Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I always find these exchanges with Vox Day so amusing, mostly because of the weapons grade projection he engages in and the fact that he thinks merely being smug in response to an argument defeats that argument. In his latest response to my exchange with Ellis Washington, both are on full display.
Ed Brayton asked Ellis Washington a question for the apparent purposes of evading a debate with him. Calling my non-response to a question asked of Ellis Washington "a rhetorical fallacy" isn't just ridiculous, it doesn't even make sense. First, asking such a question is not an appropriate response to a debate challenge; one does not engage in the debate prior to it actually taking place.
Actually, no. Ellis Washington did not challenge me to a debate. He asked me a rather inane question and I answered it. He asked me how I could accept evolution (or even more stupidly, how could I "have faith" in it when I don't) in light of the little quote fragment he had from Darwin that was A) out of context; B) misattributed (because he had never actually read the letter it came from, he merely cribbed it from some creationist pamphlet or website); and C) utterly irrelevant to the validity of evolution.
The question Ellis Washington asked was moronic. It was the kind of thing one would expect from the most ignorant of people, not from someone who thinks as highly of himself as Washington does. Frankly, anyone with an IQ over room temperature should be embarrassed for having asked such a stupid question. Nonetheless, I answered it in a perfectly straightforward and civil manner.
It was only after asking that stupid question that Washington then said he would be "happy to debate" me on "this or any other subjects." Really? Someone is supposed to take that seriously as a "debate challenge"?
One of the more amusing things about the internet dynamic is this notion of debate challenges. Person A drops such a challenge and if person B does not immediately accept, they are branded a coward by assholes like Vox Day. As if such a debate would actually settle anything, as if any and every such challenge would be worth one's time, as if every person making such a challenge has any ability to uphold their side without embarrassing themselves. And frankly, anyone who asked the question he asked doesn't know the first thing about the subject.
And by the way, Mr. Washington has never bothered to respond to my reply to his idiotic question or to the perfectly reasonable question I posed to him to see if he knew anything at all about the subject. Unlike Vox, I won't childishly chalk that up to cowardice; I just don't think he can answer the question. I don't think anyone can.
And on that subject, Vox adds more ridiculous blather:
Brayton clearly doesn't understand that it does not matter if his "simple factual claim" is wrong or not. What matters is that the truth or falsehood of that "simple factual claim" says nothing about the truth or falsehood of the theory of evolution by natural selection, which happens to be the subject that Washington raised with him. The proposition that there is only one coherent, reasonable explanation for something is not tantamount to the proposition that the coherent, reasonable explanation is actually correct.
How does Vox imagine we judge the validity of a scientific theory? We do so by the ability of that theory to explain the data we have and to predict the nature of new data before it is discovered. The theory of evolution (i.e. common descent) explains the data on endogenous retroviruses extraordinarily well. But we can, in fact, go even further than that.
Not only does evolution explain ERV patterns perfectly well, those patterns make no sense at all without the theory of evolution. In other words, there is no coherent explanation of them without common descent. Furthermore, if those patterns did not look the way they do, common descent could not possibly explain them.
If, instead of finding ERVs in perfectly nested hierarchies that also match the nested hierarchies previously developed based on anatomical and molecular homology, we found that they appeared in a random pattern -- i.e. in the same spots in the genomes of wildly disparate species but not in the species thought to be descendant from those that have them -- then evolution would be all but falsified. That feature of ERVs simply must be the way it is if common descent is true, a prediction that predates the discovery of ERVs.
Before ever discovering them, if you tell an evolutionary biologist that viruses can insert themselves into the genome at uncontrolled points (essentially mimicking the randomness of mutations) and then become fixed in the genome so that they are replicated along with all the other genetic coding in every cell, that biologist would predict the exact pattern we find. If that can happen, then when it happens in species A, it should then also be present in every species believed to be descendant from that species based upon the phylogenetic trees we've already built using anatomical and molecular sequencing data. And just as importantly, it is extremely unlikely for the same virus to be inserted at exactly the same spot in the genome a species that is not descendant from the species in which that insertion became fixed.
In other words, the pattern of nested hierarchies that we see when we look at the insertions of ERVs in the genomes of hundreds or thousands of species is predicted by the theory of evolution, explained perfectly by the theory of evolution and explained only by the theory of evolution - unless one wishes to accept a "theory" like "some supernatural being poofed it into existence that way because they felt like it." And if one thinks such an alternative is a reasonable explanation then, quite frankly, all of science is out the window because one can always come up with such an explanation for any set of data. The problem, of course, is that such explanations are useless because they can explain ANY set of data, while the actual scientific theory cannot.
So yes, the ability of evolutionary theory to explain the ERV data is, in fact, quite relevant to the validity of that theory. Does it provide some sort of absolute proof that the theory of evolution is true? Of course not. But science does not have only two categories -- absolutely true or utter nonsense. We assign certainty to an explanation based on the ability of that explanation to explain a wide range of data over a long period of time. And by that measure, evolution is wildly successful. We can therefore have a high degree of certainty that it is the correct explanation. It has enormous explanatory power, which is the very reason we design theories in the first place.
That Vox Day and Ellis Washington do not understand this is neither surprising nor a particular cause for concern. That they announce their ignorance with such condescension and arrogance is merely amusing.
Politics
Comments
I thought the explanation: "goddidit" was sufficient for any right thinking christian. That pat answer shows why debating anyone of such limited intelligence that they can spout that as an answer make even the idea of a debate ridiculous.
It's like watching a kid put his fingers in his ears and shouting, "la-la-la I can't hear you" while losing a playground argument. If he can't hear you, he can't have actually lost the argument.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 1, 2010 9:43 AM
...one does not engage in the debate prior to it actually taking place.
Um...if you're engaging in the debate, then, by definition, it's taking place. QED. (That's Latin for DUH.)
And that brings us to another problem inherent in these Internet debate challenges: it's all based on the "challenger's" refusal to acknowledge that a debate is taking place, unless all the participants are jumping through his arbitrary and self-serving hoops the whole time.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 1, 2010 9:43 AM
Room temperature in degrees Celsius.
Posted by: Orac | March 1, 2010 10:13 AM
The other problem with a debate is this. There is the false belief that the "correct" side will always win. Like a truely good debator couldn't argue that day was infact night. We have all debated with someone who was good enough to get us thinking "wow maybe day is night" but that doesn't make it true...and that's the problem with debating things like evolution. Ok you won the debate that doesn't make evolution that more or less true.
Posted by: Harknights | March 1, 2010 10:25 AM
Well said - a point that is far too often missed, overlooked, and especially ignored by denialists of a variety of stripes, from AIDS to Creationists.
Good show for your ability to express the point in a sufficiently pithy manner for the internet.
Posted by: SteveWW | March 1, 2010 10:29 AM
I got into a mini-debate with a denlialist on Vox Day's site two days ago who claimed that science had rejected the theory of anthropogenic global warming. I asked for a citation and he responded with a non-scientist denlialist journalist misrepresenting what a climate scientist, Phil Jones, had stated in an interview with said journalist, all this being sufficient.
What I noticed about that forum is the consistency of their approach to challenging those that don't share their point of view. They immediately become condenscending and make fierce arguments about trivial peripheral issues that allowed them to avoid dealing with their opponents' core points as we see here with Ed's dialogue with the blogger himself. I assume because they're cognizant that their response to those core points are both uninformed and fatally defective when confronted by someone with a clue.
It's also pretty clear that objective truth is not important to them. Instead like a herd of juvenile delinquent male elephants; rhetorical raping and pillaging of "the other" for the entertainment of the group is all the rage.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 1, 2010 10:53 AM
The “debate” diversion is typical. Since creationists and ID’ers can’t argue on facts or logic re the actual science, the knee jerk reaction is to throw out the "debate" card.
Creationists and ID’ers prefer the debate route because it’s the only forum where they have an advantage, given that debates for public audiences are generally governed by the rules of rhetoric, not logic. This is usually why, historically, creationists are perceived as having “won” most debates with scientists. Such debates may work in politics, but for scientific matters which require detailed explanations, not so much (unless both parties are actually scientists or begin with solid scientific premises.)
For this reason I always wonder why scientists and skeptics even bother to debate cranks and creationists in the first place, as it grants them the only avenue of legitimacy for their long-since obsolete or debunked viewpoints. Of course the downside to refusing such debates is it allows the creationist to proclaim that the evolutionist secretly knows their case is weak and so is afraid to engage in open discussion. All in all a win/win proposition for the fringe.
Posted by: EricJ | March 1, 2010 10:54 AM
It should be emphasized that Washington's "argument" was truly pathetic. Even if the offered quote was accurate and in context, thinking a quote from someone, anyone, could disprove the TOE, or indeed, any scientific theory completely misunderstands the workings of science. Theories rise of fall on the weight of evidence, not because a single person, even the theory's discoverer, recants. That, and even focusing on Darwin to begin with is to ignore the 150 years of research that has taken place since his theory's introduction.
The fact that Vox Day fails to recognize this and instead defends Washington speaks volumes about his reasoning skills at the least.
Posted by: MyPetSlug | March 1, 2010 10:56 AM
I'm thankful for Day and WND. They add much need hilarity to teh internets that LOLCATS can't. Sometimes I think he's a deep cover liberal messing with right-wing, especially when you see his latest business venture:
http://warmouse.com/
That's right, a mouse with 18 buttons.
Posted by: Rich | March 1, 2010 11:00 AM
I read VD's post. I don't think I've ever seen so much self-delusion in so few words.
Of course, one can't expect much in the way of logic from either biologists or journalists who are said to possess "an in-depth understanding" of "the evidence for evolution".
Right. Tell me, VD, is it the professions of biologist or journalist that make such people bad at logic, or is it the fact that they understand evolution? Do you really not understand the idiocy of your claim?
Brayton is a coward. Nasty, perhaps. Not substanceless. Possibly true. That's exactly what it looks like now to me and pretty much everyone else on both sides of the issue.
Really? You got anything to back that up? Anything at all? I didn't think so. You may enjoy pulling things out of your ass, but it's not necessary to show them to other people.
Brayton clearly doesn't understand that it does not matter if his "simple factual claim" is wrong or not. What matters is that the truth or falsehood of that "simple factual claim" says nothing about the truth or falsehood of the theory of evolution by natural selection...
VD is being truthful here. It doesn't matter what evidence you produce supporting evolution - he will never accept it. It's not surprising - these are people who think science should be done by debate.
Posted by: Taz | March 1, 2010 11:02 AM
Exactly this. The fact that "debate challenges" almost always arise in the context of an existing debate means they are not requests for debate at all. They're merely a demand to switch away from a format where one's prior statements are available for instant review by all observers, and where sources can be demanded and checked.
Posted by: DaveL | March 1, 2010 11:03 AM
"And if one thinks such an alternative is a reasonable explanation then, quite frankly, all of science is out the window because one can always come up with such an explanation for any set of data."
I expect Vox is cool with that. Remember, Vox is a scientifically-illiterate egomaniac. He actually doesn't think science has any better claim to the reliable generation of knowledge than any other belief system. What he knows is that (1) when scientists talk about evidence, they often contradict his beliefs, but (2) his intellect is superior to theirs, so his beliefs can't be seriously challenged by their work, and therefore (3) there must be something wrong with either the scientists or the evidence.
Furthermore, since Christianity is True, but nonetheless unsupported by standard forms of evidence, there must be something wrong with the idea of using evidence to privilege one proposition over another...and therefore, a "logical error" must have been made somewhere whenever evidence supports something inconsistent with what he believes.
So, he proceeds to run around in self-defeating rhetorical circles, trying to point out how his critics have made logical errors...and in the process commits exactly the same fallacies of which he accuses others.
It's really quite predictable and amusing.
Posted by: JRQ | March 1, 2010 11:05 AM
This is technically true. It's (strictly speaking) logically possible that common descent is true but we got the mechanisms wrong.
However, that doesn't change the fact that Washington and Day are avoiding your question. So my question for Vox Day would be "So you concede that common descent is true?"
Posted by: DaveL | March 1, 2010 11:07 AM
"Brayton is a coward?" Please. Brayton went out of his way to engage with his opponents on THEIR cyber-turf. When was the last time Vox "Turbo Porsche" Day or any of his creationist chums showed that much cojones?
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 1, 2010 11:15 AM
Raging Bee - Not only is Brayton afraid to debate Ellis Washington, but "pretty much everyone else on both sides of the issue" thinks so! VD got it straight from the little fairies that live in his garden. Or maybe it's wisdom he sucks out of the cosmos while holding his flaming sword.
Posted by: Taz | March 1, 2010 11:22 AM
Vox Day lets little fairies live in his garden? And sucks wisdom from the cosmos? So much for his good Christian macho-man image. Guess he needs to take his hands off his flaming sword and buy himself another Turbo Porsche...
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 1, 2010 11:30 AM
For your entertainment:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=4b8bed4d23db7dbf;act=ST;f=14;t=5752;st=0
A Vox Day thread.
Posted by: Rich | March 1, 2010 11:37 AM
DaveL @ 11:
As nearly always, great point and worthy of archiving for future use.
For me the highest quality "debate" I've encountered between science and creationists was reading the trial transcripts of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.
Author Lauri Lebo also provided much needed context during the testimony and cross-examinations of the trial. In the Dover Trial the defense's expert witness creationists were not able to survive on rhetorical or logical fallacies but instead those fallacies and their vacuity of evidence was exposed as such. And as Ms. Lebo reports, when the actual science was presented by the plaintiff's expert witness Scientists, the defendants' core of supporters that were in attendance were unable to even consider the presentation of that evidence, they just shut it out, they were mentally impotent.
JRQ @ 12 also excellently describes what I've encountered the mere handful of times Ed's pointed out some of what Vox Day publishes.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 1, 2010 11:51 AM
I should probably have added another reason why this "Ed is afraid to debate" notion is absurd. I coached debate, for crying out loud, and I was damn good at it. The kids I coached won top speaker awards and were regularly in the late elimination rounds of major tournaments (as I was when I debated as well) after having started a program from scratch only two years earlier. Debates don't scare me in the least; it's something I am very, very good at. And I'm certainly not afraid to debate the subject of evolution -- a subject I know exceedingly well -- with someone who thinks a single out of context quote by Darwin disproves evolution.
But if I were to have such a debate with Ellis Washington -- he still hasn't replied to my answer or my question, by the way -- I would insist that it be in written form. Why? Because it's far easier to track arguments and document sources than in an oral debate. It's also available to everyone forever to read in that form. And I'd lay odds that he has no intention of engaging in any such debate. He knows he's outmatched.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 1, 2010 11:52 AM
--- Vox Day lets little fairies live in his garden? And sucks wisdom from the cosmos? So much for his good Christian macho-man image. Guess he needs to take his hands off his flaming sword and buy himself another Turbo Porsche...---
Nah; I say he should grow some tits instead. Then everyone can truly objectify him. Although with that flaming sword; that could be a serious health and safety hazard. I would call it a Katon Puff-Puff.
Oh; and in the contexts of garden; I think Taz is actually talking about a junkyard, a garden of junked cars. The rumor where it's filled with Turbo Porsche's has yet to be independently confirmed though.
Posted by: Gregory Weagle | March 1, 2010 11:59 AM
Having read Vox' response, I have to give him one thing: the guy has mastered the art of "how to say nothing in 500-1000 carefully chosen, self-congratulatory words." It's like Zen for clinical narcissists.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 1, 2010 12:49 PM
I can't bring myself to visit his site so I'll just have to ask...does he still have a merkin on his head?
Posted by: Savagemutt | March 1, 2010 1:13 PM
I think this comic pretty much sums up the situation with regard to explanations of ERVs.
Posted by: Escuerd | March 1, 2010 1:15 PM
There goes Ed, using facts and reason to present a coherent position and destroy his opponent's argument. Me? I figure what's good for the goosestepper is good for the gander. If Vox gets to use non-sequiturs, then I say I do too.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 1, 2010 1:15 PM
Eric J #7 wrote:
If so, then creationism debates are a good idea whenever the situation is one where evolution is the "fringe" position. If you've got an audience which consists primarily of people who have lived their lives in a propaganda echo chamber -- and they just can't imagine how anyone couldn't see what's so clear and obvious as Special Creation -- then you can't lose. Not only do you have a better argument, but you're automatically refuting the straw man in their heads, and there's really no where to go but up. If you can remain calm and pleasant, that alone will put a face on what had been a faceless boogey-man.
One reason why I think it's hard to have a hard and fast rule on whether to debate creationists. It will depend.
Posted by: Sastra | March 1, 2010 1:43 PM
If there's one thing that infuriates me to no end, it's the notion that one's certainty about a statement must be all or nothing.
From what I see here, it appears that Vox thinks that unless there's a sound deductive argument for a proposition, it's no better or worse than any other proposition.
"Evidence? Inductive reasoning? Ha! That's just the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent. You have failed to give absolute proof, so the theory of evolution is completely without support."
Yes, it sounds retarded when spelled out, and it is. It underlies the thinking of many people in these sorts of arguments, though.
It's really weird when people who fetishize absolute certainty are religious. Shouldn't they all be skeptics of the ancient Greek variety who claim to know nothing?
Posted by: Escuerd | March 1, 2010 1:59 PM
The mouse mentioned above says a lot. If you didn't know Vox was a massive misogynistic douchebag, if you didn't know he was a willfully ignorant creationist idiot, you'd still have to question his sanity based on the mouse design alone. It seems like the computing equivalent of Catholic self-flagellation.
Posted by: Brian X | March 1, 2010 2:13 PM
Ed: But if I were to have such a debate with Ellis Washington -- he still hasn't replied to my answer or my question, by the way -- I would insist that it be in written form.
The scientific community has a standing offer to anyone and everyone to debate any scientific point they want "in written form."
We call it publishing in peer reviewed journals.
My guess is their response to your offer will be the same response they've given to the scientific community for 20+ years: silence.
Posted by: eric | March 1, 2010 2:14 PM
"It's really weird when people who fetishize absolute certainty are religious. Shouldn't they all be skeptics of the ancient Greek variety who claim to know nothing?"
Even then, the claim that true antecedents always entail true consequences isn't justified by any metalogical calculus, it's taken to be true by a form of circular reasoning. One could easily be as skeptical of deduction as they are of induction, which would require them to pass along in silence. In VD's case, this would surely be beneficial.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 1, 2010 2:16 PM
Not to mention how very high-school nerdesque the whole "I challenge you to debate!" stuff is.
I mean, think about how stupid it is to whine about someone on the internet not "debating" you. You all have blogs. You make arguments. You respond to people. You're ALREADY DEBATING STUFF. And in a far less stilted, time-limited, mainly for entertainment purposes manner. The end.
Anyone with ANY experience in actual formal debate knows right off the bat that formal debates are terrible forums for actually learning which side is correct. Debates are best for, hopefully, getting a good survey of the common arguments both sides of an issue have for each other, and often some impressive examples of rhetoric.
Actual scientific truth, on the other hand, comes from reasoned argument and counter-argument that has no set end point or length restrictions, let alone is set up to mainly be a performance.
Posted by: Drew | March 1, 2010 3:29 PM
Brian X "...you'd still have to question his sanity based on the mouse design alone. It seems like the computing equivalent of Catholic self-flagellation."
You have to be really smart to use it. Vox does. Ergo, Vox smart. Smartness is rated on the "carpal tunnel" scale, where he rates up at the top, in the "tingly" percentile.
It should be noted that multi-multi button mice have been around for ages (for specialized applications, generally). The "warmouse" is "special" because it's got a joystick on it. Because, you see, if you have something in your hand whose movement matches that of a cursor on the screen, what you really need is a subdevice on the device that does the exact same thing*, like a brake pedal on a brake pedal or chocolate ice cream in chocolate ice cream (the last one sounds pretty good, actually. I know this because I'm smart. My mouse has nineteen buttons. And a steering wheel).
* Alternately, it just functions as more buttons, which would make that mouse less special. You'd still need to be smart to operate it, though. Real smart. And you'd need a flaming sword. Y'know, for the respect.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 1, 2010 3:34 PM
I've always thought that VDs main problem was that he's pissed he wasn't born 500 years ago. At that time, science wasn't the preeminent force it is today, any reasonably sounding collection of words could pass you off as being a deep thinker and backhanding a woman who sassed you was considered appropriate.
It's the whole "Men were men, Women were women and Sheep were scared," thing...
Posted by: Jody | March 1, 2010 4:04 PM
Rich @9: Wait, what? A mouse with 18 buttons is VD's idea? What the Hell for?
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 1, 2010 4:53 PM
Jody @ 32:
Where I live in Northern Michigan, it's not "were" but instead "are"; and deer, not sheep. Actually, when we want to make fun of the yoopers, those that live in the Upper Pennisula about 60 miles north of me, we deride their women as well as in, "Where the men are men, the women are men, and the deer run scared.".
Of course yoopers respond by calling us trolls; which refers to the fact we live below the Mackinac Bridge.
From what little I've encountered from our object of entertainment the past few days, he wouldn't thrive in either place in these parts; the whole 'all hat, no cattle' cliche seems to fit.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 1, 2010 4:56 PM
@RB, 33:
"33
Rich @9: Wait, what? A mouse with 18 buttons is VD's idea? What the Hell for?"
People with less hair than they'd like and tiny penises.
Posted by: Rich | March 1, 2010 5:18 PM
Down here in Southern Michigan, I actually raise sheep on the side. I bought my starter flock in Kalamazoo and, driving back along I-94 I passed a big sign for an adult novelty store.
My wife and I were sorely tempted to drop by to see the looks on their faces when we told them how excited we were to have "a fresh load".
Posted by: DaveL | March 1, 2010 5:19 PM
Meanwhile you cowards won't dare go over to VD's blog and debate him or anybody else there.
Posted by: Geek | March 1, 2010 5:30 PM
Hi Geek. He deletes comments that make him look bad, because he is an intellectual coward. Thanks for playing.
Posted by: Rich | March 1, 2010 5:35 PM
Geek: He's perfectly free to come here and debate anything he wants. He knows we won't delete or ban his comments, because he's been here before. And yet he hasn't shown up here in YEARS. Wonder why that is...
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 1, 2010 5:49 PM
I see.. Well that instigation didn't work.
Posted by: Geek | March 1, 2010 5:57 PM
AKA "The Luskin."
Posted by: J Myers | March 1, 2010 6:01 PM
"Meanwhile you cowards won't dare go over to VD's blog and debate him or anybody else there."
Nothing is stopping VD from responding at his place. In fact, he already has, with his typical content free wanking. He also quote mines Ed based on his failure to use the word "initially".
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 1, 2010 6:55 PM
If an asshole had an asshole it wouldn't be as much of an asshole as Vox Day.
Posted by: thehuntbox | March 1, 2010 7:15 PM
Oh my. Now vox is going on again about how hypotheses don't predict things that have already happened:
VD: "No, you're simply incorrect. There is no such thing as an ex post facto prediction. Which came first, Sleuth/Rich, the concept of common descent or Darwin?"
VD: "You're missing the point. It is important in this context. Since the concept of common descent preceded evolutionary theory, it obviously was not predicted by it. You butterfly collecting enthusiasts really don't do logic, do you."
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2010/03/in-fairness-science-bloggers-are-rather.html
Faced again with a topic on which he lacks basic literacy, but not the self-awareness to recognize it, he falls back on the "your logic is wrong" critique. As always, if the evidence doesn't support his position, there must be something wrong with his opponent's "logic", even if he can't articulate a non-absurd explanation why.
Posted by: JRQ | March 1, 2010 8:16 PM
Hey huntbox, I LOL'd, I mean, like, really laughed out loud. Nice one. Will steal.
I worked hard on my Vox Day post, which cleverly debunked Christianity with the same sequence of logic and evidence that makes up "climategate." You know, ended up declaring victory and saying 'You guys should just move on,' all that. Kerflooey, gone. So maybe there is a god.
I think somebody could make a fortune figuring out an internet debate protocol and hosting a site. You know, "onceandforall.com", something like that. Vox or whomever issues the challenge, Brayton agrees, and they both pony up $1000, winner take all less a few expenses.
I for one am pretty glad of this Climategate thing. I was looking at significant college expenses for my kids, but now the cautious, formal science conducted by PhDs is equivalent to the hootings of a small band of red-ass monkeys. Hell, my kids are already red-ass monkeys. I can buy a boat.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | March 1, 2010 8:19 PM
Raging Bee @33
Rich @9: Wait, what? A mouse with 18 buttons is VD's idea? What the Hell for?
Well he is the "Internet Superintelligence." Would you expect such an intelligence to be limited to a mere two button mouse? Even a three button wireless mouse with a scroll wheel is insufficient for someone who is willing to debate Nobel winners in every field. Even an eighteen button mouse is akin to asking a God to walk among lowly mortals. Nay, Vox Day needs the legendary 64 button mouse, with not one, but four scroll wheels so he can scroll on each axis, including time itself. Only a man with hyperintelligence such as Vox Day could dare to use the Muris superum, the mouse of the gods.
Posted by: Holytape | March 1, 2010 8:25 PM
In a scientific context "prediction" doesn't necessarily refer to divination, it specifically means "testable implication". Thus scientific theories can indeed "predict" things that occurred prior to their formulation.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | March 1, 2010 8:40 PM
Hear, hear.
Unfortunately, that's also the same thing that's frequently wrong with a jury trial.
Posted by: Diane G. | March 1, 2010 9:15 PM
You do not practice science, nor have you ever practiced science, so there is no "we."
Posted by: Milesius | March 1, 2010 11:55 PM
Milesius wrote:
The "we" in that sentence applied to all rational people. Thus, you are not included in that group. Rational people assign degrees of certainty to a theory based on its explanatory power, whether they are scientists or not.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 2, 2010 1:07 AM
I dispute your rationality. Moreover, I have practiced science and continue to do so. I do not ride on the coattails of others. (Although, not all of your friends actively publish.)
I am impressed as hell with your (mercifully short) comedy career though! (Speaking of comedy, I laughed at your comment re: the last time Newt Gingrich had a real job. Surely, that is the pot reproaching the kettle.)
Posted by: Milesius | March 2, 2010 2:04 AM
Gentlemen, what we've got here is a pissin' contest.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 2, 2010 3:29 AM
Go to bed dickhead ....
Posted by: wobert | March 2, 2010 4:08 AM
Not you Modus, the other bugger Milesend
Posted by: wobert | March 2, 2010 4:13 AM
Excuse my turn of phrase,been having a look at the clever ones place and reading a few of the comments. And a whole heap of stupid must have rubbed off.A couple of idiots even used Answers in Genesis as a reference, fuck me if that didn't bring on a case of Tourette syndrome.
Yes Vox
Very good Vox
You are so right Vox
Your so smart Vox
Whatever you say Vox,because it must be right
I wish I was you Vox
You really are a geuis Vox
Sycophantic goatfuckers
And there is a distinct difference in the standard of the comments and commenters overall,except for the last couple that muggins here put in.
Posted by: wobert | March 2, 2010 5:06 AM
I'm sorry, but as much fun as it is to beat up Vox Day, I feel like I have to defend the mouse. Well, mice with lots of buttons in general. I don't like the design of the Warmouse. However, a mouse like the Razer Naga is amazing for anyone that takes playing an MMO seriously. 17 buttons, check it out at http://store.razerzone.com/store/razerusa/en_US/pd/productID.169418900
I know, I know. For people not immersed in MMOs it's hard to grasp why so many buttons, but when you play a game like World of Warcraft with any seriousness, you find you actually run out of buttons.
I fear I may have added too much geekiness to the comments already, so I'll end my defense of poor multi-buttoned mice here. :) Thank you for reading.
Posted by: Jeff | March 2, 2010 5:07 AM
"I dispute your rationality. Moreover, I have practiced science and continue to do so. I do not ride on the coattails of others. (Although, not all of your friends actively publish.)"
I speak like a Randroid. My sentences are clipped. The words that I write are odd. They read like a Nigerian scam email. I want to inform you of a unique opportunity. Please give me your bank details.
Posted by: Coryat | March 2, 2010 5:16 AM
Escuerd@23: I don't think that comic is very accurate. The creationists' graph actually goes through most of the points.
Posted by: jim | March 2, 2010 6:55 AM
I dispute your rationality. Moreover, I have practiced science and continue to do so. I do not ride on the coattails of others. (Although, not all of your friends actively publish.)
==============
You don't ride on the coattails of others? Did you invent science yourself?
Sir Francis Bacon, is that you?
Posted by: Dr. Steve | March 2, 2010 7:02 AM
Ed @ 50:
Oh, goodie, you are able to see Milanus' bons mal when he flings them--like a fecal flinging baboon--onto the internetz toobs.
For a while there I thought he had performed his "brain cloud" mojo on you and that you coudn't see, or even smell, his emanations.
Posted by: democommie | March 2, 2010 7:22 AM
Dr Steve - or that other side of bacon, Roger. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | March 2, 2010 7:50 AM
democommie @ 60:
I think you give far too much credit to Milesius' capabilities. I would instead liken it to one common bacterial organism that resides on our skin both practically unnoticed and not worthy of any direct intervention on our part. Sure we'd prefer that particular species' non-existence on our skin, however damage approaches zero even when ignored. It's when you get a substantial population that mediation is prudent.
Therefore I see Ed's rare response as analogous to someone who consciously notices an itch, scratches it, and then goes on with the rest of their day.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 2, 2010 8:15 AM
Michael Heath - Milesius = Staphylococcus aureus? - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | March 2, 2010 9:02 AM
I went to Vox Day's site and poked around a bit... opened a .pdf of a science fiction story he cowrote, and 10 seconds later my computer looked like this:
http://cc25070.hostcentric.com/vd/screen.jpg
For those of you lucky enough to have never seen this sort of thing, please meet the SmitFraud, a nasty form of malware that holds your computer hostage until you get rid of it, which is not a joy to do.
Thank you, Mr. Day.
Posted by: skmarshall | March 2, 2010 9:05 AM
I have practiced science and continue to do so. I do not ride on the coattails of others.
Anyone who does any science these days is basing his/her work on the prior achievements of those who have gone before. Only the most ignorant Randroid (as Coryat mentioned already) would fail to acknlwledge this. Seriously, Milesius, you sound like a two-year-old who stands on his daddy's shoulders and thinks he's seven feet tall.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 2, 2010 9:14 AM
Raging Bee: I suggest a paraphrasing of a famous scientific quote:
'If I have seen further it is because I'm a two year old stood on the shoulders of my giant daddy.'
Posted by: Coryat | March 2, 2010 9:59 AM
jim @ 58:
Point well taken. It probably fits a "God of the Gaps" argument better, since creationism does just ignore a lot of data, and is very selective even in what it tries to fit.
Posted by: Escuerd | March 2, 2010 1:24 PM
Michael Heath:
"I would instead liken it to one common bacterial organism that resides on our skin both practically unnoticed and not worthy of any direct intervention on our part."
I'm not so sure about that, sir. Treponema pallidum, left untreated, causes painful sores called chancres and eventually, without timely and proper medical care makes one as crazy as a bedbug. I'm guessing Milleast can be contracted easily, but not from a toilet seat.
Posted by: democommie | March 2, 2010 3:22 PM