Water Dog wrote:RI, the more you try to hijack my argument against you, the more you prove yourself to be the TBML I suspect you to be.
Dog, you seem to be under the false impression that I give a flying “F” what you think of me. I'm very happy to compare my record of posting to yours. Well, my complete record to your partially erased one.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Res Ipsa wrote:Dog, you seem to be under the false impression that I give a flying “F” what you think of me. I'm very happy to compare my record of posting to yours. Well, my complete record to your partially erased one.
Res Ipsa wrote:Dog, you seem to be under the false impression that I give a flying ____ what you think of me. I'm very happy to compare my record of posting to yours. Well, my complete record to your partially erased one.
The attention you pay me says something else :)
Yep, it says I'm allergic to anti-science BS. You just happen to be the primary source lately.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Res Ipsa wrote:It's not hard to understand what's going on with the Dog. He was once a true believing apologist defender of all things Mormon. If you look at the form that amateur apologetic arguments take, it looks very much like the form that science denier arguments take. Critics of the church argue from the totality of the evidence. Apologists shy away from the totality of the evidence, using excuses like "oh, that's anti-mormon literature" to avoid even considering it. Apologists use the "Explain this" form of argument:
If the church is false, then explain this:
Parallels Chiasmus Witness testimony Smith was an uneducated dummy Early Modern English Lion Couch
And on and on.
Water Dog rejected Mormonism, but he hasn't rejected the apologetics he relied on in the past. Rejecting Mormonism doesn't come with a free brain transplant. They don't automatically change from unreasonable people to reasonable people. And they don't automatically abandon apologetic arguments for realism based on evaluating the totality of the evidence.
Water Dog is still an apologist. He's just switched from Mormonism to climate science denial. Over and over again, he posts little snippets of information as if they contradict the science itself. Explain this graph. Explain this quote. Explain what this blogger says. At the same time, he refuses to even learn the basics of what the science actually says. That refusal is obvious, because he says things and make claims that no one familiar with even the basics of climate science would ask.
And I think, under his bravado and bluster, he senses that because he massively projects what he's actually doing onto others. No one has made the claim that journals are "holy." But his refusal to even learn what the science says and why it says it is akin to treating Lindzen and the handful of others he relies on as infallible prophets.
People who have confidence in science (not individual scientists) as the most reliable method for finding out how the world works understand that what the science says is found in the published literature -- not in some guys blog or some guy's thesis or random graphs copied from the internet. Dog is attempting to denigrate the science by attacking the concept of literature in general. That's what makes him anti-science. If science won't give him the answers he wants, then the science has to go.
Hit the nail on the head. The dude has one mode...ignorantly defending whichever team he has aligned himself with. "apologist" is putting it kindly - blind defender or devout groupie who ties his own self worth to whether or not his team wins seems more applicable.
"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents "I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs
Water Dog wrote:For Thomas, who doesn't Doubt enough.
Scientists never lie. Holy Journals never publish total ____.
Of course scientists lie. They're human beings. Scientific journals will occasionally publish faulty studies. The scientific process does not pretend to be perfect, which is why it is self correcting.
Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital have recommended that 31 papers from a former lab director be retracted from medical journals.
Do you have a problem with bad studies being removed from medical journals after discovering they are bad? The scientific process isn't about having complete faith in the scientists. You seem to trust only the scientists that support your position, rather than in the scientific process in general. That's apologetics, not science.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
Res Ipsa wrote:It's not hard to understand what's going on with the Dog. He was once a true believing apologist defender of all things Mormon. If you look at the form that amateur apologetic arguments take, it looks very much like the form that science denier arguments take. Critics of the church argue from the totality of the evidence. Apologists shy away from the totality of the evidence, using excuses like "oh, that's anti-mormon literature" to avoid even considering it. Apologists use the "Explain this" form of argument:
If the church is false, then explain this:
Parallels Chiasmus Witness testimony Smith was an uneducated dummy Early Modern English Lion Couch
And on and on.
Water Dog rejected Mormonism, but he hasn't rejected the apologetics he relied on in the past. Rejecting Mormonism doesn't come with a free brain transplant. They don't automatically change from unreasonable people to reasonable people. And they don't automatically abandon apologetic arguments for realism based on evaluating the totality of the evidence.
Water Dog is still an apologist. He's just switched from Mormonism to climate science denial. Over and over again, he posts little snippets of information as if they contradict the science itself. Explain this graph. Explain this quote. Explain what this blogger says. At the same time, he refuses to even learn the basics of what the science actually says. That refusal is obvious, because he says things and make claims that no one familiar with even the basics of climate science would ask.
And I think, under his bravado and bluster, he senses that because he massively projects what he's actually doing onto others. No one has made the claim that journals are "holy." But his refusal to even learn what the science says and why it says it is akin to treating Lindzen and the handful of others he relies on as infallible prophets.
People who have confidence in science (not individual scientists) as the most reliable method for finding out how the world works understand that what the science says is found in the published literature -- not in some guys blog or some guy's thesis or random graphs copied from the internet. Dog is attempting to denigrate the science by attacking the concept of literature in general. That's what makes him anti-science. If science won't give him the answers he wants, then the science has to go.
Hit the nail on the head. The dude has one mode...ignorantly defending whichever team he has aligned himself with. "apologist" is putting it kindly - blind defender or devout groupie who ties his own self worth to whether or not his team wins seems more applicable.
Res Ipsa repeatedly beats Water Dog down, and he keeps coming back for more. I actually felt kinda bad for the dog when he admitted defeat in the other thread. But he's back for more.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
Water Dog wrote:For Thomas, who doesn't Doubt enough.
Scientists never lie. Holy Journals never publish total ____.
We have to read the papers and analyze them for ourselves to make a conclusion. Of course scientific research is not perfect, but it is much better than your stupid WUWT website. Bad papers are mostly in social science and medicine. You rarely get bad papers in well-known physics and chemistry journals.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Oct 30, 2018 2:44 pm, edited 3 times in total.
DarkHelmet wrote:Of course scientists lie. They're human beings. Scientific journals will occasionally publish faulty studies. The scientific process does not pretend to be perfect, which is why it is self correcting. .
Exactly! and stupid denier websites are not self correcting.
Who said they never lie? Did your science denying prophets tell you this or did you know what you wrote was a lie?
Holy Journals never publish total BS.
Last time I checked religions didn't have a self correcting mechanism to remove BS from their holy writings. I'm glad you are showing one of the great mechanisms of science to monitor itself and make changes to incorrect and even made up BS when they find it.
Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital have recommended that 31 papers from a former lab director be retracted from medical journals.
If the point is that Harvard is no better than Gab, please show me where Gab has ever asked that 31 outright fake quotes or images from their site be removed.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.