rainbow wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:

rainbow wrote:This is a repeat of what I've already said a number of times. UnderC appeared to be confused by the terms 'Probability' and 'Possibility'. I was trying to help her out with an easy-to-understand example.
Why is this such a problem?

I really do not know how you cam to this conclusion to begin with. I questioned the use of the word "random", in a context that suggested the available options might be random or "directed", with nothing in between.

Did I use the word "random" anywhere?

Yes.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-debunking/abiogenesis-t844-300.html#p46840

Indeed, the wording of that post does almost lead one to believe that you are equating random with improbable.

(your defence of a creationist's work on RDF nonwithstanding)

This is a blatant untruth!
I did object to the ad hominems being thrown at someone not there to defend themselves.
That is not the same as defending their work.
Withdraw this lie, or I'll not be obliged to engage in a discussion with you again.

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=107243&start=60#p2636178

rainbow defending the work of a creationist wrote:The subject of this discussion is supposed to be about Meyer's book - "Signature In The Cell".
What appears to be lacking here is any critical evaluation of his arguments.
Arguments which are from a Scientific point of view, not a Religious one.

You consider them to be scientific arguments, not religious, with sufficient validity that they should be evaluated properly. That looks like a defence to me.

Uh oh, does that mean you still have to talk to me?

UnderConstruction wrote:
Uh oh, does that mean you still have to talk to me?

You know what you have to do, if you want to continue the discussion.

rainbow wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:
Uh oh, does that mean you still have to talk to me?

You know what you have to do, if you want to continue the discussion.

If you are talking about supporting the assertion that you defended the work of a creationist, I just did. Do you have a rebuttal?

If you are referring to these questions I have apparently had the temerity to fail to answer, perhaps you could refresh my memory which questions these are? While we are at it though, do I get to compile a list of all of my questions that you have dodged in this thread and the other one?

rainbow wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Lrn2link:

general-debunking/abiogenesis-t844-300.html#p46840

Please explain how any of my arguments in that thread are in any way similar to Cali's serial trials argument.
Please also use direct quotes, and it really isn't enough to point to some words like 'Probability'.
Can you do this?

In that thread? Who said anything about that thread? If you look carefully in the beginning of that thread, you'll notice that where I first levelled the accusation at you, it was levelled at your entire argument. Now, if I were feeling particularly bored and/or diligent, I could cheerfully go through all the threads on abiogenesis and related topics that you have been involved in and demonstrate that you have been engaging in serial trials and one true sequence to some degree since your first appearance at RDF, which was my point all along. However, it simply isn't worth the effort of trawling through 120+ pages of drivel. I actually began to look at the original threads at RDF, and I noticed that you were engaging in nothing more than evasion, denial, and lots of nonsense about 'necessary concentrations' (never specificied, incidentally), which also constitute a form of the serial trials, by insisting that reactions cannot take place except under specific (unspecified) concentrations. Now concentration is important from an experimental perspective, but to suggest that no reactions are possible below said (unspecified) concentration is ridiculous.

The rest of your objections have amounted to 'I have no problem with oxygen so why would it be a problem for the first replicators?', which is true wankery.

I'm done with you.

hackenslash wrote:

rainbow wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Lrn2link:

general-debunking/abiogenesis-t844-300.html#p46840

Please explain how any of my arguments in that thread are in any way similar to Cali's serial trials argument.
Please also use direct quotes, and it really isn't enough to point to some words like 'Probability'.
Can you do this?

In that thread? Who said anything about that thread? If you look carefully in the beginning of that thread, you'll notice that where I first levelled the accusation at you, it was levelled at your entire argument. Now, if I were feeling particularly bored and/or diligent, I could cheerfully go through all the threads on abiogenesis and related topics that you have been involved in and demonstrate that you have been engaging in serial trials and one true sequence to some degree since your first appearance at RDF, which was my point all along. However, it simply isn't worth the effort of trawling through 120+ pages of drivel. I actually began to look at the original threads at RDF, and I noticed that you were engaging in nothing more than evasion, denial, and lots of nonsense about 'necessary concentrations' (never specificied, incidentally), which also constitute a form of the serial trials, by insisting that reactions cannot take place except under specific (unspecified) concentrations. Now concentration is important from an experimental perspective, but to suggest that no reactions are possible below said (unspecified) concentration is ridiculous.

The rest of your objections have amounted to 'I have no problem with oxygen so why would it be a problem for the first replicators?', which is true wankery.

I'm done with you.

Lots and lots of waffle just to say that you can't show how any of my arguments in that thread are in any way similar to Cali's serial trials argument.
You could have just admitted that in the first place and saved us all a lot of time.

Perhaps you can learn from this, hack - and avoid making wild and untrue statements in future?

hackenslash wrote:

rainbow wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Lrn2link:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... tml#p46840

Please explain how any of my arguments in that thread are in any way similar to Cali's serial trials argument.
Please also use direct quotes, and it really isn't enough to point to some words like 'Probability'.
Can you do this?

In that thread? Who said anything about that thread? If you look carefully in the beginning of that thread, you'll notice that where I first levelled the accusation at you, it was levelled at your entire argument. Now, if I were feeling particularly bored and/or diligent, I could cheerfully go through all the threads on abiogenesis and related topics that you have been involved in and demonstrate that you have been engaging in serial trials and one true sequence to some degree since your first appearance at RDF, which was my point all along. However, it simply isn't worth the effort of trawling through 120+ pages of drivel. I actually began to look at the original threads at RDF, and I noticed that you were engaging in nothing more than evasion, denial, and lots of nonsense about 'necessary concentrations' (never specificied, incidentally), which also constitute a form of the serial trials, by insisting that reactions cannot take place except under specific (unspecified) concentrations. Now concentration is important from an experimental perspective, but to suggest that no reactions are possible below said (unspecified) concentration is ridiculous.

The rest of your objections have amounted to 'I have no problem with oxygen so why would it be a problem for the first replicators?', which is true wankery.

I'm done with you.

+1 Hack

Rainbow seems to think we just forget things he/she said.... like we can't go and reread the thread throughout again. Same in every thread. Time and time again.

Spearthrower wrote:

hackenslash wrote:

rainbow wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Lrn2link:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... tml#p46840

Please explain how any of my arguments in that thread are in any way similar to Cali's serial trials argument.
Please also use direct quotes, and it really isn't enough to point to some words like 'Probability'.
Can you do this?

In that thread? Who said anything about that thread? If you look carefully in the beginning of that thread, you'll notice that where I first levelled the accusation at you, it was levelled at your entire argument. Now, if I were feeling particularly bored and/or diligent, I could cheerfully go through all the threads on abiogenesis and related topics that you have been involved in and demonstrate that you have been engaging in serial trials and one true sequence to some degree since your first appearance at RDF, which was my point all along. However, it simply isn't worth the effort of trawling through 120+ pages of drivel. I actually began to look at the original threads at RDF, and I noticed that you were engaging in nothing more than evasion, denial, and lots of nonsense about 'necessary concentrations' (never specificied, incidentally), which also constitute a form of the serial trials, by insisting that reactions cannot take place except under specific (unspecified) concentrations. Now concentration is important from an experimental perspective, but to suggest that no reactions are possible below said (unspecified) concentration is ridiculous.

The rest of your objections have amounted to 'I have no problem with oxygen so why would it be a problem for the first replicators?', which is true wankery.

I'm done with you.

+1 Hack

Rainbow seems to think we just forget things he/she said.... like we can't go and reread the thread throughout again. Same in every thread. Time and time again.

Argument by exhaustion. A variation of argumentum ad nauseam. Arrange things so that the opponent has to run around in circles to find the evidence to refute your arguments. An attempt at least. Hard to pull off in this environment.

Reminds me of John Major's favourite reposte in the Commons "I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave previously". Liked the man hated his politics.

rainbow wrote:Perhaps you can learn from this, hack - and avoid making wild and untrue statements in future?

[derail}
Please "rainbow" desist. Advice delivered in this fashion is no advice at all.[/derail}

mark1961 wrote:

rainbow wrote:Perhaps you can learn from this, hack - and avoid making wild and untrue statements in future?

[derail}
Please "rainbow" desist. Advice delivered in this fashion is no advice at all.[/derail}

No mark, hack accused me of using the so-called "Serial Trials Fallacy", and has failed utterly to show any points of coincidence between my argument and the supposed fallacy.
I've defended myself that is all.
If hack wished to make further unsubstantiated claims, he will have to cope with the fact that I'm entitled to defend myself.

Nevertheless I find the response of

I'm done with you.

to be particularly cowardly, as it fails to offer any support to the accusations.

rainbow wrote:

mark1961 wrote:

rainbow wrote:Perhaps you can learn from this, hack - and avoid making wild and untrue statements in future?

[derail}
Please "rainbow" desist. Advice delivered in this fashion is no advice at all.[/derail}

No mark, hack accused me of using the so-called "Serial Trials Fallacy", and has failed utterly to show any points of coincidence between my argument and the supposed fallacy.
I've defended myself that is all.
If hack wished to make further unsubstantiated claims, he will have to cope with the fact that I'm entitled to defend myself.

Nevertheless I find the response of

I'm done with you.

to be particularly cowardly, as it fails to offer any support to the accusations.

So you do agree with me that you weren't offering advice. I also offer this as a question with the hope you'll answer it elsewhere. If you don't think I'm assessing you correctly.

This conversation could I think be continued in two possible ways AFAIK. I won't reply to you on this precise issue in this thread since it would constitute a derail:

In Philosophy: IE. Does a person's beliefs constitute part of that person-if it does then attacking them constitutes an attack on that person.

As a point of order in the admin. fora: If you wanted to change the rules regarding personal attack.

I look forward to watching your endeavours.

mark1961 wrote:

So you do agree with me that you weren't offering advice.

Perhaps, but if I were - I do agree that hack would be unlikely to heed it.
Nevertheless, I don't see this topic going anywhere as it's clear nobody has any real defence for the so-called Serial Trials Fallacy.
It is a poor argument, and not a recognised fallacy at all.
I guess we can all agree that it's been debunked, and we can all go home.

rainbow wrote:

mark1961 wrote:

So you do agree with me that you weren't offering advice.

Perhaps, but if I were - I do agree that hack would be unlikely to heed it.
Nevertheless, I don't see this topic going anywhere as it's clear nobody has any real defence for the so-called Serial Trials Fallacy.
It is a poor argument, and not a recognised fallacy at all.
I guess we can all agree that it's been debunked, and we can all go home.

Utter bullshit.

You have been presented with several sound arguments for the serial trials fallacy. It addresses fallacious thinking successfully. If it doesn't, i'd like you to explain how. No, you haven't even fucking ONCE explained what's wrong with the serial trials fallacy. Your only objection has been that it is not a "formal" fallacy, which has been pointed out to you is in itself a fallacy since it constitutes a version of appealing to authority.

So, instead of just claiming victory on no basis other than you have managed to keep us entertained for this long with pure shit, let's hear an actual argument that specifically adresses what it is about the thinking the serial trials fallacy sets out to address, does NOT constitute fallacious thinking.

Rumraket wrote:

rainbow wrote:

mark1961 wrote:

So you do agree with me that you weren't offering advice.

Perhaps, but if I were - I do agree that hack would be unlikely to heed it.
Nevertheless, I don't see this topic going anywhere as it's clear nobody has any real defence for the so-called Serial Trials Fallacy.
It is a poor argument, and not a recognised fallacy at all.
I guess we can all agree that it's been debunked, and we can all go home.

Utter bullshit.

You have been presented with several sound arguments for the serial trials fallacy. It addresses fallacious thinking successfully. If it doesn't, i'd like you to explain how. No, you haven't even fucking ONCE explained what's wrong with the serial trials fallacy. Your only objection has been that it is not a "formal" fallacy, which has been pointed out to you is in itself a fallacy since it constitutes a version of appealing to authority.

Wrong.
My objection is that it isn't a recognised fallacy.
My assertion supporting this was that it is not recognised as a Formal Fallacy.
Which is true, as far as we can gather - as no-one has been able to show that it is recognised.
...now if you can show that it's recognised as an informal fallacy, outside of this forum, and a few linked ones - then perhaps we could argue the point.
OK?

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

rainbow wrote:

mark1961 wrote:

So you do agree with me that you weren't offering advice.

Perhaps, but if I were - I do agree that hack would be unlikely to heed it.
Nevertheless, I don't see this topic going anywhere as it's clear nobody has any real defence for the so-called Serial Trials Fallacy.
It is a poor argument, and not a recognised fallacy at all.
I guess we can all agree that it's been debunked, and we can all go home.

Utter bullshit.

You have been presented with several sound arguments for the serial trials fallacy. It addresses fallacious thinking successfully. If it doesn't, i'd like you to explain how. No, you haven't even fucking ONCE explained what's wrong with the serial trials fallacy. Your only objection has been that it is not a "formal" fallacy, which has been pointed out to you is in itself a fallacy since it constitutes a version of appealing to authority.

Wrong.
My objection is that it isn't a recognised fallacy.
My assertion supporting this was that it is not recognised as a Formal Fallacy.
Which is true, as far as we can gather - as no-one has been able to show that it is recognised.
...now if you can show that it's recognised as an informal fallacy, outside of this forum, and a few linked ones - then perhaps we could argue the point.
OK?

You don't seem to want to accept the fact that nobody cares whether it is formally or informally reckognised and/or by whom.
The ONLY thing that matters is if it addresses fallacious thinking. Thinking that defies logic and reality. It does, it specifically does this. You'd be PERVERSE to deny it.

It is a successful counter argument to the common creationist canard that only one acting entity is working in serial trials. And the serial trials fallacy successfully demonstrates the errors in such an assumption. Do you disagree with this?

That's it. That's all there is to it. The fallacy haven't been "debunked" or whatever wishful thinking you can come up with.

rainbow wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

rainbow wrote:

mark1961 wrote:

So you do agree with me that you weren't offering advice.

Perhaps, but if I were - I do agree that hack would be unlikely to heed it.
Nevertheless, I don't see this topic going anywhere as it's clear nobody has any real defence for the so-called Serial Trials Fallacy.
It is a poor argument, and not a recognised fallacy at all.
I guess we can all agree that it's been debunked, and we can all go home.

Utter bullshit.

You have been presented with several sound arguments for the serial trials fallacy. It addresses fallacious thinking successfully. If it doesn't, i'd like you to explain how. No, you haven't even fucking ONCE explained what's wrong with the serial trials fallacy. Your only objection has been that it is not a "formal" fallacy, which has been pointed out to you is in itself a fallacy since it constitutes a version of appealing to authority.

Wrong.
My objection is that it isn't a recognised fallacy.
My assertion supporting this was that it is not recognised as a Formal Fallacy.
Which is true, as far as we can gather - as no-one has been able to show that it is recognised.
...now if you can show that it's recognised as an informal fallacy, outside of this forum, and a few linked ones - then perhaps we could argue the point.
OK?

Can you explain how you get from "My objection is that it isn't a recognised fallacy" to "It is a poor argument"? Do you have other objections which you haven't told us about? Or does being "not a recognised fallacy at all" necessarily lead to "It is a poor argument"?

Newmark wrote: Or does being "not a recognised fallacy at all" necessarily lead to "It is a poor argument"?

No.
They are two different statements.
Like a Zebra has stripes and looks a bit like a donkey. The one statement doesn't lead to the other.

Surely this is obvious?

rainbow wrote:

Newmark wrote: Or does being "not a recognised fallacy at all" necessarily lead to "It is a poor argument"?

No.
They are two different statements.
Like a Zebra has stripes and looks a bit like a donkey. The one statement doesn't lead to the other.

Surely this is obvious?

Indeed it is obvious. Since you have presented no other argument of why the Serial Trials Fallacy would be "a poor argument", it is also plainly obvious that your claim that "it's been debunked, and we can all go home" is utter bullshit.

Newmark wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Newmark wrote: Or does being "not a recognised fallacy at all" necessarily lead to "It is a poor argument"?

No.
They are two different statements.
Like a Zebra has stripes and looks a bit like a donkey. The one statement doesn't lead to the other.

Surely this is obvious?

Indeed it is obvious. Since you have presented no other argument of why the Serial Trials Fallacy would be "a poor argument", it is also plainly obvious that your claim that "it's been debunked, and we can all go home" is utter bullshit.

Your opinion.
...to which you are entitled.
It is well wrong, but you're entitled to it.

How about you try to explain why you think it's a poor argument then? You haven't actaually done this yet.

rainbow wrote:

Newmark wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Newmark wrote: Or does being "not a recognised fallacy at all" necessarily lead to "It is a poor argument"?

No.
They are two different statements.
Like a Zebra has stripes and looks a bit like a donkey. The one statement doesn't lead to the other.

Surely this is obvious?

Indeed it is obvious. Since you have presented no other argument of why the Serial Trials Fallacy would be "a poor argument", it is also plainly obvious that your claim that "it's been debunked, and we can all go home" is utter bullshit.

Your opinion.
...to which you are entitled.
It is well wrong, but you're entitled to it.

Cite specifically where you presented any other argument why the Serial Trials Fallacy would be "a poor argument", or retract. Or present those arguments now.

Surely it must be possible to evaluate an argument on its own merits, regardless of whether or not it's formally considered a fallacy. I think this is the first time I've encountered a person who refused to debate whether an argument had merit or not, until it could first be established that it was considered a formal fallacy. Isn't it common sense to realize that the the probability of something happening within a given time period increases with additional trials? Do we really need to even call it a fallacy? If people buy lottery tickets one at a time, we might go until kingdom come before anyone hits a winning ticket. But if tens of millions of people are buying lottery tickets at once and we assume that each person's decision of numbers is more or less independent of every other person's, surely that reduces the time frame dramatically. Thus, the probability of getting a lottery winner within a relatively short time period goes up dramatically, if we have many simultaneous lottery buyers. Isn't this common sense math? Who gives a fuck what anyone wants to call it. If someone says that 2+3 = 5, do I have to declare that a formal fallacy in reasoning before I can reject it as being patently absurd? Let's call the serial trial's fallacy the fallacy of the dumb fuck fundamentalist christian for all i care.



I think that the anthropic principle is probably highly relevant to this particular discussion as well.