Consensus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-07-2017, 06:54 AM
RE: Consensus
(08-07-2017 05:04 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(08-07-2017 04:54 AM)julep Wrote:  I don't think so. I'm not sure what branch of Judaism, but...have you seen what she has to say about Jesus?

That's right, I remember now. She was raised by Jews for Jesus and rebelled by going full Haredi.

Well, since the question was asked, I'll answer. My Jewish education is very orthodox, but my upbringing was very reform/secular. I can dance both dances very well, but I choose to live somewhere in between.

... I more or less observe Shabbat, but I also type on the computer and watch TV on Saturday which, in the Jewish community is like smothering a $100 steak from a fine steakhouse with ketchup and mustard. It totally ruins the effect.

(Oh, and I got the joke, Girly.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Aliza's post
08-07-2017, 07:02 AM (This post was last modified: 08-07-2017 07:05 AM by Aliza.)
RE: Consensus
(08-07-2017 05:22 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  
(08-07-2017 01:31 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  So ....I'm fuckin' stupid and need to write out a retraction. I opened my first post with:
"Well, OP it seems like you have tucked your tail between your legs and noped the fuck outta here I just want to offer an observation if I may."

I came into the conversation late and didn't bother to read how old the thread was like a fuckin' amateur scrub. Accusing you of running away when your last post was like ...a day ago was stupid in the extreme, undeservedly disrespectful, and dishonorable. No excuse for that kinda shit from me, and you have my sincere apology. *edit* I'm not gonna delete it from my post, people should see my stupidity.

It happens to everyone at some point.

In response to your Bosnian Pyramid. No qualm, no equivocation, I am totally going to own that fuck up. I should have posted a link directly too Göbekli Tepe . In terms of the Neanderthal claim I should have linked Here and here for fire. Further while I personally find the arguments that it was Neanderthal's that invented music compelling the facts are disputed enough that I should not have made the claim. As to written language I am not claiming that there was or was not a written language that was lost. Rather stating that what we know about what's behind the wall of history is very little. We do not know where writing came from for example, only what the oldest KNOWN writing discovered is. I don't believe in gods, ancient aliens, or that our ancestors 100,000 years ago had laser guns (Though I will admit that would be freaking awesome). How many thousands of years would it take for evidence of modern humans to vanish if we all died off today. More importantly how difficult would it be to find traces of our civilization? And we cover a hell of a lot more of the earth and have built far more.

Homo Erectus fire

I will restate a question i asked previously. Who said I said consensus was a bad thing? Consensus can be bad or it can be good it depends on how it is being used. An argument from consensus (ad populum) is a fallacy. For example an old man sleeping with a 13 year old girl is neither right nor wrong because there is a consensus that it is wrong. What makes it wrong is the fact that there is a serious difference in the power dynamic.


[url=http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2010/11/the-top-10-most-spectacularly-wrong-widely-held-scientific-theories/]more consensus gone wrong

This leaves aside the question of popular science gone wrong.

You seem to be getting your knowledge on the origins of man from various National Geographic articles or documentaries rather than from 4-8 years of first hand university study. Did you realize those articles are written to a lay audience?

.... actually, upon further examining your sources, you're getting your information from cracked.com and Wikipedia. Well chosen, good sir! Well chosen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Aliza's post
08-07-2017, 11:37 AM (This post was last modified: 08-07-2017 11:44 AM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: Consensus
(08-07-2017 04:44 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(08-07-2017 12:54 AM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  This is an atheist forum, that should be fairly clear given the name, and two of our most highly respected and highly repped members are a Calvinist and an Orthodox Jew. They both express the single most important dissenting view you can possibly have on an Athiest forum. Aliza has a 100% positive reputation while thinking every single one of us is wrong on the existence of God.

To be fair, Aliza isn't Orthodox. She's one of them Jews for Jesus.
Shit really? I could have sworn she said she was Orthodox.

Fuck me at this rate I'm gonna be committing seppuku by Tuesday lol

Edit: I'm safe! ...but still stupid just for a different reason now haha I love you Girly and Aliza!

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
08-07-2017, 01:57 PM
RE: Consensus
(08-07-2017 05:22 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  It happens to everyone at some point.

I appreciate your understanding.

(08-07-2017 05:22 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  In response to your Bosnian Pyramid. No qualm, no equivocation, I am totally going to own that fuck up.
As I just proved we all make fuck ups haha, always happy to see a poster who doesn't double down on his mistakes. We get a lot of them roll through here lol

(08-07-2017 05:22 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  I should have posted a link directly too Göbekli Tepe .
Ok but ...why? That doesn't support your implication that we are foolish for viewing our ancestors as ignorant and savage. They WERE ignorant and savage by almost every single metric imaginable. The ability to stack rocks really really good doesn't change that.


(08-07-2017 05:22 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  In terms of the Neanderthal claim I should have linked Here and here for fire.
That's not the claim you made though nor the one I objected to though:
"We learned language, art, music, fire, and so much more from our Neanderthal cousins."
Your assertion was not that Neanderthals had language, art, music, or fire, but that humans learned to from them, which again, implies that humans had none of those things before encountering Neanderthals and I see absolutely no evidence to support that assertion.

Also, I'll point out that from the Wiki link you provided we don't know if Neanderthals even had a language let alone taught it to humans.

(08-07-2017 05:22 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Further while I personally find the arguments that it was Neanderthal's that invented music compelling the facts are disputed enough that I should not have made the claim.
That's not the claim I objected to nor the assertion you made.

(08-07-2017 05:22 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  As to written language I am not claiming that there was or was not a written language that was lost. Rather stating that what we know about what's behind the wall of history is very little.
I was not challenging your belief, I was challenging to fallacious argument and bad logic that you were using to justify your point. You can't take umbrage at the idea we consider our ancestors ignorant and savage and argue from what ifs, maybes, and could haves as a form of support. Which you did. Which wouldn't have mattered anyway because written language doesn't make you magically not ignorant or savage.

I wanna put this argument to bed:
Was the Spartan society more or less savage than us for their practice of murdering the disabled or deformed at birth?
Was the practice of cutting a person with a knife that hadn't been disinfected to let out "bad humors" more or less ignorant of human biology and germ theory than modern doctors?
Is ritualistic murder, as practised by multiple cultures, to protect crops more or less ignorant and savage than modern agricultural processes?


(08-07-2017 05:22 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  I don't believe in gods, ancient aliens, or that our ancestors 100,000 years ago had laser guns (Though I will admit that would be freaking awesome).
Why not though, you have no more evidence for a written launguage than for any of those things which is the point I was making. You can't invent things you don't have evidence for as justification and even if you could you STILL woundn't have shown how they are not radically more ignorant and savage than we are.

(08-07-2017 05:22 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  How many thousands of years would it take for evidence of modern humans to vanish if we all died off today. More importantly how difficult would it be to find traces of our civilization? And we cover a hell of a lot more of the earth and have built far more.
Dunno, but nobody alive 20 000 years ago would be justified any more than you are by appeling to things they don't have evidence for. That is not sound logic.

(08-07-2017 05:22 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:   Homo Erectus fire
This seems to contradit your assertion that we learned fire from the neanderthals.

(08-07-2017 05:22 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Who said I said consensus was a bad thing? Consensus can be bad or it can be good it depends on how it is being used. An argument from consensus (ad populum) is a fallacy. For example an old man sleeping with a 13 year old girl is neither right nor wrong because there is a consensus that it is wrong. What makes it wrong is the fact that there is a serious difference in the power dynamic.
The problem you have is that you are inventing boogyman possibilities on what COULD happen if a rep system was abused but you can't point to a single example of that ACTUALLY happening on this forum, making your objects to reputation system invalid in actual practice. You were not claiming that they CAN cause negative problems you were saying they DO cause negative problems and that's not the same thing nor do you have actual examples.

Your assertions about reputation systems have been entirely debunked in so far as this form is concerned. You lack examples, you lack evidence, and all the hypotheticals in the world don't have any weight if the exact opposite can be demonstrated. YOU WERE NOT DOWN REPPED FOR GOING AGAINST CONSENSUS. That is a demonstrable fact.

This gets back to my original point. The only people who ever complain about rep here are people who have been poorly repped. You presented your hypothesis about the dangers of rep systems, provided zero actual examples to support your assertion, provided no evidence to support yourself, and have now been given multiple examples that disprove your hypothesis.

The rep system on this forum, the only one that matters in this conversation, is working perfectly fine and producing not a single iota of the objections you have raised.
You are just wrong.

(08-07-2017 05:22 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  ]Cracked Article
Ok...*sigh*...first off trying to draw parallels between yourself and geniuses of the past that people just didn't believe is idiotic, unfounded, and just a tad bit arrogant. Secondly, even if you try to do so you are actually on the OTHER side of the coin. You have utterly failed to demonstrate your claim and I actually have demonstrated my position as factual, YOU are the person not listening to the truth not me.
Now lets actually look at your examples in that article:
5.) "Why did they ignore him? Because the greatest minds of his time couldn't understand him."
Not an example of him being ignored because he went against the consensus.

4.) "Maybe it was because he didn't get around to explaining himself on paper right away, so no one understood what hand-washing had to do with keeping people alive. "
Not an example of being ignored for going against the consensus, he was ignored because he didn't actually show his work.

3.) "At first, both men were called crazy for their insane notions of invisible particles. They had no model of behavior for the buggers and no methods of ever actually looking at them."
Not an example of being ignored for going against the consensus, they published a paper for which they had no evidence and no way to gather evidence. When someone finally DID get evidence the scientific community acknowledged it instantly.

2.) "But not too long after Einstein came up with the cosmological constant, Edwin Hubble burst his little unmoving universe bubble by finding evidence that the whole shebang was expanding. "
Not an example of him being ignored for going against the consensus, his hypothesis was rejected because they found evidence that suggested it was wrong. That they found more evidence later to actually support it does not mean he was ignored because it was not the consensus.

1.) "...he hung himself in 1906, only three years before another scientist proved the undeniable existence of atoms. "
This one is ALMOST an example but not quite. The reason it's not an example is that he was going against modern science with ideas full of presuppositions that were not supported by evidence. He was right, that's true, but the only way for other people to know that is through a demonstration of evidence. The community would be absolutely insane to just take his fuckin' word at it. Notice that the second that evidence ACTUALLY was presented it was accepted by the community consensus be damned.

(08-07-2017 05:22 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  more consensus gone wrong
That's a link full of examples of people who believed wrong things based on ignorance and a lack of scientific knowledge, and how in every case listed the idea was rejected the second evidence was provided to show it wrong. It's a wonderfully crafted page showing science working exactly the way it's supposed to and contains not a single example of anyone being unjustifiably ignored for going against the consensus. In fact, it's a list of the exact opposite, of the consensus being completely overturned by individuals with good evidence.


(08-07-2017 05:22 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  This leaves aside the question of popular science gone wrong.

This actually leads me to an observation. You seem to not understand how the scientific method works, why evidence is needed to challenge the scientific community, and moreover, there seems to be a deep-rooted anti-intellectualism in your posts.
I find this frankly disturbing.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
09-07-2017, 03:08 AM
RE: Consensus
(08-07-2017 01:57 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(08-07-2017 05:22 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  It happens to everyone at some point.

I appreciate your understanding.

(08-07-2017 05:22 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  In response to your Bosnian Pyramid. No qualm, no equivocation, I am totally going to own that fuck up.
As I just proved we all make fuck ups haha, always happy to see a poster who doesn't double down on his mistakes. We get a lot of them roll through here lol
Depending on which day you ask I'd say that there's no greater virtue than being able to admit when one is in the wrong. The world would be a much better place if people learned that being wrong is not a sin.

Quote:Ok but ...why? That doesn't support your implication that we are foolish for viewing our ancestors as ignorant and savage. They WERE ignorant and savage by almost every single metric imaginable. The ability to stack rocks really really good doesn't change that.
Primitive yes. Savages? On what grounds do you make this claim? Were they ignorant? Yes. Were they stupid? On what grounds does someone claim this? We are all ignorant. It's an error to assume that we are somehow smarter than our ancestors. Do we know more? Yes. Are we smarter? No. I am not willing to make claims about how ignorant or not they were about things. If you start pushing into advanced concepts like particle physics, quantum theory, etc, than ya I would be willing to say they were probably ignorant of those things. Did they have a theory of evolution? Of gravity? I have no clue. A good question is "What would preclude them from having developed such a theory?". I am not saying they did or did not have one. I am saying I have no clue and therefore no opinion one way or the other.

Göbekli Tepe is important because it demonstrates purposeful engineering using primitive conditions. If you think it's a demonstration of "stacking rocks" than you are missing the true wonder of it. Consider for a moment just what it took to build Göbekli Tepe. To me the question is why did this seed of civilization fail? And, how many other such civilizations have been aborted in the last 100,000 years? And was evidence of these aborted civilizations destroyed?

This is an article related to the theory I proposed. I am attempting to find the original but it's been some years so it may take me some time to find where I first came across the theory. As originally stated if I am remembering correctly the theory held that language most likely developed along side tool use, which if true means that language is far older than originally thought.

But you are right. If is possible that homo sapiens learned language from homo erectus or some other ancestor. The point I was attempting to make was not specifically that Neanderthals are responsible for language, art, etc, but rather that homo sapiens more than likely learned it somewhere else. Given the closeness with which the two groups lived together however it is quite likely that they may be the source.

I am not arguing "what if" I am arguing I don't know, and that it is ignorant to assume we do know.

Back to consensus.

Consensus is neither good nor bad on it's own. Consensus does not convey the truth or falsehood of a belief on it's own. The only value of consensus is to say that A number of people believed X at Y time. A reputation system by it's definition is a consensus system.

Completely remove me from the argument. Does the argument made have validity?
The argument IS NOT TTA has a corrupt rep system.
The argument is that consensus systems can and are easily manipulated over time.
The argument is consensus tells us nothing of the truth or falsehood of a claim.
The argument is that ad populum arguments are a fallasy.
The warning is how did a consensus society like that in Black Mirror come about.

There are people out there right now (and I know because I have met them) who are advocating a rep system on mass be adopted.

As to the concern of anti-intellectualism. If it is meant that I am anti-reason then no I am not anti-intellectual. If what is meant is argumentum ad verecundiam (argument from authority) then yes I reject arguments from authority. Either an argument is valid or it is not. The only thing an authority can do is clarify and or provide evidence for or against their conclusion. The fact that a scientist (or anyone) has had 99 theories (or positions) which proved right, does not give any special weight that their 100th theory (position) will be right. This is why I want to see the raw data, and or the logic used to reach a conclusion.

Having said that. There are plenty of fields where I am agnostic, astrophysics being one such field. While I have read a number of books on the subject I do not have the math to be able to say if they are right or wrong. Interesting? Certainly. Fun to think about? Absolutely. But I remain agnostic as far as any truth claims.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2017, 03:17 AM
RE: Consensus
(08-07-2017 01:57 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  This actually leads me to an observation. You seem to not understand how the scientific method works, why evidence is needed to challenge the scientific community, and moreover, there seems to be a deep-rooted anti-intellectualism in your posts.
I find this frankly disturbing.

Well ya know. If you go with scholarship you deduce that he's an idiot. So of course he's anti-intellectual. Same as the rep system. If you go with the rep system you deduce he's an arsehole. Therefore he doesn't like the rep system.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
09-07-2017, 08:01 AM
RE: Consensus
(09-07-2017 03:08 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  The warning is how did a consensus society like that in Black Mirror come about.

The Prime Minister ends up fucking a pig on public television?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
09-07-2017, 08:34 AM
RE: Consensus
(09-07-2017 08:01 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(09-07-2017 03:08 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  The warning is how did a consensus society like that in Black Mirror come about.

The Prime Minister ends up fucking a pig on public television?

LMFAO
and that too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2017, 08:36 AM
RE: Consensus
(09-07-2017 08:01 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(09-07-2017 03:08 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  The warning is how did a consensus society like that in Black Mirror come about.

The Prime Minister ends up fucking a pig on public television?

Goddamnit Girly! Censored The stuff you make me Google.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
09-07-2017, 08:48 AM
RE: Consensus
(09-07-2017 08:36 AM)Anjele Wrote:  
(09-07-2017 08:01 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  The Prime Minister ends up fucking a pig on public television?

Goddamnit Girly! Censored The stuff you make me Google.

It's a great show and if you haven't seen it I can't recommend it enough. I'm a huge tech buff, but honestly it's that kind of shit that keeps me up at night. My biggest nightmare is artificial general intelligence, a computer intelligence(CI sometimes called sentient computer) doesn't scare me one bit, AGI... Can we say Skynet?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BlkFnx's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: