This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

jac12358's Profile

jac12358's Avatar Joined over 6 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by jac12358

How many generation estimated from first cell to modern human? - last commented 27 October 2010 01:07 PM

More Discussions by jac12358

Latest Comments by jac12358

Go to: Science and truth have been cast aside by our desire for controversy

jac12358's Avatar Jump to comment 159 by jac12358

I am posting this to the most-contentious and recent (still ticking) three threads in which I've found myself.

Requiring a reprieve (not just from this, but also a hurricane) with just a week to go before the fall semester starts, I decided to take a trip down memory lane. It seems that a full third of the posts I've ever made at (not counting those I swear exist but no search can uncover in the archives or on google) - i.e. a third of my pages of posts in my personal history - starting in 2008, occurred in a little over a month, since July 22 of this year!!!

It wasn't ALL about global warming, though, as I tried to avoid debating that for the most part in the past, and other than the next favorite topic - free will - there were a number of other ones about the universe and evolution, which should be interesting to note just how varied my interests are, and also how in those instances there is not the contention present here. Also of interest is the way my posts tend to terminate most of the threads, typically after I've provided a dump of researched information and evidence, with no further response, helping serve as precedents to explain my present reluctance to do the same. The few threads where I am not the terminal post (prior to my "bookmarking" them) I was surprised to find either a lack of interaction or acknowledgement - meaning also no arguments or attacks on my intelligence - with even a couple of you then-present posting and witnesses.

I invite anyone interested to look through my last dozen or so "bookmarking" posts demonstrating this variety of threads I had posted to, and the results and conclusions I draw from it, and draw your own. Certainly very soon I must resort back to my much-decreased previous posting rate, so I cannot promise much else in this debate. But perhaps in the interim you can evaluate the full breadth of my interests and expertise and ability to not cause a scandal in developing your profile of me based on more than just this topic, and also formulate a more effective strategy toward understanding and debating persons "like me" and other skeptics (and the deniers you lump us with) in future encounters on matters of great importance such as this.


Mon, 29 Aug 2011 17:26:20 UTC | #865236

Go to: Why Carbon Dioxide Is a Greenhouse Gas

jac12358's Avatar Jump to comment 247 by jac12358

Comment 246 by Alan4discussion :

@ Ignorant Amos & Steve Zara


@245 - Yes, and Poptech supplied such information.

Actually, as should be obvious, he just made this up - in keeping with the massive verbosity of denial in the latest and in earlier posts.

Wait, so he made up a list of articles which do not exist in the peer-reviewed journals they were cited from? And also did not include in that list "responses" to said articles? What exactly should be obvious here? I am asking this honestly, not in an attempt to prolong contention.

My comment is of course a personal opinion based on reading journals. Jac seems to still be working towards finding journals, but does not seem to be inhibited by this in expressing opinions on the many he has not read. (Peer review throughout the world's a conspiracy I tell YA!)

Comment 237 by Steve Zara - I'm really curious to see if there is a point where people like jac finally see the flaw in their thinking.

I think you have just had the answer to that.

Which is? Please, there is no need to be so cryptically certain of someone else's fatal mistake, without having to name it or provide evidence for it.

Okay, so you've long read journals. Great. My point was, given prior to this disclosure, nobody seemed to have leafed across one of these skeptical articles within any particular peer-reviewed journal, the complete series of which line the walls of their comfy reading rooms, and thus led to the incorrect conclusion that - however flawed they might be, or had been "mistakenly" included by "dodgy" editors, that they did not exist in said journals, and so were not peer reviewed. End of point. First accept the correction, then move on. After all, would not such acceptance of an error and altering a prior assumption based on it be a perfect example for what you expect of me long my "journey of acceptance" - or are you in fact as stubborn to stand your ground as you portray me?

Mon, 29 Aug 2011 17:03:30 UTC | #865221

Go to: Researchers Identify Seventh and Eighth Bases of DNA

jac12358's Avatar Jump to comment 22 by jac12358

Thanks for clearing that up, lest anyone thought I did not read these responses, or thought I disagreed with them.

Hmm, it appears that this thread is but another example of a topic one would think is ideal for a site like this, but does not last for even one page. Now why is this? Is it because we are all in agreement, or accept these conclusions (whether we understand the science or not) and it would just be "preaching to the crowd"? Does a topic require a skeptic or nemesis to keep the debate alive?

Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:52:00 UTC | #865217

Go to: Why Multiverses don't help with Fine Tuning

jac12358's Avatar Jump to comment 220 by jac12358

David, permit me to not have left you so-hanging.

What does a concession that the "multiverse does help with the appearance of fine tuning" mean? There is a whole chicken-and-the-egg issue here that is not being addressed. Much like assuming a god to explain the universe (but not having to explain god), how does a multiverse HELP the fine tuning of our own, since this, too, indicated an infinite regress, begging such questions as:

  1. Why would the multiverse have "laws" that were favorable to produce a fine-tuned universe such as ours?

  2. How did this multiverse come into being, apparently fine-tuned to be able to fine-tune our universe?

  3. Does this imply a previous (and LARGER) mega-multiverse, required to produce a properly fine-tuned multiverse, which in turn produced our fine-tuned universe, etc. ad infinitum?

  4. Why, then, is it not simpler to eliminate this infinite regress of "god-like" pre/meta-universal causal "middle men / explanations-of-the-gaps" and simply focus on this and only this universe coming into existence - "fine-tuned" as it is - or having always existed, rather than projecting these qualities on prior universes?

It seems that the gist of this thread has been: "I can't believe I exist, therefore I must imagine the most mind-bending and forever untestable hypotheses merely to make the explanation of my existence more justifiable." Huh?

Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:47:07 UTC | #865216

Go to: How would you define morality & justice?

jac12358's Avatar Jump to comment 173 by jac12358

AtheistEgbert, it is a shame that certain posts like this die (especially when one has contributed to them!) - I find the ones I join either ignore me OR won't let me rest a minute. Where's the happy medium? Anyway, as this thread appears to NOT be of the "I killed the thread" variety, but one in which my last post was not commented on (so what is the point?), I wondered a few things about such dead threads:

Since I also have bad luck getting new topics accepted, I assume (for I am given no reasons for rejection) that the topic exists elsewhere and I should simply post there. Does the community REALLY expect all new posts on a topic to find the last relevant thread on that subject - even if dead and post there? How long does a thread have to be dead for a new (but similar) topic to be accepted?

Specifically as it pertains to THIS thread (if anyone is listening), how does the issue of morality and justice play out when the moral precepts (and the consequential system of justice supporting and enforcing it) involve such areas like the predictions of a scientific consensus (like AGW), even amid real or distracting controversies, such that what is described as a scientific "is" becomes a prescriptive "ought" - even if the majority who is compelled to "ought" themselves as certain way are either ignorant or skeptical of this conclusion?

Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:32:12 UTC | #865213

More Comments by jac12358