Bleeding from the Bunghole

Old subthreads
Rope apologist
.
.
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 3:05 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9001

Post by Rope apologist »

ianfc wrote:Rehabilitated post-modernism I guess http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-689225
218
PZ Myers

10 September 2013 at 9:11 pm (UTC -5)

OK, guys, you really need some help here. For example:

heat albumin to 100 degrees centigrade in a solution of phosphate buffered saline with beta mercaptoethanol at 1 atmosphere, it’s non-covalent bonds will dissociate.

That’s true. That’s a fact. Proteins have measurable, quantifiable properties. There are some wacky postmodernists out there who’ll try to argue with that, but most won’t. Instead, they’ll ask you,

What does it mean? What is the context? What is the purpose of dissociating non-covalent bonds in that molecule? What is the framework of knowledge in which that fits?

Most scientists are comfortable with the distinction between data and information (I think). You’ve plopped out a datum. Fine. Now explain why.

I get this all the time with students. You can give them a recipe to follow out of a lab cookbook, and they can follow it and it works fine, most of the time. When it doesn’t, they’re lost, because they don’t understand the mechanism, the theory, the whole big background of solutes and solvents, dissociation constants, the interactions between salts and pH and temperature, that whole massive edifice of scientific knowledge behind your simple statement that you take completely for granted.

That’s postmodernism. Wake up and notice all your assumptions.

If you’re a good scientist, you’re practicing postmodernism all the time
All I have to do is to forget what pomo really is, believe pz's authority, and be a post-modernist, I guess.

I'm sure that he knows this subject every bit as well as he understands power dynamics in society.

Was mindless gibberish his goal, or just what an ignorant fool does when he pretends to understand when he's clueless?

Anyway, I can't really fault him in this, driveling irrelevancy appears to suit him well.

ccdimage
.
.
Posts: 91
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:22 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9002

Post by ccdimage »

Brive1987 wrote:Re the Skepchick story:
... the past few days have been emotionally wrought for everyone. They’re scared. They’re angry ... thanks to Grothe’s bullying, two of the four board members have resigned ... it’s a mess ...
FFS - bring in the FCs. Is this the pussyist Board of Directors ever? Or is there maybe more to the story?
ex-Board member- Hey guys can we not shit in the gravy train.
Board members- We all have chronic diarrhoea.
ex-Board member- I don't think I want to catch that sickness. Bye.

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

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9003

Post by welch »

Brive1987 wrote:Re the Skepchick story:
... the past few days have been emotionally wrought for everyone. They’re scared. They’re angry ... thanks to Grothe’s bullying, two of the four board members have resigned ... it’s a mess ...
FFS - bring in the FCs. Is this the pussyist Board of Directors ever? Or is there maybe more to the story?
Given the source, I guarantee it.

Supertroy
.
.
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 1:59 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9004

Post by Supertroy »

JackRayner wrote:
ianfc wrote:Rehabilitated post-modernism I guess http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-689225
PZ MYers wrote: If you’re a good scientist, you’re practicing postmodernism all the time
Sweet baby Jesus....

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/ori ... 015058.jpg
I'm concerned he's going to have a breakdown, al la Phaedrus in pursuit of "Quality", soon.

FrankGrimes
.
.
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:55 am
Location: Below a Bowling Alley

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9005

Post by FrankGrimes »

This bit is one of the inspirations for my 'nym. Just picture the audience as the FftB commenters. Maybe Burns is Myers and Smithers is, I dunno, another one of those carzy nutcases and Homer would fit the bill as oolon I'd say.

[youtube]rOgS8gTATv8[/youtube]

FTB has always seemed to me to be some kind of alternative world where fantasy is reality and pointing out the obvious is met with: "Hey, shhhh.... you're makin' us miss the contest." People are rewarded for acting like kids and scorn is heaped upon those who dare question anything. Drives me insane! Insane I tell you!

mordacious1
.
.
Posts: 1061
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:33 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9006

Post by mordacious1 »

What ever happened with McFreight's "the hardest thing I'll ever write" announcement? Did I miss it? Or was it so insignificant that I glossed over it and don't remember?

FrankGrimes
.
.
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:55 am
Location: Below a Bowling Alley

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9007

Post by FrankGrimes »

mordacious1 wrote:What ever happened with McFreight's "the hardest thing I'll ever write" announcement? Did I miss it? Or was it so insignificant that I glossed over it and don't remember?
I was wondering that myself a while ago and was reliably informed that nothing appeared online. I'm guessing she was talking about having to write a paper or something for uni.

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

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9008

Post by Dick Strawkins »

mordacious1 wrote:What ever happened with McFreight's "the hardest thing I'll ever write" announcement? Did I miss it? Or was it so insignificant that I glossed over it and don't remember?
I think it turned out to be some petty nonsense about JT Eberhard that was soon forgotten when they called a truce.

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

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9009

Post by Guestus Aurelius »

218
PZ Myers

10 September 2013 at 9:11 pm (UTC -5)

OK, guys, you really need some help here. For example:

heat albumin to 100 degrees centigrade in a solution of phosphate buffered saline with beta mercaptoethanol at 1 atmosphere, it’s non-covalent bonds will dissociate.

That’s true. That’s a fact. Proteins have measurable, quantifiable properties. There are some wacky postmodernists out there who’ll try to argue with that, but most won’t. Instead, they’ll ask you,

What does it mean? What is the context? What is the purpose of dissociating non-covalent bonds in that molecule? What is the framework of knowledge in which that fits?

Most scientists are comfortable with the distinction between data and information (I think). You’ve plopped out a datum. Fine. Now explain why.

I get this all the time with students. You can give them a recipe to follow out of a lab cookbook, and they can follow it and it works fine, most of the time. When it doesn’t, they’re lost, because they don’t understand the mechanism, the theory, the whole big background of solutes and solvents, dissociation constants, the interactions between salts and pH and temperature, that whole massive edifice of scientific knowledge behind your simple statement that you take completely for granted.

That’s postmodernism. Wake up and notice all your assumptions.

If you’re a good scientist, you’re practicing postmodernism all the time

Yes, and this explains why the scientific revolution didn't occur until the second half of the twentieth century, when postmodernists invented doubt.

:roll:

mordacious1
.
.
Posts: 1061
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:33 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9010

Post by mordacious1 »

Dick Strawkins wrote:
mordacious1 wrote:What ever happened with McFreight's "the hardest thing I'll ever write" announcement? Did I miss it? Or was it so insignificant that I glossed over it and don't remember?
I think it turned out to be some petty nonsense about JT Eberhard that was soon forgotten when they called a truce.
Oh, now I remember. I'll mark that as "so insignificant that I glossed over it".

There's an example of someone who should get a Facebook account and stay there, only allowing family and close friends in.

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

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9011

Post by James Caruthers »

The thing is, though, that you cannot look at post-modernism without looking at its context: it was a reply to modernism. Modernism, which dictated that not only was there objective truth, but that we could know it.

Said objective truth was, all too frequently, defined by upper-class wealthy cisgendered heterosexual white men in WIERD countries. And people who dared disagree with their conclusions – especially if they were not upper-class wealthy cisgendered heterosexual white men in WIERD countries – were labelled as crazy, deluded, or otherwise not worth listening to.
And a lot of the garbage that came out of postmodernism came out of an essentialist point of view that BECAUSE someone was NOT a wealthy cisgendered heterosexual white male that they had special access to a form of knowledge that no wealthy cisgendered heterosexual white male could ever discover – even if that knowledge had nothing to do with any of those attributes…like fluid dynamics. Gross and Levitt’s book provides numerous examples of this, including some howlers from feminist algebra and afrocentric science.
I smell a 'pitter, the reply is from a user called "demonhauntedworld." No way this subtle dig at feminism and SJW-style postmodernism will be allowed to stand. After all, the entire premise of Atheism+ and FTB in practice (rather than in theory) is that certain individuals (the tribe) have access to special knowledge that others (the non-tribe, frequently called "misogynists" or "MRAs") simply cannot discover without their assistance.

DownThunder
.
.
Posts: 859
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:10 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9012

Post by DownThunder »

Now we have dictionary post-modernism?

VAXherd
.
.
Posts: 125
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:21 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9013

Post by VAXherd »

218
PZ Myers

10 September 2013 at 9:11 pm (UTC -5)

[...]

That’s postmodernism. Wake up and notice all your assumptions.

If you’re a good scientist, you’re practicing postmodernism all the time
The headachy thing is that I think this is close to true. The slight virtues of a post-modernist viewpoint are already incorporated into science. And (as noted up thread) scientists were already doing it much better than post-modernists do, before anyone thought up post-modernism.

The fundamental failure I have seen in PoMo is the conversion of the "I think therefore I am" limitation on knowledge into radical solipsism. "All points of view are equally valid." Then why are you bugging me to change my mind?

And its practical failure is the reversal of the burden of proof through impenetrable prose. "If you can't understand my reasoning, you can't reject my conclusions." Watch me.

disumbrationist
.
.
Posts: 89
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:56 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9014

Post by disumbrationist »

Post-PZ Myers

I get this all the time with students. You can give them a recipe to follow out of a lab cookbook, and they can follow it and it works fine, most of the time. When it doesn’t, they’re lost, because they don’t understand the mechanism, the theory, the whole big background of solutes and solvents, dissociation constants, the interactions between salts and pH and temperature, that whole massive edifice of scientific knowledge behind your simple statement that you take completely for granted.
In other words, PZ thinks his students are idiots. These considerations, which he labels postmodern, are as old as experimental science.
There is an old and great response to 'postmodern' thought from Noam Chomsky; it's worth reading even if you don't particularly like him. The more hard-boiled side of the left - which I happily belong to - is largely sick of this shit.

Karmakin
.
.
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:49 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9015

Post by Karmakin »

218
PZ Myers

10 September 2013 at 9:11 pm (UTC -5)

OK, guys, you really need some help here. For example:

heat albumin to 100 degrees centigrade in a solution of phosphate buffered saline with beta mercaptoethanol at 1 atmosphere, it’s non-covalent bonds will dissociate.

That’s true. That’s a fact. Proteins have measurable, quantifiable properties. There are some wacky postmodernists out there who’ll try to argue with that, but most won’t. Instead, they’ll ask you,

What does it mean? What is the context? What is the purpose of dissociating non-covalent bonds in that molecule? What is the framework of knowledge in which that fits?

Most scientists are comfortable with the distinction between data and information (I think). You’ve plopped out a datum. Fine. Now explain why.

I get this all the time with students. You can give them a recipe to follow out of a lab cookbook, and they can follow it and it works fine, most of the time. When it doesn’t, they’re lost, because they don’t understand the mechanism, the theory, the whole big background of solutes and solvents, dissociation constants, the interactions between salts and pH and temperature, that whole massive edifice of scientific knowledge behind your simple statement that you take completely for granted.

That’s postmodernism. Wake up and notice all your assumptions.

If you’re a good scientist, you’re practicing postmodernism all the time
See this is what I don't get. And maybe I'm wrong and I don't know dick shit about post-modernism..and quite frankly I don't really care...but...

Doesn't that destroy his own particular brand of feminism? Isn't patriarchy theory, or at least in the way it's commonly used, just a massive assumption...one they're claiming is an absolute objective fact at that?

Maybe I'm a PoMo then, but I agree that we need to notice all our assumptions and how they could be wrong in any given situation. Now, it's easier said than done, especially when talking about society as it's something of massive levels of complexity, but it's something we should take note of.

But that flies in the face of SJW thought patterns, where again, their theories MUST be treated as objective fact, and their assumptions universally correct. It's a huge double-standard, and personally, I think it's just a weapon to be used against undesirables (in their eyes).

Karmakin
.
.
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:49 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9016

Post by Karmakin »

disumbrationist wrote:Post-PZ Myers

I get this all the time with students. You can give them a recipe to follow out of a lab cookbook, and they can follow it and it works fine, most of the time. When it doesn’t, they’re lost, because they don’t understand the mechanism, the theory, the whole big background of solutes and solvents, dissociation constants, the interactions between salts and pH and temperature, that whole massive edifice of scientific knowledge behind your simple statement that you take completely for granted.
In other words, PZ thinks his students are idiots. These considerations, which he labels postmodern, are as old as experimental science.
There is an old and great response to 'postmodern' thought from Noam Chomsky; it's worth reading even if you don't particularly like him. The more hard-boiled side of the left - which I happily belong to - is largely sick of this shit.
Yeah, don't underestimate how irritated the "fixer" side of the left is with the "feeler" side of the left. For what it's worth if you want to go looking into it, the search term you want to use is "Firebagger".

Karmakin
.
.
Posts: 1437
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:49 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9017

Post by Karmakin »

Sulman wrote:
Hemisphere wrote:Didn't PZ's fellow blogger Ophelia Benson write a book focused on mocking postmodernism? The Dictionary of Fashionable Nonsense?

I wonder how OB is going to take Myer's new-found faith in the religion that is postmodernism.
I've touched on it before, but there's usually someone in the wings that understands what is going on, and it wouldn't surprise me if they started quietly sidelining the extreme members of FTB, because, lets face it, they've got absolutely ridiculous in the last month.

It always starts with the moderates quietly walking away.

By the same standard, I am wondering if the more beligerent behaviour from Watto's gang is because they're getting desperate.
I still think that Benson is one day going to lash out against some of this stuff. (I think she's going to go down the path of EBW to be precise)

Take it with a grain of salt, considering that at the time I was still sipping the kool-aid (even if not guzzling it outright), but I remember a few incidents that went as followed:

-Benson links approvingly to egalitarian article/argument/etc.
-Anti-egalitarian Commentariat jumps all over her
-She backtracks quickly

It happened a few times, then she stopped pasting those links. Now? She's as bad as the rest of them. But I wouldn't be surprised if this changed quickly one day.

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

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9018

Post by Dick Strawkins »

It is interesting to note that Ophelia Benson's site, 'Butterflies and Wheels', has the subtitle 'Fighting Fashionable Nonsense'.

'Fashionable nonsense', refers to post modernist lit-crit intrusions into science - as described by Sokal and Bricmont in the book of that title.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fashionable_Nonsense

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

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9019

Post by Guestus Aurelius »

Just a few more thoughts:
218
PZ Myers

10 September 2013 at 9:11 pm (UTC -5)

OK, guys, you really need some help here. For example:

heat albumin to 100 degrees centigrade in a solution of phosphate buffered saline with beta mercaptoethanol at 1 atmosphere, it’s non-covalent bonds will dissociate.

That’s true. That’s a fact. Proteins have measurable, quantifiable properties. There are some wacky postmodernists out there who’ll try to argue with that, but most won’t. Instead, they’ll ask you,

What does it mean? What is the context? What is the purpose of dissociating non-covalent bonds in that molecule? What is the framework of knowledge in which that fits?
Shorter version: "There's more to understanding stuff than memorizing facts."

Most scientists are comfortable with the distinction between data and information (I think). You’ve plopped out a datum. Fine. Now explain why.

I get this all the time with students. You can give them a recipe to follow out of a lab cookbook, and they can follow it and it works fine, most of the time. When it doesn’t, they’re lost, because they don’t understand the mechanism, the theory, the whole big background of solutes and solvents, dissociation constants, the interactions between salts and pH and temperature, that whole massive edifice of scientific knowledge behind your simple statement that you take completely for granted.
Shorter version: "I understand the stuff that I teach better than my students understand it, and sometimes I forget that."

That’s postmodernism. Wake up and notice all your assumptions.

If you’re a good scientist, you’re practicing postmodernism all the time
"Practicing postmodernism" = "waking up and noticing all your assumptions" ... which clearly has more than fuck-all to do with the earlier Double-Rainbow-Guy-esque "What does it mean?" stuff, because reasons.

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

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9020

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Have you ever wanted to impress your friends with your erudition and sophistication? Are you edgy enough that you could pass muster as an innovative and original thinker, if only you knew what to say? If so, this is the book for you. Within a few short minutes, you’ll have learnt all you could surely want to know about the thoughts and language of the world’s most fashionable intellectuals. Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, even Alain de Botton, they’re all here.

The world, of course, is full of fashionable nonsense. Feng Shui, pilates, Naomi Campbell, Pop Idol, Manolo Blahnik footwear, the list is endless. However, this dictionary is concerned with one particular species of fashionable nonsense, the kind found in certain unswept corners of academia.

Have you ever wanted to know what phrases like scopic drive, subversive performativity, hegemonic discourse mean? No? Well that’s sensible, and fortunately this book won’t tell you. What it will tell you, however, is how to salt them into your conversation should you ever be trapped at a party with a crowd of trendy academics.

So here you have an ironic user’s guide, a slim volume of cod pedantry. It offers an array of ludicrous, exaggerated, self-contradicting definitions and explanations of jargon popular amongst trendy academics and intellectuals. The result is very funny. But there is a serious thought here; much of the language in question is in the service of ideas that are not only silly and wrong, but also bad and harmful. This book is a contribution to the fight back on behalf of reason and truth.
Perhaps Ophelia sent a copy to Peezus and he didn't realize it wasn't an instruction manual?

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

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9021

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Just a scientific query on Elyse's skepchic post on GrotheRapeJokeGate
The Women Thinking partnered up with the JREF in December of 2010 to do vaccine outreach research as part of the Hug Me, I’m Vaccinated campaign. Since we were and are a small organization without the resources to take on such a project, we asked the JREF to fund it. They agreed, and gave us ~$5,000 to travel and conduct surveys around the country and for that, they would publish and promote the research for us. Now, almost three years later the research is finished. The report is complete thanks to a tireless effort by the WTinc board, especially Jamie Bernstein. The research has been delivered to the JREF and peer reviewed. Today, it is essentially ready to be published, and has been for over a year. But right now, Grothe is using a blog post about being bad at jokes as a reason to hold up publishing this work that we were planning on using to save lives.
I don't quite understand what she means by "peer reviewed" and "published".
I understand what it means in scientific terms - you send the manuscript written about the study to a scientific journal who then send it to independent experts in the field to see if it is valid or not, or whether it needs modification in some way.

But JREF are not independent.
This doesn't even sound like 'peer reviewed' in the Richard Carrier sense.

Was the study sent by the JREF to a reputable scientific journal and they got permission to publish?
But if that is the case the JREF would not be able to hold up publishing for a year. Journals don't allow you the liberty of doing that. They'll just tell you to take it somewhere else (and thus go through the peer review process all over again - risking rejection this time.)
:think:

VAXherd
.
.
Posts: 125
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:21 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9022

Post by VAXherd »

Dick Strawkins wrote:Just a scientific query on Elyse's skepchic post on GrotheRapeJokeGate
They agreed, and gave us ~$5,000 to travel and conduct surveys around the country and for that, they would publish and promote the research for us.
I don't quite understand what she means by "peer reviewed" and "published".
It could definitely use clarification. My guess would be that the JREF was to be the publisher, and they had it reviewed by outside experts, much as a journal would (Randi is well connected to such experts). But guessing is not preferred.

Kevin Solway
.
.
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:03 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9023

Post by Kevin Solway »

Myers wrote:Science has to be answerable to public interest
So if the public consider it to be in their interests that science become pseudo-science, then science should make itself into pseudo-science.

Brilliant.

Gefan
.
.
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:55 pm
Location: In a handbasket, apparently.

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9024

Post by Gefan »

Tony Parsehole wrote: ... started giggling at about 25 seconds in. No way can I ever watch this film now. You've ruined it...Anyway, back to watching.
I really hope that I (and the legions of other idiots who've been "Unterganging" since 2007-ish) haven't ruined the film for anyone.
It's one of the best historical films ever made, meticulously accurate and in various places heart-breakingly sad.

It just seems like the perfect vehicle to satirize the continuing misadventures of The Baboon King and his "horde". They're a fanatical cult that's turning towards nihilism and that's lost sight of anything but their devotion to their own cause.

Gefan
.
.
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:55 pm
Location: In a handbasket, apparently.

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9025

Post by Gefan »

Dick Strawkins wrote: Believe it or not there is another Skepchick drama brewing...
Of course there is. It's a day ending in "y".

Liesmith
.
.
Posts: 227
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9026

Post by Liesmith »

After reading the spittle-flecked outcries against "hyperskeptics" questioning the Shermer allegation, then immediately reading the kerfuffle over Dawkin's "moral relativism" regarding the experience of his own sexual assault as a child, and now praise for postmodernism's skepticism towards science and rejection of "absolute truth", I think I need to go to an hospital. All three lobes of my brain are fleeing my skull in separate directions from explosive cognitive dissonance.

1) Questioning something vaguely worded is hyperskeptical. Don't Do That.
2) Moral relativism is bad, m'kay. Don't Do That.
3) There is no objective truth. Treat facts with skepticism (unless you're religious, in which case Don't Do That).

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

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9027

Post by James Caruthers »

Liesmith wrote:After reading the spittle-flecked outcries against "hyperskeptics" questioning the Shermer allegation, then immediately reading the kerfuffle over Dawkin's "moral relativism" regarding the experience of his own sexual assault as a child, and now praise for postmodernism's skepticism towards science and rejection of "absolute truth", I think I need to go to an hospital. All three lobes of my brain are fleeing my skull in separate directions from explosive cognitive dissonance.

1) Questioning something vaguely worded is hyperskeptical. Don't Do That.
2) Moral relativism is bad, m'kay. Don't Do That.
3) There is no objective truth. Treat facts with skepticism (unless you're religious, in which case Don't Do That).
The common thread? It's simpler than you think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism

Linus
.
.
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:09 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9028

Post by Linus »

disumbrationist wrote:Post-PZ Myers

I get this all the time with students. You can give them a recipe to follow out of a lab cookbook, and they can follow it and it works fine, most of the time. When it doesn’t, they’re lost, because they don’t understand the mechanism, the theory, the whole big background of solutes and solvents, dissociation constants, the interactions between salts and pH and temperature, that whole massive edifice of scientific knowledge behind your simple statement that you take completely for granted.
In other words, PZ thinks his students are idiots. These considerations, which he labels postmodern, are as old as experimental science.
There is an old and great response to 'postmodern' thought from Noam Chomsky; it's worth reading even if you don't particularly like him. The more hard-boiled side of the left - which I happily belong to - is largely sick of this shit.
There are few people who can rip a bad idea to shreds as thoroughly as Chomsky can.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9029

Post by Skep tickle »

Karmakin wrote:I still think that Benson is one day going to lash out against some of this stuff. (I think she's going to go down the path of EBW to be precise) ...
I don't see that yet, but her latest post caught my eye. It's so close to a breakthrough! Yet so far.

All ellipses are mine (where I removed a few words or a couple of sections), and the names (or, in 1 place, the verb) in green are different here than in Benson's original at the link below. (Bad guys have been switched for good or vice versa, depending on your point of view, and the cast of characters - other than Ken White - is from a different scene in the play, in the version below.)

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... sequences/
Ophelia Benson wrote:Ken White has a post ... at Popehat.

He starts by pointing out that free speech does not mean that speech will and must be free of consequences.
Ken White at Popehat wrote:Speech has consequences. It ought to. ...
...
Ken White at Popehat, quoting a tweet wrote:...being offended is not grounds to start a witch hunt.
...paging Michael Shermer, paging paging paging.
Ken White at Popehat wrote:The foundation of “witch hunt” rhetoric is the notion that some free speech (say, PZ’s) is acceptable, and other free speech (say, the speech of people criticizing and ridiculing PZ and his friends) is not. You can try to find a coherent or principled way to reconcile that, but you will fail. PZ Myers is not stupid. He wrote provocative things, which have a natural and probable tendency to cause social consequences, seeking the social consequences he wanted: the admiration of the like-minded, the anger of people he could laugh at, and general attention.
But not too much attention; not the wrong kind of attention; not the attention of Michael Shermer and his lawyer, for instance.

Kevin Solway
.
.
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:03 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9030

Post by Kevin Solway »

disumbrationist wrote:Postmodernism is just a social construct.
Relativism isn't absolutely true.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9031

Post by Skep tickle »

Oh, and comment #6 from that thread at Benson's blog:
Al Dente wrote:September 10, 2013 at 5:00 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment

I’m angry that some people think whatever they say is free speech but any criticism of what they say is censorship. It’s your free speech to say stupid or hateful things and it’s my free speech to point out that your speech is stupid or hateful.

Liesmith
.
.
Posts: 227
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9032

Post by Liesmith »

James Caruthers wrote:
Liesmith wrote:After reading the spittle-flecked outcries against "hyperskeptics" questioning the Shermer allegation, then immediately reading the kerfuffle over Dawkin's "moral relativism" regarding the experience of his own sexual assault as a child, and now praise for postmodernism's skepticism towards science and rejection of "absolute truth", I think I need to go to an hospital. All three lobes of my brain are fleeing my skull in separate directions from explosive cognitive dissonance.

1) Questioning something vaguely worded is hyperskeptical. Don't Do That.
2) Moral relativism is bad, m'kay. Don't Do That.
3) There is no objective truth. Treat facts with skepticism (unless you're religious, in which case Don't Do That).
The common thread? It's simpler than you think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism
Yeah, well:
"Truth is elitist. However, the subject is interpolated into a subcultural material theory that includes language as a whole. The premise of social realism states that the purpose of the artist is social comment."
--Voltaire

Darren
.
.
Posts: 457
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:40 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9033

Post by Darren »

Gefan wrote:I really hope that I (and the legions of other idiots who've been "Unterganging" since 2007-ish) haven't ruined the film for anyone.
Not for me - it was your clips which encouraged me to finally actually watch the film! Well worth it, too.
It's one of the best historical films ever made, meticulously accurate and in various places heart-breakingly sad.
Agreed on the second part. I don't have the knowledge to comment on the first.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9034

Post by Skep tickle »

Linus wrote:
disumbrationist wrote:Post-PZ Myers

I get this all the time with students. You can give them a recipe to follow out of a lab cookbook, and they can follow it and it works fine, most of the time. When it doesn’t, they’re lost, because they don’t understand the mechanism, the theory, the whole big background of solutes and solvents, dissociation constants, the interactions between salts and pH and temperature, that whole massive edifice of scientific knowledge behind your simple statement that you take completely for granted.
In other words, PZ thinks his students are idiots. These considerations, which he labels postmodern, are as old as experimental science.
There is an old and great response to 'postmodern' thought from Noam Chomsky; it's worth reading even if you don't particularly like him. The more hard-boiled side of the left - which I happily belong to - is largely sick of this shit.
There are few people who can rip a bad idea to shreds as thoroughly as Chomsky can.
Indeed - that was a heartening read. Thank you for posting the link, disumbrationist.

Trophy
.
.
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:17 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9035

Post by Trophy »

Huehuehue wrote:
deLurch wrote:
I can't keep up with the list of characters. Was he not part of their in-crowd, or are they cannibalizing their own again?
If I recall correctly, DJ works for JREF, which means he's certainly "fair game". As Steersman noted, it's hard to take DJ's claim at face value, but if he has the witnesses, he has the witnesses. One does have to wonder, could someone be so daft as to tell that outrageous of a lie, knowing people were around all the time? I don't put anything past any of the FTB/A+/skepchick etc crew. But even then I'd be somewhat amazed that Sasha randomly did something so ludicrously stupid. Guess we'll find out. If Sasha did lie, I hope he gets what ia coming to him for spouting BS. If he didn't lie, then wtf DJ doing?
It doesn't need to be a lie. In fact, if Sasha's statement turns out to be untruthful, I wouldn't call it a lie necessarily. He might have misunderstood, misheard, or misinterpreted what DJ said. He could even misremember it. It's perfectly normal for two people to have totally different recollection of the same event. It happens all the time. Any good skeptic should know better than fully trust his/her memory, specially we are not talking about bad actions here just bad fucking jokes. How ridiculously hysterical one should be to create a mountain out of a joke.

Skep tickle
.
.
Posts: 5357
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 12:04 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9036

Post by Skep tickle »

Liesmith wrote:
James Caruthers wrote:
Liesmith wrote:After reading the spittle-flecked outcries against "hyperskeptics" questioning the Shermer allegation, then immediately reading the kerfuffle over Dawkin's "moral relativism" regarding the experience of his own sexual assault as a child, and now praise for postmodernism's skepticism towards science and rejection of "absolute truth", I think I need to go to an hospital. All three lobes of my brain are fleeing my skull in separate directions from explosive cognitive dissonance.

1) Questioning something vaguely worded is hyperskeptical. Don't Do That.
2) Moral relativism is bad, m'kay. Don't Do That.
3) There is no objective truth. Treat facts with skepticism (unless you're religious, in which case Don't Do That).
The common thread? It's simpler than you think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribalism
Yeah, well:
"Truth is elitist. However, the subject is interpolated into a subcultural material theory that includes language as a whole. The premise of social realism states that the purpose of the artist is social comment."
--Voltaire
:lol:

PoMoVoltaire

Darren
.
.
Posts: 457
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:40 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9037

Post by Darren »

Skep tickle wrote:I don't see that yet, but her latest post caught my eye. It's so close to a breakthrough! Yet so far.
How quaint... an Ophie post which is ~90% copypasta from someone else's blog.

Let me give that a try.

First, Skep tickle gives us an overview of her cunning alterations:
All ellipses are mine (where I removed a few words or a couple of sections), and the names (or, in 1 place, the verb) in green are different here than in Benson's original at the link below. (Bad guys have been switched for good or vice versa, depending on your point of view, and the cast of characters - other than Ken White - is from a different scene in the play, in the version below.)

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterflies ... sequences/
Then she quotes Ophie:
Ophelia Benson wrote:Ken White has a post ... at Popehat.

He starts by pointing out that free speech does not mean that speech will and must be free of consequences.
Ken White at Popehat wrote:Speech has consequences. It ought to. ...
...
Ken White at Popehat, quoting a tweet wrote:...being offended is not grounds to start a witch hunt.
...paging Michael Shermer, paging paging paging.
Then I interrupt to inject a comment which I think is quite witty, before allowing her to continue...
Ken White at Popehat wrote:The foundation of “witch hunt” rhetoric is the notion that some free speech (say, PZ’s) is acceptable, and other free speech (say, the speech of people criticizing and ridiculing PZ and his friends) is not. You can try to find a coherent or principled way to reconcile that, but you will fail. PZ Myers is not stupid. He wrote provocative things, which have a natural and probable tendency to cause social consequences, seeking the social consequences he wanted: the admiration of the like-minded, the anger of people he could laugh at, and general attention.
But not too much attention; not the wrong kind of attention; not the attention of Michael Shermer and his lawyer, for instance.
...and that's all there is too it!

I would really like to be able to respond to Skep tickle with a point-by-point rebuttal, but I just don't have time today.

Oops, sorry. Some Greta must have slipped in there.

Trophy
.
.
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:17 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9038

Post by Trophy »

ianfc wrote:Rehabilitated post-modernism I guess http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-689225
218
PZ Myers

10 September 2013 at 9:11 pm (UTC -5)
<snip>
That’s postmodernism. Wake up and notice all your assumptions.

If you’re a good scientist, you’re practicing postmodernism all the time
Yes, Libertarianism is ultimately about liberty and freedom. If you are someone who believes people should not be enslaved then you are basically a Libertarian. So if you're a good liberal then you are practising libertarianism all the time. Wake up and accept your inner Libertarian. </trolling PZ>

Tony Parsehole
.
.
Posts: 6658
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: Middlesbrough

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9039

Post by Tony Parsehole »

Anathema double-m
• 6 hours ago

I haven't seen anyone denying Dawkins's right to say what he said. The only petition that I've seen has been asking Dawkins to retract what he said in that interview. How does asking someone to retract a harmful statement that they made the same as denying someone the right to express their opinion?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... ents-okay/

Say what you like but retract it when we don't like it.
What exactly would a retraction achieve other than the bullies smelling blood and stepping things up a bit?
So arrogant.

SoylentAtheist

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9040

Post by SoylentAtheist »

Dick Strawkins wrote:I don't quite understand what she means by "peer reviewed" and "published".
I am confused by that too. Are they saying that they picked out & selected people to "peer review" their research for them?

Also, looking at what they had planned:
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jre ... unity.html
The surveys are being collected by volunteers at events where parents may be especially vulnerable to anti-vaccine messages.
Doesn't exactly sound like the type of paper that would pass muster under peer review. It is probably about as useful and representative as an opinion poll on a Fox News website.

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

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9041

Post by James Caruthers »

Tony Parsehole wrote:
Anathema double-m
• 6 hours ago

I haven't seen anyone denying Dawkins's right to say what he said. The only petition that I've seen has been asking Dawkins to retract what he said in that interview. How does asking someone to retract a harmful statement that they made the same as denying someone the right to express their opinion?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... ents-okay/

Say what you like but retract it when we don't like it.
What exactly would a retraction achieve other than the bullies smelling blood and stepping things up a bit?
So arrogant.
"I support your right to say whatever you want, but you should still apologize for saying something I don't agree with."

The level of doublethink, holy shit.

I follow Dawkins' twitter feed and he's had more than a few quips about how he's being lambasted not so much for what he said, but for words he never said, which the SJW brigade is busily stuffing into his mouth.

Darren
.
.
Posts: 457
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:40 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9042

Post by Darren »

[quote="James Caruthers"]"I support your right to say whatever you want, but you should still apologize for saying something I don't agree with."

The level of doublethink, holy shit.[quote]

"Your rights end where my feelings begin" - Pharyngulac during one of the Pharyngua "podcasts".

Kevin Solway
.
.
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:03 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9043

Post by Kevin Solway »

James Caruthers wrote:I follow Dawkins' twitter feed and he's had more than a few quips about how he's being lambasted not so much for what he said, but for words he never said, which the SJW brigade is busily stuffing into his mouth.
To them, what you "say" is whatever they are able to imagine you to be saying.

For example, if you say "fuck you" then you are making a rape threat.

If you say "hello" then you are saying that you support and encourage rape.

That's the world these folks live in, and is how they use (destroy) language.

I believe "insane" is the correct word to describe their "reality".

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

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9044

Post by Dick Strawkins »

SoylentAtheist wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:I don't quite understand what she means by "peer reviewed" and "published".
I am confused by that too. Are they saying that they picked out & selected people to "peer review" their research for them?

Also, looking at what they had planned:
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/jre ... unity.html
The surveys are being collected by volunteers at events where parents may be especially vulnerable to anti-vaccine messages.
Doesn't exactly sound like the type of paper that would pass muster under peer review. It is probably about as useful and representative as an opinion poll on a Fox News website.
"The research has been delivered to the JREF and peer reviewed. Today, it is essentially ready to be published, and has been for over a year. But right now, Grothe is using a blog post about being bad at jokes as a reason to hold up publishing this work that we were planning on using to save lives."

So it's been ready for publication for "over a year" but is being delayed because of Sasha Pixlee's post about Grothe's bad joke?

When exactly did Sasha Pixlee publish his particular contentious article?

Presumably about a year ago, correct?

No?

The 7th of August? :think: :think:

http://www.scrible.com/contentview/page ... sti=720246

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

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9045

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Kevin Solway wrote:
James Caruthers wrote:I follow Dawkins' twitter feed and he's had more than a few quips about how he's being lambasted not so much for what he said, but for words he never said, which the SJW brigade is busily stuffing into his mouth.
To them, what you "say" is whatever they are able to imagine you to be saying.

For example, if you say "fuck you" then you are making a rape threat.

If you say "hello" then you are saying that you support and encourage rape.

That's the world these folks live in, and is how they use (destroy) language.

I believe "insane" is the correct word to describe their "reality".
I wouldn't really put them at quite that level of insanity as it absolves them from blame for their actions.
I think they know what they are doing and are chosing particular targets on each occasion. They won't fly off the handle at everything but they are constantly on the lookout for things to be offended over.
At the beginning it was people calling them particular names (bitch, cunt, twat) - any mention of those and they practically wet themselves in excitement as they swooned to their couches, pausing only briefly to write a couple of blog posts about the outrage.
Most people who deal with them have cottoned on to this by now and tend to avoid them so as not to give them the slightest excuse to whine in pity. This probably explains the fact that they've had to resort to dredging up things that happened years ago in order to satisfy their need for oppression.

pajh
.
.
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 1:04 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9046

Post by pajh »

Kevin Solway wrote:
James Caruthers wrote:I follow Dawkins' twitter feed and he's had more than a few quips about how he's being lambasted not so much for what he said, but for words he never said, which the SJW brigade is busily stuffing into his mouth.
To them, what you "say" is whatever they are able to imagine you to be saying.

For example, if you say "fuck you" then you are making a rape threat.
Well when there was all that nonsense in the UK a couple of weeks back where some poor lady was getting hundreds of rape threats a day on twitter - it turned out the vast majority were "Nothing wrong with her a good shagging wouldn't sort out". Rape threat? my fucking arse

JackRayner
.
.
Posts: 1166
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 12:27 am
Location: In the basement of the University of Minnesota Morris
Contact:

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9047

Post by JackRayner »

Tony Parsehole wrote:
Anathema double-m
• 6 hours ago

I haven't seen anyone denying Dawkins's right to say what he said. The only petition that I've seen has been asking Dawkins to retract what he said in that interview. How does asking someone to retract a harmful statement that they made the same as denying someone the right to express their opinion?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... ents-okay/

Say what you like but retract it when we don't like it.
What exactly would a retraction achieve other than the bullies smelling blood and stepping things up a bit?
So arrogant.
WHAT?! http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x17/ ... /rofl2.gif

How does that even make sense?! If you're demanding that the motherfucker take back what he said, how is that not denying him the right to express his opinion?!

I think I need a break from this shit. I've been staring at these idiots for so long that it's actually starting to seem as if they're becoming crazier. Is it just me? Is that this even possible?

SoylentAtheist

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9048

Post by SoylentAtheist »

Dick Strawkins wrote:So it's been ready for publication for "over a year" but is being delayed because of Sasha Pixlee's post about Grothe's bad joke?

When exactly did Sasha Pixlee publish his particular contentious article?

Presumably about a year ago, correct?

No?

The 7th of August? :think: :think:

http://www.scrible.com/contentview/page ... sti=720246
I suspect the resulting 'paper' is crap and that is why it is yet to be published.

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

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9049

Post by Dick Strawkins »

JackRayner wrote:
I think I need a break from this shit. I've been staring at these idiots for so long that it's actually starting to seem as if they're becoming crazier. Is it just me? Is that this even possible?

I'm getting the same feeling.
But at the same time I think that something happened in the past month that did make them crazier.
The Shermer libel case has clearly taken a toll on Peezus thinking but it was precipitated by the FTB bunch deciding to use all the ammunition at once.
The ammunition they had turned out to be rumors about the behavior of a small number of well known atheist men.
It was mostly gossip about infidelities at conferences but once they went with that I think they were shocked it didn't topple those men from power.
Now they have nothing left.
They've cut ties to JREF, TAM, CFI, RDF, divorced themselves from skepticism, and alienated many former allies.

Guest

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9050

Post by Guest »

Dick Strawkins wrote:
JackRayner wrote:
I think I need a break from this shit. I've been staring at these idiots for so long that it's actually starting to seem as if they're becoming crazier. Is it just me? Is that this even possible?

I'm getting the same feeling.
But at the same time I think that something happened in the past month that did make them crazier.
The Shermer libel case has clearly taken a toll on Peezus thinking but it was precipitated by the FTB bunch deciding to use all the ammunition at once.
The ammunition they had turned out to be rumors about the behavior of a small number of well known atheist men.
It was mostly gossip about infidelities at conferences but once they went with that I think they were shocked it didn't topple those men from power.
Now they have nothing left.
They've cut ties to JREF, TAM, CFI, RDF, divorced themselves from skepticism, and alienated many former allies.
The SJWs do seem to be losing whatever power they had. And considering the phrase "Check Your Privilege!!" has been the laughingstock of the internet for a while now, that's saying something.

Kevin Solway
.
.
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:03 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9051

Post by Kevin Solway »

JackRayner wrote:demanding that the motherfucker take back what he said, how is that not denying him the right to express his opinion?!
It's like the freedom which the Catholic Church provided for people during the crusades. Either you recant your beliefs, or you are burnt alive at the stake. It's your free choice.

DownThunder
.
.
Posts: 859
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:10 pm

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9052

Post by DownThunder »

OKAY.

Not sure if this has been covered, but something has been bugging me. When Dawkins made his dear muslima comment, one of the earlier issues was that women who had not experienced sexual assault were saying (gynsplaining) that Dawkins could not understand the fear of sexual assault because he was male, even though they had not experienced it and he had. His comments from his book were well known and discussed in that issue. Why has this suddenly reignited?

Is it more of the "pick high profile male, smear with allegations of sexual immorality"?

Søren Lilholt
.
.
Posts: 1025
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:41 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9053

Post by Søren Lilholt »

BillHamp wrote:Regardless of PZ's views on post modernism, he has outed himself and both a sham of a scientist and a failure as a skeptic. He says...
Science has to be answerable to public interest, and the goals of scientists (and atheists!) should include progressive values. We live to make a better world, right? So why should we not respect and appreciate a critical analysis of the social context of what we do?
Sorry, PZ, but that is precisely the point. Science is NOT answerable to public interest. Science is about the truth, not about making people feel good and not about improving the world. It is true, that science is the single greatest force in improving the human condition, but that is not because it attempts to, that is because it seeks to understand and to understand accurately what makes the universe tick.

Sciencd should not include any value except to always be free of bias. End of story asshat.
I’ll also extend the deal and say that we are obligated to pursue a humanist agenda ourselves — that simply accumulating deeper understanding of the universe without consideration of our place in it is ultimately destructive. I’m reminded of my late genetics mentor, George Streisinger, who considered ethical issues as important as the science, and spoke out in the 1980s about what were the important concerns.
Again, no. You are confusing science, which is the pursuit of truth, with a philosophy of moral standards. They are not one in the same and to import subjectivity into science is to destroy it completely. No wonder you at UMM, you're an idiot of the worst kind, prone to follow any philosophy that makes you fell good, regardless of how accurate it is or how ground. Your view is so arrogantly egocentric as to demonstrate exactly why such things out to be ketp well and clear of science.What a fool you are PZ, that is why no one takes you seriously.
Myers used to know all this. The only way he could unknow it, then, is by, literally losing his mind.

PZ has lost his mind.

Søren Lilholt
.
.
Posts: 1025
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:41 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9054

Post by Søren Lilholt »

CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Gefan, thank you for another video. Brilliant...and look, their providing more material all the time. Is their a next movie idea in the works, or am I being greedy?

Too much good analysis from so many to comment on...enjoying it very much. A question or two for those more knowledgeable and astute than myself...Is Peezus really trying to kill science to save it? Post modernism does not seem a good fit for a scientist, but excellent for a demagogue. Is this a conscious decision on his part to separate himself from the pack, as some have suggested, or is he simply trying to quell the cognitive dissonance that arises by his new brand of femi-faith clashing with the scientist? Or is he simply going batshit insane? Or a combination....? If he was facing a criminal trial instead of a civil one, I would guess he was firming up an insanity plea.
I actually do think its that. Part of me is actually worried for the guy.

Compare the PZ of now to 5 years ago and it is a different person. I know not everyone here was a fan, but for me he was a pragmatic, no-nonsense thinker who usually had something interesting to say, whether or not i agreed with it. Now, he is an embarrassment to himself - the disconnect between his present persona and the old one is so great - to such an extent that I can't believe it isn't due to some form of mental illness.

I note that this deterioration seems to have happened (perhaps coincidentally but definitely noticeably) since the heart op. (Can heart meds do that?)

SoylentAtheist

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9055

Post by SoylentAtheist »

Dick Strawkins wrote:Now they have nothing left.
They've cut ties to JREF, TAM, CFI, RDF, divorced themselves from skepticism, and alienated many former allies.
Nope. They still have CFI. They have done near their worst, but Ron Lindsay keeps on coming back for more like the stereotypical abused housewife.

Kick the shit out of him. Tell him that they know deep down inside he is still good if only he tries harder and see things their way. Have a good cry. Have their way. Kick the shit out of him again. Wash. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Protip Lindsay: If the "good" people you are talking too go nuts of the people joining equity feminists or egalitarians, or think anyone who does not want the title feminist is a misogynist or a chill girl, then maybe they don't really fit into the mission of supporting CFI. About the only way I see them fitting into CFI's mission is if you decided you needed to educate them about how not to be such hypocritical sexist prigs.

Badger3k
.
.
Posts: 3466
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9056

Post by Badger3k »

ianfc wrote:Rehabilitated post-modernism I guess http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... ent-689225
218
PZ Myers

10 September 2013 at 9:11 pm (UTC -5)

OK, guys, you really need some help here. For example:

heat albumin to 100 degrees centigrade in a solution of phosphate buffered saline with beta mercaptoethanol at 1 atmosphere, it’s non-covalent bonds will dissociate.

That’s true. That’s a fact. Proteins have measurable, quantifiable properties. There are some wacky postmodernists out there who’ll try to argue with that, but most won’t. Instead, they’ll ask you,

What does it mean? What is the context? What is the purpose of dissociating non-covalent bonds in that molecule? What is the framework of knowledge in which that fits?

Most scientists are comfortable with the distinction between data and information (I think). You’ve plopped out a datum. Fine. Now explain why.

I get this all the time with students. You can give them a recipe to follow out of a lab cookbook, and they can follow it and it works fine, most of the time. When it doesn’t, they’re lost, because they don’t understand the mechanism, the theory, the whole big background of solutes and solvents, dissociation constants, the interactions between salts and pH and temperature, that whole massive edifice of scientific knowledge behind your simple statement that you take completely for granted.

That’s postmodernism. Wake up and notice all your assumptions.

If you’re a good scientist, you’re practicing postmodernism all the time
WTF kind of definition is he using? Oh, wait...nevermind. That's not like any definition or example I've ever heard of. But, when you're trying to save, well, whatever you think you have, I guess you'll grab any lifeline, even one as shitty as pomo. I'm not even sure where to begin...the only assumptions are the ones that PZ has thinking his students understand chemistry. Since when is recognizing what background knowledge you have postmodern - it's like he's trying to rewrite the term and meaning to make himself more palatable for a new audience...maybe that's what he's trying to do - since he's basically burned his bridges with atheists and skeptics, he is going to try to gain cred with the pomo idiots? Are we going to see him blogging for HuffPo next?

Turn in your scientist card, PZ.

Søren Lilholt
.
.
Posts: 1025
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:41 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9057

Post by Søren Lilholt »

FrankGrimes wrote:
CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Gefan, thank you for another video. Brilliant...and look, their providing more material all the time. Is their a next movie idea in the works, or am I being greedy?

Too much good analysis from so many to comment on...enjoying it very much. A question or two for those more knowledgeable and astute than myself...Is Peezus really trying to kill science to save it? Post modernism does not seem a good fit for a scientist, but excellent for a demagogue. Is this a conscious decision on his part to separate himself from the pack, as some have suggested, or is he simply trying to quell the cognitive dissonance that arises by his new brand of femi-faith clashing with the scientist? Or is he simply going batshit insane? Or a combination....? If he was facing a criminal trial instead of a civil one, I would guess he was firming up an insanity plea.
My completely professional opinion, based on solid evidence* is that he's losing the plot. If he threw himself back into science instead of tilting at patriarchy windmills he'd probably have a clearer perspective on things.

* The following tale of alien encounters is true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining lies. And in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is: No.
:lol: :clap: :mrgreen:

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

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9058

Post by AndrewV69 »

In other news, apparently Welsh is a MRA or something (this is news to me too):

http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013 ... mment-8813
278
carnation

September 10, 2013 at 6:40 am (UTC 1)

@. John Welch 270

That’s one of the silliest things that i have ever read.

If your attacker is a man you have a decent chance of being “treated fairly”. Unless The Marquis of Queensbury rules are applied, protagonists in a fight rarely treat each other fairly. You’re also assuming that the fight will be between two people, very often this isn’t the case. I’ve witnessed groups of men attack a single man on a number of occasions.

Your second paragraph is an embarrassing mishmash of half baked infantile myths. Do you understand how police and justice systems work? Do you honestly believe that all a woman has to do is say “he hit me” to have someone jailed and labelled a domestic abuser for life? Do you honestly believe that the press will follow the story in the way that you describe? If you do, I strongly urge you to study jurisprudence and police procedures and to avoid MRA blogs. They are full of similar juvenile, lurid gibberish.
This is what Carnation is responding to (it is #277 not #270):

http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013 ... mment-8809

277
John C. Welch

September 10, 2013 at 2:00 am (UTC 1) Link to this comment

Lucy @274

I’d much rather be attacked by a man. Not out of any machismo, but because I know that an effective defense in an attack, other than running away, (which really is the best defense. Hard to get hit when you’re running like hell) is going to leave the other person somewhat battered and bruised as well as me.

If my attacker is a man, I have a decent chance of being treated fairly, and my attacker will have a very hard time of feigning innocence.

If my attacker is a woman, I’m going to curl up in a ball if i can’t outrun them and hope that I don’t get killed, because if I fight back, all she has to do is say “he hit me” or “he hit me first” and I’m wrong. it may eventually get sorted out, but I’ll do some jail time, and run a high risk that I’ll be labeled a domestic abuser for life. Because that’s what the press will run with and even if they apologize and retract, that retraction will never have the SEO results of the original accusation.

Badger3k
.
.
Posts: 3466
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:53 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9059

Post by Badger3k »

Listening to The Ardent Atheist while driving to work (catching up with a backlog), and show 123 (http://ardentatheist.com/episode-123/) has Marty Klein, and they talk about sex, "rape culture" - quite a few things people here might find interesting. Since I heard of the show through here (well, from Ophie or Watson lambasting Emery), I've subscribed to the premium show. They have some interesting topics (and some really funny shit), but they usually are coming from the kind of view most of us here have. Just wanted to pass that on.

Hunt
.
.
Posts: 3282
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 5:04 am

Re: Bleeding from the Bunghole

#9060

Post by Hunt »

Dick Strawkins wrote:
JackRayner wrote:
I think I need a break from this shit. I've been staring at these idiots for so long that it's actually starting to seem as if they're becoming crazier. Is it just me? Is that this even possible?

I'm getting the same feeling.
But at the same time I think that something happened in the past month that did make them crazier.
The Shermer libel case has clearly taken a toll on Peezus thinking but it was precipitated by the FTB bunch deciding to use all the ammunition at once.
The ammunition they had turned out to be rumors about the behavior of a small number of well known atheist men.
It was mostly gossip about infidelities at conferences but once they went with that I think they were shocked it didn't topple those men from power.
Now they have nothing left.
They've cut ties to JREF, TAM, CFI, RDF, divorced themselves from skepticism, and alienated many former allies.
They blew their wad all at once, and nobody was there to sound the caution. S/he would have been banned anyway. The problem with FtB is they haven't read Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, so in their arrogance, they mistake the very pitfalls that have been known for centuries for some kind of valid "collective revelation." It's kind of like mistaking the wolf for grandma.

Computer glitch at 4th July 2013 Santa Barbara fireworks setting everything off at once:

[youtube]l-ZHaCj0YQY[/youtube]

Locked