, Nanu--that round has already been put down range.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/sandwiched_between_jodie_fos…

:[

That's the only one I have. I don't even have a nuclear program! I AM SEVERELY LACKING IN MILITARY BACKING

*slowly bleeding to death from the Travolta tactics*
*realizing kindness doesn't kill*
*finds ammo under the entrails the 60's*
*loads sticky ammo in weapon*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGL4btEIoTo

*dies singing*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1loyjm4SOa0

Ahhh, 'Tis--that was fuckin' brutal.

*wipes blood from under brim of very singed team cap*

*does a mag switch*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1tghvb6WqA

*looks down at smoking holes in body armor from Sphere's final onslaught*

*raises weapon toward 'Tis*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCnYTl-5avw

Therion #511 wrote:

These critics cite the vast physical, fossil, genetic, and other biological evidence consistent with life having been fine-tuned through natural selection to adapt to the physical and geophysical environment in which life exists. Life appears to have adapted to physics, and not vice versa. Not only wrong and ignorant, but hilariously wrong and ignorant. What a schoolboy howler.

Is this response to the claim that the universe appears to be fine-tuned for life really a "schoolboy howler?" I think it's a perfectly reasonable response to common expressions of wonder over, say, planet earth being just the right temperature for human beings -- think how horrible it would be for us had we evolved on Jupiter instead!

How fine a target do we need for fine-tuning to be needed? Someone mentioned the universe being fine-tuned for dark matter, because it is so abundant. But what about the universe being fine-tuned for PZ Myers -- because he is not so abundant? Why stop at life in general? Think of all the contingencies of ancestor meeting ancestor; the mathematical odds against PZ being here is astronomically -- maybe even miraculously -- high. Yet here is is.

If we had a universe with different constants, we might have a different kind of life. Or none at all. And yet the universe would still exist, in some other way. Why do you think this completely misses the point of the Fine-Tuning Argument? I'm confused.

I know nothing of the rules of this game, but would it be safe to guess that the first person that uses "The Bird" is the looser?

...but would it be safe to guess that the first person that uses "The Bird" is the looser?

I dunno...you could always try it...

*locks and loads*

This bird?

You're bringing in the Transportation Corps, eh, Josh. Well, two can play at that game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4HhFY3ljZc&feature=related

*As I had already succombed to death, I was drawn back to this world by a convoy from yesteryear*.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PciMH7nO5wY&feature=related

aaaaand cut, really gottago

*parting shot*

Yes--that one exactly.

*nods approvingly*

Rev. is to be spared.

Die, geologist pig!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3YqaIxDp_0

I know nothing of the rules of this game, but would it be safe to guess that the first person that uses "The Bird" is the looser?

But I like The Bird.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZZHK73iwTk

But then, I also like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqMk-AuTDZE

Nice. Morris Day and the Time.

Oh my. What have we done?

*Pokes at Sphere Coupler's quiet, traumatized body*

*Still warm. But no signs of life. Seems to have gone with a smile on his face though.*

OK. I didn't know Sphere Coupler well, but this one's for him.

Bring it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XucbKof0HcU

Have at you, scurvy navel, er, I mean, knave:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksR0si3ZloY&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div

Wow, SC...just wow. That's some obscure shit.

*reels slightly*

*looks over at bastion and what's left of Sphere*

Hmmmm...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv-Yx-vZCGE

Oh man josh.

That song has a special kind of suck for me. If I'm at a concert and idiots are yelling out songs that the band plays and obviously can't hear them screaming, I scream muskrat love...

all night until they shut up.

As rifle volleys are fired over Sphere's grave, the band plays

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50b-Q-Z1bF0&feature=related

I might be bluffing. It's conceivable, you miserable, vomitous mass, that I'm only lying here because I lack the strength to stand. But, then again... perhaps I have the strength after all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t346BluN2Y

How much strength will you have after this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1PLT0GljPA

Oh man josh.

Yeah...sorry Rev.
Interesting concert story there, though. I was at a Crue concert once (seriously, don't ask...) and was standing on the floor screaming "Motley Crue sucks!" interspersed with "Play fucking American Pie!"

I dunno, I was drunk, and the groupies next to me kept looking at me every time I did it--as though maybe, just maybe, I was actually a more hard-core fan than them, and aware of some song they'd never heard of from Crue's garage days. I actually like that song. I guess it's really not that related to your story. Sigh...
Duck for a second, would you?

'Tis, that last one was from the fucking 60's. How did that misfire feel?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_l0as6tCcs

Okay, more wine.

Yes, Rev. that's the correct damned bird, may shit be upon it. The Pullet Patrol has standing orders to peck the eyes out of any such offender or risk martyrdom pot piedom.

*looks over at bastion and what's left of Sphere*

Hmmmm...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv-Yx-vZCGE

Snort! That was part of the critter cluster bomb @410.

Get your white flag ready, Stone Studier!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_l0as6tCcs

That's rock studier, dickhead*. Stones are building materials.

Take this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVf940pO5ME

That's right. That's right.

With fuckin' lyrics.

*yeah, I know it sounded much better the other way...

*removes tattered remains of body armor after Bastion's last volley*

Seriously--that was worse than AlienTM blood.

Josh | April 19, 2009 9:36 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_l0as6tCcs

*Im layin here,taps has been played...sorta.I'm just blowin in the wind if you will and then this?

Josh you are pure evil, evil I say. I hope 'Tis Himself and bastion of sass and others can make it, quick hold your hands over your ears...

oh and did I say PURE fuckinevil. the horror...the horror...

Wow, SC...just wow. That's some obscure shit.

*feels sheepish because she really does like it, probably due to happy associations*

*regrets wandering onto the battlefield*

So I'll share a non-obscure tune from the first concert I ever attended, which I assume someone has already posted but which has very special unpleasant memories for me*:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgkbyrVq_0w

*not least of which because the crazy people at my crazy church had me petrified that I was going to hell for listening to that "rock" music. I cried.

Here's what I propose: You'll put down your rock and I'll put down my sword, and we'll try and kill each other like civilized people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16kh-AP4OCU

Rev, you may be foolish enough to limit yourself to the post-60s, but I am not. However, this one should meet your faux requirements:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e8WxDd3Ul8

@584:

Nous Défions

Has anyone answered the age-old but vitally important question:

Who put the bomp
In the bomp bah bomp bah bomp?
Who put the ram
In the rama lama ding dong?
Who put the bop
In the bop shoo bop shoo bop?
Who put the dip
In the dip da dip da dip?
Who was that man?

Josh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_l0as6tCcs

Holy shit.

*OK a little mixed up but what the hell its dark here.
I meant, yeah go get em "bastion of sass"
Excellent choice of ammo.
Wonderfull tune and alls fair and all.*

Ya gotta know when your band's days are long over.

*glares in rage at anyone who would ever make SC cry*

Bastion, perhaps pistols at twenty paces?

Nahhh...I like carnage too much:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVdhZwK7cS8

*glares in rage at anyone who would ever make SC cry*

Aww! Admittedly, I do cry fairly easily. I should learn from song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dbf2C39kNs0

Ok, only time for ONE shot today.

*pulls out sniper rifle*

*aims at Josh*

*pewt!*

time for a bowl of hot buttered...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N4ckFN96-k&feature=related

Speaking as the self appointed music snob of Pharyngula, this thread is toxic. Are you people trying to cause each other genetic harm? Here, I offer those who are willing an antidote.

Here is an other dose.

*reels from Ichthyic's round*

Fuck.

*takes unsteady aim*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDL9rS2p_wA

*sits for a moment to recover*

This is going to take a lot of work.

Aaaaieee! I step away from the blog for a day to catch up on a pile of administrative work, and boom, you guys are committing unspeakable atrocities. All my hopes for humanity...destroyed. We are an evil species.

You're all banned. Banned, banned, banned. I'm going to have to shut down the blog and take a shotgun to the archives. The horror.

Well, except for that bit of PJ Harvey. She always calms me down. I might just wait a few minutes before pushing the big red ban button.

Get your white flag ready, Stone Studier!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_l0as6tCcs

AWWW, dammit to hell and back! The Rock Runt already flung that piece of poo!

But what's this? Josh has also reused http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVdhZwK7cS8 which 'Tis posted @542. Stalemate!

*Hands SC my white hankie for her tears. And without a white hankie THERE CAN BE NO SURRENDER!*

*Checks to see what ammo I have left. Aw, shit! May have to retreat to base to rearm after this.*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnOHk2j9HDs

Alright, here is something from the seventies. Yeah, that's right, my second video was also from the seventies.

*blinks*

I saw nothing...

NOTHING.

/Shultz

btw, "Popcorn" was the second song I can remember forcing my parents to buy me the album of.

the first was this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh-0UYCUDeE

well, OK, technically IIRC it was Tom Jones singing it instead, but you get the idea.

PZ, I also came in late to all of this. I am happy I did my part to calm you down. I would hate to see this place disappear. Especially when every here are usually so well worth reading.

the first was this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh-0UYCUDeE

Say, Josh, is that the guy you were recommending to Nerd yesterday?

Ah, the song I really wanted to throw at people has been taken down by UTube.

But, I will try this one, though it's not as good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0lKmznjgfQ&feature=related

*looks around*

PZ's right. I don't there's a blade of grass left untouched in here. A shotgun is perhaps not up to the job.

Perhaps peace is in order.

Just as long as Bastion keeps in mind, for next time, that combat isn't pretty:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwDWknR7YQE&feature=related

*gives Bastion a look*

I do have other stuff left unfired...

*clears weapon and places selector lever on safe*

*takes unsteady aim*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDL9rS2p_wA

*sits for a moment to recover*

That was also part of my critter cluster bomb @410.

Face it, stone boy, you got nuthin' left.

Uh oh. Shit! The boss is back!

*Grabs the 70s videos, and stashes them under the desk.*

You're all banned. Banned, banned, banned. I'm going to have to shut down the blog and take a shotgun to the archives. The horror.

*Looks remorseful.*

Sorry, PZ. [whine]. But the Rev started it. And Josh just kept pushing me and pushing me.

I've already been threatened by Patricia with banning once today. But I managed to crawl back into her good graces.

What can I do to make it up to you?

I am not guilty.

NO BIRD!

Bastion of Sass if I get banned you aren't getting spanked or having your bar tab rise above ZERO for a week. Josh, your paddle is in jeopardy too.

Now, now PZ...remember I'm an HERB farmer...

Sigh! All of this toxic sludge. This may not be musical but it will blow all of the fluff out of your ears.

Oh no. I finally post a video just when PZ walks in. Caught.

Damn.

Josh, your paddle is in jeopardy too.

Dammit. But Patriiiiiciaaaaaa!

*pouts a little*

And Josh just kept pushing me and pushing me.

'tis true, although apparently not so well there at the end.

*smack*

That's for "stone boy."

I will try this one, though it's not as good:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0lKmznjgfQ&feature=related

*Whispers* Uh, Sastra. PZ is back, and he doesn't look happy!

Not worth getting in trouble, especially since most of the really good stuff, including that one, has already been fired.

@Janine:

You seem to have similar preferences in music to my mate down here in NZ. She's really into PJ. Also Nick Cave and Nine-Inch Nails. I think she will like also like Neko.

any chance I could get a discography of your collection?

If you have one, or more suggestions, shoot me a msg here:

fisheyephotosAThotmailDOTcom

cheers

PZ,
I tried to stop the slaughter I really did, well not really,I did enjoy myself until Josh and his {playground in my mind} hit the battlefield.Nasty stuff, must purge...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udEDlOZJmCc

*Whispers* bastion of sass -- yes, I know, I saw him.

You mean it was already used? I must have missed it.
(Good thing "Run Joey Run" wasn't available after all, then. If PZ had seen that one, I'd be Pharyngulopped.)

Daddy please don't
It wasn't his fault
He means so much to me
Daddy please don't
We're gonna get mar-ried
(Heavenly chorus)

Sastra, you are just sick!

Okay, I'm out. Going to try and use my toothbrush to get rid of the echoes of some of those "songs."

Talk to you all in the mornin'.

Best.

OK I'm going to clean up this mess: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pd_xCURto8

Wait a minute! What are we whining about?

We're all gonna get spanked!

Huzzah! *Kermit the Frog jazz hands*

Patricia, are you the Mother Superior of Castle Anthrax?

Sweet dreams, Josh!

(Good thing "Run Joey Run" wasn't available after all, then. If PZ had seen that one, I'd be Pharyngulopped.)

*whispers*

Pssst. Sastra...#577...But don't tell PZ

Dammit. I always get found out.

Well Patricia, you made it so easy!

Oh, Ichthyic, I sent you an e-mail. If anyone else wants to contact me, I am at janphar at yahoo.

I guess this makes me an e-mail whore.

Josh wrote:

Perhaps peace is in order.

*Hopes PZ is reading.*

[Ahem] Sure, Josh, why not?

*See, PZ, we're being good. No naughtiness here. Nope.*

I still have the ducat Patricia gave me on the "Creationists are liars" thread. How 'bout a beer at the bar?

Or we can kiss and makeoutup. [And just so you all know, I'm not a "he."]

Robert Green Ingersoll -- What list could consider leaving him off? He was a brilliany speaker, writer, lawyer, politician, father and Union Army Colonel. He spoke to tens of thousands of people with his messages of Agnosticsm and Atheism. He is still honored today by freethinkers in the English speaking world. Books continue to be written about "Colonel Bob".

Sastra @ 561,

Is this response to the claim that the universe appears to be fine-tuned for life really a "schoolboy howler?" I think it's a perfectly reasonable response to common expressions of wonder over, say, planet earth being just the right temperature for human beings -- think how horrible it would be for us had we evolved on Jupiter instead!

Yes, it's a schoolboy howler, unless you're using it as a mild rebuke to a position which nobody actually espouses. (How many times have I said something like this when discussing Gould's opinions?) It misunderstands what people are actually saying. If the physicists are right that we need to be in a region of the multiverse that is suitable for life, you would expect this region's biology to appear to be adapted to the physics. Evolution by natural selection is a lot more probable than getting life by random fluke. The whole point of "anthropic focus" is that physicists are trying to find the minimum requirements for the evolution of conscious life.

However the Strong Anthropic Principle insists that we must be here. As I said previously, it's based on the idea that "I'm the most important thing in the universe, the universe revolves around ME, therefore I am the sole reason for the existence of the universe." Which is so much narcissistic bullshit.

Of course. This is why physicists have been resisting it for years. The fact is, however, that it's not an easy conclusion to avoid. It's a conclusion that seems to follow quite naturally from the present formalism of quantum mechanics. If you don't have anyone around to conduct "measurements", all you get is an abstract superposition of orthonormal eigenstates (e.g. corresponding to Schrödinger cat being both alive and dead).

I'm not saying the mystic physicists have it right. My point is that not easy to refute them. There's a reason quantum mechanics has its reputation for being weird and unsettling.

Therion,

You might be interested in this presentation:

http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/PowerPoint/Boskone_0402.ppt

There is a transactional interpretation of quantum physics that avoids need for an observer to collapse wave functions.

@Therion: as a physicist I find it very easy to avoid the Strong Anthropic Principle. The thing about the observer collapsing the wave function is a hack; a successful one, but not by any means part of a really fundamental theory. F'rinstance, Penrose has suggested that wavefunction collapse happens when the difference between two states of the universe becomes gravitationally significant; an interesting idea and doesn't need any intelligent observers.

... or it could just be quantum decoherence.

@Therion: as a physicist I find it very easy to avoid the Strong Anthropic Principle. The thing about the observer collapsing the wave function is a hack; a successful one, but not by any means part of a really fundamental theory. F'rinstance, Penrose has suggested that wavefunction collapse happens when the difference between two states of the universe becomes gravitationally significant; an interesting idea and doesn't need any intelligent observers.

Physicists have been working on this since the 1930s and still haven't come up with a formalism free of the mystical undertones (e.g. the systematic separation between observer and the rest of the world). Einstein battled it for over two decades and didn't succeed in convincing the physics community. To say it is "very easy" to avoid mystical interpretations of quantum mechanics like the strong anthropic principle is simply ridiculous.

Here is a link to the wikipedia article on teh afshar experiement mentioned in the presentation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshar_experiment

*waves at SC*

*looks around for Bastion*

*contemplates Bastion's bar suggestion*

Some might say it's a little early for a pint, but I'm a geologist. No such time exists.

As to the rest...well, yeah, absolutely.

*slides M4 innocently closer*

Africangenesis @ 630,

Thanks for the link. Bookmarked it and will check it out later today. Yes, there are formulations of quantum mechanics that have exorcised some of the evil spirits haunting the field. My point was merely that it's not easy to come up with such theories. Some people posting in this thread seem to think that they can peremptorily wave off the weird interpretations of QM with a few glib remarks. They don't realize that all the objections they raise were objections that immediately occurred to every physicist back in the 1930s.

If you don't have anyone around to conduct "measurements", all you get is an abstract superposition of orthonormal eigenstates (e.g. corresponding to Schrödinger cat being both alive and dead).

Fission track dating seems to show that a piece of crystal is enough to "measure" the outcome of a quantum event.

(...crystals? hmm, maybe the universe was not designed for ugly bags of mostly water)

*waves at SC*

*looks around for Bastion*

*contemplates Bastion's bar suggestion*

Oh, enough of this childish bullshit. It's been going on for ages now, it's not funny anymore, and it's clogging up the thread.

Oh, enough of this childish bullshit.

Therion,

this place can be like "Cheers" every now and then,people enjoying swapping cooking recipes and music,and just being silly and having some fun.
If you dont like it,go and read about quantum mechanics or something.

What? All this anthropic principle and no puddles?

Pfff you people aren't even trying hard. ;-)

In that case I'll see your Bird and raise you a

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z7W-rv8xmE&feature=related

Louis

Fission track dating seems to show that a piece of crystal is enough to "measure" the outcome of a quantum event.

No, sorry, you can't solve the foundational problems of quantum mechanics with a frivolous little observation like that.

To say it is "very easy" to avoid mystical interpretations of quantum mechanics like the strong anthropic principle is simply ridiculous.

That sounds very much like an argument from personal incredulity, aka, argumentum ad ignorantiam. Avoiding a mystical interpretation of the decision problem, for example, doesn't seem at all difficult in a multiverse. If, for example, you adopt the point of view that an observation doesn't tell you about the state of the collapsed wavefunction (each and every physical state existing in at least one verse, but probabilites/wavefunctions being universal), but instead tells you about yourself — which verse (or, rather, set of verses) you're in — you can neatly sidestep the problem without any mysticism whatever. I don't see any obvious “schoolboy howler” in this interpretation. Now, given that two alternatives have been presented in as many comments, perhaps it is very easy after all.

No, sorry, you can't solve the foundational problems of quantum mechanics with a frivolous little observation like that.

Boy, does Murray Gell-Mann have egg on his face now, since he's the one who originally made that "frivolous little observation".

But since it's so frivolous, I'm sure it would be easy to explain how fission tracks require conscious observers to form?

No, sorry, you can't solve the foundational problems of quantum mechanics with a frivolous little observation like that.

OK, how's this for a frivolous little observation then. You claim that human or other conscious observation is necessary for the Universe to behave as it does. But humans have only been around for about half a million years (if that) and the universe is around 14 billion years old. How did the Universe cope in the period prior to our being around to observe it?

At first I thought of positing intelligent aliens as a possible get out clause for you but modern cosmology, as far as I am aware, tracks back the history of the Universe to within a few nanoseconds of the big bang, so unless said intelligent aliens evolved really, really quickly the human or other conscious observation is clearly not required for the Universe to exist.

If, for example, you adopt the point of view that an observation doesn't tell you about the state of the collapsed wavefunction (each and every physical state existing in at least one verse, but probabilites/wavefunctions being universal), but instead tells you about yourself — which verse (or, rather, set of verses) you're in — you can neatly sidestep the problem without any mysticism whatever. I don't see any obvious “schoolboy howler” in this interpretation. Now, given that two alternatives have been presented in as many comments, perhaps it is very easy

If it's so easy, why isn't there consensus among physicists? Why do so many physicists, probably even a majority of them, still subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation? These are the people actually working on the problem professionally. Presumably they're all stupid.

Your description of the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics is amusingly "pop-sci". You'll find that the idea appears much less plausible when expressed in the mathematical jargon. For instance, according to the Everett formalism, when an "observer" interacts with a system, his wavefunction and the system's wavefunction interfere and always result in a superposition of degenerate eigenfunctions. We have no idea why this ought to be the case, and we have to essentially take it on faith if we go with the Everett theory. It is very peculiar, and it still assumes that observers are "special" (namely, in the way they interfere with other systems). There's a reason why this isn't yet consensus. So no, it's not "very easy".

Everett's Multiverse hypothesis?

IANAPhysicist and I realise I could be invoking Heddle (David, if I say your name three times do you appear? Do I need a mirror? ;-) ) but surely this is at least one other interpretation of quantum mechanics (usual caveats apply) that doesn't rely on a special place for conscious observers.

Granted, it's a hypothesis, granted it's a complex addition to the equation, and granted it's a big deal. But I don't think it can easily be dismissed. After all don't a rather large number of eminent physicists also interpret QM this way.....

Ok so that last bit was a mite cheeky! Sue me.

Louis

Oh, enough of this childish bullshit.

Hey, guess what, little grad student--none of it was about you. How we blow off steam really isn't your concern, but thanks anyway.

What is this guy, a first year?

@Windy

to show that a piece of crystal is enough

It's probably best to revise that to "a piece of the material is enough..." Fission track techniques can be applied to volcanic glasses, in which actual crystal development is absent. They can still display damage, however.

No, sorry, you can't solve the foundational problems of quantum mechanics with a frivolous little observation like that.

I'll take Creationist Avoidance Techniques for 400, Alex.

Since you're so good at giving instructions on this thread, let's see if you can take them: how about you respond to Windy's point with something other than a simple assertive dismissal?

You claim that human or other conscious observation is necessary for the Universe to behave as it does.

I don't claim any such thing. This is a flagrant lie. Until you apologize I won't respond to you again.

Boy, does Murray Gell-Mann have egg on his face now, since he's the one who originally made that "frivolous little observation".

Got a citation? If you check out the context, I think you'll find that he didn't try to style it as a knockdown argument against some interpretations of QM, as you seemed to do. It's nothing new, really. "Measurement" has never referred to a human weighing a particle on a scale. Of course roundabout measurement procedures are implied -- one of which is fission tracks.

Therion, by now you should have grasped that you are very seriously under-informed on the subject of physics and the strong anthropic principle. You should, perhaps, widen your reading slightly. You really need to grasp that the Copenhagen interpretation _is not a fundamental theory, it's a hack_. You're taking a structural flaw in the theory- one which many theorists are working hard to resolve- and elevating it to the status of a devastating philosophical insight.

Think harder about the fission track example. If you look at a four-billion-year-old zircon and find fission tracks, do you really think that only at the very instant of your focussing the microscope did four billion years' worth of nuclear decay events suddenly snap from superposition to collapse? That billions of years of evolution occurred _in superposition_ until suddenly a sufficiently smart ape evolves and TWOING everything snaps into focus? I don't have any drugs strong enough for that to make sense.

Hey, guess what, little grad student--none of it was about you. How we blow off steam really isn't your concern, but thanks anyway.

"Little grad student". Oh, right. So apparently I'm not entitled to call anyone on his childishness (or his manifest ignorance of physics, as we saw earlier) until I finish my PhD. What a bunch of noble, compassionate, bona fide liberals you have in this community.

So apparently I'm not entitled to call anyone on his childishness...

You're absolutely entitled to it. I was merely giving you shit because you're being a jackass, something that I'm entitled to.

(or his manifest ignorance of physics, as we saw earlier) until I finish my PhD.

Uh, where exactly did you call me on my "manifest ignorance of physics?"

What a bunch of noble, compassionate, bona fide liberals you have in this community.

And political views have exactly what to do with this "discussion?"

Your description of the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics is amusingly "pop-sci".

Probably because I just pulled it out of my ass for a blog comment — I didn't know it had a name.For your sake, I hope your brilliance matches your arrogance.

What a bunch of noble, compassionate, bona fide liberals you have in this community.

Therion,
you were doing quite well until that one....Its just not a good idea to tell people what they can post on a public internet forum,whether you like what is posted or not.
And this "bona fide liberals" thing makes you look pretty silly now.

You really need to grasp that the Copenhagen interpretation _is not a fundamental theory, it's a hack_. You're taking a structural flaw in the theory- one which many theorists are working hard to resolve- and elevating it to the status of a devastating philosophical insight.

I'm not doing any such thing. This is too tiresome for me to persist. This is a community of fucking animals. (Apologies to those of you capable of behaving civilly -- I'm talking only about the bulk of them.) You are INCAPABLE of engaging in educated discussion without shamefully and consistently misrepresenting your opponents.

No, I don't think the Copenhagen interpretation is a "devastating philosophical insight". I think it's prospects are basically hopeless, given its competitors. I made it clear above that I like multiverse theories. My point was merely that there's serious dialogue to be had. Dismissing the Copenhagen interpretation as "stupid", while offering a single threadbare sentence in support, is totally unacceptable.

Think harder about the fission track example. If you look at a four-billion-year-old zircon and find fission tracks, do you really think that only at the very instant of your focussing the microscope did four billion years' worth of nuclear decay events suddenly snap from superposition to collapse?

That's not a very good example, sorry. It's well-known that the collapse of the wavefunction is discontinuous. The point of thought experiment's like Schrodinger's cat or Einstein's gunpowder keg is that in principle a system can hang around indefinitely, until the moment of "observation" (whatever that means), when the wavefunction collapses discontinuously.

Uh, where exactly did you call me on my "manifest ignorance of physics?"

I'm speaking of Ichthyic.

And political views have exactly what to do with this "discussion?"

Well, for a community that styles itself a group of compassionate liberals, you sure are pretty stingy about the human rights of those of us that don't hold PhDs. Of course you wouldn't say "little faggot", even though that's on the exact same moral footing as "little grad student".

Therion, way above:

"Deism" of some sort isn't an obviously absurd position. If it turns out there's fine-tuning, then as far as we know we need to turn to either multiverse or intelligent design. This is the province of physicists. The atheist biologists, sociologists etc. on this blog are not qualified to comment on this.

I fail to see what any of what's now being discussed has to do with deism or intelligent design.

***

By the way, Dyson speaking stupidly on matters in which he is not an expert:

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/03/freeman_dyson_climate_cha…

(I still think Therion is "J.")

Oooh, hissy fit @648. Funny.

This is the province of physicists. The atheist biologists, sociologists etc. on this blog are not qualified to comment on this.

I meant they're not qualified to utter definitive pronouncements. Speculation is fine, so long as you admit it's speculation.

This is a community of fucking animals. (Apologies to those of you capable of behaving civilly -- I'm talking only about the bulk of them.) You are INCAPABLE of engaging in educated discussion without shamefully and consistently misrepresenting your opponents.

Come on! You're gonna tell me that's not J? ("clique," "preposterous," the hostility toward a group of people having fun together, the obsession with "shameless misrepresentation" and a collective atheist self-indentification? Come on - it's J.)

Well, for a community that styles itself a group of compassionate liberals, you sure are pretty stingy about the human rights of those of us that don't hold PhDs. Of course you wouldn't say "little faggot", even though that's on the exact same moral footing as "little grad student".

There is no human right not to be belittled on a blog. The "exact same moral footing"? You're deranged.

Therion:

My point was merely that there's serious dialogue to be had. Dismissing the Copenhagen interpretation as "stupid", while offering a single threadbare sentence in support, is totally unacceptable.

Fine. So was your point about fine-tuning, and your point about deism.

Basically, you bring up stuff that you think is evidence of the mystical, and no-one buys it, you give away some pabulum anyway. Sure, anything that's argued about is arguable, good point 3 times so far.

PS

Well, for a community that styles itself a group of compassionate liberals

It's a bit more diverse than that... I'm neither.

If it's so easy, why isn't there consensus among physicists? Why do so many physicists, probably even a majority of them, still subscribe to the Copenhagen interpretation?

Maybe they understand that the Copenhagen interpretation does not equal "consciousness causes collapse". (Come on, even a biologist know this much!)

Boy, does Murray Gell-Mann have egg on his face now, since he's the one who originally made that "frivolous little observation".

Got a citation? If you check out the context, I think you'll find that he didn't try to style it as a knockdown argument against some interpretations of QM, as you seemed to do.

In the Quark and the Jaguar he refers to fission tracks coming into existence in the past, unlike "some clumsy descriptions of quantum mechanics might suggest". The argument is also in a recent paper of his.

The tracks are there irrespective of the presence of an “observer”. It makes no difference if a physicist or other human or a chinchilla or a cockroach looks at the tracks.

I think you'll find that it is styled as an argument against that interpretation of QM. (And well styled it is!)

This is too tiresome for me to persist.

Buh-bye!
 

Come on - it's J.

No, “J” was a humble, unassuming, self-deprecating sort of chap… in comparison.
 

Oooh, hissy fit @648. Funny.

And #654 — the toys are flying from the pram.

Therion, you're complaining about human rights violations because you're being mocked on a blog comment thread. That in itself should give you pause. I should go and take some deep breaths before coming back. Also, read less Deepak Chopra.

I meant they're not qualified to utter definitive pronouncements. Speculation is fine, so long as you admit it's speculation.

How is that a response to what I wrote?

***

No, “J” was a humble, unassuming, self-deprecating sort of chap… in comparison.

But that could be because he wasn't yet attached to a physics program. Now the arrogance knows no bounds. (Of course, I have no idea one way or the other. But the similarities are eerie. I'm clinging to it mostly 'cause I shudder to think this is a common "type.")

Oh my stars and garters! I go away for a week and miss so much snark and snarl. I missed the knitting pun war, for (insert nonexistent deity's name) sake! And it was a pun war heavily populated by two of my favourites, Patricia, Queen of the Fowls and SC of the Beautiful Mind.

Not very sorry I missed the Therion/J exchanges while they were ongoing. Kinda fun to follow it to the end where the troll gives ups and departs - we hope. There is a certain beauty in watching someone spin out of control and start piling up lies and excuses and justifications until they can no longer be kept straight. Far more fun to read the whole thing in one sitting instead of waiting for each installment of verbose nonsense. Ah well, time to catch up on the other threads while the day is still young.

Ciao y'all

Come on! You're gonna tell me that's not J? ("clique," "preposterous," the hostility toward a group of people having fun together, the obsession with "shameless misrepresentation" and a collective atheist self-indentification? Come on - it's J.)

No, it isn't. Now fuck off. I'm not going to answer any more ad homs.

Maybe they understand that the Copenhagen interpretation does not equal "consciousness causes collapse". (Come on, even a biologist know this much!)

The Copenhagen interpretation requires a conceptual split between observer and system. When asked what the observer is, most physicists will say they don't know. There's the widespread, vague impression that it has something to do with consciousness. As you point out, though, this is suspect for a number of reasons and could well be entirely misleading and erroneous.

In the Quark and the Jaguar he refers to fission tracks coming into existence in the past, unlike "some clumsy descriptions of quantum mechanics might suggest". The argument is also in a recent paper of his.

Hmm...I assumed this was just an ordinary example of decoherence, but it actually seems more subtle. Wasn't aware of this and will have to check it out. Thanks for the link and sorry for my dismissive remark.

Physics students going through the QM woo phase. It's best to just add more beer and stand well back. They get better later.

Also, read less Deepak Chopra.

… and Gary Zukav.
 

But the similarities are eerie.

Agreed, but at the same time missing the signature “I'm clearly right” assertions, Brights advocacy, and with a somewhat different persecution complex — I don't think J ever actually accused us of human rights violations, “ganging up on him like a pack of animals”, yes, but even J, I think, would've paused before comparing genocide with being a big meanie on a blog.

Therion reminds me of GWIAS, asking the same inane questions over and over.
His questions set off my bullshitt detector big time. I think this is because QM is only good for light and small particles, atom sized or less. QM becomes classical physics at groups of molecules. And consciousness arises from from groups of molecules called the brain. And there, a minimum complexity is needed. So, there is no overlap except in the minds of the deluded.
Therion, if you think it is such a grand area to study, make it your lifes work, and only publish in the peer reviewed scientific literature. We will never hear from you again, as there is nothing scientific there.

bastion of sass #623 wrote:

Pssst. Sastra...#577...But don't tell PZ

Ok, this is now not only off-topic, but over and done with, but I simply must point out that this is not the David Geddes version of "Run Joey Run" -- which I remember far too well, and is possibly the worst song of all time. The Geddes version isn't available on video (as far as I can tell.) Perhaps UTube has too much pride.

No, it isn't.

*shudders*

*is thankful for people like SAWells and Blake Stacey*

Physics students going through the QM woo phase.

That's what it looks like. Still no idea what the vague "There's the widespread, vague impression that it has something to do with consciousness" would have to do wih atheism, deism, or intelligent design, though.

(Hey, JeffreyD!)

Sorry, wasn't signed in. #666 was by me.

Physics students going through the QM woo phase. It's best to just add more beer and stand well back. They get better later.

What the hell are you talking about? I haven't espoused any woo, anywhere on this thread or elsewhere. What I'm saying is that the stuff you're presenting as "physicist woo" (while I disagree with it) actually isn't as easily dismissible as some people like to believe.

I hope to myself play a part in shedding some light on some above mentiomed problems of physics. In my future work I'm not even going to consider deism, the strong anthropic principle, the Copenhagen interpretation, and various other positions we've so far discussed. At least not unless there are seismic shifts in physics. At the moment I don't think they're remotely promising.

However, if someone has a coherent theory which purports to give credence to any of the foregoing, I might be interested to hear what they have to say. Even if they're wrong, they might raise instructive heuristic points. I learned a great deal from "The Cosmological Anthropic Principle" by Barrow and Tipler, even though I don't think their thesis is plausible.

Josh: It's probably best to revise that to "a piece of the material is enough..." Fission track techniques can be applied to volcanic glasses"

Right - 'crystal' sounded more poetic, but I guess I should have been more precise on this blog :)

---
This is a community of fucking animals.

That is a bit ironic coming from a "Therion." ;)

Speaking of which, this Therion rocks.

--
... and Gary Zukav.

OK but can we still read Fritjof Capra?

The Copenhagen interpretation requires a split between observer and system. There's a widespread knowledge that this is a problem for the Copenhagen interpretation. We continue to _use_ the Copenhagen interpretation to calculate, for the same reason that I come to work in a car and not on a levitating fusion-powered unicorn. We work with what we've got even if it's not perfect.

I don't think J ever actually accused us of human rights violations, “ganging up on him like a pack of animals”, yes, but even J, I think, would've paused before comparing genocide with being a big meanie on a blog.

Genocide? Where did I ever mention genocide? So many lies about me are being written that I really cannot keep abreast of them all.

Man! How do I manage to blockquote the wrong thing? Please excuse everything I post between, say, 5 AM and noon. Thank you.

Agreed, but at the same time missing the signature “I'm clearly right” assertions, Brights advocacy, and with a somewhat different persecution complex — I don't think J ever actually accused us of human rights violations, “ganging up on him like a pack of animals”, yes, but even J, I think, would've paused before comparing genocide with being a big meanie on a blog.

True. (Except for the “ganging up on him like a pack of animals” accusation - that one I think I do recall.) And he's now denied it twice, so I'll take his word for it.

Right - 'crystal' sounded more poetic, but I guess I should have been more precise on this blog :)

Nahh...it's cool. I'll bow to poetry this time ;)

Genocide? Where did I ever mention genocide? So many lies about me are being written that I really cannot keep abreast of them all.

Man, your chain is so easy to yank, it's unbelievable. Just for lulz, what human rights violation did you think we'd perpetrated against you?
 

I meant they're not qualified to utter definitive pronouncements.

Is that what you think your PhD will mean? That you'll be the Pope of Physics?

Thus spake SC,OM:

Except for the “ganging up on him like a pack of animals” accusation - that one I think I do recall.

Now that I think of it, wasn't it “like a pack of wild dogs”?

And he's now denied it twice, so I'll take his word for it.

Maybe Pope Therion might be related to “J” — that would explain a lot.

Therion #628 wrote:

If the physicists are right that we need to be in a region of the multiverse that is suitable for life, you would expect this region's biology to appear to be adapted to the physics. Evolution by natural selection is a lot more probable than getting life by random fluke. The whole point of "anthropic focus" is that physicists are trying to find the minimum requirements for the evolution of conscious life.

And I think the big problem with this search for the minimum requirements for the existence of consciousness is that it also uses consciousness as the solution for Fine Tuning. Apparently, something along the lines of "conscious intent" can exist inside of any physical parameters at all, or outside of all of them, and exercise choice. If so, then biology itself is completely unnecessary for conscious agency, and conscious life need not evolve. It was abundant enough before the universe began.

"We" need to be in a region of the multiverse that is suitable for life? That's true in a trivial sense, if it means us specifically fleshed out -- and false in the grander sense that Fine Tuning advocates seemingly want to use. Disembodied "awarenesses" which can fine-tune physical constants to get physical results are independent of physical constraints.

I do agree with you that Fine Tuning and Quantum Consciousness aren't trivial problems or arguments: they get into technical areas most people don't really understand. I certainly don't. But I think that they begin by appealing to common intuitions about minds and causes, and these can be critiqued (or at least rationally discussed) by non-experts.

For all the hand-waving on God's mysterious nature, the concept of God is not really either mysterious, or counter-intuitive. It wasn't derived from quantum mechanics or theoretical cosmology. It was derived from familiar folk concepts involving ourselves. I deeply suspect the Fine Tuners are working backwards.

However, if someone has a coherent theory which purports to give credence to any of the foregoing, I might be interested to hear what they have to say. Even if they're wrong, they might raise instructive heuristic points.

Well, if someone has a coherent theory based on the science and producing testable hypotheses for anything you should be interested in what they have to say. Who the hell are you arguing with? That ideas might be useful heuristic aids isn't doubted by anyone, but it's completely unrelated to their scientific validity.

***

By the way, did anyone else see the 60 Minutes piece about cold fusion last night?

Therion, having seen how easily dismissable the stuff is, stop trying to claim it isn't. Maybe you need more dismissal practice?

Physics students going through the QM woo phase.

Huh? I don't get this impression from Therion at all. He's bringing up some of the more reasonable issues in the intersection of physics and religion, and pointing out that dealing with them is difficult. It certainly is.

Man, your chain is so easy to yank, it's unbelievable. Just for lulz, what human rights violation did you think we'd perpetrated against you?

I was called "little grad student". If someone said "little faggot" there would be outrage, even though it's exactly the same in moral terms. And no, I didn't say it was a "human rights violation", I said some commenters were being "stingy" about the human rights of people without PhDs.

I'll thank you not to play Chinese whispers, painting the wrong impression to those lazy enough to address me without reading my comments.

Huh? I don't get this impression from Therion at all. He's bringing up some of the more reasonable issues in the intersection of physics and religion, and pointing out that dealing with them is difficult. It certainly is.

Thank you, Sastra.

Now that I think of it, wasn't it “like a pack of wild dogs”?

Yes! Thank you! I think it was! That was bothering me. Oh, and savages. We were all savages (which was the perfect insult from J the Imperialist).

Therion, stick to physics and forget religion. Religion is not scientific. One can mental masturbate about the intersection of science and religion all day, but that is all one can do. We've been there is prior posters. If you want to talk about it, you need a religious site, not an atheist site.

And I think the big problem with this search for the minimum requirements for the existence of consciousness is that it also uses consciousness as the solution for Fine Tuning. Apparently, something along the lines of "conscious intent" can exist inside of any physical parameters at all, or outside of all of them, and exercise choice. If so, then biology itself is completely unnecessary for conscious agency, and conscious life need not evolve. It was abundant enough before the universe began.

Not really. Lots of people believe there's fine-tuning of the cosmological constant, and are as staunch atheists as anyone. Your argument only applies to the godists who try to enlist the aid of fine-tuning.

I'm not trying to defend deism. Even if there IS fine-tuning, I think the multiverse class of hypotheses is much more reasonable. But, construed in the most heavily diluted sense, deism is a purely scientific idea and we can have an intelligent conversation about it. There's no reason for anyone to get angry and start throwing around words like "stupid", as we do toward the theists, who believe the creator of the universe had himself tortured to forgive himself.

I didn't say it was a "human rights violation", I said some commenters were being "stingy" about the human rights of people without PhDs.

Indeed, your original statement is much worse than I first thought: if someone is “being stingy with human rights”, they must be granting only a few, and withholding a number of them. Withholding a human right is, by definition, a human rights violation.
Frankly, to raise human rights in the context of people taking the piss on a blog is so outrageously obscene on its face that it merits clarification beyond “I didn't mean genocide”, so I repeat: what human rights have we violated?

Therion, stick to physics and forget religion. Religion is not scientific. One can mental masturbate about the intersection of science and religion all day, but that is all one can do.

I don't care about religion. I've always been completely irreligious, but I never did care enough about religion to even know I was an atheist until several months ago. Typical posters on this blog care far more about religion than I do, I assure you.

I was called "little grad student". If someone said "little faggot" there would be outrage, even though it's exactly the same in moral terms.

I don't want to join in the pile-on (I couldn't even if I wanted to; I've got no idea what any of you are on about) but I will point out that this is a pretty stupid thing to say, unless you know of places where grad students are physically assaulted and killed, prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choice and generally discriminated against in society simply for being grad students.

They aren't the same thing, morally or otherwise.

Just thought I'd point that out. Please feel free to return to discussing physics.

Frankly, to raise human rights in the context of people taking the piss on a blog is so outrageously obscene on its face that it merits clarification beyond “I didn't mean genocide”, so I repeat: what human rights have we violated?

Mocking someone on account of his race or sexuality is an infringement of human rights. The same applies to mocking someone on account of his not being a PhD holder. I don't see what's hard to understand about this. Now just let it go.

I'm not trying to defend deism. Even if there IS fine-tuning, I think the multiverse class of hypotheses is much more reasonable. But, construed in the most heavily diluted sense, deism is a purely scientific idea and we can have an intelligent conversation about it.

Please define what you mean by the following terms:

deism
fine tuning
intelligent design
Strong Anthropic Principle
consciousness

and explain how you specifically and the individuals you've mentioned are bringing these ideas (if they're the same ideas) together into a coherent framework or argument. Until you do so, no real discussion can be had.

Therion, you are now reminding me of another anti-AGW troll PWL. He knowingly kept asking leading questions outside of our area of expertise. I kept trying to get him to go a sites that could answer his questions. His agenda would not allow that.
Blake Stacey, who also has his own ScienceBlog, is a physicist and posts here occasionally. (In fact, there are several physicists who blog at SB.) While the rest of us know a little about QM, we are not specialists in the subject. So we can't answer your questions. You need a blog with different expertise. Unless you have an agenda...

but I will point out that this is a pretty stupid thing to say, unless you know of places where grad students are physically assaulted and killed, prevented from marrying the consenting adult of their choice and generally discriminated against in society simply for being grad students.

Leaving aside the immense stupidity of Therion's equivalence, the fact that people who have PhDs necessarily had themselves to be grad students (some of us, for quite some time) in order to obtain the PhD makes his statement hilarious.

Therion wrote:

Mocking someone on account of his race or sexuality is an infringement of human rights. The same applies to mocking someone on account of his not being a PhD holder.

You've got to be shitting me. Did you really write this? Are you really likening comparative academic achievement to an unchangeable characteristic? Here's a hint as to what the difference is - if you don't have a PhD, you can get one; if you're black or Asian or Hispanic or gay (or some combination of the above) you can't fucking change.

Seriously, stick to arguing physics. At least if you're wrong about that you won't be irritating - if not infuriating - as many people by demonstrating it.

Mocking someone on account of his race or sexuality is an infringement of human rights. The same applies to mocking someone on account of his not being a PhD holder. I don't see what's hard to understand about this. Now just let it go.

Holy shit. You can not be serious.

While mocking someone for not having a PhD is silly in most aspects it has exactly zero comparison to mocking someone's race or sexual identity. And mocking isn't exactly always an infringement on their rights. Shitty yes, but infringement on their rights no.

Good grief.

I think you guys broke Therion's brain. No-one with their faculties complete could have written what he's written in his last few posts.

mocking someone on account of his not being a PhD holder … is an infringement of human rights

*blink*
First, that is unmitigated, unadulterated bullshit: there is no human right to be free of mockery, much less one based on level of educational attainment.
Second, nobody mocked you for your lack of a PhD — many, if not most, of us here don't have PhDs, and nobody mocks us for the lack of one. People were mocking you for an entirely different reason, to which you remain oblivious.
 

Now just let it go.

It's OK to admit that you over-reacted and that the mention of human rights was grossly inappropriate. Nobody would think less of you for it.

Funny how I get rudely mocked for some bullshit, deeply illiberal reason, and now I'm the bad guy.

I was speaking about the principle of using irrelevant labels and determinants to assess his right to opinion. I wasn't implying that ridiculing PhD students is just as bad as homophobia or racism. Just let this drop. No matter what I say, you will twist my words and come up with some excuse to feign outrage.

Nobody would think less of you for it.

I don't know, that came out of his brain, and that's a little more than a brain fart.

Therion, maybe you need to find another, more hospitable blog. We dont' give a shit about your feelings, and you will not receive any special treatment for being sensitive.

I was speaking about the principle of using irrelevant labels and determinants to assess his right to opinion. I wasn't implying that ridiculing PhD students is just as bad as homophobia or racism. Just let this drop. No matter what I say, you will twist my words and come up with some excuse to feign outrage.

um

Mocking someone on account of his race or sexuality is an infringement of human rights. The same applies to mocking someone on account of his not being a PhD holder. I don't see what's hard to understand about this. Now just let it go.

No need to twist that. I'll let you use your words...

Care to explain the infringement on human rights?

It's OK to admit that you over-reacted and that the mention of human rights was grossly inappropriate. Nobody would think less of you for it.

You're trying to conjure the illusion that the concept of human rights is only used in connection with genocide or racism. In fact, it is used for a variety of purposes, some of global importances, and some relatively mundane. For instance, I saw on the news a while ago that inmates' human rights are violated when on a few occasions they have to excrete in buckets rather than toilets.

No matter what I say, you will twist my words and come up with some excuse to feign outrage.

Dude, there's no twisting required to make your words outrageous. Seriously, stick to the physics - most of us don't know if you're right or wrong. Your bizarre concepts of rights, on the other hand, is something very different.

I was speaking about the principle of using irrelevant labels and determinants to assess his right to opinion.

*doubletake*

This is from the person who spent hours arguing that I "should adopt a more deferential and less cocksure tone" towards certain physicists and then proceeded to lecture Josh, a professional scientist who is far more intelligent and knowledgeable than he, about his behavior.

For instance, I saw on the news a while ago that inmates' human rights are violated when on a few occasions they have to excrete in buckets rather than toilets.

So, now you're saying that someone mocking you for your relative inexperience - which is still more, in terms of education, than most people get in a lifetime - is like being forced to crap into a bucket while dudes who enjoy whaling on you with sticks get to watch and laugh?

Please go back to talking about physics. If for no other reason than as a favour to me - I want to go to bed but I can't drag myself away from the pc on the offchance you're going to top your last stupid statement with something ever more inane.

You're trying to conjure the illusion that the concept of human rights is only used in connection with genocide or racism.

No, there are many human rights, which is why I asked you which one you meant. I'm merely trying to get through your intransigent “I'm never wrong” narcissism that “mockery on grounds of not having a PhD” is not considered a human right by any sane person with the most rudimentary understanding of human rights.
First rule of holes: when in one, stop digging.

Therion, there are some things where having experience helps. In defining what is and isn't scientific for example. There are some academics (usually PhD's) who post regularly here, and the rest of us are a smattering of education from still in high school to PhD's in industry.
If you are going to continue to post here, realize you will get called out on stupidity, and will be mocked for outlandish ideas. If you can't handle that, find a more hospitable blog to posit your ideas.

So, now you're saying that someone mocking you for your relative inexperience - which is still more, in terms of education, than most people get in a lifetime - is like being forced to crap into a bucket while dudes who enjoy whaling on you with sticks get to watch and laugh?

We're talking about law-breakers shitting in buckets on a few occasions while the toilets were out of order. Some have seen fit to call that a "violation of human rights". I'm therefore going to assume that "human rights" are used in far more mundane ways than in in connection with extreme crimes like genocide.

Anyway, once again people are trying to dodge the actual substance of the discussion by huffing and puffing over trivial trifles. You're bored because there are no creationists for you to vent against.

And I'll note that this tendency that I've seen - especially lately - among certain physicists, economists, and philosophers (or grad students in these fields) to think that their discipline is the only relevant one in which to answer these big questions is nuts. These questions involve numerous disciplines, and even though as a graduate student and scholar you're often pushed to be a disciplinary specialist, you should push against this to appreciate the value of insights from and research in a variety of disciplines rather than dismissing people in them as non-experts.

You know, academia is full of jobs that you can't get without a PhD. Who knew that this was a systematic human rights violation? Apparently we're discriminating against the unqualified.

We'll have to petition Navi Pillay to appoint a Special Rapporteur on Mockery for Not Having a Doctorate.

Anyway, once again people are trying to dodge the actual substance of the discussion by huffing and puffing over trivial trifles.

Maybe you are irrate we aren't lettting you control the discussion. In fact, you haven't thrown out any ideas lately, just whined. Maybe we don't want to discuss what you want to discuss. Then you need to find another blog where they do want to discuss it. Personally, I see nothing but woo in what you want to discuss.

people are trying to dodge the actual substance of the discussion by huffing and puffing over trivial trifles.

No, we think that human rights are important and your trivialisation of them is a substantial discussion in its own right.

These questions involve numerous disciplines, and even though as a graduate student and scholar you're often pushed to be a disciplinary specialist, you should push against this to appreciate the value of insights from and research in a variety of disciplines rather than dismissing people in them as non-experts.

I am not the one being dismissive. All along my attitude has been the exact opposite of that. I'm quite willing to moderate or retract the few intemperate dismissive remarks I made. You won't do that, because you're an unabashed dogmatist.

Therion, either posit your ideas or go away. You will get banned by PZ if you continue to whine like you are doing. We don't like whiners.

I'm quite willing to moderate or retract the few intemperate dismissive remarks I made.

Like trivialising human rights?

You're trying to conjure the illusion that the concept of human rights is only used in connection with genocide or racism.

I may have missed anyone trying to do that, so could you please point that out?

He definitely is reminding me of PWL, as he is hung up on tone so he doesn't have to provide evidence for his ideas. Therion, check the dungeon. PWL is there.

I am not the one being dismissive. All along my attitude has been the exact opposite of that.

*

"Deism" of some sort isn't an obviously absurd position. If it turns out there's fine-tuning, then as far as we know we need to turn to either multiverse or intelligent design. This is the province of physicists. The atheist biologists, sociologists etc. on this blog are not qualified to comment on this.

It obviously doesn't matter whether someone is an "atheist" or a "deist". Neither believes in a god that intervenes in human affairs. The atheist and the deist differ only on the question of the origin of the Universe. This is a scientific or philosophical matter of contention, and, let's face it, most of you aren't really interested in this. How many of you have put significant time and effort into gaining familiarity with concepts in cosmology? Not even one percent of you, I'd imagine.

***

I'm quite willing to moderate or retract the few intemperate dismissive remarks I made.

Then do so.

You won't do that, because you're an unabashed dogmatist.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I have never declared that anyone's ideas are without or of lesser value because they are not in a particular field.

You still haven't defined any terms or made or reproduced any coherent argument about deism or intelligent design.

I'm speaking of Ichthyic.

Ahh...okay, then.

Well, for a community that styles itself a group of compassionate liberals,

That's another blanket statement about the Pharyngula population that I suspect you'll find a bit difficult to substantiate.

you sure are pretty stingy about the human rights of those of us that don't hold PhDs. Of course you wouldn't say "little faggot", even though that's on the exact same moral footing as "little grad student".

Dude, you seriously need to get over yourself. Besides the fact that I think your "human rights" comparison is ridiculous, the point is not that you lack a PhD. We all did at one time, and most people don't have one. So what? That wasn't at all the point. The point was that while you freely admit to having not spent much time in the trenches, you simultaneously have no problem making unsubstantiated pronouncements and simply dismissing points raised by others (with I might add, a fair degree of condescension). And you do this all while giving off the distinct impression that you might not actually know the difference between "hypothesis" and "theory." I used the phrasing I did because you apparently have yet to learn one of the more important lessons of grad school: as a scientist, the more convinced you are that you are right, the more likely it is that you're not. And also because you're being a pompous jackass. Your early steps into this thread were marked by a bunch of authoritative, hero-worship laden cockswaddle about who got to form an opinion about what, interlaced with vague insults regarding the intelligence of pretty much everyone here. And you haven't really backed away from this puffed-up arrogance. Sorry, but you earned a smack, especially with trying to play the "I'm the serious one in this thread" card. And if you really see that comment as anything but a smack, then I suggest you develop a thicker skin. Otherwise, your future in science is likely to smart a bit. You've been argumenative from the get-go, and as far as I can tell from the comments, you leaned toward calling people stupid very early on. You've got a lot of gall to try and play the persecution card now.

Therion #688 wrote:

Lots of people believe there's fine-tuning of the cosmological constant, and are as staunch atheists as anyone.

Like others, I'm having problems understanding precisely what you mean by using Fine Tuning in this context. My understanding is that, by definition, it involves the conscious choice or actions of agency.

Of course, I may be conflating Fine Tuning with the "Fine-Tuning Argument," which reasons from the proposed fact that life can only exist inside narrow physical parameters, to the conclusion that therefore some Aware Agency from Outside of Space and Time chose to tweak these cosmic parameters to get the unlikely result of life. Or, perhaps, that the universe is simply a giant Thought.

What would be the opposite of Fine Tuning, in the sense you're using? Believing that life could occur under many conditions? Believing that life occurs only under very narrow conditions, but the existence of these conditions are best explained as a brute fact, or as the result of chance and necessity? Maybe if I understood the alternatives, I could figure out where the totally naturalistic, non-theistic version of Fine Tuning comes in.

But, construed in the most heavily diluted sense, deism is a purely scientific idea and we can have an intelligent conversation about it.

I'm not going to say that we can't consider deism scientifically, or have an intelligent conversation about it -- but then I'd say the same thing about theism. What is "heavily diluted" deism? I don't think deism can be diluted so much that it loses all aspects of agency, mind, awareness, consciousness, values, emotions, and intention - because when you do that, you're really talking about something else. And, once you have mind-like attributes existing apart from any dependency on physical instantiation, then invoking fine-tuning as necessary for their existence, is unnecessary.

I'm a bit late to the party, but I have always found the fine-tuning argument to be fascinating...

The thing that I have never understood about fine-tuning is that it doesn't take into account the historical development of science. As time goes by, we eliminate more and more of these constants from our understanding of the universe. Some physicists even hope to be able to remove them completely, with a grand unified theory. What happens if we succeed? Fine-tuning would disappear, because the likelihood of having the constants that we have would be exactly 1, given the laws of physics.

The argument for fine-tuning is hence the logical equivalent of stating that we will never find a grand unified theory that explains all physical constants. That's a pretty big call.

And also because you're being a pompous jackass. Your early steps into this thread were marked by a bunch of authoritative, hero-worship laden cockswaddle about who got to form an opinion about what, interlaced with vague insults regarding the intelligence of pretty much everyone here. And you haven't really backed away from this puffed-up arrogance.

Lying bullshit. The one thing I said which comes anywhere close to that was my statement that sociologists, biologists and other non-physicists aren't "qualified" to speak with confidence about debates in cosmology concerning the origin of the universe. I was wrong in saying that; I should have said "trained" rather than qualified.

(Brief aside. A while ago I recall lurking in a thread in which SC made the claim that Larry Summers is not qualified to mak certain pronouncements. I have no opinion on Summers or his remarks, but it seems hypocritical to assume sociologists have a domain of expertise and physicists don't.)

The charge of "hero worship" is also very silly. I cited the opinions of a number of respectable physicists. How is this wrong? I'm quite capable of giving solely my own opinions, but I don't thing those have quite the same weight. The first time I gave my independent opinion about something in physics, SC said "Yeah, like anyone cares."

I am not the one being dismissive. All along my attitude has been the exact opposite of that.

Hmmm... let's see now...

This is the province of physicists. The atheist biologists, sociologists etc. on this blog are not qualified to comment on this.

How many of you have put significant time and effort into gaining familiarity with concepts in cosmology? Not even one percent of you, I'd imagine.

These guys were discovering the laws of nature in their mid-twenties, whereas you and your ilk while away the hours insulting creationists.

My point was exactly what I said was my point… This clique has the annoying habit of acting as if everyone not part of it is an idiot.

That's patent bullshit, sorry.

In this thread, though, the rampant hubris was becoming obnoxious, so I felt it necessary to break the bad news.

That's because some of you insist on repeating the same old slogans and buzzwords, all of which happen to be irrelevant in this case.

If you understood quantum mechanics, you would be able to see this better,

Read some books on modern physics, because you don't have a clue.

you really don't know much about the physics of the past few decades.

You have proven yourself an ignoramus. I suggest you go read some books.

I base my claims of ignorance on lack of knowledge you've conspicuously demonstrated in this very thread.

shut the fuck up.

Your pathetic attempt at dick-waving doesn't impress me, sorry.

This one's here for the irony value:

You're incapable of having a conversation with me without swearing at me repeatedly, so I'm not going to continue.

Now enough of this bullshit.

Oh, piss off. I said I'm an atheist. Not my fault you're too stupid to understand any argument that's more subtle than vilifying anyone who doesn't share your position.

Thanks, you've proven you haven't the first fucking clue just what on Earth you're talking about.

What a simplistic, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, ignoramus Neanderthal dullard this Nerd of Redhead is.

Your notion is clearly preposterous.

Not only wrong and ignorant, but hilariously wrong and ignorant. What a schoolboy howler.

To a professional physicist, to whom the rest of us are told we must defer:

To say it is "very easy" to avoid mystical interpretations of quantum mechanics like the strong anthropic principle is simply ridiculous.

Oh, enough of this childish bullshit.

No, sorry, you can't solve the foundational problems of quantum mechanics with a frivolous little observation like that.

Your description of the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics is amusingly "pop-sci".

This is too tiresome for me to persist. This is a community of fucking animals.

I meant they're not qualified to utter definitive pronouncements.

Fuck off

Lying bullshit.

 
No, not the tiniest hint of being dismissive or condescending

jenneyxyzzy,

Fine-tuning would disappear, because the likelihood of having the constants that we have would be exactly 1, given the laws of physics.

Fine tuning would not go away. If habitability is indeed sensitive to the expansion rate of the universe, then it is sensitive regardless of whether that rate has probability 10-120 or probability 1.

What the likelihood 1 case would mean, in my opinion, is the best possible scenario for the IDers--who nevertheless (rather stupidly, I would say) trumpet the 10-120 type scenario. Because fine-tuning (habitability is sensitive) plus unit probability means that habitability is built into the fabric of spacetime (i.e., the laws of physics). We theists would declare total victory.

Sastra @ 723,

I'm talking about fine-tuning in the technical sense. A theory requires fine-tuning if it doesn't tell you how to acquire the values of certain constants. At one extreme, some physicists believe the constants are all fixed and all will be able to be derived once we have a complete theory. At the other, some other physicists believe the cosmological constant, the speed of light, Planck's constant, the universal gravitional constant, and the charge of the proton, are all just "incidental" and you could get a perfectly sensible universe if they took any value in a wide interval of values.

Emmet @ 726,

You are, of course, repeatedly quoting me out of context. You give no mention of the posts I was responding to, which were far more condescending, vulgar and insulting.

Therion,
Though not your intention, you come across very clearly as a pompous, arrogant, condescending, dismissive, narcissistic, childish asshole with a total inability to acknowledge even the grossest error unless it is self-identified.Your failure to consider that you might be doing anything wrong tells us, very clearly, one of two things: either you really are a complete fuckwad, or you are completely oblivious to the tone of your own writing.FWIW, you should give very careful consideration to the tone of your initial posts — my experience is that it never ends well for posters who start a thread with two or more condescending posts (note the tone of your first 3): it is like blood in the water, the Pharyngula sharks will come to the feeding frenzy around the bleeding troll, and your substantive points are never heard above the screams.
Your choice.

Lying bullshit. The one thing I said which comes anywhere close to that was my statement that sociologists, biologists and other non-physicists aren't "qualified" to speak with confidence about debates in cosmology concerning the origin of the universe. I was wrong in saying that; I should have said "trained" rather than qualified.

The questions we've been discussing about life and consciousness are certainly something people in other scientific fields are both qualified and trained to comment on. Arguments about deism can fall down or run into problems on any number of grounds relevant to any number of scientific subfields. Intelligent people generally are capable of assessing arguments and evidence if these are presented. You haven't presented a coherent argument nor any evidence. In fact, you've said that you aren't convinced by the arguments to which you allude. If you have a point other than asserting that people here aren't qualified to be unconvinced, I'm at a loss as to what it is.

(Brief aside. A while ago I recall lurking in a thread in which SC made the claim that Larry Summers is not qualified to mak certain pronouncements. I have no opinion on Summers or his remarks, but it seems hypocritical to assume sociologists have a domain of expertise and physicists don't.)

I have never assumed any such thing. Please link to the specific comment and I'll walk you though it in context. And I'm not saying physicists don't have a domain of expertise; I'm saying the question of deism goes beyond physics.

The charge of "hero worship" is also very silly. I cited the opinions of a number of respectable physicists. How is this wrong?

You haven't even really done this. You've alluded to them having some arguments about deism and intelligent design that we here are allegedly unequipped to deal with. I linked to a statement by Dyson. You haven't even done that.

I'm quite capable of giving solely my own opinions, but I don't thing those have quite the same weight.

Mentioning people's names has no weight at all.

The first time I gave my independent opinion about something in physics, SC said "Yeah, like anyone cares."

All along, your position has been: "I am a semi-trained physicist. You are not, and therefore not capable of rendering valid opinions on the subject of deism. I can say that I don't think they don't have a solid argument, but you can't, even if your opinion happens to agree with mine, because you (I assume) lack the adequate training in my field. Here's my opinion. Yours is worthless."

If you want to discuss the matter intelligently, why don't you try articulating Freeman Dyson's argument for deism, spelling it out clearly and defining your terms, then explaining what you find convincing and what you don't? (Or just dropping it altogether, since you're not actually arguing for any of these positions - merely arguing that our ideas about them are invalid and uninformed.)

Heddle,

The constants that would impact whether heavier elements can be stable and whether chemical compounds can form would also be relevant. A unified theory where the constants are sensibly derived rather than just arbitrarily input, would undermine the fine tuning arguments.

Africangenesis,

A unified theory where the constants are sensibly derived rather than just arbitrarily input, would undermine the fine tuning arguments.

No it wouldn't.

Again, be careful what you mean by fine-tuning. The agnostic definition is that habitability is sensitive to the values of constants it says nothing at all about their probabilities. For example, the wiki definition of a fine-tuned universe, which ain't bad:

The fine-tuned Universe is the idea that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different the universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is presently understood.

See, it's all about sensitivity and nothing at all about the probability of the constants.

IDers assume the probabilities are low and assume there is only one universe, and then make a religious argument. That's ID on top of fine tuning, not fine tuning. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I wrote:

And also because you're being a pompous jackass. Your early steps into this thread were marked by a bunch of authoritative, hero-worship laden cockswaddle about who got to form an opinion about what, interlaced with vague insults regarding the intelligence of pretty much everyone here. And you haven't really backed away from this puffed-up arrogance.

Therion replied:

Lying bullshit. The one thing I said which comes anywhere close to that was my statement that sociologists, biologists and other non-physicists aren't "qualified" to speak with confidence about debates in cosmology concerning the origin of the universe. I was wrong in saying that; I should have said "trained" rather than qualified.

Indeed?
This is what you wrote (comment #84):

The atheist biologists, sociologists etc. on this blog are not qualified to comment on this.

This is not you being authoritative regarding who gets to comment on what? Really...? Incidentally, you never wrote anything about "speaking with confidence" in comment #84. You said "qualified to comment." On a blog...

This is what you wrote (comment #254):

but there are many scientists who flirt with deism, like Freeman Dyson, who are massively more intelligent and scientifically informed than you and anyone else here.

This is not being insulting with respect to the intelligence of pretty much everyone here? Seriously...? Also a twinge of hero-worship here. You use people's names as if they alone are supposed to carry weight and don't bother to cite where they said what they said, because it's apparently not supposed to matter.

This is what you wrote (comment #254):

These guys were discovering the laws of nature in their mid-twenties, whereas you and your ilk while away the hours insulting creationists.

This is not being arrogant? This isn't being insulting? There's no hero-worship?

This is what you wrote (comment #263):

That's patent bullshit, sorry. This is no different from any other community in that the appraisals of idiocy here are almost always entirely subjective.

Authoritative statements interlaced with vague insults of intelligence (my interpretation, obviously).

This is what you wrote (comment #414):

My point, clearly, is that they are brilliant men, who know far more science than you, and are not to be trifled with.

This is not being authoritative and insulting? Here also is hero-worship. There is simply nothing in science (no theory, no fact, and certainly no one) that is "not to be trifled with." The whole point of science is to trifle. For fuck's sake that's what we do. No scientist is above that, regardless of what they've done.

As we're now in the mid-700s of the comments, #414 could be argued as not being early in the thread. So we can remove that one if you insist. Regardless though, where exactly was it that I was lying in that paragraph?

You haven't even really done this. You've alluded to them having some arguments about deism and intelligent design that we here are allegedly unequipped to deal with. I linked to a statement by Dyson. You haven't even done that.

I didn't give references, because I thought it was fairly well-known that a number of respectable physicists like to toy with some sort of deism. I mean, I've known this since I was about twelve. It's such an elementary fact that I didn't think I'd have to corroborate it. If you want specific writing on this, see for instance The Mind of God by Paul Davies.

If you want to discuss the matter intelligently, why don't you try articulating Freeman Dyson's argument for deism, spelling it out clearly and defining your terms, then explaining what you find convincing and what you don't? (Or just dropping it altogether, since you're not actually arguing for any of these positions - merely arguing that our ideas about them are invalid and uninformed.)

It's boring me now and I don't want to drag it on. My point was that you should be less arrogant and think twice before using words like "stupid" to describe a fairly popular theory held by experts in the most relevant discipline. On the basis of what you've said so far, I can see that you probably don't even understand the basics of quantum mechanics, the meaning of a space-time manifold, and various other concepts which feature prominently in the arguments of so-called "woo physicists". If you can't even understand them, I fail to see why you should be able to legitimately scoff condescendingly at their ideas.

In fact, ideas such as the strong anthropic principle (the notion that humans are required for the existence of the universe) aren't as "stupid" and "ridiculous" as they first appear. If you understood quantum mechanics, you would see this plainly.

There's all the space in the world between "Life as we know it would not exist if some of the fundamental constants varied very slightly" and "The constants were tuned to produce life as we know it". The first is not especially problematic; the second is a huge leap beyond the evidence and smack into the domain of We're Special So There.

Heddle,

I'm not really sure that you can talk about 'tuning' when a certain value for a constant is imposed. It's a bit like talking about tuning a light to be 'on'. We don't, we just say that we switched the light on. An even better analogy would be to talk about tuning the existance of a wall in your house - the wall just is, it doesn't need to be tuned.

You seem to have a very non-orthodox interpretation of what fine-tuning is all about. Fine-tuning is about whether or not habitability is highly sensitive to changes in the physical constants or not, but it implicitly includes the idea that the physical constants could vary from those that we have found by experiment in our own universe. At the moment this would seem to be the case, we know of no physical limitations on the values that these constants could take.

Think of it this way - if we develop a theory of physics that puts a limitation on the value of Planck's constant, such that it could only ever take one of two values, we wouldn't be talking about finetuning for that particular constant. We'd simply accept that there's a reasonably high probability of observing the value of Planck's constant that we have found. Or alternatively, think about the speed of light. We don't talk about it being finely-tuned, as is derived, using Maxwell's laws, from other physical constants. It has to take that value

Let's see, I do not have a PhD. In fact, I never bothered getting a masters. I have been happy with my bachelors degree. I submit that I am a second class person and am ready to be mocked by all persons who have higher degrees.

Therion, seriously, just drop it and walk away.

I met Paul Davies at Arizona State when they hired him there. He was arguing that we should nuke a hole in Mars to see if there's any life below the crust. I argued that (a) nuking other planets to find life on them risks giving you the answer (not any more), (b) we wouldn't like it much if alien biologists did it to us, and most importantly (c) we already know how to nuke things, whereas learning to drill and build on another planet is a more useful skill in the long term. He told me I was being sentimental and that he wanted a result in his own lifetime, so nukes away.

Let us say that "Paul Davies thinks so" is never going to count as a recommendation for any idea, in my book.

And for the love of all that's merciful cut this "if you understood QM you'd see I was right" crap. I do understand QM. You're not right. Quit whining and learn before you try to teach. Or is that a rights violation too?

I didn't give references, because I thought it was fairly well-known that a number of respectable physicists like to toy with some sort of deism. I mean, I've known this since I was about twelve. It's such an elementary fact that I didn't think I'd have to corroborate it. If you want specific writing on this, see for instance The Mind of God by Paul Davies.

I wasn't asking you for references, you fucking clod. I was asking for clearly formulated arguments for deism.

It's boring me now and I don't want to drag it on. My point was that you should be less arrogant and think twice before using words like "stupid" to describe a fairly popular theory held by experts in the most relevant discipline.

Again, you feel no need to refer to any specific arguments or evidence - just stick with arguments from popularity and authority.

On the basis of what you've said so far, I can see that you probably don't even understand the basics of quantum mechanics, the meaning of a space-time manifold, and various other concepts which feature prominently in the arguments of so-called "woo physicists". If you can't even understand them, I fail to see why you should be able to legitimately scoff condescendingly at their ideas.

What ideas? I was referring to religious arguments, based on the fact that I was answering your comment about "deism" and "intelligent design." Since you never defined your terms or specified whose ideas and what specific ideas you were talking about, you can't say about what I was scoffing condescendingly.

In fact, ideas such as the strong anthropic principle (the notion that humans are required for the existence of the universe) aren't as "stupid" and "ridiculous" as they first appear. If you understood quantum mechanics, you would see this plainly.

My response to that particular idea was: "Please." I stand by that. But you've shown no relevance of this to deism, as far as I can tell, so it's totally irrelevant to the discussion.

And if you're not going to specify the comment you're referring to about Larry Summers or rescind your mischaracterization, you're a lying jerk.

I wrote:

The atheist biologists, sociologists etc. on this blog are not qualified to comment on this.

Josh wrote:

This is not you being authoritative regarding who gets to comment on what? Really...? Incidentally, you never wrote anything about "speaking with confidence" in comment #84. You said "qualified to comment." On a blog...

I already said I shouldn't have used the word "qualified". I should have used "trained". If you think it's condescending for me to deny that it's reasonable for people with no training in physics to confidently hold forth on matters of physics...well, then I don't know what to say.

I wrote:

but there are many scientists who flirt with deism, like Freeman Dyson, who are massively more intelligent and scientifically informed than you and anyone else here.

Josh wrote:

This is not being insulting with respect to the intelligence of pretty much everyone here? Seriously...? Also a twinge of hero-worship here. You use people's names as if they alone are supposed to carry weight and don't bother to cite where they said what they said, because it's apparently not supposed to matter.

It's insulting to say that Freeman Dyson, a mathematical prodigy, a pioneer of quantum electrodynamics, and one of the world's great scientists, is "massively more intelligent and scientifically informed than [SC] and anyone else here"? I think you have an awful high opinion of Pharyngula posters. I don't share it. As I said earlier (rightly), Dyson, Einstein, and the other physicists I mentioned, were discovering the laws of physics in their mid-twenties. In contrast, the main intellectual pastime of many regulars on this blog appears to be making fun out of creationists. Noting this glaringly obvious asymmetry is not "hero worship".

I observe that, like Emmet, you've conveniently ommitted all reference to the nasty posts I was responding to.

I was asking for clearly formulated arguments for deism.

OK, howzabout this one then? Were it not for deism, how else could we account for where all that panspermia is coming from?

OK, I didn't say it was a tasteful argument...

Wow, Therion, you are being way "condescending, vulgar and insulting" in your attack on people for being "condescending, vulgar and insulting" to you. As I stated earlier, I read this entire thread before my first post and you were at least condescending and insulting if not vulgar from the the start. You were not taken out of context, nor where you attacked without warning and your rights are in now way violated by being mocked and insulted.

A long time ago, during crackergate, I wrote an apology to those who just could not handle what was going on at the time. It is here, http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/fyi.php#comment-980398 #266 if you have any interest. Just change cracker and catholic church to QM/physics and deism to anything you like on the list. The words and subjects do not repeat do not all apply in this case, but the sense of it should come across to you. You do not have the right not to be offended when you come on an open blog and spray your partially formed thoughts. You do not have the right to be offended by bad language. You do not have the right to be taken seriously, that must be earned.

You started off badly here. Frankly, your early posts reminded me of someone in grad school trying to impress the girls with psuedo mystic stuff, draped in science. It was decades ago, but I do remember doing that type of thing. Bull sessions are fun, but they are not science. I am a historian by training and those bull sessions were not history or sociology or pysch or biology then either, they were after hours fun. You seem to have the common failing of thinking that being some sort of maverick means you have access to a greater truth, or vice versa. I could be wrong about that last part. If I am, no apologies because no harm done.

For now, you have committed the ultimate killfile sin in my book, you are whining. Goodbye, fuck off and farewell. (Plonk!)

Ciao y'all

So Ayn Rand made it on the list...

The Churchlands didn't make it on the list...

What the hell?

And if you're not going to specify the comment you're referring to about Larry Summers or rescind your mischaracterization, you're a lying jerk.

What a dishonest little serpent is this SC. She must remember her comments about Larry Summers full well, and is hoping that I won't take the trouble to dig out this expired thread. Here are just two appropriate quotes of SC, found with a moment's glance:

Bullshit. I'm a social scientist who doesn't even work in the area of gender and I have vastly more knowledge about this subject than he does. What are his academic credentials in that subfield?

No, it isn't. You're defining "relevant" extremely broadly. He did not have the requisite knowledge to make the claims he did about sex differences, as he himself admitted. End of story.

So apparently one requries "credentials" to make claims about sex differences, but not theoretical physics and cosmology.

a number of respectable physicists like to toy with some sort of deism

is saying nothing. Nothing.

It's insulting to say that Freeman Dyson, a mathematical prodigy, a pioneer of quantum electrodynamics, and one of the world's great scientists, is "massively more intelligent and scientifically informed than [SC] and anyone else here"? I think you have an awful high opinion of Pharyngula posters.

Of course it's fucking insulting to say, whether or not it's true, and you have no evidence that it is. And it was totally obnoxious. But of course your entire point was to insult people here - you never had a substantive argument to begin with. And your arrogance by association is pathetic.

(And Dyson, I'll note again, appears to be becoming a climate crackpot, writing some paintcurlingly ignorant and stupid things about agriculture and biomass.)

Not that SC needs any help, but to make my above point with less snark, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to recognize that deism offers no more to cosmology than does panspermia to abiogenesis, nor mysterianism to consciousness. "Because of the unexplainium" is not a scientific stance.

But of course your entire point was to insult people here - you never had a substantive argument to begin with.

I think it's pretty clear that his objective is not to communicate, enlighten, or discuss, but to condescend to us to make himself feel clever, which (together with his apparent fundamental misinterpretation of the AP, “I'm right because I say so” attitude, and failure to explain anything) suggests that he probably doesn't understand this stuff at all well himself, isn't nearly as clever as he'd like to be, and is pathologically insecure about being found out, maybe because he thinks the other guys in his group are considerably smarter than him.This too is a phase he'll grow out of.

Therion, do you have a real argument with evidence, or just vague ideas of some connection? If the former, trot out the exposition. If the latter, think about it for a few days, then be ready to present your argument, or stay away. I get the feeling you wanted to put out a vague idea and let us take it from there. That won't happen.

You started off badly here. Frankly, your early posts reminded me of someone in grad school trying to impress the girls with psuedo mystic stuff, draped in science.

Too lazy to read my posts, or are you just so much of a sheep that you go on solely the popular rendition of them? I never said anything that's in the slightest "pseudo-mystic", as I have made clear again and again.

You are a fucking imbecile, as is everyone else he who accuses me of supporting mysticism. Nothing I said about deism was anything different from things Richard Dawkins has said on record. For instance, he said "A serious case could be made for the deist god". "Not one that I'd accept", he clarified, just as I have clarified repeatedly in this thread.

You're such zealots that even the mildest defense of deism -- not even so much of a defense, but more of a case that you shouldn't wave physicists' theories off with a few tired slogans -- is sufficient to cause uproar. Presumably it's because you have nothing apart from your atheism. You're such empty, pathetic, miserable creatures that if we strip away your "atheist" sense of belonging...the game is up, isn't it? You realize that you're just utter mediocrities, so you desperately cling on to the sense of smugness and superiority found on this blog. Get back on "creationist watch", you fucking morons.

What a dishonest little serpent is this SC. She must remember her comments about Larry Summers full well, and is hoping that I won't take the trouble to dig out this expired thread.

Of course I remember them. I asked you to cite the specific comment, and you didn't in your next response, so I mentioned it again. How the fuck does that signal hoping that you wouldn't take the trouble? How did you ever get into a fucking graduate program of any sort being this stupid? (And the thread hasn't "expired." I just left a lengthy comment on it like yesterday.)

So apparently one requries "credentials" to make claims about sex differences, but not theoretical physics and cosmology.

You're an idiot. I believe that the contention was made that his remarks were drawn from his field of expertise. (The interesting thing is that this was presumed because he's an economist and had written about labor markets - apparently this covers everything related to women in science, just like physics subsumes everything related to the life sciences.) In fact, he made arguments completely beyond his knowledge and which lacked a scientific foundation, which he admitted. I linked to an article containing some of the relevant research by people who do work in that subfield, which I do not (MAJeff would probably have much more to say about this). The context of his statements - a public speech as the head administrator of a university - also meant that he shouldn't be presenting unconsidered and unsupported arguments in subdisciplines in which he has no knowledge. There's a responsibility in that context and position that doesn't apply in blog comments.

And I never said physicists - which you, to be blunt, are not yet - don't have a domain of expertise in physics. I said that the matter of deism is not exclusive to physics or cosmology. Of course, we can't know any of your heroes' arguments unless you present them.

You realize that you're just utter mediocrities, so you desperately cling on to the sense of smugness and superiority found on this blog.

Projection, much?

Posted by: Therion| April 20, 2009 1:07 PM

You started off badly here. Frankly, your early posts reminded me of someone in grad school trying to impress the girls with psuedo mystic stuff, draped in science.

Too lazy to read my posts, or are you just so much of a sheep that you go on solely the popular rendition of them?

Posted by: JeffreyD | April 20, 2009 12:40 PM

Wow, Therion, you are being way "condescending, vulgar and insulting" in your attack on people for being "condescending, vulgar and insulting" to you. As I stated earlier, I read this entire thread before my first post and you were at least condescending and insulting if not vulgar from the the start. You were not taken out of context, nor where you attacked without warning and your rights are in now way violated by being mocked and insulted.

Jesus Fucking Bloody Christ on a stick, just who is too fucking lazy to read everything that a person posts. Therion, did you just happen to skip over JefferyD's first paragraph? Or are you so much of an asshole that you ignored it so you can make yet an other baseless charge?

I think it's pretty clear that his objective is not to communicate, enlighten, or discuss, but to condescend to us to make himself feel clever, which (together with his apparent fundamental misinterpretation of the AP, “I'm right because I say so” attitude, and failure to explain anything) suggests that he probably doesn't understand this stuff at all well himself, isn't nearly as clever as he'd like to be, and is pathologically insecure about being found out, maybe because he thinks the other guys in his group are considerably smarter than him.

Pretty amusing coming from someone speaking for a community legendary for its habitual self-righteous ridicule and self-promotion. In almost every single thread, someone is being ridiculed. At least I don't make a hobby out of this.

Of course I remember them. I asked you to cite the specific comment,

And I'll add that when you mentioned it I thought that you were talking about his remarks about pollution-dumping, which were discussed at much greater length.

Nothing I said about deism was anything different from things Richard Dawkins has said on record. For instance, he said "A serious case could be made for the deist god". "Not one that I'd accept", he clarified, just as I have clarified repeatedly in this thread.

But how can he have a valid opinion if he's just a mere biologist? Questions, questions.

Anyway, this jerk isn't interested in doing anything other than namedropping and wanking.

You're such zealots that even the mildest defense of deism -- not even so much of a defense, but more of a case that you shouldn't wave physicists' theories off with a few tired slogans -- is sufficient to cause uproar. Presumably it's because you have nothing apart from your atheism. You're such empty, pathetic, miserable creatures that if we strip away your "atheist" sense of belonging...the game is up, isn't it? You realize that you're just utter mediocrities, so you desperately cling on to the sense of smugness and superiority found on this blog. Get back on "creationist watch", you fucking morons.

Does your university offer counseling services?

Pretty amusing coming from someone speaking for a community legendary for its habitual self-righteous ridicule and self-promotion.

We're legendary!

In almost every single thread, someone is being ridiculed. At least I don't make a hobby out of this.

I'm so glad Icthyic's not around. With his hypersensitivity to projection, this could cause permanent damage.

And I never said physicists - which you, to be blunt, are not yet - don't have a domain of expertise in physics. I said that the matter of deism is not exclusive to physics or cosmology. Of course, we can't know any of your heroes' arguments unless you present them.

I never claimed any expertise. If it weren't for that earlier bullshit when someone demanded my paper count, you wouldn't know whether I study physics or am a milkman.

Anyway, I think my point has been proven to my satisfaction. I noted at first that this emphasis on the term "atheist" was peculiar, given that many atheists are totally indistinguishable from agnostics and other irreligious people, except only in their opinion on a topic of physics (the origin of the universe), which I don't believe many self-professed atheists even care about. The subsequent turmoil confirmed that it's all about "atheist self-identity". There's no other explanation for that Lord of the Flies degree of aggression. If your self-identity is threatened, you pounce like wild animals.

Having had to deal over time with numerous hyper-sensitive New Agers and Christians, I have seen too many rational, scientific arguments deflected and dismissed with complaints about the "tone" or "attitude" of the person making the argument. I've subsequently adopted the stance that I do not give a flying fuck about tone and attitude, and throw it off my radar, and try not to bring it up.

SC is fine. Therion is fine. Everyone on Pharyngula is okay. I don't care if they're really all blood-sucking werewolves with vocabularies which would get them thrown out of biker bars. Unless the discussion is actually on 'framing' (O God no), tone and attitude don't count.

I did like that one phrase some indignant gentleman from RD Net used a while back, though -- that "Pharyngula stinks like a whore house at low tide." I have had many a happy moment wondering if he has sex with mermaids.

SC is fine. Therion is fine. Everyone on Pharyngula is okay.

We're all alright!
We're all alright!
Surrender!
Surrender!
But don't give yourself away!

Pharyngula stinks like a whore house at low tide.

Isn't it supposed to be a cyber “biker bar”? I seem to remember some characterisation along those lines.

As a scientist, I still don't know what Therion's thesis is. He has been so vague about it, there is nothing to follow. All I see is a bad attitude and whining. If he tries that with his dissertation committee, he will fail. Therion, some of us are smarter than you, and have years more experience in science. Because of this we don't revere big names in all things, because even big names set off our BS detectors when they get outside of their field, and sometimes still within it. Until you acknowledge this you will continue to have troubles.

And I never said physicists - which you, to be blunt, are not yet - don't have a domain of expertise in physics. I said that the matter of deism is not exclusive to physics or cosmology. Of course, we can't know any of your heroes' arguments unless you present them.

I never claimed any expertise. If it weren't for that earlier bullshit when someone demanded my paper count, you wouldn't know whether I study physics or am a milkman.

That was a response to your statement: "I have no opinion on Summers or his remarks, but it seems hypocritical to assume sociologists have a domain of expertise and physicists don't." You're just sore at being reminded that you're not in fact a physicist.

Anyway, I think my point has been proven to my satisfaction.

That you're an insecure asshole?

I noted at first that this emphasis on the term "atheist" was peculiar, given that many atheists are totally indistinguishable from agnostics and other irreligious people, except only in their opinion on a topic of physics (the origin of the universe), which I don't believe many self-professed atheists even care about.

Flashes of J.

The subsequent turmoil confirmed that it's all about "atheist self-identity". There's no other explanation for that Lord of the Flies degree of aggression. If your self-identity is threatened, you pounce like wild animals.

More flashes of J. No one gives a good goddamn if you're bothered that we call ourselves atheists or mistakenly believe religious questions to reside solely in the domain of physics. Any hostility, as has been pointed out to you again and again, resulted from your insults and pompous tone.

Isn't it supposed to be a cyber “biker bar”? I seem to remember some characterisation along those lines.

A rough bar. :) (c/o Henry Gee)

I think Therion's points were:

1) Deism is not necessarially a religion
2) Even in modern times, there are gaps in our understanding of physics (fortuitious values for arbitrary constants, etc), and paradoxes in quantum mechanics that have even some brilliant physcists and other respected thinkers considering possible sentient (deity?) fine tuning of the specifics of the universe or a special role for consciousness

I don't think support for point 2, went beyond appeal to the authority of highly intelligent people who have contemplated the nature of the universe.

If there is something in dispute, it might be whether these problems in modern physics amount to actual evidence supportive of rather than just suggestive of fine tuning or a role for consciousness.

I will go as far as stating that I can understand why these non-evidence based speculative thoughts and interpretations crossed these brilliant minds.

I observe that, like Emmet, you've conveniently ommitted all reference to the nasty posts I was responding to.

I didn't see it as relevant. I was responding to your accusation that I was lying. Period. And as I read the comments that I cited, it seems to me that you started with the attitude at least as early on as anyone else.

In comment #84, it doesn't appear that you were actually replying to anyone.

In comment #254, where you wrote:

These guys were discovering the laws of nature in their mid-twenties, whereas you and your ilk while away the hours insulting creationists

you were replied to Wowbagger, who in comment #200 wasn't even talking to you.

You're really going to say that the comment that you were replying to in #263 was nasty? Wow...your degree defense should be fun...

You have a point with the comment you were replying to in #414, but you're going to have to clue me in as to how my comment to you, regarding it, is out of context by having not copied OC's text.

Moreover, regarding Emmet's comment, even if the comments you were responding to were nothing but a long serious of "fuck you's" and insults about your parents, your response to Emmet in #728 does not in anyway respond to his charge of you being hypocritical when saying that you're not dismissive. Even if you were totally justified in being dismissive in a comment, you wouldn't want to later assert that you hadn't been dismissive, would you? I'm ignoring the issue of whether or not you were being hypocritical here; I'm saying that what you wrote in #728 doesn't actually refute Emmet's comment.

Flashes of J.

Definitely — the more he prattled on, the more like an “extreme J” he became — right down to the persecution complex and being oblivious to way people were needling and testing. At least J had the ability to reflect somewhat objectively on his own comments, in the context of what people were saying about them, and acknowledge when he'd been an obnoxiously condescending asshole. TBH, I think Pope Therion the Inadequate is considerably worse than J ever was.
 

That you're an insecure asshole?

Well, that thesis is the only one that there's been any empirical evidence for.

Thus spake Josh:

your response to Emmet in #728 does not in anyway respond to his charge of you being hypocritical when saying that you're not dismissive.

He claimed not just that, but that he refrained from being dismissive “all along”. Sure, when things get heated, many of us reply rudely or dismissively, and he would have a legitimate complaint against me about out-of-context quote-mining if he hadn't made the absurd claim that he'd never been dismissive, when, clearly, he was dismissive and condescending from the get-go (as you've shown), and continued to be obnoxious up to and beyond the point that he spat the dummy and made his laughably stupid remarks about human rights abuses.

It's insulting to say that Freeman Dyson, a mathematical prodigy, a pioneer of quantum electrodynamics, and one of the world's great scientists, is "massively more intelligent and scientifically informed than [SC] and anyone else here"?

Yes it's fucking insulting. Of course it's fucking insulting. "Massively more intelligent and scientifically informed than [SC] and anyone else here?" You don't think that's insulting?

Let's see:
A, You don't know how smart any of us who comment here are (intellect being rather different than education), and I really doubt that you've read every comment in this blog, so this is kind of a dumbass blanket statement to make. Regarldess of it's truth or not, it's an unverified assertion that belittles everyone here. So yeah, insulting (and that has nothing to do with my opinion of the people who comment here).
B, You don't know who lurks here, so, again, it's kind of a dumbass blanket statement to make along the lines of A.
C, The second part of the sentence ("and scientifically informed") doesn't really make any sense, or at least it's difficult to actually determine its meaning. What does "scientifically informed" mean? Do you mean trained/educated in science? If so, then you're implying that Freeman Dyson is more educated about other non-physics fields than everyone else here. Still questioning why I used the phrase "hero worship?" That's why. This implication is just plain ignorant and foolish and belies a profound lack of understanding about science.

Now, keep in mind that insults aren't a crime. You just seem to be trying real hard to show us that you don't have anything else.

Anyway, I think my point has been proven to my satisfaction.

And when it's all said and done, wasn't that the point of your little exercise in the first place? And isn't that all that matters in your mind anyway?

FTR, I'm probably wrong, but not totally crazy. There are some real similarities. Read J's comments here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/we_happy_hooligans.php

(especially #723)

***

I'm having trouble understanding why it's so hard to distinguish between contemplating, speculating about, musing over, talking about, toying with, flirting with, brainstorming...isolated ideas and forming those ideas into an argument for a position or subscribing to a belief.

You're such zealots that even the mildest defense of deism -- not even so much of a defense, but more of a case that you shouldn't wave physicists' theories off with a few tired slogans -- is sufficient to cause uproar.

It was nice of you to admit back in #666 that you were hasty to dismiss the fission track argument, but now you seem to have forgotten all about it, and are back to arguing that all we offer are "tired slogans". You don't seem to be engaging with any of the serious criticism. A physicist has pointed out that your understanding of QM is off. I pointed out in #447 a serious problem with the fine tuning argument, and Sastra used essentially the same argument in #680:

"Disembodied "awarenesses" which can fine-tune physical constants to get physical results are independent of physical constraints."

This assumption of the deist fine tuning argument is not consistent with the assumption that consciousness requires fine-tuning!

The same criticism applies for a Turing machine 'creator', unless you can show that Turing machines don't require a narrow set of physical constants to exist.

Isn't it supposed to be a cyber “biker bar”? I seem to remember some characterisation along those lines.

If Therion isn't J, he is his first cousin. There are similarities.

Old west saloon actually.

You're such zealots that even the mildest defense of deism -- not even so much of a defense, but more of a case that you shouldn't wave physicists' theories off with a few tired slogans -- is sufficient to cause uproar. Presumably it's because you have nothing apart from your atheism. You're such empty, pathetic, miserable creatures that if we strip away your "atheist" sense of belonging...the game is up, isn't it? You realize that you're just utter mediocrities, so you desperately cling on to the sense of smugness and superiority found on this blog. Get back on "creationist watch", you fucking morons.

J or not J, Therion's true colors appear to be showing through the threads that hold together his tattered physics student armor. He's gone into full frothing at the mouth mode. This paragraph here is so wonderful that I'm going to have to save it.

If Therion isn't J, he is his first cousin. There are similarities.

There really are. See his comments here for even more:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/robert_bakker_plays_blamethe…

Pope Therion the Inadequate

Emmet, I missed this one earlier or would have properly laughed at the appropriate time. Be it known, however, that a giggle was produced.

See his comments here for even more:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/robert_bakker_plays_blamethe…

I can't read #89, 99, or 131 on that thread and not be led strongly to believe this is the same person.

I don't care one way or the other (even if he lied about it here), but I was not imagining this.:)

SC,OM
The similarity is amazing!
But, somehow, my recollection of J (even after reading a lot of the thread you just linked to) seems a wee bit more conciliatory and less of a narcissistic douchenozzle. I'd have expected J to have mellowed, rather than become more intransigent, but maybe Therion, Pope-Apparent of Physics, is J having a really really bad day? People do lie on teh Internets.
But, no, you're definitely not imagining it. The J=Therion hypothesis seems perfectly plausible.

So J WAS the brights guy. Holy hell, looking back that argument really was inane. And I didn't remember him being such an asshole but reading his comments again it seems my memory was just being nice.

I really like Emmet's title for Therion. Maybe Pope Therion should get a big pointy hat and some robes

Sadly, it's quite possible that there really are two of them.

Emmet, I missed this one earlier or would have properly laughed at the appropriate time. Be it known, however, that a giggle was produced.

In me as well. The problem for Emmet is that he's so funny so much of the time that it would be time-consuming to keep drawing attention to it (except when he was here reading the threads and making me laugh in person). Be it known, however, that many a giggle has been produced.

Sadly, it's quite possible that there really are two of them.

*shudders again*

Just for kicks, here's the "argument" Therion's been making here as summarized by J months ago:

Many people believe in an impersonal God -- a sort of Prime Mover who's oblivious to human affairs.

Some physicists think this is the only available hypothesis that can account for various details. They're wrong, but for subtle reasons that most people here don't grasp.

Re: the “Pope” crack.
In retrospect, I think “Pope Therion the Adequate” (rather than “Inadequate”) would've been much better. Nothing quite like being damned by faint praise :o)
I look forward to the day, in 3 or 4 years, when I, too, am “qualified to utter definitive pronouncements” and become a pope, albeit not in anything as sexy as physics. Alas, I am not yet even an Apprentice Pope like J/Therion.

Sci-fi tangent: Even if human consciousness were the only thing that could collapse a wavefunction, what reason is there to think that's the intended outcome? Maybe the creator intended for it to stay in superposition, and humans keep spoiling it by observing stuff.

*back from the dead*

Therion;
I have said sometimes that I would exchange all of my knowledge for youth, and take no offence, you are making me reevaluate my words.

If I may make a suggestion...go back and reread
{SC, OM | April 20, 2009 10:00 AM}

Give it time to sink in, sure if it is your nature to narrowly follow a single discipline,fine and there's nothing wrong with that, however, allowing oneself to absorb a little interdisciplinary knowledge will lead to a satisfactory result.

Guess what, Theron, in my posts 476 and 534 I discussed the Anthropic Principle and gave a reason why I don't care for the Strong AP. You even quoted me in #629 and commented on my statement. Guess what, I'm not a physicist or any other kind of hard scientist. I'm like SC, a social scientist and I don't have a doctorate.

It would appear that understanding philosophical points, which is what the AP really is, does not require advanced training in physics.

*back from the dead*

Careful, buddy. We'll be accused by the Pope of not being serious-enough for the thread.

*is it safe?*

Nah, need a higher authority to tell me what to do, like PZ and hell, Patricia scares me sometimes (sometimes I hear a 58 pan-head and I just know I'm in for it)

PS, How is it I get a "Dust in the wind" and you get a make up? not fair even If I was ciberly dead.

Speaking of human rights violations, this is disgusting. Of course, it's not as heinous as mocking grad students.

physicist has pointed out that your understanding of QM is off. I pointed out in #447 a serious problem with the fine tuning argument, and Sastra used essentially the same argument in #680:

My understanding of QM is not "off", you lying little imbecile. Lots of highly distinguished physicists, far better qualified than any of the physicists here, would agree with everything I said regarding QM. You're such unreasonable zealots that you are oblivious to your own transparent double standards. When I appeal to the authority of some of the most respected physicists in the world, that is "hero worship". But the authority of the Pharyngula physicists, apparently, is sacrosanct.

Any physicist who defends arrogant and ignorant dismissals of the strong anthropic principle is being disingenuous. SC and most others posting in this thread can't even understand the motivation for the SAP. They don't understand the most basic features of quantum mechanics. (The intellectually lightweight idiot should stick to her Marxism.) It's impossible to have an informed opinion about something if you don't know anything about it. All they should say is that it's so extravagant as to make them highly skeptical. Of course they go further than that and utter sweeping, definitive pronouncements, such as "This is stupid". I've encountered atheists on other websites who do the same with respect to multiverse theories.

It should be obvious from the above that every and any opportunity to dodge my substantive points was exploited to the max. Most people responding to me are not looking for a serious discussion; they're just here because they're hateful creatures, with a sinister thirst for combat. It's no wonder why they never understood what I was talking about, because the discussion was repeatedly made personal, despite my attempts to keep it intellectual. SC, Emmet and others have made a hobby out of swearing at people and ridiculing people. How pathetic is that?

My apologies to those posters who behave civilly. I wasn't meaning to lump you with the fanatics like SC and Emmet.

Therion going off the deep end @ 789,

SC and most others posting in this thread can't even understand the motivation for the SAP. They don't understand the most basic features of quantum mechanics. (The intellectually lightweight idiot should stick to her Marxism

and

Most people responding to me are not looking for a serious discussion; they're just here because they're hateful creatures, with a sinister thirst for combat

Mate,
you need to get over yourself,and fast.And when youre done with that,you need to realize that the tone of discussion on internet forums is different from your Uni lectures.

What you cant stand is that people here are challenging your views,you thought you could storm in here with your grad student knowledge and sweep us off our feet,that might work on uncommon descent,but there are freethinking,clever people on this blog that will challenge you.

Now cut the sulking and name-calling,the 2 commenters you mentioned in your little tantrum happen to be way more knowledgeable,willing to learn and rational than you have shown yourself to be here.

As to the "hateful creatures" thing,ah well,as I said,grow up man.

My understanding of QM is not "off", you lying little imbecile.

Halp halp, I'm being repressed! Come see the human rights violations inherent in the system!

You're such unreasonable zealots that you are oblivious to your own transparent double standards. When I appeal to the authority of some of the most respected physicists in the world, that is "hero worship". But the authority of the Pharyngula physicists, apparently, is sacrosanct.

No, it just shows that you need to consider the possibility that YOU have misunderstood something, since those most respected physicists are not actually around to back you up.

And just because Freeman Dyson et al understand physics far beyond the level of any of us, is no guarantee that their deism arguments don't have other errors we can identify.

It should be obvious from the above that every and any opportunity to dodge my substantive points was exploited to the max.

Right, that's why I brought up counterexamples and looked up the sources for you, just to dodge your substantive points to the max. I would get annoyed at you, if this weren't so pathetic.

I seem to recall a Dilbert strip in which a scientist claims "I'm really smart because scientists have made great discoveries", to whcih Dilbert responds "Those were other scientists, not you".

Therion needs to meditate on that for a while.

Generally speaking, oh predoctoral one, a substantive argument (QM doesn't in any way imply strong anthropic because the idea that a conscious observer must collapse the wavefunction is not part of a fundamental theory of QM) beats a desperate invocation of hordes of really really smart people who would totally agree with you, oh yes.

On the subject of prominent scientists going off the reservation and pontificating on stuff they don't actually understand, consider Bacon's 54th aphorism:

54. Some men become attached to particular sciences and contemplations, either from supposing themselves the authors and inventors of them, or from having bestowed the greatest pains upon such subjects, and thus become most habituated to them. If men of this description apply themselves to philosophy and contemplations of an universal nature, they wrest and corrupt them by their preconceived fancies; of which Aristotle affords us a signal instance, who made his natural philosophy completely subservient to his logic, and thus rendered it little more than useless and disputatious. The chymists, again, have formed a fanciful philosophy with the most confined views, from a few experiments of the furnace. Gilbert, too, having employed himself most assiduously in the consideration of the magnet, immediately established a system of philosophy to coincide with his favourite pursuit.

Gilbert, for context, was an Elizabethan court physician who did the first really systematic study of magnetism (yay!) and then started claiming that the motion of planets in the solar system was caused by magnetism (whoops!).

Therion, until you can acknowledge you have been wrong, are wrong, and will be wrong, you are not a scientist. Period, end of story. Any scientist pushing the envelope must keep in mind the the possibility they can be wrong. You aren't. Which is why you are being mocked and scorned. I don't need a degree in physics to have you set off my bullshit detector. Which you do every time you post. Taking completely unrelated subjects, just jamming them together without any background does that. You have explained nothing. I hope you aren't a TA, as I pity your students.

Therion, why you are at a biology blog, instead one of the physics blogs? Or are you afraid the real experts, like Blake Stacey will shoot holes in your inane ideas.

Either Therion is self-aware enough to realize that even Blake Stacey's mother could shoot fatal holes in the aforementioned inanity, or given as how Therion is your typical deranged theistic apologist, he just came over to Pharyngula in order to lay siege to this hellhole/impenetrable bastion of crass atheism.

I vote for the latter.

When I appeal to the authority of some of the most respected physicists in the world, that is "hero worship".

Oh man, this graduate career would be a joy to watch. A lot of us were here at one point, and the process of having this view beat out of us wasn't pleasant.

Appealing to authority the way you're doing it is hero-worship. By your implication, you're supposed to be "the one" talking science here. If so, then fucking do it. So far, you're not, which is part of what we're reacting to.

By that, I mean that you're not doing this (emphasis being put on "I think" simply to try and make the point):

Such and such said, on page xxx of (cites paper), blah, blah, blah. I think that this refutes your statement (quote) in comment #52. Now, I know that most of you aren't physics geeks, so for those watching, such and such's argument was also discussed, perhaps more clearly, here (cites additional reference).

Instead, you're doing stuff like this (from #414):

My point, clearly, is that they are brilliant men, who know far more science than you, and are not to be trifled with.

This quote contains one fact, one unsubstantiated assertion, and one outright false statement that belies a rather cripling misunderstanding of science (as well as also being "hero-worship," a earns you a point for the nice twofer). The rest of comment #414 is more toned-down than this example, and makes leanings toward getting there, but it never really does. SC tried to engage it several times (e.g., 267; 277), but according my reading, to no avail.

and of course there's stuff like this (#254):

but there are many scientists who flirt with deism, like Freeman Dyson, who are massively more intelligent and scientifically informed than you and anyone else here.

This doesn't advance the discussion at all. It just demonstrates that you think highly of Freeman Dyson. I'll quote SC here from #730 (I apologise if this sends you into a frenzy; I know how well you two get along): If you want to discuss the matter intelligently, why don't you try articulating Freeman Dyson's argument for deism, spelling it out clearly and defining your terms, then explaining what you find convincing and what you don't? Your response to this (#734) was that it was boring you.

If you can't see the difference between the hypothetical that I pose above and your actual posts, and why it's an issue, then your graduate career is going to be bloody. People don't have authority in science. If anything has "authority" in science, then it's the process, not the people who use the process. Ideas that stand the test of bloodying have "authority." Observations lend weight to the "authority" of those ideas. But honestly, it's a very poor word to use. NO ONE is beyond trifling with in science, a point that you seem to still not understand.

Most people responding to me are not looking for a serious discussion; they're just here because they're hateful creatures, with a sinister thirst for combat.

He writes this after the way he came in to the thread. Amazing.

But the authority of the Pharyngula physicists, apparently, is sacrosanct.

Jebus, don't anyone light a match. There's enough straw here to blow the whole place.

[Preface: Thank you, guys, for the nice things you said about me, and also for the insights in your most recent posts.]

Therion,

You seem very upset. I'm not at all hateful, nor do I have a "sinister thirst for combat." I sometimes enjoy arguing, but I don't think that's anything to be ashamed of. At times things get heated, and I do tend to turn hostile when someone is insulting individuals or a community of which I think very highly (or me, of course). I don't enjoy hurting people or exploiting their soft spots (well, part of me does, at certain weak moments, but that is a cause for shame and something to work on). So I'm sorry if my remarks have caused you pain.

That said, I agree with the comments people have made since your last, and despite my hostility I think I have made an effort to have a serious conversation.

By the way,

(The intellectually lightweight idiot should stick to her Marxism.)

The question of my intellectual heft aside, I am an anarchist - not a liberal, not a Marxist.

I don't enjoy hurting people or exploiting their soft spots (well, part of me does, at certain weak moments, but that is a cause for shame and something to work on).

I meant "part of me does" at certain weak moments enjoy the latter, not the former.

At #635 Josh wrote:

*contemplates Bastion's bar suggestion*
Some might say it's a little early for a pint, but I'm a geologist. No such time exists.
As to the rest...well, yeah, absolutely.

I find drinking in the morning to be much easier if you party all night.

Good to hear about your being agreeable to "the rest." Always being on the alert for a sneak attack is exhausting.

I want to thank you and the others who joined in the battle--'Tis, Ichthyic, and other--for the laughs. I needed some.

Sphere Coupler wrote:

@784

*back from the dead*

(S)He is risen! Alleluia!!

It's a miracle! A miracle I say!!

@787

PS, How is it I get a "Dust in the wind" and you get a make up? not fair even If I was ciberly dead.

The reason that you didn't get the same offer as Josh, besides the fact that you were cyberly dead, is that I've had a bit of an intellectual crush on Josh since the "Titanoboa" and "Science of Watchmen" threads.

And then, he went and called me, "Dickhead." What female wouldn't be totally charmed by that?!

Be that as it may, I'm not adverse to making-out with additional Pharyngulates. [This offer limited to commenters who are both very smart and snarky.]

I find drinking in the morning to be much easier if you party all night.

The worst thing about drinking is sobriety (he says over a glass of very nice single malt).

Good to hear about your being agreeable to "the rest."

Very...

Always being on the alert for a sneak attack is exhausting.

Indeed. I've got your back (although further instances of "stone studier" might merit some additional punishment...just 'cause being an ass is one of the few things I'm good at).

I want to thank you and the others who joined in the battle--'Tis, Ichthyic, and other--for the laughs. I needed some.

That was fun, wasn't it? I echo Bastion's thanks. We should do that more often. I propose 80s hair metal for next time.

is that I've had a bit of an intellectual crush on Josh since the "Titanoboa" and "Science of Watchmen" threads.

*blush*

That kind of talk will get you in all kinds of great trouble.

And then, he went and called me, "Dickhead." What female wouldn't be totally charmed by that?!

*rolls eyes*

Huh. I'm pretty darn sure that you deserved it...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/sandwiched_between_jodie_fos…

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/sandwiched_between_jodie_fos…

Huh. I'm pretty darn sure that you deserved it...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/sandwiched_between_jodie_fos…

Aw. Just using the opportunity to spout some of my favorite lines from The Princess Bride. In case you didn't recognize them, I sprinkled a few throughout my battle comments.

Aw. Just using the opportunity to spout some of my favorite lines from The Princess Bride. In case you didn't recognize them, I sprinkled a few throughout my battle comments.

Sigh. Missed them completely. I suck.

I will talk it up to paying real close attention to not getting shot?

I propose 80s hair metal for next time.

Although it wasn't part of the battle, I hope at least someone appreciated the symphonic metal Abba cover(!) @673...

It was appreciated.

playground in my mind
*damn that hurt*

If I could tag this thread with a song it would be this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5znh58WITU8

That was fun, wasn't it? I echo Bastion's thanks. We should do that more often. I propose 80s hair metal for next time.

fun, but BRUTAL

I'm still trying to get some of those songs outta my friggin' head.

It was like an ear-worm war.

OTOH, speaking of brutal, a metal war would surely be just that.

:p

Anyway, I think my point has been proven to my satisfaction.

ROFLMAO

good luck using that as your closing line at your thesis defense.

I'm so glad Icthyic's not around. With his hypersensitivity to projection, this could cause permanent damage.

curse me for scrolling back upthread.

*headdesk*

Woot! I've been hit by the typkey sign-in bug finally!

Now I feel complete.