Quote of the Day - 17 July 2005

While the H2G2 movie was a decent, if not spectacular, adaptation of the book, I think my biggest complaint was that Zaphod was made outrageous and stupid. In the book, he's outrageous and a little mean, but not an idiot. He was a more interesting character.

He didn't strike me as being mean in the book, or stupid in the movie. You have to understand that he's an alien from the vicinity of Betleguese, so if he comes off as callous or a little dense, it's just that he doesn't see things in quite the same way you and I are used to.

Zaphod was definitely played as an idiot in the movie (he was played as a slightly-more-intelligent G.W. Bush, as far as I could tell), and both Zaphod's characterization and the bizarre treatment of his second head were downers.

That being said, I thought the H2G2 movie was a quality adaptation -- particularly in the amount of narration from the Guide that survived, something rare in a Hollywood 'blockbuster -- and I wish it'd had more success, so that we might have had the privilege of seeing the other sequels brought to life.

I wrote a couple of reviews of HHGG here[/url and here. Two key thoughts - firstly, I agree absolutely - Zaphod seemed to spend the latter half of the film stoned, which didn't correspond to the books or radio version (the second radio series was particularly good, with the lead characters ending up talking to the real "person who is in charge", and Zaphod's activity being a repressed mission to try and find out who and where he was). Secondly, the "happy ending" in the film was completely out of sync with any other variation - although perhaps inevitable given the medium. However, given DNA's noted atheism, I point out in the reviews that this reversal of outcomes was particularly inappropriate.

To return to the theme of the post, DNA was a thoughtful, intelligent and witty man - he shaped my teenage years. The fact that I don't agree with him about puddles doesn't diminish my respect for him, and pleasure in his writing.

Sorry - the URL's are here and here.

Paul wrote "despite the twisting and turning of Richard Dawkins."

You seem a nice guy. What,s your problem with Dawkins?

You seem a nice guy. What,s your problem with Dawkins?

Here's more from Paul, aka "a Creationist Troll, apparently", that indicates that he's just as dim-witted and "nice" as the rest of the creationist crowd:

http://exilefromgroggs.blogspot.com/2005/06/arguments-against-creationism-and-id.html

t.s. -

As an advocate of "reason" and "rationality", why do you make use of insulting terms like "clown", "nutjob", "dim-witted", and so on? How does this reflect the use of reason?

From my perspective, it would seem irrational.

I suspect "rational" is generally defined as "agrees with me." After all, if there were a superior opinion to mine, I would already hold it.

:) Oh dear, my aliases are gradually unravelling!

How does this reflect the use of reason?

— harold

From my perspective, it would seem irrational.

I suspect "rational" is generally defined as "agrees with me."

— Flint

Troll,

I don't know what is up with your website or my computer or the synergy between them, but everytime I try to load it, it crashes every single window and tab I have open.
Paul

t.s. -

I asked -

"As an advocate of "reason" and "rationality", why do you make use of insulting terms like "clown", "nutjob", "dim-witted", and so on? How does this reflect the use of reason?"

But your answer is superficial and circular -

"These characterizations are the consequence of observation and reasoning"

How does "reason" or "reasoning" lead you to use insulting terms like "clown", "nutjob", and "dimwitted"? Also, are all others who don't use similar terms lacking in "reason"?

From my perspective, it does indeed seem irrational on many levels. But all you need to do to change that is answer my question.

How does "reason" or "reasoning" lead you to use insulting terms like "clown", "nutjob", and "dimwitted"?

Also, are all others who don't use similar terms lacking in "reason"?

From my perspective, it does indeed seem irrational on many levels.

But all you need to do to change that is answer my question.

As an advocate of "reason" and "rationality", why do you make use of insulting terms like "clown", "nutjob", "dim-witted", and so on? How does this reflect the use of reason?

Q? How does "reason" or "reasoning" lead you to use insulting terms like "clown", "nutjob", and "dimwitted"? Also, are all others who don't use similar terms lacking in "reason"?

A: It's an ego thing

A: It's an ego thing

— Alan

Having "waded" through some of the previous comments, I wonder why there is a tendency for some posters to appear as humourless pedants with egos the size of Kansas. What happened to wit? And I wonder why there's a tendency for some posters to be more concerned with the behavior and personalities of posters than the subject being discussed. Actually, I'm fairly certain it's because, despite having nothing to contribute on the latter, their big egos demand that they say *something*. :-) A: It's an ego thing

— Alan

Having "waded" through some of the previous comments, I wonder why there is a tendency for some posters to appear as humourless pedants with egos the size of Kansas. What happened to wit? And I wonder why there's a tendency for some posters to be more concerned with the behavior and personalities of posters than the subject being discussed. Actually, I'm fairly certain it's because, despite having nothing to contribute on the latter, their big egos demand that they say *something*. :-) <- wit indicator

— Alan

Hey, that's not fair.

Hey, that's not fair.

No, actually it is. I'll go back to lurking!

t.s. -

Well, technically, what I said was that if you put up an insulting reply to a primary post of mine, THAT was what I wouldn't respond to. But perhaps I was unclear.

I'm going to be gone for the rest of the evening. My question remains unanswered. I'm not the most frequent poster here most of the time (albeit on a roll recently), but I'll certainly be back. I'll be interested to see if it ever gets an answer.

Well, technically, what I said was that if you put up an insulting reply to a primary post of mine, THAT was what I wouldn't respond to. But perhaps I was unclear.

My question remains unanswered.

I'd be fascinated to see how someone would answer a question like "How does reasoning and reason lead you to the theory of evolution", other than pointing to (some of) the evidence supporting the claim. The question itself, and the motivation for it, is anything but rational. Imagine, being taken to task for calling an IDist "dim-witted" on PT. People outside Harold's brigade of intellectually dishonest clowns must wonder what all the fuss is about.

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on July 18, 2005 05:46 PM (e) (s) It's why I skip over all his posts. They are all content-free.

It's amusing, in a way, to see such insubstantial and hypocritical posts, responding to other insubstantial and hypocritical posts, complaining about low content. (Good for Alan that he got it.)

[quote}Good for Alan[unquote]

JAD patronised me with the same phrase once. But at least he was amusing. Content is great. No need to be polite or rude, just make it intelligible and concise.

I am just the audience, unable to contain the odd cheer or hiss.

I didn't intend to patronize you. And I do try to be intelligible, and usually concise.

Fair enough

Speaking of the apparently disinclined...

I just received a Christian Wire Service press release rejoicing in the presence of M. Behe *and* J. Wells at a conference to be celebrated Aug 4-6 in balmy Greenville, South Carolina.

"Uncommon Dissent Forum, Scientists Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing" coordinator Lewis Young proudly notes that the Disco Institute is being consulted for the festivities.

The last two grafs of the release (pasted below) offer a tantalizing taste of the promised proceedings.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Scientists to Challenge Darwinism at Public Forum in South Carolina

GREENVILLE, S.C., July 18 /Christian Wire Service/ -- People interested in hearing firsthand from scientists who question Darwin's theory of evolution will soon have the opportunity at a conference in Greenville, S.C., to be held on Aug. 4, 5 and 6.

The conference, entitled "Uncommon Dissent Forum, Scientists Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing," will convene a panel of nine presenters including biochemist Dr. Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, reviewed by the New York Times and more than 100 other periodicals, and Dr. Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution: Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong.

"Since the science behind Darwin's speculations is questionable, we're making available to the public an accomplished panel of thinkers and researchers in the scientific community who have an open mind toward the evidence and who want to stimulate debate," said Lewis Young, conference coordinator. "This conference will benefit anyone interested in free inquiry regarding theories and facts about evolution and the origins of life."

The Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture in Seattle has served as consultant for the conference, said Young. In its "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism," signed by 350+ scientists, the institute purports, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." Director of the institute, Stephen Meyer, was quoted in Newsweek (Feb. 7, 2005), "'There is ambiguity about the evidence for evolution. We think students should know that.'"

In National Geographic (November 2004), the cover article on Darwinism stated that "the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting room floor."

"Since Darwin's theory asks people to accept a premise for which 99.9 percent of the data is missing, the presentation of statistical evidence through a conference such as this one is significant and timely," Young added.

I just received a Christian Wire Service press release

"Will this sort of thing happen every time we use the Infinite Improbability Drive?"

"Very probably."

Paul Flocken: It works on both IE and Netscape running on XP on my machine - though I had to tweak it a bit to get IE to work. Sorry, without taking over your computer (buwah hah hah hah hah!!!!!) I can't help any more ...

Early Registration: Standard Conference Fee: $125 Teacher or Student Conference Fee: $95 After June 30, 2005: Standard Conference Fee: $145 Teacher or Student Conference Fee: $115

'Last Chance to See' is an excellent book. Adams got a wee bit of the science wrong, but gets across so much more that is good in a fantastically penetrating and entertaining fashion. The way he and Carwardine discussed the animals and their behaviour emphasised the wonderful curiosity in and bemusement at the world which characterised so much of Adam's writing.

Very great pity that he is no longer with us.

-Schmitt.

I just received a Christian Wire Service press release rejoicing in the presence of M. Behe *and* J. Wells at a conference to be celebrated Aug 4-6 in balmy Greenville, South Carolina.

"Uncommon Dissent Forum, Scientists Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing" coordinator Lewis Young proudly notes that the Disco Institute is being consulted for the festivities.

So much for that whole "ID has nothing to do with religion" thingie, huh ... .

Do any of them have a scientific theory of ID to offer? Why not?

t.s. -

Still no answer to my question. I asked -

"How does "reason" or "reasoning" lead you to use insulting terms like "clown", "nutjob", and "dimwitted"?

You wrote -

"Well, in the case of "dim-witted", I think it's clear enough to any rational person who read the troll's page in regard to which I made the comment. Or perhaps you think that what Paul offers there really are "the best arguments against Intelligent Design and in favor of neo-darwinism"."

But this has nothing to with what I asked. I know that you disagree with the people you insult (and in this case, so do I).

But I asked "How does "reason" or "reasoning" lead you to use insulting terms like "clown", "nutjob", and "dimwitted"?

My question remains unanswered.

But this has nothing to with what I asked. I know that you disagree with the people you insult (and in this case, so do I).

Here's how it goes, Harold. I claim P (after noting the facts that led me to claim it). You claim, without support, that it is irrational to claim P, or rather to claim it using the words that I did. This is a bizarre claim, since the choice of words one uses to express a claim is not generally subject judgments of rationality or irrationality, which normally pertain to the claims themselves. You have provided no reason to think that I have done anything irrational -- you simply asserted it, and reasserted it when asked for your reasons for the claim -- just like an IDist does.

Gee, they've got *statistical evidence* - sounds like science to me, Mr. Wizard!

t.s. -

Nope. Sorry. You still haven't answered the question, have you? I guess you just can't or won't understand a very simple question.

"How does "reason" or "reasoning" lead you to use insulting terms like "clown", "nutjob", and "dimwitted"?

You just keep repeating that you disagree with one of the people you've insulted. I disagree with that particular one too. But that isn't what I asked.

You're absolutely right that I haven't told you WHY I think it's irrational to behave as you do. I may even try to explain it some day, if I have time.

But you still haven't answered the question.

I've answered it several ways, and have asked you to explain what sort of answer would do, if mine won't. So all I'm getting from you is bad faith.

> You're absolutely right that I haven't told you WHY I think it's irrational to behave as you do. I may even try to explain it some day, if I have time.

The burden is on those who make claims to support their claims. If you don't have time to take on your burden, there's certainly no reason why I should take the time to provide yet more answers to your ill-begotten questions. Jackass.

(1) Folks, don't feed the trolls, they just multiply and crap on everything.

(2) About the actual quote: DNA was being a bit blurry:

We're *not* the only creature that can learn from the experience of others, various ape experiments involving firehoses come to mind. We're certainly the best at it, but even so, I'd say we're not very good at it,
rather than "disinclined". The business of telling others about our experiences is pretty new, I think it's just not fully developed yet.

A standard undergraduate experiment in psychology involves placing a trained rat in a wire cage (trained to get food by pressing a bar) adjacent to an untrained rat in another wire cage. The object of the experiment is to determine whether the untrained rat figures out how to get food faster than control rats who are not exposed to the example the trained rat provides. The "right answer" (i.e. supported by a very large body of similar experiments) is that rats do indeed learn by lateral transfer. Similarly, rats who witness other rats eating something and suffering immediate convulsions and death, are far less likely to experiment with eating the same stuff, than a rat that didn't watch.

People may be unique in learning the lesson vicariously, but being disinclined to follow it. But it's hard to tell; maybe the rat that watched but never pressed the bar just wasn't hungry. A rat's motivations aren't well articulated.

We're *not* the only creature that can learn from the experience of others,

I'd say we're not very good at it, rather than "disinclined".

It's striking that, even in a humorous aphorism not meant to be take literally, Adams hedged his assertions more than, well, almost everyone is, well, apparently inclined to do.

Adams?

Who he?

Did you somehow miss the opening post or was that sarcasm?

I did google and wondered how bryan adams had become involved.

Mea Culpa

> An aficionado of plausible deniability, maybe.

An aficionado of intellectual honesty, maybe.