Manifesto for a Post-Materialistic Science

[Jorge]

I could be wrong, but that sounds like the textbook example of a troll to me.

Yes and this guy may be a troll or maybe not. That's not the important point here ...

The important point here is to note how specimens like rwatts, rogue06 and many others here whom I shall not name will never miss the opportunity to bring out such people as "examples", essentially insinuating that this is "characteristic of all of us".

Needless to say, that is an extremely unethical practice. It would be as if I used the vilest most vulgar member of their ideological persuasion (and believe me, there are many such vermin) as an example to characterize all of them.

Anyway, just wanted to point that out.

Jorge

[klaus54]

Oh come on, even you can't be that ignorant and stupid!

Hmmm, wait a sec ... let me think about that some more ......................

Jorge

This was in response to:

ou still didn't define Post-Materialism. And it's not obvious to me.

The rest of your post is a diatribe against methodological naturalism/materialism, which is the way scientific method works. It's neutral with respect to the supernatural.

Do you have an alternative to Mn/m that would still be consider "science"?

K54

My response to Jorge's post is:

?

[klaus54]

Yes and this guy may be a troll or maybe not. That's not the important point here ...

The important point here is to note how specimens like rwatts, rogue06 and many others here whom I shall not name will never miss the opportunity to bring out such people as "examples", essentially insinuating that this is "characteristic of all of us".

Needless to say, that is an extremely unethical practice. It would be as if I used the vilest most vulgar member of their ideological persuasion (and believe me, there are many such vermin) as an example to characterize all of them.

Anyway, just wanted to point that out.

Jorge

Don't worry, Jor -- You're a prime example too.

K54

[rogue06]

Yes and this guy may be a troll or maybe not. That's not the important point here ...

The important point here is to note how specimens like rwatts, rogue06 and many others here whom I shall not name will never miss the opportunity to bring out such people as "examples", essentially insinuating that this is "characteristic of all of us".

Needless to say, that is an extremely unethical practice. It would be as if I used the vilest most vulgar member of their ideological persuasion (and believe me, there are many such vermin) as an example to characterize all of them.

Anyway, just wanted to point that out.

Jorge

Oh no. The person mentioned is definitely not typical. He is one-of-a-kind -- although I have run across others similar to him. Still, compared to him you are a font of wisdom and rational discussion.


Of course you realize that is a mighty low bar that was established there

[klaus54]

So, what the heck is Post-Materialism anyhoo?

How can Jorge criticize something he can't define?

K54

[rogue06]

So, what the heck is Post-Materialism anyhoo?

How can Jorge criticize something he can't define?

K54

Definitions have always posed a challenge for Jorge. He once defined Functional Complex Information as "INFORMATION that is complex and functional."

[rwatts]

Oh he's a real beaut. Tries to pass himself as a

• super-scientist (who has "degrees in more fields than any combination of 3 [other scientists] put together")

• surgeon who preforms kidney transplants, neurosurgery, cardiac surgery, spinal/pelvic surgery, plastic surgery (where he performs "mammalplasties"), and perform "aproxiamtely [sic] 400 circumcisions a week at [his] clinic."

• psychologist (who declared "Phrenology has been verified more than 100 times")

• published economist (who once was an adviser to the Finance Minister of Iran)

• CPA

• uber-businessman who started and ran Fortune 500 businesses and at least two banks

• farmer with the biggest organic farm in either Texas or the entire U.S.

• university professor

• geologist (who talked about gall stones forming in caves)

• FORTRAN programmer

• pilot

• trainer of Olympic athletes

And in his spare times he takes the yacht that he owns and captains to races all over the world where he sails "in speeds of over 30 knots/hr on liquid and 40 knots on solid." For the captain of a yacht to say he sails at "speeds of over 30 knots/hr" is like a NASCAR driver saying that he drives at 200 mph/hr. And I'd really like to know what solids he sails his yacht on.

And oh yeah, loves to prance about thumping his chest repeatedly anointing himself "God's favorite saint" and saying things like "if [God] had a fridge, He would have my picture on the door"

Heh. In this particular case however, it was the dancer who did that one (the no blood before the fall). Same woman who told us that if evolutionists understood evolution, they would not believe it. What was so funny about that assertion was the person clearly demonstrates zero understanding of the theory every time she tries to write something about it. So without realising it, the dancer was implying that if we understood her version of the theory we would not believe it.

With the person rogue06 mentions, the dimwit makes these claims as rogue06 says. At times, one thinks he's merely trying to bait us. But then he responds to a certain post in such a manner that one knows he is deadly serious. It's complex. I think he largely trolls because it's about the only weapon he has.

As rogue06 points out elsewhere, he is somewhat protected by the moderators of that forum who largely seem to follow presuppositionalism and so any claim for truth that is not their idea of truth, can be treated in any way they like.

[rwatts]

Yes and this guy may be a troll or maybe not. That's not the important point here ...

The important point here is to note how specimens like rwatts, rogue06 and many others here whom I shall not name will never miss the opportunity to bring out such people as "examples", essentially insinuating that this is "characteristic of all of us".

Needless to say, that is an extremely unethical practice. It would be as if I used the vilest most vulgar member of their ideological persuasion (and believe me, there are many such vermin) as an example to characterize all of them.

Anyway, just wanted to point that out.

Jorge

You characterise yourself Jorge. No need to use a dimwit from another forum to do that.

[rwatts]

Moreover he will never admit to making a mistake and vigorously defend his errors (his attempts to defend the first one is classic).

That last point is important.

One poster has suggested that he reads like a troll. However, the fact that he does these other kinds of things (e.g. defend his nonsense) makes one wonder if he actually does believe the silly stuff he writes.

I wonder if he's a member of some tiny religious sect that's been cut off from the outside world, and for all his life, Nouveau has been fed these silly ideas via the books he reads and the preachers he listens to.

[rwatts]

This was in response to:



My response to Jorge's post is:

?

Jorge always runs away. You make a reasonable claim, pointing out that he has not defined "X", and his response is to:-

1) Not offer a definition or point you to where he has in fact done so, and then

2) to suggest that you are stupid, followed by

3) nothing more.

[rogue06]

Heh. In this particular case however, it was the dancer who did that one (the no blood before the fall). Same woman who told us that if evolutionists understood evolution, they would not believe it. What was so funny about that assertion was the person clearly demonstrates zero understanding of the theory every time she tries to write something about it. So without realising it, the dancer was implying that if we understood her version of the theory we would not believe it.

With the person rogue06 mentions, the dimwit makes these claims as rogue06 says. At times, one thinks he's merely trying to bait us. But then he responds to a certain post in such a manner that one knows he is deadly serious. It's complex. I think he largely trolls because it's about the only weapon he has.

As rogue06 points out elsewhere, he is somewhat protected by the moderators of that forum who largely seem to follow presuppositionalism and so any claim for truth that is not their idea of truth, can be treated in any way they like.

The chief enabler and cheerleader of nouveau.

While certainly nowhere near as bad she's the one who declared that "Science is a trumped up field of study used by atheists to prove God does not exists."

[rwatts]

The chief enabler and cheerleader of nouveau.

While certainly nowhere near as bad she's the one who declared that "Science is a trumped up field of study used by atheists to prove God does not exists."

And remember the "atheist particle", the Higgs boson, how she crowed that atheists had failed to find it? This was right at the time when it was announced that even though it had not yet been detected, there was an interesting spike in the data.

While said person does not tell those terrible yarns like Nouveau does, she certainly says really dopey things, all the while claiming spritual discernment and guidance from God. And boy she makes up for a lack of fibs by out-fulminating Nouveau.

I love it when she gets on one of those frothy, fulminating rolls.

[Jorge]

Definitions have always posed a challenge for Jorge. He once defined Functional Complex Information as "INFORMATION that is complex and functional."

I see that you've joined Roy (it was Roy, wasn't it?) in his drunken, dishonest stupor.

I explained back then what my meaning was but it was conveniently ignored so that he could continue with his misrepresentation and character assassination.

Since that was in the pre-crash TWeb, I'll take a second to explain once again:

Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

The highlighted word had to do with the context of my response at that time - said context has been conveniently omitted by certain critters here. I was merely trying to emphasize the fact that before Functional Complex Information can be defined, one first has to be certain that it is INFORMATION. In other words, often times things are referred to as "information" that aren't actually information. The carrier of information, for example, is not the same as the actual information itself. To say that something is complex and functional is not the critical attribute - that it actually is INFORMATION is the critical attribute.

So, in short, the continuous misrepresentation of these 'lab specimens' in order to further their agenda provides endless evidence of their need to get their moral compass repaired or replaced.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

I see that you've joined Roy (it was Roy, wasn't it?) in his drunken, dishonest stupor.

I explained back then what my meaning was but it was conveniently ignored so that he could continue with his misrepresentation and character assassination.

Since that was in the pre-crash TWeb, I'll take a second to explain once again:

Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

The highlighted word had to do with the context of my response at that time - said context has been conveniently omitted by certain critters here. I was merely trying to emphasize the fact that before Functional Complex Information can be defined, one first has to be certain that it is INFORMATION. In other words, often times things are referred to as "information" that aren't actually information. The carrier of information, for example, is not the same as the actual information itself. To say that something is complex and functional is not the critical attribute - that it actually is INFORMATION is the critical attribute.

So, in short, the continuous misrepresentation of these 'lab specimens' in order to further their agenda provides endless evidence of their need to get their moral compass repaired or replaced.

Jorge

Nobody misrepresents you.

I remember the story of a lady that decided her bathroom scale was broken - it just kept giving her what she knew was the wrong value. So she went and bought a new scale. Sure enough it gave about the same number and she concluded it was broken too. After a few rounds of this she demanded to see the manager so she could give him an earful over her frustration over the quality of the bathroom scales he was selling.

The problem here Jorge is that you are just like that lady. Maybe its time to realize it's not the scale that is broken ...



Jim

[klaus54]

I see that you've joined Roy (it was Roy, wasn't it?) in his drunken, dishonest stupor.

I explained back then what my meaning was but it was conveniently ignored so that he could continue with his misrepresentation and character assassination.

Since that was in the pre-crash TWeb, I'll take a second to explain once again:

Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

The highlighted word had to do with the context of my response at that time - said context has been conveniently omitted by certain critters here. I was merely trying to emphasize the fact that before Functional Complex Information can be defined, one first has to be certain that it is INFORMATION. In other words, often times things are referred to as "information" that aren't actually information. The carrier of information, for example, is not the same as the actual information itself. To say that something is complex and functional is not the critical attribute - that it actually is INFORMATION is the critical attribute.

So, in short, the continuous misrepresentation of these 'lab specimens' in order to further their agenda provides endless evidence of their need to get their moral compass repaired or replaced.

Jorge

??? or

I don't know which applies more aptly.

K54