User talk:Armondikov

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
For the old archives, see here.

Free air guitar with every comment


Please take one:

Start a new discussion

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Chemistry meets Universal Darwinism420:05, 26 March 2012
Wazzock114:45, 25 March 2012
Dan Savage answers a profound philosophical question100:42, 16 March 2012
ADK007.svg208:26, 15 March 2012
The Walking Dead319:29, 14 March 2012
Let me guess215:41, 13 March 2012
For you114:35, 8 March 2012
The categories, they do nothing!1018:15, 5 March 2012
Thank you 004:49, 4 March 2012
1-star reviews1003:14, 25 February 2012
"Devil cannot create"100:56, 24 February 2012
Wittgenstein220:17, 23 February 2012
Krypteria...1517:46, 22 February 2012
No problem.020:55, 19 February 2012
Altering user comments520:27, 19 February 2012
The further annals of the humanities vs science fight718:59, 19 February 2012
Pony tails911:33, 19 February 2012
Essay:Is there no God?007:39, 14 February 2012
Note to self010:45, 7 February 2012
Why did he have to qualify it at all?909:46, 7 February 2012
First page
First page
Last page
Last page

Chemistry meets Universal Darwinism

They're coming for you! (Bonus: Read the bottom of the internet to see a memetics proponent jump into the mix.)

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)04:39, 26 March 2012

The issue with trying to bridge the gap between chemistry and biology that way is pretty much the same reason that memes can't follow a strict Darwinian evolution; the systems are far too volatile. As Darwinian evolution simply falls out of "descent with modification" there's no way you can apply that to a chemical system unless you're talking about autocatalysis, which while I think is a great idea for the "beginning of life", is a minute sub-set of chemical interactions. Certainly, reducing biological evolution to chemistry simply ignores a ton of emergent properties that are required for descent and modification to even make sense. This is like trying to ask whether a single atom, taken in isolation, is a solid, liquid or gas. You're talking about properties that simply don't make sense at that scale.

Either Pigliucci is explaining this remarkably badly, or Pross isn't actually saying particularly interesting. There's a trade-off between thermodynamic and kinetic stability, yes? And?

Scarlet A.pngtheist10:21, 26 March 2012

Oh no, parts of it are just plain wrong. He seems to be trying to make some kind of analogy from DKS to biological fitness, which doesn't make much sense. There are some other howlers in there as well, like evolution leading to increasing complexity and conflating evolution with natural selection. Why is it that people who are so enthusiastic about applying evolution to everything so often don't even understand it?

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)18:12, 26 March 2012

Dunno. Maybe the ID advocates have a point when they say evolution is there to destroy God, so applying it to everything would obviously kill Him off for good.

Scarlet A.pnggnostic19:28, 26 March 2012

Above I should have said "evolution inevitably leading to increasing complexity." Re: ID, this comes up a number of times in Biology and Ideology, just substitute any proponent of Universal Darwinism for Dawkins here: "Darwinism is not being presented as a representative element of the scientific enterprise, with a legitimate place at the round table of ethical and social debate. It is clearly understood as the defining account of reality. Where most evolutionary biologists would argue that Darwinism offers a description of reality, Dawkins goes further, insisting that it is to be seen as an explanation of things. Darwinism is a worldview, a grand récit, a metanarrative—a totalizing framework, by which the great questions of life are to be evaluated and answered."

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)20:05, 26 March 2012
 
 
 
 

Susan used to say it, perhaps that's where you remember it? or perhaps this? Sophiebecause liberals 22:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Sophiebecause liberals22:56, 24 March 2012

I've just heard "twazzock" being hurled at Jenson Button.

Scarlet A.pngsshole14:45, 25 March 2012
 

Dan Savage answers a profound philosophical question

But how would Aristotle answer?


Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope21:34, 15 March 2012

I am actually pondering how Aristotle would answer that one, but IMHO you can't argue with empirical evidence involving gobbling.

Scarlet A.pngnarchist00:42, 16 March 2012
 

Seems like File:ADK007.svg which you are using on the "Now" page has some empty flowtext. The old version has 2 pieces of flowtext, one of them empty and the other containing "\m/". If you are using Inkscape, you can remove the empty flowtext in the XML editor (Edit -> XML Editor), and convert the second to regular text (Text -> Convert to Text). After this, the file should render correctly in MediaWiki. If you used a fancy font, you should additionally convert the text to paths (Object -> Convert to Path).

Tweenk (talk)02:11, 15 March 2012

Yeah, been meaning to fix that, but only if I could think of a suitable logo to put there, so I've been ignoring it.

Scarlet A.pngbomination08:10, 15 March 2012

I thought it was censored for SOPA...

Peter horas non numero nisi serenas08:26, 15 March 2012
 
 

The Walking Dead

Is awesome! Watch it when you can. Actually, there's a Walking Dead marathon on Sunday for us. OuO

Dumpling (talk)19:09, 14 March 2012

Once I've caught up with Castle and Breaking Bad!

Scarlet A.pngd hominem19:24, 14 March 2012
 

Blech! I say skip it. Bland, one-dimensional characters, almost no action and no urgency to the plot (which moves at a snail's pace). At best you can say there are some nice setpieces with zombies, but that's dragged down hard by long conversations between characters we know almost nothing about.

To be fair, though, the most recent episode was pretty great. I just wish more were like that.

Cow...Hammertime!19:25, 14 March 2012

I'll be the first to say "the books are better!" even though I haven't read them all yet. The whole clinging-onto-the-constructs-of-the-past thing that seems to pervade the show is kinda hard to accept and the show moves slower than Lost, which actually had some mystery in it. If you watch it while muted you realize that the action scenes really aren't a whole lot besides some camera tricks and prop work.

Seth Peck (talk)19:29, 14 March 2012
 
 

Extremely ritualistic family meals aren't "normal" either.

Тyrannis15:23, 13 March 2012

I would say "extremely ritualistic anything" isn't normal.

Scarlet A.pngbomination15:36, 13 March 2012

There's a reason we have to buy new glasses, plates, and bowls every 2 years. Though the amount of milk lost has drastically reduced in the past ten years.

ТyYAUA15:41, 13 March 2012
 
 

[1]

Тyrant13:50, 8 March 2012

When I upload my brain, I'm definitely taking the fifty one Jessica Rabbits.

Scarlet A.pngd hominem14:35, 8 March 2012
 

The categories, they do nothing!

A cognitive linguistics paper just for you.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)16:37, 2 March 2012

I thought I just made this shit "cognitive linguistics" up...

Scarlet A.pngmoral16:42, 2 March 2012

Heh, nope, you would be a tenured prof in a linguistics or psych department if you had. "Cognitive linguistics" itself is a problematic term because it usually means "the branch of psycholinguistics that became George Lakoff's personality cult" rather than the more obvious meaning of "the application of cognitive psychology to linguistics."

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)16:57, 2 March 2012

I can see that the subtle differences there could cause confusion.

Scarlet A.pngsshole16:59, 2 March 2012

It's not really so subtle at all if you're familiar with the history of the fields, though. It's sort of like how "evolutionary psychology" often doesn't mean "psychology done from an evolutionary perspective," but "selfish gene + Cosmides and Tooby."

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)17:09, 2 March 2012

The "subtle" was sarcastic. :P

Scarlet A.pnggnostic17:16, 2 March 2012
 
 
 
 

Sometimes I just want to roll the clock back a couple of years to before I stumbled head first into fuzziness. Things were just so much better.

Scarlet A.pngtheist11:24, 5 March 2012

Too late, you have already unasked the question.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)17:35, 5 March 2012

Sometimes, academics ask questions that defeat the purpose of the intent of the underscored themes. This whole discussion on Categories by Danziger, creates a non "day to day life and use of language" and imposes, instead, this artificial construct of what catigories SHOULD do, and therefore why they are imperfect and imprecise. But what she wants them to do, and what they actually do do are two totally different things.

Her work on "language space and culture (1998)" just makes me wonder why she wants to prove her thesis, rather than wants to work with the proof she has to MAKE a thesis.

Pink mowse.pngGodotoi, putain, genial, merci18:15, 5 March 2012
 
 
 

Thank you for what you have done for me. I do not expect that we agree on science. But I genuinely appreciate you taking out the more spurious elements of the article. People do not listen to me because they assume I want the article to be completely uncritical, which is of course untrue. Cheers, Notedscholar (talk), March 03, 11:46pm

Notedscholar (talk)04:49, 4 March 2012

1-star reviews

I remember you said something about using the 1-star reviews on Amazon -- I found a great one on Gould's Mismeasure of Man, emphasis "mein": "I recommend instead books that are sound on these issues: Why Race matters (by Michael Levin); Race, Evolution and Behavior : A Life History Perspective (by J. P. Rushton); Mein Kampf; The Real American Dilemma: Race, Immigration, and the Future of America (by Jared Taylor.)"

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)02:14, 24 February 2012

I love how science is always right... till it contradicts what *I* believe.

Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina03:34, 24 February 2012

Hey, me too! It's so convenient.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)05:26, 24 February 2012

Because the 1-star trick totally works. Though I fear such reviews might be soon replaced by a simply dichotomy of like/dislike as in practice no one really works outside of a 4 point system anyway. You know, like Strictly Come Dancing judges only really scoring between 7 and 10 even though in theory they have 1-10 to play with? Pretty soon the entire world will be just one big thumbs up button that we kick any time we're feeling anything slightly stronger than pure ambivalence about something.

Scarlet A.pngd hominem08:46, 24 February 2012

Gaaah, a tvtropes link! I curse you for eternity! click...click...click..click...

Sophiebecause liberals12:19, 24 February 2012

Sorry, should have put the warning up. At least it wasn't to Oglaf.

Scarlet A.pngtheist12:27, 24 February 2012
 

what is teh one star trick, by the way?

Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina03:08, 25 February 2012

Only read 1-star reviews. They're a far better (and funnier) indicator of whether something is good or not than the 5-star ones, where it's slightly more difficult to tell well reasoned praise from the musings of a gushing sycophant.

Scarlet A.pngpostate03:14, 25 February 2012
 
 
 
 

"DON'T TRUST THIS BOOK! Scientists are now discovering that Gould misrepresented the science to fit his radical Marxist ideologies!"

In my experience, being accused of being a Marxist (unless you actually are Marx) is synonymous with being right.

Scarlet A.pngmoral08:50, 24 February 2012

Actually, the part of the book on Morton's skulls has been debunked. I don't know why he even went after that, though, since cranial capacity is not a proxy measure for intelligence anyway. Now it's a whipping boy of the self-proclaimed "racial realists," because if one of Gould's arguments was wrong, he was obviously just a PC-Marxist hack and racism is not racist.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)19:10, 24 February 2012

the funny thing is that the guy who's review you found is a real nut job. self styled "self educated biologist", math person who has discovred some new math or something. click his link to find out about him

Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina03:07, 25 February 2012
 
 
 

"Devil cannot create"

Yes he can, he created the dinosaurs silly! [1] [2]

ТyYes?13:50, 23 February 2012

The first link just makes me think of all the stuff I've read on dinosaur respiration and the calculations that essentially demonstrate that they had bird-like, rather than lizard-like, lungs.

Scarlet A.pngtheist00:56, 24 February 2012
 

Re: latest essays: Read und learn your Wittgenstein.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)19:32, 23 February 2012

This one seems like a more to-the-point explanation to me.

Scarlet A.pngd hominem19:44, 23 February 2012

Witty and religion interesting enough. I'm wondering if some of it is clumsily walking into ignosticism when they're saying "is P" is used in different senses. I'm pretty sure I could coax the "is P" out of a religious believer, and if they couldn't do that then their model of their own belief would be somewhat... well, crap at doing its job.

Scarlet A.pnggnostic20:17, 23 February 2012
 
 

I approve. Bwahahahaha~

Dumpling (talk)03:49, 19 February 2012

I haven't been on a "let's go find some new music" trip for a long time, but I'm quite surprised it's taken me this long to find Krypteria. And some of it is serious earworm.

Scarlet A.pngmoral11:30, 19 February 2012

Is 'earworm' a good or bad thing? Hahahaha. But YAY! :DDDD

Dumpling (talk)20:49, 20 February 2012

It depends. The Other Wiki says it can be considered a disorder in some cases.

Scarlet A.pngpostate21:05, 20 February 2012

...I'll just take it as a good thing. ;D Hahaha.

Dumpling (talk)21:18, 20 February 2012
 
 
 

Is she lezzing-it-up with herself here?

Scarlet A.pngsshole14:41, 20 February 2012

Zo... you are vantink ze new muzak, ya?


PsyGremlinПоговорите!17:08, 20 February 2012

Oooh, jazzy.

Scarlet A.pngbomination16:48, 21 February 2012

Did someone say jazzy?


Nebuchadnezzar (talk)17:46, 22 February 2012
 

My exposure to non-mainstream music is sorely lacking. This is all I have to counter with:


Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope21:37, 21 February 2012

"Mainstream" is so relative as a term, though. There are people I know who consider Nightwish to be mainstream, despite them never having had anything in the UK chart to my knowledge and so don't fit any meaningful definition of "mainstream".

I think once we understand how "mainstream" and "alternative" music works, we'll understand everything about the human condition. I could re-write all of skepticism and human rationality with this as the analogy.

Scarlet A.pngpathetic10:25, 22 February 2012
 

Here's the most obscure group I know, though I'm not sure if local unsigned group featuring a guy I vaguely knew at school counts as "obscure" as it's practically unknown by definition. But the EP is free to download, apparently: http://esolovesyou.bandcamp.com/

Scarlet A.pngpostate11:56, 22 February 2012
 

OoOOH~ Catchy. Dance Dance time!

Dumpling (talk)17:39, 22 February 2012
 
 

...And...I believe she is?

Dumpling (talk)20:49, 20 February 2012
 
 

[1] You're welcome. Any time.

Abd (talk)20:55, 19 February 2012

Altering user comments

You altered my comment with [1]. I reverted, requesting it be left as-is, there is reason for red links in that comment, it shows that a page name is being suggested, and it will, in the future, show whether or not the page was created or moved. I was again reverted by Weaseloid. So, for my understanding of RationalWiki practice, will you please explain this thing to me? I understand that some users don't like red links on article pages, though I've certainly seen exceptions. But on a Talk page? What's the problem? To what extent will the mob allow users to edit the comments of other users? It can be a very slippery slope, some people tend to get pissed off about it.

Abd (talk)18:01, 19 February 2012

We don't need redlinks that will never have articles as it fills up the wanted pages list.

Scarlet A.pngbomination18:11, 19 February 2012

Try {{r}} maybe?

Peter Monomorium antarcticum18:42, 19 February 2012

I forgot that existed.

Scarlet A.pngtheist18:43, 19 February 2012
 
 

There has been long standing policy/tradition that you can edit user comments for functionality. If they mistyped a template, if they added redlinks, if they forgot to put the : at the beginning to show it's a new comment, etc.

Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina18:46, 19 February 2012

Okay, so here I should have created the page? That would, then, not create a "page to be created." Adding a red link showed that the text was a proposed page name, and the proposals were actually being made, as they would balance, sauce for the goose, etc. Symmetry. On the other hand, if RW doesn't want real debate, I'd like to know that, too.

I'll say, however, that I find the practice of eliminating redlinks from Talk pages to be a possible bit of "hiding the history." I also noticed this particular redlink, Armondikov, which you created on Talk:Grappling_Ignorance a few days ago. Of course, that page was deleted, is that the difference? That could be arranged. I'm just trying to understand the practice, being a n00b here.

Abd (talk)20:27, 19 February 2012
 
 

The further annals of the humanities vs science fight

Thought I'd share this with you:

The comments section of this blog post devolves into yet another "science is harder than history/sociology/writing" "no it's not!" fight.

Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope00:23, 19 February 2012

Let me just strap a soft pillow to my forehead and grab some popcorn.

Scarlet A.pngmoral01:15, 19 February 2012

I'm impressed, it took me until I scrolled 55% the way down the page to see the word "Hitler".

Scarlet A.pngsshole01:23, 19 February 2012

Didn't read the whole thing, but it seemed fairly sensible to me. Social sciences and humanities are not in principle easier, but are generally graded more leniently. Maybe if they were held to the same standards, there would be less bullshit being cranked out by social science departments.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)17:30, 19 February 2012

There might be something of a "there is no wrong answer" culture in social sciences, perhaps. I did once see someone say Philosophy was superior because it craved disagreement, and the entire aim of Philosophy was to come up with clever ways to disagree with people, while science demanded everyone to agree and allowed no dissent. They kind of missed the point, I think.

Scarlet A.pngbomination17:35, 19 February 2012

Philosophy != social science. One of the biggest problems is not a culture, but a cult -- The Cult of the P-Value.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)18:35, 19 February 2012
 
 
 
 
 

I feel ya man. Though it was far worse without the beard.

TyAnnoy15:39, 10 February 2012

I can totally rock the androgynous look if I shave properly.

Scarlet A.pngpathetic15:44, 10 February 2012

Ditto. I kept my hair short from 14-16 because I was tired of being hit on by guys while jogging.

TyAnnoy15:49, 10 February 2012

But when you're old enough, you can go to a bar and never pay for a drink all night. Not that I endorse such exploitation.

Scarlet A.pngsshole15:57, 10 February 2012

Given my current "Neanderthal" look, I doubt it, though I will keep that in mind.

TyAnnoy16:01, 10 February 2012

Depends on what kind of bar you go to *waggles eyebrows*

Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope02:04, 19 February 2012
 

...-scribbles this down for future reference-

Dumpling (talk)03:50, 19 February 2012
 
 
 
 

Essay:Is there no God?

I've edited Essay talk:Is there no God?.

Proxima Centauri (talk)07:39, 14 February 2012

Consider an sbs of this article

Scarlet A.pngd hominem10:45, 7 February 2012

Why did he have to qualify it at all?

See, if he had said "anyone who is raped has a limited window to get a hormone shot", no one would have cared. But he has to qualify it. "real rape" "honestly raped". Why? something is in his mind to make him need that qualification. He would not have said "If someone has actually been robbed, they should go to the people". He'd just say "if you are robbed, it's your duty to go to the police". his qualification implies that he does not think most people are "actually" raped.

Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina19:01, 6 February 2012

Any exceptions you make to something as strong as a pro-life stance become, effectively, sacred. The idea of someone faking a rape become a very salient situation when you have this as an exception to a strong belief, however rare it might be in reality.

The alternative explanation is that it's an off the cuff remark and didn't really mean anything.

Scarlet A.pngsshole19:07, 6 February 2012

Remember, we're dealing with a class of people paranoid enough to be this stupid over the subject. So these exceptions that they put in (rape, incest, "if the mother is in danger") are pretty sacred cows. They're saying "I'm going to give you access to this because of circumstance X, you better not abuse my trust" when they add such exceptions. Hence the need to add "honest" or "legitimate" or "genuine" (which I don't think would illicit such a reaction if prefixed in front of any other crime) when they're talking

BUT this is exactly the reason these sort of exceptions just won't work in practice and are fundamentally stupid. Do they demand that they go to the hospital within hours or days? Do they demand a conviction first? Or what?

Scarlet A.pngpathetic19:13, 6 February 2012

While i understand that is what is in his mind, i don't understand defending it. at all. He also stated, THREE TIMES in that one interview that "killing 9 lb babies is reprehensible, yet we allow abortion". He is either in his fucked up mind by accident, or carefully, blatantly conflating the issues. One time its: "rape is rare, only a few women are really raped, so it's not necessary to talk about", The other time it's: "near term babies are just like people, killing them is reprehensible - therefore, abortion is wrong". but in both cases, the issue is to make you associate one thing (most rapes are faked) with another (there for rape exceptions would be infrequent at best).

This bothers me so much, because it's part of a grown trend in how our politicians are talking about women, and issues that apply mostly or only to them.

In the real world, it is 100000 times better today for rape victims than it was in the 80s. I have seen the centers, talked with police women who specialize in rapes, etc. And that is amazing for victims. But in the political world, we jump backwards. We say women are asking for it. we say "it's rare", we dismiss it. I am angered every time one of these men talk without any knowledge of what they are saying. He has 2 daughters, and i think 3 grand daughters. It's not "unlikely" one of them has been raped, it's highly probably. But he doesn't get it.

2 weeks ago, New Hampshire tries to pass a law that prevents a cop from taking away an abusive spouse, if the cop was not a direct witness to the assault. Even if witnesses report yelling and screaming, and the cop arrives to find her face bashed in. Why do you even present such a bill?

Why are we so willing to dismiss women? seriously.

Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina19:26, 6 February 2012

I'm emphatically not defending everything else he said. In fact there's a serious leap of logic in there that makes no sense.

I'm merely saying that focusing on "honest" and assuming he's magically developed a new category of rape (a la the "forcible" wording from a while back) is putting words into his mouth. In fact it distracts heavily from the other problems in his argument. So the headline is "Ron Paul thinks there's 'dishonest' and 'honest' rape" when it should be "Ron Paul thinks there's no difference between 1 minute after and 1 minute before birth, so there's no difference between 9 months before and 9 months after, either". Because the latter is definitely what he's said and clarified and unpacked thoroughly, the former is a single throwaway word that probably doesn't mean much.

Scarlet A.pngbomination19:30, 6 February 2012

I don't agree. This issue, how these particular men define and see rape, is as important to the lives of women as their right to abort. Fine, for you the abortion issue, the conclusion that "One month and nine month" are the same is a big deal. (it is to me as well). But when I hear these men talk about rape like this (And yes, he does see a distinction) is to watch women who have to sit in court and try to defend themselves: "if you were raped, you deserved it", "you went to his room, why did you do that", "you said no too late, didn't you". I've seen it; it goes on. and language like this fuels it.

That's why it's a big deal. cause it's not about abortion or exemptions. it's about a view of women, and of being raped.

Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina19:36, 6 February 2012
 
 
 
 
 
First page
First page
Last page
Last page
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Toolbox
support