Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 9 of 10
 [ 191 posts ] 
You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!
Author Message
SparhafocPosts: 1059Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

hackenslash wrote:What you see is irrelevant, because I'm offering a value judgement based on 13 years of experience of your interlocutor, one of the clearest science communicators I know, with a wealth of expertise in human evolution, and yet you dismiss it like you'd dismiss the witterings of one of our creationist trolls, with condescension and well-poisoning. He explicitly acknowledged what you were saying, and proceeded to point out why he thought the use of nomenclature was misleading and problematic, at which point you've simply reiterated your talking points with more condescension. This is not my idea of acknowledging his points. You've simply talked past them, and in an extremely aloof and rude manner.

I can understand when presenting to dogmatic supernaturalists that frustration can take over, but you seem in this thread to be the very model of what Bertrand Russell was talking about when he dealt with anger at having your position challenged. Sparhafoc has presented valid points that actually have little to do with biology and more to do with the semantic content of the arguments, and explained in detail why he thinks it's a mistake to even employ non-rigorous nomenclature in such settings and, on the basis of the foregoing discussion, he's ahead by light-years, even if you are correct. You haven't demonstrated that you are in any robust fashion, and you've singularly failed to address his objections.

How you see it has no bearing on how it is, and this is how it is.



Get your coat, Hack. You've pulled!

:lol:


Seriously, appreciated, and more so to know that I was being clear in my points, even if I had to repeat them so many times I started to wonder if I was an alien accidentally finger-banging when I meant to shake hands.
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Fri Aug 04, 2017 5:20 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1059Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Nesslig20 wrote:If anyone wants to understand what I was trying to say here in this thread, here is it from another persons view, that is practically identical to mine.


Actually, if you read it with some basic fucking respect for me, you'd see it makes the same fucking points I made very clearly (and had to repeat endlessly) and which you sneered at and dismissed out of hand every single time.


I’m an Ape, and I’m Also a Fish wrote:I don’t expect the idea that we are fish to pick up much popular currency. The everyday, paraphyletic meaning of the term is entrenched, and I don’t expect anyone to refer to the salmon in their sushi as a “non-tetrapodomorph fish.” But the idea is still a useful one as we explore our relationship to the rest of life on earth. After all, we share a common ancestry with every other living thing on the planet,...


1) Not much utility, certainly not for the public.
2) Every day language with entrenched semantics not open to prescription by you, or anyone else.
3) Useful in a very specific context (as I said - phylogenetic systematics is expressly about the evolutionary relationship between taxa).
4) After all, we share a common ancestry with every other living thing on the planet.

Made all these points, but you weren't here to be honest with me, or to engage in what I said - you came here to dry-hump your ego up.

PZ fucking Myers' acolytes. He's got a lot to answer for, and one day, I hope to take him to task over it face-to-face where he can't pull his usual stunts.
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Fri Aug 04, 2017 5:26 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1059Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Since he is saying that all these examples (looking back at previous citations) are not fish, then I am reading an implication that is there.


The saddest thing to me is that you still can't process what I actually said, and you still want to force your dogmatic rendition to be taken as truth.

I never once said that any of them are not "fish" (mention; because of problems I already noted earlier but which are far too nuanced to bother with here) in the evolutionary sense - instead I asked you whether you would teach someone that the label for all of them is "fish".

You wouldn't answer that honestly because you know your answer would contradict what you'd been arguing, and support what I'd been saying to which you'd been a sneering, condescending little oik.

Again, I made this distinction pages back, and you refuse to process it because your silly rendition is easier for you to address than what I actually wrote.

When we label things, the label isn't obliged to reflect what they originated from, it's meant to identify what they are now. Thus, we have different words to readily conjure an imagine in your mind when the word 'dog' is said, or when the word 'duck' is said. Instantly, you know what they look like, and even if the dog idea in my head is different from the dog idea in your head, we still both know what we mean - we share sufficient overlap to comprehend that word, and consequently it has utility. Words need semantic tent-pegs, they are not so free-form as you keep appealing to.

However, if I say the word 'fish', you do not think of anything dog like, or duck like, or any other modern tetrapod-like, and nor does anyone else. Why not? Seriously, think about it. I've already pointed out why, but you spend so long sneering at me, you refuse to acknowledge what I write.

Every day language, and taxonomy, are both typological, and typological language is unarguably useful - it essentially permits communication.

Cladistic description does have utility, and a phylogenetic systematized clade label is useful but only in very specific scenarios concerning the evolutionary relationships between taxa. It is NOT useful typologically, and therefore not useful to communicate the distinct taxa as I showed you, and you failed to comprehend because you were too busy calling me a retard.

I've said this so many fucking times.... I said it in the first fucking post I wrote.... but still you won't process it, pretending that I am denying cladistics (when I am actually adhering strictly to cladistics nomenclature), and worse, pretending that phylogenetic systematics is the One True Classification system. You being wrong about my argument could just mean I am shit at explaining it, but the latter One True bullshit is just vapid academic snobbery, and is counter-productive to the scientific enterprise in my opinion. Tribalism has never served the acquisition of knowledge.

Either which way, you repeatedly come across as a snooty cunt that knows just enough to be dangerous, but not enough to offer any actual wisdom, or to synthesize knowledge in any unique or compelling way. You appear to me to be a Wikipedia warrior - a dude who becomes an expert in every topic thanks to being able to paraphrase what he finds on Wikipedia. I don't need to be charitable to you anymore, so I won't be. You've earned my disdain.
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Fri Aug 04, 2017 5:43 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3245Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Sparhafoc wrote:Ok, I am going to lock down on one point to see if I can make progress:

We are both reading different journals and books than. I see ape and monkey used all the time.


Ok, so now let's imagine you read a journal in French, Swedish, Italian, Japanese etc.

Would you see the word 'ape' or 'monkey'?

Before you say 'obviously not', please answer this:

Would you see the word 'simiiformes' or 'haplorhines'?

I think you'd agree you would:

That's why the latter are scientific terms, and the former are not. These scientific words have rigor, specificity, and permanence. The every day language words you are seeking to apply have no such rigor, and are - at least to me - simply Platonicized forms.


We already agreed on this. As I already pointed out, the scientific terminology take precedence over any language because of the rigor used in it. I am just trying to get my every day use of language to better reflect the scientific terminology. You do not have to follow, because we already agree on the important points (i.e. the scientific terminology and the actual relationships those terms represent). As you point out, if I were talking to a family in Spanish, I would not use the word monkey, I would use mono since that is the word in that language that best maps to the scientific term simiiforme.

Sparhafoc wrote:
It offers not being stared at like a jackass for using a scientifically technical word when talking to children and their parents. Nothing seems to turn people off faster than talking down to them. Beyond that, you seem to think that languages do not also evolve and change. I am hoping to take English in this direction. You do not have to help.


If this is your objective, then from personal experience I would say you are going to be disappointed. It's not 'talking down' to use actual scientific concepts and explain them clearly. It is talking down to the public to say that they don't really understand science, so let's use a woolly word they already know in place of the scientific word. As I said, that's already the case and the problem; the public already has the every day language vocabulary 'monkey' and has a bunch of preconceptions you'd need to actively change to dewoollify the word. Much like calling the forces of the universe 'God', there's simply too much erroneous baggage.


I have never had a problem with this. I have had a problem starting from the other position and front loading people with scientific terms that they have never heard of before. One can see their eyes glaze over as soon as I start throwing out the jargon. Meeting one at their level and building and correcting from there has always worked for me.

Sparhafoc wrote:Similarly, while I clearly have made no comment about the evolution of language, and certainly nothing I have said contradicts the possibility of languages changing, I think it's bizarre or naive to think that you can plan and direct that change - this is not how languages evolve or how languages are practiced, and to me it seems that you want to direct it (in my opinion) to the same confusion it already possesses. Plus, there's all those other languages you're going to need to direct.


It already seems to be working with bird and dinosaur. The museum I volunteer at has had displaces since the early 90s saying that birds were dinosaurs. It was not until recently (within the last five years maybe) that this understanding seems to become dominate.

Sparhafoc wrote:Why don't we all just use the existing scientific words? You haven't explained that yet.


Because not everyone knows them or cares enough to learn them. Again, we can use them and I would love it. However, I am not always talking to scientifically literate people, and I think getting people to actually understand relationships and ancestry is far more important than the jargon.

Rumraket wrote:I also think the definition of fish given on wikipedia is actually pretty good, as it makes the distinction between fish and the distant ancestors of fish pretty clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish

A fish is any member of a group of animals that consist of all gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lack limbs with digits. They form a sister group to the tunicates, together forming the olfactores. Included in this definition are the living hagfish, lampreys, and cartilaginous and bony fish as well as various extinct related groups. Tetrapods emerged within lobe-finned fishes, so cladistically they are fish as well. However, traditionally fish are rendered obsolete or paraphyletic by excluding the tetrapods (i.e., the amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals which all descended from within the same ancestry). Because in this manner the term "fish" is defined negatively as a paraphyletic group, it is not considered a formal taxonomic grouping in systematic biology. The traditional term pisces (also ichthyes) is considered a typological, but not a phylogenetic classification.


So there is a cladistic defition of fish, and a typological definition of fish. We are cladistically all fish, but typologically we are not. The typological definition corresponds pretty well to how we speak colloquially.

So, is there both a cladistic and a typological definition of Monkey? I suspect there is. Both uses are correct in their respective domains. We could cladistically be monkeys, but typologically not.

So are we monkeys? In one sense yes, in another sense no. Neither sense has to be the one true correct way to understand the word monkey. That just means we have to make it clear in what sense we are using the word when we say we are monkeys.


Bingo!

Sparhafoc wrote:Agreed.

And the statement made in the OP here, in the title, is typological. Every day language is typological. It's that which I've been disputing. Getting people to call all terrestrial animals 'fish' is never going to succeed because it's a totally fucking useless statement.

However, in a discipline that is expressly about tracing the evolutionary relationships between taxa, then it makes sense.

Horses for courses.


This is how I know we have no real disagreement.

Nesslig20 wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:You can't because I told you from the first of the 15 times you demanded it of me - I am not interested in performing on command.


I am not commanding you, I just want to have an honest conversation that means I answer your questions and you answer mine in return. That should not be difficult.


He did answer your question. He said "no". That is an honest answer to any question.

Just because his answer did not conform to what you were expecting does not mean he did not answer it. Move on from this honest answer.

MarsCydonia wrote:This thread blew-up since I last read it but isn't it much ado about nothing? Or about the word "monkey". Are you not alienating each other more and more when you could have agreed to disagree a few pages ago or did I miss something?


Bingo.

hackenslash wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:Well he said that humans and the other apes are not fish. So sure, you can say that (based on just this) he doesn't necessarily say that EVERY tetrapod are fish, just these particular few. But that is farfetched.


So the answer is that you can't provide a citation, and that he never said this?

I don't know whether this is a linguistic problem, but I've read every word he's written in this thread, and my English is exceptional, as is his, and I know for a fact he never said it. I would have been happy to concede that maybe you read an implication that wasn't there and grasped the wrong end of the stick but, rather than countenance that possibility, you've dug deeper and deeper, becoming more and more condescending and insulting.


As a native English speaker, I must say that the example Nesslig20 quoted does appear to me that Sparhafoc is strongly implying that he does not believe all those animals were fish. However, he also said it was an argumentum ad absurdum and English has never been my strong suit. Thus, take this observation however one likes.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:35 pm
YIM WWW
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Sparhafoc wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:he doesn't seem to have an idea of what a monkey is.


Sparhafoc wrote:With all respect, kid. I was studying primates before you were born.


Nesslig20 wrote:[how did you know when I as born, rhetorical]


How do I know? Because you're between the age of 20 and 26. You're certainly no older than that. And I studied primatology as part of my undergraduate around 24 years ago.

Not sure why you have such a boner over this, but your dislike of me speculating about your age and status is tough titties - that's just part of the price you pay for repeatedly calling someone a retard.


As I stated, it was a rhetorical question. And yes, you are right I am around that age. But I still wonder how you know that...not that it matters....and I don't dislike you for guessing my age.

Also I never called you "a retard" I called your reason for which you refused to answer my question which was "I am not an expert on fish morphology" retarded (in a hyperbolic sense of course) and explained why it is.......there is a subtle difference between attacking an argument and the person making the argument......although I agree I shouldn't have called it "retarded" and I apologize for the rhetoric and the vitriol I wrote.

Sparhafoc wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:Okay then, here is another question you won't answer.


No, I probably won't given your inability to engage with me civilly. At present, all you actually deserve, what you've earned by your behavior, are gesticulations with various appendages.


You know, you criticize me for my behavior (which is justified I agree), it doesn't help you doing the very same thing back. That only provokes more of what you don't want. Wouldn't you agree?

Sparhafoc wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:So what is a monkey then?


:lol:

That's funny for 2 reasons.

1) If you were honest and interested in what I've got to say rather than using me as your public dry-humping board, you'd have asked me this in the first post rather than being a patronizing little oik.


Again, I apologize.

Sparhafoc wrote:2) I just wrote very clearly my definition of a monkey a couple of posts back and you replied to it in your usual condescending shitty tone.


Excuse me, I didn't see the definition (or I don't remember). You replied in separate posts and when I responded to one, you may have written the definition in one that I didn't got to see while I was writing a response. Could you please write here the definition again?

Sparhafoc wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:And also a bonus, hackenslash is asking me to provide a citation where you say that tetrapods are not fish. I admit, you never explicitly stated this, however you did state that humans and other apes are not fish. And also you made that one reductio ad absurdum argument wherein you call a lizard a fish and a dog holding a bird a fish holding a fish and a picture with dogs, cats, birds, mice, weasels, snakes, a school of fish.

So what should I take it from this, that you don't agree that just these particular examples of organisms are fish or is it fair to say that you don't think that tetrapods in general are fish?


That's a funny way to say:

'I'm sorry for repeatedly bullshitting about what you said, Sparhafoc, and within my apology I also want to add that I understand why you are now hostile to me because of my childish antagonism and repeated discoursive failures."


Again, I apologize for that, but why do you keep doing the same thing now. That is not the way to make things better.

And I still don't know why you won't even answer that question with a yes I agree or not I don't agree that tetrapods are fish. That is not difficult.

Sparhafoc wrote:Apology accepted..... nah, up your arse, cretin, you're still using your failure of comprehension as a means of attacking what you clearly don't understand. You're going to need to grovel on the floor before I play ball with you again. Properly fucking abase yourself. Go on - on your knees, worm. :mrgreen


Okay, now this getting too much. I agree that my behaviors previously were not acceptable. Now it is the reverse situation. You are now doing the same thing back, even after I apologized.

Or to put it bluntly, what you are doing is better know as hypocrisy.



Also, when you say "go on - on your knees, worm"
I wanted to respond to that with "I'M NOT YOUR MOTHER LAST NIGHT!!"

It is a reference to this (maybe you are familiar with it or don't, but it's really funny)
https://youtu.be/SWynPcFRzWU?t=9m12s
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:51 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

He Who Is Nobody wrote:He did answer your question. He said "no". That is an honest answer to any question.

Just because his answer did not conform to what you were expecting does not mean he did not answer it. Move on from this honest answer.


The question I asked was basically for him to clarify what he means by fish. What is a fish. What traits do fish have by which we can recognize new species as fish as well, just like we use the traits of fur and mammary glands to be of the mammals.

Saying "no" to that question doesn't make sense. If you ask me "what is a bird" and I say "no" would that be an answer. The best answer that could be given is either give at least one trait you think of as being a diagnostic trait for fish or saying "I don't know the answer", which is fine.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:08 pm
AkamiaUser avatarPosts: 66Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 11:41 pmLocation: Alaska Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Nesslig20 wrote:Saying "no" to that question doesn't make sense. If you ask me "what is a bird" and I say "no" would that be an answer. The best answer that could be given is either give at least one trait you think of as being a diagnostic trait for fish or saying "I don't know the answer", which is fine.


Sparhafoc wrote:I am not pretending I've answered the question. I am not misdirecting the conversation onto something else. I am not avoiding giving a response. I have outright stated that I lack the requisite expertise to answer in depth questions on fish morphology.... so I am... not... fucking... dodging... the... fucking... question.

Sparhafoc can correct me if I am mistaken, but that sure sounds like "I don't know the answer" to me... :?
The very thing that gives us humans our advanced cognitive abilities can also be our greatest weakness.
Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:28 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Sparhafoc wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:If anyone wants to understand what I was trying to say here in this thread, here is it from another persons view, that is practically identical to mine.


Actually, if you read it with some basic fucking respect for me, you'd see it makes the same fucking points I made very clearly (and had to repeat endlessly) and which you sneered at and dismissed out of hand every single time.


I’m an Ape, and I’m Also a Fish wrote:I don’t expect the idea that we are fish to pick up much popular currency. The everyday, paraphyletic meaning of the term is entrenched, and I don’t expect anyone to refer to the salmon in their sushi as a “non-tetrapodomorph fish.” But the idea is still a useful one as we explore our relationship to the rest of life on earth. After all, we share a common ancestry with every other living thing on the planet,...


1) Not much utility, certainly not for the public.


Actually no, it says right there in the quote you added there.

He is saying that the common public probably won't use fish in this sense and refer to the archaic fish as "non-tetrapodomorph fish"

In the same way that the common public doesn't use "non-avian dinosaurs" to refer to the classical dinosaurs, even if it is accurate. Birds are dinosaurs after all.

It has utility.

Sparhafoc wrote:2) Every day language with entrenched semantics not open to prescription by you, or anyone else.


Actually it is open to prescription. Definitions change as our understanding improved. Reptiles now includes birds, dinosaurs now includes birds. We recognized that our labels by the old definitions didn't fit with classification, we corrected that.

That is also a point the article made, which it says in a part that you didn't quoted when it gives the example of how the word dinosaur has changed such that it now includes birds.

Sparhafoc wrote:3) Useful in a very specific context (as I said - phylogenetic systematics is expressly about the evolutionary relationship between taxa).


Which a point I have been arguing for this whole time, quite poorly with all that vitriol I agree. So you agree then that fish in terms of cladistics includes tetrapods?

Sparhafoc wrote:4) After all, we share a common ancestry with every other living thing on the planet.
Made all these points,


Some of the points you made were addressed in the article. It is like the author knew to some objections like how fish might not be used in every day life. A point I have acknowledge time and time again. However, then (as the author of this article did also) explains that using the term in this specific way, it has definitive utility that is defensible.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:30 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Akamia wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:Saying "no" to that question doesn't make sense. If you ask me "what is a bird" and I say "no" would that be an answer. The best answer that could be given is either give at least one trait you think of as being a diagnostic trait for fish or saying "I don't know the answer", which is fine.


Sparhafoc wrote:I am not pretending I've answered the question. I am not misdirecting the conversation onto something else. I am not avoiding giving a response. I have outright stated that I lack the requisite expertise to answer in depth questions on fish morphology.... so I am... not... fucking... dodging... the... fucking... question.

Sparhafoc can correct me if I am mistaken, but that sure sounds like "I don't know the answer" to me... :?


Okay, fair enough. So Sparhafoc doesn't know what a fish is then. Care to correct me or Akamia or both, Sparhafoc?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:32 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1059Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

he_who_is_nobody wrote:This is how I know we have no real disagreement.


Aye, I think we could sum up our disagreement as being a different approach to engaging the public in science.

I've got my experiences in that regard, and you have yours.



he_who_is_nobody wrote:As a native English speaker, I must say that the example Nesslig20 quoted does appear to me that Sparhafoc is strongly implying that he does not believe all those animals were fish. However, he also said it was an argumentum ad absurdum and English has never been my strong suit. Thus, take this observation however one likes.


Quite simply, it follows my argument about the use of a word, not whether they are whatever biological category a particular discipline decides on. Hack was the first to identify this argument as being concerned more about communication and clarity than about anything biological, but I have made many references to discourse and praxis, so I think I've been fair and clear in expressing my point here so that it cannot be misunderstood in a wider context. Honestly, I think the format of criticism of my posts has made people lose sight of what I actually wrote, which does happen when your arguments are repeatedly misrepresented.

The point is the utility of calling a dog, duck, frog, parrot, sheep, and jaguar 'fish', and how it would be utterly ridiculous to engage in that level of equivocation in terms of semantics and conveying information i.e. the entire point of using words in the first place. To me, there is no valid or coherent argument offered in this thread as to why it is reasonable to label all taxa in a clade as being the label of that clade. It makes no sense, it destroys language and makes words have no meaning. Incidentally, the point oft-repeated about language changing is a non-sequitur to this point, which is why I kept dismissing it as such.

I tried other reductio ad absurdum arguments too with increasing force of my tongue in my cheek, such as why we don't just call all things 'atoms', but no one was prepared to engage that because it's silly, as it's meant to be.

Maybe it's just me, but my ears tend to prick up when someone uses a reduction ad absurdum because they have a remarkable distilling effect, stripping back constructed cloud castle verbiage and cutting right to the chase, kick aimed straight at the testes.

What is, of course, most frustrating to me is the repeated and repeated bullshit notion that I don't understand cladistics. The most common purveyor of this bullshit argument still doesn't understand why it's irrelevant to what I was saying. Even if I was a complete moron (retard) and knew absolutely nothing about phylogenetics, it still wouldn't have meant my argument was wrong, not least because my argument wasn't predicated on anything to do with cladistics. This went unnoticed for pages and pages until Hack showed that it was clearly there all along. /shrug

Finally, there's been the stupid attempt at ridiculing and belittling me. Factually, this is what I am best qualified in. I've spent several years teaching human evolution and primate anatomy to university students, and think I've got a pretty good grasp of the topic matter, certainly comparative to non-specialists, so it's a bit bemusing to see a litany of ridicule pointed at me because someone doesn't understand my points and has no interest in trying to understand.

It's a LEROY thread as far as I am concerned, and unfortunately it's rather killed my interest in the subject, I am just here to shoot the breeze now and talk about valid discourse, and how discussion works.

But anyway, thanks for the reply HWIN - I am pretty sure our minor differences would have rapidly been clarified had we the chance. ;)
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:47 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1059Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Nesslig20 wrote:Okay, fair enough. So Sparhafoc doesn't know what a fish is then. Care to correct me or Akamia or both, Sparhafoc?


:!:

You'll have to imagine it, but that's a digitus medius manus extended in symbolic display.
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:50 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1059Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Akamia wrote:Sparhafoc can correct me if I am mistaken, but that sure sounds like "I don't know the answer" to me... :?


Only a minor correction: I don't know the correct answer.

But thanks for showing how it really wasn't hard to process, and yet, still presenting difficulty for the Grand Guru.

Of course, the real point is that it was irrelevant to anything I was saying, it's still irrelevant, and the Grand Guru still doesn't understand.

It's gratifying to see that other people do understand what I meant though.
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:53 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1059Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Because my post is.... ONCE AGAIN.... being misrepresented, here it is in full:


Sparhafoc wrote:Sorry, but I am going to run with the argumentum ad absurdum. Some people here know how much I enjoy these - and I don't mean 'enjoy' in a spiteful sense, rather I think they offer a refreshing take on an argument that gets stuck following the same rut.

I've just come into possession of a child, a son. A 4 year old boy to whom I am now a father. He speaks English fairly well considering he didn't grow up in an English speaking country. Obviously, I hope to help in his intellectual development.

So, according to this thread, when he points at this:

Image

I should tell him it's a fish.


This?

Image

A fish carrying a fish


And finally....

Image

A school of fish.


Before dismissing it as ridiculous (it's meant to be fun for all of us). Think about what you are saying when you say that X is Y. And understand my point that it's not the same thing as saying that X came from Y.



So, rather than me saying 'these are not fish' or 'these are not tetrapods' or whatever bullshit has been written.

Instead, it's me saying (by example via reductio ad absurdum) that no one calls these things 'fish', and no one will ever call these things 'fish' because they are all different taxa to anything we call in every day language 'fish'.

Again, if anyone wants to argue that we should call all these different animals 'fish' then please do so while explaining the utility of doing so. Then explain why we shouldn't call them all protein, or carbon, or atoms, or quarks. :ugeek:
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:00 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

This is where the whole thing comes together.

Sparhafoc wrote:The point is the utility of calling a dog, duck, frog, parrot, sheep, and jaguar 'fish', and how it would be utterly ridiculous to engage in that level of equivocation in terms of semantics and conveying information i.e. the entire point of using words in the first place. To me, there is no valid or coherent argument offered in this thread as to why it is reasonable to label all taxa in a clade as being the label of that clade. It makes no sense, it destroys language and makes words have no meaning. Incidentally, the point oft-repeated about language changing is a non-sequitur to this point, which is why I kept dismissing it as such.


The utility of calling tetrapods as "fish" is the same utility provided by calling birds the last remaining dinosaurs, as scientists have come to recognize them. It is consistent with how we do our classification.

Granted, terms don't have to be consistent with classification. Which is why in everyday language, people can say, and they do, that birds are not dinosaurs and that the word "dinosaur" only refers to those awesome extinct things in movies. But terms can be used in a consistent manner, which is why birds are now classified as dinosaurs. I argue, as PZ myers does too, that when you do the classification objectively, you cannot exclude tetrapods from fish in the same way you cannot exclude ducks from birds. Every trait that are held by every bird is also held by every duck, thus ducks are birds. The same goes for fish. When you do the same thing, you will realize that one of the diagnostic traits of "fish" is a cranium, but tetrapods have it as well so they should be in the same group for consistency sake.

That is a valid and coherent argument. It is the whole point of cladistic phylogeny to classify organisms in this manner. Snakes descended from tetrapods, even when they don't have four legs. And in a similar manner, tetrapods are still "fish" (in this sense) even when tetrapods are not recognized as fish by the common public. And it makes perfect sense when you are working with an evolutionary frame work. Things don't evolve out their ancestry. Evolution is descend with modification so everything is just a modified version of its ancestors, which is why snakes are tetrapods. Whales are mammals. Birds are dinosaurs. And Humans are ape, etc.

And pointing out that language change is not a non-sequitur. In the past, fish didn't have a rigors use, but that doesn't stop us from ascribing a coherent use. We have done that with other terms as well as we have pointed out constantly with He Who Is Nobody using dinosaurs as an example, with all that "non-avian dinosaur" stuff. Once it didn't include birds, now it does. I have used reptiles as an example. Once it didn't include birds, now it does. Usages change and they can be changed in a way that is applicable and provides more utility in the way we classify things according to the rules of cladistics.

Edit:
Again, if anyone wants to argue that we should call all these different animals 'fish' then please do so while explaining the utility of doing so. Then explain why we shouldn't call them all protein, or carbon, or atoms, or quarks. :ugeek:


Since those things tell you what they are made-of.....not what they are. We classify things by two main things. They traits and how they compare to other organisms and they phylogeny. And based on their unique traits, we give them a label. Animals with mammary glands, we call mammals. Animals with a cranium we call Craniates, but you can equally call them fish (in the consistent sense) as I have explained. More often, we rely on phylogenetics like we once classified whales outside artiodactyls, but now they are within that group along side hippos when we sequenced their DNA.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Nesslig20 on Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:16 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:03 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1059Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Nesslig20 wrote:Also I never called you "a retard" I called your reason for which you refused to answer my question which was "I am not an expert on fish morphology" retarded (in a hyperbolic sense of course) and explained why it is.......there is a subtle difference between attacking an argument and the person making the argument......although I agree I shouldn't have called it "retarded" and I apologize for the rhetoric and the vitriol I wrote.



So bored of these lies.


Nesslig20 wrote:That is called cladistics, and no, it is not a political move. You just went full retard here.
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:05 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1059Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Nesslig20 wrote:This is where the whole thing comes together.


Gets its coat, and fucks off out the door.

Adieu
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:08 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 259Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Sparhafoc wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:Also I never called you "a retard" I called your reason for which you refused to answer my question which was "I am not an expert on fish morphology" retarded (in a hyperbolic sense of course) and explained why it is.......there is a subtle difference between attacking an argument and the person making the argument......although I agree I shouldn't have called it "retarded" and I apologize for the rhetoric and the vitriol I wrote.


So bored of these lies.

Nesslig20 wrote:That is called cladistics, and no, it is not a political move. You just went full retard here.


You ARE a retard ≠ You WENT full retard HERE

But again, it was still wrong on me to say this.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:13 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3245Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Nesslig20 wrote:
He Who Is Nobody wrote:He did answer your question. He said "no". That is an honest answer to any question.

Just because his answer did not conform to what you were expecting does not mean he did not answer it. Move on from this honest answer.


The question I asked was basically for him to clarify what he means by fish. What is a fish. What traits do fish have by which we can recognize new species as fish as well, just like we use the traits of fur and mammary glands to be of the mammals.

Saying "no" to that question doesn't make sense. If you ask me "what is a bird" and I say "no" would that be an answer. The best answer that could be given is either give at least one trait you think of as being a diagnostic trait for fish or saying "I don't know the answer", which is fine.


Saying "no" is perhaps not a proper answer to that question, but it is still one that should be accepted as a direct answer. You can point out how that answer was a bad answer yes, but you cannot accuse them of dodging it. It was a direct answer to the question. Beyond that, Akamia already made an even better point about this.

Sparhafoc wrote:This went unnoticed for pages and pages until Hack showed that it was clearly there all along. /shrug


Oh, I realized it to, it just became lost in a large post and I do not blame you for not reading the whole thing. Then I became busy and knew that reading and responding in this thread would take more than the two brain cells I normally use when talking to dandan/leroy, thus putting off reading and responding until now.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:I have a feeling that you've been arguing all this time against a point I never made.


You are correct. Sorry.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:21 pm
YIM WWW
SparhafocPosts: 1059Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Oh, I realized it to, it just became lost in a large post and I do not blame you for not reading the whole thing.



Then please accept my apologies too, HWIN!

I freely admit that there were several posts towards that part of the thread which were basically evolution 101 posts which I duly skimmed through to see if there was anything I wanted to reply to.
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:24 pm
SparhafocPosts: 1059Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: You're a fuckin' monkey, mate!

Nesslig20 wrote:You ARE a retard ≠ You WENT full retard HERE

But again, it was still wrong on me to say this.



How much like an arrogant, self-absorbed, narcissistic wanker you act.

What? I said 'act' right, so it doesn't mean I am calling you names.

:roll:

/playground mode off
Of course I did not read the sources... (LEROY)

If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another. (Sagan)
Fri Aug 04, 2017 9:26 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 9 of 10
 [ 191 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests