Posts by HintOfLime

51

Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity (JW Speak)

by Perry in

the sokal affair.

the paper, transgressing the boundaries: towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity, was published in science wars in 1996. on the day of publication, sokal announced (in a different paper,) that the article was a hoax.

he said that social text was a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense.

HintOfLime

As much as we hate to admit it, Humans have little defense against deception from a capable source. God warned us about this

because he loves us. He wants us to believe him above all others:

Yup. Knew this was comming.

"See, its easy for humans to be fooled. Therefore, Science can never be trusted, and you should just beleive in my god!"

Holy logical fallacies Batman!

Yes, humans can be fooled. But we DO have the ability to defend ourselves from deception. (Or do fall for every scam email that lands in your inbox, Perry? Are you that helpless and gulible?) That is why it is very important to verify references, look at physical evidence, and build a strong mental filter against unverified claims.

Every single example you have posted was eventually exposed by humans - humans who took a closer look at the evidence. Not a single one of the above hoaxes was exposed by your god. God is useless here. So why even bother bringing him up? He's not even relevant to the conversation at hand. He is a non-player.

Is it beyond your imagination that god is just another hoax perpetuated by a "capable source" (powerful religious people who have been utilizing fear, false hope, ignorance, and bad circumstance to manipulate and control people for thousands of years)?

- Lime

51

Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity (JW Speak)

by Perry in

the sokal affair.

the paper, transgressing the boundaries: towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity, was published in science wars in 1996. on the day of publication, sokal announced (in a different paper,) that the article was a hoax.

he said that social text was a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense.

HintOfLime

It's like you have suffered a toatal disconnect from that which is practical and self explanatory.

Maybe you have a point. Let's consider the merits of this statement, and determine if I am "totally disconnected" from what is practical and self explanatory....

prac·ti·cal Adjective
1. Of or concerned with the actual doing or use of something.
2. (of an idea, plan, or method) Likely to succeed or be effective in real circumstances; feasible.

Let's consider what I consider to be practical:

Placing a sterile bandage on a serious wound. I would call it "practical". It is entirely "likely to succeed or be effective in real circumstances".
Oberserving and documenting the laws of physics, so that we can build more efficient vehicles. I would call that "very practical" again... our vehicals have indeed become more efficient year after year.
Recording data, formulating a hypothosis, and testing predictions made by that hypohtosis (aka science). I would consider it very "practical". All quite doable, and history has demonstrated that this is a very successful methodoloy. (Again, look in any direction from where you are, and you're likely to be staring at a practical result of science... better metals, better glass, better everything.)

Now let's consider your alternative anti-science Christian world view:

Believing that when the mind dies, our neurons retain their connections and continue to function in an alternate dimension. Well, what is the 'practical' application of this belief (beyond taking money from people)? How does one 'use' this idea in the real world.. when all observation tells us that when a person dies, they are simply gone. Comforting, perhaps. But not practical. As these 'souls' seem unable to communicate with us, we can't use this idea in any predictable, reliable way.
Assuming that some distant alien being is actively monitoring all your neural pathways, knows which cluster of neurons in your head is associated with which concepts, and is possibly using that information to make changes to our world. Practical? Is it measurable? If there any solid evidence this actually works? Is it predictable? Is it reliable?
Believing that science is bunk, filled with hoaxes and "cult speak". Is this practical? If we measure the frequency and value of 'good, repeatable' science and compare it to the frequency and harm caused by poor science - is it practical to be anti-science? Is being anti-science likely to be an effective and successful path for mankind?

Personally, I have considered and find no validity to your statement.

Chill Out - this is a fun thread - it's nothing personal, unless you are on some psedo-science jihad.

Oh, I am having fun - trust me on that. I wouldn't bother posting if I wasn't having fun. This post was particularlly fun to compose.

Is my pointing out your hypocritical attitude toward science spoiling your fun?

- Lime

51

Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity (JW Speak)

by Perry in

the sokal affair.

the paper, transgressing the boundaries: towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity, was published in science wars in 1996. on the day of publication, sokal announced (in a different paper,) that the article was a hoax.

he said that social text was a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense.

HintOfLime

I believe that the two of you have actually stumpled upon A Methodology for the Typical Unification of Access Points and Redundancy

Wit can be a valuable tool when it's actually thought provoking... but you haven't hit it here. At best this is a.. poor attempt to dismiss those who are pointing out some serious flaws in your reasoning. I could easily dismiss you and all Christians based on the completely stupid sloagans you see on church road-way signs... but really Christianity fails on it's history, truthfulness, and real-world value.

It is a simple question: Do you pay for health insurance? Do you pay in advance for the benefits of medical science? Do you defame it publically, but then rely on it to keep you alive and in comfort?

- Lime

51

Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity (JW Speak)

by Perry in

the sokal affair.

the paper, transgressing the boundaries: towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity, was published in science wars in 1996. on the day of publication, sokal announced (in a different paper,) that the article was a hoax.

he said that social text was a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense.

HintOfLime

Ha ha. That's right. Try to pretend I didn't just call you out on your hypocricy. Just keep pasting crap you find on the web. Way to show you're thinking for yourself!

You criticize science between mouthfuls of it's fruit. Meanwhile, you don't even eat your own dogs*it.

Hypocrite.

- Lime

51

Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity (JW Speak)

by Perry in

the sokal affair.

the paper, transgressing the boundaries: towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity, was published in science wars in 1996. on the day of publication, sokal announced (in a different paper,) that the article was a hoax.

he said that social text was a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense.

HintOfLime

same as the old boss.

Much better, actually.

Unlike "Jesus" and "Jehovah" - Science exists - one can measure it's value, it's current rate of progress, and it's potential toward the betterment of mankind.

Jesus on the other hand.. is 'invisible'. Science cures disease. Jesus doesn't. No amount of prayer seems to spare people from the next natural disaster, or the next plague. Science... at least offers us a chance.

Tell us the truth Perry: Do you carry health insurance? If you believe in god rather then science, then why carry any insurance at all? What can medical science offer you that you would pay for it in advance that "faith" and "Jesus" don't offer?

- Lime

51

Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity (JW Speak)

by Perry in

the sokal affair.

the paper, transgressing the boundaries: towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity, was published in science wars in 1996. on the day of publication, sokal announced (in a different paper,) that the article was a hoax.

he said that social text was a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense.

HintOfLime

So prove it. Demonstrate that it was the CHURCH that exposed the above claims as false, and not science itself.

If science is readily exposing it's own faults - faster than any other discipline - then you have no point.

Article 1: Sokal announced (in a different paper) - Not science - admitted hoax.

Article 2: "non-reviewed" paper - Not Science to begin with

Article 3: ALL your "references" are broken.... Wikipedia article (which you stole) fills in the details of an ongoing controversy.

- Lime

51

Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity (JW Speak)

by Perry in

the sokal affair.

the paper, transgressing the boundaries: towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity, was published in science wars in 1996. on the day of publication, sokal announced (in a different paper,) that the article was a hoax.

he said that social text was a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense.

HintOfLime

The difference between science and religion is that when a scientific hoax is perpetuated, science is the one that recognizes and exposes it.

In religion, when there is a hoax... who can tell?

- Lime

51

Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity (JW Speak)

by Perry in

the sokal affair.

the paper, transgressing the boundaries: towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity, was published in science wars in 1996. on the day of publication, sokal announced (in a different paper,) that the article was a hoax.

he said that social text was a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense.

HintOfLime

Can somebody get Shamus in here?

This thread needs a monkey's touch (beyond Perry's).

- Lime

51

Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity (JW Speak)

by Perry in

the sokal affair.

the paper, transgressing the boundaries: towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity, was published in science wars in 1996. on the day of publication, sokal announced (in a different paper,) that the article was a hoax.

he said that social text was a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense.

HintOfLime

Wow. Compelling stuff. Not cherry-picked at all.

Here's some cherry picking for you: God's level of intellectual sophistication - Helping the pentecostals babble and spaz out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKOhI1Oiv98

Thank you Jesus!

(BTW, did you write any of that yourself, or did you just copy paste it from some other person's blog? I suspect you were not able to conceive and express yourself.)

- Lime

51

Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity (JW Speak)

by Perry in

the sokal affair.

the paper, transgressing the boundaries: towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity, was published in science wars in 1996. on the day of publication, sokal announced (in a different paper,) that the article was a hoax.

he said that social text was a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense.

HintOfLime

"Science Wars" was not a reputable source of scientific information. That's like considering "Mythbusters" to be "science".

Or how about considering "Ted Haggard" to speak for all christians. Do you follow Ted Haggard?

- Lime