• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moderated Is belief itself dangerous for your brain? (A rethink is in order)

JayUtah said:
Specifically, real scientists communicate most often using the nomenclature appropriate to the field. Vizzini says, "Pull the thing...and the other thing," while real sailors can name every rope and spar on their ship with the appropriate name. "Code" vis "encode" is only the beginning. Real scientists don't frantically Google for simplistic definitions and abbreviated descriptions.
Click to expand...

Scientists, and thereafter beings of basic dictionary usage ability, are able to observe that a paradigm that permits a large ignorance of evidence (i.e. belief) opposes one that lacks such permission. (i.e. science)

Your expressions' content extend not beyond the scope of nonsense/trivially repairable ignorance.
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Pointless dismissal of criticism.



You miss the point. The point is that you refer to yourself in a context where references tend to indicate credibility. Real scientists quote other scientists. Fake scientists quote themselves.
Click to expand...

That I reference trivially accessible facts, presented in priorly organized quotations of mine, does not suddenly render those facts, in-existent.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Your comment is absent value.

Science does not especially concern non-evidence, by definition.

Belief especially concerns non-evidence, by definition.

It is not difficult to observe, that Belief opposes science.
Click to expand...

It is also not difficult to observe that your comprehension of both English and the topics in question are remarkably inadequate, provided that you are not simply trolling, incredibly unlikely as that seems to be. You've yet to provide any valid defense to various counterpoints that have been pointed out, though. Nor have you retracted your false accusations or demonstrated that they were not false, for that matter. Running away and pretending that facts and arguments don't exist or rejecting them without being able to formulate a valid argument is pretty much the antithesis of scientific thinking.
 
The Norseman said:
Yeah, that seems to be all he's got; dictionary definitions, a few Wiki quotes, and quoting his own ridiculous papers and book.
Click to expand...

To be fair here, it's not that the definitions are wrong. It's that he's trying to apply absurdly fallacious logic to them to try to twist them into saying what he wishes they said. Much the same applies to the Wiki quotes. As for his book, well... when his quotes have frequently been a line up of one fallacy after another, that's almost impressive in a way. If I was interested in teaching a class on fallacies, I'd be tempted to buy it as exercise material.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Scientists, and thereafter beings of basic dictionary usage ability, are able to observe that a paradigm that permits a large ignorance of evidence (i.e. belief) opposes one that lacks such permission. (i.e. science)

Your expressions' content extend not beyond the scope of nonsense/trivially repairable ignorance.
Click to expand...

Dear God in Heaven, one... last.... time:

You provide in post #124 four definitions for 'belief'.

Three of the four primary definitions make no mention of lacking concern for evidence (the fourth, by use of the word 'especially', really doesn't either but that nuance is clearly beyond your ken).

The third usage in Merriam specifically defines belief as:

conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence: belief in the validity of scientific statements
Click to expand...

You are cherry-picking one definition and torquing the meaning of 'especially' to suit your argument, whilst (Drink!) criticizing others on basic dictionary usage.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Scientists, and thereafter beings of basic dictionary usage ability, are able to observe that a paradigm that permits a large ignorance of evidence (i.e. belief) opposes one that lacks such permission. (i.e. science)

Your My expressions' content extend not beyond the scope of nonsense/trivially repairable ignorance.
Click to expand...

Point of Fact: A "Computer Science" major means you are, at best, a computer PROGRAMMER, not a freaking scientist.

Point of Observation: You do not fall into the "Scientists" nor the "beings of basic dictionary usage ability" or even "beings who understand how to properly use English", so you're excluding yourself from your first sentence.

Second sentence: FTFY
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
That I reference trivially accessible facts, presented in priorly organized quotations of mine, does not suddenly render those facts, in-existent.
Click to expand...

You rely only on trivially accessible facts and simplistic interpretations of them, not the deeper facts and erudition that one would acquire from an appropriate adjudicated study of the relevant fields. Every line of reasoning from you rises no higher than quoting chapter and verse from the dictionary and then insisting that the definition you glean from a basic source must be just so, and only so.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Scientists, and thereafter beings of basic dictionary usage ability, are able to observe that a paradigm that permits a large ignorance of evidence (i.e. belief) opposes one that lacks such permission. (i.e. science)
Click to expand...

Largely gibberish. Back in the day, all undergraduate degrees required a course in English composition, which you apparently didn't take or pass. One hallmark of a real scientist is his ability to write clearly. You don't do that. Write for clarity rather than trying to impress beyond your ability.

The only remotely cogent point I can glean from this word salad is that scientists can use dictionaries. Well yes, in that they're normal humans and the dictionary is open to all humans. If that's your point, then you keep missing mine. Scientific competency is not attained merely by reading the dictionary or the encyclopedia and applying one's own simplistic interpretations to the summary explanations in them. You're trying to dumb down science to match your ability, rather than extend your ability to match the problem. You have delusions of grandeur from a basic vocational degree and are trying to drag others into supporting your delusion.

The body of knowledge regarding human belief is not limited to what you read in Wikipedia. It is not limited to what you may have picked up at school while studying computers. Your crudely-drawn bifurcation omits almost all of that body of knowledge, and as such reaches an indefensible and simplistic conclusion.

Your expressions' content extend not beyond the scope of nonsense/trivially repairable ignorance.
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, sticks and stones. Calling all your critics ignorant and inconsequential doesn't change the fact that you're trying to pretend to be a scientist, and draw scientific conclusion, based on an irrelevant vocational degree.
 
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
That I reference trivially accessible facts, presented in priorly organized quotations of mine, does not suddenly render those facts, in-existent.
Click to expand...

The word is "non-existent".

Look, consider the following as constructive criticism of presentation style. How you self present determines how you are regarded at large.

See, this is your problem. You think that peppering your every post with flowery language like "whilst", "amidst", "whence", "sequence" and so forth will cast an aura of erudition over your posts. That might even vaguely happen if you were able to use them correctly in context, but you are not. And it shows. You would get more mileage were you to use plain English without straining to use words you do not understand correctly in order to appear more erudite. It is painful to the eyes and ears of your interlocutors to see the language mangled in such a fashion.

Even if your ideas were correct (they are not) by committing such gross grammatical errors you are immediately casting away all credibility. Your loss. Credibility is not a boomerang. It doesn't come back.

Personally, I can almost see you sweating over how to insert your mot-du-jour into your replies ("inconsequential" seems to be the latest one). I have no idea why you consider this a worthwhile effort. Nobody buys it.

Would it not be far better to drop the pretensions so that what you are saying is clear as opposed to unreadable?

Just look at this post of yours...
ProgrammingGodJordan said:
Come... is it but not yet the hour whence you shall disregard belief's false necessitation?
Click to expand...
It communicates nothing at all. But it also reveals a struggle to apply what you think is impressive language. I showed it to my kids without comment (11 and 14) and they outright laughed. "What's so funny?" I asked. "The dumb kids in class write that way." they replied. Now, I don't think you are a kid, nor dumb at all. I think you simply have not a notion how your posts alter the perception of the rest of us about you.

Onwards to the rest of you presentation style. Big mad fonts and crazy graphics have for many years been the hallmark of internet crackpots. Not saying that you are one of those, but most of us old hands recognise it when we see it and it is a huge red flag. Were I, and likely most here, holding forth a position, we would provide a link and a reasoned argument as to why that supported whatever given position. The last thing we would do is post images with honking great arrows, dots, circles and highlights as though that made our argument stronger.

Just some helpful presentation advice.
 
abaddon said:
The word is "non-existent".

Look, consider the following as constructive criticism of presentation style. How you self present determines how you are regarded at large.

See, this is your problem. You think that peppering your every post with flowery language like "whilst", "amidst", "whence", "sequence" and so forth will cast an aura of erudition over your posts. That might even vaguely happen if you were able to use them correctly in context, but you are not. And it shows. You would get more mileage were you to use plain English without straining to use words you do not understand correctly in order to appear more erudite. It is painful to the eyes and ears of your interlocutors to see the language mangled in such a fashion.

Even if your ideas were correct (they are not) by committing such gross grammatical errors you are immediately casting away all credibility. Your loss. Credibility is not a boomerang. It doesn't come back.

Personally, I can almost see you sweating over how to insert your mot-du-jour into your replies ("inconsequential" seems to be the latest one). I have no idea why you consider this a worthwhile effort. Nobody buys it.

Would it not be far better to drop the pretensions so that what you are saying is clear as opposed to unreadable?

Just look at this post of yours...

It communicates nothing at all. But it also reveals a struggle to apply what you think is impressive language. I showed it to my kids without comment (11 and 14) and they outright laughed. "What's so funny?" I asked. "The dumb kids in class write that way." they replied. Now, I don't think you are a kid, nor dumb at all. I think you simply have not a notion how your posts alter the perception of the rest of us about you.

Onwards to the rest of you presentation style. Big mad fonts and crazy graphics have for many years been the hallmark of internet crackpots. Not saying that you are one of those, but most of us old hands recognise it when we see it and it is a huge red flag. Were I, and likely most here, holding forth a position, we would provide a link and a reasoned argument as to why that supported whatever given position. The last thing we would do is post images with honking great arrows, dots, circles and highlights as though that made our argument stronger.

Just some helpful presentation advice.
Click to expand...

TL; DR.

FOOTNOTE:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/inexistent
 
Last edited:
JayUtah said:
Largely gibberish. Back in the day, all undergraduate degrees required a course in English composition, which you apparently didn't take or pass. One hallmark of a real scientist is his ability to write clearly. You don't do that. Write for clarity rather than trying to impress beyond your ability.

The only remotely cogent point I can glean from this word salad is that scientists can use dictionaries. Well yes, in that they're normal humans and the dictionary is open to all humans. If that's your point, then you keep missing mine. Scientific competency is not attained merely by reading the dictionary or the encyclopedia and applying one's own simplistic interpretations to the summary explanations in them. You're trying to dumb down science to match your ability, rather than extend your ability to match the problem. You have delusions of grandeur from a basic vocational degree and are trying to drag others into supporting your delusion.

The body of knowledge regarding human belief is not limited to what you read in Wikipedia. It is not limited to what you may have picked up at school while studying computers. Your crudely-drawn bifurcation omits almost all of that body of knowledge, and as such reaches an indefensible and simplistic conclusion.



Yeah, yeah, sticks and stones. Calling all your critics ignorant and inconsequential doesn't change the fact that you're trying to pretend to be a scientist, and draw scientific conclusion, based on an irrelevant vocational degree.
Click to expand...

TL; DR.
 
desmirelle said:
Point of Fact: A "Computer Science" major means you are, at best, a computer PROGRAMMER, not a freaking scientist.

Point of Observation: You do not fall into the "Scientists" nor the "beings of basic dictionary usage ability" or even "beings who understand how to properly use English", so you're excluding yourself from your first sentence.

Second sentence: FTFY
Click to expand...

No such fact exists.

See Wikipedia for the term computer scientist.

The first line: " A computer scientist is a scientist..
".

That a computer scientist is a scientist, is not surprising.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
It is also not difficult to observe that your comprehension of both English and the topics in question are remarkably inadequate, provided that you are not simply trolling, incredibly unlikely as that seems to be. You've yet to provide any valid defense to various counterpoints that have been pointed out, though. Nor have you retracted your false accusations or demonstrated that they were not false, for that matter. Running away and pretending that facts and arguments don't exist or rejecting them without being able to formulate a valid argument is pretty much the antithesis of scientific thinking.
Click to expand...

Quite the value-less, invalid response if yours.

On the contrary, I had long presented many a fact (including image captures of standard definitions and Wikipedia Data), that responders simply selected to ignore.


Here is a simple task:

Present evidence (a quote of mine amidst this thread) where I supposedly disregarded facts.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
To be fair here, it's not that the definitions are wrong. It's that he's trying to apply absurdly fallacious logic to them to try to twist them into saying what he wishes they said. Much the same applies to the Wiki quotes. As for his book, well... when his quotes have frequently been a line up of one fallacy after another, that's almost impressive in a way. If I was interested in teaching a class on fallacies, I'd be tempted to buy it as exercise material.
Click to expand...

That belief largely concerns non evidence, is but not fallacious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom