Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Carry On Palaeontology


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#16    pantodragon

pantodragon

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • Joined:28 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:On vacation in Beetleguese

Posted 02 May 2013 - 02:30 PM

View PostSwede, on 29 April 2013 - 11:30 PM, said:

1) In recent history you have presented quiet a number of soliloquies based upon a notable lack of understanding in regards to the matters upon which you choose to espouse.

2) While your ill-informed comments would not appear to be direct quotes (far too erroneous), the direct utilization of the significant thoughts of others is also considered to be a form of plagiarism. Thus, citations are a requisite. Plagiarism is not a matter to be taken lightly, whether on these pages or, more particularly, within professional realms.

3) Your lack of understanding in regards to radiocarbon dating is merely one of the more glaring examples of your lack of knowledge/understanding in regards to your various poorly constructed "critiques".

4) As another example, the datings utilized in the interpretations of Olduvai are not assumptions, but are based upon K-Ar/Ar-Ar dating along with osteological, environmental, and lithic analysis data, to name but a few.

5) Your understandings in regards to archaeological research are yet another example of your profoundly lacking knowledge base.

My personal time is often quite limited. However, should you choose to select specific points, one at a time, these can be addressed and qualified references provided. By proceeding in such a manner, it would be hoped that you will be provided with information that will allow you to avoid further personal embarrassment.

.

Yes, you have beautifully described the position academics want the rest of us to be in: they want us right under their thumbs.  They are the beetle-crushers and we the beetle,  result: beetlejuice!  They lord it over the rest of us telling us how we understand nothing while they, of course, know better --- so what the hell business do we have coming to our own conclusions about what is going on.!!!!!  .Academics pull this trick again and again, intimidating the plebs with their accusations of "you don't understand".  Unfortunately for them, I can think for myself, so when someone's pulling a fast one, I know it.  And academics are pulling a fast one.  If you fall for it, then the more fool you.

In former times (reference: Montaigne: Of the Education of Children) it was considered more important to be able to THINK than to be able to cite references and quote from authorities.


#17    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,237 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 May 2013 - 02:43 PM

View Postpantodragon, on 02 May 2013 - 02:30 PM, said:

Yes, you have beautifully described the position academics want the rest of us to be in: they want us right under their thumbs.  They are the beetle-crushers and we the beetle,  result: beetlejuice!  They lord it over the rest of us telling us how we understand nothing while they, of course, know better --- so what the hell business do we have coming to our own conclusions about what is going on.!!!!!  .Academics pull this trick again and again, intimidating the plebs with their accusations of "you don't understand".  Unfortunately for them, I can think for myself, so when someone's pulling a fast one, I know it.  And academics are pulling a fast one.  If you fall for it, then the more fool you.

In former times (reference: Montaigne: Of the Education of Children) it was considered more important to be able to THINK than to be able to cite references and quote from authorities.

Dunning and Kruger

Stunning example.


#18    pantodragon

pantodragon

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • Joined:28 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:On vacation in Beetleguese

Posted 02 May 2013 - 03:04 PM

View PostCopasetic, on 02 May 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

Dunning and Kruger

Stunning example.

"Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:
  • tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
  • fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
  • fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
  • recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill."
This is a wonderful example of reason thinking it understands things.  Just because all that sounds so rational doesn't make it right.  And it's not right.  It's rubbish.  Human beings are not that simple.  And just because they use/invent big words like metacognitive or anosognosia or Shakespeare --- oops, no, that was just a reference --- geez, I wish these people could organise their thinking, follow threads and focus --- does not mean they understand anything.  They're just playing power games.  This is an examp[le of a beetlecrusher.

May I offer a little illumination here?  (You may quote me to D and K, I won't accuse them of stealing my ideas, I am perfectly willing to give them a hand when they need it.)

First, a quote from David Hume: Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.  I would quibble with the "ought only to be" but the fact is that people are ruled by their emotions and their judgements of others are emotional rather than rational.  So, there is no ONE way in which incompetent people will estimate either themselves or other people.

Secondly, there is a well known phenomenon: when people look at the world, what they see is a reflection of themselves.  From this, one can conclude that the theory of D and K reflects themselves and no one else i.e. it is they who tend to overestimate their own level of skill etc.

Thirdly, the most important factors in being able to make any sort of accurate assessment of other people is detachment and self-awareness, but emphasise detachment.  This is different from objectivity.  So, the only way anyone of any level of competence can make any accurate and realistic assessment of either themselves or others, is if they have achieved high levels of detachment and self-awareness.

Edited by pantodragon, 02 May 2013 - 03:09 PM.


#19    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,120 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 02 May 2013 - 04:48 PM

View Postpantodragon, on 29 April 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

You'd need to explain to the experts I'm quoting from.  Actually, you need to think a little more on the subject yourself.  The issue is not whether I can give an alternative explanation about how characteristics are passed on, the issue that an assumption has been made.  Which it has, even i9f you can't see it.
Genes are passed on through inheritance, in order for different species to share genes they therefore need to share a common ancestor.
If that is an assumption, then so is you possessing a brain.

Edited by Rlyeh, 02 May 2013 - 04:48 PM.


#20    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,120 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 02 May 2013 - 05:00 PM

View Postpantodragon, on 02 May 2013 - 02:30 PM, said:

Yes, you have beautifully described the position academics want the rest of us to be in: they want us right under their thumbs.  They are the beetle-crushers and we the beetle,  result: beetlejuice!  They lord it over the rest of us telling us how we understand nothing while they, of course, know better --- so what the hell business do we have coming to our own conclusions about what is going on.!!!!!  .Academics pull this trick again and again, intimidating the plebs with their accusations of "you don't understand".  Unfortunately for them, I can think for myself, so when someone's pulling a fast one, I know it.  And academics are pulling a fast one.  If you fall for it, then the more fool you.
But you see the difference is the academics support their conclusions, pantodragon on the other hand pulls conclusions out of her behind as demonstrated in "pantodragon's world in a nutshell".
When ever you post the BS detector goes wild.


#21    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,237 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 May 2013 - 11:58 PM

View Postpantodragon, on 02 May 2013 - 03:04 PM, said:

"Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:
  • tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
  • fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
  • fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
  • recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill."
This is a wonderful example of reason thinking it understands things.  Just because all that sounds so rational doesn't make it right.  And it's not right.  It's rubbish.  Human beings are not that simple.  And just because they use/invent big words like metacognitive or anosognosia or Shakespeare --- oops, no, that was just a reference --- geez, I wish these people could organise their thinking, follow threads and focus --- does not mean they understand anything.  They're just playing power games.  This is an examp[le of a beetlecrusher.

May I offer a little illumination here?  (You may quote me to D and K, I won't accuse them of stealing my ideas, I am perfectly willing to give them a hand when they need it.)

First, a quote from David Hume: Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.  I would quibble with the "ought only to be" but the fact is that people are ruled by their emotions and their judgements of others are emotional rather than rational.  So, there is no ONE way in which incompetent people will estimate either themselves or other people.

Secondly, there is a well known phenomenon: when people look at the world, what they see is a reflection of themselves.  From this, one can conclude that the theory of D and K reflects themselves and no one else i.e. it is they who tend to overestimate their own level of skill etc.

Thirdly, the most important factors in being able to make any sort of accurate assessment of other people is detachment and self-awareness, but emphasise detachment.  This is different from objectivity.  So, the only way anyone of any level of competence can make any accurate and realistic assessment of either themselves or others, is if they have achieved high levels of detachment and self-awareness.


Uh yeah, keep telling yourself that.


#22    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,399 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 May 2013 - 12:14 AM

View Postpantodragon, on 02 May 2013 - 02:30 PM, said:

Yes, you have beautifully described the position academics want the rest of us to be in: they want us right under their thumbs.  They are the beetle-crushers and we the beetle,  result: beetlejuice!  They lord it over the rest of us telling us how we understand nothing while they, of course, know better --- so what the hell business do we have coming to our own conclusions about what is going on.!!!!!  .Academics pull this trick again and again, intimidating the plebs with their accusations of "you don't understand".  Unfortunately for them, I can think for myself, so when someone's pulling a fast one, I know it.  And academics are pulling a fast one.  If you fall for it, then the more fool you.

In former times (reference: Montaigne: Of the Education of Children) it was considered more important to be able to THINK than to be able to cite references and quote from authorities.

The defensive nature of your response is not particularly uncommon amongst those that have little or no understanding of scientific philosophy, theory, methodology, practice, or research. This lack of understanding is generally based upon a lack of information or, to put it more bluntly, ignorance.

Fortunately, ignorance is curable. Rather than wallowing in a self-imposed miasma, you may wish to challenge your beliefs and capabilities by expanding your informational base.

.


#23    pantodragon

pantodragon

    Remote Viewer

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • Joined:28 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:On vacation in Beetleguese

Posted 07 May 2013 - 03:33 PM

View PostSwede, on 03 May 2013 - 12:14 AM, said:

The defensive nature of your response is not particularly uncommon amongst those that have little or no understanding of scientific philosophy, theory, methodology, practice, or research. This lack of understanding is generally based upon a lack of information or, to put it more bluntly, ignorance.

Fortunately, ignorance is curable. Rather than wallowing in a self-imposed miasma, you may wish to challenge your beliefs and capabilities by expanding your informational base.

.

One day when I was peeling potatoes at the sink, my brother picked up one of the potatoes and asked “How’s that for a good Scottish potato, then?”  To which I replied “Do you mean the one in my hand or the one on top of your head?”  I am tempted to make a play on words along those same lines with your name, Swede, but I shall refrain……….

You are absolutely, completely, totally, utterly, indisputably (etc) wrong to say that a lack of understanding is “generally based upon a lack of information”.  This demonstrates a complete failure to UNDERSTAND the difference between understanding and information.  But that is only to be expected of scientists/academics.  An inability to understand is but one of the many symptoms of dysfunction brought about by their abuse of, by their love of self-harming, their own minds.  

So, your suggestion that I effect a cure for my supposed ignorance by expanding my “informational base”  is not only utter hogwash, but would, and does, lead to mental dysfunction.  Only someone who is ignorant, someone who understands nothing about how the mind works, would suggest it.

Information is trivial.  The mind is, however, naturally equipped to develop UNDERSTANDING.  This is NOT achieved by doing what science and academia do: deconstructing the world and creating vast featureless oceans of information in which people are all at sea and where, lost, exhausted and unable to remain buoyant, they drown.  Understanding is achieved by acquiring abilities through experience and enables one to see the bigger picture --- which is why I can and you can’t.

As to being defensive?  Geez!   One minute I’m accused of being defensive, the next of going on the offence…….is there no end to it?!!!  I really wish you people on this forum would make up your minds.

PS: where on earth did you dig up the phrase: “expanding your informational base”?  That’s a book-swallower’s phrase if ever I heard it.  Did no one ever tell you that real people don’t talk like that?





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users