On Wednesday, December 3, 2014 4:17:16 AM UTC, cdemorsella wrote: > > > > > > *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> [mailto: > everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>] *On Behalf Of *LizR > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 02, 2014 7:39 PM > *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > *Subject:* Re: Edge: Myth of A.I. > > > > On 3 December 2014 at 16:29, <zib...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > > On Monday, December 1, 2014 1:45:57 AM UTC, Liz R wrote: > > For some reason a lot of religious people attempt to argue that Darwin was > wrong, just as a lot of people seem to have always wanted to show that > Einstein was wrong. There appears to be something about these targets that > attracts a certain type of person, even though there might be better > pickings to be had objecting to the big bang or quantum theory from the > point of view of scoring points for the worldview being pushed. After all, > the Bible (for example) says that God made the Heavens and the Earth (and > the rest of the universe gets a throwaway line), so why object specifically > to evolution rather than, say, theories of planetary formation? > > > > I'd guess because... > > > > 1. people take it personally that their ancestors were simpler creatures. > > 2. it's a target they can sort of, more or less, understand, even if they > can't really. > > > > (I have a feeling people object to Einstein's theories because they don't > like the idea of being browbeaten by Jewish intellectuals...) > > > > I can't disagree for the simple reason creationist nut > over-representation on Darwin and anti-Semite over representation on > Einstein is fait accompli pretty much the same regardess which one of us is > right. If you are right, then ....well you say they are over-represented, > and this is the case you are right, so...there they are! > > > > On the other hand if I'm right and these are two areas that have seen > periods of large discouragement and disincentive to 'look there'. Well > then, by consequence of that, all the genuine truth seekers never showed up > at all. And the consequence of that is that the people that did show up are > going to be religious nut and anti-Semite over-represented. > > > > So we have to go to the details Liz, and bring in other exhibits > supporting our case. > > > > My Exhibit A is: Richard Feynman hasn't received anti-semitically > motivated criticism at anything like the levels you imply for Einstein. Yet > for a large number of people he's up there at the very top table of great > scientific genius. He has also received a huge amount of dissent and > criticism. No one says that is anti-Semitic. And by and large (I think) > it's been dispelled. > > > > See point 2. Theories have to be more or less understandable before the > cranks start attacking them. So "we evolved from apes" and "you can't > travel faster than light" are far easier targets than summing over > histories and absorber theory and so on. > > > > Exhibit B is hugely disproportionate 25% of Nobels. A lot of big names > there and all have received criticism yet none apparent involving > dramatical levels of anti-Semitism. > > > > Exhibit C: > > It's not about the theories with Einstein. It's about whether he took > other peoples ideas. You are aware Hilbert published the complete field > equations 5 days before Einstein? You are aware every single character of > the 1905 paper bar one, appears in papers in 1904, 1903 and further back. > Einstein claimed he never read them. Late in life he tacitly conceded he > did. And his two close friends later went on record they all been there and > they pored over those papers for weeks. > > > > Those are legitimate reasons to doubt Einstein. > > > > >>Those are not the sort of reasons people wheel out when they attack > relativity (generally special) or evolution. They claim to have spotted a > flaw everyone else missed, approaching it from a very pop-sci viewpoint. > > > > Liz, I am with you here that evolution and e=mc2 make for highly visible, > honey pots tempting all manner of oddball, legend-in-their-minds geniuses > (or the pious pompous religious sort for the league of Darwin haters). I > also agree that the tactic used is similar – spotting the overlooked flaw > etc. >
> However, I do not see the reason or need to invoke anti-Semitism – in > Einstein’s case, as being the main driver. Sure some of his detractors are > driven by the racist impulse, controlling their illing minds, but most – in > my experience – seem to be ultimately harmless sorts, even if, often they > are obnoxious, socially retarded bores. > . It goes without saying you seek to make a statement about me somewhere there. I'll try to catch my flaws a little more frequently. But something I definitely do is apologize when I see I've mistreated someone. I mean here. I wonder if you will man-up to the apology you owe me? You've been completely in the wrong here. So has Brent. Will he apologize? personally I doubt either of you will. You are both involved in organized shunning of me. I didn't do anything so serious to deserve that. Brent's been doing for so long I can remember the last time he said anything. And that when over the same period I've frequently said things like "I'm sorry if I ever something", and compliment him. Yet he has just carried on. So you're a couple of shunners for no good reason. That puts down a few notches. You've had the position to do this to me. And you have. So you misuse power. And for that reason, Na you won't apologize. Back to shunning looks strong. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
