Fox: "And you have the unmitigated temerity to cast yourself as some sort of oracle on scientific truth."
I'm not doing anything of the fucking sort. For virtually anything I say I provide a link to and quote of something in the way of an authoritative source who's saying about the same thing.
Fox: "And you have the unmitigated temerity to cast yourself as some sort of oracle on scientific truth."
I'm not doing anything of the fucking sort. For virtually anything I say I provide a link to and quote of something in the way of an authoritative source who's saying about the same thing.
You may blather on -- as you're wont to do -- about "argument from authority", but the only "authority" you ever even allude to is no better than the man-in-the-street. A scientific illiterate at best if not a "cruel bumpkin of the Middle Ages" or "his pal, the naked bushman leaping around his tribal fire."
No doubt many "authorities" aren't worth a pinch of coonshit, much less their salaries -- Feynman said as much, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts":
But that doesn't mean that all experts, all authorities can or should be dismissed, only that what they say is open to dispute or disagreement -- if one has the goods. Which Feynman more or less emphasizes is the case.
And if one doesn't have those goods -- you, for the most part, at least on anything to do with sex and gender -- then one is obliged to accept what they say, at least provisionally. Just shooting yourself in the feet to say otherwise -- being charitable.
Fox: " 'Gender' has been adulterated into uselessness, and since it's so proximate to 'personality,' we should expunge it."
More or less agree with your premise -- i.e., "uselessness" -- but the conclusion doesn't in any way follow therefrom. Just something you've pulled out of your arse. And that apparently because the definition of "gender" as synonymous with personalities and personality types conflicts with what is little more than your (mis)understanding of folk-biology, if not a pile of anti-scientific claptrap.
You might want to reflect on something -- not that you seem much capable of that -- from something in the way of an expert on emergence, Melanie Mitchell, from her "Complexity, A Guided Tour":
Mitchell: “Any perusal of the history of science will show that the lack of a universally accepted definition of a central term is more common than not. …. Science often makes progress by inventing new terms to describe incompletely understood phenomena; these terms are gradually refined as the science matures and the phenomena become more completely understood.” [pg. 95]
No doubt that a great deal of rather toxic "bathwater" has been produced in "bathing" the "baby" of "gender". But it might be wise to not throw the latter out with the former.
Hardly takes much "expertise" to simply note, as he did, that:
Scalia: "The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes."
But curious then that you seem rather "reluctant" to accept the "expertise" of "authorities" Colin, Emma Hilton, & Heather Heying in their stipulative definitions for the sexes they had published in the UK Times. Which, I might emphasize, say diddly-squat about any chromosomes. At least as far as I can see; maybe you'll have better luck ... 🙄
And likewise "reluctant" to accept the posts published here that explicitly accept -- more or less -- the same definitions I've been quoting that were published in the "authoritative" MHR.
And likewise "reluctant" to accept the definitions published in the "authoritative" Oxford Dictionary of Biology:
What a joke you are. First it's a case of "citing people whose expertise is germane to the issue". But then when you don't like what they say it's some hand-waving about "actual logical reasoning".
You're simply barking up the wrong tree; there is no "logical reasoning" in stipulating definitions. They -- those authorities -- SAY, they STIPULATE what they mean by those terms. There is, by definition, no "logical reasoning" in stating axioms -- they are by definition "a priori", BEFORE the reasoning.
Is there any "logical reasoning" in stating the axioms of Euclidean geometry, that parallel lines never meet? The reasoning, the development of theorems is what FOLLOWS from those axioms.
See:
Wikipedia: "Prior analytics (a priori) is about deductive logic, which comes from definitions and first principles."
So, I'm not infallible. I'd looked into the "argument from authority" in Wikipedia, but hadn't gone into it in enough depth. Mea culpa, shoot me at dawn ...
Fox: "And you have the unmitigated temerity to cast yourself as some sort of oracle on scientific truth."
I'm not doing anything of the fucking sort. For virtually anything I say I provide a link to and quote of something in the way of an authoritative source who's saying about the same thing.
You may blather on -- as you're wont to do -- about "argument from authority", but the only "authority" you ever even allude to is no better than the man-in-the-street. A scientific illiterate at best if not a "cruel bumpkin of the Middle Ages" or "his pal, the naked bushman leaping around his tribal fire."
No doubt many "authorities" aren't worth a pinch of coonshit, much less their salaries -- Feynman said as much, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts":
http://www.feynman.com/science/what-is-science/
But that doesn't mean that all experts, all authorities can or should be dismissed, only that what they say is open to dispute or disagreement -- if one has the goods. Which Feynman more or less emphasizes is the case.
And if one doesn't have those goods -- you, for the most part, at least on anything to do with sex and gender -- then one is obliged to accept what they say, at least provisionally. Just shooting yourself in the feet to say otherwise -- being charitable.
Fox: " 'Gender' has been adulterated into uselessness, and since it's so proximate to 'personality,' we should expunge it."
More or less agree with your premise -- i.e., "uselessness" -- but the conclusion doesn't in any way follow therefrom. Just something you've pulled out of your arse. And that apparently because the definition of "gender" as synonymous with personalities and personality types conflicts with what is little more than your (mis)understanding of folk-biology, if not a pile of anti-scientific claptrap.
You might want to reflect on something -- not that you seem much capable of that -- from something in the way of an expert on emergence, Melanie Mitchell, from her "Complexity, A Guided Tour":
Mitchell: “Any perusal of the history of science will show that the lack of a universally accepted definition of a central term is more common than not. …. Science often makes progress by inventing new terms to describe incompletely understood phenomena; these terms are gradually refined as the science matures and the phenomena become more completely understood.” [pg. 95]
https://www.amazon.ca/Complexity-Guided-Tour-Melanie-Mitchell/dp/0199798109
No doubt that a great deal of rather toxic "bathwater" has been produced in "bathing" the "baby" of "gender". But it might be wise to not throw the latter out with the former.
🙄 :roll-eyes:
Hardly takes much "expertise" to simply note, as he did, that:
Scalia: "The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes."
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep511/usrep511127/usrep511127.pdf
But curious then that you seem rather "reluctant" to accept the "expertise" of "authorities" Colin, Emma Hilton, & Heather Heying in their stipulative definitions for the sexes they had published in the UK Times. Which, I might emphasize, say diddly-squat about any chromosomes. At least as far as I can see; maybe you'll have better luck ... 🙄
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554
And likewise "reluctant" to accept the posts published here that explicitly accept -- more or less -- the same definitions I've been quoting that were published in the "authoritative" MHR.
And likewise "reluctant" to accept the definitions published in the "authoritative" Oxford Dictionary of Biology:
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441
Wonder why that might be ... inquiring minds and all that ... 🤔🙄
🙄 :roll-eyes:
What a joke you are. First it's a case of "citing people whose expertise is germane to the issue". But then when you don't like what they say it's some hand-waving about "actual logical reasoning".
You're simply barking up the wrong tree; there is no "logical reasoning" in stipulating definitions. They -- those authorities -- SAY, they STIPULATE what they mean by those terms. There is, by definition, no "logical reasoning" in stating axioms -- they are by definition "a priori", BEFORE the reasoning.
Is there any "logical reasoning" in stating the axioms of Euclidean geometry, that parallel lines never meet? The reasoning, the development of theorems is what FOLLOWS from those axioms.
See:
Wikipedia: "Prior analytics (a priori) is about deductive logic, which comes from definitions and first principles."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/a%20priori
So, I'm not infallible. I'd looked into the "argument from authority" in Wikipedia, but hadn't gone into it in enough depth. Mea culpa, shoot me at dawn ...
What? What "qualification"?
Fox: "topics I won't argue any more"?
"Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up"? Ohhh-kayyy ... 🙄
Fox: "All you have is PZ Meyers."
I clearly have rather more than just that. You just refuse to face the facts.
Fox: "your dumbshit insults ..."
Still don't think you quite get the concept of tit-for-tat; you might try reading the Wikipedia article, particularly the section on game theory.
Tsk, tsk. Such language, why I never ... 🙄
Looking increasingly unhinged there mate ...
:roll-eyes: 🙄
After you Alphonse. A more pigheaded and ignorant queer is scarcely imaginable. And probably a chickenhawk to boot ...