Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

Old subthreads
BillHamp
.
.
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:47 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13001

Post by BillHamp »

AndrewV69 wrote:
BillHamp wrote:Who do you want a citation from and on what topic? Further, what is your beef with Gould and Wilson? I'd be interested to hear both.
I got my cite and about to read it (see above). I do not have a beef with Wilson just dubious (probably related to a lack of comprehension on my part) but Gould was a scumbag because from what I could see he was knowingly spreading bullshit.

Beautifully written bullshit even in the service of a "nobel" cause is still bullshit.

I do not have much of a problem if someone gets it wrong (with the usual caveats) but to deliberately try and bend science to some ideology (even if it is one I may be sympathetic) is WRONG. Full stop. Period. It is the main reason I have nothing but contempt for the likes of PeeZuss Christ.
Let me know what you think of that article/citation. I found it less than compelling, not because I necessarily disgree with the point, but because I think Nowak et. al. are making a subtly different point than the author in that citation. That said, I would need to read a bit more into all of it to really see what their complaint is.

Care to elaborate on the BS that Gould spread? There were things he said that were flat wrong, but I never paid a whole lot of attention to the guy, so I wasn't aware that he was intentionally spreading lies. If you had the time, I'd be interested to hear more about that. One this is for certain, Gould was very pompous, which can be a major asset and a major liability in science (most often it is a liability, though it will usually help you get grant money).

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13002

Post by Brive1987 »


Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13003

Post by Brive1987 »

You are only allowed to sue rich people.

http://i.imgur.com/ctl3mj5.jpg

Guest

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13004

Post by Guest »


deLurch
.
.
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:11 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13005

Post by deLurch »

Brive1987 wrote:Suck shit PZ - your tears can start now.

http://i.imgur.com/hAV0kSf.jpg

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ult-one-2/
PZ Myers wrote:(I’m facing a dilemma here. Ben Radford is suing Karen Stollznow, and one of the things he is doing is flailing about and demanding that posts critical of him be taken down; he’s using the legal pressure he’s applying to Stollznow as leverage to extort me into deleting posts that he doesn’t like.
I take from this that Karen Stollznow is caving to the lawsuit & is either seeking to make the lawsuit go away by opting to attempt to get defamatory articles that she instigated removed, or she is attempting to reduce they broad swaths of defamation in order to shore up a single defensible position.

I think the writing is on the wall. The only defense from these witch hunts is to sue in a court of law.

The major players in these witch hunts, such as pz myers, seemed to have not taken into account that if the cost to an individual being defamed is high enough, it becomes financial worth while to sue.

Southern
.
.
Posts: 3464
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 4:28 pm
Location: Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13006

Post by Southern »

Brive1987 wrote:Suck shit PZ - your tears can start now.

http://i.imgur.com/hAV0kSf.jpg

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ult-one-2/
I wonder if Shermer's laywer could find this useful for something. Not that I wish PZ Myers gets bankrupt and goes to jail, is just that it would make my laugh for a month or two.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13007

Post by Brive1987 »

I would say the former, "please make it go away"

But PZ, really. Choosing to cave rather than fight it out to financial ruin is what Dunning did.

So I guess this is PROOF that what PZ wrote was beyond the pale, unacceptable?
Or does it only count (again) when "they" do it?

In any case leaving comments open is just more chum in the water.

windy
.
.
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:41 am
Location: Tom of Finland-land

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13008

Post by windy »

BillHamp wrote:
windy wrote:
BillHamp wrote:I'd happily concede if I were wrong, as E.O. Wilson did regarding kin selection (not group selection), but so far I haven't been wrong. It happens to me often enough that I know what it looks like to be wrong, I simply am not when it comes to my discussion (which devolved into an argument) with Jan.
You're wrong.
Did you want to elaborate on that or is this the "assertions without support or evidence stand as facts in and of themselves" argument?
If you insist:

viewtopic.php?p=166370#p166370
BillHamp wrote:Argument from authority. Coyne argues that group selection isn't a great way of accounting for altruism, which I would tend to agree with, if Coyne understood the difference between kin selection and group selection. Kin selection, which Wilson has rejected, says that organisms protect kin because they know that at least some of their genes will be passed on. That is preposterous at first glance, so why it was ever thought viable is unclear.
Wrong: the organisms don't need to "know" anything. Kin selection theory says that since organisms that help their kin will help pass on copies of their genes in those kin, helping kin is favored by selection in situations where the genetic benefits outweigh the costs.
BillHamp wrote:Group selection says that cooperative groups can out-compete non-cooperative groups in certain situations. In those situations, altruism genes will be favored because the more coherent groups (by virtue of the altruism they express) will survive. This is only applicable to certain situations, mind you, but it is a very powerful hypothesis which Coyne is a fool to reject outright.

Perhaps the biggest problem with group selection is its ties with kin selection. It still carries a number of vestigages from kin selection that prevent it from being taken seriously.
But your summary of "group selection" above is identical to inclusive fitness/kin selection arguments, you've just framed it in terms of groups instead of kin.
BillHamp wrote:1. First of all, the dandelions have not changed in the sense that they are a new species, they have adapted to their new environment through physiologic means. Their phenotypes remain intact..
Wrong, if they have changed in their observable traits, the phenotype has changed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype
BillHamp wrote:
2. "Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms."
Note the population level distinction there, which is what I was really driving at when I said "population." You were suggesting that a simple mutation in one organism was evolution.
A mutation in one organism is evolution (if it's a heritable and not a somatic mutation): it changes the allele frequencies in a population.
BillHamp wrote:You are quite correct about the "founder effect" and yet also quite wrong. The error is in thinking that the founder effect makes it possible for negative mutations to become predominant. It does no such thing.
Wrong:
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/Reinhard.B ... uerger.pdf
...deleterious mutations in a large population are kept at a low frequency within a balance between the forces of selection and those of mutation. A population with relatively fewer individuals, however, will have lower fitness on average, not only because fewer beneficial mutations arise, but also because deleterious mutations are more likely to reach high frequencies through random genetic drift.
(a founder effect is a special case of drift due to small population size)

see also:
http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/eeb348/lect ... node3.html

deLurch
.
.
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:11 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13009

Post by deLurch »

Southern wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:Suck shit PZ - your tears can start now.

http://i.imgur.com/hAV0kSf.jpg

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ult-one-2/
I wonder if Shermer's laywer could find this useful for something. Not that I wish PZ Myers gets bankrupt and goes to jail, is just that it would make my laugh for a month or two.
They probably would find it worth while.

Really?
.
.
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13010

Post by Really? »

windy wrote:
Ape+lust wrote:He wasted $1000 and a gushing endorsement on a wannabe GOPer just for whupping on Justin Vacula.

His delusional mewling since he learned Silverman tried to set up a booth at CPAC is farging hilarious.
So Silverman attended a convention despite the fact that many people there were uncomfortable with his presence? Not only is he failing to whup on Vacula, he IS Vacula.

(Of course the difference is that the conservative fears are just silly, unlike those of the genteel ladies who reasonably feared ravishment at the hands of Vacula's pornstache.)
Silverman's in the shit. He really needs to get out of the shit. He does a lot of good things and has a ton of potential, but he'll never achieve his goals of he keeps miring himself in the shit.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13011

Post by Brive1987 »

Here is PZ's page (the "Oh no it couldn't happen to her" one) naming Radford.

Can't place my finger on it, but there is something different there .....

http://i.imgur.com/UlODiG0.jpg

Parody Accountant
.
.
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 4:16 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13012

Post by Parody Accountant »

bhoytony wrote:
Parody Accountant wrote:
No joke... I've got PTSD (and Major Depressive Disorder, and Anxiety disorder, and alcoholism... and other shit like ADD) I'm going to be intentionally vague here as to the circumstances causing it. I'm in the middle of being forced out of my career because of it. My 'trauma' stems from a subject encountered rather frequently in this forum.
Thumb over neck?
What does this phrase mean?

Guestus Aurelius
.
.
Posts: 2118
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 5:14 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13013

Post by Guestus Aurelius »

It's almost hard to believe how terrible a person PZ Myers is. He is rotten to the core, and I hope it bites him in the ass in a major way some day. I think I'd feel some serious schadenfreude if someone successfully sued him for all he's worth.

Really?
.
.
Posts: 6460
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:34 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13014

Post by Really? »

Brive1987 wrote:Here is PZ's page (the "Oh no it couldn't happen to her" one) naming Radford.

Can't place my finger on it, but there is something different there .....

http://i.imgur.com/UlODiG0.jpg
Silly PZ. How can a man who has a doctorate have so little understanding of the Internet. Good job trying to get the pee out of the pool, Peezus.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13015

Post by Brive1987 »

404 valuable comments lost to the memory hole. Interesting number ..

Oh the "freeze peach". If only Shermer had known it was this ea$y.

deLurch
.
.
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:11 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13016

Post by deLurch »

Hmm... Karen's original post is now gone too.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/min ... arassment/

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13017

Post by Tigzy »

Really? wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:Here is PZ's page (the "Oh no it couldn't happen to her" one) naming Radford.

Can't place my finger on it, but there is something different there .....

http://i.imgur.com/UlODiG0.jpg
Silly PZ. How can a man who has a doctorate have so little understanding of the Internet. Good job trying to get the pee out of the pool, Peezus.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us
Figured I'd freezpage it, as I'm not sure how long Google would keep it cached for: http://www.freezepage.com/1394485005NMLLVWCDBA

Search tags: PZ Myers, accuses, Ben Radford , LOLOL

Ape+lust
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 7364
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13018

Post by Ape+lust »

deLurch wrote:Hmm... Karen's original post is now gone too.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/min ... arassment/
SA took it down shortly after they published it. The baboons were hopping mad about it for about 5 minutes before PZ dropped his Shermer bomb, then everyone forgot about Stollznow.

Guestus Aurelius
.
.
Posts: 2118
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 5:14 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13019

Post by Guestus Aurelius »

I'd like to see some of these lawsuits do more than result in the offending posts being taken down. The damage is already done, and the likes of Freezepage make these public accusations permanent.

So I'd like to see the witch-hunting libelers and defamers suffer some serious consequences. Right now they seem to think they're invincible. That's the problem. Unless they understand that the potential for consequences that hurt is real, they'll keep on doing what they do.

Fuck that.

Tigzy
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 6789
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13020

Post by Tigzy »

deLurch wrote:Hmm... Karen's original post is now gone too.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/min ... arassment/
There's a PDF of it here: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files ... etwork.pdf

For some reason, it appears as part of Greg Laden's Sciblog thing, so dunno what that's all about.

JacquesCuze
.
.
Posts: 1666
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:32 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13021

Post by JacquesCuze »

In recent days, Parody Accountant and SubManUSN have made some statements that have hit so close to home, they have almost literally paralyzed me, well in terms of knowing how to respond that is to Parody Accountant, and unable to respond to SubManUSN without feeling more guilt about a ton of shit.

Parody Accountant, I wish you the best. From what you've obliquely described and my own egocentrism, I think I've gone through similar, or going through it now. Hang in there, and I'd buy you a beer if I could.

To SubManUSN, who I don't think has been here for a while, I am so conflicted. I have been through exactly what you've been through, and I know I am still going through it. On the one hand, I want to support you, on the other hand, you now have custody while I remain completely out of contact with my kids, so I am jealous, and bitter, and that jealousy and that reminder of my lack of contact makes me feel even shittier if possible. But best wishes to you and your kid.

And Matt, come back when you can.

CaptainFluffyBunny
.
.
Posts: 7556
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:39 am
Location: Somewhere in the pipes

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13022

Post by CaptainFluffyBunny »

As others have noted, this make wake the sleeping giant Shermer up....the waters have been tested, and they seem fine for the legal sharks. If Karen S. thought she had a great case, she wouldn't feel pressured to remove articles. In fact,she may have already caved and started complying with the demands. Who knows. But there's blood in the water.

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13023

Post by Gumby »

Ape+lust wrote:
Gumby wrote:I knew he was desperate for any kind of publicity, but I didn't know he'd sink so low as to debate that dishonest contemptible fraud.

By "he", I mean Hovind, of course.
Hah! :lol: :D

Hovind has my all-time favorite explanation for the missing dinosaurs. It goes something like this:

1. Reptiles grow for as long as they live.
2. Back in the day, everything lived much longer.
3. If a lizard lived as long as Methuselah, it'd be the size of a city bus.
4. That horned toad your kid brought home is actually a triceratops.
My favorite "theery" was posited by that unimpeachable giant of science, Jack Chick. From the master, I learned that after the Flood, the descendants of the dinosaurs that were on the Ark had a hard time moving as fast as they could in the pre-Flood days, because of the lower oxygen content in the atmosphere due to the fact that plants were scarce in the years immediately following the deluge. This, of course, allowed the dinosaurs to be more easily caught and eaten by Noah's descendants.

:o

Guestus Aurelius
.
.
Posts: 2118
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 5:14 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13024

Post by Guestus Aurelius »

Hey Dick Strawkins:

Please add a blank line between your paragraphs. I enjoy reading your comments, but this is verging on deal-breaker territory! (Not really—I'll keep reading your comments regardless. But seriously: blank lines between paragraphs.)

Oh, and welch:

Too many blank lines. Longer paragraphs please.

:evil:

deLurch
.
.
Posts: 8447
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:11 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13025

Post by deLurch »

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:As others have noted, this make wake the sleeping giant Shermer up....the waters have been tested, and they seem fine for the legal sharks. If Karen S. thought she had a great case, she wouldn't feel pressured to remove articles. In fact,she may have already caved and started complying with the demands. Who knows. But there's blood in the water.
A key difference here is that Karen (according to pz myers) asked him to take it down.

Shermer could expect that pz myers would do the same thing if the original author of that email requested he take down his stuff.

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13026

Post by Gumby »

Parody Accountant wrote:
bhoytony wrote:
Parody Accountant wrote:
No joke... I've got PTSD (and Major Depressive Disorder, and Anxiety disorder, and alcoholism... and other shit like ADD) I'm going to be intentionally vague here as to the circumstances causing it. I'm in the middle of being forced out of my career because of it. My 'trauma' stems from a subject encountered rather frequently in this forum.
Thumb over neck?
What does this phrase mean?
There was a recent major kerfluffle about the merits of various thumb placements while playing guitar, and which guitarists put their thumbs where while playing. It was one of the most earthshaking events in Pit history, rivalled only by the hammer/screwdriver debate and the time Walter Ego got kicked out of McDonald's for buying one small coffee and then spending all day mooching their free wi-fi.

Sunder
.
.
Posts: 3858
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:12 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13027

Post by Sunder »

So PZ's trying to spin this as big ebul lawyers strongarming her (and by proxy him) rather than copping to the fact that he has a spine of jelly?

JackSkeptic
.
.
Posts: 3222
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:23 pm
Location: UK

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13028

Post by JackSkeptic »

Guestus Aurelius wrote:I'd like to see some of these lawsuits do more than result in the offending posts being taken down. The damage is already done, and the likes of Freezepage make these public accusations permanent.

So I'd like to see the witch-hunting libelers and defamers suffer some serious consequences. Right now they seem to think they're invincible. That's the problem. Unless they understand that the potential for consequences that hurt is real, they'll keep on doing what they do.

Fuck that.
The days when gossips and those that poked their nose in other people's business were simply avoided are long gone. Busy bodies can now cause real harm and there is likely to be real consequences from their thoughtless actions. The law, as usual, is years behind on this but hopefully it will catch up one day. Expressing an opinion is always fine but that never gives anyone the right to hurt others to satisfy their morbid desire to hurt others simply because they do not like them. Rubber-neckers the lot of them, they should get a life and attend to their own business.

Also I absolutely hate this obsession with some people to politicize atheism. If people want to be a 'progressive radical' or 'culturally Marxist' as their only basis to judge others they should join a political movement and stop screwing over others who have no interest in their childish games. Their behavior is fundamentally dishonest and totally irrelevant to Atheism.

There is room for everyone of all political persuasions but there is no room for any group that seeks to exclude others and damned the consequences.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13029

Post by Brive1987 »

deLurch wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:As others have noted, this make wake the sleeping giant Shermer up....the waters have been tested, and they seem fine for the legal sharks. If Karen S. thought she had a great case, she wouldn't feel pressured to remove articles. In fact,she may have already caved and started complying with the demands. Who knows. But there's blood in the water.
A key difference here is that Karen (according to pz myers) asked him to take it down.

Shermer could expect that pz myers would do the same thing if the original author of that email requested he take down his stuff.
I suspect the take down came direct to PZ from Radford's mob not via a grapevine. And PZ then deferred to Karen as to what to do. Makes more sense.

But yes, in Shermer's case he can't bring direct pressure on the point of origin and then secondary pressure on PZ because she's anonymous. Handy that.

Cowsville Technical College must be overjoyed one of their APs is complying with take down notices in a libel /sexual assault case. Because all publicity is good publicity ..... right?

Some Lurker

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13030

Post by Some Lurker »

From a blog post that is a few months old:
Someone who is not Cowkitty wrote:Recently, I’ve had a spate of people using my artwork on their websites and YouTube videos and replying with ‘Fair Usage’ when I’ve asked them about this (including one high-profile person whose name I won’t mention for now, and told me they were ‘not for profit’ despite an incredibly popular kickstarter campaign for the thing my work was used in - Lovely!). ‘Fair Use’ is a get-around clause for using someone else’s work in your own work - without permission - providing it fits within a set of example uses.
Who could she be talking about? :think:

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13031

Post by Gumby »

Really? wrote: Silverman's in the shit. He really needs to get out of the shit. He does a lot of good things and has a ton of potential, but he'll never achieve his goals of he keeps miring himself in the shit.
Fucking :lol:

That seemed worth a quick immortalizationizing.

http://i.imgur.com/UDLFoja.png

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13032

Post by Brive1987 »

Brett on FtB has a unique view on what should happen when blogs publicly name and shame without any due process:
Fuck him, and Shermer, and Krauss, and all those assholes who go hair-trigger C & D in response to sexual harassment accusations ...
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-761982

piginthecity
.
.
Posts: 1006
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:20 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13033

Post by piginthecity »

Dick Strawkins wrote:Is it entirely coincidental that McCreight's withdrawal from blogging seems to have happened at the same time that the big players on her side - Myers, Benson and Watson, all distanced themselves from Atheism Plus - leaving McCreight as the only remaining nurse Ratchet of that particular asylum?

Don't forget that there's one male orderly left, calmly pushing his trolley around the gibbering wrecks. Quietly !

Also, of course there's a large committee of benevolent philanthropic gentlemen, who meet in an oak-panelled room, well insulated from the screaming and wailing, where they can partake of claret and congratulate themselves that this institution that has emerged is a resounding success and EXACTLY what they had envisaged when they had the foresight and, dammit, the humanity to found it.

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13034

Post by Gumby »

Brive1987 wrote:Brett on FtB has a unique view on what should happen when blogs publicly name and shame without any due process:
Fuck him, and Shermer, and Krauss, and all those assholes who go hair-trigger C & D in response to sexual harassment accusations ...
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-761982
So it's OK when people post hair-trigger accusations of rape without the slightest bit of evidence, but it's not OK for the wrongly accused to obtain hair-trigger C&Ds.

Got it.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 17791
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13035

Post by Brive1987 »

The fact PZ has pulled articles and the comment below suggests a court case is not expected:

http://i.imgur.com/vTFUqd0.jpg

Clarence
.
.
Posts: 2095
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:40 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13036

Post by Clarence »

JacquesCuze wrote:In recent days, Parody Accountant and SubManUSN have made some statements that have hit so close to home, they have almost literally paralyzed me, well in terms of knowing how to respond that is to Parody Accountant, and unable to respond to SubManUSN without feeling more guilt about a ton of shit.

Parody Accountant, I wish you the best. From what you've obliquely described and my own egocentrism, I think I've gone through similar, or going through it now. Hang in there, and I'd buy you a beer if I could.

To SubManUSN, who I don't think has been here for a while, I am so conflicted. I have been through exactly what you've been through, and I know I am still going through it. On the one hand, I want to support you, on the other hand, you now have custody while I remain completely out of contact with my kids, so I am jealous, and bitter, and that jealousy and that reminder of my lack of contact makes me feel even shittier if possible. But best wishes to you and your kid.

And Matt, come back when you can.
I just want you to know I do feel sympathy for your struggles, Jacques.

I'm enjoying the posts about the lawsuit against Stollznow and all that, but thanks for reminding me there are people behind the screenames here.

Ape+lust
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 7364
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 12:55 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13037

Post by Ape+lust »

Oh, dear :lol:

If the shit don't fit, you must acquit... he looks comfortable. Poor guy.

Guestus Aurelius
.
.
Posts: 2118
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2013 5:14 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13038

Post by Guestus Aurelius »

I'm procrastinating so hard today. Love the Slymepit!

DeepInsideYourMind
.
.
Posts: 681
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:43 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13039

Post by DeepInsideYourMind »

Brive1987 wrote:The fact PZ has pulled articles and the comment below suggests a court case is not expected:

http://i.imgur.com/vTFUqd0.jpg
Generally speaking, it is the reverse

If you are going to court, you need to show that you took steps to mitigate the possible damage... if you chose not to do so, and you lose, the damages will be significantly higher

If it isn't likely to go to court you can do what the fuck you like, it's just hot air after all

BillHamp
.
.
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:47 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13040

Post by BillHamp »

windy wrote:
BillHamp wrote:
windy wrote:
You're wrong.
Did you want to elaborate on that or is this the "assertions without support or evidence stand as facts in and of themselves" argument?
If you insist:

viewtopic.php?p=166370#p166370
BillHamp wrote:Argument from authority. Coyne argues that group selection isn't a great way of accounting for altruism, which I would tend to agree with, if Coyne understood the difference between kin selection and group selection. Kin selection, which Wilson has rejected, says that organisms protect kin because they know that at least some of their genes will be passed on. That is preposterous at first glance, so why it was ever thought viable is unclear.
Wrong: the organisms don't need to "know" anything. Kin selection theory says that since organisms that help their kin will help pass on copies of their genes in those kin, helping kin is favored by selection in situations where the genetic benefits outweigh the costs.
Nothing like an argument with someone who uses inflammatory phrases like "Wrong:" First of all, Jan was making an argument from authority.

Second, I wasn't careful there and, as you rightly pointed out, used an athropomorphic term that muddied the discussion. That was a mistake. It doesn't change the fact, however, that my basic point was correct. Kin selection requires that organisms not only know that they are related, but that they know to what degree they are related. In other words, I have to be able to tell a brother apart from a cousin if I am to be more likely to lay down my life for a brother than I am for a cousin. So, in fact, the organisms do need to "know" something or at least have the capacity to distinguish degrees of relation.

The problem is, animals can demonstrate kin selection, as you define it (helping pass on their genes by helping kin) even when they cannot distinguish one relative from another. That means that degree of relatedness is not, in fact, the driving factor.

More to the point, what I was saying, admittedly poorly, is that kin selection is based on relatedness and not on ideas like reciprocal altruism or quid pro quo. The subtely was lost in my efforts to keep the response to the alotted number of characters, but suffice it to say that pure altruism has no place in the grand scheme of evolution and that is why Wilson rejected kin selection.
BillHamp wrote:Group selection says that cooperative groups can out-compete non-cooperative groups in certain situations. In those situations, altruism genes will be favored because the more coherent groups (by virtue of the altruism they express) will survive. This is only applicable to certain situations, mind you, but it is a very powerful hypothesis which Coyne is a fool to reject outright.

Perhaps the biggest problem with group selection is its ties with kin selection. It still carries a number of vestigages from kin selection that prevent it from being taken seriously.
But your summary of "group selection" above is identical to inclusive fitness/kin selection arguments, you've just framed it in terms of groups instead of kin.
No, it isn't the same. The key is in the subtlety. We are talking about reciprocal altruism versus pure altruism. That is the subtle difference that leads Wilson to reject kin selection.
BillHamp wrote:1. First of all, the dandelions have not changed in the sense that they are a new species, they have adapted to their new environment through physiologic means. Their phenotypes remain intact..
Wrong, if they have changed in their observable traits, the phenotype has changed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype
Yes, that was a mistake. I meant genotype, not phenotype. We are getting quite technical and I see where the confusion arises, so maybe I can clarify. I've not been clear enough reading back through my posts, so let me try to make sense of the confusion.

The original argument arose because Jan was insisting that evolution was not defined by changes in inherited characteristics, but rather by genetic changes only. That is not correct. While genetic changes are necessary for evolution, they are not sufficient. A genetic change must produce a phenotypic change if it is to be acted on by forces like natural selection. A simple DNA sequence change is not evolution even though it is heritable. That is why I was initially trying to make the distinction between genotypic and phenotypic changes.

Now, something got lost in translation there and I didn't explain every detail of my point. I assumed most of it was implied, but can see that it was not and so confusion arose. The confusion results from my trying to emphasize what natural selection operates on.

My argument about the dandelions arose from Jan's point that you will observe phenotypic changes if you move dandelions to a different environment, but that they have not evolved. Jan is right about them having not evolved, but that is not the point I was responding to. A lot of confusion came out of that because Jan was addressing one point and I was addressing another. We were clearly speaking at right angles to one another. That was my point about bell curves, but it was poorly made.
BillHamp wrote:
2. "Evolution consists of changes in the heritable traits of a population of organisms as successive generations replace one another. It is populations of organisms that evolve, not individual organisms."
Note the population level distinction there, which is what I was really driving at when I said "population." You were suggesting that a simple mutation in one organism was evolution.
A mutation in one organism is evolution (if it's a heritable and not a somatic mutation): it changes the allele frequencies in a population.
No, a mutation is not evolution. A mutation is a mutation. It can lead to evolution, but a mutation itself is not evolution. We don't say that people with CF have evolved, even though they have a mutation. In fact, we never say that individuals have evolved. That is because evolution relates only to population level changes. You need a statistically significant change in allele frequency that affects phenotype before you can call it evolution.

Beyond that, mutations can produce the same phenotypic trait, making them "netural." THus, you cannot say that a mutation is evolution. Further, allele changes are not enough to constitute evolution in and of themselves.
BillHamp wrote:You are quite correct about the "founder effect" and yet also quite wrong. The error is in thinking that the founder effect makes it possible for negative mutations to become predominant. It does no such thing.
Wrong:
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/Reinhard.B ... uerger.pdf
...deleterious mutations in a large population are kept at a low frequency within a balance between the forces of selection and those of mutation. A population with relatively fewer individuals, however, will have lower fitness on average, not only because fewer beneficial mutations arise, but also because deleterious mutations are more likely to reach high frequencies through random genetic drift.
(a founder effect is a special case of drift due to small population size)

see also:
http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/eeb348/lect ... node3.html
No, no, no, no, no. You misunderstand the founder effect entirely. Go back and read the rest of my response before creating a strawman. The quote that you have there is precisely what I said in the rest of my post. There were four additional paragraphs explaining what I meant by that, but you chose to cherry pick. I'm starting to think that if you and Jan aren't the same person, you must be close because you continually make the same logical errors.

We'll probably end up with more confusion here because I don't have time to write in the detail I need to. I'll return though. If you will, narrow it down to one argument at a time so that I can give a full response. Otherwise, we will repeat this problem ad infinitum.

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13041

Post by James Caruthers »

AndrewV69 wrote:Good news everyone!

California To Consider Standard of Affirmative Sexual Consent
A bill has just been introduced in the California legislature that would establish statewide standards for colleges and universities in dealing with complaints of sexual assault.
...
Highlighting the need for a culture change, Senator Kevin de Leόn and Legislative Women’s Caucus Chair and Vice Chair, Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal and Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson announced Senate Bill 967 which will require California colleges and universities to address campus sexual violence by requiring them to adopt consistent victim-centered sexual assault response policies and protocols that follow best practices and professional standards.
Apparently it is known as SB 967. I was thinking to myself that this is some kind of joke. Apparently I was wrong. They are not joking.
This is a forthright step toward establishing clear standards of how colleges deal with the issue of rape and sexual assault. This applies to college administrative disciplinary proceedings. These are not criminal trails and are separate and distinct from criminal investigations and prosecutions. They are not legally required to follow the same standards of procedure and rules of evidence that apply to criminal trials. The proposed standard of a preponderance of evidence is the same as used in civil trials and is stipulated for colleges in title IX proceedings.

Whether or not this bill becomes law in its present form, it's introduction in the nation's largest state indicates that there is mounting political pressure to do something about changing the rape culture that causes a majority of victims to despair of even filing a complaint.
I am prepared to be sympathetic to those caught up in this but as far as I am concerned if you go to a University in California after this bill passes it is all on your head.

I really hope they pass this law. I am stocking up on the popcorn right now because this is not going to end well for quite a few people.
Unreal. They're really doing the "these aren't criminal trials, just college witch hunts that can end with expulsion and your name and reputation tarnished for all time. It's okay if we assume all people accused of a crime are guilty of that crime, because it hurts the feels of the victims when we ask for evidence." Yes, they are not "legally required" to follow Beyond A Reasonable Doubt rules, but why shouldn't they? What is the argument in favor of why trials should be biased against the accused? A hysterical hang-wringing scream of "VICTIM BLAMER"? SJWs are now creating their own little kangaroo courts to operate within their academic fiefdoms. They may not be criminal courts, but the consequences of someone innocent who is convicted as a result of the new court bias will be nearly as harsh in some ways.

It can't last. Some poor lesbian will get drunk and have sex with a bisexual otherkin white upper-class feminist woman and the feminist will scream RAPE and the law will be amended to protect innocently-accused womyn.

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5425
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13042

Post by KiwiInOz »

Jan Steen wrote:
BillHamp wrote:You may be right about the pub and brew, but I'm inclined to think that Jan is simply angry that I chose to criticize how evolution is explained and referred to by biologists. Rather than argue a concept, Jan simply introduces new terms. Each time I explain why the first term does not, in fact, mean what Jan thinks it does, then another concept is introduced that does not, in fact, contradict the original point, but rather supports it. I've grown tired of rebuffing ad hominems and chasing goal posts, so I have give up on Jan. I'd rather discuss a point in detail and settle the matter than react to the flailings of someone who is simply looking to "one-up" me because of injured pride. I'd happily concede if I were wrong, as E.O. Wilson did regarding kin selection (not group selection), but so far I haven't been wrong. It happens to me often enough that I know what it looks like to be wrong, I simply am not when it comes to my discussion (which devolved into an argument) with Jan.
I leave it to the readers of our little exchange to decide if the above is a fair representation of my arguments (and yours). By all means, keep on believing that evolution is defined as "a phenotypic change at the population level." Nothing wrong with that. No sirree.
I'm conflicted. I'm not sure whether to believe a Dutch genre painter or a semi-anonymous MD on an internet forum.

Won't someone please tell me what to think?!

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13043

Post by James Caruthers »

Sunder wrote:PZ is having problems with this because he has redefined atheist to mean someone for whom a lack of belief in a deity necessitates the adoption of broadly liberal values. It baffles PZ and his Horde that anyone could be an atheist and hold different values, but it doesn't baffle anyone who spends half a fucking second thinking about the problem.

PZ could try to make the case that his liberal atheism is better, but instead he's trying to argue that his atheism is the only atheism that makes sense and other people are stupid because he is smart and he says so.

What a fuckhead.
I can't wait for the shitstorm. My popcorn is prepared. Really though, even your average american leftist is not far enough left to suit PZ. Unless you are a full-blown SJW, PZ will consider you a right-wing 700 Club-loving Republican.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13044

Post by welch »

LandSnark wrote:
welch wrote: So you've decided that the entire computer market is X86. Okay. Had you said that only X86 counts in your world, then I'd have known you don't know a lot about computing overall and ignored you long ago.
No I was just referring to the market that I fairly certain was one of the largest and showed the greatest abuse of patents. Thats why I was specific to saying the x86 market.
The largest in terms of what? Not sales, the mobile market is killing x86 in both numbers of units and dollars. The x86 market is kind of moribund, because people now care about heat and power, and face it, the only difference in x86 desktops is "do you want Apple or someone else."

You can't just say "the largest" when talking about computers. You really do have to define your friggin' terms or it's well, meaningless. "I have the fastest car!" "Compared to what" "FASTEST". Same thing.
LandSnark wrote:
welch wrote: Read up on their mainframe work. z/OS has done some interesting things with allowing for alternative instruction sets in their VMs for some years now. I think the iSeries has too. They have options for actual cards with other CPUS as well if you need.
Will do. I don't get to see as much IBM gear these days, pretty much in a Dell/Cisco/SUN dominated city.
If you're interested in what a truly different approach looks like, albeit patented to hell and gone, find a copy of "Inside the AS/400" by Frank Soltis. It's interesting what you can come up with when you don't care what the other people did. The way they make pointers in C safe is pretty cool.
LandSnark wrote:
welch wrote: In addition, the x86 market is not where most of the growth is. It's actually pretty stagnant, the desktop and server sales show that. Mobile is where the real money is, and it's money you can make without needing more money than god or IBM.
Well sure that how is now. Back in the early days of the Wintel alliance it sure was a more attractive market in fact there were a few vendors at the time however from the pit of lies:

"Unlike AMD, Cyrix had never manufactured or sold Intel designs under a negotiated license. Cyrix's designs were the result of meticulous in-house reverse engineering and often made significant advances in the technology while still being socket compatible with Intel's products."

"Thus, while AMD's 386s and even 486s had some Intel-written microcode software, Cyrix's designs were completely independent. Focused on removing potential competitors, Intel spent many years in legal battles with Cyrix, consuming Cyrix financial resources, claiming that the Cyrix 486 violated Intel's patents, when in reality the design was proven independent. {Rulings from federal court in Sherman, Texas and Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington DC.}"

Q.E.D.
Yeah, but you're kind of off in the weeds now. while it's easy to blame a lot of things on patents, keep in mind, that from what, 1977 until 2005, Apple didn't do Intel other than an occasional coprocessor card. And the truth is, other than some specific things, like vector processing once you get into the G4s, they were never performance competitive. it's just that people expected computers to be hard, so didn't get why ease of use mattered. A lot of the consolidation wasn't patents, but just that it's actually hard to make money when people don't WANT different stuff. They wanted it all to be essentially the same so it would work together better. TCP/IP didn't take over networking because of patents, nor did (S)ATA take over hard drives because of that. Ethernet was never the best in terms of performance scaling under load.

But as they got to the good enough/cheap enough mark, people stopped wanting to have three kinds of physical layer, and multiple drive connections, etc. Hell, Solaris tried how long with SPARC, and that's not even desktop. They STILL couldn't convince anyone to really care after about 2003 or so.

Sometimes, it's really not evil.
LandSnark wrote:
welch wrote: Ah, so now they don't count because they aren't big enough. Goalpost moving and no true scotsman. Good job sonny.
Well they aren't that big at all and they had did have to have that patent leverage on Intel to have any hope. I merely forgot about them since they don't seem to have much market share. Data a little difficult to come by:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/displa ... Intel.html

Pretty much classes VIA as "other" at 1% or less.
Yeah, but come on, when you start disqualifying people because they "aren't big enough"? Although Ironically, that's what happened in the X86 market. It was less patents and more "what's the point of buying AMD or VIA or Cyrix when I can get Intel and be done with it?" Other than a brief moment with the Athlon, AMD wasn't all that and a bag of chips.
LandSnark wrote:
welch wrote: yes. Given how little you know about IBM in general, I'm sure your opinion is based on a wealth of facts. That aren't really there.
http://blogs.computerworld.com/linux-an ... ves-itbwcw
I know better than most how important Linux is to IBM, they have two ways to run it on mainframes. But I'd not take computer world, or any other tech rag seriously when they're linkbaiting like that. Unlike a lot of companies, IBM can make enough from a smallish number of customers to keep AIX in active development for a long time. IBM customers spend MONEY. They'll high-tier that shit forever if it makes them a buck. IBM is almost unimaginably big.
LandSnark wrote:
welch wrote: Oh you are *now*. Now you're narrowing shit as fast as possible because that's the only way you can turn the entire world of operating systems into Linux, BSD, and Windows. You're still wrong in that assertion, but you also dismiss SysV unixen because they don't sell enough to count and so forth.
Yes because in my original post I was using the x86 market as an example of where patent abuse was most obvious. And it matters because it was one of the biggest. I'm not narrowing down here I'm staying on target.
yeah, but your "on target" is a shrinking market. the desktop/server market that's Intel's sweet spot is getting nibbled by mobile on the low end, and surprisingly sophisticated end designs on the high end. Intel is no longer the only game in town in most of the markets they used to rule.

That's what's amusing about trying to assert that patents have killed innovation. they really didn't. innovation just found a better outlet, like it always does, and now Intel is playing catchup, as is MS.
LandSnark wrote:
welch wrote: Well, it won't actually matter, because now:

only desktop and certain server OS's count
Only x86 architecuture counts
Only sales over a certain number which of course, you've not provided counts
Only user numbers over a certain number, which you've not provided, counts
Only direct competitors of microsoft count. Except in Mobile and Embedded, those don't count. (did we forget MS competes actively in the embedded space? We must have, but luckily, that doesn't count either)
See above comment.
dude, you were using "not big enough" without defining what that was in a definite manner.. Come on.
LandSnark wrote:
welch wrote: tl;dr

"How dare you expect me to know more about computers than the one on my desk, and insist that any other kinds of computers count"

Ah, sweet, sweet intellectual dishonesty.

I bet you're a skeptic, aren't you.
You are making assumptions on my knowledge and are deliberately ignoring the fact I was only using one market as example of patent abuse. I'm pretty sure other architectures have had patent based spats and I fully acknowledge that I do not know much about them since I did only say "the x86 market" several times.

You like IBM sure but you seem to forget that IBM came to the brink of death several times when they got done over by Microsoft so they may not be the best example. They are certainly an excellent example of a lumbering giant reinventing itself as an innovative market player but they certainly keep MS at arms reach even going as far as backing Linux at a time MS had their panties in a twist about it.
IBM was on the brink of not being insanely profitable for a few years. Even Ayers (Akers?) couldn't have fully killed that cash machine. (you don't want to know what the USAF was paying IBM for the ACUs on the B-1B. Not cheap, and large quantities.) Even at their worst, IBM machines literally ran the world. What they needed was someone like Gerstner who could start the process of saying "Fuck x86" which has only recently ended with the sales of their x86 servers to lenovo.(IIRC) The computer press had a lot of fun with IBM, but keep in mind every time someone buys a hard drive with a spinning disk, IBM makes money. Unlike most companies, they simple are pragmatic, and will license the fuck out of patents.

The thing about being that big is that you have time to make mistakes. Intel, for all its size, makes money off a really small number of things. That's why the move away from them is freaking them out.

welch
.
.
Posts: 9208
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:05 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13045

Post by welch »

BarnOwl wrote:From Janet Stemwedel's post on the #sciosafe session at ScienceOnline14:
5. A clarification of Bora Zivkovic's relationship to the ScienceOnline organization and its conferences, events, and initiatives going forward.
We appreciate the swiftness with which Bora Zivkovic was removed from leadership of the ScienceOnline organization in the wake of revelations that he harassed multiple women, including women within the ScienceOnline community. However, the last official statement from the ScienceOnline organization specified that he would not be attending any ScienceOnline events in 2014. Members of the community would like to know what happens after 2014. We ask the Board to seriously consider making the separation between Zivkovic and the ScienceOnline organization, its conferences, events, and initiatives permanent.
She (and a number of others) really has a hate-on for Zivkovic. Perhaps he can also be blamed for the political upheaval in Ukraine.

It's quite amusing to read their repeated demands for representation of "diversity" in ScienceOnline leadership and organization, when their gatherings and community are so lacking in diversity. In addition to the very US-biased participation in the conference (which is supposed to be representative of an, errrrr, online community) - a diversity issue on its own - there's a very glaring lack of diversity among participants, just within the context of the US population. Their conference does not look like my local community, for example, or even like my classroom or research collaborations. Maybe some of those jockeying for leadership need to step back and ask whether they're contributing to the diversity of the conference, or whether they might need to send an underrepresented minority to the conference in their stead next year. Hmmmmm. :think:
What the fuck, they want a lifetime ban on the guy? Just be honest and say you want him shot out in a field after he digs his grave.

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13046

Post by James Caruthers »

Guestus Aurelius wrote:Here, James: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/femin ... #SexGenDis
Ugh. I was wrong! She's as SJW as the rest. The proto-SJW.

Cultural studies, as you say, often offer some interesting insights into human culture, but let's not try (as Butler seems to be doing) to extrapolate that to the hard sciences, like biology. Sometimes it seems like people in gender studies and the humanities want the respect of the hard sciences, but they're not learned in the sciences and so come off as pretentious fops co-opting scientific language for their own aggrandizement.

Jan Steen
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:18 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13047

Post by Jan Steen »

BillHamp wrote:I'm starting to think that if you and Jan aren't the same person, you must be close because you continually make the same logical errors.
:lol:

But now that you mention it, I usually find myself agreeing with Windy's opinions. Maybe you're on to something. :think:

Jan Steen
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:18 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13048

Post by Jan Steen »

KiwiInOz wrote: I'm conflicted. I'm not sure whether to believe a Dutch genre painter or a semi-anonymous MD on an internet forum.

Won't someone please tell me what to think?!
Always believe the Dutch genre painter. Especially one from the 17th Century.

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13049

Post by AndrewV69 »

BillHamp wrote: Let me know what you think of that article/citation. I found it less than compelling, not because I necessarily disgree with the point, but because I think Nowak et. al. are making a subtly different point than the author in that citation. That said, I would need to read a bit more into all of it to really see what their complaint is.
I do not think my opinion is worth too much to be frank. Not only does whatever knowledge I have have holes in, it but it is also limited in scope (e.g. phenotype (no problem) ... the extended phenotype (wut? hmmmm.)). It might be more than than the average layman, it may be pretty broad relatively speaking but it is undeniably shallow unless I was a "legend in my own mind" like that honbeck fellow ... I refuse to take my own opinions too seriously

So with the above in mind, after reading the paper my conclusion is that while Nowak et. al might be correct that:
Inclusive fitness theory is neither useful nor necessary to explain the evolution of eusociality or other phenomena. It is time for the field of social evolution to move beyond the limitations of inclusive fitness theory.
Perhaps the real issue is with the math/models in which case I suspect that Nowak wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater while et. al. fuck around for the purpose of creating a new baby. Leaving the rest of us with no baby in the meanwhile.

(apologies for the mangled metaphor ... mayby)
BillHamp wrote: Care to elaborate on the BS that Gould spread? There were things he said that were flat wrong, but I never paid a whole lot of attention to the guy, so I wasn't aware that he was intentionally spreading lies. If you had the time, I'd be interested to hear more about that. One this is for certain, Gould was very pompous, which can be a major asset and a major liability in science (most often it is a liability, though it will usually help you get grant money).
First, however someone who tries in my opinion to defend him in the Mismeasure of Man business see PLOS The Mismeasure of Science: Stephen Jay Gould versus Samuel George Morton on Skulls and Bias

Samuel George Morton, in the hands of Stephen Jay Gould, has served for 30 years as a textbook example of scientific misconduct [12]. The Morton case was used by Gould as the main support for his contention that “unconscious or dimly perceived finagling is probably endemic in science, since scientists are human beings rooted in cultural contexts, not automatons directed toward external truth” [1]. This view has since achieved substantial popularity in “science studies” [2]–[4]. But our results falsify Gould's hypothesis that Morton manipulated his data to conform with his a priori views. The data on cranial capacity gathered by Morton are generally reliable, and he reported them fully. Overall, we find that Morton's initial reputation as the objectivist of his era was well-deserved.

That Morton's data are reliable despite his clear bias weakens the argument of Gould and others that biased results are endemic in science. Gould was certainly correct to note that scientists are human beings and, as such, are inevitably biased, a point frequently made in “science studies.” But the power of the scientific approach is that a properly designed and executed methodology can largely shield the outcome from the influence of the investigator's bias. Science does not rely on investigators being unbiased “automatons.” Instead, it relies on methods that limit the ability of the investigator's admittedly inevitable biases to skew the results. Morton's methods were sound, and our analysis shows that they prevented Morton's biases from significantly impacting his results. The Morton case, rather than illustrating the ubiquity of bias, instead shows the ability of science to escape the bounds and blinders of cultural contexts.
I was also going throw a whole bunch of links at you but the most damming ones in my opinion are dead. Here is a somewhat mild one one that is still alive though from the NY Review of books.

As I recall the subject came up before in the Slymepit and all the links worked then.

(Note to self: see if I can retrieve some from the wayback machine)

Whatever man. Fuck.

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13050

Post by James Caruthers »

Brive1987 wrote:Suck shit PZ - your tears can start now.

http://i.imgur.com/hAV0kSf.jpg

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ult-one-2/
Found this gem in the comments.
I wonder when we will hear the condemnation of Radford’s silencing of dissent from those virtuous defenders of civil liberties at the Slymepit. I mean, threatening critics with legal action is a bit of a witch hunt, is it not? I’m sure the brave heroes will howl with fury at Radford’s crushing of FREEZE PEACH.

In less snarky terms, fuck this asshole.
MMM YOUR TEARS, I KNOW YOU DREAM SLYMEPIT ERRY NIGHT.

Actually, this twat is a twat. Llegal action is NOT a witch hunt, nor a violation of civil liberties. Suing is, by definition, availing yourself of your civil liberties. The threat itself, yeah, kind of an asshole move I guess. But the action, actually suing, is not a witch hunt at all. The matter is taken to the courts and I have ALWAYS been arguing that these matters need to be settled in the courts, and not extra-judicially on Twitter and via Internet Goon Squads and angry SJW mobs.

If someone has said something about you which you believe to be untrue and also damaging to your reputation and ability to make a living, you have every right under the law to examine the libel/slander sections of the legal code, contact that person and threaten legal action if they do not remove the statements you consider libelous. If they do not comply, you have every right as a citizen under the law to sue for the damage to your reputation and business. That is not a witch hunt, and you would not think it was if you were the one being slandered.

So no, you are wrong and also stupid.

BarnOwl
.
.
Posts: 3311
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:18 pm
Location: The wrong trouser of Time

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13051

Post by BarnOwl »

welch wrote: What the fuck, they want a lifetime ban on the guy? Just be honest and say you want him shot out in a field after he digs his grave.
Yes, that's exactly what they want. The entire conference appears to be overrun with petty narcissists. Also from the report:
Summary of what was expressed in the #scioSafe session:

Many people expressed their hurt with how the leadership of the ScienceOnline organization had dealt with their needs and concerns, especially around issues of harassment and pressures not to discuss it, to get over it, to forgive on someone else's timeline.

Some expressed concern that there was never a clear official acknowledgment at the conference from the leadership of the harm done to members of the community by harassment from one of the founders of ScienceOnline, and moreover there was never a clear official acknowledgment at the conference from the leadership of the harm done to members of the community by the minimization of that harassment, casting those upset by it as "bitter," by another founder of ScienceOnline still in a leadership position. The impact of Anton Zuiker's post of January 2014 was deep, with many in attendance expressing that they were not sure if they would ever be able to trust his judgment again.
The one thing that would keep me from settling in Northern California (assuming I could ever manage to afford the cost of living) is the preponderance of people like Stemwedel. They take the cult of entitlement and perpetual butthurt to unbelievable levels.

James Caruthers
.
.
Posts: 6257
Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:50 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13052

Post by James Caruthers »

Guestus Aurelius wrote:I'd like to see some of these lawsuits do more than result in the offending posts being taken down. The damage is already done, and the likes of Freezepage make these public accusations permanent.

So I'd like to see the witch-hunting libelers and defamers suffer some serious consequences. Right now they seem to think they're invincible. That's the problem. Unless they understand that the potential for consequences that hurt is real, they'll keep on doing what they do.

Fuck that.
They apparently seem to believe that threatening legal action after you have been defamed by an internet gossip mob calling for your dismissal and public shunning is itself a witch hunt.

:shock:

Yeah, really.

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13053

Post by AndrewV69 »

windy wrote: (a founder effect is a special case of drift due to small population size)

see also:
http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/eeb348/lect ... node3.html
See also Quebec genetic issues (there are many in PLOS). Just one example Human genetics: lessons from Quebec populations. in reference to the founder effect.

Parody Accountant
.
.
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 4:16 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13054

Post by Parody Accountant »

JacquesCuze wrote:In recent days, Parody Accountant and SubManUSN have made some statements that have hit so close to home, they have almost literally paralyzed me, well in terms of knowing how to respond that is to Parody Accountant, and unable to respond to SubManUSN without feeling more guilt about a ton of shit.

Parody Accountant, I wish you the best. From what you've obliquely described and my own egocentrism, I think I've gone through similar, or going through it now. Hang in there, and I'd buy you a beer if I could.

*snipped bits addressed to others*
Thanks man. Seriously. Every challenge is an opportunity to rise above.

The frothy mix of dick jokes, irreverence, analysis, pissing contests, and brutal honesty is blanketed with undeniable kinship. I actively choose not to have IRL friends at this point in my life. I don't even ever go outside (other than work) anymore. I took a few months off from this place, but I really missed the community. People like Gumby and a few others reached out. It meant a lot to me, though at the time I implied it didn't. Pitters are the closest thing to friends I'll have for a while.

But seriously. Love the humor here. I'm no Ape+Lust / Gumby / Strawkins (etc.), but I like fucking around in photoshop.

Anyone see Ophelia's recent shocking admission about her notorious family ties? She's at a Lakers game with her younger brother here:

http://i.imgur.com/8zAyT4H.png

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13055

Post by Lsuoma »

Parody Accountant wrote:
bhoytony wrote:
Parody Accountant wrote:
No joke... I've got PTSD (and Major Depressive Disorder, and Anxiety disorder, and alcoholism... and other shit like ADD) I'm going to be intentionally vague here as to the circumstances causing it. I'm in the middle of being forced out of my career because of it. My 'trauma' stems from a subject encountered rather frequently in this forum.
Thumb over neck?
What does this phrase mean?
It was another screwdriver/hammer thing. Search the Pit for hendrix neck and you'll find all the goodness.

another lurker
.
.
Posts: 4740
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:39 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13056

Post by another lurker »

KiwiInOz wrote:
Jan Steen wrote:
BillHamp wrote:You may be right about the pub and brew, but I'm inclined to think that Jan is simply angry that I chose to criticize how evolution is explained and referred to by biologists. Rather than argue a concept, Jan simply introduces new terms. Each time I explain why the first term does not, in fact, mean what Jan thinks it does, then another concept is introduced that does not, in fact, contradict the original point, but rather supports it. I've grown tired of rebuffing ad hominems and chasing goal posts, so I have give up on Jan. I'd rather discuss a point in detail and settle the matter than react to the flailings of someone who is simply looking to "one-up" me because of injured pride. I'd happily concede if I were wrong, as E.O. Wilson did regarding kin selection (not group selection), but so far I haven't been wrong. It happens to me often enough that I know what it looks like to be wrong, I simply am not when it comes to my discussion (which devolved into an argument) with Jan.
I leave it to the readers of our little exchange to decide if the above is a fair representation of my arguments (and yours). By all means, keep on believing that evolution is defined as "a phenotypic change at the population level." Nothing wrong with that. No sirree.
I'm conflicted. I'm not sure whether to believe a Dutch genre painter or a semi-anonymous MD on an internet forum.

Won't someone please tell me what to think?!
Think of these instead:

http://gamedayr.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... 70x855.jpg

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13057

Post by AndrewV69 »

KiwiInOz wrote:
Jan Steen wrote:
BillHamp wrote:You may be right about the pub and brew, but I'm inclined to think that Jan is simply angry that I chose to criticize how evolution is explained and referred to by biologists. Rather than argue a concept, Jan simply introduces new terms. Each time I explain why the first term does not, in fact, mean what Jan thinks it does, then another concept is introduced that does not, in fact, contradict the original point, but rather supports it. I've grown tired of rebuffing ad hominems and chasing goal posts, so I have give up on Jan. I'd rather discuss a point in detail and settle the matter than react to the flailings of someone who is simply looking to "one-up" me because of injured pride. I'd happily concede if I were wrong, as E.O. Wilson did regarding kin selection (not group selection), but so far I haven't been wrong. It happens to me often enough that I know what it looks like to be wrong, I simply am not when it comes to my discussion (which devolved into an argument) with Jan.
I leave it to the readers of our little exchange to decide if the above is a fair representation of my arguments (and yours). By all means, keep on believing that evolution is defined as "a phenotypic change at the population level." Nothing wrong with that. No sirree.
I'm conflicted. I'm not sure whether to believe a Dutch genre painter or a semi-anonymous MD on an internet forum.

Won't someone please tell me what to think?!
Think of the children?

Lie back and think of England?

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13058

Post by Dick Strawkins »

I won't comment on the group/kin selection question because I tend to slip into a coma just thinking about that topic, but I think I should address questions of whether mutations are the same as evolution. On this question I think most molecular geneticists would agree with windy. As she mentioned earlier, a mutation changes the frequency of alleles in a population - the basic definition of evolution - and though the initial frequency is, depending on the population size, likely to be small, it is still regarded as (neutral) evolution. If the mutation is beneficial then it may lead to an increase in frequency and this will be termed evolution by natural selection. I've never heard of any type of level (statistically significant - 5%?) that the mutation
must reach before it's called evolution.
Most molecular genomic evolution occurs as neutral changes of the genome.

The cystic fibrosis question was curious to me. It is rare that a de novo mutation is involved. Usually it involves the inheritance of pre-existing mutated alleles from the parents, with the original mutation having occurred in the distant ancestral past. The original mutation would have happened by chance as an example of neutral evolution. The theory is that it is beneficial in some way in the heterozygous form (perhaps in terms of resistance to certain
illnesses) and so the frequency increased through natural selection, such that it's now reasonably high in certain populations (for example the Irish)
But the story is still the same - neutral evolution followed by natural selection.

BillHamp
.
.
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:47 pm

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13059

Post by BillHamp »

KiwiInOz wrote:
Jan Steen wrote:
BillHamp wrote:You may be right about the pub and brew, but I'm inclined to think that Jan is simply angry that I chose to criticize how evolution is explained and referred to by biologists. Rather than argue a concept, Jan simply introduces new terms. Each time I explain why the first term does not, in fact, mean what Jan thinks it does, then another concept is introduced that does not, in fact, contradict the original point, but rather supports it. I've grown tired of rebuffing ad hominems and chasing goal posts, so I have give up on Jan. I'd rather discuss a point in detail and settle the matter than react to the flailings of someone who is simply looking to "one-up" me because of injured pride. I'd happily concede if I were wrong, as E.O. Wilson did regarding kin selection (not group selection), but so far I haven't been wrong. It happens to me often enough that I know what it looks like to be wrong, I simply am not when it comes to my discussion (which devolved into an argument) with Jan.
I leave it to the readers of our little exchange to decide if the above is a fair representation of my arguments (and yours). By all means, keep on believing that evolution is defined as "a phenotypic change at the population level." Nothing wrong with that. No sirree.
I'm conflicted. I'm not sure whether to believe a Dutch genre painter or a semi-anonymous MD on an internet forum.

Won't someone please tell me what to think?!
Believe only the argument that makes sense. Jan Steen and I have disagreed, at least partially, as a result of trying to address too many points at one time. Jan is write to point out that "a phenotypic change at the population level" is not an accurate defintion of evolution. I wrote that in a hurry. It should be more accurately expressed as "a phenotypic change at the population level that results from an underlying genotypic change." To be precise, a phenotypic change can occur even when the genes do not change. At the same time, a genotypic change can occur that in on way influences the phenotype and thus cannot lead to evolution. I was making a point that the phenotype must change for natural selection to have something on which to act and was narrowly arguing against Jan's point that it any genetic change is evolution. In my zeal, to make my point, I neglected to be precise with definitions. Considering that precision in language is the whole reason Jan and I started arguing in the first place, I accept my slaps on the wrist for failing to live up to my own standards. In my defense, I did say that I often failed to live up to the ideal. I only wish I hadn't demonstrated that failures so immediately.

In the end, Jan is wrong and so am I, probably both of us because we were narrowly focused on emphasizing minutia of the argument and missed the bigger picture. It happens. Evolution is not solely a genotypic change and is not solely a phenotypic change. It is a change in an inherited trait in a biological population that occurs over generations. That is to say that evolution is a genotypic change that leads to a phenotypic change on which natural selection can operate and thus select for or against (or maybe not at all).

Jan Steen
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:18 am

Re: Mykeru, what a Cnut, eh? Discuss.

#13060

Post by Jan Steen »

I'm beginning to think that the term 'Social Justice Warrior' is really a misnomer. Yes, I know that 'Warrior' is meant ironically, but even so, SJW can still be read as "someone who fights for social justice, albeit it in a comically inept way." A harmless idiot. An idiot with good intentions. But that's my problem. The term is too positive when referring to toxic toads like PZ Myers. He is more accurately described as a member of the SJP, the Social Justice Police. Or rather, the SJ Secret Police. Hell, why not go full godwin, and call it the Social Justice Gestapo.

The guy who made the funny vids here with Peezus in his bunker, whatsisname, was on the right track.

Locked