Trolling, Trolling, Over the Seven Seas...

By -
A play in one act, performed everyday across the world.

BLOGGER: When we examined moon rocks...

TROLL: The moon is made of cheese! You are such an idiot.

BLOGGER: Well, no cheese is a joint product of milk-producing animals and humans and since neither exist on the moon...

TROLL: Just because all the cheese YOU know of comes about that way, you think all cheese must. It's people like you who block the path of science.

BLOGGER: Well, per Occam's Razor...

TROLL: Oh, please! Like some medieval idiot who believed that the moon was a perfect celestial sphere has anything to say about modern science!

BLOGGER: Surely we have to be careful to separate the philosophical issues from the scientific...

TROLL: 'Philosophy' is just a word for areas science hasn't conquered yet.

BLOGGER: Isn't that itself a philosophical statement?

TROLL: That is just the sort of attitude that would have stopped the Wright Brothers from ever flying!

[The above continues for as long as BLOGGER will keep going. Trolls are apparently immortal and can dilate time. Finally, one day...]

TROLL: So, why don't you humor me, and show me what is wrong with my claim that the moon is made of cheese?

BLOGGER: No thanks.

TROLL: I knew it! I knew it! You have absolutely no counter-argument to my contention that the moon is made of cheese! It's just a dogmatic belief of yours. Wheeeeee!

Comments

  1. Silas Barta5:09 PM

    Yep, that looks exactly like our recent iteration of your "machines will never think" profundity, you sure got me there!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah5:37 PM

      Silas, to see what I mean, contemplate this: I have never, ever made any claim remotely like "machines will never think."

      You ignore what I actually say, make up things I have never said, address them, and then complain when I finally get sick of pointing out "You are not remotely addressing what I said."

      Again: no thanks. I am a very busy man, with real books and papers to write and whatnot.

      Delete
    2. gcallah5:47 PM

      Bye-bye, Silas!

      Delete
  2. Silas Barta5:49 PM

    Can we see your latest paper, or do you still paywall them in case someone might want to see what you spend your time on?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah5:52 PM

      Silas, your day is rapidly sinking into such idiocy that I think you'd better go to sleep quickly and hope tomorrow is better: You really think the *author* of a journal article gets to decide if it is behind a paywall or not?!

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more