You are saying you cannot tell the difference between an actual object and an abstract representation of it? Seriously?
Well, I guess that answers the question of whether you or James R is useless and/or demented.
Why James R is a useless moderator
- Thread starter arfa brane
- Start date
- Status
Well, I guess that answers the question of whether you or James R is useless and/or demented.
No. Seriously, if you see someone ask how to tell the difference between a concept and an actual object, do you always assume it must be because they don't know?
It wouldn't be possible that the questioner is being rhetorical, or maybe sarcastic?
That you jump to the conclusion you do suggests a certain level of dogmatic thought. Possible dementia . . .
Of course you can tell the difference between an actual object and a concept (of the object).
Mass is a concept--a number--in James R's theory. That's what it is, a theory.
How do I tell the difference between this concept and my actual weight? Is my weight also a concept?
James has said a field, like the gravitational field of the earth, is a concept. I just can't see how that can possibly be true, or reflect reality.
James says things like that, a lot. Things that just don't seem to say anything. That's why I say he shouldn't be moderating physics, his ideas are just too off the wall.
Mass is a concept--a number--in James R's theory. That's what it is, a theory.
How do I tell the difference between this concept and my actual weight? Is my weight also a concept?
James has said a field, like the gravitational field of the earth, is a concept. I just can't see how that can possibly be true, or reflect reality.
James says things like that, a lot. Things that just don't seem to say anything. That's why I say he shouldn't be moderating physics, his ideas are just too off the wall.
Poe's Law in action, it seems. Your posts are such that it's difficult to ascertain if you are being sarcastic or not, without some obvious clue (suitable emoji etc).
Nope. But when you state you don't know, and then follow it up with examples demonstrating your ignorance, then it's a pretty safe assumption.
Ok then.
I don't know how to tell the difference between a real, physical, actual distance, and a concept of measuring that distance.
How do I fix that? How can I make sure I'm referencing actual physics, and when I'm referencing an idea? How do you do it?
I'm not being sarcastic about what I think of James R as a moderator. He is quite useless. A waste of time discussing or rather trying to discuss, anything with him. For that matter with anyone who's still here for whatever reason they decided to hang around.
What I've been saying is, James R should not be a moderator. Anywhere.
That he is moderating at this site and sees no need to examine his particular philosophy at other sites (where he might find disagreement, like anyone else usually does) says enough about the house of straw he's built.
He's just wrong whenever he says he knows what mass, or charge, or anything else physical is. He doesn't know and nor does anyone else know, what it is. What we have in physics is stuff that does stuff--to other stuff. We don't ask what the stuff is, we ask what the stuff does.
I haven't encountered the argument anywhere else but here, and only from James R, that because you can't "bottle distance" . . . something something. Distance is a concept, apparently, because . . . Nope. I got nothin'
Last edited:
Well, either you really, honestly don't understand (in which case I am very glad we someone a little smarter as moderator) or you are trolling and are simply a waste of time. In either case - good luck!
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
You got fooled
Hmm... looks like I missed all the fun. If nobody minds, I might just take the liberty of posting one post to this thread [Edit: well, two, actually. I hit the character limit.] It is, after all, ostensibly about me.
I say ostensibly, of course, because basically this is just arfa brane letting off more steam, in a rather haphazard, muddled and pointless way. Maybe trying to put other people down makes him feel better about himself. Who knows?
Thank you to all of you who pointed out the numerous flaws in arfa's latest rant. You've all essentially covered what I'm about to say, for the most part. I appreciate your kind words of support, too. Anyhoo...
1. This thread is not about my moderation
The thread title obviously belies its content. There's bugger all here about any actions I have performed as a moderator of this forum. Instead, what this thread actually amounts to - other than a babyish temper tantrum on arfa's part, obviously - is a complaint by arfa that I got something wrong content-wise in a conversation I had with him.
As such, this thread is probably in the wrong forum. There is nothing useful about my performance as a moderator to be found here. Sure, there are lots of repeated assertions that "James R is a useless moderator". But why? What is James R doing wrong? Can arfa point to anything, in terms of moderation? Can arfa explain himself? Or is he just tying two unrelated complaints together in his twisted mind?
2. Insults are not an argument
Clearly, arfa believes that what I wrote about a particular topic is wrong. If, in fact, arfa has the truth of the matter and can demonstrate that I am in error, then the sensible and polite thing for arfa to do would be to explain where my error lies and what the correct take on the matter is. Then we could all have a discussion about it and let the chips fall where they may.
Instead of that, however, all we see from arfa are some insults and empty assertions. "James R is telling you and me a load of bollocks." Well, okay, maybe. Maybe not. What, exactly, is wrong with what James R told you? Why is it wrong? What would be right?
"James R doesn't really understand physics." Okay, maybe. Maybe not. Explain to your readers what it is about physics, exactly, that James R is getting wrong, and why. That's what an educated adult would do. That's what a person with an actual point would do.
3. Argumentative fallacies do not make a valid argument
arfa is very fond of attempting refutation by ridicule. He appears to believe that merely asserting that he finds something to be unbelievable or ridiculous somehow refutes the truth of that thing. But arguments from incredulity are at best emotional appeals; they are not reasons.
Then there are attempts to poison the well: "James is a bad moderator, so he must be wrong about physics" and its converse version "James is wrong about physics, so he must be a bad moderator". arfa needs to realise that each accusation needs to be individually supported. Randomly throwing mud and hoping that some of it might stick is both invalid as argument, not to mention that it makes the mud thrower look like a bit of a dick.
4. Pretending you have an argument to try to prosecute a personal vendetta is a dick move
Enough said.
I say ostensibly, of course, because basically this is just arfa brane letting off more steam, in a rather haphazard, muddled and pointless way. Maybe trying to put other people down makes him feel better about himself. Who knows?
Thank you to all of you who pointed out the numerous flaws in arfa's latest rant. You've all essentially covered what I'm about to say, for the most part. I appreciate your kind words of support, too. Anyhoo...
1. This thread is not about my moderation
The thread title obviously belies its content. There's bugger all here about any actions I have performed as a moderator of this forum. Instead, what this thread actually amounts to - other than a babyish temper tantrum on arfa's part, obviously - is a complaint by arfa that I got something wrong content-wise in a conversation I had with him.
As such, this thread is probably in the wrong forum. There is nothing useful about my performance as a moderator to be found here. Sure, there are lots of repeated assertions that "James R is a useless moderator". But why? What is James R doing wrong? Can arfa point to anything, in terms of moderation? Can arfa explain himself? Or is he just tying two unrelated complaints together in his twisted mind?
2. Insults are not an argument
Clearly, arfa believes that what I wrote about a particular topic is wrong. If, in fact, arfa has the truth of the matter and can demonstrate that I am in error, then the sensible and polite thing for arfa to do would be to explain where my error lies and what the correct take on the matter is. Then we could all have a discussion about it and let the chips fall where they may.
Instead of that, however, all we see from arfa are some insults and empty assertions. "James R is telling you and me a load of bollocks." Well, okay, maybe. Maybe not. What, exactly, is wrong with what James R told you? Why is it wrong? What would be right?
"James R doesn't really understand physics." Okay, maybe. Maybe not. Explain to your readers what it is about physics, exactly, that James R is getting wrong, and why. That's what an educated adult would do. That's what a person with an actual point would do.
3. Argumentative fallacies do not make a valid argument
arfa is very fond of attempting refutation by ridicule. He appears to believe that merely asserting that he finds something to be unbelievable or ridiculous somehow refutes the truth of that thing. But arguments from incredulity are at best emotional appeals; they are not reasons.
Then there are attempts to poison the well: "James is a bad moderator, so he must be wrong about physics" and its converse version "James is wrong about physics, so he must be a bad moderator". arfa needs to realise that each accusation needs to be individually supported. Randomly throwing mud and hoping that some of it might stick is both invalid as argument, not to mention that it makes the mud thrower look like a bit of a dick.
4. Pretending you have an argument to try to prosecute a personal vendetta is a dick move
Enough said.
5. With generalities out of the way, I guess we can spend a minute on arfa's content, limited as it is
My "bottle" rule is just a simple rule of thumb for distinguishing between concepts - thoughts in a person's head, essentially - from things like matter - bricks and cars and M&Ms - those kinds of things. In principle, given a large enough bottle, all of those kinds of "matter" things can be put in ordinary glass or plastic bottles, for instance. But your love for your grandmother can't be put in a bottle like that in the same way.
This is kindergarten stuff. I introduced the "bottle" example after it became clear to me that arfa could not - or would not - comprehend or deal with more complicated descriptions. The teacher adjusts the presentation to try to assist the student's learning. Once the student has the basics, then the teacher can move on to discussing more complicated examples - perhaps even ones that break the previous, simple, "rule of thumb". This is good teaching practice.
I don't know what arfa's issue is. Maybe he has actually lost the capacity to learn new things. Old age, perhaps? That seems less likely than the possibility that he simply doesn't want to consider new ideas, especially ones told to him by somebody he has decided he doesn't like. Or maybe arfa does understand but is unable to bring himself to admit that the hated moderator might be right about something. Something like that seems most likely to me, but the other possibilities are live options.
6. I think I just threw up a bit in my mouth
Having written section 5, above, it seems like I probably could have been doing something more useful, like watching TV or something. Giving arfa the attention he craves seems to me to be an exercise with diminishing returns. Maybe I'll stop - or at least try to cut back on the time I spend on this attention seeker. On the other hand, you know what they say about the road to hell. Oh well.
I've already walked arfa through what Feynman was talking about when he said that. It ought to be obvious that the person who has gotten all shitty here is arfa brane, not me. arfa really doesn't like being corrected, it turns out.
This is an example of an attempted argument by ridicule. Notice how arfa doesn't even attempt to explain what is wrong with the argument that distance must be a concept because you can't bottle it? In fact, as interested readers will have noted in previous threads, arfa has been determinedly dancing away from facing this issue for weeks now, if not months. Having no arguments of his own to make, he can only impotently assert that my arguments are wrong. It's all a bit pathetic, really.
arfa has also refused to define exactly what he means when he refers to "physical objects", despite repeated invitations from me.
My "bottle" rule is just a simple rule of thumb for distinguishing between concepts - thoughts in a person's head, essentially - from things like matter - bricks and cars and M&Ms - those kinds of things. In principle, given a large enough bottle, all of those kinds of "matter" things can be put in ordinary glass or plastic bottles, for instance. But your love for your grandmother can't be put in a bottle like that in the same way.
This is kindergarten stuff. I introduced the "bottle" example after it became clear to me that arfa could not - or would not - comprehend or deal with more complicated descriptions. The teacher adjusts the presentation to try to assist the student's learning. Once the student has the basics, then the teacher can move on to discussing more complicated examples - perhaps even ones that break the previous, simple, "rule of thumb". This is good teaching practice.
I don't know what arfa's issue is. Maybe he has actually lost the capacity to learn new things. Old age, perhaps? That seems less likely than the possibility that he simply doesn't want to consider new ideas, especially ones told to him by somebody he has decided he doesn't like. Or maybe arfa does understand but is unable to bring himself to admit that the hated moderator might be right about something. Something like that seems most likely to me, but the other possibilities are live options.
Notice that arfa has not explained what this "first hurdle" is, exactly, or how my simple analogy fails to clear that hurdle.
It could be that this is just an attempted insult from arfa, which is consistent with the lack of character he habitually displays on this forum. Alternatively, maybe arfa really believes that James R doesn't really understand physics, in which case arfa is just sadly wrong. Either way, in the absence of any attempt to justify his claim, this is just empty, rude, rhetoric on arfa's part. Not to mention demonstrably, factually wrong. arfa should come to appreciate that he is woefully unqualified to judge James R's understanding of physics.
No doubt it is abundantly (and boringly) clear to readers that it is arfa who can't (or won't) get past the bottles.
arfa needs to learn to walk before he tries to run. If we can ever get him to acknowledge simple concepts like putting a stone in a glass bottle, then maybe we can hope to progress him, at some future date, towards developing a capacity to discuss things such as magnetic bottles in a way that might actually be productive. As things stand, however, sadly he is stuck.
I have explained what I mean at some length. I'm confident that many readers other than arfa understood (and agreed with) the explanation. The problem seems to be at arfa's end. It might have been interesting to hear what arfa thinks James R means when he (I) says that "distance can't be bottled". Alas, we'll probably never know. I'm not convinced arfa actually has coherent thoughts on the matter, at this point.
The obvious question that arises, then, is whether the theory is right or wrong. Alas, we have nothing but empty claims on that question from arfa.
Argument from incredulity.
Once again, arfa expresses his opinion. As if we weren't already well aware. If only he could give some reasons...
Interesting. Has arfa been hunting for me elsewhere on the interwebs? Stalker, much? How does arfa know that I'm not actively engaged in conversations on "other sites"? Is arfa All Knowing?
*sigh* Yes, yes, we know arfa can make unsupported assertions until he is blue in the face. What we need is for him to attempt to support them with arguments and/or evidence. (Why is it always this way with cranks and obsessives?)
6. I think I just threw up a bit in my mouth
Having written section 5, above, it seems like I probably could have been doing something more useful, like watching TV or something. Giving arfa the attention he craves seems to me to be an exercise with diminishing returns. Maybe I'll stop - or at least try to cut back on the time I spend on this attention seeker. On the other hand, you know what they say about the road to hell. Oh well.
Last edited:
Mod Hat — Because that was helpful
Look, James, there is a lot I didn't say about your having issued an infraction along the way, but the reasons why you shouldn't have are as plain as the reasons why you did, and while you certainly could have asked someone else to take care of it, the reasons why, for instance, I didn't, are the sort of thing known to confuse you. Left simply at that, I'm not going to criticize the flag.
But when you go on to deliberately ignore the role of your behavior as an administrator in the question of why someone is angry with you, the sleight stands out, and you erode your own foundation, diminishing the righteousness of the rest of performative response.
Putting that much effort into throwing up a bit in your mouth suggests you might be gagging yourself.
Anyway, I should have moved this to the Cesspool when I closed it.
Look, James, there is a lot I didn't say about your having issued an infraction along the way, but the reasons why you shouldn't have are as plain as the reasons why you did, and while you certainly could have asked someone else to take care of it, the reasons why, for instance, I didn't, are the sort of thing known to confuse you. Left simply at that, I'm not going to criticize the flag.
But when you go on to deliberately ignore the role of your behavior as an administrator in the question of why someone is angry with you, the sleight stands out, and you erode your own foundation, diminishing the righteousness of the rest of performative response.
Putting that much effort into throwing up a bit in your mouth suggests you might be gagging yourself.
Anyway, I should have moved this to the Cesspool when I closed it.
- Status