Harshman's interpretation on darwinism - his end part duex
Quark E
He notes the observed change, as everyone does.
Then he does something totally unwarranted.
He makes an inference that it happened by itself.
But he does more than that.
He says that this assumption this inference is an undisputed fact.
Sorry harshbaby, but inference is not FACT.
John Vreeland
It can be. Do you deny it is a fact that if you drop a stone it will
fall down? Until you observe it happening it is only an inference
based on prior observation.
--
My years on the mudpit that is Usnenet have taught me one important thing: three Creation Scientists can have a serious conversation, if two of them are sock puppets.
John Harshman
> He notes the observed change, as everyone does.
>
> Then he does something totally unwarranted.
>
> He makes an inference that it happened by itself.
>
> But he does more than that.
>
> He says that this assumption this inference is an undisputed fact.
I don't recall saying anything of the sort. My memory sure is getting
bad these days. However, "it happened by itself" is certainly consistent
with everything we know. Similarly, when I drop an apple, I explain its
path (always down, by the way) by recourse to the mutual attraction of
masses, not to the actions of angels or pixies. What leads you to bring
in additional entities for which there is no evidence?
> Sorry harshbaby, but inference is not FACT.
>
Of course it is. Everything we know is inference. Not all inferences are
facts, but all facts are inferences. There's really no such thing as a
pure fact.
Quark E
> Quark E wrote:
> > He notes the observed change, as everyone does.
>
> > Then he does something totally unwarranted.
>
> > He makes an inference that it happened by itself.
>
> > But he does more than that.
>
> > He says that this assumption this inference is an undisputed fact.
>
> I don't recall saying anything of the sort. My memory sure is getting
> bad these days. However, "it happened by itself" is certainly consistent
> with everything we know.
Neglecting everything that has happened in this case.
> What leads you to bring
> in additional entities for which there is no evidence?
Because moron there is now evidence.
>
> > Sorry harshbaby, but inference is not FACT.
>
> Of course it is.
LIAR!
Quark E
http://www.dh.id.au/InfTest1.htm
3. Limits itself to observed information. 3. Moves beyond observed
information and/or is unrelated to it. Removes and/or adds in new
information.
4. Hence limited number of statements. 4. Unlimited number of
statements can be made.
5. Statement reliability nearly certain. 5. Statement reliability
varies from very low to high. Science uses many independent facts
(observations) to increase the reliability of its inferences
(theories).
6. Increases chance of agreement. 6. Decreases chance of agreement.
The natural abstracting order goes through the following levels:
1st Reality (or "the territory" as general semanticists call it.)
2nd Observations of reality. E.g. seeing, hearing, touching, etc. We
call these "facts". This is our non-verbal perception of reality.
(General semanticists call this the "object level".)
3rd Statements of fact. I.e. direct descriptions of the observation.
(We are now at the lowest verbal abstracting level.)
4th Statements involving inferences. I.e. we go beyond the direct
description of the observation.
5th Etc. More inferences, evaluations, theories, etc, etc. These can
go on indefinitely. For as many levels as you like.
So facts and statements of facts are more basic than inferences. I.e.
they come earlier in the natural abstracting process. Confusing or
identifying these different levels can lead to problems
Other examples of inferential statements are:
"Mrs Peel is rich because she drives a Porsche."
"My wife is always checking on me to see if I'm cheating."
"My husband is lazy because he just lies in his armchair when he gets
home after work."
"People don't like me because I have pimples."
"The owners of the business I work for, make all the money."
None of these are necessarily correct statements. They go beyond what
is observed. For instance, Mrs Peel may rent the car she drives, etc.
I leave it up to you to work out other possible conclusions to the
above inferences. While they may likely be true, they are not ALWAYS
true. And you could get into problems by assuming that they are true.
Try to do the following with your own evaluating:
Become more conscious that you are using inferences rather than just
"the facts." Know the differences between them.
Hence try and avoid behavior/thinking based on inferences as though
they were facts
Quark E
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference#Incorrect_inference
An incorrect inference is known as a fallacy. Philosophers who study
informal logic have compiled large lists of them, and cognitive
psychologists have documented many biases in human reasoning that
favor incorrect reasoning.
So what he is doing ascribing inference passing it off as fact shows a
mental disorder and
is a logical fallacy.
His minor in his degree was philosophy which taught him to do this
instinctively, and be
the biggest dope troll on usenet.
John Vreeland
Is this some sort of apology or are you pleading for mercy on the
grounds that you aren't playing with a full deck? I'm leaning towards
the latter.
Everything you assume is true in life is an inference. If you want to
claim that nothing is true...well, you can go join your post-modernist
brethren in intellectual hell.
John Harshman
> On Jul 14, 2:35 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Quark E wrote:
>>> He notes the observed change, as everyone does.
>>> Then he does something totally unwarranted.
>>> He makes an inference that it happened by itself.
>>> But he does more than that.
>>> He says that this assumption this inference is an undisputed fact.
>> I don't recall saying anything of the sort. My memory sure is getting
>> bad these days. However, "it happened by itself" is certainly consistent
>> with everything we know.
>
> Neglecting everything that has happened in this case.
Is this spintronic by any chance? The incoherence and pugnacity seem
familiar.
>> What leads you to bring
>> in additional entities for which there is no evidence?
>
> Because moron there is now evidence.
What evidence are you thinking of here?
>>> Sorry harshbaby, but inference is not FACT.
>> Of course it is.
>
> LIAR!
I can see we aren't going to get very far.
John Harshman
> On Jul 14, 4:01 pm, Quark E <quarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 14, 2:35 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>>> Sorry harshbaby, but inference is not FACT.
>>> Of course it is.
>> LIAR!
>
> http://www.dh.id.au/InfTest1.htm
Snip cut'n'paste. I'm afraid you (and whoever put up the page you
pasted) have a hopelessly naive view of epistemology. It's unlikely that
we will be able to discuss this in any mutually intelligible way.
Still, let me make an attempt. Is it an inference or a fact that a
carbon atom has 6 protons?
David Hare-Scott
> Quark E wrote:
>> On Jul 14, 2:35 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> Quark E wrote:
>>>> He notes the observed change, as everyone does.
>>>> Then he does something totally unwarranted.
>>>> He makes an inference that it happened by itself.
>>>> But he does more than that.
>>>> He says that this assumption this inference is an undisputed fact.
>>> I don't recall saying anything of the sort. My memory sure is
>>> getting bad these days. However, "it happened by itself" is
>>> certainly consistent with everything we know.
>>
>> Neglecting everything that has happened in this case.
>
> Is this spintronic by any chance? The incoherence and pugnacity seem
> familiar.
>
The style is very familiar isn't it. Somebody who has been here before and
has some sort of personal beef with you. Spinny is certainly a contender.
The other possibility that came to mind who had those qualities had many
names (tapestry, skinny cartman etc).
David
John Harshman
No, this guy isn't as obviously insane. Tapestry et al. was less
incoherent but more crazy.
*Hemidactylus*
quite well.
*Hemidactylus*
John Harshman
*Hemidactylus*
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/1ce0813cabcde0ea?hl=en&dmode=source
yost is the key for this michael.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4b2c686870766e14?hl=en&dmode=source
As is the refrain "I AM"
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/97963402622c3951?hl=en&dmode=source
[I AM <yost...@hotmail.com> from 209.2.60.83 aka PaeTec
Communications, Inc. (sound familiar Harshman?)
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/9c3360c27d1d3c9f?hl=en
_____________________________________________________________________
David Iain Greig
View profile
More options Jan 11, 10:42 pm
Newsgroups: talk.origins
From: David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 02:42:00 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [MODERATOR BAN]Re: Leaving on a jet plane
Forward | Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message |
Find messages by this author
I AM <yost...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 4:23 pm, I AM <yost...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW6NVcqcRVE
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS0pEiqqyP0
This nym banned for nymshifting. Nym 'michael' not yet banned.
--D.
--
david iain greig dgr...@ediacara.org
moderator, talk.origins sp4 kox
http://www.ediacara.org/~dgreig arbor plena alouattarum
___________________________________________________________________________
And here's one directed at you:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/41c31f5ac02e0afe/f9426d3afbac831b?hl=en&q=yost+harshman#f9426d3afbac831b
where Michael hit you
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/33c01ffaac10506f?hl=en&dmode=source
from 209.2.60.83
and I AM hit you
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/23c0c9e67b78f0cc?hl=en&dmode=source
from 209.2.60.83
209.2.60.83 resolves to PaeTec Communications, Inc.
Patterns are emerging. You know these "two" already. Just add Quark E
and you have a holy trinity IMO.
*Hemidactylus*
Add this again since it got pulled under DIG's sig line in my previous
post (sorry):
John Harshman
Several of the posts you cite mention "golaszewski", which is, if I
recall, Tapestry/Great Dayne/Skinny Cartman/etc.'s call sign. Are they
all the same? If so, I unfortunately do remember him.
*Hemidactylus*
Google groups and many newsreaders give you decent header info. If you
can find an IP the poster comes from then plug it into
http://whois.domaintools.com/ You probably don't care, but I
was...bored. And DIG might find the output informative if anyone cares
to push it his way.
*Hemidactylus*
University of Missouri: 207.160.163.152, 207.160.163.5, 207.160.168.243
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/e91156328565f69b?dmode=source
is from Picasso Renoir Hilton and resolves to 207.160.163.27 which is
University of Missouri
Picasso posted this
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/49b468f794f7cf6b?dmode=source
from 207.160.163.105 which resolves to University of Missouri
Great Dayne
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ba0a36b3ae1c8a84?dmode=source
is from 207.160.163.12 or University of Missouri
Travis Dayne
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/852288ef76c147c0?dmode=source
is from 207.160.166.47 or University of Missouri
Skinny Cartman
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/43ddb9b78c92ec8c?dmode=source
from 207.160.163.23 ummmmm... University of Missouri
Oh wait there's this one
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/msg/e410b7dc70872a07?dmode=source
from 164.113.158.129 which is an oddball Kansas Research and Education
Network. Not close to Massachusetts.
But the same person could be using proxies if they love you enough.
Skiiny Cartman gets around
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.drugs.dxm/msg/340c57b66b7e72c9?dmode=source
is 209.2.60.95 which resolves to PaeTec Communications, Inc. and
Nysernet/Brooklyn Public Library
http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?ip=209.2.60.95
Hmmm... an outlier...
The plot thickens.
*Hemidactylus*
Missouri is known as the 'show me' state and you are merely asking
Harshman to show you the facts eh Marmaduke?
John Harshman
Perhaps I'm under attack from the Hershey Collective. Wait a minute...I
*am* the Hershey Collective. Am I attacking myself?
*Hemidactylus*
That's entirely possible, one of those autoimmune things perhaps.
"Hershey" has gotten so out of control it has begun attacking itself.
Without N*ik*s around anymore why not self destruct? Next we will see
Wilkins attacking Australian philosophers other than David Stove, such
as "himself".
I haven't heard the head "Hershey" call for an attack on you though, but
I have missed all the official meetings since 2000.
John S. Wilkins
> On 07/15/2010 12:26 AM, John Harshman wrote:
...
> > Perhaps I'm under attack from the Hershey Collective. Wait a minute...I
> > *am* the Hershey Collective. Am I attacking myself?
>
> That's entirely possible, one of those autoimmune things perhaps.
> "Hershey" has gotten so out of control it has begun attacking itself.
> Without N*ik*s around anymore why not self destruct? Next we will see
> Wilkins attacking Australian philosophers other than David Stove, such
> as "himself".
I am not now David Chalmers, nor have I ever been.
>
> I haven't heard the head "Hershey" call for an attack on you though, but
> I have missed all the official meetings since 2000.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, Bond University
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Quark E
> No, this guy isn't as obviously insane.
I am insane because i know the difference between fact and inference
and you don't?
Quark E
> Quark E wrote:
> > On Jul 14, 4:01 pm, Quark E <quarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 14, 2:35 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> Sorry harshbaby, but inference is not FACT.
> >>> Of course it is.
> >> LIAR!
>
> >http://www.dh.id.au/InfTest1.htm
>
> Snip cut'n'paste. I'm afraid you (and whoever put up the page you
> pasted) have a hopelessly naive view of epistemology.
So I post proving you wrong and claim the person who clearly
elucidated it is simply some simpleton.
But it appears you answer is simple thusly you are the
naive one.
Quark E
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:11:22 -0700 (PDT), Quark E
>
>
>
>
>
I think you failed college level reading comprehension.
Quark E
> Quark E wrote:
> > On Jul 14, 4:01 pm, Quark E <quarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jul 14, 2:35 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> Sorry harshbaby, but inference is not FACT.
> >>> Of course it is.
> >> LIAR!
>
> >http://www.dh.id.au/InfTest1.htm
>
Did you flunk elementary school?
We have a name for those kinds of kids.
Retards.
> Is it an inference or a fact that a
> carbon atom has 6 protons?
Let's see.
We observed an item, which we labelled a proton.
A grouping of those named items, we labelled atoms.
A grouping of six of those we labelled carbon.
So we observed something and gave it a name.
It is a fact.
why?
BTW, my college degree was in comp sci and my
minor was chemistry, IDIOT!
John Harshman
John Harshman
> On Jul 14, 6:30 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Quark E wrote:
>>> On Jul 14, 4:01 pm, Quark E <quarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 14, 2:35 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Sorry harshbaby, but inference is not FACT.
>>>>> Of course it is.
>>>> LIAR!
>>> http://www.dh.id.au/InfTest1.htm
>> Still, let me make an attempt.
>
> Did you flunk elementary school?
> We have a name for those kinds of kids.
> Retards.
>
>> Is it an inference or a fact that a
>> carbon atom has 6 protons?
>
> Let's see.
> We observed an item, which we labelled a proton.
In what sense could we be said to have observed a proton? They're too
small to see, you know.
> A grouping of those named items, we labelled atoms.
> A grouping of six of those we labelled carbon.
No, carbon has 6 protons and between 6 and 8 neutrons too. You're sure
your minor was chemistry?
> So we observed something and gave it a name.
> It is a fact.
> why?
See, here's the problem with your naive categories. We don't observe
protons, or carbon atoms. We infer their existence because they explain
effects we can see. Nobody has ever seen a proton or a carbon atom. Yet
we know they exist. Inferences can be facts.
Even direct sensory experience is inference; the inference just happens
automatically in your brain and is not accessible to your consciousness.
That's why it's so hard to make a robot that can see -- all the
complicated inference necessary to turn photons hitting your retina into
the observation of objects.
> BTW, my college degree was in comp sci and my
> minor was chemistry, IDIOT!
I realize I'm just typing to myself here, but I do it anyway.
John Harshman
Dayne, Skinny Cartman? All of them? Some of them?
Mitchell Coffey
> *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 07/15/2010 12:26 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> ...
> > > Perhaps I'm under attack from the Hershey Collective. Wait a minute...I
> > > *am* the Hershey Collective. Am I attacking myself?
>
> > That's entirely possible, one of those autoimmune things perhaps.
> > "Hershey" has gotten so out of control it has begun attacking itself.
> > Without N*ik*s around anymore why not self destruct? Next we will see
> > Wilkins attacking Australian philosophers other than David Stove, such
> > as "himself".
>
> I am not now David Chalmers, nor have I ever been.
Hi Dave!
Mitchell
Greg G.
Apparently you are insane because you infer that he said you were
insane when he actually said the other guy was obviously insane but
you were not.
Quark E
> Quark E wrote:
> > On Jul 14, 8:21 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> No, this guy isn't as obviously insane.
>
> > I am insane because i know the difference between fact and inference
> > and you don't?
>
> And for a host of other reasons.
So your claim is that I am crazy because I know the difference between
fact and inference. You are truly mental.
Quark E
> Quark E wrote:
> > On Jul 14, 6:30 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Quark E wrote:
> >>> On Jul 14, 4:01 pm, Quark E <quarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Jul 14, 2:35 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> Sorry harshbaby, but inference is not FACT.
> >>>>> Of course it is.
> >>>> LIAR!
> >>>http://www.dh.id.au/InfTest1.htm
> >> Still, let me make an attempt.
>
> > Did you flunk elementary school?
> > We have a name for those kinds of kids.
> > Retards.
>
> >> Is it an inference or a fact that a
> >> carbon atom has 6 protons?
>
> > Let's see.
> > We observed an item, which we labelled a proton.
>
> In what sense could we be said to have observed a proton? They're too
> small to see, you know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton#History
Following the discovery of the atomic nucleus by Ernest Rutherford in
1911, Antonius van den Broek proposed that the place of each element
in the periodic table (its atomic number) is equal to its nuclear
charge. This was confirmed experimentally by Henry Moseley in 1913
using X-ray spectra. In 1919 Rutherford proved that the hydrogen
nucleus is present in other nuclei, a result usually described as the
discovery of the proton.[14] He noticed that when alpha particles were
shot into nitrogen gas, his scintillation detectors showed the
signatures of hydrogen nuclei. Rutherford determined that this
hydrogen could only have come from the nitrogen, and therefore
nitrogen must contain hydrogen nuclei. The hydrogen nucleus is
therefore present in other nuclei as an elementary particle, which
Rutherford named the proton, after the neuter singular of the Greek
word for "first", πρῶτον.
>
> > A grouping of those named items, we labelled atoms.
> > A grouping of six of those we labelled carbon.
>
> No, carbon has 6 protons
So we are in agreement.
> > So we observed something and gave it a name.
> > It is a fact.
> > why?
>
> See, here's the problem with your naive categories. We don't observe
> protons, or carbon atoms. We infer their existence because they explain
> effects we can see. Nobody has ever seen a proton or a carbon atom. Yet
> we know they exist.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100324162621.htm
Individual Light Atoms, Such as Carbon and Oxygen, Identified With New
Microscope
John Harshman
I see. So the sense in which we observe a proton is that we infer its
existence based on experimental results. So facts *are* inference, then.
John Harshman
Quark E
No you still don't get it.
They measure its existence.
It is observed, not inferred IDIOT!
johnetho...@yahoo.com
You seem to have a private definition of "observed" that is different
than standard English. Using words differently than everyone else
usually leads to problems in communication, especially if you don't
tell us that you are using a different meaning.
johnetho...@yahoo.com
Also he has been 100% wrong about what observations and inferences are.
Quark E
Quark E
Are you claiming rutherford *didn't* detect the alpha particle?
bpuharic
just because they can measure its charge does NOT mean it's been
'observerd'...in fact there was just an announcement the other day
that the proton diameter was smaller by 4% than previous measurements
had determined.
David Iain Greig
That's insane.
--D.
Quark E
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:53:27 -0700 (PDT), Quark E
>
So again it has been detected.
Are you like stupid or something?
bpuharic
no. i have an MS in chemical physics.
you?
Quark E
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 06:40:50 -0700 (PDT), Quark E
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 15, 9:18 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 13:53:27 -0700 (PDT), Quark E
>
> >> <quarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Jul 15, 3:51 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> >> Quark E wrote:
>
> >> >> I see. So the sense in which we observe a proton is that we infer
>
> >> >No you still don't get it.
> >> >They measure its existence.
> >> >It is observed, not inferred IDIOT!
>
> >> just because they can measure its charge does NOT mean it's been
> >> 'observerd'...in fact there was just an announcement the other day
> >> that the proton diameter was smaller by 4% than previous measurements
> >> had determined.
>
> >So again it has been detected.
> >Are you like stupid or something?
>
> no. i have an MS in chemical physics.
tHEN YOU SHOULD KNOW WHAT OBSERVE MEANS NOT ADOPT THAT
IDIOTCLOUSEAU ROLLOCK HARSHMAN'S LACKOF KNOWING WJHAT OBSERVING
SOMETHING IN SCIENCE IS DUMBFUCK UNLESSYOU WANT TO BE KNOWN AS A
RETARD LIKE HIM IN HERE FOREVER idiot.
Greg G.
Yes, Quarky has since shown he is obviously insane.
bpuharic
<quar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 16, 9:51 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 06:40:50 -0700 (PDT), Quark E
>>
>>
>>
>> >So again it has been detected.
>> >Are you like stupid or something?
>>
>> no. i have an MS in chemical physics.
>
>tHEN YOU SHOULD KNOW WHAT OBSERVE MEANS NOT ADOPT THAT
>IDIOTCLOUSEAU ROLLOCK HARSHMAN'S LACKOF KNOWING WJHAT OBSERVING
>SOMETHING IN SCIENCE IS DUMBFUCK UNLESSYOU WANT TO BE KNOWN AS A
>RETARD LIKE HIM IN HERE FOREVER idiot.
and he was banned before he got to make a death threat....DAMN!!