Talk:Science and Math Defeated/Archive1

Confusion
Is this guy actually serious?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --" 13:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

I'm pretty sure he's a Poe/Troll, but It's REALLY hard to say for certain. After I made the mistake of commenting on one of his posts, he moseyed on over to my blog, where he started making idiotic comments that I thought MUST make him a Poe... Still, that's the thing with Poes: you can't tell them apart from the real nutters. 75.169.104.182 02:04, 20 January 2009 (EST)


 * He likes us. 216.221.87.112 02:27, 21 January 2009 (EST)

How about a real hoax?
Maybe instead of bizarrely debating whether or not my heterodox views are a "poe" just because you disagree with them, you'll be interested to note that I'm better at detecting hoaxes than you are. Case in point: http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/2009/02/28/jonathan-krohn-is-a-hoax/. Follow up to case in point: http://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/2009/03/08/if-jonathan-krohn-is-not-a-hoax-then-he-has-chatterbox-syndrome/

Notedscholar (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia
This blog is almost as reading an article at Uncyclopedia. Except Uncyclopedia is funnier. Mr.Orange (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello
I wish people here would be more rational, and in the spirit of Wiki. Please don't include subjectivity in the post!!! You can have a bias against me but please make it an objective bias, based on things like "the consensus." But don't just assume my claims are false! And some of my claims, e.g. especially that dark matter is false or that time is motion, have representation in the scientific establishment, albeit in the minority.

Viva lala reason,

Notedscholar (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "The spirit of Wiki" is what, exactly? This is a subjective site.  01:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please learn how to sing your comments. Please sign talk page entries using four tildes like this: ~ or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png, on the toolbar above the edit panel. Thank you.  02:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The spirit of Wiki is being truthful and fair! Also avoiding weasely language. Otherwise you mislead your audience! It's obvious you people don't like me, but you can at least let some balance and truth be heard. Notedscholar (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Btw thank for teaching me how to sign my name. Notedscholar (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you considered writing an essay here to expound your views? 02:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds nice but I don't know if it is the venue. This just has articles!!! Notedscholar (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you create a page with "Essay:" in the title, it will be in the essay space, and you can be the only editor of the page if you want. Ask me how more on my talk page if you'd like.  Also see the main page, there's an "essay" portal there.  02:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfair edits
There are many unfair edits. I have restored my fair version. Please go ahead and change it back Ms. Human, but please do not be silly. Some were just grammar and spelling, and some took out unnecessary snark, plus weird plural pronouns. k bye! Notedscholar (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Try fixing spelling separately from content if it matters to you. And all that replacing "their" with "he or she" was just lame. PS, you understand we are never going to have a "pro-Science and Math Defeated" article?  PPS, thanks for learning how to sign talk page comments!  Nice to have you on board.  02:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have created a version that maintains your scorn, but includes some needed tempering. Please think about it before you get mad! Notedscholar (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Naw, you haven't. Please stop editing the article about you and suggest changes/improvements etc. here on the talk page.  02:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can only assume that visits to the blog have dropped off recently so it needs the attention... 11:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So, I'm not the one begging for 1,000 dollars. Notedscholar (talk) 10:29am, Feb. 24, 2012

Prouns
Even though RationalWiki members have edited this article with abandon without consulting the talk page, I will go ahead and bow to your wishes. Here is my argument against saying "their," which I also posted on Human's talk page: See Strunk and White's The Elements of Style, 4th edition 2000, pg. 60-61. I'll quote one relevant passage: "A similar fault is the use of the plural pronoun with the antecedent anybody, somebody, someone, the intention being either to avoid the awkward he or she or to avoid committing oneself to one or the other. Some bashful speakers even say, "A friend of mine told me that they...." The use of he as a pronoun for nouns embracing both genders is a simple, practical convention rooted in the beginnings of the English language. Currently, however, many writers find the use of the generic he or his to rename indefinite antecedents limiting or offensive. Substituting he of she in its place is the logical thing to do if it works." As they say on RationalWiki, QED! Also, Human's epistemological point that we don't know "how many" authors there are is a grammatical non-issue. Plus the article itself correctly states right off the bat that the author is an "individual." Also, it is clear from the style of the blog that it has one author (me). And, the blog itself has a bio page for the author. There are group blogs, and they say so! Please listen to reason at RationalWiki. And possibly it would be good to not let this Human person edit articles anymore. Notedscholar (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I use whatever proun I think the fish will enjoy eating on any given day. I won't bother repeating my question whether about whether it is known if it is a shim or a ther here.  00:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think with this latest comment from Human, my case is victorious. Notedscholar (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You think? Really?  Well, at least you've put a smile on my face and a chuckle in my gait with that.  02:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

False claim about locked post
The article says a certain post is locked, and somehow uses that to prove I'm one of the poes. If I have the most idiotic blog on the Internet, then how do you explain this idiotic part of RationalWiki? Notedscholar (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was locked when this was written. Anyway, the locked status is not the evidence being used, its the content of the post.  18:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The false claim should be removed. Also, I think you're confusing the content of the post with the provocative title. Hovind is not a student of Myers, and I make that clear in the post. This should clear things up. I'll await your corrections. Notedscholar (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not due to the title (boy you are slow on the uptake). It's due to the content.  18:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the title is false and is meant for humor. The content just says PZ Myers is obsessed with Hovind for some reason. What is so poe about it? I quiver in anticipation of your response. Notedscholar (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Latin slogan
"Felis sum et ad furandum veni" means, as far as I can tell, "I am Cat and to come plunder." What?? 71.192.47.52 (talk) 02:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC) Google Translate renders it as @Cats and I have come to steal@. If that's not a hint at it being a Poe, I don't know what is. :) Dick Holman 01:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This article should be changed.
I believe this article should be changed, including the lead section, to reflect that this blog is a parody beyond any reasonable doubt. I know it's been loosely discussed before, but nothing has come of it.

"In fact, the man who invented Imaginary Numbers was an ophthalmologist named Renes Descartes. He coined the term. And guess what. It was in a criticism of the idea. Orwell would have a field day."

It doesn't take long going through this site to realise you've gone past Poe territory, and it is without a doubt parody. 05:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the article is pretty clear on that. 05:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Somebody quickly scanning wouldn't get it, clearly. The lead doesn't say it's parody and says it's one of the most idiotic blogs on the internet, implying we think it is sincere but stupid. I wanted to check with people before just throwing it in, but don't you think the lead should say it's almost certainly insincere? 05:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it implied it. Also, it's a really short article, "skimming" shouldn't be an issue? If someone can't make it to the "see also" to Poe's Law, their attention span is too short even for the internet...  06:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is so obnoxious. It is one thing to discredit someone by acting like you have a refutation of their views. It is another thing to discredit someone by implying they're some kind of joke, because they use references you don't understand (Orwell? Seriously?) and express views you find controversial (0.999... not equaling 1, for starters) and occasionally manage to have a sense of humor on the Internet. My corrections on this harmful website have gone unaccepted from day one, so I guess I don't expect any special progress now. But please, give a little benefit of the doubt. Notedscholar (talk) Friday November 26th, Cambridge, MA
 * And I should add, will add, that the quotation you mention isn't even itself one of my jokes. Ever heard of Descartes' work called "The Optics"? Every heard of the fact that he DID coin the term? Ever heard of the fact that he DID use the word to criticize the idea? Ever heard of the fact that Orwell foresaw a society that reinvented terms to have a usage opposite of the original intention? I don't know why I'm wasting my time. Notedscholar (talk) same date as above
 * OH NOES!! A term coined in the 1800's has changed meaning! It's 1984!!! RachelW (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Rachel, first thank you for taking time. But I'm a little confused. In Science Studies, as well as the sociology of science, it's important to keep in mind the history and etymology of words. Otherwise we lose the true historical meaning. Notedscholar (talk) Feb 24 2012, Cambridge, MA

Felis sum et ad furandum veni
That you guys don't understand Latin is unsurprising; that you don't have the humility to LEARN Latin before preaching on it IS surprising; even I have more respect for you than you have for yourselves. Will someone please actually email an actual classics scholar first before falsely claiming that my translation is bad? I will do so myself if necessary. Notedscholar (talk) 10:42am, February 24, 2012 (Eastern Time, Cambridge)


 * I understand Latin just fine, but if its such a big deal getting the right translation, why don't you make your motto in a language that people can understand, instead of a dead language that just makes you look pretentious. Or maybe YOU should have emailed a classics professor before posting a Latin phrase you don't know how to translate, since you clearly aren't confident enough in your own translation to tell us why it is correct. RachelW (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, did anyone but you think that Heinrich Hertz and Heinrich Himmler were related? Did you know that George Washington and Curious George are related too? They're cousins, about a million times removed. It must be sad to write such great parody and be almost completely ignored by the public, except for us. Why not try writing comedy, you're good at it! RachelW (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Rachel, first, I did email a classics scholar, and he translated the English into Latin for me. But second, I am slightly confused by the tone of your comments. On the one hand you keep attacking me, but then you tell me that I am "good" at comedy. This could be sarcasm, but... all I can say is that this is probably my only regret in my blog, that I use so much humor. I am trying to provide an independent perspective on scientific literature and debate, and in so doing try to be readable to Internet audiences, who like (1) short pieces and (2) humor. But this has led to complete confusion about my intentions. YES I'm trying to be funny but NO my muckraking in the scientific community isn't a joke!! Notedscholar (talk) Feb. 2012, Cambridge, MA
 * You do get he's a poe, right? I mean, as long as you know that, and are fucking with him, no biggie, but don't go taking what he says as if he believed any of it.[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    Grow a vagina 16:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * why don't you make your motto in a language that people can understand, instead of a dead language that just makes you look pretentious Fervens Scientia SaneWiki! Scarlet A.pngpathetic 16:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Google tells me that "Sum feles" is "I have a cat". But, whatever, it sounds better but always more pretentious in Latin. Scarlet A.pngbomination 14:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you now will you please change the article to be correct? And if not, find a source better than Google?? Notedscholar (Talk), today
 * The Latin expert I know says it's definitely "felis sum" if you want it to mean anything, but she reckons both versions up there are badly formed bullshitting pig-Latin. Scarlet A.pngtheist 10:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relying on Google Translate is quite awkward, considering how fallible it is (even though useful if you just want the gist of what a text in an unfamiliar language is saying). Felis sum et ad furandum veni is fine. It means "I am a cat and have come to steal (plunder)". --84.151.141.110 (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Negative numbers
Just thought about this one. Effectively the argument against negative numbers seems to be that you can't actually have a *negative* something, and that "negative" in this case is just a manifestation of debt, it isn't actually real. As a result, it's just dicking about with semantics, not a real thing. Now, I sort of agree with this, but only to a point and I'll explain. SaMD is effectively saying that a negative number is actually a positive number multiplied by -1: -326 = 326 x (-1). However, this ignores the fact that we can do the same with positive numbers too, if we pull out a +1: +326 = 326 x (+1). Because numbers in this sense are more like co-ordinates than debt. That's what a number line is in an abstract sense, and if you go into the complex imaginary plain we get four vectors of +1, -1, +i and -i. There's nothing wrong with this as it's no different to map co-ordinates, unless you're saying anything in the negative direction to a frame of reference doesn't physically exist. This gives a vector quantity to the number, and what is left, once you've removed this vector is neither positive nor negative really, it's just a quantity, a magnitude, just like speed is the magnitude of velocity (which possesses the vector quantity). A negative number isn't a positive one multiplied by -1, it's a magnitude multiplied by the vector -1. Similarly, in this view, a positive number is a magnitude multiplied by +1. Without either of these +1, -1, +i or -i vectors, the numbers ceases to be either positive or negative, it's just a cardinal. There's nothing particularly special about the positive or the negative as both represent something.

In the debt analogy, this shows true as well, because "I have four horses" versus "I owe four horses" is equivalent to +4 and -4 respectively, and it's the + and - signs that give that phrase meaning. Without + or -, we just have four horses floating in conceptual limbo. The SaMD argument is just an idiotic misunderstanding over the fact that we usually neglect to write down the + when talking about positive numbers.

Effectively, all that SaMD has achieved in this "argument" is what I've outlined above - but unfortunately the SaMD post neglected to go that one step further and do the same to "disprove" positive numbers using the same method. Because by doing this, what has been said becomes hardly profound at all and more trivially banal. Mathematics hasn't been defeated, but merely re-framed - by a semantic argument, by the way - into what anyone with even a basic and cursory knowledge of complex analysis could tell you. narchist 10:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

moronic blog post
''Greetings, Professor Avram Chomsky. I am finding myself wondering: how does losing one’s ability in, say, a second-language affect (if at all), one’s memories of conversations one had in that language? Perhaps in your journeys in linguistics you have not discovered this answer, but I did not know who else to ask.''

—

Nikolay Sokolov Blog: https://sciencedefeated.wordpress.com/

He replied:

Interesting question, but I’ve never seen any study of it.

This shows that my investigations have vexed even the greatest minds of our times and places! I try not to boast on this blog, but sometimes the going gets hard! I think you’d do the same

now talk here
This is the stupidist "proof" ive ever heard, he might not have seen a study of it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist! Bubba41102 (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This may explain something
In Gravity and the Myth of 0mph we have this:


 * „Hard to rap your mind around...“

Indeed, and I think further explanations are not necessary. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)