Dilbert’s creator, Scott Adams, gives lessons in being a troll for science

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 29, 2019

Culture, Darwinism, Humor, Intelligent Design, Just For Fun, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Last fall, Dilbert creator Scott Adams held his first online “Troll College.” Sitting in front of a wonky whiteboard, the satirist extraordinaire and sarcastic poker-of-fun at all things pompous, taught seven rules for would-be internet trolls. One capitalized on the straw man fallacy, which involves misstating your target’s argument, then criticizing the misstatement. Others focused on rhetorical strategy: always issue a “halfpinion,” for example, which reduces a complex issue to one variable, rather than a real opinion, which would require taking all factors into account.
“You should also pretend,” Adams said, moving on to rule number five, “that you as a troll [do] something called ‘understanding science.’ . . . Just make the assumption that you know more about science than other people.” And like a good teacher, he modeled how it should be done. “Ah huh huh huh,” he guffawed, demonstrating the condescending, arrogant, mocking tone you should assume. “You don’t know anything about science, ah ha ha. . . .” A troll should never give reasons for what he “understands.” What matters is the attitude.
Terrell Clemmons, “When Darwin’s Foundations Are Crumbling, What Will the Faithful Do?” at Salvo

They seem to have followed the script, Clemmons reports, with Michael Behe’s Darwin Devolves.

You can sit on the observation deck here.

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

See also: Dilbert’s Scott Adams And The Reproductively Effective Delusion Evolutionary Thesis

and

Schrodinger’s cat applies for a job

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

I did some reviewing of key sections about evolution in a copy of Biology by Campbell, which is a college textbook. I saw nothing that spoke to materialism, FWIW.hazel_{June 29, 2019
June
06
Jun
29
29
2019
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

Hazel, states that I have "a very strong sense that they (ID proponents) are right and the mainstream is wrong". Other than the fact that it is not any ethereal sense that I may have but is a concrete scientific fact that is established, she is correct in her assessment that I have "a very strong "sense" that they (ID proponents) are right and the mainstream is wrong". I'm sure the same can be said for the vast majority of ID proponents who have carefully examined the scientific evidence. In fact, the very article in the OP itself recounts Dr. Behe's careful examination of the scientific evidence over the last several decades. Being sure of what the scientific evidence is actually saying is a far cry from the trollish attitude of typical atheists on the internet that Scott Adams alludes to in the video. In fact, Dr. Behe is shining example of dispassionately following the scientific evidence where it leads. Something that Darwinists would do very well to emulate instead of viciously attacking him personally as they have repeatedly done. (All without vindictive retaliation from Dr. Behe I might add) Hazel, after falsely trying to tar me as being as bad as atheistic trolls are notorious for being, goes on to ask, "what difference does it make if God is excluded from scientific explanations?" Well, it makes a tremendous difference. A difference that results in catastrophic epistemological failure for the (methodological) naturalist. To repeat,
In fact, (as I have pointed out several times now), assuming Naturalism instead of Theism as the worldview on which all of science is based leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Bottom line, nothing is real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, – Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – 39:45 minute mark https://youtu.be/8rzw0JkuKuQ?t=2387
Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
On top of all that, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on intelligent design and is certainly not based on methodological naturalism as is presupposed by Darwinists. From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science, i.e. that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality, to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results, from top to bottom science itself is certainly not ‘natural’. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever just found laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analysed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place. Moreover, by any reasonable measure that one may wish to judge whether a theory is scientific, Darwinian evolution fails to qualify as a scientific theory:
“There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.” – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17 Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw
Whether or not a scientific theory is potentially falsifiable is considered the gold standard by which to judge whether a theory is scientific. As Popper himself stated,
“In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.” Karl Popper – The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge (2014 edition), Routledge
In regards to that standard, it is not that Darwinism is not falsifiable, it is that Darwinists simply to refuse to accept the fact that their theory has been falsified by numerous lines of evidence. In the minds of Darwinists, empirical evidence is simply never allowed to falsify Darwinian evolution as a scientific theory. Here are a few falsifications of Darwin’s theory that Darwinists simply refuse to accept as falsifications of their theory:
Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are found to be ‘directed’. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within that group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as the modern versions of it.” Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.”. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics exists in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order to be considered scientific in the first place! Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! Darwinist’s, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.
In short, Darwinian evolution, since its practitioners refuse to accept falsification of their theory, is much more realistically classified as a unfalsifiable pseudoscientific religion for atheists. Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.
And whereas Darwinists simply refuse to accept any empirical falsification of their theory, on the hand Intelligent Design is easily falsifiable. Just demonstrate that Darwinian and/or material processes can generate information. In fact there is a up to a 10 million dollar prize being offered for the first person who is able to meet that falsification criteria:
What is the Secret of Life? Solve the #1 Question in all of Science Excerpt: Natural Code LLC is a Private Equity Investment group formed to identify a naturally occurring code. Our mission is to discover, develop and commercialize core principles of nature which give rise to information, consciousness and intelligence. Natural Code LLC will pay the researcher $100,000 for the initial discovery of such a code. If the newly discovered process is defensibly patentable, we will secure the patent(s). Once patents are granted, we will pay the full prize amount to the discoverer in exchange for the rights. Our investment group will locate or develop commercial applications for the technology. The discoverer will retain a percentage of ongoing ownership of the technology, sharing in future profits of the company, while benefitting from the extensive finance, marketing and technology experience of our investment group. Prize amount as of May 31, 2019 is $10 million. https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0
bornagain77_{June 29, 2019
June
06
Jun
29
29
2019
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

H, science as you will know or will readily recognise, is a celebrity system. That is, it has the onion, inner circle elite pattern, and admission to ever tighter inner circles comes with prestige, funding, recognition, influence and power, which anyone who knows about power games will tell you is wide, open to faction games and linked progressive corruption to the point of cultivating sociopaths as dominant in core power centres -- suicide for a civilisation. Many non-high prestige, non elite scientists (who hold but little power) indeed are all over the worldviews map. The power elites who dominate and too often domineer, unfortunately, are pretty much as Lewontin let the cat out of the bag about. He should know, he has been a card-carrying member for decades. The influences we have pointed out for so many years fit right in with those patterns. And BTW, wider Academia, the media, legal circles and elite education systems have much the same patterns and influences. That's part of why dissident sites like this one are important, we are today's equivalent to samizdat. And I note the web oligopolists are trying to censor and suppress the non politically correct as we speak -- of course, blaming the victim all along the way. A key sign is reversal of burden of warrant so that accusatory swarming replaces protection of innocent reputation. To that, my answer is, you can be a publisher or a platform. If you abuse regulatory power and dominance to turn censor, you become responsible for consequences; potentially, in ways that are not going to be pretty if the degree of polarisation and domineering that we see further spins out of control. In the case of the USA, we are already in low grade civil war, though not as violent as the 1850's there. Lawfare, street theatre, mob violence and media lynchings so far are not going over into general shooting but on current track that's coming. Foolishly ill-advised, but then the collapse of legitimacy in the UK over Brexit spells much the same story. And more. What is happening with science is part of a widespread, pretty ugly picture that includes enabling of the worst holocaust in history under false colour of law. KFkairosfocus_{June 29, 2019
June
06
Jun
29
29
2019
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

I have not read any of the people you mention, although I've heard of all of them but Moran. I think someone named Collins, as well as someone named Miller, are religious people who support mainstream evolutionary science. However what you call "popular leaders" might also be thought of as "infamous" because being "strident" sells. But I'll once again point out that atheism is not synonymous with materialism (although the people you mention may all be materialist, also): one may be a non-materialist and yet not believe in any "gods" in the sense of beings who participate actively in the physical world or the lives of human beings. And I didn't see, and would be interested in seeing, the list of textbooks you posted.hazel_{June 29, 2019
June
06
Jun
29
29
2019
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

SA, weird as it seems, statistics tells us that chance processes are riddled with regularities. Hence distributions. In Physics, these are the meat and potatoes of statistical thermodynamics, which studiesm populations at micro level with typically 10^18 - 24 particles. A classic text for that begins that the main task is to deduce the zustandsumme, the partition functions. From Z, just about everything else flows. KFkairosfocus_{June 29, 2019
June
06
Jun
29
29
2019
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

Hazel
My guess is that a majority of evolutionary scientists have some metaphysical beliefs other than pure materialism, including the Christian one of what you called theistic evolution in another thread (and which we had a brief discussion about, I think), or vaguer agnostic beliefs about the relationship between physical reality and whatever might be more than physical reality.
It's a generous and broad-minded view. I'd like to see some support for that notion. For example, are there popular books about evolution from a non-atheistic point of view, matching something like Dawkins' books? I haven't seen them. I don't think we can deny that many of the popular leaders in evolutionary thought (Dennett, Dawkins, Coyne, Myers, Moran) are stridently atheistic.
However, in part because of that wide diversity and lack of consensus about what is “more”, science can only talk about the physical relationships between things, and leave the metaphysical interpretations to individuals.
I don't know if you saw the post I offered on quotes from evolutionary textbooks that indicated that the materialist metaphysic was the foundation of evolution, but that's what it means when evolution is referred to as "blind, undirected, purposeless".Silver Asiatic_{June 29, 2019
June
06
Jun
29
29
2019
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

My guess is that a majority of evolutionary scientists have some metaphysical beliefs other than pure materialism, including the Christian one of what you called theistic evolution in another thread (and which we had a brief discussion about, I think), or vaguer agnostic beliefs about the relationship between physical reality and whatever might be more than physical reality. However, in part because of that wide diversity and lack of consensus about what is "more", science can only talk about the physical relationships between things, and leave the metaphysical interpretations to individuals. That all seems reasonable to me.hazel_{June 29, 2019
June
06
Jun
29
29
2019
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

"To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen. " This assumes that evolution is built upon and refers to "regularities of nature" as the mechanism for the development of life. But random events are not regularities. To appeal to blind, random, unintelligent forces as the cause for the development of life, in many ways, is not different from saying that God did it.Silver Asiatic_{June 29, 2019
June
06
Jun
29
29
2019
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

Hazel
Lewontin, however, only speaks for a small subset of people (if he can be said to speak for anyone but himself at all.)
If the term 'elite' means anything in the academic sphere, then he is one of them. His views represent the mainstream of evolutionary science.Silver Asiatic_{June 29, 2019
June
06
Jun
29
29
2019
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT}

Hazel
Often, and surely you know there are examples here, that members of a minority position display a very strong sense that they are right and the mainstream is wrong.
I think we all believe that here. But condescension and arrogance come from a position of power, and we have little or no power over the mainstream media. We are the ones who get fired for mentioning something positive about ID. We are the ones who are banished from academia, the media, politics and culture. They even made teaching ID illegal. So, we're talking about arrogance, power, superiority, mockery and pompousness of mainstream evolutionary science. There's nothing like that in ID.Silver Asiatic_{June 29, 2019
June
06
Jun
29
29
2019
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

Another point: you and other make the point (there was just a whole thread on it) the design is a valid scientific inference, but that is separate from any speculations about the designer. Therefore, what difference does it make if God is excluded from scientific explanations?hazel_{June 29, 2019
June
06
Jun
29
29
2019
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT}

And I find it quite, we might say, telling, that you don't quote the sentence which follows the "foot in the door" line and concludes the paragraph:
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
This seems like a good objection to me. If God is allowed as a scientific explanation, he can be invoked to explain anything, and therefore would really explain nothing. So, in the interest of intellectual honesty, perhaps you should amend your frequent quote to include these last lines.hazel_{June 29, 2019
June
06
Jun
29
29
2019
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

I read the whole essay. I don't support everything Lewontin says, but I also don't see him as an "elite" who can impose anything on anyone. Many people believe that science should look for natural causes, with lots of variation in what that means: most (like me, as I said in 127 on the Egnor thread) don't believe that only science can provide truth even though I support science as "the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality." Lewontin, however, only speaks for a small subset of people (if he can be said to speak for anyone but himself at all.)hazel_{June 29, 2019
June
06
Jun
29
29
2019
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

H, you clearly have failed to read the statement with sufficient care; and it is readable enough, indeed there is also a link to the article as a whole. My notes are a markup. Lewontin wrote as a representative of the elites, of which he has been a member for decades, in a review of the final book by another member of those elites, Sagan (yes, of the original Cosmos). He set out a worldviews level challenge and described what the cultural elites thought and set out to impose. There is abundant further evidence of the pattern, I append from the US NSTA below as just one telling example as this is meant to control how the rising generation is taught about science. Do not force me to adduce further on how children were held hostage by the NSTA and NAS through a threatening letter for failing to toe the partyline. I also notice that while you dismiss, you actually have not answered here and in fact have never cogently answered. Thus on fair comment your dismissiveness is empty rhetoric. KF PS: "Moar" evidence -- you asked for it:
All those involved with science teaching and learning should have a common, accurate view of the nature of science. [--> yes but a question-begging ideological imposition is not an accurate view] Science is characterized by the systematic gathering of information through various forms of direct and indirect observations and the testing of this information by methods including, but not limited to, experimentation [--> correct so far]. The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts [--> evolutionary materialistic scientism is imposed] and the laws and theories related to those [--> i.e. ideologically loaded, evolutionary materialistic] concepts . . . . science, along with its methods, explanations and generalizations, must be the sole focus of instruction in science classes to the exclusion of all non-scientific or pseudoscientific methods, explanations, generalizations and products [--> censorship of anything that challenges the imposition; fails to appreciate that scientific methods are studied through logic, epistemology and philosophy of science, which are philosophy not science] . . . . Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science [--> a good point, but fails to see that this brings to bear many philosophical issues], a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations [--> outright ideological imposition and censorship that fetters freedom of responsible thought] supported by empirical evidence [--> the imposition controls how evidence is interpreted and that's why blind watchmaker mechanisms never seen to actually cause FSCO/I have default claim to explain it in the world of life] that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument [--> ideological imposition may hide under a cloak of rationality but is in fact anti-rational], inference, skepticism [--> critical awareness is responsible, selective hyperskepticism backed by ideological censorship is not], peer review [--> a circle of ideologues in agreement has no probative value] and replicability of work . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic [= evolutionary materialistic scientism is imposed by definition, locking out an unfettered search for the credibly warranted truth about our world i/l/o observational evidence and linked inductive reasoning] methods and explanations and, as such [--> notice, ideological imposition by question-begging definition], is precluded from using supernatural elements [--> sets up a supernatural vs natural strawman alternative when the proper contrast since Plato in The Laws, Bk X, is natural vs artificial] in the production of scientific knowledge. [US NSTA Board, July 2000, definition of the nature of science for education purposes]
kairosfocus_{June 29, 2019
June
06
Jun
29
29
2019
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

Lewontin, again!!! I am really puzzled why you think one quote from one guy is a definitive statement that everyone who thinks that science is the "surest method of putting is in contact with physical reality" is somehow beholden to. Lewontin is certainly not any "official spokesperson" for science, or any other group. Also, I'll point out that your continually posted quote is virtually unreadable because of the way you interject your editorial comments.hazel_{June 29, 2019
June
06
Jun
29
29
2019
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

Just noticed that my question @5 was inaccurate. It should have been plural. :)OLV_{June 29, 2019
June
06
Jun
29
29
2019
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

H, kindly give us an actually observed case of functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information beyond 500 - 1,000 bits coming about by blind chance and/or mechanical necessity: _____ . We can readily supply literally trillions via Internet and a world of technology (gears, nuts and bolts etc count!) caused through intelligently directed configuration. We can back this up with search challenge in config spaces i/l/o atomic resources of sol sys or observed cosmos. That gives us inductive reasoning based epistemic rights to claim good warrant. Warrant, is not arrogance, it is drawing responsible conclusions well within epistemic rights, having done due diligence regarding the duties of right reason. Your projections above are clearly misplaced; raising questions of a rhetorical projection. KF PS: I think this inadvertent, cat out of the bag remark throws an interesting sidelight i/l/o Adams' troll roast, as I have marked it up:
. . . to put a correct [--> Just who here presume to cornering the market on truth and so demand authority to impose?] view of the universe into people's heads
[==> as in, "we" the radically secularist elites have cornered the market on truth, warrant and knowledge, making "our" "consensus" the yardstick of truth . . . where of course "view" is patently short for WORLDVIEW . . . and linked cultural agenda . . . ]
we must first get an incorrect view out [--> as in, if you disagree with "us" of the secularist elite you are wrong, irrational and so dangerous you must be stopped, even at the price of manipulative indoctrination of hoi polloi] . . . the problem is to get them [= hoi polloi] to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [--> "explanations of the world" is yet another synonym for WORLDVIEWS; the despised "demon[ic]" "supernatural" being of course an index of animus towards ethical theism and particularly the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition], the demons that exist only in their imaginations,
[ --> as in, to think in terms of ethical theism is to be delusional, justifying "our" elitist and establishment-controlling interventions of power to "fix" the widespread mental disease]
and to accept a social and intellectual apparatus, Science, as the only begetter of truth
[--> NB: this is a knowledge claim about knowledge and its possible sources, i.e. it is a claim in philosophy not science; it is thus self-refuting]
. . . . To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists [--> "we" are the dominant elites], it is self-evident
[--> actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . . and in fact it is evolutionary materialism that is readily shown to be self-refuting]
that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality [--> = all of reality to the evolutionary materialist], and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [--> i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us [= the evo-mat establishment] to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [--> another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [--> i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [--> irreconcilable hostility to ethical theism, already caricatured as believing delusionally in imaginary demons]. [Lewontin, Billions and billions of Demons, NYRB Jan 1997,cf. here. And, if you imagine this is "quote-mined" I invite you to read the fuller annotated citation here.]
kairosfocus_{June 29, 2019
June
06
Jun
29
29
2019
01:57 PM
1
01
57
PM
PDT}

Often, and surely you know there are examples here, that members of a minority position display a very strong sense that they are right and the mainstream is wrong. I assume you are familiar with posts by bornagain and kf. It would be easy to find examples of what I mean.hazel_{June 29, 2019
June
06
Jun
29
29
2019
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

Hazel
I can think of several regular posters here who in general support the main premises of this site and are often arrogant and condescending about their sense of superiority about understanding science.
How can a minority view which is ridiculed, black-listed and persecuted by mainstream science be seen as having a sense of superiority? The arrogance comes entirely from one direction in this case.Silver Asiatic_{June 29, 2019
June
06
Jun
29
29
2019
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

AaronS
He made an odd comment to you specifically I notice, that you were ranting about a subject you just learned two days ago. The reason why that was odd was you never said that you were unaware of outbreeding depression (again lots of disadvantages One to two incidental advantages, his argument that it was an advantage) Or that he was the source of your knowledge of it he just assumed and he assumed that you knew nothing about it.
Exactly. My point was that there are a lot of disadvantages for it, and massively great advantages if it did not exist. He never addressed that. Instead, as long as Wikipedia said something and gave "examples" (which I ripped apart without a reply), his point was proven. That's also the case within the evolutionary community itself. Generate an arcane paper on the most trivial finding, which doesn't even answer the problem, and then claim that the science is settled beyond a doubt. In fact, anyone who doubts it is said to be ignorant of the research. Then, months later, a new paper overturns the previous conclusion. We are then told "that's how science works", again with the attitude of "you don't know anything about science". Those guys have been well-schooled at the troll college.Silver Asiatic_{June 29, 2019
June
06
Jun
29
29
2019
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

Condescending arrogance:
A glaring misunderstanding of how evolution works in the very first sentence. That does not bode well for the rest of the OP.
Right. On. Cue.ET_{June 29, 2019
June
06
Jun
29
29
2019
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

Brother Brian:
Arrogant and condescending ID proponents on this site?
More like arrogant and condescending blind watchmaker evolutionary proponents on this site. And then when they are corrected and exposed the people correcting and exposing them are called arrogant and condescending.ET_{June 29, 2019
June
06
Jun
29
29
2019
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

Hazel
I can think of several regular posters here who in general support the main premises of this site and are often arrogant and condescending about their sense of superiority about understanding science. Do they count as trolls?
Arrogant and condescending ID proponents on this site? That is just crazy talk. :)Brother Brian_{June 29, 2019
June
06
Jun
29
29
2019
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT}

Is it possible that we have in this website a distinguished commenter (summa cum laude) alumni from Scott Adams’ Troll College?OLV_{June 29, 2019
June
06
Jun
29
29
2019
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

I can think of several regular posters here who in general support the main premises of this site and are often arrogant and condescending about their sense of superiority about understanding science. Do they count as trolls?hazel_{June 29, 2019
June
06
Jun
29
29
2019
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

He made an odd comment to you specifically I notice, that you were ranting about a subject you just learned two days ago. The reason why that was odd was you never said that you were unaware of outbreeding depression (again lots of disadvantages One to two incidental advantages, his argument that it was an advantage) Or that he was the source of your knowledge of it he just assumed and he assumed that you knew nothing about itAaronS1978_{June 29, 2019
June
06
Jun
29
29
2019
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

“You should also pretend,” Adams said, moving on to rule number five, “that you as a troll [do] something called ‘understanding science.’ . . . Just make the assumption that you know more about science than other people.” And like a good teacher, he modeled how it should be done. “Ah huh huh huh,” he guffawed, demonstrating the condescending, arrogant, mocking tone you should assume. “You don’t know anything about science, ah ha ha. . . .” A troll should never give reasons for what he “understands.” What matters is the attitude.
Perfect. We saw an excellent example of this from a participant here just this week, with AaronS and myself referring to that exact thing "condescending, arrogant, mocking tone" that Mr. Adams notes. It's great to have this validation. A phenomenon obvious enough that the whole world of Dilbert fans can laugh at it.Silver Asiatic_{June 29, 2019
June
06
Jun
29
29
2019
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

News, the problem is, some may think this is a textbook rather than a satirical troll roast. We may have a live case in point. KFkairosfocus_{June 29, 2019
June
06
Jun
29
29
2019
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply