Editing User talk:Nebuchadnezzar

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, (new)

Start a new discussion
Ceiling cat.jpg W A R N I N G

You are not logged in. Your IP address will be recorded in this page's edit history, and will be visible to anyone. See our privacy policy for further information. To protect your privacy, please log in or create an account

 

Please note that all contributions to RationalWiki are considered to be released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0, or any later version (see RationalWiki:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work unless you have permission.

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)
Your changes will be visible immediately.

Please note:

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Hans-Herman Hoppe1223:15, 31 July 2014
Dhimmi and rational criticism of Islam203:25, 13 July 2014
I have a question about an edit you made105:23, 21 June 2014
Evo psych115:01, 2 June 2014
If you are in the mood for arguing in blog comments...314:47, 6 February 2014
I'm outraged119:46, 27 November 2013
Input needed104:41, 16 October 2013
Sometimes, the BBC has a peculiar way of reporting the news220:40, 27 September 2013
cognitive scientist man904:12, 25 September 2013
Politics and evo psych304:16, 30 August 2013
9/11 conspiracy theories1620:04, 1 August 2013
CAGW104:50, 28 July 2013
So you think so too?120:22, 24 July 2013
The cat says "meow", the dog says "rahn rahn".523:57, 23 July 2013
Hey216:59, 23 July 2013
The scientific method322:05, 25 June 2013
Von Mises and the economic calculation problem304:27, 12 June 2013
Because I enjoy watching you squirm722:29, 13 May 2013
Brain man417:44, 3 May 2013
Shermer and Pigliucci debate morality.303:05, 28 April 2013
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page

Hans-Herman Hoppe

You said you've been meaning to create an article on him. That bozo deserves all the exposure he can get. There's something about him that just drives me…Hoppeing mad! (Obscure Rothbard reference.) Shall I suggest that you start with his argumentation ethics first?

Melab (Talk)00:10, 30 July 2014

Actually, someone beat me to it. I am working on cleaning it up a bit. I find Hoppe to be refreshingly honest. He pretty much draws out what ancapistan would look like in real life, it's just that he endorses it rather than finding it horrifying.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)21:51, 30 July 2014

Basically, he wants a paleoconservative town, but just dresses it up as a "proprietary community". It's always the JBS types who say that they're anti-government, but when they explain abolishing the federal government and the state government, I'm left scratching my head. It always sounds like a town with a government. Take Gary North for instance: he yaks on and on about "the state", but he just seems to be replacing it with theocratic government. Hardly "anti-statist", if you ask me. Unfortunately, I've lately been leaning towards seeing it as "zero government" for some strange reason, but my older views seem more accurate. But, really, you have to add argumenation ethics to it. It is SO bad. (Strangely, though, I still feel like it works, but again, my more rational side disagrees.)

Melab (Talk)22:30, 30 July 2014

Yes, the paleo-libertarians are really railing against FedGuv, so they can set up their own governments at local levels.

I am most familiar with Hoppe's book Democracy: The God That Failed. Maybe you would be better at writing up a section for argumentation ethics? It is quite amusing, from the little summary I read on the LvMI site. It is very similar to the other rhetorical ploy used as regards the action axiom -- "Are you denying that people act? You are contradicting yourself!" Also very much like the Randroids' abuse of identity -- "Do you deny that A is A??"

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)02:03, 31 July 2014

The article also notes that Jurgen Habermas was his adviser! I wonder what Habermas thinks of him? And vice-versa? Hoppe is the intellectual descendant of... (thunderclap) cultural Marxism!

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)03:01, 31 July 2014

Yup. Argumentation ethics is a rip off of discourse ethics. Is it bad if I still feel AE is kind of convincing?

Melab (Talk)04:19, 31 July 2014

Per Wikipedia:

Hoppe says his theory proves that arguing for any political position other than libertarian anarchism is logically inconsistent.

... his theory is an a priori, value-free praxeological argument for deontological libertarian ethics.[1] Argumentation ethics asserts the non-aggression principle is a presupposition of every argument and so cannot be logically denied during an argument.

This is just the transcendental argument for God adapted for libertarianism, isn't it?

Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope04:47, 31 July 2014
 

Austrian arguments often look logically airtight until you scratch the surface and notice how specious they are underneath. I can't even say that for this one, though. I don't even understand the justification Hoppe gives for jumping from rational discourse to the bits about homesteading and scarce resources. Perhaps this is omitted in the summary; it doesn't seem to be too informative.

As for Habermans, I always thought his ideas came from an overly idealistic rationalism, though I haven't read him in any depth. All my knowledge is second-hand from some historians I read who seem to love him.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)04:51, 31 July 2014
 
 
 
 
 

Dhimmi and rational criticism of Islam

Thank you for offering your improvements to my recently created article on Dhimmi, in particular bolstering the "historical" section. I hope my initial write was appropriately snarky.

We can take this discussion to the talk page for the article, but I wasn't sure how to best get your attention. I want to ask you about what you disagree with with regards to Harris's and Hitchens's criticisms of Islam. I'm looking for a discussion on how we can include some solid examples of what constitutes valid criticism and what is simple fearmongering. I considered their viewpoints more reasonable than not, especially in the discussion Sam Harris had with Glenn Greenwald. Thoughts and critiques are appreciated.

Curmudgeon (talk)02:22, 13 July 2014

Thanks. I think the current article is a good start.

As for Harris and Hitchens, I won't address Hitchens because I haven't read his book, but my impression is that the only major difference of opinion between the two was that Hitchens overtly supported neocon policy. As far as Harris goes, he lost all credibility when he advocated racial profiling and then got trounced in the debate with Bruce Schneier. Even before that, Harris' work was still dubious. Having read some of the research on terrorism, his armchair theorizing seems to have little to do with the reality on the ground. For one, there is Robert Pape's Dying to Win, which analyzes hundreds of terrorist attacks and ties them to American military occupation. Though this book does not address Harris directly, there is another very good one that does. There is Scott Atran's Talking to the Enemy, which I would recommend very highly not only for its insights on terrorism, but also on the general recent findings of cognitive science of religion. He has a brief chapter that directly addresses Harris and systematically refutes him. One of the most interesting findings by Atran is that religious education is inversely correlated with suicide bombing. Atran argues that social networks are the most important component, and the best predictor of joining a terrorist organization is having a friend involved with one. Unfortunately, I cannot find a preview or excerpt of this chapter. I did find a a lecture he gave on this book, but I don't know if he addresses Harris specifically in this.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)02:55, 13 July 2014

Actually, I did just find a video where Atran confronts Harris directly here. It is a bit soundbyte-y -- Atran's arguments are fleshed out in very great detail in that chapter of the book I mentioned. (Also, bonus Neil deGrasse Tyson.)

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)02:59, 13 July 2014
 
 

I have a question about an edit you made

so way back in 2012. (I forget was that when dinosaurs where still around?) you made an edit to the Transhumanism page (http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Transhumanism&diff=prev&oldid=1023840) where you mention "Henry Markram, head of the Blue Brain Project, estimates that simulating a brain would require 500 petabytes of data for storage and that the power required to run the simulation would be about $3 billion." Can you explain the 3 billion figure? is that 3 billion dollars to buy power every month? every year? to build a new power plant to run this thing? for the entire project? If you don't remember I guess I'll just have to try harder to find the source of the figure and find out that way.

NonPerson (talk)02:27, 4 June 2014

Annually. I should add that in.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)05:23, 21 June 2014
 

Do you mind taking a look over the evolutionary psychology article again? There are a couple of complaints about it being a little straw-man-ish and problematic, but it seems like it's way out of the field of expertise for a lot of people and I figure you're a good starting point since a number of the edits are yours.

Also, you're still around! Huzzar.

Scarlet A.pngDon't click here11:33, 19 May 2014

The edits I did were to try and distinguish and debunk some of the common straw men, pro- and con, as well as to give a little bit of intro to the broad issues. Now the article looks a bit inconsistent, but I guess that's what happens with a wiki. I'm afraid we're running into the "crappy Wikipedia" problem here.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)15:01, 2 June 2014
 

If you are in the mood for arguing in blog comments...

look at the last few posts on Ophelia Benson's blog at Freethought Blogs - the recent re-ignition of controversy around Woody Allen has sparked the expected re-hash of arguments about confabulation.

ZooGuard (talk)18:06, 5 February 2014

Maybe I'm missing something here but I don't see anything particularly objectionable in the posts.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)18:49, 5 February 2014

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.

ZooGuard (talk)10:03, 6 February 2014

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."

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)14:47, 6 February 2014
 
 
 

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!!!!

Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability19:34, 27 November 2013

I'm outraged about all this outrage! But seriously, I bet a lot of those people will end up going to Walmart or some such anyway. And you can't boycott the NFL -- it's FUCKING FOOTBAWL! You don't mess with that.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)19:46, 27 November 2013
 

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.

ZooGuard (talk)16:30, 15 October 2013

Replied.

Re: the DSM page, it seems to be pretty reasonable, if rather arbitrary in the issues it covers.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)04:41, 16 October 2013
 

Sometimes, the BBC has a peculiar way of reporting the news

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.)

ZooGuard (talk)18:30, 25 September 2013

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.

Scarlet A.pnggnostic10:23, 26 September 2013

Let's not and say that we did.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)20:40, 27 September 2013
 
 

cognitive scientist man

What's the difference between me, and a robot that behaves exactly like me given the same input?

"Shut up, Brx."17:43, 20 September 2013

Try not to give me any existential dread. I'm almost out of my anxiety meds.

"Shut up, Brx."17:44, 20 September 2013
 

An off button.

Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope20:36, 20 September 2013
 

Are you worried about getting eaten by p-zombies?

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)22:35, 21 September 2013

I'm worried I am a p-zombie

"Shut up, Brx."23:39, 21 September 2013

The real problem is not in establishing whether you yourself are a p-zombie, but whether everyone else is.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)23:53, 21 September 2013

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...

"Shut up, Brx."04:42, 23 September 2013

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.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)05:31, 23 September 2013
 

But I'm Daniel Dennett, bitches!

Scarlet A.pngtheist11:11, 24 September 2013

In the sequel, they fight an army of Blockheads.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)04:12, 25 September 2013
 
 
 
 
 

Politics and evo psych

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?

Osaka Sun (talk)06:14, 13 August 2013

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?

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)02:01, 30 August 2013

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.

Osaka Sun (talk)03:24, 30 August 2013

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.).

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)04:16, 30 August 2013
 
 
 

9/11 conspiracy theories

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)

Leoesb1032 (talk)01:27, 30 July 2013

Another user reverted again. Consensus seems to be that this bit of snark is acceptable.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)18:58, 31 July 2013

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.

Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability20:30, 31 July 2013

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.

Leoesb1032 (talk)22:59, 31 July 2013

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?

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)01:43, 1 August 2013

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.

Leoesb1032 (talk)01:54, 1 August 2013
 
 
 
 
 

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.

Doctor Dark (talk)01:07, 27 July 2013

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."

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)04:50, 28 July 2013
 

So you think so too?

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.

Wehpudicabok [話] [変]03:35, 24 July 2013

This gives it away.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)20:22, 24 July 2013
 

The cat says "meow", the dog says "rahn rahn".

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.

Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability20:32, 23 July 2013

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.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)23:12, 23 July 2013
 

Also, I hope your dog isn't related to Otto.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)23:16, 23 July 2013

"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

Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability23:40, 23 July 2013

Same department, but what I'm doing now is based more in cognitive anthropology.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)23:48, 23 July 2013

That's my kind of field.

Green mowse.pngGodot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability23:57, 23 July 2013
 
 
 
 

Thanks for helping out with Dead Links, there's been so little discussion I forgot who was a part of it.

TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock )16:47, 23 July 2013

Thanks, but I haven't fixed a whole lot of links.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)16:51, 23 July 2013

At this point, I'm not concerned about the pace.

TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock )16:59, 23 July 2013
 
 

The scientific method

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.

Baloney Detection (talk)21:03, 17 June 2013

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.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)05:14, 20 June 2013

"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.

Scarlet A.pngpathetic16:20, 25 June 2013

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.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)22:05, 25 June 2013
 
 
 

Von Mises and the economic calculation problem

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.

Osaka Sun (talk)21:14, 7 June 2013

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.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)21:38, 7 June 2013

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."

Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope10:29, 10 June 2013

That is about the level of Mises' critiques of anything insufficiently free market enough. However, there is partial merit to the economic calculation argument, though it is not as much of a knock-down objection as the Austrians like to think.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)04:27, 12 June 2013
 
 
 

Because I enjoy watching you squirm

"Testosterone enhances the growth of the right hemisphere, and may facilitate musical ability. If it does so, musical ability then is a signal for male fertilizing ability."

Scarlet A.pngd hominem11:50, 11 May 2013

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.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)17:32, 11 May 2013

So, people old enough to do shit, but not old enough to realise shit is a bad idea, do more shit? Shocker.

Scarlet A.pngbomination12:46, 12 May 2013

Huh?

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)15:53, 12 May 2013

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....

Scarlet A.pnggnostic12:23, 13 May 2013

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.)

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)15:48, 13 May 2013
 
 
 
 
 

What's the best way to forget a spoiler for a TV show?

"Shut up, Brx."21:56, 2 May 2013

Don't watch it or discuss it with anyone for between 10 and 15 years.

Scarlet A.pngpathetic22:41, 2 May 2013

What if I wait for twenty years?

"Shut up, Brx."22:54, 2 May 2013

You'll remember it again.

Scarlet A.pngsshole23:08, 2 May 2013
 
 

Don't post in this thread.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)17:44, 3 May 2013
 

Shermer and Pigliucci debate morality.

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!"

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)04:52, 24 April 2013

Having listened to the debate twice and read the comments I must agree.

"It seems you want science to validate your libertarian principles." Pwned, as the kids these days say.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk)03:05, 28 April 2013
 
 
 
First page
First page
Previous page
Previous page
Last page
Last page
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support