Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 06:19pm PT
|
The quote I posted is from 2008. Hawking claimed himself an atheist in 2014.
The 2008 quote still speaks to standing on the razors edge.
You spoke to a reference to Hawking and to Lawrence Krauss. You didn't respond to my post criticizing my opinion about Krauss.
You also didn't say anything my posts about a few of your other idols as being claimed as atheists but claiming themselves to be agnostic.
You like to pick and choose and make little jabs. You don't seem to like to make solid arguments. You like to allude to a person's lack of credibility and character, but you don't get specific and argue your position.
That's making observations about your posts here. Other than that I don't know much about you.
Generally, I'm with Werner here about your behavior.
And, yes, I do feel you're acting like a whiny little bitch. Show some spine...
...and some maturity...
...and respect for others.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 06:30pm PT
|
Dantian, dan t'ian, dan tien or tan t'ien is loosely translated as "elixir field", "sea of qi", or simply "energy center". Dantian are the Qi Focus Flow Centers, important focal points for meditative and exercise techniques such as qigong, martial arts such as t'ai chi ch'uan, and in traditional Chinese medicine.
From wikipedia
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 06:33pm PT
|
Metaphor, yes - could be.
It could be expression of uncertainty - of an agnostic point of view.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 06:43pm PT
|
Give it up, MF. You're a chiropractor by profession and I am a science associate by profession. The difference is plain as day.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 06:44pm PT
|
Really?
Just for reference for anyone who reads this particular exchange -
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com
If you are claiming that I have no credibility get to it and make your case logically.
Put up or shut up.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 06:46pm PT
|
Yes, if it were mma, you would've had
to tap out long ago.
so the fact that it isn't I guess is your
saving grace.
.....
So really, using your god-given smarts, you think if Sagan
were here he'd say he was "agnostic" regarding Zeus or Apollo?
Using your god-given smarts are you able to see (a) that one's atheism is context dependent? (b) that Christians and Muslims, for eg, are atheist with respect to Hecate or Ganesha?
You are such a child!
Touche!
what is a science associate?
I am a "science associate" in a think tank purposed toward social entrepreneuring.
My background is equally physical sciences and life sciences.
And that's going to have to be good enough.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 06:48pm PT
|
You are such a child!
Metaphorically speaking...
So really, using your god-given smarts, you think if Sagan
were here he'd say he was "agnostic" regarding Zeus or Apollo?
In case, you didn't see/feel it when you read it is that HFCS used the logical fallacy to negate my position of agnosticism by using these logical fallacies -
Straw man - misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
Appeal to emotion - attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument
Slippery slope - that if we allow A to happen/be true, then Z will happen/be true, therefore A should not happen/be true
Loaded question - asked a question that had a presumption built into it so that it couldn't be answered without appearing guilty.
Earlier HFCS has used during our exchange -
Genetic - judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.
Ad hominem - attacking your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument
Tu quoque - avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism
Peesonal incredulity - Because he found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true.
Burden of proof - said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.
Appeal to authority - said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true
Composition/division - assumed that one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it; or that the whole must apply to its parts.
Black-or-white - presented two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.
He also made a subtle little threat here -
Yes, if it were mma, you would've had
to tap out long ago.
so the fact that it isn't I guess is your
saving grace
HFCS displays classic bully behavior in these ways.
Just wanted to clear that up.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 06:51pm PT
|
guess I'm ignorant.. what is a science associate?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 06:55pm PT
|
He's nothing, he's no science associate, he's absolutely nothing period except an anonymous coward.
He remains anonymous and shows no credentials at all ever except runnuing his mouth.
Even Ed H asked him for credentials along with jgill.
But he just plain slinks away like a coward ......
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 06:56pm PT
|
So PaulR, tell me Sir, did you show any humility WHATSOEVER when you were corrected on your stars dead post? Or any gratitude WHATSOEVER for the update/correct? Would this not speak to a man's character? Instead, what did you do? We could go back and look. You tried to shuck and jive your way out of it per usual using your rhetorical devices. To my lights at the time, Grade D. And while we're on it, I think this sort of conduct speaks to a man's character.
You're wrong about the stars.You can see very few with the naked eye...the only difference from what I initially said is that you need a telescope to see them, a minor issue. Character? I never claimed to have any character. The making science a religion is a good point, you should address it.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 06:58pm PT
|
You're wrong about the stars.
No, you mean to say I'm wrong about what you said.
Because I am clear about the stars, I am correct about the stars.
Go back and look. Your immediate post was quite clear, telegraphing perfectly well your conception at the time.
It was as blatant as calling a quarterback in football a pitcher. Oops.
But of course you have your opinion.
Character? I never claimed to have any character.
Now you're just being silly.
Of course we all have character, for better or worse.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 07:03pm PT
|
If you are claiming that I have no credibility get to it and make your case logically -MF
It's not that you don't have "credibility" - rather it is that you are rather loosey goosey with the exchanges (eg, re Sagan, atheism, agnosticism, etc) and like Dingus Milque you can miss the finer points (e.g, Wahhabism vs Jainism vis a vis Catholicism vs Protestantism) and perhaps because of haste often fail to parse deeper meanings to posts. Or subjects.
Other than that.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 07:14pm PT
|
So Paul, inspired by your last post, let's try it again then....
Are you saying that your "majority of stars" that one can see as discrete objects with a telescope - even hubble - are dead?
Here's your chance to set things right.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 07:16pm PT
|
what is a science associate? you stated it. what is it?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 07:21pm PT
|
Probably right up there with (1) 12V car batteries that can electrocute you (Brawn) and (2) majority of stars in the night sky long dead (PaulR). And I could go on.
you, HFCS, forgot to add that I didn't get the resistance of a light bulb right... that should be (3)... and I only have a Ph.D. in Physics, apparently I'm not up with the "science associates."
If Werner, or anyone else here, is "spoiling the thread" for a few, then it would be interesting to know just who you think that few is... it might be actually just you. Generally I welcome very divergent views, it provides a way for me to question just what I think, and why... constructive self-criticism based on my reaction to some views I don't hold. The only way I'd get to know those views is because someone expressed them...
From time-to-time you, HFCS, seem to have this sort of melt-down... you might just want to leave it alone for a bit and comeback to it later.
If you have a legitimate argument regarding Islam it is being hidden by your particular way of presenting it, if it is about religious fundamentalism, or about non-science types in general, your interaction here is dominated by attacking other posters rather than engaging in a conversation.
If everyone around the campfire seems wrong-headed, it's probably time to wander off to your tent and get some rest. The campfire will be there tomorrow, and maybe after some thought you will find a more effective way to make your points.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 07:22pm PT
|
Why is that term "science associate" hanging you up?
A lot of organizations use it. I won't be going into
greater detail. Sorry.
.....
you, HFCS, forgot to add that I didn't get the resistance of a light bulb right... that should be (3)... and I only have a Ph.D. in Physics, apparently I'm not up with the "science associates."
Well, did you Ed? Call it professional courtesy. Now you're ridiculing a term commonly used at universities? Why?
Why not hit Wb for calling us nutcases, Dmt for calling me a preacher of science, jgill for calling me a "bigot" not because I am a critic of Abrahamic doctrine (I am) but apparently because he doesn't believe Iranian undergraduates in 1978 here in America could be fundamentalists or some such. Or a coward because I won't give up my anonymity. Why the bias?
and I only have a Ph.D. in Physics
Really, aren't you just being silly here?
From time-to-time you, HFCS, seem to have this sort of melt-down...
Hey, food for thought: Maybe it just seems so, I don't know, primed by WB maybe. Am I the one using multiple exclamation points, calling people names, as#@&%es, cowards, bigots, dorks, silly rabbits. Because from time to time, I get enough and choose to push back that suggests a meltdown? what about some criticism of others?
Let's hit a nail on the head: Do you think it was right for jgill to call me a "bigot" and cowardly after my relatively innocuous posts? Speak to this please.
If Werner, or anyone else here, is "spoiling the thread"
It's basically for the name-calling and lack of substantive material. Apparently you're okay with it then. So be it. I have a different standard.
If you have a legitimate argument regarding Islam
Really? If you don't see it in the Pew research findings, the current affairs around the world, the European attacks, the Islamic fundamentalism (Islamism, Islamist jihad) there really is nothing more I can add.
your interaction here is dominated by attacking other posters
With all due respect, then you just must be blind to wb and dmt in particular going back years. Were you called those names, I wonder how long you'd take it. How was your exchanges on the climate change thread with The Chief and others. Always satisfying?
I think you're being unfair here. Just my opinion.
Just a reminder your work doesn't take you into the intersection of science, religion and belief like mine does which can make one vulnerable to all sort of attacks esp on a public forum. If it did and as a result you were called all sorts of names you might have a different pov.
good news here: no melt-down. no calling anyone doosch or coward. no long strings of exclamation points. I suppose just disappointment at the lack of consensus.
Maybe more later.
PS
everyone around the campfire
Everyone? Sheesh.
PPS
Perhaps your organization is different than many a research university, but I'd really be surprised to hear you don't work amidst a bunch of "science associates" .
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 07:22pm PT
|
so really, using your god-given smarts, you think if Sagan
were here he'd say he was "agnostic" regarding Zeus or Apollo?
In case, you didn't see/feel it when you read it is that HFCS tried to negate my position of agnosticism by using these logical fallacies -
Straw man - misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.
Appeal to emotion - attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument
Slippery slope - posed that if we allow A to happen/be true, then Z will happen/be true, therefore A should not happen/be true
Loaded question - asked a question that had a presumption built into it so that it couldn't be answered without appearing guilty.
Earlier HFCS has used during our exchange -
Genetic - judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came.
Ad hominem - attacked the other person's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument
Tu quoque - avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism
Peesonal incredulity - came from the position that something is probably not true because he found something difficult to understand, or is unaware of how it works.
Burden of proof - said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.
Appeal to authority - said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true
Composition/division - assumed that one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it; or that the whole must apply to its parts.
Black-or-white - presented two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.
He also made a subtle little threat here -
Yes, if it were mma, you would've had
to tap out long ago.
so the fact that it isn't I guess is your
saving grace
This is classic bullying.
HFCS does this a lot. Just know that when you feel something doesn't seem right or feel right when you read his posts it's probably due to one or more of the issues above.
Just wanted to clear that up.
PS Thank you, Ed.
PPS HFCS, There was time in my life when I would keep going from place to place every few months. Every new place was great for a while and then a found out everybody sucked. After time I decided to sit down and contemplate and figure out what the common denominator was....
It's not that you don't have "credibility" - rather it is that you are rather loosey goosey with the exchanges (eg, re Sagan, atheism, agnosticism, etc) and like Dingus Milque you can miss the finer points (e.g, Wahhabism vs Jainism vis a vis Catholicism vs Protestantism) and perhaps because of haste often fail to parse deeper meanings to posts. Or subjects.
I'm not letting you slide on this - you're diverting. You made a passive aggressive inference that I have no intellectual credibility regarding science because I'm a chiropractor.
Whew, good thing I fooled that peer-review.....
Inhibition of enteric parasites by emulsified oil of oregano in vivo.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10815019
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 07:23pm PT
|
not hanging me up.. trying to understand what it means.. can't find it on google. Just associate of science degrees..
a lot of organizations use it? just name a few..
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 07:33pm PT
|
John M google says ....
an Associate of Science (A.S.) degree. A.A. degrees are usually earned in humanities, business, and social science fields.
A.S. degrees are awarded to those studying in scientific and technical fields.
It's weird as I've an AA degree too
Whatever that means ....
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
May 17, 2016 - 07:36pm PT
|
LOL.. I'm sure thats not what he means. It probably means he works for someone. on what level.. I don't know.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!