FYI Douglas Axe vs Bill Nye

[Kalkidas]

Interesting article.

https://stream.org/bill-nye-science-guy-come-ark-face-flood-evidence-darwinism/

[John Harshman]

On 8/6/16 11:28 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> Interesting article.
>
> https://stream.org/bill-nye-science-guy-come-ark-face-flood-evidence-darwinism/
>
>
What's interesting about a self-publicizing puff piece?

[Kalkidas]

What's interesting about your posts?

[Oxyaena]

What's interesting about a primitive idiot shitting in holes and wasting
all of his time on Usenet using dial up?

--
"Laws grind the poor, and rich men rule the law." - Oliver Goldsmith

http://oxyaena.org/

or

http://thrinaxodon.org/

[Robert Camp]

On 8/6/16 11:28 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> Interesting article.
>
> https://stream.org/bill-nye-science-guy-come-ark-face-flood-evidence-darwinism/

For me at least, the only interest to be found is in discovering how
weak Axe's arguments are. After filtering out the empty bluster all
that's left are feeble appeals to intuition, verbose begging of the
question, and an amazing insensibility to irony.

In an attempt to diminish Nye, Axe begins by creating an embarrassing
false equivalence,

"I couldn’t bear to watch, knowing their shared tendency to replace
scientific argument with appeals to authority (a form of Biblical
authority for Ham and the authority of scientific consensus for Nye)."

...as if these are epistemologically comparable sources of knowlege.


Next we find a barely concealed repudiation of the Enlightenment,

"As I show in my book, our design intuition is firmly supported by what
I call “common science” — the combination of observation, questioning
and deduction that we all engage in naturally. The same instantaneous
reasoning that tells us origami cranes can’t happen by accident tells us
real cranes can’t either — not even in billions of years."

Yes, let's return to the days of "instantaneous reasoning," wherein we
once again pray to the storm gods and try to drive demons from the
bodies of epileptics. I especially love this part - "So if kids get
this, how can kids who grow up to become engineers miss it...?" -
because we all know that what kids "get" is such a good guide to
empirical truth.


And the credulous capper is this bit of hypocrisy,

"The patience and foresight and insight we know to be absolutely
essential for invention are completely absent from evolution. If things
can’t be improved _immediately_, then they won’t be improved at all. We
can dream up fanciful stories where amazing things happen though little
Darwinian improvements, but the sober reality is that they are nothing
more than that: fanciful stories."

Ignoring his convenient strawman ("immediately") for the moment, it's
always stunning to me that someone - someone educated in science - like
Axe cannot see the monumental irony of preferring his untestable,
supernatural, designer mythology to the "fanciful stories" of Darwinian
explanations.


If the lack of logic in this article is any indication of the level of
argument to be found in Axe's book, one can reasonably assume it adds
little to the discussion.

[Kalkidas]

On 8/6/2016 12:55 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
> Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 8/6/2016 11:43 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 8/6/16 11:28 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
>>>> Interesting article.
>>>>
>>>> https://stream.org/bill-nye-science-guy-come-ark-face-flood-evidence-darwinism/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> What's interesting about a self-publicizing puff piece?
>>
>> What's interesting about your posts?
>>
> What's interesting about a primitive idiot shitting in holes and wasting
> all of his time on Usenet using dial up?

LOL! Say on, doper...

[Kalkidas]

I think you also fail to see the irony of your own position, revealed in
your "untestable supernatural, designer mythology" phrase

You clearly intend to ridicule something you call "supernatural", but
I've never seen you give any evidence why it is ridiculous. It's
ridiculous just because you say so, nudge nudge, wink, wink? That's less
scientific than the position you presume to criticize!

> If the lack of logic in this article is any indication of the level of
> argument to be found in Axe's book, one can reasonably assume it adds
> little to the discussion.

By "lack of logic" you mean -- as you seem always to mean when claiming
that someone else is being illogical -- "lack of acceptance of Robert
Camp's idiosyncratic premises about what is real and what is not".

But at least you responded with an attempt at analysis. I'll give you
that over the other perps and rubes in this thread...

[Oxyaena]

Real interesting, tell me, Kalk, since when did you start hitting
yourself on the head with a hammer? I'd like to know, considering that
you have the IQ of a paramecium, which is to say "not much".

[RonO]

On 8/6/2016 1:28 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> Interesting article.
>
> https://stream.org/bill-nye-science-guy-come-ark-face-flood-evidence-darwinism/
>
>

Is intelligent design even mentioned in Axe's book. It wasn't in the
book blurp or the Author bio, so isn't the book the same as we see most
creationists resort to in the end? Run and declare victory as they are
running away.

Isn't it strange that intelligent design isn't credited a single time in
this article claiming that Bill Nye is supposed to be the one addressing
something? Axe claims something about intelligent agents, but not
directly as an explanation for anything in nature. He is just implying
that an intelligent agent may be lurking in his argument somewhere. It
is the sort of pitiful piece of junk that is all the ID perps can manage
at this time. Nothing about IC, CSI, SC, or the IDiot's new law of
thermodynamics. So what is Axe trying to support, it looks like it is
just a negative argument of the type that Grasso just put up quotes
claiming that the ID scam was more than God of the gaps negative bull
pucky. This is all they seem to have at this time, so when is that
going to change?

Why doesn't Axe have an alternative and the evidence to back it up? Why
can't Kalk present his alternative and the evidence to back it up?

Isn't Kalk, not supporting this junk again, because all it is, is junk?
Why doesn't Kalk ever put up something worth supporting?

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Sat, 6 Aug 2016 11:28:53 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

>Interesting article.
>
>https://stream.org/bill-nye-science-guy-come-ark-face-flood-evidence-darwinism/

It is interesting, in the sense that it highlights one of the many
asinine arguments from anti-evolutionists. Here Douglas Axe claims
that recognizing design in items he knows are designed by humans
somehow justifies his irrational leap to say that items he assumes are
designed proves they are designed. And then he has the cojones to
proclaim his conclusion is more scientifically sound than Bill Nye's.
The mind boggles.

And since you brought it up, here's another asinine anti-evolution
argument:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikax0Y0NJsY&feature=youtu.be>

Here Republican VP candidate Mike Pence dons his televangelist voice
to get all uppity over his confusion of fact vs theory.

I suppose it's statistically likely there are Democrats who are
anti-evolutionists too, but ISTM Republican politicians celebrate
their own stupidity.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[raven1]

Quite a bit. You could learn a lot from Harshman, if you wanted to.

BTW, I understand that you're a member of ISKCON. Just wondering if
you happen to know one Jesper Werneburg, a Danish Hare Krishna who
goes by the name of "Jahnu Das" on Usenet. I have a question or two
about him that you might be able to clear up.

[raven1]

The fact that not one claim of "the supernatural" has ever been shown
to be true is a pretty convincing reason to at least provisonally
reject the notion. To use a pop culture illustration, how many times
do the kids in "Scooby Doo" have to pull the mask off Old Man Jenkins,
the Caretaker, at the end of the episode, before they come to the
epiphany "Hey, wait! Maybe there's no such thing as ghosts!"? They're
cartoon characters: what's your excuse?

[Kalkidas]

People like you, who have never humbled yourselves to a spiritual
teacher nor undergone any spiritual discipline, are in the same position
as those who have never gone to school, who think "school is for
losers", yet pose themselves as learned scholars who know more than
everyone else: your made-up "facts" about the supernatural simply
reflect the narcissism that closed the door of the spiritual world to
you, just as uneducated pseudo-intellectuals have the world of real
learning closed to them.

The wise do not accept your braying. It only disturbs others.

[Steady Eddie]

On Saturday, 6 August 2016 13:57:21 UTC-6, Oxyaena wrote:
> Kalkidas wrote:
> > On 8/6/2016 11:43 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 8/6/16 11:28 AM, Kalkidas wrote:
> >>> Interesting article.
> >>>
> >>> https://stream.org/bill-nye-science-guy-come-ark-face-flood-evidence-darwinism/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> What's interesting about a self-publicizing puff piece?
> >
> > What's interesting about your posts?
> >
> What's interesting about a primitive idiot shitting in holes and wasting
> all of his time on Usenet using dial up?

What's interesting about a hateful troll with the intelligence to match?

[Steady Eddie]

LOL!
+10

[Robert Camp]

Obviously you have as much difficulty with the concept of irony as Axe.

I did not intend to ridicule his position (perhaps your own anxiety
causes you to infer such an attitude on my part), I meant to
characterize it. Yes, I consider his eagerness to opt for his
supernatural "fanciful stories" over natural explanations ridiculous.
But that is a comment on his inability to reason well, not a shot at his
religion.

>> If the lack of logic in this article is any indication of the level of
>> argument to be found in Axe's book, one can reasonably assume it adds
>> little to the discussion.
>
> By "lack of logic" you mean -- as you seem always to mean when claiming
> that someone else is being illogical -- "lack of acceptance of Robert
> Camp's idiosyncratic premises about what is real and what is not".

You could have given this content-free rant a lift into the zip code of
sensible rebuttal if you'd bothered to lay out the problems with my
arguments.

[RonO]

On 8/6/2016 1:28 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
> Interesting article.
>
> https://stream.org/bill-nye-science-guy-come-ark-face-flood-evidence-darwinism/
>
>

All IDiots should read this article and try to find the IDiot science.
Isn't this sad? We have all seen it many times and several IDiots have
routinely employ the tactic of running away and declaring victory.
Where is the ID science? What happened to it? All you will find in
this tragic piece of obfuscation is Paley's old argument that never
amounted to anything in two centuries. The IDiots used to claim that
their junk was more than a rehash of Paley's argument, but now it seems
that Paley is all they have left. How tragic is that?

Why can't Axe cite examples of specified complexity (SC) or irreducible
complexity (IC) or the new IDiot law of thermodynamics in support of his
stupidity? Why isn't intelligent design mentioned? What was Axe doing
for over a decade as director of the ID perp's research institute?
Where did the ID science go? Why is a retreat to Paley's failed junk
acceptable?

Ron Okimoto

[Kalkidas]

Your "arguments" seem to be the following assertions, mostly stated
using sarcasm:

1) The opinions of children about how the world works are stupid and
worthless.
2) The opinions of those who accept revealed knowledge of how the world
works are stupid and worthless.
3) The opinions of non-scientists about how the world works are stupid
and worthless.
4) The opinions of scientists who disagree with the majority of other
scientists about how the world works are stupid and worthless.

5)Therefore the opinions of Doug Axe are stupid and worthless.

So your conclusion follows from your premise(s). Your "argument" is
valid, though false because all of your premises are false.

Did I miss anything?

[Steady Eddie]

I think that just about sums up Robert Camp.

[Steady Eddie]

Try reading the book before ranting about what it doesn't contain.

[RonO]

Why read the book when you can read the book blurp, author bio, and read
this article. What does Axe have worth anything? Why isn't intelligent
design mentioned by Axe? What happened to IC and CSI?

Put up a single ID Perp book that ever amounted to anything. Go for it.

Make sure to let us know when you find one. Since you have given little
indication that you can read for comprehension no one is going to hold
their breath waiting.

Ron Okimoto

[rnorm...@gmail.com]

Sorry, Ron, reading the actual book is indeed a requirement. Axe writes in the article that the book contains a lot of evidence. How do you know whether this is true or not?

A student would never get away with failing to consult the original source material. Yes, we have lower standards here but you can't get away with curtly dismissing entirely the need to read what you criticize.

Note: this is an experiment posting through Google groups from my tablet. I don't see that the original text in the reply and this is a test to see what actually appears. If the original text is missing I will never again try this method. Incidentally I find no way of selecting whether or not to include original text in my reply.

[RSNorman]

Here is my previous message properly formatted:

Sorry, Ron, reading the actual book is indeed a requirement. Axe
writes in the article that the book contains a lot of evidence. How
do you know whether this is true or not?

A student would never get away with failing to consult the original
source material. Yes, we have lower standards here but you can't get
away with curtly dismissing entirely the need to read what you
criticize.

Note: my failed attempt to use google groups from my tablet means I am
absolutely tied to a desktop computer from now on. Neither my new
cell phone nor my tablet includes a "menu" button renderingthe
Groundhog news reader for Android is quite useless. I can read posts
but can't respond. And now I find that google groups is similarlly
impaired.

Does anyone here know how to access news groups properly from an
Android device?

[Kalkidas]

A PlayStore search for "usenet news reader" will give you several
listings. Most are rudimentary and lack the functionality of even
Outlook Express. But they work if you're patient.

[Kalkidas]

On 8/7/2016 8:35 AM, RSNorman wrote:

I have used this one. There's a free and a paid version:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.piaohong.newsgroup

[jillery]

<PING> Dang it.

[raven1]

It's hilarious that you think that addresses what I said. Care to try
again, without the pomp and pretension?

[rsNorman]

Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> Wrote in message:

Thanks. I am trying it right now and it seems to work.

I knew about this but saw some pretty negative reviews about how
well (poorly) it works.

Oh, well. Works poorly is better than not works at all.
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[RonO]

Go for it and tell us how it worked out. The bait and switch will
continue to go down with no end in sight, so what could Axe ever have?
Anything published by his institute? No, so was he keeping all the
great stuff for his book?

Believe what you want, but being lied to is an IDiot occupation.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

And to help make this thread on-topic to T.O., your last sentence
applies as well to natural selection.

[Kalkidas]

I'll pass. I've seen you little exchanges with Jahnu.

[raven1]

Ah, yes, your dimwitted fellow member of ISKCON, who natters on about
"Planetary Constellations", and thought Galileo was burned at the
stake, for teaching the Earth is round, to give just two examples of
his endless idiocy. Your little screed above was much the same tone as
his posts in its pompous blowhard way, and just as devoid of actual
content.

[RSNorman]

Thinking that you are being lied to, even believing it fervently, is
no excuse. That Axe could not possibly have something, that his
institute could not possibly have anything --- all that is your
conjecture unless you present hard evidence from examining the source
material.

Making totally unfounded arguments, no matter how well intended or
even if they prove eventually to be well founded, simply has no place.

I call you on it simply because I expect you to know better. Those
you are fighting against I have already given up as lost causes so
there is no value in pointing out their numerous flaws and gaping
lapses of fact or logic.

[RSNorman]

On Sun, 07 Aug 2016 13:44:10 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

You are quite right about that.

I did consider this Q and A to be on "meta-topic" -- how to
participate in this group properly. I had a question and Kalki
provided me with a suitable and informed answer. I thank him for that.

[Oxyaena]

What's interesting about a Bronze Age savage that wants us to live in
the Dark Age, with the intellect to match?

--
"Laws grind the poor, and rich men rule the law." - Oliver Goldsmith

http://oxyaena.org/

or

http://thrinaxodon.org/

[Robert Camp]

Oh my. So much crazy, so little time...

> 1) The opinions of children about how the world works are stupid and
> worthless.

Your train of thought runs off the rails so quickly it's hard to believe
you can finish a sentence. I said nothing that could be interpreted like
that.

What I implied is that the intuitions of children are not a good guide
to empirical truth (this is hardly controversial). If you disagree, then
feel free to explain to me the scientific rationale behind Disney
characters being real, monsters under the bed, and death as a temporary
condition.

> 2) The opinions of those who accept revealed knowledge of how the world
> works are stupid and worthless.

Again, I said nothing of the kind. I did imply that those (especially
scientists) who privilege that kind of "knowledge" over actual
knowledge, and then haughtily denigrate scientific hypotheses as
"fanciful stories," are at best unaware of their own inconsistency, and
at worst, fools.

> 3) The opinions of non-scientists about how the world works are stupid
> and worthless.

Okay, that's just nonsense. I never came close to suggesting such a thing.

> 4) The opinions of scientists who disagree with the majority of other
> scientists about how the world works are stupid and worthless.

I ask for content and you respond by disgorging all sorts of ridiculous
bile. Do you feel any kind of obligation to deal with the words someone
writes?

> 5)Therefore the opinions of Doug Axe are stupid and worthless.

Well, "garbage in..." I guess.

> So your conclusion follows from your premise(s). Your "argument" is
> valid, though false because all of your premises are false.
>
> Did I miss anything?

A connection with reality, a sense of intellectual integrity, the
ability to read for comprehension?

[RonO]

You do not think that I understand that my take is only inference based
on decades of stupidity coming out of the Discovery Insitute? I know
that I could be wrong, but most likely not in this reality. My
conjecture is based on over 20 years of the Discovery Institute's ID
scam amounting to absolutely nothing. Axe's bio and book blurp do not
even mention that intelligent design ever existed. Johnson quit the ID
scam a decade ago, admitting that the science never existed, Dembski
decided to "move on" this year, and Axe has never produced anything that
would change the situation in the 12 years that he has directed the ID
perp's biologic institute. Was Axe's great book a secret from Dembski?
Did Dembski move on too soon?

It should be easy to prove me wrong. When will that happen? Go for it.
My inference and conjecture will be better than anything that you
could do to counter, including reading the stupid book. Demonstrate
that I am wrong.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Sun, 07 Aug 2016 15:23:22 -0400, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
wrote:

Of course. I don't imply your reply needs help in any way, especially
not from me, but simply applied a segue to note a point about which
some posters have expressed doubts.

[rsNorman]

RonO <roki...@cox.net> Wrote in message:

So you persist. "I don't have to read no stinking books" to
paraphrase the misquote of the famous line in "Treasure of the
Sierra Madre". No student of mine would ever get away with that.
If you ever taught, perhaps you were rather lax in standards.

[RMcBane]

On 8/7/2016 10:19 AM, rnorm...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> Note: this is an experiment posting through Google groups from my tablet. I don't see that the original text in the reply and this is a test to see what actually appears. If the original text is missing I will never again try this method. Incidentally I find no way of selecting whether or not to include original text in my reply.
>

I use Groundhog News Reader on my android tablet. Works pretty well for
reading messages although I still prefer to use a keyboard to post messages.

--
Richard McBane

[RonO]

I feel sorry for your students. Do you often make them do useless and
senseless things? Shouldn't there be a good reason to waste their time?
We are not talking about a legitimate scientific endeavor. It would
be like making them read Von Daniken so that they would be better
equipped to design space craft.

I persist in my inference of decades of observation, that I am not
required to read the book to know with enough certainty that it does not
contain anything of value for IDiocy/creationism. It may be sort of a
new scam and something that the ID perps are doing to distance
themselves from the ID scam that they have perpetrated for over two
decades, but It will be just another scam. At best it will be a step
backwards to arguments that never amounted to anything centuries ago,
and a retreat from the claims that they had been making about legitimate
ID science.

The probability that this book contains anything that will radically
change the ID scam from the bogus creationist scam that it has always
been is so small that only a creationists would think that they could
calculate what that probability is. You would be calculating a
probability for something that has never happened before and likely will
never happen. Get one of your students to do it if you can.

Ron Okimoto

[rsNorman]

RMcBane <rmc...@aol.com> Wrote in message:

I have used Groundhog for several years. I do now have a real
keyboard, which makes my old cell phone usable although Groundhog
does mangle long lines messing up the posting history.


The real problem is that my new cell phone and tablet (Samsung)
both are missing a menu button and so it is impossible to reply.
The "standard" workaround doesn't work.

[RMcBane]

Interesting, I have an LG phone and bought a Dell tablet after my wife
took over my Nexus 7. Groundhog works OK on all of them, but the amount
of variation in android devices can be annoying.


--
Richard McBane

[Burkhard]

Richard made an argument about methodology and rational allocation of
burdens of proof - you make a claim, it is your job to back it up with
the appropriate evidence. The validity of this argument stands and falls
on its own merits - even if there is nothing in Alex's book, ass long
as you haven;t read it you rely solely on "epistemic luck", which is not
something to be encouraged in science.

Now, when you prioritize which books to read, making an educated guess
on whether it will contain anything new or interesting is fair enough.
and of course, just being told that "there is something interesting in
some book that will change how everybody thinks about well established
theory" is not enough reason to doubt that theory - the challenger
should bring up specifics.

But both are very different from making affirmative claims about that
book.

[J. J. Lodder]

Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

> Interesting article.
>
> https://stream.org/bill-nye-science-guy-come-ark-face-flood-evidence-darwinism

Interesting abuse of language.
Versus, or vs, relates to a confrontation.
It is not appropriate for a monologue, like here,

Jan

[jillery]

On Mon, 8 Aug 2016 10:04:13 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

And when someone actually bothers to read the book, and if they find
RonO's "affirmative claims" to be accurate, will you chalk it up to
omniscience? Or will you acknowledge that his expressed basis for his
claims is sufficient to make his reasonable inferences?

And while we're on the subject, and in the spirit of being fair and
balanced, don't forget about Kalkidas, who cited an article without
any explanation why he thought it so "interesting". And when that was
noted, he reacted with childish ad homimens. Should it be so easy to
evade one's obligations, by simply not stating a POV explicitly? No
wonder so many trolls do exactly that.

[Kalkidas]

Frantic pedantic semantics.

[rsNorman]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

RonO's "expressed basis" only came after he was criticized.

Lots of people here cite articles or videos without explanation.
That bad behavior is commonplace here doesn't excuse it. Yes
that goes also for my own (occasional?) bad behavior.

[RonO]

Sounds like sour grapes for being wrong. Why would this make any
difference when I have said the same things in other threads before this
one? This isn't the first time Kalk has put up articles related to this
stupid book.

>
> Lots of people here cite articles or videos without explanation.
> That bad behavior is commonplace here doesn't excuse it. Yes
> that goes also for my own (occasional?) bad behavior.

It was my opinion, what video or article would you be talking about?

The article in question for this thread was put up by Kalk. Why would I
have to cite what the thread is already about?

Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:no5mp5$1bj$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 8/6/2016 1:28 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> Interesting article.
>>
>> https://stream.org/bill-nye-science-guy-come-ark-face-flood-evidence-darwinism/
>>
>>
>

> Is intelligent design even mentioned in Axe's book. It wasn't in the
> book blurp or the Author bio

So it wasn't enough for you to read "life is designed"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ast1k1E1T64&list=PLR8eQzfCOiS3-MQT4SEaLNloU5v2poZKf&index=5

[jillery]

Better late than never. I see nothing wrong with waiting for someone
to ask a question before answering it. The relevant point here is not
*when* someone expresses a relevant POV, but *that* they express it.

>Lots of people here cite articles or videos without explanation.
> That bad behavior is commonplace here doesn't excuse it. Yes
> that goes also for my own (occasional?) bad behavior.

That's a trivializing and prejudicial description of my point.
Instead, my point is about selective application of expectations. RonO
expressed his POV and Kalkidas did not. RonO's POV is criticized, but
Kalkidas gets a pass because he posted no POV to criticize. And
nobody but Kalkidas knows, and apparently nobody cares, if Kalkidas
read the book. How is that fair and balanced?

As a separate issue, which is relevant to my previous point, when
someone as published as Douglas Axe publicly expresses a POV, it's not
unreasonable to express one's POV based on those prior publications.
I'm willing to wager that RonO's expressed opinions above turn out to
be substantially correct. Are you willing to wager they're wrong?
Who's going to actually read the book and decide?

[Glenn]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message news:no5mp5$1bj$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 8/6/2016 1:28 PM, Kalkidas wrote:
>> Interesting article.
>>
>> https://stream.org/bill-nye-science-guy-come-ark-face-flood-evidence-darwinism/
>>
>

> Isn't it strange that intelligent design isn't credited a single time in
> this article claiming that Bill Nye is supposed to be the one addressing
> something?

Of course it is. You admit it just below.

> Axe claims something about intelligent agents, but not
> directly as an explanation for anything in nature. He is just implying
> that an intelligent agent may be lurking in his argument somewhere.

No, he specifically says that life is designed, and that is the explanation for life.

[RonO]

What claim do you think that I made aside from the book not being worth
jack?

Beats me why anyone would contest that fact. There may be principle,
but principle doesn't make any difference in this case. The book will
still be worthless in terms of the ID creationists scam amounting to
anything in science. Reality is just what it is. If Axe could change
that reality he has had quite a long time to do it, and not mentioning
the intelligent design scam that he has been participating in for so
long is something that should lead even the most ardent IDiot to think
twice about if the book is worth reading.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

QUOTE:
From the exquisite molecular machines operating inside every cell on up
to whole organisms, living things don’t just look like ingenious designs
— they are ingenious designs. We all have this intuition in our
childhood, and while intuitions aren’t always trustworthy, this design
intuition turns out to be solid. As I show in my book, our design

intuition is firmly supported by what I call “common science” — the
combination of observation, questioning and deduction that we all engage
in naturally. The same instantaneous reasoning that tells us origami
cranes can’t happen by accident tells us real cranes can’t either — not

even in billions of years. And when we examine that conclusion
carefully, we find that it holds.
END QUOTE:

Glenn this is exactly what the ID perps have been claiming intelligent
design is not all these years. Paley's argument failed centuries ago.
The whole point of the ID scam was to claim that there was more than
just "looks like it was designed." That is probably why Axe does not
mention that the intelligent design scam ever existed. He as admitting
defeat and declaring victory all at the same time. Intelligent design
science never amounted to anything or he would have said why these
designs are irreducibly complex or how the specified complexity of the
system makes it possible for him to determine that these things were
designed. All he is doing is making the claim that if it looks designed
it is even when he has no designer to claim that could have done the
designing. What designer is he talking about and what is his evidence
that such a designer even exists?

Intelligent design science was supposed to provide evidence for the
existence of an intelligent designer. The whole point of the ID scam
was to claim that they could determine that certain things in nature
were designed by some unknown designer. They claimed that they didn't
have to specify what that designer could be. Their "scientific"
evidence was going to support the existence of such a designer. What
argument is Axe making? He doesn't need any scientific IDiot evidence.
He knows it when he sees it.

What do you think that you have been supporting all these years? The ID
perps know that Paley's argument failed, so they claimed to be doing
something else. The intelligent design "science" is not even mentioned,
nor is intelligent design used when Axe is obviously talking about the
same intelligent designer as all the other ID perps.

Axe and the other ID perps obviously failed. Where is the intelligent
design science in this propaganda piece, and where does Axe state that
he is talking about the intelligent design nonsense that you have
supported all these years?

Ron Okimoto

[passer...@gmail.com]

Bill Nye is the scientifically (and historically) illiterate that claimed you couldn't build a wood ship the size of the Ark.

How can anyone take that half-wit seriously after that? Some of the Flood story may be allegory, but that's math, science and history.

[J. J. Lodder]

<passer...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bill Nye is the scientifically (and historically) illiterate that claimed
> you couldn't build a wood ship the size of the Ark.

In which Bill Nye is undoubtedly right.
Unless you think that building an ark in steel and concrete
proves that you could have built one in wood.

> How can anyone take that half-wit seriously after that? Some of the Flood
> story may be allegory, but that's math, science and history.

So prove him wrong, and build a real wooden ark rather than a fake one,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

No, just standard creationist trickery.
First you hold a monologue,
then you make it appear as if it was a dialogue,
and next you claim victory
because nothing was said in return,

Jan

[Burkhard]

No, to epistemic luck, as I wrote.

Or will you acknowledge that his expressed basis for his
> claims is sufficient to make his reasonable inferences?
>
> And while we're on the subject, and in the spirit of being fair and
> balanced, don't forget about Kalkidas, who cited an article without
> any explanation why he thought it so "interesting".

Yup. Which is why I did not read it. He did nothing to make it
interesting, and I get enough of spam with links to click all the time.

But that also means I could not opine on what is in it. Just as I wrote:

"Now, when you prioritize which books to read, making an educated guess
>> on whether it will contain anything new or interesting is fair enough.
>> and of course, just being told that "there is something interesting in
>> some book that will change how everybody thinks about well established
>> theory" is not enough reason to doubt that theory - the challenger
>> should bring up specifics"

[Burkhard]

We should apportion our claims to our evidence. That holds true for the
science side just as much as it does for creationists. You didn't and
were called out on it. Is the book probably not worth investing time and
effort reading it? Yes. Does that mean one can make affirmative claims
about its content and the weaknesses of it? No. This is really simple
methodology, and has nothing to do specifically with ID, Axe or hos book.

[RonO]

Your only problem is that I have more evidence for my inference than you
can expect to find for ID in that entire book, just in the book blurp
and author bio. That is the actual difference that you are overlooking.
If you throw in the evidence of Axe's past work my inference becomes
even stronger, and the probability that I am wrong goes to about zero
when you add all of that to what IDiocy has amounted to in the last 20
years and centuries before that.

Go for it. Demonstrate that the reasoning behind my inference will not
lead to a successful prediction more likely than not about this book.
Don't lie to yourself about principles that don't matter in this case.
You are just wrong in this case because you rule out all the evidence as
if it does not exist. It does exist and would tell anyone with a brain
what to expect out of this book. You have to pretend that none of the
past matters, and you know that, that is a false pretense.

I admit that I could be wrong. Heck, I admit that I can't calculate the
probability that that I am wrong or right. Zero scientific successes
for IDiocy in the entire history of science, and the recent antics of
Axe and the other ID perps would indicate a zero probability, but you
can't calculate something occurring when there are no examples to
compare to all the failures. Have they tried everything? Beats me,
most of what they have done in the last 20 years has been junk that
avoids accomplishing anything. The ID perps designed their claptrap so
that it could not be tested and would never amount to anything, so they
haven't even tried to get around their past failures.

How much money would you want to put up against my being correct about
this book? What odds would you want in your favor to even attempt the
bet? I'd go one to one odds with you any day of the week. How much can
you afford to lose?

It is not be due to chance that I will be vindicated.

Ron Okimoto

[passer...@gmail.com]

Another downbreed hiding behind a segmented post.

Never read them and consider such chickenshit behavior victory.

Good riddance.

[rsNorman]

Perhaps you missed the part above where I explicitly stated why I
chose to criticize RonO specifically and not others. He is
intelligent enough to know better. I have doubts about the
others.

--

[rsNorman]

RonO <roki...@cox.net> Wrote in message:

The only problem is that you did NOT write that you have an
enormity of evidence for your conclusion. You wrote "Why read the

book when you can read the book blurp, author bio, and read this

article". You said implicitly you need nothing more. That is
the problem I criticized you about.

[Burkhard]

Bzzzd. Can stop right here. You think principles don;t apply to you, I
argue they are universal and apply to you as much as they do to creationist

[raven1]

Hate to nit-pick, but enormity isn't the word you want here. It's not
a measure of quantity, but of heinousness.

[Glenn]

"rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nocktk$do9$1...@dont-email.me...

I do thank you and Ron for the publicity.

[jillery]

On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 10:59:03 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

My impression is RonO is not relying on luck at all, epistemic or
otherwise, but on an inference to the best explanation, a conclusion
beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps you have heard of these things.

>> Or will you acknowledge that his expressed basis for his
>> claims is sufficient to make his reasonable inferences?
>>
>> And while we're on the subject, and in the spirit of being fair and
>> balanced, don't forget about Kalkidas, who cited an article without
>> any explanation why he thought it so "interesting".
>
>Yup. Which is why I did not read it. He did nothing to make it
>interesting, and I get enough of spam with links to click all the time.
>But that also means I could not opine on what is in it. Just as I wrote:
>
> >>"Now, when you prioritize which books to read, making an educated guess
> >> on whether it will contain anything new or interesting is fair enough.
> >> and of course, just being told that "there is something interesting in
> >> some book that will change how everybody thinks about well established
> >> theory" is not enough reason to doubt that theory - the challenger
> >> should bring up specifics"

Based on what you say above, you jumped to a conclusion based on
incomplete information. You have no idea what Kalkida's cited article
actually says. You have no idea if it says anything to support RonO's
conclusions.

[jillery]

Perhaps he should have written "rnormanty"

>> You wrote "Why read the
>> book when you can read the book blurp, author bio, and read this
>> article". You said implicitly you need nothing more. That is
>> the problem I criticized you about.

[jillery]

On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 09:13:22 -0400 (EDT), rsNorman

>Perhaps you missed the part above where I explicitly stated why I
> chose to criticize RonO specifically and not others. He is
> intelligent enough to know better. I have doubts about the
> others.

The part I missed was where you criticize Kalkidas for doing
substantially the same thing for which you criticize RonO. This isn't
the first time. Is it your intent to encourage Kalkidas' trolls?

[Burkhard]

It was mentioned by people who were in the same room with me, yes. They
also often mention that "the best" in these cases can still be piss
poor. But that is really by the by. Also in ITBCs, you need the right
type of evidence for the specific conclusion that you draw.

>
>
>>> Or will you acknowledge that his expressed basis for his
>>> claims is sufficient to make his reasonable inferences?
>>>
>>> And while we're on the subject, and in the spirit of being fair and
>>> balanced, don't forget about Kalkidas, who cited an article without
>>> any explanation why he thought it so "interesting".
>>
>> Yup. Which is why I did not read it. He did nothing to make it
>> interesting, and I get enough of spam with links to click all the time.
>> But that also means I could not opine on what is in it. Just as I wrote:
>>
>>>> "Now, when you prioritize which books to read, making an educated guess
>>>> on whether it will contain anything new or interesting is fair enough.
>>>> and of course, just being told that "there is something interesting in
>>>> some book that will change how everybody thinks about well established
>>>> theory" is not enough reason to doubt that theory - the challenger
>>>> should bring up specifics"
>
>
> Based on what you say above, you jumped to a conclusion based on
> incomplete information. You have no idea what Kalkida's cited article
> actually says. You have no idea if it says anything to support RonO's
> conclusions.

what conclusion would that be?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 04:33:11 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:

>Another downbreed hiding behind a segmented post.

Translation: I can't follow a conversation, and even if I
could I can't refute your post, so I'll just run away.

>Never read them and consider such chickenshit behavior victory.

If you don't read them how do you know they're "segmented",
even by your idiotic definition?

>Good riddance.

And yet you're still here...

>On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 3:47:14 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> <passer...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Bill Nye is the scientifically (and historically) illiterate that claimed
>> > you couldn't build a wood ship the size of the Ark.
>>
>> In which Bill Nye is undoubtedly right.
>> Unless you think that building an ark in steel and concrete
>> proves that you could have built one in wood.
>>
>> > How can anyone take that half-wit seriously after that? Some of the Flood
>> > story may be allegory, but that's math, science and history.
>>
>> So prove him wrong, and build a real wooden ark rather than a fake one,
>>
>> Jan

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[RonO]

You are joking right?

What else did I need beside the book blurp, author bio and this article?

How much money would you want to put up against my being correct about

this book? I'll let you read the book before you make your final bet as
long as you put up a couple bucks before you read it, because your final
bet will likely be nothing. That matters, and is the reason why there
was no reason for your comment. Reality won't change just because I did
not read the book. You know that for a fact, so why go on about
something as stupidly obvious as this? We aren't talking about
something at all legitimate at this time. Why pretend otherwise? The
sad thing is that it is just pretending.

Ron Okimoto

[passer...@gmail.com]

All that time replying to someone that will never read it. I would never waste the time on you, not near impressive enough.

[RonO]

Bzzd. Make your bet and put up or shut up, is about all that I have to
say to make my point. The evidence does exist, you know it, I know it,
so why make believe that it doesn't exist? You know that I am not
wrong, so what is your beef? I didn't just fly off and make some random
comment. It is what reality actually is at this time. I can't change
that reality. The book will be just what I claim because that is all
that it can be at this late date in the ID scam. It might be different
if there was some glimmer of hope for the ID scam, but that time is long
past.

Ron Okimoto

[Öö Tiib]

I do not understand what are the proposed conditions of that bet?
How can anyone decide who won?

[rsNorman]

Why don't people just publish Conclusions portions of papers
without all that crap about Materials and Methods or Results? The
authors can then challenge the reader "prove me wrong if you
can!"

Why go through all the difficulty of having trials where evidence
is presented when you can simply execute the guilty?


Process and procedure counts even when right is on your side.

[Glenn]

"rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nods7k$jie$1...@dont-email.me...

"Axe claims something about intelligent agents, but not directly as an explanation for anything in nature. He is just implying that an intelligent agent may be lurking in his argument somewhere."

Who is guilty and who is right. rsNorman?

[RonO]

Why not putting up or shutting up?

You know why you are wrong because you know for a fact that I am right
about the stupid book. For some reason you just can't admit it.

This junk is so far from any legitimate science that you should be
ashamed of yourself for even making any claims about materials and
methods. Just think what IC would be like if Behe had ever put up his
materials and methods in a way that some real scientists could repeat
what he thinks that he has done.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

The only thing that is required is if they have even a slim chance of
being correct, upon reading the book some legitimate verifiable science
would be produced that would support IDiocy, or more likely the retreat
to Payleyism that Axe makes in his stupid book blurp and article. If it
is just the same negative arguments and I-know-it-when-I-see-it type of
bull pucky that IDiots are known for then I am vindicated. Basically
all Axe has to do is some real science that actually demonstrates
something positive about IDiocy. When has that ever happened with
respect to the ID scam? Crap may get proposed like CSI or IC, but what
did any of the ID perps ever do to try to verify the junk. The hard
part of science is the testing, not making up the junk.

Ron Okimoto

[Bill Rogers]

An ID book is junk. Brilliant inference. No doubt you are right, and I would not waste time reading it. But neither would I positively assert that it was junk without having looked at it. Rnorman is quite right.

[J. J. Lodder]

Not really.
The book -can- be judged by the propaganda the author makes about it.
<https://stream.org/bill-nye-science-guy-come-ark-face-flood-evidence-da
rwinism>
This was what this thread was about, more than about the book itself.

More generallt, nonsense books can often be judged
without reading them in any detail.

I guess even Norman wouldn't bother to read a book
about trisecting the angle by ruler and compass
in order to declare that it must be nonsense.

The best you can hope for in such cases
is a possibly amusing 'spot the error' puzzle,

Jan

[RonO]

Your proposition is not always valid as you indicate, but my inference
has held for centuries, so why would something that is obviously wrong
be the right way to do things in this instance? Science doesn't work
that way. We should check out every possibility, but the simple fact of
reality is that we cannot, and so we proceed with incomplete knowledge
and certain things are assumed until we determine that they could be
wrong. I know that I could be wrong, but the chance is so low that it
isn't even worth considering at this point in time. You are just
putting up something that would be a nice ideal, but, obviously, is a
stupid application in this case. What evidence do you have that I could
possibly be wrong? Why shouldn't it matter that there is literally no
doubt that I have a correct assessment of this book? There have been no
exceptions to call me on for centuries.

Ron Okimoto

[Bill Rogers]

I totally agree that the book is highly likely to be junk. Still, I would not positively assert that it is junk without reading it.

When you do incremental science, and know full well what the results of your experiment are likely to be before you do them, you still cannot publish the conclusion before you've actually done the experiment, even if what you expect to be the result is highly likely to be correct.

I have no problem with "That book is highly likely to be worthless junk so I'm not going to bother to read it." But I would not say "I've never read that book. It's junk."

[rsNorman]

"Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid> Wrote in message:

Why should I believe what you say about Axe? Perhaps evidence and
a persuasive argument might help.

[rsNorman]

Perhaps at some point you will understand that the issue is not
whether Axe has anything of value to say. It is about whether you
do. Saying you don't need the critically important data to draw a
definitive conclusion is not of value.

[rsNorman]

nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) Wrote in message:

There do exist a number of very good books about trisecting an
angle with compass and straight edge of high quality and
interest.

Do you judge a scientific paper by the propaganda in the press
release put out by the institution's PR office? That happens all
too frequently here.

[Bill Rogers]

On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 8:02:09 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:

> > An ID book is junk. Brilliant inference. No doubt you are right, and I would not waste time reading it. But neither would I positively assert that it was junk without having looked at it. Rnorman is quite right.
>
> Your proposition is not always valid as you indicate, but my inference
> has held for centuries, so why would something that is obviously wrong
> be the right way to do things in this instance? Science doesn't work
> that way. We should check out every possibility, but the simple fact of
> reality is that we cannot, and so we proceed with incomplete knowledge
> and certain things are assumed until we determine that they could be
> wrong.

Yes, you cannot do every experiment, and in many cases the expected result is highly, highly likely. Still, you don't publish the results of specific experiments you have not actually done, even if you otherwise take the likely to be correct result for granted.

>I know that I could be wrong, but the chance is so low that it
> isn't even worth considering at this point in time. You are just
> putting up something that would be a nice ideal, but, obviously, is a
> stupid application in this case. What evidence do you have that I could
> possibly be wrong? Why shouldn't it matter that there is literally no
> doubt that I have a correct assessment of this book? There have been no
> exceptions to call me on for centuries.

You are not assessing the specific book. You are assessing (correctly) the track record of the ID movement.

[Burkhard]

J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Bill Rogers <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 10:22:10 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>
>>> You know why you are wrong because you know for a fact that I am right
>>> about the stupid book. For some reason you just can't admit it.
>>
>> An ID book is junk. Brilliant inference. No doubt you are right, and I
>> would not waste time reading it. But neither would I positively assert
>> that it was junk without having looked at it. Rnorman is quite right.
>
> Not really.
> The book -can- be judged by the propaganda the author makes about it.
> <https://stream.org/bill-nye-science-guy-come-ark-face-flood-evidence-da
> rwinism>
> This was what this thread was about, more than about the book itself.

We persistently and rightly criticize creationists (and on occasion
science- supporters) for forming their ideas on over-hyped press
releases, cover quotes and similar fluff produced by PR departments or
commercial publishers. While (or indeed "because") it is unlikely that
the book is any good, it is definitely not worth it to compromise a
sound methodological precept and generate the appearance of double
standards

[J. J. Lodder]

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Bill Rogers <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 10:22:10 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >
> >>> You know why you are wrong because you know for a fact that I am right
> >>> about the stupid book. For some reason you just can't admit it.
> >>
> >> An ID book is junk. Brilliant inference. No doubt you are right, and I
> >> would not waste time reading it. But neither would I positively assert
> >> that it was junk without having looked at it. Rnorman is quite right.
> >
> > Not really.
> > The book -can- be judged by the propaganda the author makes about it.
> > <https://stream.org/bill-nye-science-guy-come-ark-face-flood-evidence-da
> > rwinism>
> > This was what this thread was about, more than about the book itself.
>
> We persistently and rightly criticize creationists (and on occasion
> science- supporters) for forming their ideas on over-hyped press
> releases, cover quotes and similar fluff produced by PR departments or
> commercial publishers. While (or indeed "because") it is unlikely that
> the book is any good, it is definitely not worth it to compromise a
> sound methodological precept and generate the appearance of double
> standards

Have you read it?
If so you might have noticed
that this is not an overhyped press release,
or a journalist's summary.
It is ranting by the author of the book himself,
posing as discussion with an (absent) opponent.
Straw men arguments, in other words.

Since it seems the best he has to offer
one may be excused for ignoring the book,

Jan

[jillery]

On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 18:04:41 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>

>> incomplete information. You have no idea what Kalkidas's cited article

>> actually says. You have no idea if it says anything to support RonO's
>> conclusions.
>
>what conclusion would that be?

Now that's an odd question for you to ask, since you explicitly based
your objections to RonO's comments on posting his conclusions without
first reading Axe's book. If RonO posted no conclusions, then your
expressed basis for your expressed criticism doesn't exist.

OTOH, you conveniently ignored my explicit point above, that you
jumped to a conclusion about what RonO posted, without you first
reading the article, which is the same behavior for which you
criticize RonO.

>>>> And when that was
>>>> noted, he reacted with childish ad homimens. Should it be so easy to
>>>> evade one's obligations, by simply not stating a POV explicitly? No
>>>> wonder so many trolls do exactly that.

And you conveniently ignored the above point as well. It's relevant
to the topic and to your one-sided criticism of RonO.

[jillery]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 13:55:45 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

>J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Bill Rogers <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 10:22:10 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>
>>>> You know why you are wrong because you know for a fact that I am right
>>>> about the stupid book. For some reason you just can't admit it.
>>>
>>> An ID book is junk. Brilliant inference. No doubt you are right, and I
>>> would not waste time reading it. But neither would I positively assert
>>> that it was junk without having looked at it. Rnorman is quite right.
>>
>> Not really.
>> The book -can- be judged by the propaganda the author makes about it.
>> <https://stream.org/bill-nye-science-guy-come-ark-face-flood-evidence-da
>> rwinism>
>> This was what this thread was about, more than about the book itself.
>
>We persistently and rightly criticize creationists (and on occasion
>science- supporters) for forming their ideas on over-hyped press
>releases, cover quotes and similar fluff produced by PR departments or
>commercial publishers. While (or indeed "because") it is unlikely that
>the book is any good, it is definitely not worth it to compromise a
>sound methodological precept and generate the appearance of double
>standards

It's too late to worry about that. The appearance of double-standards
is already created, just not the one you're referring to, but instead
to one of turning on your own in reaction to a creationist's troll.

>> More generallt, nonsense books can often be judged
>> without reading them in any detail.
>>
>> I guess even Norman wouldn't bother to read a book
>> about trisecting the angle by ruler and compass
>> in order to declare that it must be nonsense.
>>
>> The best you can hope for in such cases
>> is a possibly amusing 'spot the error' puzzle,
>>
>> Jan
>>

[jillery]

You assert a fact not in evidence, that Axe's book is critically
important data. Once again, unless there is some reason to expect
Axe's book offers something different than he has publicly stated
before, there's no reason to require RonO to post an explicit review
of it here.


In the meantime, there's plenty of evidence to suggest Axe's book is
MOTS. If RonO's suggestions are insufficient to satisfy you, just go
to Amazon.com and read the entire first chapter they provide from
their "Look Inside" feature. Examine the TOC and index. Now point
out where you would expect to find anything different from what Axe
hasn't published many times before.

[jillery]

The replies to this topic have become downright surreal. You say you
agree with RonO's expressed opinion. You admit you didn't follow
rnorman's advice and read Axe's book before you formed an opinion
about it. So apart from RonO's public admission and your silence,
there's no difference between you on this point. So how does that
make rnorman right?

>> This junk is so far from any legitimate science that you should be
>> ashamed of yourself for even making any claims about materials and
>> methods. Just think what IC would be like if Behe had ever put up his
>> materials and methods in a way that some real scientists could repeat
>> what he thinks that he has done.
>>
>> Ron Okimoto

[Glenn]

"rsNorman" <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:nof59n$6cq$1...@dont-email.me...

My two cents isn't worth a plug nickel in your book.

[Burkhard]

And "on your own" is exactly the sort of poisonous tribalist thinking
for which I have no time at all. There are valid or invalid arguments, I
don;t give a hoot who makes it, and I call out mistakes when I see them
and by whoever I see them

[Burkhard]

I'm not saying Ron didn't post a conclusion, I simply have no idea which
of my conclusions you mean

>
> OTOH, you conveniently ignored my explicit point above,

I did not "ignore" it, I did not understand it - and still don't.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 15:42:43 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by passer...@gmail.com:

>All that time replying to someone that will never read it. I would never waste the time on you, not near impressive enough.

And yet you couldn't help yourself, and replied anyway...

Cognitive disconnect much?

[Glenn]

"Burkhard" <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:nofqma$h1k$2...@dont-email.me...

Then you are blinded by your own biases, which are shared by your own.
Ron's screeds are filled with invalid arguments.

[jillery]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 19:10:19 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

My point here is that Kalkidas cited an article and wilfully refused
to give a substantive reason, which qualifies as an invalid argument.
So either you agree with my point, but somehow "don't see" Kalkidas'
posts, or you disagree with my point, and give Kalkidas a pass, or you
somehow "don't see" my point, and argue a strawman.

[jillery]

On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 19:08:10 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>

That was unclear from your comment. I refer above to your conclusions
that RonO relied on "epistemic luck". IIUC you mean that RonO's
expressed basis for his conclusions is insufficient information, and
he should have first read Axe's book. But since you admit to not
reading Kalkidas cited article, then by your own expressed standard,
you have insufficient information to say that RonO's expressed basis
is insufficient information.

>> OTOH, you conveniently ignored my explicit point above,
>
>I did not "ignore" it, I did not understand it - and still don't.

I regret using a verb you find inappropriate. I hope my restatement of
my point helps you to understand.

> that you
>> jumped to a conclusion about what RonO posted, without you first
>> reading the article, which is the same behavior for which you
>> criticize RonO.
>>
>>
>>>>>> And when that was
>>>>>> noted, he reacted with childish ad homimens. Should it be so easy to
>>>>>> evade one's obligations, by simply not stating a POV explicitly? No
>>>>>> wonder so many trolls do exactly that.
>>
>>
>> And you conveniently ignored the above point as well. It's relevant
>> to the topic and to your one-sided criticism of RonO.

And still no comment about the above. Do you still not "understand"
this as well?