There isn't a correct way to deal with someone like humber..
And not engaging his nonsense and simply calling it what it is, nonsense, is at least an accurate portrayal of what he's saying.
Calling him a liar won't shut him up or educate him. Trying to educate him at least has some chance.
Isn't that just saying your approach is better than mine?
If humber was charging money for this nonsense, would you be trying to educate him? Would you still say that even if humber didn't learn anything, at least others and yourself might learn something?
Even if money wasnt' involved, if an intelligent design defender came into the forums and started spewing nonsense about the second law of thermodynamics, for thousands of posts and didn't learn anything, would you still hold out for hope that he might learn something from your lessons, or at some point would you say that it's clear his motivation isn't about science but that he's driven by something else?
Humber is driven by something other than science. And if there was ever a sucker bet for scientists it is that others will follow science if they can just be shown the way. ID'ers haven't suddenly switched to understanding and respecting the theory of evolution. THey're just laying low trying to figure out a way to push their nonsense.
Humber isn't going to get it. I'm basing that off of thousands of his posts and not a single bit of progress can be shown in his understanding. What are you basing your assertion that there is "some chance" of educating him? What evidence is there? It isn't empirical. THe list of things humber has said that were correct is empty.
he is like a court jester, entertaining, often irritating, fascinating and, ironically, quite educative. I haven't enjoyed a thread as much, ever, or learned as much, thanks to humber and his idiocy. And he's brought out my own sense of humour more than usual, at his expense.
If you find it entertaining, that's fine. If you're learning things, that's great. I learned some stuff trying to talk with humber myself. Thing is, I could have learned the same stuff from people who actually understood the cart.
But I will assert that humber isn't going to learn anything by anyone's lessons here. ANd I base that off of the evidence of thousands of posts by him and not a single bit of progress is shown in his understanding during that time. That isn't me trying to be "superior" to someone who thinks they can teach humber something, anymore than me writing up a document about the propeller cart is trying to be superior to people who don't understand the cart.
If you're talking with humber for the entertainment value, or because you might learn something you hadn't thought of yourself, go for it. But if you're holding out some hope that you can educate humber or that he will learn something from you, I have seen no empirical evidence to support that notion.
And from a game theory point of view, either humber is faking it or he isn't. If he is faking it, he's just trolling for reactions. If he isn't faking it and truly wants to learn, then you still have no impircal evidence to show that he CAN learn. but at the same time you say "thanks to humber and his idiocy. And he's brought out my own sense of humour more than usual, at his expense".
So, if someone thinks humber is really and honestly trying to learn, then they shouldn't be mocking him, putting his gibberish into quote lines for further mocking, and laughing at his expense.
The way people are behaving towards humber, I think makes it clear that absolutely no one thinks humber is trying to learn here.
WHich means people think that either humber actually believes he is correct and therefore humber deserves to be mocked, or humber knows he is making up garbage and is trolling for a reaction.
All I've done is reach the logical conclusion that everyone else is indirectly pointing to: everything humber has said is wrong, humber will never learn anything, and the only reason he continues posting is in all likelihood because he is trolling, because he gets something out of the response, not because he is trying to learn something from people here.
I read this statement as one of the times when he bows to classicism, myself: that bodies A and B can maintain zero KE relative to each other, but gain an arbitrary amount of it w.r.t. C (another body). I think you read it as "...wrt one another".
