Monday, February 12, 2018

#TheScienceOf Internet Trolls

#TheScienceOf Internet Trolls (video by Scientist Mel)
+Scientist Mel Excellent video and I think it is something perhaps we all need to be reminded of every so often on how to deal with trolls as they will always be around as it is one of the darker sides of the Internet. Some people just seem to prefer to spend more time trying to tear down others for simply for their own personal entertainment and it's pretty sad in my opinion, but I think we can all take to heart some of the advice you gave in your well as these basic guidelines on how to handle trolls that I think is excellent for the GDC to adopt as guidelines on handling trolls on the Internet.

1. Establish a Policy
2. Ignore Them (by far the best advice)
3. Make Light of the Situation
4. Unmask Them
5. Don’t Provide a Platform
6. Use Moderators and Online Tools
7. Create a Unified Community
8. Listen
9. Fight Back With Facts
10. Correct Mistakes

Types of trolls to determine best course of action. If you see certain types of behavior it may help you to determine what type of troll you're dealing with. I think I have ran into every type of these since I have been in YouTube.
(From Mel's video)

Rabid Flamer Sharing Troll
Grammar Troll Profane Screamer
Cry baby White Knight
Never Give up Expert
Retroactive Stalker Spoiler
Lame Teenager Fraud
Self Feeding Flooder
Bored Hater Lair
Niellie Neggerson Stalker

Tuesday, January 23, 2018

DNA as a "code' does not mean it was created by an intelligent agent

A 'code" in semiotics is when you have a symbol being replaced by a letter or word (most of time) which is deciphered into a normal readable language...there is nothing about DNA being a "code" that fits that description. Man "arbitrarily" assigned names to the nucleotides based upon what nitrogenous base they have and gave those names a symbol to represent them. Those symbols do not translate into any normal readable language. The calling of DNA a "code" is merely a very loose informal analogy to help students better understand conceptually how DNA to protein synthesis works in the central dogma of biology. Stop trying to use a poor analogy by calling DNA a "code" thinking that it necessitates the existence of a intelligent designer. It doesn't and you're just committing the fallacy of faulty analogy

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

Bloggers and YouTubers "Deflating Atheism" and "Escaping Atheism"

Bloggers and YouTubers "Deflating Atheism" and "Escaping Atheism" (Dean Esmay aka "Max Kolbe": American loon #655 decided to take a swing (and a miss) at me, Aron Ra, Genetically Modified Skeptic and Godlesss Cranium. (Time stamp 27:30)

From Max in his comment section:
"We'd argue that McRae is worse. He's one of those scumbags like Penn Jillette who puts on a show of being reasonable but knows exactly what he's doing when he lies his ass off. And Steve McRae never stops lying."

Now let's look at the massive irony here shall we? While I'm sincerely flattered to be compared to Penn Jillette and that I "put on a show of being reasonable" I find it pretty comical that here is a person accusing me of lying and yet makes a video calling me an atheist...after being corrected on this numerous times. As Godless Cranium astutely notes I self Identify as a temporal agnostic, which is not an atheist by more formal definitions. I have never once self identified as an atheist, but here are two theist completely and willfully lying about my theological position in a video deliberately relating me to a ideological position that I do not hold to.

Another interesting thing to note from the video is that neither of them truly seem to understand the word "skeptic" or that it is a polysemous term that represents many possible meanings. The word itself to me is rather vague, as there are many types of skeptics...and generally the word refers to someone to adheres to Skepticism, a philosophical position that I don't have as it maintains that philosophical skepticism questions our ability to make knowledge claims. I am quite fine with make knowledge claims as I have a pretty well defined epistemic framework that allows me to make knowledge, if one is referring to scientific skepticism then sure, I would be a scientific skeptic who does believe that scientist should be ethical and follow Mertonian norms...but it is quite obvious that neither Deflating Atheism nor Escaping atheism understand these types of positional nuances. They are quite typical of people who focus more on assigning their own version of a label to someone, rather than trying to actually understand that persons beliefs and positions.

I also would very much like to know how I am being paid to "be a skeptic" or how I "make cash" by converting people to atheism. 3 years on YouTube and I know of absolutely no one that I have ever "converted" to atheism...nor of a penny that I have earned from making one either.

Max then goes on to make the infelicitously bizarre claim that I am in an "atheist cult" and that I have a "talking point" of "I hope I have offended you" my 570+ videos on YouTube those words have never been uttered by me. My goal on YouTube is not to offend, it is to foster meaningful and interesting dialog between people with various differing positions. Does this mean no one ever gets offended? Of course if someone on YouTube isn't offended by something you say every so often, then you really have nothing of consequence to say.

Thursday, November 23, 2017

Tautologies using metalogic

( Φ ∧  Ψ ) -> Φ and ( Φ ∧ Ψ ) -> φ are tautologies. Why? Since for the same reason that (p ∧ q) -> p as well as (p ∧ q) -> q are tautologies. If you do the truth tables:

(p ∧ q ) -> p

p q p ∧ q (p∧ q) -> p

ALL values are TRUE...thus it is a tautology.

Just do the same for (Φ ∧ Ψ ) -> Φ and ( Φ ∧  Ψ ) -> φ as they are also tautologies. Remember these symbols "Φ" and "Ψ" are just symbols that represent other symbols in metalogic. We can substitute (p ∧ q ) -> p and see that is a tautology as all values are T.

(So it is clear you get T for (p ∧ q) ->p by implication, since
p ->q means ¬p V q or here it, (p ∧ q) ->p, means ¬(p∧ q) V p )

Wednesday, October 25, 2017

Regarding the Claims! Claims! Claims! stream and the ternary system.

Regarding the Claims! Claims! Claims! stream and the ternary system.
or ternarinception
-By Barney Tearspell

Regarding the Claims! Claims! Claims! stream and the ternary system.
or ternarinception

Let’s employ some programming skills with ternary operators and a bit of logic and see where it gets us.


definitions and notation
Before I get into the argument let me set up some tools. You can skip or glance over these, but they're there if you need them later.

We assume that it is only possible to hold one of three positions on any proposition

A = Accept
B = Reject
C = Abstain

Given any proposition P one can then make three derived propositions P' of the form:

PA ⇔ position on P is 'Accept'
PB ⇔ position on P is 'Reject'
PC ⇔ position on P is 'Abstain'

The ternary system must then be applicable to each of those statements but must retain logical consistency, so each statement must infer meaning about the other statements.


In other words:
Accepting P is equivalent to Accepting PA AND Rejecting PB AND Rejecting PC

And the relation can be written as:

Accepting PA is equivalent to Rejecting PB And Rejecting PC
In other words:
Accepting P is equivalent to neither Rejecting nor Abstaining from P

Solving this derived set of propositions gives complete information about the position on P.

This chain of derived statements should hold all the way down to the axioms if the system is to be consistent


disagreeing with TheRumpus

+TheRumpus Account has claimed that statements like not-accept are illegal because they lead to contradiction.

I disagree. Statements that are contradictions are illegal, but statements that are not contradictions are fine-just-fine (but might be incomplete).

The way in which this becomes crystal clear for me is to see it from an outsiders perspective trying to find out what some person's position is

So lets write the legal positions.

The set where I agree with TheRumpus

position is known: the person Accepts P (e.g., Theism)

position is known: the person Rejects P (e.g., Hard Atheism)

position is known: the person Abstains on P (e.g., Agnosticism)

Since the position is known, any of these sufficiently answers the question:
“What position does the person hold on P?”

The set TheRumpus calls illegal

¬PAA ⇒ (PBA ∨ PCA)
position is unknown: the person either Rejects or Abstains on P (e.g. non-theism)
Along with PAA, sufficiently answers the question “Does the person Accept P?”
Technically the full form is: ¬PAA ⇒ (PBA ∨ PCA) ∨ (PBC ∧ PCC) but it can be reduced with no loss.

¬PBA ⇒ (PAA ∨ PCA)
position is unknown: the person either Accepts or Abstains on P
Along with PBA, sufficiently answers the question “Does the person Reject P?”
Technically the full form is: ¬PBA ⇒ (PAA ∨ PCA) ∨ (PAC ∧ PCC) but can be reduced with no loss.

¬PCA ⇒ (PAA ∨ PBA)
position is unknown: the person either Accepts or Rejects P
Along with PCA, sufficiently answers the question “Does the person Abstain on P?”
The long form would contain a contradiction in the second part of the statement so that part must be excluded (giving a consistent reduction)

And there are other non-contradictory values in the derivations such as
PAC ∧ PBC ∧ PCC which would reduce to PC but I would argue that it a possible answer in case the person doesn’t know of P (literally, doesn’t know of the proposition itself)

Contrast this with ternary values (T - true, F - false, U - undefined).
A negation of ternary values would work something like:


And applying that to the examples in which this ternary system is proposed, you could get the following exchange:
"Are you an Agnostic?" - "No!" - "Oh, so you're an Agnostic then."



All of this violates the excluded middle rule but maps much better to how people actually think (since ignorance is a major component of cognition) and converse.

It could be interesting to derive the mathematical properties and rules of the system and construct truth tables (or rather the position tables) to see how the positions interact and sum up to see which form of ternary logic would fit best.

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

Problem with Divine Command Theory presupper's don't want to address.

Problem with Divine Command Theory presupper's don't want to address.

It was truly enjoyable to watch a presupper creationist run ass in hand when he was trying to question how morality exists with out God by asking:

"So today it might be wrong to kill and eat a three-year-old child but next year in might be perfectly acceptable in your world view right?"

to which I just replied to him the obvious:

"Nothing I said even remotely would imply YOUR world view that would be perfectly acceptable if GOD COMMANDED IT right?

If God commanded you to go out and kill and eat the first 20 babies you found...YOU would have to do it because it was MORAL to you right? So today it may not be moral to you....but tomorrow it may be perfectly moral to you because your GOD COMMANDS YOU TO DO IT!"

He left a few comments later after completing avoiding having to address what I said.

Go figure.

Complementary sets of a universal set.

Given p=theism, then theism is a category, and NOT theism is also a category. The universal category give by a complementary set of A'= U\A where A'={x∈U |x∉A} This means that anything NOT in set A or theism, exists at an element in A' or NOT THEISM which again is the universal set minus the category set of A. Since elements of A are mutually exclusive to A' then any x as a member of A as a member of U can not at same time be member of A', which means p v ~p are mutually exclusive sets as well.