by pfrankinstein wrote:
Only if we can also examine your ignorant baseless perpetuation of the mass Dunning_Kruger.
There's no point in complaining that this criticism is being leveled at you when you're the chap with a massively overinflated sense of their own ability comparative to their actual ability.
Add to that your endless self-eulogizing about your greatness when you lack the competence to write even a paragraph on the subject you've spent 2 decades pretending about, and you more than exemplify Dunning Kruger syndrome with 1 single caveat: in the classic exposition of illusory superiority, the people with low ability are not arrogant know-it-alls and are nearly always capable of recognizing, after seeing calibrating material, that their prior evaluation of their own knowledge was based on ignorance of the topic matter.
You, on the other hand, also employ confirmation bias wherein you simply ignore calibration - so when I show you what an actual science paper looks like, what details actual scientists are routinely expected to have command over - you don't reflect comparatively on your own ability - you just ignore it and pretend that it doesn't exist so you can continue to prop up this absurd fiction in which you're a genius.
A genius who can't write a single coherent sentence about the topic of which they claim to be a master!
pfrankinstein wrote:As self appointed gatekeeper of all that is "science",...
You're still nattering abject fuckwittery.
This forum isn't 'science' Paul. Even were I to accept your utterly asinine bullshit as true - that wouldn't amount to you having done science. Even if you could convince every individual at this forum of the validity of your ranting bollocks, you still wouldn't have achieved anything at all in terms of science. This isn't a venue in which science is conducted - by and large, that's true of all internet fora. As usual, you don't know your arse from your elbow.
pfrankinstein wrote:... and also self proclaimed expert in the subject known as EVOLUTION.
Of course, in reality I have made no such claim at all - this is just you engaging in your usual muppetry.
Comparative to you though, oh yeah, I am a fucking legend in terms of knowledge of evolution... but the same can probably be said of most scientifically informed teenagers, so it's not much of a useful comparison.
Also, the subject is not 'evolution' Paul - the subject there would be 'biological evolution'. You can go to university to study biological evolution (well, by 'you' I mean 'one can' because you obviously wouldn't be capable of achieving entry grades given how poorly you think and write) - but you can't go to university to study 'evolution' as it's not actually a coherent topic, you know, like I keep telling you, because the way in which things change over time isn't analogous or constrained by the same frame.
pfrankinstein wrote: I seek your concise definition.
You've been yammering witlessly for nearly 2 decades Paul, and you still don't know the definition despite it being written out for you dozens of times in this thread.
pfrankinstein wrote:Firstly. Let's re-examine the core value and understanding of the subject.
Ok - your understanding is immeasurable, close to zero. You rarely manage to even write a coherent sentence, let alone paragraphs or detailed explanations. This is the actual measure of your 'knowledge' - less than a sentence worth of information.
pfrankinstein wrote:So I ask of science:
Good luck getting science to listen to you.
pfrankinstein wrote:What exactly is EVOLUTION?
Another example of the tides of confusion apparent in your 'thinking'. You stated 'first let's do X' - and then you didn't do X, you leapt to asking a question.
Regardless, I know there are dozens of instances of people telling you in this thread what evolution is, and each time you arrogantly ignored those statements pretending to be a condescending genius. But here we are nearly 2 decades later, and you still don't even have this basic definition of evolution - it's a clown show Paul, and there's only one clown.
pfrankinstein wrote:key word :con·cise
[kənˈsʌɪs]
ADJECTIVE
giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but comprehensive:
Brilliant: you ask twice for a definition of evolution, then provide a definition of 'concise'.
Using that same dictionary, you can just look up the other word you're struggling with.
pfrankinstein wrote:
“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.” ― Albert Einstein.
Then you're fucked given you can't write even a single coherent sentence.
pfrankinstein wrote:Plain for all to see. The writer runs off at a tangent to wax lyrically and so obscure, we can ask how did the writer convince himself and make the mistake of confusing 'effect or cause".
If/with every student on the same page, a baseline truth explanation can be had.
Yoda's prose is more intelligible.
pfrankinstein wrote:Do we have that short articulate answer Thower?
Yes: arrogance and ignorance combined are powerful drivers of stupidity.
