Editing User talk:Nebuchadnezzar
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|If you are in the mood for arguing in blog comments...||3||14:47, 6 February 2014|
|I'm outraged||1||19:46, 27 November 2013|
|Input needed||1||04:41, 16 October 2013|
|Sometimes, the BBC has a peculiar way of reporting the news||2||20:40, 27 September 2013|
|cognitive scientist man||9||04:12, 25 September 2013|
|Politics and evo psych||3||04:16, 30 August 2013|
|9/11 conspiracy theories||16||20:04, 1 August 2013|
|CAGW||1||04:50, 28 July 2013|
|So you think so too?||1||20:22, 24 July 2013|
|The cat says "meow", the dog says "rahn rahn".||5||23:57, 23 July 2013|
|Hey||2||16:59, 23 July 2013|
|The scientific method||3||22:05, 25 June 2013|
|Von Mises and the economic calculation problem||3||04:27, 12 June 2013|
|Because I enjoy watching you squirm||7||22:29, 13 May 2013|
|Brain man||4||17:44, 3 May 2013|
|Shermer and Pigliucci debate morality.||3||03:05, 28 April 2013|
|Re: Marxism||4||06:35, 14 April 2013|
|Thanks for the fix||4||05:06, 23 March 2013|
|Facebook - the new horoscope||6||22:34, 12 March 2013|
|From your autodidact website||2||00:24, 27 January 2013|
Maybe I'm missing something here but I don't see anything particularly objectionable in the posts.
That's why I wrote "blog comments" in the thread title - E.Loftus and her involvement in the FMSF got mentioned in at least one of the comment threads.
I've always had some trepidation about the way FMSF has used the term "syndrome." That said, recovered memory proponents repeatedly make the mistake that research on false memory and confabulation precludes the possibility of "recovered" memories. (By recovered, I mean late recall, not the use of quack therapies intended to draw out "repressed" memories.) It is a straw man -- both the literature and the APA only repudiate the notions that a, recovered memory of trauma and sexual abuse is commonplace and b, that it can be done through recovered memory "therapy."
dear god, how we need an article on teh rise of "outrage". I'm on facebook, and image after image about how OBSENE AND OUTRAGEOUS it is that stores are open on turkey day. and BOYCOTT BOYCOTT BOYCOTT!! Course, i'm curious why no one is boycotting the NFL for their turkey day game. a game which lots of low paid hourly people have do to jobs like clean up after your butts... but no... just WALMART AND PIZZA HUT SHOULD BE BOYCOTTED!!!!
Do I remember correctly that eugenics was within your sphere of interests? If so, please have a look at Talk:Eugenics, there is a little argument about categorization.
And, as a side note - there is now an article about the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and it's mostly written by a Szaszian.
And even more peculiar way of deciding what's news: Bondage fear at Trumpington Village Hall sparks event cancellation (It's somehow reassuring to know that news titles apparently follow their own rules of grammar all over the world, not just at home.)
That's okay reporting. It happened, the BBC says how it happened - though it's unusual for the Beeb to use a stock photo like that. If you want weird, look up the Daily Mail's take on it.
What's the difference between me, and a robot that behaves exactly like me given the same input?
Try not to give me any existential dread. I'm almost out of my anxiety meds.
Are you worried about getting eaten by p-zombies?
The real problem is not in establishing whether you yourself are a p-zombie, but whether everyone else is.
Are you afraid that if you answer me, it'll set a precedent that you do all your cognitive sciencin' for free? Because I can't pay you...
Well, the p-zombie argument generally assumes that you can nail down the fact that you are conscious because you have first-hand experience. (Cogito ergo sum and all that, though you can even doubt that if you want to be a radical skeptic about it.) A zombie would not be self-aware, but would only act like it. The problem then is extrapolating that to other people and/or zombies.
Thanks to Smerdis' recent rants I've been reading up on the nature of feminist/postmodernist objections to EP (regarding what behaviours are generated by the mind via biology/genetics compared to culture). Regardless of the falsifiability issues of EP, what studies do the left-wing side specifically object to?
I don't pay much attention to the postmodernists. Some of the leftist criticism of EP is a spillover of the sociobiology wars coming from scientist-activists like Lewontin and co. Far more interesting and substantive critiques are coming from within EP itself or related fields. Is there anything specific you're looking for?
Gender, specifically. Is there any significant study (ie. not pop psychology) that conflicts with the mainstream goals of gender equality? EP is likely the scientific field that I'm least familiar with.
I highly doubt there is anything in the technical literature that, by itself, conflicts with said goals. However, there is a good bit of research that is based on assumptions of '50s-style gender roles. The most notorious is, probably, the work on mating preference and parental investment. The cornerstone of this research program is David Buss' 1989 cross-cultural study. His interpretation of the results have been heavily criticized (e.g., Eagly and Wood and Buller.).
I noticed that you reverted my edits on 9/11 conspiracy theories. I am going to change it back. I know this site should have some funny content, but this is too far. It is just plain right insulting and disrespectful to the people who had a loved one die on that horrific day. It's okay to say some well know conspiracies, but this was too far and immorally wrong. Please leave back a message soon. Leoesb1032 (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Another user reverted again. Consensus seems to be that this bit of snark is acceptable.
Here's the thing, Leosb, *someone* *somewhere* will always be offended by something done. especially humor. I'm offended by rape jokes. Nebby is offended by jokes about babalonyan kings who make shitty ass gardens. The question is, why are you offended. Is the joke putting down someone? Is the joke making fun of situation that was harmful? or is it just a joke about something "sacred", like 9/11. we tend to dis the sacred here, cause sacred clowns should always be challenged. If it's truly offensive to someone because it is harmful, because it makes fun of them, or because it belittles THEM (not the sacred cow, but themselves) then please explain our offense, and I will make sure i fight with you. but just saying it's disrespectful or insulting isn't harm.
Here is My Thing Godot, yeah someone, somewhere is always offened by something, but in the case of 9/11, I would expect 10 to 15,000 people are offended by this. Get my drift? It's me that is offended, it is me trying to respect the 10s of thousands of people that are. Leave a reply please.
Yes, the article is poking fun at truthers, not 9/11 victims. You seem to be failing to grasp this concept.
And, BTW, aren't all gardens shitty?
Are you kidding me, no conspiracy theorist every assumed goats and wikiiest's did 9/11. This isn't a theory, this is snark too far. If I lost a relative in 9/11 and went on RationalWiki and saw some snark guy wrote goats did it, I would be furious and demand it takdn down.
You seem to be interested in global warming so you might want to look at the article I just started on the term CAGW. I had noticed it on some blogs but don't really know enough about the topic to flesh the article out. Thanks.
You know as much about it as I do. I don't know where it originated, but it was probably somewhere in the denialist blogosphere (deniosphere?). I've never seen it used in any academic or reputable publications. If I had to guess, I'd say it was originally concocted by lukewarmers to make themselves out to be the "sensible moderates" of the climate change "debate."
I assume your block was referring to this edit, right? It's always hard for me to tell whether I'm being oversensitive about such things, because I already know I have a tendency to be oversensitive in general. Still it did strike me as very similar to... every transphobic comment ever.
Hey. I was just burned out for a while - especially since i hit this patch where it seemed like every other edit was a correction of one particualar editors, edits. :-) but i'm back now. ready to clean up some of teh fun women's stuff after a full year of ignoring the republicans and their antics.
How did the finals/writing go? I know ADK got his PhD, but not sure where you stand. you were writing your dissertation, i think, when you were absent.
Some burnout here too -- I didn't stop but my edit count is definitely down.
Still haven't finished the diss, but that's okay because a lot of it needs to be rewritten due to a change in concentration. I can't wait.
"change in concentration?" as in your field specifically, or just the dissertation?
I have this thing for animal sounds. I want to write a book about how all the animals talk around teh world! it still amuses me how differently we hear/reproduce basic animal sounds.
never heard a bird "tweet tweet" much less "chirp" in my life. heheh
Thanks for helping out with Dead Links, there's been so little discussion I forgot who was a part of it.
In the LW discussion about scientific method vs Bayesianism, you seem to be saying that there is basically no such thing as the scientific method. But is that really correct? If so, then how can science be distinguished from pseudoscience? Distinguishing real science from fake science is usually considered rather important.
I do understand that the exact methods will differ from field to field though.
As I said, it exists only in an abstract sense. On the ground, research rarely looks like the model of the scientific method presented in the textbooks. In addition, the demarcation problem has never been solved. This doesn't mean, however, that there aren't clear-cut cases of science and pseudoscience. (Say, astronomy vs. astrology.) The real trick is in identifying what lies in the gray areas in between these cases. One way of conceptualizing scientific methods that I think is much closer to reality is Imre Lakatos' concept of research programmes. Each program is its own sort of mini-paradigm working with its own set of assumptions and empirical results.
"On the ground, research rarely looks like the model of the scientific method presented in the textbooks."
Preaching to the choir! Ha! I rarely see how many of the core philosophy of science concepts, like the difference between induction and deduction, help when figuring out what an IR spectrum is telling you. Well, I suppose it does if you get into the highly abstract, but in actual research it's pretty useless.
Well, deduction and induction are logical concepts, not based in philosophy of science per se, although the latter makes heavy use of them. I think many of the more specialized areas of phil of sci can be useful to primary research though -- for example, work by philosophers of biology on units/levels of selection.
Isn't his belief that classes use different sets of logic condescending and a bit stereotypical? There are many wealthy people who aren't spendthrifts, and those in poverty who don't handle their money properly.
I think you're getting two things confused here. Von Mises accuses Marx of making the claim that different classes use different sets of logic, what he calls "polylogism." The economic calculation problem refers to the argument that prices can be viewed as information and that socialism fails because centrally planned economies lack the information to allocate resources efficiently due to a lack of a rational pricing mechanism.
I don't understand what any of those words meant, so I just mentally replaced them with "He thought Marx was a big poopy-face."
Speculation built on speculation built on speculation. I wonder what results they would get if they changed the instrument to something less "cool," like a tuba or accordion. It would probably be less amenable to Kanazawa-esque pronouncements.
So, people old enough to do shit, but not old enough to realise shit is a bad idea, do more shit? Shocker.
That just seems to be what the article is saying. That the young, but not too young, do things. I just don't quite see how that comes back to sexual selection....
Oh, I was referring to the title -- the idea that (art/science/civilization/whatever) is the product of dudes trying to get laid. It's sexual selection taken to ridiculous extremes. (You have to read further into the series to get to that part, I guess.)
Don't watch it or discuss it with anyone for between 10 and 15 years.
I think you'd enjoy this debate between Shermer and Pigliucci. I give it to Pigliucci 10 to 0.
Having read the blog debate, I wouldn't be too surprised. Shermer's entire argument seems to rely on shifting between trivially true and non-trivially false versions of his claim and then shouting "Because science!"
Having listened to the debate twice and read the comments I must agree.
That would be the ideal (i.e. a utopic society whereupon the lucky spread the wealth voluntarily). The fact that they don't is the basis for class conflict and the need for a revolution. :P
But wouldn't there be no money in a true utopia?
If we had a form of life wherein we solved major social problems like hunger, poverty, access to healthcare, education, and other ills, I wouldn't give two shits if we used a currency. As I mentioned earlier, I'm a pragmatist first and foremost.
What if the way of solving those problems is by eliminating money?
...Again, I would think my whole "pragmatism trumping ideology" would answer that question. Again, my idea of basically more extreme noblesse oblige has to do with the idea that, in a utopia, we would redistribute wealth in a manner that is both egalitarian and voluntary. Because this does not happen, we have a class conflict. It might transpire that abolishing capital is the best way to solve social problems, though this would obviously lead to friction amongst those who drew power from capital. But that's neither here nor there.
I feel that's twice now you've had to correct my edits, thanks for the catch!
While Adam Smith may be questionable, the influence of Benthem's Utilitarianism on the Poor Laws and the subsequent institution of Work Houses definitely has Malthusian overtones to it. I disagree with the removal.
If you rewrite that with Bentham in place of utilitarianism, it's fine. Edit: That rewrite is much better. The way it was worded before made it sound like utilitarianism was merely a justification for social Darwinism.
Setting aside the fact that COMMENTS people make are actually revealing, I gotta love this: here. You too can tell by the mix of my loving of hedgehogs, along with my liking of stories about michelle Obama, and my liking of my friend's comment about getting her new puppy potty trained, that I am a liberal commie activist who isn't at all likely to vote for anyone, but will buy Christian Dating Now magiznes!
Next up, how setting your Facebook status to "I really don't know what else I could have done to make people like me" indicates that you may be slightly upset.
Solution. Don't click the Like button for anything. Anything commercial, Facebook'll turn into an ad involving your face, advocating a product on your behalf to your friends.
the ad stuff amuses me. it must generate lists based on what words you say, cause i'm always getting ads for christian stuff.
Anywhere in particular I should start after the intro?
That's a Sophie's Choice question for me, and James wrote about so many different things over the course of his career. Poke around the first section of this and see if any of the titles grab you. *Notes on Dialectics* for an analysis of Hegel/Marx/Lenin; *Beyond a Boundary* for colonial culture and identity (and cricket); *The Black Jacobins* to understand how to do good Afrocentric history; his book on the Comintern for international Marxism....