Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

KU prof's e-mail irks fundamentalists (Christian Bashing OK)
Wichita Eagle ^ | 25 Nov 2005 | Associated Press

Posted on 11/25/2005 8:34:07 AM PST by Exton1

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 601-625 next last
To: Coyoteman
But you have faith that the trial and error method will produce incrimentally better results.

That is a faith. Period. It may be a good one based on your life experience and your understanding of others' life experience, but you still believe it will work.

Will it? Well, I can give you plenty of examples (in mathematics, I grant you) where you can get what appears to be closer and closer and closer to the correct solution only to find, after a lot of work, that you were very far off. The example I have in mind is Newton's method for finding zeros of functions. Nonetheless, it is quite possible that trial and error will lead you to entirely the wrong solution for any given problem.

151 posted on 11/25/2005 5:40:01 PM PST by AmishDude (Your corporate slogan could be here! FReepmail me for my confiscatory rates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

What aren't the flaws?

Does it do anything right? Why should we believe anything science says?

152 posted on 11/25/2005 5:40:38 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
Why use that word when it's clear to anyone with a brain that its dual meaning can cause confusion?

I did it on purpose to confuse stupid people.

153 posted on 11/25/2005 5:40:51 PM PST by AmishDude (Your corporate slogan could be here! FReepmail me for my confiscatory rates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
Does it do anything right? Why should we believe anything science says?

Well, my area requires proof so I do find the scientific method a bit lacking.

154 posted on 11/25/2005 5:42:25 PM PST by AmishDude (Your corporate slogan could be here! FReepmail me for my confiscatory rates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
I did it on purpose to confuse stupid people.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! And thus you have confused no one but yourself.

155 posted on 11/25/2005 5:44:05 PM PST by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Exton1

"This man is a hateful man," said state Sen. Kay O'Connor, R-Olathe. "Are we supposed to be using tax dollars to promote hatred?"

Funny to see the right use the language of the hated left. Is Sen. O'Connor going to campaign for hate speech rules next?


156 posted on 11/25/2005 5:44:07 PM PST by indcons (A Happy Thanksgiving to my FRiends and their families.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

Well, my area requires proof so I do find the scientific method a bit lacking.

So you don't have an answer to my questions.

157 posted on 11/25/2005 5:46:35 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
Post #151 But you have faith that the trial and error method will produce incrimentally better results.

That is a faith. Period.

Post #153 I did it on purpose to confuse stupid people.

You are being deliberately offensive. Words mean things, and to deliberately confuse two clearly different meanings does not contribute to the discussion, nor to your credibility.

Whether you wish to admit it or not, there is a clear difference between a belief or a faith, based on no clear evidence (a religious belief, for example), and the scientific method which has been worked out by trial and error for centuries. Either can be wrong, but the trust one places in the scientific method is different than the belief one places in ones faith.

Its late and I haven't shaved. I may check back to see if the thread has evolved tomorrow.

158 posted on 11/25/2005 5:47:17 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Whether you wish to admit it or not, there is a clear difference between a belief or a faith,

Because you choose to make it and because you have decided that the word "faith" is a pejorative.

You use "belief" and "trust" as substitutes.

Its late and I haven't shaved. I may check back

I read this quickly and it suggested to me that there was too much information being conveyed as to what you were shaving.

159 posted on 11/25/2005 5:50:26 PM PST by AmishDude (Your corporate slogan could be here! FReepmail me for my confiscatory rates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
What aren't the flaws?

Um, it works remarkably well?

It can be woefully wrong in the short term. (See studies which say coffee is good for you/bad for you/good for you. Global warming. Etc.)

Cutting edge science can frequently be mistaken, that is why it is subject to revision and peer review. Well-established and tested theories, though have proven their validity over and over again.

Some of Einstein's theories are being tested only now. Some can never be tested.

These statements are completely untrue. Einstein's theories have proven themselves to be remarkably accurate along many separate lines of inquiry.

It relies on specialists for verification.

This is a necessity. Have a better idea?

This produces a corrupt result as these specialists depend on each other to keep their area active and to draw grant dollars from other areas.

Specialists from different research groups & countries are in direct competition with each other. Scientists profit from proving/disproving new theories, and have to withstand each other's attacks constantly.

The grant system also rewards favored areas of science and exaggerated claims of success, which leads to greater problems in the area of my first bullet point.

And if it can't be independently verified, it goes out the window. That's how science works. Generally it is the media that exaggerates the significance of new & incomplete research. There are some genuine controversies in science. This does not imply that all of science is a controversy.

But I think your question is more revealing than my answer.

Not really. You've made your contempt for all of science quite apparent, now. What would you suggest we replace it with?

160 posted on 11/25/2005 5:51:36 PM PST by Quark2005 (Science aims to elucidate. Pseudoscience aims to obfuscate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
Why should we believe anything science says?

Oh, you should certainly have faith in everything science tells you.

And you make very much a fatal flaw here. "Science" says nothing. Self-described scientists report results. They can be as corrupt as a prophet who claims God tells him to collect money and women from amongst his flock.

161 posted on 11/25/2005 5:53:37 PM PST by AmishDude (Your corporate slogan could be here! FReepmail me for my confiscatory rates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Exton1

bump


162 posted on 11/25/2005 5:56:04 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exton1

What's not to mock?

Its a science class, no room for fundies.


163 posted on 11/25/2005 5:57:06 PM PST by Central Scrutiniser (Never pet a dog that is on fire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005
Cutting edge science can frequently be mistaken,

Really? Is that right? Not to hear the zealots tell it. When science has spoken, all must obey.

But bad science does a lot of damage in the short term.

Well-established

Everybody keeps saying this and I'm not sure how to quantify "well-".

These statements are completely untrue.

Note that I said "some":Brownian Motion Under The Microscope (Einstein Nobel Prize Discovery Questioned)

It relies on specialists for verification.
This is a necessity. Have a better idea?

Not at all. But it's a flaw.

Specialists from different research groups & countries are in direct competition with each other.

I beg to differ. There is definitely an attempt to keep some subfields alive and there is an undercurrent of inertia which leads to certain beliefs and theories gaining prominence over others for no good reason other than the feel of the participating scientists.

And if it can't be independently verified, it goes out the window.

Not before the money is spent and the alchemists have moved on to a new project.

That's how science works. Generally it is the media that exaggerates the significance of new & incomplete research.

This is quite true. Rep. Patrick Kennedy is the countries most famous "scientist". The media goes to him for expertise. I am not kidding.

But it seems that the scientific community gets a lot less worked up over the misuse of science than over this whole ID thing.

There are some genuine controversies in science. This does not imply that all of science is a controversy.

I'm beginning to see "science" as an overbroad term.

Not really. You've made your contempt for all of science quite apparent,

Ah, it's about me, is it? How very unscientific.

164 posted on 11/25/2005 6:08:45 PM PST by AmishDude (Your corporate slogan could be here! FReepmail me for my confiscatory rates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude; Quark2005

AmishDude: I'm saying faith in the scientific method is a faith. You must accept its validity in order to use it. (This does not address the flaws in the method, which are most egregious in so-called junk science. Of course, these flaws can be considered part of the method itself.)

Quark2005: What are the 'flaws' in the scientific method?

AmishDude: What aren't the flaws?

Me: Does it do anything right? Why should we believe anything science says?

AmishDude: Well, my area requires proof so I do find the scientific method a bit lacking.

Me: So you don't have an answer to my questions.

AmishDude: Oh, you should certainly have faith in everything science tells you. And you make very much a fatal flaw here. "Science" says nothing. Self-described scientists report results. They can be as corrupt as a prophet who claims God tells him to collect money and women from amongst his flock.

That's, in general, called not answering the question, being evasive, attempting to distance responses as far down the thread as possible from where the original question was asked, etc. In this specific case it means you are wasting my time because you have nothing of substance to say. I'm inclined to conclude you're just trolling for amusement.

165 posted on 11/25/2005 6:10:24 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
They [scientists] can be as corrupt as a prophet who claims God tells him to collect money and women from amongst his flock.

I wonder what the percentage of corrupt preachers is compared to the percentage of corrupt scientists.

166 posted on 11/25/2005 6:11:08 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

Frankly, I'm getting annoyed at having to answer everybody's Socratic questions, so I have included a bit of sarcasm. So sue me.


167 posted on 11/25/2005 6:12:14 PM PST by AmishDude (Your corporate slogan could be here! FReepmail me for my confiscatory rates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005
I post this from time to time, when it seems needed. But it never seems to penetrate:

In discussions like this, we should be careful about our terminology, so that we're all using words in the same way. One can "believe" in the existence of the tooth fairy, but one does not -- in the same sense of the word -- "believe" in the existence of his own mother. Belief in the first proposition (tooth fairy) requires faith, which is the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof. The second proposition (mother) is the kind of knowledge which follows from sensory evidence. There is also that kind of knowledge (like the Pythagorean theorem) which follows from logical proof. In either case -- that is, belief in things evidenced by sensory evidence or demonstrated by logical proof -- there is no need for faith.

In between mother and the Pythagorean theorem are those propositions we provisionally accept (or in common usage "believe"), like relativity and evolution, because they are scientific theories -- logical, testable, and therefore falsifiable explanations of the available, verifiable data (which data is knowledge obtained via sensory evidence).

Too many creationists come into these threads and appear to be clueless about the vital distinctions between reason and faith. There are vitally significant differences between an axiom and an article of dogma, fact and fantasy, hypothesis (or a more general theory) and conjecture. These fundamental differences allow us to distinguish reason-based science from faith-based teaching. They are commonly confused, but they are very different intellectual enterprises.

The theory of evolution is far more than a wild imaginary belief (such as belief in Zeus or the tooth fairy). Darwin proposed his theory as an explanation for the proliferation of species that we observe. It was scientific, in that it was a rational, comprehensible, cause-and-effect explanation that fit the data. This was about 150 years ago. Since then, hundreds of thousands of fossils have been uncovered, and NONE has been found that contradicted the theory. This alone is powerful evidence, as the theory predicts that all fossils will conform to the theory, so each new fossil find is therefore a test of the theory; and the theory successfully passes each such test. Purely theological matters are not capable of such testing, and thus theology is not scientific. The same can be said of quasi-theological propositions like Intelligent Design.

Then there's the matter of "proof." Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proven. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proven, because at least in principle, a counter-example might be discovered. Theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported by the facts they purport to rationally explain and by the predictions which they make. All scientific theories (including the theory of evolution) are subject to revision if new data is discovered which necessitates this. When a scientific theory (such as evolution) has a long history of being supported by the evidence, the most appropriate word for acceptance of the theory is usually "confidence," not "faith."

Useful website in this context: Do You Believe in Evolution?

168 posted on 11/25/2005 6:12:17 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Expect no response if you're a troll, lunatic, dotard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Welcome to the Troll-a-rama™ Extravaganza!
169 posted on 11/25/2005 6:17:15 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Thumper1960
Appreciate your response to the Right Wing Professor who apparently feels Bible-believing Christians can be treated with this kind of contempt. And if there isn't such a word as pretendance, there ought to be!
170 posted on 11/25/2005 6:18:43 PM PST by GOPPachyderm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

"Exactness of Rokhlin endomorphisms and weak mixing of Poisson boundaries"


171 posted on 11/25/2005 6:19:45 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: onja
But also there are no trees before the supposed time of the flood. They all magically start at around 4000 or so years.

You haven't looked around enough.

172 posted on 11/25/2005 6:21:45 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Now THAT'S good stuff!
173 posted on 11/25/2005 6:22:01 PM PST by AmishDude (Your corporate slogan could be here! FReepmail me for my confiscatory rates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
I had no idea a mathematician would have such difficulty with common English words.

Nor I. I wouldn't have even claimed that you were using jargon.

174 posted on 11/25/2005 6:23:07 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Strange people these mathematicians - except the applied ones, of course.

I always strive for charm and beauty rather than strangeness. (I got that from Reagan's movie: "Bedtime for Bosons.")

175 posted on 11/25/2005 6:26:52 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
Strange people these mathematicians - except the applied ones, of course.

Applied mathematics is usually neither.

Oh, and thanks ever so much for the courtesy ping.

176 posted on 11/25/2005 6:30:32 PM PST by AmishDude (Your corporate slogan could be here! FReepmail me for my confiscatory rates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: dsc
It can. Free exercise includes equal access to public facilities. Making believers objects of mockery impairs their equal access

Wow. That's an expansion of harassment law I haven't heard even from the most virulent feminist or race-baiter. So a teacher can't even mock religion in his private life, because some fundie might dig it out and publicize it?

Fortunately, ou are as ignorant of the law as you are gutless about admitting to your posted threats.

By attempting to make believers objects of mockery, thereby impairing their equal access to the university.

An authoritarian attempt to gag those who disagree with you.

You're not a conservative, you're a fascist.

177 posted on 11/25/2005 6:34:21 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: dsc
It can. Free exercise includes equal access to public facilities. Making believers objects of mockery impairs their equal access

Wow. That's an expansion of harassment law I haven't heard even from the most virulent feminist or race-baiter. So a teacher can't even mock religion in his private life, because some fundie might dig it out and publicize it?

Fortunately, ou are as ignorant of the law as you are gutless about admitting to your posted threats.

By attempting to make believers objects of mockery, thereby impairing their equal access to the university.

An authoritarian attempt to gag those who disagree with you.

You're not a conservative, you're a fascist.

178 posted on 11/25/2005 6:34:24 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
Brownian Motion Under The Microscope (Einstein Nobel Prize Discovery Questioned)

There was no question about Einstein's Nobel Prise in the article you linked to. I suggest that you learn how to do a conduct citation research before posting such nonsense. In fact, the article discussed experiments outside the range of Einstein's calculations (which were purely mathematical anyway; were Einstein wrong, so to Norbert Wiener.)

179 posted on 11/25/2005 6:34:34 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

True, but the terminology isn't obvious.


180 posted on 11/25/2005 6:38:09 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
You mean to say that you instruct your students to crank out an algorithm (which exists as software on many platforms, including java right on the web) and you don't even verify that it always works?

Of course we do. You can verify it in most cases by inspection. Maximum parsimony is very similar to the traveling salesman problem. Understanding it isn't difficult. On a highly conserved protein, verifying it isn't difficult.

What I ask are fundamental questions regarding your technique. Again, running the algorithm is not conceptually difficult. There's nothing to understand, it's all shallow.

Indeed. It's transparent. A beautiful demonstration of molecular evolution, suitable for a freshman class.

181 posted on 11/25/2005 6:40:33 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; onja

Would appreciate clarification on just what all these skulls prove? Are you saying that these are "inter-species" examples as was mentioned in the earlier email?

Is this proof that you are presenting for evolution?


182 posted on 11/25/2005 6:41:45 PM PST by GOPPachyderm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
You can verify it in most cases by inspection.

*eye roll*

Honestly, we try to beat that stuff out of them in calculus and you people just reinforce it all over again.

Maximum parsimony is very similar to the traveling salesman problem.

Interesting. Is there a fractional relaxation?

On a highly conserved protein, verifying it isn't difficult.

Again, this is the icky proof-by-example, I talked about. One of the reasons we hate this sort of thing is that it makes you reinvent the wheel everytime. Just show it works for all proteins. Or, better yet, for all strings on a fixed alphabet.

Indeed. It's transparent. A beautiful demonstration of molecular evolution, suitable for a freshman class.

Actually, it's a demonstration of a model which purports to...

183 posted on 11/25/2005 6:52:35 PM PST by AmishDude (Your corporate slogan could be here! FReepmail me for my confiscatory rates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
I read the article, I didn't decide to get another Ph. D. (Although physics would take a bit less time, certainly...)

But it seems to me that the results demonstrate that the Brownian-like motion is imprecise for determining the actual motion of particles. This does not contradict what I said. The math behind Brownian motion is solid.

184 posted on 11/25/2005 6:59:29 PM PST by AmishDude (Your corporate slogan could be here! FReepmail me for my confiscatory rates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
[criticism <> mockery

Since we're parsing and splitting rhetorical/definitional hairs, mockery is certainly a subset of criticism.]

I disagree entirely. I could criticize someone's performance, which they could then alter, and that would be an improvement for them. But if I just laugh and make faces I'm not offering anything beneficial. I would say constructive criticism is unrelated to mockery, while destructive criticism could be interpreted as being similar to mockery, when one is only taking a swipe at something.
*************************
Actually, after typing up the above argument, on second thought I think you're right. But then mockery is certainly a very juvenile form of criticism, there are much more effective methods I think. Maybe I should have said:

constructive criticism <> mockery
pointless vicious criticism = mockery
185 posted on 11/25/2005 7:03:52 PM PST by starbase (One singular sensation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

You are posting under three or more identities.

"That's an expansion of harassment law"

Arrant drivel. It's not an "expansion" of anything. It's a rock bottom component of free exercise of religion--that is, the freedom to openly espouse a religion without fear of persecution.

"So a teacher can't even mock religion in his private life, because some fundie might dig it out and publicize it?"

On his blog, Scott Adams wrote a few paragraphs on Internet debate. This one applies to the statement above: 'Assume the dumbest interpretation. For example, if someone says that he can run a mile in 12 minutes, assume he means it happens underwater and argue that no one can hold his breath that long.'

We're not talking about anyone's "private life" here. We're talking about what this moral leper in professor's garb did in his official capacity as a university employee. The only thing that was even arguably private was his admission of his misconduct. The offense itself shares no such claim.

"Fortunately, ou are as ignorant of the law as you are gutless about admitting to your posted threats."

It is truly disgusting to see such dishonesty here on FR. Accuse someone of saying something he didn't say, and from then on slur him for not "admitting" to your fabrication.

"An authoritarian attempt to gag those who disagree with you."

Buncombe. It is an explanation of why your attempts to gag those who disagree is wrongful.

"You're not a conservative, you're a fascist."

No conservative slings around the "F" word like that. You're a troll, posting under multiple identities.


186 posted on 11/25/2005 7:10:45 PM PST by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: starbase

"constructive criticism <> mockery
pointless vicious criticism = mockery"

I think one can also say that criticism at least tries to be reasonable, while mockery is just a form of persecution.


187 posted on 11/25/2005 7:12:35 PM PST by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

"faith, which is the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof. The second proposition (mother) is the kind of knowledge which follows from sensory evidence."

The problem with that, of course, is the assumption (Or should I say, 'adamantine prejudice?') that there is no equivalent or superior sensory evidence for the existence of God.

As so often turns out to be the case, that assumption is false.


188 posted on 11/25/2005 7:19:22 PM PST by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: starbase

constructive criticism <>

mockery pointless vicious criticism = mockery

I'd say that some of the most effective (even if vicious) criticism is mockery: for example, political cartoons. It cuts through pretense and hypocrisy. Satire can be extremely vicious, pointed, accurate, and constructive.

189 posted on 11/25/2005 7:20:06 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
Honestly, we try to beat that stuff out of them in calculus and you people just reinforce it all over again.

What stuff? Don't you get it? We're interested in generating trees. We care if the trees are unique. We care that the trees are correct. That is pretty much all we care about. In general, for the task of generating a tree for a 100 amino acid, highly conserved protein, over 20 organisms, you can generate a maximally parsimonious tree by brute force; heck, I can usually do it by inspection. But having a program certainly helps.

If I were doing bioinformatics research, I'd care about the scalability and computability of my algorithms. I'm not. I'm trying to show freshman students who often don't know what DNA is when the class starts, how the DNA of various species can be used to generate a tree of life.

Interesting. Is there a fractional relaxation?

I don't know, and care less.

Again, this is the icky proof-by-example, I talked about. One of the reasons we hate this sort of thing is that it makes you reinvent the wheel everytime. Just show it works for all proteins. Or, better yet, for all strings on a fixed alphabet.

Who's we? You and the small subset of other pure mathematicians with a chip on their shoulder about the real world?

As far as I'm concerned, mathematics is a tool for the sciences. We're happy to have mathematicians work out the gory details of algorithmic computability, on the admittedly over optimistic hope they might come up with something useful.

190 posted on 11/25/2005 7:25:44 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: dsc; Right Wing Professor

You're a troll, posting under multiple identities.

That's a ridiculously laughable assertion. I suggest you do you're homework.

191 posted on 11/25/2005 7:29:32 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
[I'd say that some of the most effective (even if vicious) criticism is mockery: for example, political cartoons. It cuts through pretense and hypocrisy. Satire can be extremely vicious, pointed, accurate, and constructive.]

You're right again. I meant "effective" in the Socratic sense of not intentionally offending or harming the participants in the dialog but rather lifting everyone, in a gentle fashion, to a higher intellectual level. That's my personal goal of effectiveness.

"Effectiveness" is also a measure of how powerful the response is, I agree.
192 posted on 11/25/2005 7:31:19 PM PST by starbase (One singular sensation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: dsc
You are posting under three or more identities.

Don't project your multiple personality disorder onto others. Your paranoia is showing.

It's a rock bottom component of free exercise of religion--that is, the freedom to openly espouse a religion without fear of persecution.

Aw, poor baby! Now mockery is persecution! Why, it could huwt yowa widdul feewings!

It is truly disgusting to see such dishonesty here on FR. Accuse someone of saying something he didn't say, and from then on slur him for not "admitting" to your fabrication.

You, in reference to academics, said the tree of liberty needed to be watered, and admitted that was a reference to Jefferson's saying about watering it with the blood of tyrants. You also called me a traitor, and said 'patriots' need to exercise their second amendment rights to protect their first amendment rights against traitors.

You're a troll, posting under multiple identities.

Liar. But hey, ask the mods to check.

193 posted on 11/25/2005 7:34:45 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
What stuff?

Proof by inspection.

Who's we? You and the small subset of other pure mathematicians with a chip on their shoulder about the real world?

The real world is a special case.

As far as I'm concerned, mathematics is a tool for the sciences.

And that is why you fail, young padawan.

Mathematics is all things. It is all that we know. There are three forms of learning: Mathematics, experimentation, taxonomy.

Mathematics is the highest form. It encompasses all high-order knowledge. Information in mathematics reverberates a thousand-fold across all sciences. Or to put it simply: I know everything, I just don't know what you choose to call it.

The next level is experimentation. While essential, it's intellectually lower on the scale.

Taxonomy just gives names to stuff and many economists have made a very good living at that.

We're happy to have mathematicians work out the gory details of algorithmic computability,

That is not mathematics. That is computer science. But they're good people.

194 posted on 11/25/2005 7:37:41 PM PST by AmishDude (Your corporate slogan could be here! FReepmail me for my confiscatory rates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: starbase; ml1954

It's funny, we never hear all these complaints about mockery when someone posts a Mark Steyn column (and Steyn mocks like Ted Williams hit a baseball). It seems it's, as usual, a question of whose ox is gored.


195 posted on 11/25/2005 7:41:33 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude
And that is why you fail, young padawan.

LOL!

Mathematics is all things. It is all that we know. There are three forms of learning: Mathematics, experimentation, taxonomy.

Nah. Math is what you do to check your conclusions when the real science is done.

Mathematics is the highest form. It encompasses all high-order knowledge. Information in mathematics reverberates a thousand-fold across all sciences. Or to put it simply: I know everything, I just don't know what you choose to call it.

Oh, you know everything. I see (edging away).

196 posted on 11/25/2005 7:50:20 PM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

The real world is a special case....

Mathematics is all things. It is all that we know....

Mathematics is the highest form. It encompasses all high-order knowledge...

Trolling for attention now instead of just amusement?.

197 posted on 11/25/2005 7:51:29 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

You guys remind me of a caveman. The mathematician is sitting around at his wheel store, and you walk by saying, "No thanks, I'll just invent it all over again. This hexagonal idea looks really promising."


198 posted on 11/25/2005 7:53:57 PM PST by AmishDude (Your corporate slogan could be here! FReepmail me for my confiscatory rates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

Ah, so it's about me now. How scientific.


199 posted on 11/25/2005 7:57:19 PM PST by AmishDude (Your corporate slogan could be here! FReepmail me for my confiscatory rates.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

Ah, so it's about me now. How scientific.

Hmmm.. did I misunderstand that part where you said... "Mathematics is the highest form. It encompasses all high-order knowledge. Information in mathematics reverberates a thousand-fold across all sciences. Or to put it simply: I know everything, I just don't know what you choose to call it. ?

Sounded to me like you were talking about 'you'. I guess when you are trolling, it is all about YOU.

200 posted on 11/25/2005 8:04:14 PM PST by ml1954 (NOT the disruptive troll seen frequently on CREVO threads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 601-625 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson