Mojo
Mostly harmless
Bubblefish has failed to provide any intelligible explanation of what OS 012 is, beyond the fact that it involves categorising ideas as either true, false or "mystery", and has failed to provide any evidence that it is of any use.
When he has made statements that are intelligible, such as his claim that beauty is objective, he has almost invariably been wrong.
Where he has made claims he has either refused to provide evidence supporting them (for example his claim that arguments had crumbled into nothingness in the face of his "third value", or his claim that OS 012 could have prevented the invasion of Iraq) or the claim has, if testable, turned out to be wrong (for example his claim that Aristotle, or even Pythagoras, murdered the man who tried to introduce zero into maths, or his claim that Dr. Lo had published his evidence for the existence of qi in peer-reviewed journals).
When he has been shown to be wrong he has attempted to change his claims by redefining words in a way unsupported by any dictionary, or has claimed that he didn't mean what he had posted. In the case of the claim about Dr. Lo, he resorted to claiming that Dr. Lo had misinformed him: particularly ironic in view of his complaints that people might try to "trash" Dr. Lo, and his threats of legal action over on badscience.
Despite his having having talked extensively about peer-review in his 2005 threads here, and over at badscience, as well as in this thread, it recently turned out that he has no idea what peer-review actually is. He thinks it's something that happens after publication, like a review of a film:
He has shown no hesitation in resorting to unprovoked insults, name-calling and ad hom attacks, despite his claim that he only does this as a "tit for tat" response to others doing the same. On the first of this thread he called someone "self-congradulatory" [sic]. He later backtracked on this by claiming that this was a positive thing to say about someone (of course, this may be the case among the sort of Californian media types he normally associates with).
He has persistently, but rather inconsistently, evaded questions by claiming without any apparent justification that they are "magical". When ideas that he has introduced have turned out not to support his position after all, or he has been shown to be wrong on them, he has complained that they are boring.
And he has two dead pigeons in the water tank.
[Basil Fawlty]Otherwise OK?[/Basil Fawlty]
ETA: It is also telling that he objected to having his real name associated with this thread on the grounds, apparently, that it might damage his reputation.
When he has made statements that are intelligible, such as his claim that beauty is objective, he has almost invariably been wrong.
Where he has made claims he has either refused to provide evidence supporting them (for example his claim that arguments had crumbled into nothingness in the face of his "third value", or his claim that OS 012 could have prevented the invasion of Iraq) or the claim has, if testable, turned out to be wrong (for example his claim that Aristotle, or even Pythagoras, murdered the man who tried to introduce zero into maths, or his claim that Dr. Lo had published his evidence for the existence of qi in peer-reviewed journals).
When he has been shown to be wrong he has attempted to change his claims by redefining words in a way unsupported by any dictionary, or has claimed that he didn't mean what he had posted. In the case of the claim about Dr. Lo, he resorted to claiming that Dr. Lo had misinformed him: particularly ironic in view of his complaints that people might try to "trash" Dr. Lo, and his threats of legal action over on badscience.
Despite his having having talked extensively about peer-review in his 2005 threads here, and over at badscience, as well as in this thread, it recently turned out that he has no idea what peer-review actually is. He thinks it's something that happens after publication, like a review of a film:
He has shown no hesitation in resorting to unprovoked insults, name-calling and ad hom attacks, despite his claim that he only does this as a "tit for tat" response to others doing the same. On the first of this thread he called someone "self-congradulatory" [sic]. He later backtracked on this by claiming that this was a positive thing to say about someone (of course, this may be the case among the sort of Californian media types he normally associates with).
He has persistently, but rather inconsistently, evaded questions by claiming without any apparent justification that they are "magical". When ideas that he has introduced have turned out not to support his position after all, or he has been shown to be wrong on them, he has complained that they are boring.
And he has two dead pigeons in the water tank.
[Basil Fawlty]Otherwise OK?[/Basil Fawlty]
ETA: It is also telling that he objected to having his real name associated with this thread on the grounds, apparently, that it might damage his reputation.
Last edited:
