As I sit here typing away, I’m frankly and completely flummoxed. Someone has had the audacity to call me, ME of ALL people Willfully Ignorant. ME?!?!
http://tatteredthread.blogspot.com/2006/02/cosmic-landscape-chapter-7.html#c114089489860259182
The background is somewhat long and drawn out but to summarize, the commenter and I disagree on the Anthropic theory of the Universe. He has invested a lot of time and energy in learning all about the current thinking on the origin of the universe and applying his own interpretation. I can respect that and I heard him out in previous comments (which can still be found on the respective posts) and even spent a significant amount of time trying to understand what he was talking about. In the end, I was relatively unsuccessful but despite his interruptions, the review of the text that started this whole thing, “The Cosmic Landscape” continued.
Apparently, at some key point in the text, my comments on the text disagreed with something he held to be true. Specifically, the Anthropic theory of the universe. At the moment, it really does appear that this theory is yet another attempt by the religious to slip their mythology into our lives in the guise of science. Is this the case? I have no clue, I haven’t had time to finish the book yet. Maybe it doesn’t but as of chapter 6 it certainly appears to be the case. I’m open-minded (despite the claims of certain commenters) and await further developments in the rest of the book.
At this juncture, I am forced to conclude that the person in question is simply a religious fanatic of some sort. Of course that’s his right but I will say that no religion I’m aware of would consider his behavior appropriate. Insults and name-calling are certainly not a Christian ideal. He’s entitled to his opinion and is free to post it as commentary on my blog. I have no problem with people hearing every side of every story. There is no higher ideal than the truth. It’s important to remember, however, that the truth is seldom delivered by people who hurl epithets at their opposition.
More than the irritation at my disagreement though, I’m amazed that anyone could call me willfully ignorant. My highest goal in life is to know as much about everything as possible. I don’t want to be ignorant of anything. To call me Willfully Ignorant is simply astonishing. In this specific instance especially, I don’t see how the argument can be made. The commenter can only be complaining about one of two things that I’m apparently refusing to learn about:
It’s possible he/she believes that I’m not trying hard to enough to learn about physics. To this, I’ll simply point out that I’m reading the book. I’ve read half a dozen others throughout my life and any ignorance of physics (which is considerable) is not willful. Willfully ignorant people don’t read books on the things they’re trying to remain ignorant of.
The other possibility is that he/she believes I’m ignorant of religion. If he or she really is a religious zealot, then the argument would simply be that I’m trying to evade his or her arguments so that I can continue to deny the existence of his or her choice of deity. If that’s the case, it’s just silly. I’ve spent more time reading the Bible than the average Christian and more time with the Qur’an than 99.9% of other non-Muslims so I’m far from ignorant of religion. I’m not denying the existence of anyone’s deity. I don’t subscribe to any deities personally but as I haven’t done an exhaustive survey of the universe I can’t speak as to where yours is.
In any case, to those who disagree, please disagree. But do not post disagreements of the form “you’re a ___” or “what a ___” as they’re just going to get deleted. Back your disagreements with facts, not insults. If I’m wrong I’ll happily admit it, I love to change my mind and do so often. Do not, however, expect me to just change my mind because you said so. In the end, we all have ultimate dominion over our own minds.
4 comments:
Apparently, at some key point in the text, my comments on the text disagreed with something he held to be true. Specifically, the Anthropic theory of the universe.
No, apparently your comments disagreed with the known facts of the observed universe about the anthropic PRINCIPLE, which is not a theory, it is a fact.
My entropic interpretation has nothing to do with that.
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your classical symptoms... but I've had a lot of experience with "neodarwinian bullies"... as one of the most respected scientists in the field of evolutionary biology calls them.
The fact that it may have been unintentional does not make these seriously non-scientific symptoms go away.
It is a fact that you deleted a whole bunch of known facts that supports corrections that I made.
I asked you again to acknoledge this.
You continue to refuse...
You continue to prove me correct until unless you quit pretending that you haven't done these things, you are proven by your continued actions to be a willfully ignorant antifanatic.
It's real easy to lose that distinction... if you are capable of admitting when you're wrong.
No, apparently your comments disagreed with the known facts of the observed universe about the anthropic PRINCIPLE, which is not a theory, it is a fact.
Heh. That’s funny. Anyone who points to any piece of information of any significance and says "it is a fact" doesn't remember his or her history very well. People have been pointing at facts like yours for a thousand years and have later been proven completely wrong. The God Apollo was a fact. The Spirit guides of the Native Americans were facts too. The flatness of the Earth was a fact. They were all proven to be naïve overgeneralizations of observable physical phenomena and so will you be your time comes. Mankind understands almost nothing of the universe around him so for you to say that you personally have it all figured out and that the rest of humanity is wrong is really…um… surprising. Let’s be polite and just go with surprising.
My entropic interpretation has nothing to do with that.
You have yet to actually fulfill my request for a statement of your theory without the jargon. No entropic, no ‘anthropic’, no jargon. I want a statement of your position in words that any person on the street can understand. Something like this: “The universe is the way it is because…” That’s all I’m asking for. After that, I’ll be happy to look at your theory and post a similarly simple response.
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your classical symptoms... but I've had a lot of experience with "neodarwinian bullies"... as one of the most respected scientists in the field of evolutionary biology calls them.
I’m not bullying anyone. I’m TAKING NOTES ON A BOOK. There are about 4 people who read this blog and you make 5. The 4 others aren’t forced to do anything, particularly not by me. I specifically tell people to read what they have an interest in and ignore the rest. If you don’t like what you read here, then don’t read it. Come back when I’m reading the Bible or something on plant biology or whatever interests you.
The fact that it may have been unintentional does not make these seriously non-scientific symptoms go away.
Um. So what if they are? This is a blog, not the New England Journal of Medicine. I personally don’t find my opinions unscientific at all. If you do, then why waste your time reading them? I consider my opinions very scientific, ruthlessly logical and completely unencumbered by any preconceptions about the universe and in many cases any previous knowledge at all. I’ll believe exactly what is proven to me and what makes logical sense. I will not simply defer my own judgment to those who believe they can make an argument from random strings of jargon or religious dogma. If it makes sense, I believe it. If it doesn’t, I disregard it. Simple as that.
It is a fact that you deleted a whole bunch of known facts that supports corrections that I made. I asked you again to acknoledge this. You continue to refuse...
Alright, I officially wish that you’d finish reading the threads you start. This is the third time that I’ve responded to this objection. Yes, I did delete some of your comments. You left me 15 comments in the span of an hour that were increasingly hostile and some of which contained personal attacks against my character. Rather than differentiate between the two and all the grey area in between, I deleted those that left any doubt whatsoever. You’ll notice that your earlier (and more well thought out) comments remain with no modifications. If you don’t want your comments deleted, then don’t be rude. Again, my blog, my choice of what gets out here and what doesn’t. I’m happy for you to share information but don’t be an ass.
You continue to prove me correct until unless you quit pretending that you haven't done these things, you are proven by your continued actions to be a willfully ignorant antifanatic.
Alright now who’s being unscientific? You can’t PROVE anything based on such unrelated information. I can delete all the comments I want and it proves absolutely nothing. If I remain ignorant of anything you’re trying to say, it’s only because everything you write is so filled with jargon and undefined terms that it requires 20 minutes and the use of a large dictinary to read what you have to say. I repeat my previous request. Tell me what it is exactly that you’re trying to say in simplistic terms that I can print off and hand out on the street corner and everyone will understand it.
Heh. That’s funny. Anyone who points to any piece of information of any significance and says "it is a fact" doesn't remember his or her history very well.
Son, son, son.... the anthropic principle is a fact of the observed universe. The facts that I gave in response to your comments were also facts of the the observed universe that I can quote from a citable edu. source.
I made no statements of significance, as I left this up to the interpretation of the reader, I merely gave a more accurate representation of the facts.
The fact that you seem to believe that this means that I presented indicates that YOU think that there is significance from what was said. I only gave a more accurate representation of the known physical facts than you will typically get from the web, NOT the different scientific intepretations of them.
So good for you... you're not a moron that tries to lose obvious significance.
You also said that Lenny doesn't make any better argument than creationists do, AS IF YOU HAVE PRIOR OPINION ON THIS SUBJECT, SO QUIT PRETENDING THAT YOU'RE STATEMENT WERE ONLY ABOUT LENNY'S BOOK!!!
Alright, well you're just about at the end of my available patience here.
Simple restatement of your opinion does not constitute a proof. You can state and restate that the anthropic theory is true but repetition and jargon do not a proof make. In fact, anyone who attempts to solidly prove anything in the real world is a fool.
And of course I have an opinion on the book. Am I supposed to just repeat anything I read without digesting it at all? Again, my blog, I can say anything I want. You, as the reader, have the ultimtae power to silence me forever by not reading what I say. Feel free to exercise your rights.
As usual, you ignore the rest of my response including the most important part, the request for a simple restatement of your theory. Open forum here. From your keyboard to my mind. Direct line. Say what you've got to say without obfuscation and I'll file what you have to say in the appropriate slot.
Using your previous logic, I guess your failure to respond proves that you don't actually have anything to say on the subject. That's pretty handy! I may start using that logical construct more often. Silence implies whatever you want to insert. I'm giddy with power. *sigh*
Post a Comment