151. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #249260 by Brian English on September 17, 2008 at 10:52 pm

That's the kind of scatological non-response I expected from a Novacastrian poof. :)

152. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #249257 by Brian English on September 17, 2008 at 10:43 pm

You're a copraphile Laurie and you know it.

153. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #249255 by Brian English on September 17, 2008 at 10:37 pm

Someone get a bucket. Laurie's done number 2s.

Cleanup to comments 106 & 107, we have a fecal issue!

154. Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican

Comment #249254 by Brian English on September 17, 2008 at 10:36 pm

Speaking in tongues?

Magnus lupus malus huffabat, et puffabat et domum inflabat

The big bad wolf huffed, and puffed and blew in the house. ;)

huffare, puffare obviously being coinages from my latin fairy-tale book.

155. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #249245 by Brian English on September 17, 2008 at 9:05 pm

Hi Goldy, nearly Beer 'O clock for you isn't it?

156. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #249229 by Brian English on September 17, 2008 at 7:05 pm

But of course I'm more than willing to be shown how I'm wrong.

My comment was just a riff on Jesus86's comment. I wasn't upset by his comment

157. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #249216 by Brian English on September 17, 2008 at 6:02 pm

And Brian English applauds this head-in-the-sand refusal to consider the evidence. Do I? Cool. Anyway, if those economists are so scientific and have such good models. Why the problems on Wall Street?

158. Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican

Comment #249212 by Brian English on September 17, 2008 at 5:54 pm

Thanks Carto, I knew -arum was 1st declension plural genitive, that's why I wrote 'of the'
I prefer 'Hammer of the witches' to 'Hammer of witches'. Prove me wrong. ;)

I always think of evil when I see the prefix 'mal'. As in malo, malus

Magnus lupus malus huffabat, et puffabat et domum inflabat.....

159. Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican

Comment #249206 by Brian English on September 17, 2008 at 5:43 pm

Carto, love your work.

Malleus Maleficarum

Hammer of the evil ????

EDIT: According to Wikipedia it's Hammer of the Witches

Cool, new word. so, malefica = witch :)

Annus porca malefica erat et tres porcelli
tenebat...

Primus porcellus virum stramentum portanti videt et ait 'vir, da mihi stramentum ut eadificium meum faceat'....

OK, I forgot it. :D

160. Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican

Comment #249167 by Brian English on September 17, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Succubi is plural so long as succubus is a 2nd declension noun

(singular)
succubus - (a/the) succubus
Succubus te amat - The Succubus loves you

succubi - of (a/the) succubus
Puer succubi me dicit - The succubus' boy talks to me

succubo - to (a/the) succubus
Succubo crustulum do - I give the succubus a cookie

succubum - (a/the) succubus (direct object)
Succubum video - I see the succubus

succubo - (by/with/through) (a/the) succubus
Cum succubo ambulo - I'm walking with a succubus

succube - O succubus
Succube, cur me narras? - O succubus, why are you talking to me?

(plural)
succubi - (the) succubi
Succubi puellis rosas non dant - The succubi don't give the girls roses

succuborum - of (the) succubi
Crustula succuborom non video - I don't see the succubi's cookies (cookies of the succubi)

succubis - to (the) succubi
Crustula succubis do - I give the succubi cookies

succubos - (the) succubi (direct object)
succubis - (by/with/through) (the) succubi
succubi - O succubi

Cartomancer will correct and ridicule the above. :)

I need a life. Night Quetz....

161. Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican

Comment #249164 by Brian English on September 17, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Have my locutions mollified your strict attitude?

162. Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican

Comment #249157 by Brian English on September 17, 2008 at 3:39 pm

You've got the give the medieval folk credit. Jeebus was born of a virgin, inseminated by an angel.

That wasn't good enough for a medieval lass. No. A succubus stole semen from an innocent sleeping lad. The succubus then turned into an incubus who inseminated the innocent sleeping lass and voila, pregnancy.

163. Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican

Comment #249155 by Brian English on September 17, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Incubi et succubi in foro ambulaverunt et narraverunt.

The scrofulous Christian voice thought their words mellifluous and in truth they were to the succubi who awaited them that night. Such is the fate of pillocks.

164. Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican

Comment #249146 by Brian English on September 17, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Pillocks, fine word that Quetz. I shall add that to my Quetzicon
1. Scrofulous
2. Pillocks.
3. (can't remember, there have been so many)

Example: I find the tendentious attitudes of these asinine pillocks scrofulous.

How'd I do?

165. Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican

Comment #249140 by Brian English on September 17, 2008 at 3:23 pm

The apologies keep coming:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/martinbeckford/blog/2008/09/15/richard_dawkins_infected_with_satanic_virus_of_mind_christian_group_claims

166. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #249029 by Brian English on September 17, 2008 at 12:42 pm

After I converted to the Big Bang theory as an undergraduate

All hail the Big Bang theory. It is eternal in its contingency and wrathful in its potency. Fear and worship it until it is superseded by a better explanation of the data....

Nah, I can't see the Big Bang getting many more conversions than Jesus86.

167. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #249022 by Brian English on September 17, 2008 at 12:25 pm

Bonzai. Good comment. Right now, the markets are being propped up by the people who have been shafted by the markets.

168. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #248757 by Brian English on September 16, 2008 at 7:48 pm

Philosopher John Wilkins rips into RD over his letter posted in comment #8

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2008/09/dawkins_on_the_nose_again.php

169. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #248716 by Brian English on September 16, 2008 at 5:16 pm

FTA:

"Even creatures that are repulsive by nature, by logic, and according to Islamic law have become wonderful and are loved by children. Even mice.

Logic is in a bad state if it logically follows that mice are repulsive. Isn't he begging a question somewhere?

170. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #248714 by Brian English on September 16, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Asia is west of America....

Depends on where you start measuring from. If it's from Greenwich then Asia is East and America west. If it's from America then Asia is west. It's all relative and you can make any argument like the above work depending on your premises. Damn quasi-spherical planet!

171. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #248710 by Brian English on September 16, 2008 at 5:04 pm

See ya Goldy. Didn't like my butchering of logic and language?

172. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #248707 by Brian English on September 16, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Goldy, aren't you and your fellow Kiwis oriental in respect to us Ozzies*? Thus Asian if I equivocate a little**, it follows that you can lecture Bonzai on Asia, because I've clearly demonstrated your oriental bona fides***. :)

*Taking Australia as the starting point (Greenwich be damned!) for arguments sake, then NZ is East of Australia. Though it would probably still be East because NZ is West of the international date line, but East of OZ.

**Oriental = Asian

*** NZ = East of Australia = oriental = Asian. It follows that a Kiwi is an oriental, hence Asian.

QED.

173. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #248689 by Brian English on September 16, 2008 at 4:00 pm

Yikes, how utterly un-PC. Things** are oriental, people are Asian!

I guess we'd all better stop talking about South-East Asian countries and worry about those South-East oriental* countries with their Asian inhabitants. (Did I just affirm the consequent or something?)

What is east of south-east (oriental = eastern)?

You're correct of course, people are Asian if from Asia (or is that the continent orientia?) and the Mid-East is middle of east from whose point of view? Damn oriente proximo.

**People aren't things. What an interesting ontology.....;)

174. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #248678 by Brian English on September 16, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Goldy, when are you Bonzai going to get a room? It's either sexual tension*, or oriental tension. Both probably require a room to sort out. :P

/back to work.
*joke!

175. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #248671 by Brian English on September 16, 2008 at 3:34 pm

Oh, that's right. Goldy the cold beer bigot. ;)

176. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #248666 by Brian English on September 16, 2008 at 3:28 pm

Granny beer?

177. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #248663 by Brian English on September 16, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Diacanu:

Brian, hey! Why'd you take your blog down?

A variety of unconsidered reasons. A drunken moment when I was in one of those 'Dare I and who will notice anyway' moments. The alcohol often brings out the devil-may-care in me and I was getting spam comments which pissed me off as well.
Whoops. Still, when it was up I was always wondering what to post and who, if anybody, has left a comment. It was like I had a responsibility. After readings Quetz' attack on DR for taking down his site I think I erred there. I didn't consider those who'd put some thought into commenting and it's gone now. Sorry.

178. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #248662 by Brian English on September 16, 2008 at 3:22 pm

Donald, the comment you quoted was against those who hold that their own thoughts are above reproach more than people who have at least attempted to verify or justify their beliefs. However, I see a lot of people who hold the Bible to be true, or the thoughts of Einstein, or a great philosopher. They read these thoughts and commentaries and find them logical or agreeable. There is nothing wrong with this, we can't learn everything ourselves and have to take most of what we know on authority. But a lot of what we and our authorities take as real or true (logic? maths?) may only be a simulacrum of truth because we didn't need to evolve an understanding or sensory capability for great expanses or minute waves (or whatever there is)*. This is what I was thinking about.

*Whatever ever reality is that is. Not that I don't think that we are approaching reality with science.

179. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #248652 by Brian English on September 16, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Yes, all good. I'm actually getting some work and study done by reducing my time spent arguing the properties of beer with Laurie and the rest of you guys. :)

180. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #248643 by Brian English on September 16, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Morning Quetz, love the avatar.

181. Letter from Sir Richard Roberts asking Reiss to step down

Comment #248641 by Brian English on September 16, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Quine:

Listening to this gives me absolute confidence in common ancestry.

I've been thinking a lot lately about how people just assume that an idea that they have in their head corresponds to reality. From the ontological arguments, intuition, etc, to our belief that the 'truths' of mathematics and logical necessity somehow bind the reality of the universe. Why are we so sure that our evolved traits, such as intuition and logic that serve us well in everyday life, and we can't not use have any relevance at the Quantum or universal level (or whatever levels there are, but we can't know, or don't know yet)?

It seems to me, that people who hold their own thoughts as truth are being incredibly arrogant, because they are saying they understand the universe and know the reality (supernatural or no). We can't see the atoms (or quarks) for the materials, but yet we can just think that God is talking to us, or that the Universe must have had a beginning or not and claim this as truth? Why should it be that we can claim our thoughts as any way indicative or reality when we can't comprehend the structure or scale, or whatever of the minute or gigantic? Religious people are the worst at this of course, but I guess we all do it, but how are we justified in doing it.

/End meaningless pondering. :)

*I don't mean to say that science or maths are useless, on the contrary. I think one should temper one's claim to absolute truth. -This is why I like science so much- For example, there seems to be a bit in maths that has no relation to any reality, like infinitesimals which make calculus work, but which are ruled out by plank time and length.....(scurries away before Bonzai attacks)

182. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #246192 by Brian English on September 11, 2008 at 11:38 pm

Advising me on techical stuff is titillating? I've been out of circulation too long if that's what does it for the younger generation. That it! I'm officially an old bastard.

183. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #246189 by Brian English on September 11, 2008 at 11:34 pm

Oh well can't they fix that with recording equipment? Don't they do that with a lot of these musical embarrasments nowadays?

I think so, but that sort of means I'd have to mime everywhere and I harbour a small desire to gig in pubs in Melbourne. They'd probably beat the shit out of me if I mimed. And it seems like cheating.

184. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #246182 by Brian English on September 11, 2008 at 11:26 pm

TWP, I got singing lessons over about a year. Found out I have a good lower range, but never quite got the strangled sound out of the higher notes. Which, are the 'money' or emotional sounding notes in most rock stuff. If I wanted to sound like Nick Cave, then I'm golden. :D

185. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #246172 by Brian English on September 11, 2008 at 11:11 pm

Thanks Laurie, got myself a strat a few weeks ago, just can't quite get the great sound he manages (I thought he used a flanger, well I read that somewhere, any hints on getting his vocals?). I play like shit, but it's an expletive, so is probably close to fuck.

I tried heaps of chorus algorithms, but unless I made them like an effect, I didn't notice it. Anyway, I'd prefer to have a great voice then do the Kylie if possible. ;)

Sadly, I can't go out and purchase a great voice...

186. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #246166 by Brian English on September 11, 2008 at 10:59 pm

TWP, I gather that something nasty happened to you, hope you're well. :)

Laurie, how goes the recording studio? I tried chorus on that vocal as you suggested a while back. It just made it weird. I am fine putting effects on guitars, but on vocals, I can't seem to improve them at all.....Actually, I find always with vocals, and often with guitars that when I fiddle with effects, they loose their warmth. How do I avoid that? And while you're at it, how do I get a sound like David Gilmour?

Just kidding... ;)

187. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #246149 by Brian English on September 11, 2008 at 10:34 pm

It's good, nearly weekend. Still haven't found a disproof of all gods. :D

188. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #246145 by Brian English on September 11, 2008 at 10:24 pm

Hi Laurie. Good point. We humans still like to form tribes.

189. Comedian Sabina Guzzanti 'insulted Pope' in poofter devils gag

Comment #246083 by Brian English on September 11, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Hi TWP

190. Comedian Sabina Guzzanti 'insulted Pope' in poofter devils gag

Comment #246068 by Brian English on September 11, 2008 at 6:43 pm

Carto, as a historian, can you take a squiz at this article, and maybe the one by Grayling it refers to? I think the article is creating a straw man, but I'm not totally sure in the end. As my comments reflect.

http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2008/09/even_the_good_guys_get_it_wron.php

I took Grayling to be saying that Bellarmine and his ilk were quite happy to coerce people either by action or implied threat and so to propagate ideas that went against the church dogma was quite a dangerous thing to do. The article above seems to be attacking Grayling because Bellarmine, for a period, didn't go after Galileo, and because he died the year before Descartes published something. That seems a strawman, as Grayling was using Bellarmine as an example of the times.

191. 'Big Bang' experiment starts well

Comment #245516 by Brian English on September 11, 2008 at 3:09 am

Philip, I only recently understood procrustean. I understood it had a negative connotation, but didn't know about Procrustes fitting every guest to his bed by stretching them or sawing them to size. Hence, procrustean being distorting a proposition out of shape to fit a preconceived idea. Something religion seems to do with science regularly.

I have so much to learn.

192. 'Big Bang' experiment starts well

Comment #245510 by Brian English on September 11, 2008 at 2:40 am

Word alert:

hebetudinous the state of being dull; lethargy


scrofulous1. pertaining to, resembling, of the nature of, or affected with scrofula.
2. morally tainted.

I thought you guys had just pulled them from your derriere, but no! They are real worlds. I'm an ignorant git. Very impressive guys.

193. 'Big Bang' experiment starts well

Comment #245454 by Brian English on September 10, 2008 at 8:42 pm

Quine:

The press has done a terrible job of stating what it actually is, and this lack of understanding has, unfortunately, helped that press by making the story more emotional to the public. What helps the press, in this case, is a disservice to that very public.

News is by definition abnormal and interesting. The more abnormal, shocking, and thus interesting, the more newsworthy. The press is driven in part by money, to make money, they need to grab peoples attention, so you can see that they'll peddle the most interesting, and thus newsworthy stuff, and have no qualms about sexing it up, as newsworthy is profitable.

That probably didn't make sense...

194. Palin's Church May Have Shaped Controversial Worldview

Comment #245442 by Brian English on September 10, 2008 at 7:13 pm

You'll see three powerful arguments for the existence of God; two scientific and one philosophical. Those arguments will be established without any reference to the Bible.

Scientific argument 1: Cosmological (First Cause) argument.
Scientific argument 2: Fine tuning
Philosophical argument 1: Ontological argument

195. Devolution in Education

Comment #245436 by Brian English on September 10, 2008 at 6:44 pm

Every effect requires an adequate cause and nothing can cause itself.

This old doozy. Based on what evidence do you declare that every effect has a cause? It's a matter of faith on your part, like saying all swans are white because you've not seen a black swan. You've never seen every effect follow a cause (you haven't seen all effects since the first plank time and until whatever becomes of the universe), so you couldn't possibly know this, and to make you look more silly, we observe plenty of effects without a cause. The hubristic smallmindedness of the faithful! I can't imagine/feel something happening a certain way, therefore I declare it impossible! It's bad philosophy, and thus probably good theology, to assume fallible humans can know something concrete about the universe solely because it feels right*. I think I feel a bout of rationalist (Plato, Descartes, et al.) hate coming on...Better disappear and read some Hume again. :D

*Then again a lot of physicists (Einstein/Feymann) have been known to reject theories because they lacked simplicity and symmetry and thus didn't feel (intuitively) right. If that isn't some sort of rationalist bent, then I don't know what is. Argg!!! Must run away.....before the real philosophers and scientists pull me up for my silliness....

196. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #245003 by Brian English on September 10, 2008 at 3:49 am

* Fires de-lurking beam at Brian *

*FARTS lurking gas* (Well it must be lurking gas, because when I fart, it seems I'm left alone lurking)
/lurks smell

197. Response to Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris

Comment #245001 by Brian English on September 10, 2008 at 3:36 am

/delurks

They often neglect the spiritual aspect of religion which if practiced focuses on improving the self.

So, spirituality is focused on improving onself. I've never understood what spirituality entails. It seemed like navel-gazing, Oprah worship and the odd bit of superstition and anti-rationalism. It appears that it is not so far from the mark. The rest of your comment seems reminiscent of the no true Scotsman fallacy, but more of a no true Islam fallacy..??!?!?!
/lurks

198. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241412 by Brian English on September 2, 2008 at 7:44 am

Bonzai:

Well how is that require the scientist to even know the world "ontology"? How does studying Kant or Hegal
going to help?

See Goedel and Einstein for studying Kant. As for Hegel, fuck'd if I know.

Well if there is ever any resolution to such "ontological" questions, it won't be coming from philosophizing, but from someone putting forth a physical theory that can be tested,--I mean having testable consequence in case you want to be pedantic about it,

And then we'll all (the experts) weight up the evidence with the theories and postulate the next theory or test (is that not philosophy?, after all, we've not got a rossetta stone that tells what reality is. So it's all just suposition.)

You can have as many "interpretations" of QM as you want but in the end of the day it means jack shit if you can't experimentally tell the differences. It then all boils down to taste and aesthetics.

Agreed, talk to the physicists who claim their postulations are reality.

See the difference between this an speculations about "ontology" you find in philosophy journals?

Can I see the difference between what we claim are the rules and how we fit our measurements to those claimed rules? You've lost me. You seem to think that philosophy should out science science while not venturing into science.....

199. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241408 by Brian English on September 2, 2008 at 7:33 am

Addendum: Imagine if we thought the whole world was God inspired. Then every measurement would be evidence of God's mysterious ways. Only if a scientist, mathematician or philosopher (which meant all 3 not so long ago) dared to propose another paradigm could we conceive of it being not God's work.

Fuck it. Philosophy is useless. Science justifies itself, as does Maths. Therefore, it's all justified and all just evidence that man thinks he can think the universe. Philosophy wouldn't improve the situation. Sadly, Maths and Science are like vengeful children. They took all from Philosophy and now disparage it. But in the end, the universe doesn't conform to science, maths or philosophy as far as we can tell, and the universe will out.........in a fucked up death for this planet, which shouldn't bother any of us. :)

200. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241402 by Brian English on September 2, 2008 at 7:25 am

Bonzai:

Well maybe you should then tell us what is not philosophy? Sure, when scientists reflect on their subjects they are "philosophizing" in a very broad sense. But I don't think this would require any training in the specialized discipline called "philosophy"

When we stop thinking about what it is? That's ontology. If you're to tell me that a scientist with a PhD in ridiculous (to understand) physics hasn't already thought about what it is that he's studying then I have nothing more to say. That, to my petty mind, is philosophy. The whole arguing over language shite I still don't get, if that's what you call philosophy then the discipline and your understanding are both poor.