 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/20/2011 8:55, Invisible wrote:
> 1. I didn't know you actually had a PhD.
I'm pretty sure I've mentioned it, but I don't make a deal about it.
> 2. This is the funniest thing I've read all day! :-D
I am an authority on debunking arguments from authority. I have a PhD in not
taking the word of people with PhDs.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> I am an authority on debunking arguments from authority. I have a PhD in not
> taking the word of people with PhDs.
From this time forward I will use the argument: "That's an argument from
authority because Darren said so." :P
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20/10/2011 05:56 PM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I am an authority on debunking arguments from authority. I have a PhD in not
>> taking the word of people with PhDs.
>
> From this time forward I will use the argument: "That's an argument from
> authority because Darren said so." :P
And we will all bask in the sheer irony of it all. :-D
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/20/2011 9:56, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> I am an authority on debunking arguments from authority. I have a PhD in not
>> taking the word of people with PhDs.
>
> From this time forward I will use the argument: "That's an argument from
> authority because Darren said so." :P
You need to add ", and he has a PhD, so he doesn't talk crap on the
internet" at the end.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
How come I never get only one kudo?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19-10-2011 23:55, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/19/2011 14:06, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> Right, a Ph.D is gonna write crap on the Internet...
>
> I think you're incorrect about that quote. I have a Ph.D. and I'm
> writing on the internet. Your contention that a Ph.D. isn't going to
> write crap on the internet is now disproved. ;-)
>
I second that.
--
Apparently you can afford your own dictator for less than 10 cents per
citizen per day.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I think you're incorrect about that quote. I have a Ph.D. and I'm
>> writing on the internet. Your contention that a Ph.D. isn't going to
>> write crap on the internet is now disproved. ;-)
>>
> I second that.
I think Darren't new signature should be "I *am* the counter-example!" :-D
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/20/2011 12:59, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I think Darren't new signature should be "I *am* the counter-example!" :-D
I disagree. That would sound pompous.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
People tell me I am the counter-example.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/20/2011 8:52 AM, Warp wrote:
> Saul Luizaga<sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>> Right, a Ph.D is gonna write crap on the Internet...
>
> What a beautiful example of argument from authority. :P
>
> PhDs aren't somehow immune to hearsay, urban legends and misquotes.
> It's perfectly possible that he's just repeating what he has heard,
> without actually checking its factuality. It's not like it's a quote
> of great importance and thus would require extreme care to be correct.
>
> I still would like to see a reliable reference.
>
Actually, in some cases, the more specialized the PhD, the more likely
it can be that nothing outside that field *will* be factual. lol
Its not too uncommon for people with a fairly precise specialty to say,
and do, some spectacularly dumb things, in other fields. At the very
least, its been studied, and shown, that often the level of care
involved in verifying a conclusion in their own subject of expertise is
all but abandoned, the moment they look at something else, even to such
an extent that they fail to apply even the most "basic" level of logic
to the other thing, in some cases. Its why you can, in the one more
insane example I have seen, have a well known physicist actually
believing that psychic phenomena might be real, and looking for an
explanation for it, using a spirit medium, and the incoherent light
flashes, produced by cells, during normal metabolic processes. Logic
should have required a) examining if their was a better explanation for
"talking to the dead", b) whether anyone else had looked at that light,
and c) whether such flashes could be merely incidental (or had already
been determined to be). But.. since nothing in either "spiritualism",
nor biology, had been examined with the same rigor he would have used to
evaluate, say, someone's claim that they had found a universal field
theorem....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 21:49:44 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/19/2011 18:41, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Are you saying you write crap?
>
> No. I'm saying he has two PhDs writing contradictory information on the
> internet, so *one* of them has to be writing crap.
>
> That said, I don't deny that I write crap on the internet. I merely deny
> that's what I was saying in that case. ;-)
LOL!
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20-10-2011 23:16, Darren New wrote:
> On 10/20/2011 12:59, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> I think Darren't new signature should be "I *am* the counter-example!"
>> :-D
>
> I disagree. That would sound pompous.
Yes, that would be a bit too general. There are probably lots of things
that can be falsified without him.
--
Darren is the counter-example to life, the universe, and everything
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
