Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [DebunkCreation] Debunking Cody (The Perils of Excessive Psychopharmacology)

Expand Messages
  • Jim Taylor
    ... The sad thing is, this guy says he s a psychopharmacologist, and if this is true, he could have a lot to say that is relevant to this list, from an area of
    Message 1 of 8 , Mar 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      > Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 18:08:45 -0500
      > From: "Lenny Flank" <lflank@...>
      > Subject: Re: Re: Debunking Lenny (The Perils of Excessive Pride)
      >
      > > On 22/2/03 10:33 pm, "psychcody <cody.grasmick@...>"
      > > <cody.grasmick@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > > I think you are being overly optimistic about some kids though.
      > Most
      > > > people aren't going to be scientists or intellectuals.
      > >
      > > I think you are being a bit elitist.
      >
      >
      >
      > Not at all. Why, it's not at all elitist for him to come barging in
      > here to pontificate about what should or shouldn't be taught in
      > schools, or what is or isn't useful or practical for students to
      > learn.
      >
      > <sigh>

      The sad thing is, this guy says he's a psychopharmacologist, and
      if this is true, he could have a lot to say that is relevant to
      this list, from an area of science we almost never see represented
      anywhere. Instead, he regards his own scientific specialty as
      "off topic" and posts such utter drivvel that one cannot help
      wondering if he is sampling his own products inappropriately.

      And yes, he's an elitist, or he'd never want to see *any* kid
      get less than the best education possible.



      __________________________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
      http://taxes.yahoo.com/
    • Jim Taylor
      ... So to summarize, in a fit of pique over being denied the opportunity to make a fool of yourself to one person, you insist on jumping in here and
      Message 2 of 8 , Mar 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        > Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 04:05:09 -0000
        > From: "psychcody <cody.grasmick@...>"
        > <cody.grasmick@...>
        > Subject: Re: Debunking Lenny (The Perils of Excessive Pride)
        >
        >
        >
        > > That's nice. did you actually havce anything to say about
        > scientific
        > > creationism or intelligent deisgn theory? Or is your sole purpose
        > in
        > > being here just to wave your dick in front of me and tell me how
        > > yours is bigger than mine.
        >
        > Actually, that was essentially my sole purpose here, to strike you
        > with some retribution for being a bastard to me over e-mail
        > original. You were rather smug and I didn't like it.

        So to summarize, in a fit of pique over being denied the opportunity
        to make a fool of yourself to one person, you insist on jumping in
        here and demonstrating that you are a moron to hundreds of people,
        all at once?

        You need to see a psychologist more competent than yourself, and
        keep your hands out of the psychopharmacopia.



        __________________________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
        http://taxes.yahoo.com/
      • Jim Taylor
        ... ... Cody, believe me, when you re around, nobody else can possibly look like a schmuck. __________________________________________________ Do you
        Message 3 of 8 , Mar 1, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          > Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 04:07:13 -0000
          > From: "psychcody <cody.grasmick@...>"
          > <cody.grasmick@...>
          > Subject: Re: Debunking Lenny (The Perils of Excessive Pride)

          <Snip>

          > Hi Bil. So you all come together and agree with each other, and
          > never discuss anything even slightly off topic? Oh, I'm sorry, I
          > should have known better than to shatter your group-think.
          >
          > I think the issue is that the off-topic nature of the discussion
          > only became a problem when it happened to also be making Lenny look
          > like a schmuck.

          Cody, believe me, when you're around, nobody else can possibly
          look like a schmuck.


          __________________________________________________
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
          http://taxes.yahoo.com/
        • Jim Taylor
          ... This would be true of people who have replaced an utter misunderstanding of their religion with a totally unscientific concept of science. No loss to the
          Message 4 of 8 , Mar 1, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            > Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 05:51:54 -0000
            > From: "psychcody <cody.grasmick@...>"
            > <cody.grasmick@...>
            > Subject: Re: Debunking Lenny (The Perils of Excessive Pride)
            >
            > BAKKE
            > Those would have to be philosophers who are gravely ignorant of what
            > science actually is (or, for that matter, what religion actually
            > is).///
            >
            >
            > Well, no, I think their arguments have been that science has begun
            > to play the role in many people's lives that religion once did. For
            > better or worse.

            This would be true of people who have replaced an utter
            misunderstanding of their religion with a totally unscientific
            concept of science. No loss to the competent theologians, no
            gain to the genuine scientists.

            > The fact that science has high predicative value and religion
            > doesn't is just one special aspect of science which might
            > differentiate it from a religion. From a practical perspective
            > we must ask ourself--
            >
            > What is the goal?

            No, that's a teleological perspective, not a practical perspective,
            you schmuck.

            > Will science or religion do more toward this goal?

            What goal? Who is going to get more than one person to agree on
            a single goal, unless that one person has a gun and the others
            don't?

            > If someone's goal is to find meaning in their life, it is easy to
            > see how either science or religion could provide this meaning.

            Okay, the basic goal which must be met, if your position isn't
            going to die with you, is to survive and reproduce. Science
            isn't teleologically oriented, so science can't help you meet
            that goal. Religion *is* teleologically oriented, but its
            goals are rarely syntonic to the basic practical goal of
            surviving and reproducing. I'd say you have no point, here,
            other than the one your hair style fails to conceal.

            > If someone's goal is to force what they believe on other
            > people's childrens in a school, this belief could be either
            > a scientific or a religious one.

            Wrong again, schmuck. First of all, religions "believe";
            science examines the replicable data and attempts to devise
            "theories" (models) to account for the replicable data.
            So the only "belief" science has, to "force...on other
            people's childrens [sic]" is the belief that one should
            look at the replicable evidence and try to account for it,
            rather than run to shamans and medicine-men for mystical
            "answers" to natural phenomena.

            > In the context of this particular paradigm it is irrelevant which
            > one has the 'special' characteristic of having predicative value.

            The only time science can predict accurately is when science
            has observed accurately and reasoned accurately from those
            observations. Thus the "predicative [sic] value" of science
            is in direct proportion to the truth of scientific theory, which
            in turn it in direct proportion to the accuracy of scientific
            methodology. If you think this can *ever* be irrelevant, you
            should run, not walk, to the nearest psychiatric hospital.

            > Religion has insight value, and moral value, and personal
            > development value, and other value where science does not.

            Who says? I've known religious people, including teachers and
            leaders, who lack the insight to examine even their own motives
            in judging and condemning others.

            As for "moral value", perhaps you can explain the "moral value"
            of the soi-dissant "Holy Inquisition", or the Crusades, or the pogroms.
            Please feel free to attempt this *outside* this list, however; it's
            off topic here.

            As for "personal development value", you might, as a psychologist
            of no little incompetence, consider looking at the "personal
            development value" of Fundamentalism to any female so luckless
            as to be raised in a Fundamentalist family.

            If science lacks all of the above, then I--as a Christian--say
            hurrah for science!

            > Oh how lucky I would have been to have taken Buddhism instead
            > of Physics!

            So you could misunderstand Buddhism as you misunderstand physics?

            > What I really want is a world where we respect the rights of
            > parents and students to take what classes they want--
            > given that it is their money, and their time, and their life,
            > and their mind, and all.

            And I suppose, in your profound psychological incompetence,
            that you actually *believe* that, in a Fundamentalist home,
            the child has any right to choose anything which disagrees
            with the preferences and choices of his or her father.
            If so, you need to obtain a formal introduction to reality.

            > If we are going to teach a child a subject that we all agree
            > is of no practical utility, what subject should that be and
            > why?

            First of all, you will never get us to agree that *any* subject
            is of "no practical utility". Some of us might accept the idea
            that there *are* some subjects of "no practical utility", but
            you will never get us to agree on which subjects they are.
            For example, I took four years of Latin in high school, and
            have found that study to be of *vast* practical utility to me,
            over the decades since then. I took theology in college, and
            it gave me the information I needed to avoid being sucked into
            some heretical cult or other. That's practical utility, if
            you want to keep your own brain alive and functional. So
            forget getting us all agree that any specific course of study
            is of "no practical utility"--it ain't gonna happen!

            > I won't answer that question-- I'll leave it open.
            >
            > What does everyone think?

            I think you're the biggest schmuck with the smallest putz
            I've ever encountered on the internet.

            > Or let's make it more personal.

            Okay, your punnim and your tuchus cannot be distinguished
            from each other in any way.

            > If the rest of society were going to force YOU to take a subject
            > that is of no practical utility (but may be of other utility) to
            > you, what class would you like to take and why?

            Obviously, psychology!



            __________________________________________________
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
            http://taxes.yahoo.com/
          • Robert H. Diday, Jr.
            The April issue of Discover mag has an interesting, but woefully short, blurb on page 11 about some extremophile like critters found 300 below the ocean floor
            Message 5 of 8 , Mar 1, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              The April issue of Discover mag has an interesting, but woefully short,
              blurb on page 11 about some extremophile like critters found 300 below
              the ocean floor off the Oregon coast.
              "Even more tantalizing is the discovery of organic carbon molecules
              whose isotopic signature-the proportion of atoms having slightly
              different masses-suggests that they originated through non-biological
              processes." Now, what could those puppies be? :)

              The article goes on to suggest that organic molecules may be common
              throughout the earth's interior.

              -Robert

              -----Original Message-----
              From: Jim Taylor [mailto:vizenos@...]
              Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 5:59 AM
              To: DebunkCreation@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [DebunkCreation] Debunking Cody (The Perils of Excessive
              Psychopharmacology)

              > Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 05:51:54 -0000
              > From: "psychcody <cody.grasmick@...>"
              > <cody.grasmick@...>
              > Subject: Re: Debunking Lenny (The Perils of Excessive Pride)
              >
              > BAKKE
              > Those would have to be philosophers who are gravely ignorant of what
              > science actually is (or, for that matter, what religion actually
              > is).///
              >
              >
              > Well, no, I think their arguments have been that science has begun
              > to play the role in many people's lives that religion once did. For
              > better or worse.

              This would be true of people who have replaced an utter
              misunderstanding of their religion with a totally unscientific
              concept of science. No loss to the competent theologians, no
              gain to the genuine scientists.

              > The fact that science has high predicative value and religion
              > doesn't is just one special aspect of science which might
              > differentiate it from a religion. From a practical perspective
              > we must ask ourself--
              >
              > What is the goal?

              No, that's a teleological perspective, not a practical perspective,
              you schmuck.

              > Will science or religion do more toward this goal?

              What goal? Who is going to get more than one person to agree on
              a single goal, unless that one person has a gun and the others
              don't?

              > If someone's goal is to find meaning in their life, it is easy to
              > see how either science or religion could provide this meaning.

              Okay, the basic goal which must be met, if your position isn't
              going to die with you, is to survive and reproduce. Science
              isn't teleologically oriented, so science can't help you meet
              that goal. Religion *is* teleologically oriented, but its
              goals are rarely syntonic to the basic practical goal of
              surviving and reproducing. I'd say you have no point, here,
              other than the one your hair style fails to conceal.

              > If someone's goal is to force what they believe on other
              > people's childrens in a school, this belief could be either
              > a scientific or a religious one.

              Wrong again, schmuck. First of all, religions "believe";
              science examines the replicable data and attempts to devise
              "theories" (models) to account for the replicable data.
              So the only "belief" science has, to "force...on other
              people's childrens [sic]" is the belief that one should
              look at the replicable evidence and try to account for it,
              rather than run to shamans and medicine-men for mystical
              "answers" to natural phenomena.

              > In the context of this particular paradigm it is irrelevant which
              > one has the 'special' characteristic of having predicative value.

              The only time science can predict accurately is when science
              has observed accurately and reasoned accurately from those
              observations. Thus the "predicative [sic] value" of science
              is in direct proportion to the truth of scientific theory, which
              in turn it in direct proportion to the accuracy of scientific
              methodology. If you think this can *ever* be irrelevant, you
              should run, not walk, to the nearest psychiatric hospital.

              > Religion has insight value, and moral value, and personal
              > development value, and other value where science does not.

              Who says? I've known religious people, including teachers and
              leaders, who lack the insight to examine even their own motives
              in judging and condemning others.

              As for "moral value", perhaps you can explain the "moral value"
              of the soi-dissant "Holy Inquisition", or the Crusades, or the pogroms.
              Please feel free to attempt this *outside* this list, however; it's
              off topic here.

              As for "personal development value", you might, as a psychologist
              of no little incompetence, consider looking at the "personal
              development value" of Fundamentalism to any female so luckless
              as to be raised in a Fundamentalist family.

              If science lacks all of the above, then I--as a Christian--say
              hurrah for science!

              > Oh how lucky I would have been to have taken Buddhism instead
              > of Physics!

              So you could misunderstand Buddhism as you misunderstand physics?

              > What I really want is a world where we respect the rights of
              > parents and students to take what classes they want--
              > given that it is their money, and their time, and their life,
              > and their mind, and all.

              And I suppose, in your profound psychological incompetence,
              that you actually *believe* that, in a Fundamentalist home,
              the child has any right to choose anything which disagrees
              with the preferences and choices of his or her father.
              If so, you need to obtain a formal introduction to reality.

              > If we are going to teach a child a subject that we all agree
              > is of no practical utility, what subject should that be and
              > why?

              First of all, you will never get us to agree that *any* subject
              is of "no practical utility". Some of us might accept the idea
              that there *are* some subjects of "no practical utility", but
              you will never get us to agree on which subjects they are.
              For example, I took four years of Latin in high school, and
              have found that study to be of *vast* practical utility to me,
              over the decades since then. I took theology in college, and
              it gave me the information I needed to avoid being sucked into
              some heretical cult or other. That's practical utility, if
              you want to keep your own brain alive and functional. So
              forget getting us all agree that any specific course of study
              is of "no practical utility"--it ain't gonna happen!

              > I won't answer that question-- I'll leave it open.
              >
              > What does everyone think?

              I think you're the biggest schmuck with the smallest putz
              I've ever encountered on the internet.

              > Or let's make it more personal.

              Okay, your punnim and your tuchus cannot be distinguished
              from each other in any way.

              > If the rest of society were going to force YOU to take a subject
              > that is of no practical utility (but may be of other utility) to
              > you, what class would you like to take and why?

              Obviously, psychology!



              __________________________________________________
              Do you Yahoo!?
              Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
              http://taxes.yahoo.com/



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            • Jim Taylor
              ... Actually, it was a dramatic transformation. One day he was arguing, with decreasing confidence, in favor of creationist positions; the next day, he was
              Message 6 of 8 , Mar 1, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                > Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 19:19:28 -0500
                > From: "Gillian" <gillianjh@...>
                > Subject: Re: Re: Debunking Lenny (The Perils of Excessive Pride)
                >
                > >> BAKKE
                > >> Sounds like this guy needs to get in line behind whoever it
                > >> was that came on here demanding that Lenny "prove that he's
                > >> a man" by calling him on the telephone and insulting him
                > >> personally.
                > >
                > Lenny Flank wrote:
                > > That was Mike, and interestingly enough, he remains the ONLY
                > > one here who came barging in as a creationist and left as a
                > > theistic evolutionist.
                >
                > g
                > How bright of Mike!

                Actually, it was a dramatic transformation. One day he was
                arguing, with decreasing confidence, in favor of creationist
                positions; the next day, he was explaining evolutionary
                theory and scientific methodology to the newest creationist
                to arrive here, and advising him not to rely on the
                creationist crapsites for anything resembling scientific
                information.

                > So, there is hope that creationists can see the light and come
                > to a comfortable reconciliation between faith and understanding?
                > That's a tough thing to do when indoctrinated from an early age,
                > and taught to see science as an incarnation of Satan (or
                > whatever).

                It requires both ruthless honesty, great courage, and some real
                ability to think logically. Mike Sims has all these qualities;
                most creationists don't have any of them. That is why most
                creationists *stay* creationists. Mike Sims is the exception,
                not the rule.

                Jim



                __________________________________________________
                Do you Yahoo!?
                Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
                http://taxes.yahoo.com/
              • Jim Taylor
                ... Absolutely! ... The number to join the list and actually start trying to prove that evilution is a satanic atheist left-wing conspiracy on the part of
                Message 7 of 8 , Mar 1, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  > Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 19:11:03 -0500
                  > From: "Gillian" <gillianjh@...>
                  > Subject: Truth versus Art Class, and a question (was The Perils of
                  > Excessive Pride)
                  >
                  > cody.grasmick@... wrote:
                  > > Imagine this situation in its purest form.
                  > >
                  > > Picture, in your mind's eye, a school-child of a religious
                  > > background being instructed on evolution.
                  > >
                  > > Now picture that child (lets make it a girl) in an art class,
                  > > happily painting.
                  > >
                  > > Which one do you emotionally prefer and why?
                  >
                  > g
                  > Typical religionist emotional argumentation, and it only took
                  > him one day to fully descend to this and reveal his true colours
                  > (good-as-gold).
                  >
                  > Answer: The religious background child being taught evolutionary
                  > theory -- because s/he is being given a chance to learn to
                  > think, and that is one of the prime points of education.

                  Absolutely!

                  > School kids don't need art classes, they can play at home.
                  >
                  > A question because I am new to the group. How many of these er,
                  > um, er "types" pass through here to make fools of themselves in
                  > any given month?

                  The number to join the list and actually start trying to prove
                  that "evilution" is a satanic atheist left-wing conspiracy on
                  the part of scientists, nationally or world-wide, is variable.
                  Often the "new arrival" is actually someone who has been here
                  before, sometimes frequently.

                  As to the percentage of them who make fools of themselves, it
                  stands at approximately 100%. An extremely small minority,
                  typified by Mike Sims, demonstrate an ability to learn and a
                  desire to use that ability. Most simply leave in a huff,
                  secretly gratified to have indulged their martyr complexes
                  and "proven" how much all us "evilutionists" hate and persecute
                  "Christians" (for which read "Fundamentalists").

                  Jim


                  =====
                  "In a world without walls and fences, who needs Windows and Gates?"

                  __________________________________________________
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
                  http://taxes.yahoo.com/
                • Ian Robinson
                  ... Scott Crabtree is also a member of that minority, I think. Ian -- Ian Robinson - Belfast - UK
                  Message 8 of 8 , Mar 1, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 1/3/03 9:46 pm, "Jim Taylor" <vizenos@...> wrote:

                    > An extremely small minority,
                    > typified by Mike Sims, demonstrate an ability to learn and a
                    > desire to use that ability.

                    Scott Crabtree is also a member of that minority, I think.

                    Ian
                    --
                    Ian Robinson - Belfast - UK
                    <http://www.canicula.com>
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.