(split) Atheism and acceptance of science

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by S.A.M., Jul 10, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Ah, yet another poor unsuspecting member getting dragged down the Sam rathole. Good luck.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    In that case I'm just going to tell you to stop pretending to understand things that you have no serious interest in.

    Which is what I should have done in the first place. It was only my mistaken presumption that you should know better that led to any interest in your behavior. What some Koran-thumping nutritionist thinks about metabiology is not interesting.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Okay, then I hope you'll abstain from jumping in again. Ta.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    What I'll abstain from is respect for your thoughts on the subject. It will probably still be necessary to jump in in order to frustrate your bonehead evangelism.
     
  8. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Got it. Always good to know motivations and such.
     
  9. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Indeed. If more people here knew yours, you'd be a lot less of a nuisance.
     
  10. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    I'd be better off actually, right now it seems I have to sift through posts of people who are more interested in things other than discussing concepts. Like what they imagine they know about me for instance.
     
  11. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Indeed: then you'd be ignored and go away. Better for everyone.

    The persistent dysfunction in your ability to "discuss concepts" raises those sorts of questions, after a while.

    It isn't hard to find places to have serious, legitimate discussions on these topics, if that's what you're actually interested in.
     
  12. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Yes I notice the persistence with which my "Koran-thumping" theism is an issue in discussions here.
     
  13. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Obviously. But do you recognize its impact on your behavior, and how this causes issues in "discussion?"

    I can't see any reason for your deliberate misues of the Selfish Gene interpretation, besides your visceral dislike of the (a/ir)religion of certain of its noteable proponents.

    To put it another way: if Richard Dawkins repudiated the Selfish Gene theory tomorrow, would you still care about it? Alternatively, what if Richard Dawkins renounced atheism?
     
  14. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    On my behaviour? lol, I don't blame you for jumping to that conclusion, it seems to be the favoured method of exercise here.

    In the past week, I have been mocked about my theism and scientific credentials by the following atheists:

    1. who thinks there are upstream signals above the brain and then admitted the streams analogy is limited. I wasn't using an analogy, I was using molbio terminology.
    2. who thinks upstream/downstream is a boating analogy
    3. who has no clue about the scientific method and boasts that he is a scientist because science is his hobby.
    4. who has no clue about what nutrition is and how vast and compartmentalised the study of molecular biology is
    5. who thinks didactic metaphors that do not translate to theoretical predictions are an example of good philosophy/science.
    6. who does not recognise the term "across the genome" when applied to behaviour and genes.

    and so on and so forth. The sad part is, they actually believe their ignorance is a point of view.

    As for Dawkins and the Selfish gene, if he abandoned atheism or science tomorrow, his book would still be a poor model for the process of evolution. But he would no longer be relevant to this thread.
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2009
  15. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Sure. You exhibit almost no activity here not directly motivated by such concerns. Plenty of other religious people have no problems at all discussing these same issues, with people from the various backgrounds. So it seems clear that the effect is on your part, not everyone else's.

    Do you imagine that all signals originate in the brain? Or have you simply failed to understand even the basics of this analogy?

    It is a boating analogy. Specifically, a river boating analogy, but still a boating analogy. Hence the metaphor of a "stream."

    Not something I'll take your word for.

    Another illustration of your failure to grasp the concepts you throw around. All metascience, by definition, does not translate into predictions. Otherwise, it would be just plain "science." Good or bad, here, are determined by how useful the metaphors are in conveying understanding. And while you, as usual, pose a salient example of just how badly a determined bonehead can misconstrue even the best metaphor, this doesn't have much bearing on anything.

    Any idiot can find something wrong with anything: that's what makes them idiots.

    A side-effect of your persistent misuse of words and concepts is that one never knows what you might mean when you employ them, and so must constantly request clarification.

    So you imagine that these posters lack a point of view? They are, what... ? Unconscious?

    Why would anyone put any stake in your appraisal of a model you willfully misunderstand, for a process you display no grasp of?

    Your opinion doesn't carry any weight, since you lack the integrity to approach the issue in good faith.
     
  16. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Are you kidding me? I was told to look out for myself by the admin and mods when I complained about being trolled by atheists. So that is what I do. This is btw, a thread on atheism and science and I am very much arguing my point here.

    No, but there is no evidence that reflexes are upstream of the brain.

    It has a specific meaning when used in signal transduction, maybe its a boating analogy to you, but to the person concerned that is all it was.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I agree, and with people like Dawkins, there has been unlimited confusion among the public so that if one were to now mention, say, replicators vs interactors, they would have no ability to grasp the differences. How has Dawkins advanced the knowlege or understanding of evolution? Most young students I meet have flipped his meme-gene comparison around and make simple mistakes in comprehension because they apply memetics to genetics.

    A metaphor is supposed to supply at the very least an analogy that corresponds to a model. Its not supposed to make up some other third model that is irrelevant when trying to understand the real thing

    Thats the most pathetic attempt at revovery I have ever seen

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Seems like it. Or probably arrogantly assuming that being an atheist confers them with scientific knowledge.

    I'm a molecular biologist, I see mechanisms, you can do the metascience.

    who gives a shit? I'm only interested in exploring ideas, a bunch of atheists who think their lack of belief [sic] makes them smart are not my idea of references.
     
  17. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Probably the best approach would be for you to stop trolling the atheists, then. If it's a problem for you. In my estimation, you appear to enjoy it, and it seems rank among your primary motivations for participating here. Trolling the Americans and the Jews being the other big ones.

    I'd note that I've never cried to the mods over your trolling. Your persecution complex is equal parts pathetic and worrisome.

    And failing very badly at it. Which is not surprising, since your point is a product of emotional reaction, and so your arguments are without substance or even coherence. How can you make an argument when you can't even keep terms straight?

    This is more great evidence that you have failed to grasp the analogy about streams.

    Reflexes can occur before the signals in question ever reach the brain, yes?

    It's the same meaning as in all signal processing (which happens to be my area of expertise): a boating analogy. The signals are thought of as little "boats" which float down a unidirectional "stream."

    This is a poor analogy when the process in question is not unidirectional, for example.

    And I place zero weight on your assertions of what other people understand concepts to mean. You can't even keep your own meanings straight.

    He's written several very good books on the subject, for one.

    But the question was the value of the gene-centered view of evolution, not the career of Richard Dawkins. The two aren't interchangeable.

    Doesn't match my experience and, again, I have no confidence that you understand these concepts in the first place, let alone can reliably assess their impact on students, let alone would relate that honestly here. Unless you start to display some integrity, your view on this carries no weight with anybody.

    Another salient demonstration of your failure to grasp the concepts you are employing.

    You behave this way, and then act surprised that the result isn't some polite "discussion of concepts?" It doesn't take a psychic to see that you're here to play power games. Why else would you focus so much on unsettling others, and insisting your own composure is unaffected?

    It seems like the people writing responses to you are unconscious? How is it that they type, then?

    I haven't seen any evidence of that. Typically it works the other way around.

    I have seen evidence that your intolerance of atheists confers you with an inability to grasp certain scientific knowledge.

    If you aren't interested in metascience, why do you post so frequently on the topic? You've done little besides offer (poor) critiques of a particular piece of metabiology in your last umpteen posts in this thread.

    And what self-respecting molecular biologist would exhibit the attitudes and behavior you do? Not one whose career depended on actually understanding this stuff.

    People who are interested in others putting weight on their opinions.

    The atheists you need to worry about are the ones who think their superior grasps of the concepts in question make them smart (likewise, the similar theists). They're the ones who can help you explore ideas, if you ever get around to actually wanting to do that (rather than just citing it as some kind of cover for your unbeliever-baiting).
     
  18. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Since most of your post was just flame-baiting, I'll address the one conceptual point you made:

    Even then, the brain uses the spinal network to enhance or add to the reflex action, it is still upstream of the reflexes, just slower.

    As for the rest, when people can stop alluding to my religion and focus on the discussion at hand, I'll reciprocate.

    As it is I ignore a lot more trolling than I respond to.
     
  19. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Now THERE is a subject where I do trust your acumen.

    But I reject the implication that you are forgoing response on those grounds. It's certainly never stopped you in the past.

    The obvious implication is that you do not feel you are winning this particular flame-war, and so searching for a pretense to retreat.

    Simple non-responsiveness is probably a better option, when it comes to saving face.

    That is more a demonstration of the inapplicability of the boating metaphor to the human nervous system (as has already been repeatedly pointed out to you), than a demonstration that the stream flows as you contend.

    It's impossible, given the way your religion permeates most everything you say here. If you can keep your religion out of the discussion, then nobody will have any reason to mention it. But that would be incompatible with a program of trolling atheists and Jews, so I'm not holding my breath.

    And I note the persistent reactionary ideation in your self-narrative. Nefarious outside entities are constantly forcing you to behave badly, and you can't ever do anything to avoid or improve this situation, lest they "win." Instead, it is somehow righteous for you to out-do their wrongs as some kind of object lesson.

    It's all a transparently flimsy pretext to pump up your self-righteousness for purposes of endless trolling and flamewar. You get off on righteous indignation, and have constructed a narrative to facilitate your constant pursuit of it. Every message board kook in history has seen himself in exactly the same terms.

    And it's always equally ludicrous: the OP of this thread is yet another in the endless sequence of atheist trollings you post here, and you're trying to skate on some "the evil infidels started it!" excuse. That's some childish bullshit.

    Stop your own persistent trolling, and I might even give you some credit for that.
     
  20. noodler Banned Banned

    Messages:
    751
    Have any of the selfish gene-oriented atheist biochemists here, studied computational models of genetic "lifeforms" (the game of Life, for instance); genetic algorithms, Markov and statistical chains...?

    What would their opinions be of such research? Is there a mechanical analogy (well, biochemistry certainly is the study of the mechanics of all those cycles and feedback mechanisms, the ones we understand at least).

    Or can we set computer programs aside as another failed metaphor? Is it interesting that "we" lifeforms indulge in this activity, useful or otherwise, in which case, why do we?
     
  21. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Again mostly focusing on personalities rather than discussion:

    So:

    The reflexes do not travel to the brain. Whether we are discussing the knee jerk, the involuntary movement or reflex arc or indeed even the autnomous reflexes like those of digestion or blood pressure, the stimulus to the spinal cord or from local neural complexes in the gastrointestinal tract does not go on to the brain. The brain receives the stimulus for which the spinal cord may function as a medium, true, but the reflexes themselves do not go on to the brain. The brain does utilise the reflex network but the reflexes do not utilise the brain.
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    I seem to remember reading something the other day about this.

    I may be wrong, but I think that in the United States a "dietician" requires qualifications, but anybody can call themselves a "nutritionist" without having any qualifications in the science of nutrition or anything like that.

    Given SAM's apparent difficulties in understanding the scientific method, I'd say it's safe to assume that SAM is one of the unqualified "nutritionists" rather than a "dietician".
     
  23. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Thanks for that informed clarification. You're quite right, the title dietitian requires accreditation, the title nutritionist like the title scientist can be adopted by anyone.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page