Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
See what the lack of a WYSIWYG editor does to perfectly nice posts that aren’t gone over with the proverbial fine-toothed comb before clicking the button?
#31, And here I was about to suggest I well written post. That is until I got to the last paragraph. I should point out that – You are good at reading shit into things that isn’t actually there, which goes a long way toward explaining why your abilitiy to use logic reasoning is so severely impaired. .
You did make a good attempt to show Brian how stupid his argument is. But next time, try not to look so stupid yourself. It is demeaning.
Lauren,
Hopefully there will be something of substance when you get back from your errands. I’ve added this thread to my RSS reader in eager anticipation.
#33 – Fusebox
Let’s talk a minute about looking stoopid, shall we? 🙂
“…until I got to the last paragraph.” Uh, I don’t know how to break this to you, but that wasn’t anywhere near the last paragraph – it was the third…
And the entire point of my followup post was an implicit acknowledgement of the typos (guess you missed the other in that para) – and of leaving that last para at the end, which went unnoticed when I hit the “Say It!” button, having pushed it down earlier to where it wasn’t visible in the tiny piece o’ shit editing box… so I added the word ‘reasoning’ and forgot to go back and change “logic” to the adjectival form. Big whoop.
But enough of that.
Brian!!
In the interim, I happened serendipitously upon a perfect example of the kind of arrogant stupidity you display here. It appears that you’re in good company, since Scott Adams has made it a point on his blog to publicly declare himself one of your intellectually-impaired brethren.
I ran across this on a science blog I frequent, and I stumbled right into this perfecly wonderful post, which directly addresses the egotistical stupidity that ignorant laymen like you and Mr. A are so prone to and enamored of.
In the comments, MarkP analyzes Scott Adams (and his ilk, such as you):
[snip]
…believing that one can get knowledge, merely sitting around and thinking about things, that can rival science. It’s really a common bad intellectual habit of smart people, probably formed in our formative years where neither we nor our peers had had enough time on earth to accumulate knowledge, so intellect was king in all things. However, after 30+ years of existence, even the smartest person in the world can be in completely over his head when entering a field he has studied little.
People like Adams implicitly reject this reality. Never mind that people with genius IQs have been working in critical concert collecting data and performing falsifiable experiments (ie science) for decades on these problems. I, Joe Blow, with my complete lack of academic accomplishment in this arena, and my minutes of direct experience with it, merely musing over the issues, don’t see how they reach the conclusions they do, therefore they are flawed.
Arrogance is too mild a term.
It’s become a source of endless amusement for me to read the ludicrous misconceptions of scientifically clueless bozos like you, who are actually sufficiently blinded by their ego trips enough to believe that “All those tens of thousands of professional researchers, whose time spent on this is an accumulation of millions of years of expert experience and knowledge – because I, with no study, in my spare time, delude myself into fantasizing that I’ve actually realized something they’ve all completely failed to notice, I must be right, and they’re all idiots! Whee! I’m such a genius!”
Maybe NASA’ll rent you the VAB so you’ll have a place to store your ego when you’re not using it to set the bumbling, ignorant world of science straight. It comes with a lifetime supply of diapers for those times when you can’t control your ‘eager anticipation.’
How did science ever survive without your unique, timeless insights? 🙂
It’s the year 2007 and the operator of a tech-related blog – a computer industry columnist and insider, fer Gawdsake – chooses WordPress, a crude, buggy piece of user-hostile shit that lacks even a frigging WYSIWYG editor!
Crikey!®
It’s a bitch, but I guess I’ll start writing my replies with BBedit and paste the finished product in here. It’s a pisser to spend that much time, only to see it irrevocably turned to shit because of a missing character. There’s no excuse for stone-age software on these tubes…
Y’listening, John C?
Brian,
I would suggest going to TalkOrigins.org and reading up more on what evolution means in a scientific sense. All of the arguments you (and Scott Adams) make against evolution are explained on that site.
The biggest area of confusion is in the term “evolution”. That species evolve is a fact just like objects fall to the earth and sun comes up every day. They are observable phenomena to which there is no scientific debate and thus are considered facts. How evolution happened (how fast, how did it start etc. ) is the only area of debate amongst scientists.
Thomas
Get off of the internet (and especially this blog) this instant! You are far to decent and level headed to hang out here.
Sarcasm aside, you are a breath of fresh air. Someone who doesn’t like my argument, but responds with both civility AND a relevant link. I’m speechless. I can’t wait to check it out.
All I have ever said about evolution, btw, is that there are significant holes in the story as it was taught in school. It was taught as fact, and it’s open to debate. I think that is irresponsible.
What I said about intelligent design is only that I see instances of designing of lifeforms in science today, so while I don’t subscribe to that school of thought, it seems awfully close minded to be condescendingly dismissive of the idea. I mean, using the standard of observable and reproducible, it is the theory with the most legs.
Now, if you haven’t guessed by now, I’m not a strict “6000 years” creationist either. I have a hybrid theory of how it makes sense to me, but despite what others claim, I understand the issue is much larger than I, and I hardly believe I above all humanity have figured it out. That is why my personal cosmology is very fluid and I seek out debate on the subject.
I’ve listened to brilliant men from all 3 schools of thought. I feel the best course of action is to challenge all the arguments, and see what survives the refining fire. Is that really so bad?
Anyway, we could all learn a lesson from Thomas on how to handle our disagreements. Thanks.