|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
 Posted - 07/17/2004 : 06:37:56
|
Immune system
We are all familiar with the human physical immune system, which fights off foreign invaders. We are not as familiar with the human intellectual immune system (HIIS), which fights off foreign memes. I am no expert in ether system and my analysis is based upon observation and study. I suspect all those with similar opinions, who seek authorities, can find them if they wish.
I suspect both systems are results of the evolution Darwin discovered. By the way, I want to note that Darwin's Theory is a good example of a meme. Some other human authors of memes might be Socrates, Jesus, Galileo and recently the four judges in Massachusetts who made a judgement regarding same-sex marriage.
The purpose of the HIIS is to protect the intellectual status quo. I am confident that such an immune system is a result of evolutionary forces for the simple reason that it seems to be part of our genetic structure. I guess that every new meme faces an uphill battle against this HIIS and only the strongest memes survive.
The people, as a community, must guard against the automatic rejection apparatus of HIIS. HIIS is, I guess, an automatic response not requiring reasoned judgement. The community as a group must supply the reasoned analysis to prevent the early rejection of a new meme that might be valuable. The conservative elements of every community seem poised to fight against new memes. The obvious examples being those noted above.
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2004 : 11:24:53 [Permalink]
|
Ricky
I am glad for your support in this matter. |
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2004 : 13:32:43 [Permalink]
|
Ricky
Does this mean you withdraw your support? |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2004 : 19:25:56 [Permalink]
|
| Well, it seems obvious to me that coberst has his "HIIS" turned up so high he can't even comprehend English, much less accept a new meme. I wouldn't bother replying to him anymore, Ricky. Even criticisms a critical thinker should expect bounce off coberst like bullets off Superman, and as you've just learned, he's likely to take a "so what?" for "support." He's a prime example that Morton's Demon can possess anyone, not just Young-Earth Creationists. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2004 : 21:43:29 [Permalink]
|
Ricky, I used to share your idealism (and still do, mostly). I very much admire it. However, my own patience gets sapped rather quickly when someone like coberst comes along who pretends to be a critical thinker, but clearly cannot (or will not) think critically about his essays, his goals or his methods. My patience I reserve for those who show an interest in applied reason, logic and/or science. coberst fails to do so, displaying - across a four or more message boards - only an interest in himself.
By the way, his posts here are his original thoughts. He's not copying from others, these are his own conclusions. Discussion will not take place until coberst admits to himself that it's possible that his premises and/or conclusions may be incorrect. He, however, instead of embracing the idea that all conclusions should be tentative, is latching onto them with a death-grip the likes of which is rarely seen amongst the people here.
In other words, he is witnessing for critical thought, among crititcal thinkers, and doing such a spectacularly bad job of it that it's annoying the hell out of at least a couple of the staff, as well as some SFN members.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2004 : 07:15:07 [Permalink]
|
Dave
My opinion regarding this matter is that we humans face any new idea with a closed mind. If we have a closed mind we are unable to become knowledgable about the new idea. If we do not understand the new idea we cannot attack the idea but we can attack the messanger. Messangers of a new meme are as indangered as are second leutenants on a battle field. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2004 : 11:33:43 [Permalink]
|
| Indeed, coberst. You are a human being who is facing a new idea with a closed mind. The new idea facing you is that the things you are doing in your attempts to fulfill your goals are failing. You are unable to become knowledgable about this idea, to the point where you refuse to discuss it or even admit that it exists. The messengers of that idea - myself, a few others here, and still other people on other forums - have been attacked (by you) as being incapable of understanding you, or worse yet, attempting to stifle the publication of your thoughts. This new idea (new to you) obviously terrifies you greatly, so much so that you simply cannot think critically about it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2004 : 12:02:27 [Permalink]
|
I'd also like to point out the "sister" thread to this one, over at Bad Astronomy.
It's really important to note that a poster over there, Grendl, after attempting to engage coberst in discussion of his thoughts (his thoughts from another thread here, no less), generated pretty much the same response as I did, even though my first two posts to this thread were a "meta discussion" about coberst himself. Here are the appropriate lines from over there:As I have said many times the natural human response is to close the mind at the approach of a new idea. Since the individual with the closed mind does not wish to recognize this irrational response the individual seeks a target that allows the focus of attack to be on the messenger rather than the message. It is the old “kill the messenger approach”. The individual chooses to attack the messenger because attacking the message would necessitate first learning what the message is.
We run into the paradox here because I become emotional because you attack me and in turn you become emotional because I am pointing out the irrationality of your response. Messengers of new memes are as endangered as second lieutenants in wartime. Sounds very familiar, and as far as I can tell, coberst posted these same thoughts here and at the BABB within two minutes. Other examples of near-duplicate replies abound.
But, what does it mean? It means that both Grendl and I may as well have been typing "wubba wubba doozywangle wubba," since it seems that coberst's replies are unaffected by what we actually say. I suspect that if someone last night had posted "I agree, coberst," he would then have replied this morning with something along the lines of "thank you, but it's really hard being the messenger of this new meme, since I'm being attacked all the time." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2004 : 18:37:28 [Permalink]
|
I'm still waiting for him to defend his position that our social sciences fail to keep pace, or should neccessarily keep pace (in volume), with our physical sciences.
I dinno... coberst seems to just drop in, drop a load, and then walk off. And now he's claiming that we attack the messenger.... well, coberst, I hate to burst your bubble.... but you have invited attack, begged for it even, with your hit-and-run style and your lack of interest in defending or supporting your claims.
Why should we just take what you say, in your "essays", at face value? I, and others, have asked you to clarify some points, and you just ramble off to some other topic and ignore us. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2004 : 19:08:42 [Permalink]
|
Actually, Ricky, he's made some pretty broad statemenys about how the social sciences have to be constantly rediscovered and rebuilt, while the physical sciences build ontop of old discoveries. Add in his apparent conviction that the social sciences should have the same volume of information that the physical do....
I tried to point out to him that our social theories are (some anyway) thousands of years old and still viable and taught.
I can't get a response out of him about why he thinks the social sciences should neccessarily contain some specific ammount of data. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/18/2004 : 19:52:29 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote:quote:
Why should we just take what you say, in your "essays", at face value?
Very well asked. It sure seems to me that critical thought demands that we question the premises upon which an argument is built. That we do, and get zilch from coberst in response, shows (once again) that he is acting against his stated goals.
It is said that those who can't do, teach, but coberst has admitted to being unqualified to teach critical thinking. He can't do it, he can't teach it, yet he feels justified in posting numerous repetitious "essays" about how important it is. Critical thinking is very important, which is why I would like to see coberst let more qualified people (like Randi, Shermer, Plait, Kurtz, Nickell, Carroll, Barrett and many others) be the "Johnny Appleseeds" which coberst aspires (but fails) to be. I'm led to wonder if he thinks that those people are purposefully neglecting the over-40 crowd.
Actually, I wonder if he's even heard of those people. In a post out there on the Web somewhere, he admits to never being "able to move beyond Hume" in reading of philosophy. Perhaps coberst is completely unaware of the modern-day popularizers of skepticism and critical-thought, and what they are doing towards moving this discipline into the general consciousness. Many of coberst's other argument are couched in ignorance (he's said, "well, I haven't read much about [insert subject here], but my conclusions are..." on several occassions), so perhaps his entire self-proclaimed purpose is based upon ignorance of what is going on in the real world, just like his knowledge of philosophy ends over 200 years ago. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
