Fact Deniers

[Bret Cahill]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/will-storr-the-heretics--journalists-explores--why-facts-don-t-work--with--enemies-of-science--114518590.html

[Ron]

On Feb 15, 2:32 pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/will-storr-the-heretics--journalists-explore...



Sadly, the author forgot to mention the Flat Earth Society.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

I suspect these BeanHeads are making some kind of income off this
idea.

[Desertphile]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 12:32:34 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/will-storr-the-heretics--journalists-explores--why-facts-don-t-work--with--enemies-of-science--114518590.html

This article is excellent. Also frightening.


--
Nemo me impune lacessit.
Presumably polar bears will grow green fur to match the
Alaskan tropical rain forest.

[Alison Thigpen]

An ultra-left LOSER. Like most socially misfit DemocRATs, Bret lives
alone in a one-room apartment:

Bret E. Cahill (56+)
649 Main St, Apt 226
Brawley, CA 92227

Bret tried to sue the gov't and got stomped on like an insect. Ever
since that crushing humiliation he has hated himself, everybody else,
and America.

BRET E. CAHILL, PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ET AL....
CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/1995/w951444w.txt

Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage them to
continue lying.

[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"

[Courtesy of Buster Norris]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 22:49:27 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>Re: Value of Gadaffy's Gold Gun: $45K?
>Pure gold might not be all that great a material for firearms.

LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC) fighters carry a young man
holding what they claim to be the gold-plated gun of ousted Libyan
leader Muammar Gaddafi at the site where the latter was allegedly
captured in the coastal Libyan city of Sirte on October 20, 2011.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/10/20/muammar-gaddafi-dead-former-libyan-dictator-captured-in-a-sewer/

Posted from:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/

[Ruth Roxane Hood]

Ronald is an ultra-left, slightly creative liar. Ronald lives at home
with his Mommy & Daddy in Houston, TX. Note that when you reply to a

Proven Liar you encourage them to
continue lying.

[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"

[Courtesy of Buster Norris]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:19:45 -0800 (PST), Ron <ronea...@att.net>
wrote:
>On Dec 13, 1:05 pm, "Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year"
><xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/10/California-free-ce...
>> Paradise Lost: CA to Provide Free Cell Phones for Homeless
>> by BREITBART NEWS 10 Dec 2012
>This urban legend has been debunked more than once. See:
>http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/31/adam-putnam/putnam-obama-
>campaign-gives-free-cell-phones-suppo/
>and if the URL is too long:
>http://snipurl.com/25v1s5m
>Why do you choose to believe unfounded rumors?

LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your link has NOTHING to do with the program in CALIFORNIA!!!!!!!!!!!

Government Subsidized Cell Phones To Be Offered To California's Poor
And Homeless
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/government-subsidized-cell-phones_n_2272482.html

[Kristyn Kitty Lauer]

Ronald is an ultra-left, slightly creative liar. Ronald lives at home
with his Mommy & Daddy in Houston, TX. Note that when you reply to a
Proven Liar you encourage them to
continue lying.

[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"

[Courtesy of Buster Norris]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:20:05 -0800 (PST), Ron <ronea...@att.net>
wrote:
>On Dec 13, 5:15 pm, "bustyourf...@rocketmail.com"
><bustyourf...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 11:19:45 -0800 (PST), Ron <roneal1...@att.net>

>> wrote:
>> >On Dec 13, 1:05 pm, "Criminal Drivers Murder 35,000 Americans a Year"
>> ><xeton2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/10/California-free-ce...
>> >> Paradise Lost: CA to Provide Free Cell Phones for Homeless
>> >> by BREITBART NEWS 10 Dec 2012
>> >This urban legend has been debunked more than once.  See:

>> >http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/31/adam-p...

>> >campaign-gives-free-cell-phones-suppo/
>> >and if the URL is too long:
>> >http://snipurl.com/25v1s5m
>> >Why do you choose to believe unfounded rumors?
>> LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> Your link has NOTHING to do with the program in CALIFORNIA!!!!!!!!!!!
>> Government Subsidized Cell Phones To Be Offered To California's Poor

>> And Homelesshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/10/government-subsidized-cell-p...
>Your own citation at Huffington Post

Trying to change the subject, Homo?????????????????

YOU tried to debunk the California program using a link about the
FEDERAL PROGRAM..............

>reads, in part:
>"Participants in the program will only have to shell out $20 for a
>cell phone and pay ten cents a minute after 250 monthly minutes of
>free talk time."
>What part of $20 and 10 cents a minute is "free"?

LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You OMITTED the NEXT sentence "That initial payment will be refunded
as a credit to pay for any overages."

>Your math is faulty.

Your LIFE is faulty.......................

[josephus]

Desertphile wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2013 12:32:34 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
> <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> http://uk.news.yahoo.com/will-storr-the-heretics--journalists-explores--why-facts-don-t-work--with--enemies-of-science--114518590.html
>
> This article is excellent. Also frightening.
>
>

I have met some of those people and frightening is too weak
TERRIFYING is what I would call them. some of them are reservoirs for
violence. they commiserate with each other about how they are
mistreated by the OTHERS. I have known some FUNDAMENTALISTS who would
give you nightmares.
josephus

[Sleepalot]

Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>http://uk.news.yahoo.com/will-storr-the-heretics--journalists-explores--why-facts-don-t-work--with--enemies-of-science--114518590.html

Ah, but he fell into the trap he was trying to point out to others.

"This (confirmation bias) means that many people subconsciously only choose
evidence which supports their views, while selectively rejecting evidence which
goes against them."

Firstly, his claim "many people subconsciously (...) choose evidence which
supports their views" is false: _everyone_ is subject to confirmation bias.

(I can't prove that - I hold it as an immuteable belief - and that's my own
confirmation bias in action. Spotting one's own immuteable beliefs is generally
very difficult.)

Secondly, his claim is false, because it's an over-generalisation that misses
a fundamental aspect of belief. It's wrong to say "people subconsciously ONLY
choose evidence which supports their views", because no-one has immuteable
views on every possible subject.

(Again, I can't prove it, but I feel I've made a sucessful argument - and
there's my confirmation bias at work again.)

So, while everyone is subject to confirmation bias, no-one is subject to it _all
the time_.

The article doesn't handle the question "what is a fact?"
It's easy to flatter yourself that you're smarter than a creationist, but if you
don't possess _all the necessary facts_, then you're merely following a
concensus view - exactly the same as the creationist.

Storr tries to make his point with homeopathy, questioning opponents on their
knowledge of the scientific evidence supporting homeopathy, but again fails
because of a point that he's probably unaware of: there _is no_ good scientific
evidence to support homeopathy, and therefore, _no-one_ can be aware of the
_scientific_ [1]evidence that supports homeopathy - there isn't any.

[1] There have been homeopathy studies performed, but only under ludicrously
low standards, and even then only producing results barely distinguishable from
chance. They're not exactly "scientific".

Without knowing what a fact is, and without having to hand all the necessary
facts to support any particular position, Storr's book is probably little more
than an exercise in "right think".

[Bret Cahill]

> >http://uk.news.yahoo.com/will-storr-the-heretics--journalists-explore...

>
> Ah, but he fell into the trap he was trying to point out to others.
>
> "This (confirmation bias) means that many people subconsciously only choose
> evidence which supports their views, while selectively rejecting evidence which
> goes against them."
>
> Firstly, his claim "many people subconsciously (...) choose evidence which
> supports their views" is false: _everyone_ is subject to confirmation bias.

Most but not everyone. A great thinker can be truly open minded.

That's how Buffet and Soros makes their money. Others in the market
are choosing evidence which supports their views so they has a built
in statistical advantage.

> (I can't prove that - I hold it as an immuteable belief - and that's my own
> confirmation bias in action. Spotting one's own immuteable beliefs is generally
> very difficult.)

> Secondly, his claim is false, because it's an over-generalisation that misses
> a fundamental aspect of belief. It's wrong to say "people subconsciously ONLY
> choose evidence which supports their views", because no-one has immuteable
> views on every possible subject.

Minor issues are only of interest to minor thinkers.

> (Again, I can't prove it, but I feel I've made a sucessful argument - and
> there's my confirmation bias at work again.)
>
> So, while everyone is subject to confirmation bias, no-one is subject to it _all
> the time_.

And the allies fire bombed Dresden.

What's your point?

> The article doesn't handle the question "what is a fact?"

And Socrates never provided a definition for "justice."

What's your point?

Hey, this is a free country. Feel free to generate your own
daffynition of the word "fact."

Post it right here:

_____________________

> It's easy to flatter yourself that you're smarter than a creationist, but if you
> don't possess _all the necessary facts_,

"If evolutionists don't have the missing link then no one can say
anything about creationism."

The "If you aren't omniscient then you cannot say anything" is the
most common creationist / denier tactic.

It is not an argument. It's really censorship of science because the
entire justification for more scientific research is the science isn't
fully developed, let alone omniscient.

> then you're merely following a
> concensus view - exactly the same as the creationist.

Creationism is only the "concensus" in a fundamentalist church.

The discussion is about wingers vs world opinion.


Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

> >http://uk.news.yahoo.com/will-storr-the-heretics--journalists-explore...
>
> All you really care about, is using the word denier, as use of this word is part of your global warming religion. It's completely moronic, as this means that Al Gore is your God.................
>
> Loser

Are deniers now into denying that Obama won last year?

[Sleepalot]

Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> >http://uk.news.yahoo.com/will-storr-the-heretics--journalists-explore...
>>
>> Ah, but he fell into the trap he was trying to point out to others.
>>
>> "This (confirmation bias) means that many people subconsciously only choose
>> evidence which supports their views, while selectively rejecting evidence which
>> goes against them."
>>
>> Firstly, his claim "many people subconsciously (...) choose evidence which
>> supports their views" is false: _everyone_ is subject to confirmation bias.
>
>Most but not everyone. A great thinker can be truly open minded.

No, everyone.

>That's how Buffet and Soros makes their money.

Are you equating "wealthy" with "great thinker"?

That's a bias.

> Others in the market are choosing evidence which supports their views so they
> has a built in statistical advantage.

Advantage can also be obtained by lying, cheating and stealing.

>> (I can't prove that - I hold it as an immuteable belief - and that's my own
>> confirmation bias in action. Spotting one's own immuteable beliefs is generally
>> very difficult.)
>
>> Secondly, his claim is false, because it's an over-generalisation that misses
>> a fundamental aspect of belief. It's wrong to say "people subconsciously ONLY
>> choose evidence which supports their views", because no-one has immuteable
>> views on every possible subject.
>
>Minor issues are only of interest to minor thinkers.

Minor thinkers miss key points.

>> (Again, I can't prove it, but I feel I've made a sucessful argument - and
>> there's my confirmation bias at work again.)
>>
>> So, while everyone is subject to confirmation bias, no-one is subject to it _all
>> the time_.
>
>And the allies fire bombed Dresden.
>
>What's your point?

That, like you, Storr's treatment of the subject is facile and wrong.

>> The article doesn't handle the question "what is a fact?"
>
>And Socrates never provided a definition for "justice."
>
>What's your point?

It's not a question of definition, it's the subject at hand - it needs
discussion!

>Hey, this is a free country.

This is not a country.

> Feel free to generate your own daffynition of the word "fact."
>
>Post it right here:
>_____________________
>
>> It's easy to flatter yourself that you're smarter than a creationist, but if you
>> don't possess _all the necessary facts_,
>
>"If evolutionists don't have the missing link then no one can say
>anything about creationism."

The keyword you missed was "necessary".

>The "If you aren't omniscient then you cannot say anything" is the
>most common creationist / denier tactic.

The strawman is the typical believers tactic.

>It is not an argument. It's really censorship of science because the
>entire justification for more scientific research is the science isn't
>fully developed, let alone omniscient.

Pity you didn't realise the problem of lacking omniscience a few minutes
earlier, as it's precisely the reason why people don't have immuteable views
on all subjects.

>> then you're merely following a
>> concensus view - exactly the same as the creationist.
>
>Creationism is only the "concensus" in a fundamentalist church.

And?

>The discussion is about wingers vs world opinion.

You mean you think it's about being right, rather an inquiry as to when and how
people go wrong..

>Bret Cahill
>

[Bret Cahill]

On Feb 19, 8:13 am, Sleepalot <sleepalo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >http://uk.news.yahoo.com/will-storr-the-heretics--journalists-explore...
>
> >> Ah, but he fell into the trap he was trying to point out to others.
>
> >> "This (confirmation bias) means that many people subconsciously only choose
> >> evidence which supports their views, while selectively rejecting evidence which
> >> goes against them."
>
> >> Firstly, his claim "many people subconsciously (...) choose evidence which
> >> supports their views" is false: _everyone_ is subject to confirmation bias.
>
> >Most but not everyone.  A great thinker can be truly open minded.
>
> No, everyone.

How can an unaccomplished person like yourself know anything about
great thinkers?

> >That's how Buffet and Soros makes their money.
>
> Are you equating "wealthy" with "great thinker"?

Who said anything about wealth?

The issue was _making_ money, not inheriting it by repealing the death
tax.

> That's a bias.

Are you fessin' up or projecting?

> > Others in the market are choosing evidence which supports their views so they
> > has a built in statistical advantage.
>
> Advantage can also be obtained by lying, cheating and stealing.

How does that change the fact that others in the market are choosing
evidence which supports their views so Buffet and Soros have a built
in statistical advantage?

> >> (I can't prove that - I hold it as an immuteable belief - and that's my own
> >> confirmation bias in action. Spotting one's own immuteable beliefs is generally
> >> very difficult.)
>
> >> Secondly, his claim is false, because it's an over-generalisation that misses
> >> a fundamental aspect of belief. It's wrong to say "people subconsciously ONLY
> >> choose evidence which supports their views", because no-one has immuteable
> >> views on every possible subject.

> >Minor issues are only of interest to minor thinkers.

> Minor thinkers miss key points.

You are certainly proving that by your example.

> >> (Again, I can't prove it, but I feel I've made a sucessful argument - and
> >> there's my confirmation bias at work again.)
>
> >> So, while everyone is subject to confirmation bias, no-one is subject to it _all
> >> the time_.
>
> >And the allies fire bombed Dresden.
>
> >What's your point?
>
> That, like you, Storr's treatment of the subject is facile and wrong.

How does that fall out of your penny wise pound foolish approach?

> >> The article doesn't handle the question "what is a fact?"
>
> >And Socrates never provided a definition for "justice."
>
> >What's your point?
>
> It's not a question of definition, it's the subject at hand - it needs
> discussion!

You play the daffynition word game every time you get in a jam?

> >Hey, this is a free country.
>
> This is not a country.
>
> > Feel free to generate your own daffynition of the word "fact."
>
> >Post it right here:
> >_____________________

What?

No daffynition?

After demanding a daffynition?

> >> It's easy to flatter yourself that you're smarter than a creationist, but if you
> >> don't possess _all the necessary facts_,

> >"If evolutionists don't have the missing link then no one can say
> >anything about creationism."
>
> The keyword you missed was "necessary".

What makes you think it's necessary?

> >The "If you aren't omniscient then you cannot say anything" is the
> >most common creationist / denier tactic.

> The strawman is the typical believers tactic.

Are you fessin' up or projecting?

> >It is not an argument.  It's really censorship of science because the
> >entire justification for more scientific research is the science isn't
> >fully developed, let alone omniscient.

> Pity you didn't realise the problem of lacking omniscience a few minutes
> earlier,

Who thinks it's a problem besides creationists and deniers of science?

> as it's precisely the reason why people don't have immuteable views
> on all subjects.

> >> then you're merely following a
> >> concensus view - exactly the same as the creationist.

> >Creationism is only the "concensus" in a fundamentalist church.

> And?

The discussion is about wingers vs world opinion.

> >The discussion is about wingers vs world opinion.

> You mean you think it's about being right, rather an inquiry as to when and how
> people go wrong..

Here, try again:

The discussion is about wingers, i.e., creationists, Holocaust
deniers, AGW deniers, truthers, birthers, etc. vs mainstream opinion.

This time no dodgin' 'n dodgin'


Bret Cahill

[Gemma Schreiner]

An ultra-left LOSER. Like most socially misfit DemocRATs, Bret lives
alone in a one-room apartment:

Bret E. Cahill (56+)
649 Main St, Apt 226
Brawley, CA 92227

Bret tried to sue the gov't and got stomped on like an insect. Ever
since that crushing humiliation he has hated himself, everybody else,
and America.

BRET E. CAHILL, PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ET AL....
CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/1995/w951444w.txt

Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage them to
continue lying.

[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"

[Courtesy of Buster Norris]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:00:35 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>And a reputable judge bases his decisions on the bench on the law, not
>on politics.
>Justice Scalia, in the spring of 2000, openly stated he'd quit if
>"Gore was elected."
>Where was the uproar?

Where is your cite????????

"In an unsourced report written in April 2000, Novak cited rumors that
Scalia would step down from the court if Al Gore were elected
president."
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/04/02/scalia

>Even "liberals" were quiet.
>Unbelievable!

Try not to spree, Bret, but if you must spree please only shoot
Liberals, k?

[H Ted Kruse]

An ultra-left LOSER. Like most socially misfit DemocRATs, Bret lives
alone in a one-room apartment:

Bret E. Cahill (56+)
649 Main St, Apt 226
Brawley, CA 92227

Bret tried to sue the gov't and got stomped on like an insect. Ever
since that crushing humiliation he has hated himself, everybody else,
and America.

BRET E. CAHILL, PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ET AL....
CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/1995/w951444w.txt

Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage them to
continue lying.

[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"

On Sun, 15 May 2011 21:35:11 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>It gets cold in NM in the winter. Half way through October the gators
>would head to El Paso, jump into El Rio and swim to the Gulf.

Oops! Caught lying, again:

Monthly Averages for Las Cruces, NM
Oct: 78f
Nov: 66f
Dec: 58f
Jan: 57f
Feb: 62f
Mar: 69f
http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USNM0169

"American alligators are less susceptible to cold than American
Crocodiles. Unlike the American Crocodile, which would quickly succumb
to the cold and drown in water of 45 蚌 (7.2 蚓), an alligator can
survive in such temperatures for some time without apparent
discomfort. It is thought that this adaptiveness is the reason why
American alligators spread farther north than the American Crocodile.
In fact, the American alligator is found farther from the equator and
is more equipped to deal with cooler conditions than any other
crocodilian."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Alligator#Habitat

[Wilda Tavares-Early]

An ultra-left LOSER. Like most socially misfit DemocRATs, Bret lives
alone in a one-room apartment:

Bret E. Cahill (56+)
649 Main St, Apt 226
Brawley, CA 92227

Bret tried to sue the gov't and got stomped on like an insect. Ever
since that crushing humiliation he has hated himself, everybody else,
and America.

BRET E. CAHILL, PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ET AL....
CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/1995/w951444w.txt

Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage them to
continue lying.

[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"

[Courtesy of Buster Norris]

On Mon, 16 May 2011 21:30:25 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
>> 51.5%
>About 4X that of the GOP house or GOP anything.

LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AP-GfK Poll March 24-28, 2011.

"How well do you think the Republicans in Congress understand the
important issues the country will need to focus on during the next two
years? Would you say [see below]?"

Understand well: 65%
Understand not well: 36%

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll Jan. 21-23, 2011.

Republican policies right direction: 46%
Republican policies wrong direction: 50%

Democrat policies right direction: 45%
Democrat policies wrong direction: 52%
http://pollingreport.com/congress.htm

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sleepalot]

Bret Cahill <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Feb 19, 8:13�am, Sleepalot <sleepalo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >http://uk.news.yahoo.com/will-storr-the-heretics--journalists-explore...
>>
>> >> Ah, but he fell into the trap he was trying to point out to others.
>>
>> >> "This (confirmation bias) means that many people subconsciously only choose
>> >> evidence which supports their views, while selectively rejecting evidence which
>> >> goes against them."
>>
>> >> Firstly, his claim "many people subconsciously (...) choose evidence which
>> >> supports their views" is false: _everyone_ is subject to confirmation bias.
>>
>> >Most but not everyone. �A great thinker can be truly open minded.
>>
>> No, everyone.
>
>How can an unaccomplished person like yourself know anything about
>great thinkers?

That's easy: they write, I read.

>> >That's how Buffet and Soros makes their money.
>>
>> Are you equating "wealthy" with "great thinker"?
>
>Who said anything about wealth?
>
>The issue was _making_ money, not inheriting it by repealing the death
>tax.

A distinction without a difference, made only to avoid answering my question.

>> That's a bias.
>
>Are you fessin' up or projecting?

False dilemma.

>> > Others in the market are choosing evidence which supports their views so they
>> > has a built in statistical advantage.
>>
>> Advantage can also be obtained by lying, cheating and stealing.
>
>How does that change the fact that others in the market are choosing
>evidence which supports their views so Buffet and Soros have a built
>in statistical advantage?

You're too dumb to appreciate what I'm saying to you.

>> >> (I can't prove that - I hold it as an immuteable belief - and that's my own
>> >> confirmation bias in action. Spotting one's own immuteable beliefs is generally
>> >> very difficult.)
>>
>> >> Secondly, his claim is false, because it's an over-generalisation that misses
>> >> a fundamental aspect of belief. It's wrong to say "people subconsciously ONLY
>> >> choose evidence which supports their views", because no-one has immuteable
>> >> views on every possible subject.
>
>> >Minor issues are only of interest to minor thinkers.
>
>> Minor thinkers miss key points.
>
>You are certainly proving that by your example.

Fallacy: tu quoque

>> >> (Again, I can't prove it, but I feel I've made a sucessful argument - and
>> >> there's my confirmation bias at work again.)
>>
>> >> So, while everyone is subject to confirmation bias, no-one is subject to it _all
>> >> the time_.
>>
>> >And the allies fire bombed Dresden.
>>
>> >What's your point?
>>
>> That, like you, Storr's treatment of the subject is facile and wrong.
>
>How does that fall out of your penny wise pound foolish approach?

You're too dumb to understand.

>> >> The article doesn't handle the question "what is a fact?"
>>
>> >And Socrates never provided a definition for "justice."
>>
>> >What's your point?
>>
>> It's not a question of definition, it's the subject at hand - it needs
>> discussion!
>
>You play the daffynition word game every time you get in a jam?

You ignore what's said to you, because you're too dumb to understand it,
so you just pretend it wasn't said and carry on regardless.

>> >Hey, this is a free country.
>>
>> This is not a country.
>>
>> > Feel free to generate your own daffynition of the word "fact."
>>
>> >Post it right here:
>> >_____________________
>
>What?
>
>No daffynition?
>
>After demanding a daffynition?

That's not only a lie, but completely misses the point: clearly you're out of
your intellectual depth.

>> >> It's easy to flatter yourself that you're smarter than a creationist, but if you
>> >> don't possess _all the necessary facts_,
>
>> >"If evolutionists don't have the missing link then no one can say
>> >anything about creationism."
>>
>> The keyword you missed was "necessary".
>
>What makes you think it's necessary?

What makes me think that necessary facts are necessary?

Wow. What a stupid question.

The answer is that without them, all you have is belief.

>> >The "If you aren't omniscient then you cannot say anything" is the
>> >most common creationist / denier tactic.
>
>> The strawman is the typical believers tactic.
>
>Are you fessin' up or projecting?

False dilemma.

>> >It is not an argument. �It's really censorship of science because the
>> >entire justification for more scientific research is the science isn't
>> >fully developed, let alone omniscient.
>
>> Pity you didn't realise the problem of lacking omniscience a few minutes
>> earlier,
>
>Who thinks it's a problem besides creationists and deniers of science?
>
>> as it's precisely the reason why people don't have immuteable views
>> on all subjects.
>
>> >> then you're merely following a
>> >> concensus view - exactly the same as the creationist.
>
>> >Creationism is only the "concensus" in a fundamentalist church.
>
>> And?
>
>The discussion is about wingers vs world opinion.

No, it's about _fact deniers_ : people who cling to their beliefs in obstinate
refusal of the facts: people like you.

>> >The discussion is about wingers vs world opinion.
>
>> You mean you think it's about being right, rather an inquiry as to when and how
>> people go wrong..
>
>Here, try again:
>
>The discussion is about wingers, i.e., creationists, Holocaust
>deniers, AGW deniers, truthers, birthers, etc. vs mainstream opinion.
>
>This time no dodgin' 'n dodgin'

Listen, I'd love to spend hours explaining the concepts involved, in simple
words you can understand, to give you a glimmer of appreciation for the
subject at hand, but I know it would be entirely wasted on you - and
what's more, you'd continue braying like an idiot, and asking irrelevant,
stupid questions.

You're clearly too stupid to even realise how stupid you are, but I congratulate
you on learning to read and write: that must've been very slow and difficult for
you.