ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, November 10, 2017

Mailvox: posturing and plagiarism

Tublecane accuses the Zman of plagiarizing David Stove
If those paragraphs you quoted in your update are supposed to be Z-man's words, uttered without reference to their source, oh boy. I thought they sounded familiar, so I checked my copy of David Stove's Scientific Irrationalism and Z-man copies verbiage found on page one. Right down to the year 1580, the letter "A," and the phrase "uncommonly ignorant."

Stove, being much brighter than the Z-men of the world, wasn't making an "everything scientists say is factual, so shut up" argument. He doesn't even share Z-man's opinion on Popperian falsifiabilty, though he lays into Popper and finds him guilty of launching a line of irrationalism (or a "postmodern cult," as the subtitle has it) in the philosophy and historiography of science. A line which isn't so bad with Popper but gets worse and worse as you go through Kuhn, Lakatos, and Feyerabend.

The point about accumulation of knowledge, which is robust in Stove's book, is neither here nor there regarding the subject at hand. Z-man thinks he's dealing with nihilists, and nihilists would have trouble with facts accumulating. But of course that has nothing to do with how you characterize varieties of "science" in the 16 Points. Science since 1580 could have simultaneously been more wrong than right and still served to advance human knowledge.

Upon closer inspection, Z-man explicitly mentions David Stove's Popper and After, but in a separate post from the one in which he steals from it.

I call plagiarism!

Moreover, plagiarism that would be insulting to Stove, RIP, since he wouldn't be caught making an argument as silly as Z-man's.
I haven't read any of David Stove's books, so I can't testify to the accuracy of the accusation of plagiarism. But it's not particularly surprising to be informed that the argument the Zman's was making is not his own, as 8 hours before Tublecane posted his comment, I had made this observation: "One definitely has the impression that the Zman has not read Popper, or even Kuhn, himself, but rather, has read what people have written about Popper."

In any event, this demonstrates why it is important not to feign knowledge you do not possess, not to pass off the arguments of others as your own, and not to express opinions on subjects you do not know very much about. Especially on the Internet, someone is bound to eventually notice that you are an intellectual fraud.

Labels: , ,

87 Comments:

Blogger Josh (the sexiest thing here) November 10, 2017 11:02 AM  

Besides, no one would think any less of someone who just wrote "as David Stove said" and quoted the relevant passage.

Anonymous I studied science in the 60s, maaaan November 10, 2017 11:08 AM  

Boomers should be banned from the interwebs.

Blogger DBSFF November 10, 2017 11:17 AM  

And it's never just once ...

Blogger tuberman November 10, 2017 11:25 AM  

Josh (the sexiest thing here) wrote:Besides, no one would think any less of someone who just wrote "as David Stove said" and quoted the relevant passage.

But, but...then they would soon know if you were quoting out of context, or altering the intended meaning.

Blogger SirGroggy November 10, 2017 11:30 AM  

Stove, being much brighter than the Z-men of the world

Don't lie!

The currently reigning supreme philosopher of science is Popper no more, for the it is now the Z man who has overturned Popper. And so it was in the year of our lord 2017 that Popper was shown to be a fool and a fraud and the Z man reluctantly ascended to his rightful and well-earned position, his thighs astride the throne. Anybody who disputes this obvious and self-evident revolution which has occurred under our very noses is clearly not paying attention.

Blogger Daniel Paul Grech Pereira November 10, 2017 11:33 AM  

Because I'm a Leaf, I read that as "ZED man". The Maple Leaf Forever, mafsks.

Anonymous fop November 10, 2017 11:33 AM  

Zman repeatedly rejects Keynesian economics because of Popper's falsification criteria.

But when a sacred cow is challenged, Zman throws Popper under the bus.

Shades of intellectual dishonesty.

Blogger James Dixon November 10, 2017 11:36 AM  

> Besides, no one would think any less of someone who just wrote "as David Stove said" and quoted the relevant passage.

He'd have to remember where he read it in order to do that.

Blogger OGRE November 10, 2017 11:40 AM  

@8 savage

Blogger 4499 November 10, 2017 11:43 AM  

"Brevity is the soul of wit."

- 4499, Current Year

Blogger August November 10, 2017 11:44 AM  

I doubt Zman is one of the global warming faithful, but I could totally see one of the faithful use the same argument- i.e. you must believe or you are a nihilist.

It just sucks as an argument, and sort of elucidated why you went through the trouble of coming up with those new words.

Blogger SirGroggy November 10, 2017 11:47 AM  

And so it was in the 2017th year of our lord that the new reigning philosopher-king of science, the Z man, the first of his name, did pass on to the toiling scientists all across the globe his freshly minted philosophy of science in which he made it abundantly clear to all and sundry that they were fruitlessly labouring under a misguided misapprehension, namely that science does not establish absolute truth and only works by closer (and always flawed) approximations to the truth by repeated revision.

And there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth amongst the scientists, for they had their philosophy of science rudely pulled out from beneath them like a Persian rug, and the scientists were forlorn.

"Oh, ye of little faith!" said the Z man unto the scientists. And so it was that the Z philosopher-king explained to the scientists the good news, that he was to give them a new philosophy of science, in which scientific knowledge was an impervious bedrock of absolute truth for all time and without being liable for revision!

"Hallelujah!" cried the scientists of the world. "We can all go home now and not do science any more!" they cried. "We have the absolute truth now! Job's done!" they cried.

And so all was well that ended well, and science was rolled up and need not continue any further, all thanks to the Z philosopher-king, who saved all the scientists from wasting their precious lives on a fool's errand.

Blogger tuberman November 10, 2017 12:00 PM  

SirGroggy wrote:Stove, being much brighter than the Z-men of the world

Don't lie!

The currently reigning supreme philosopher of science is Popper no more, for the it is now the Z man who has overturned Popper. And so it was in the year of our lord 2017 that Popper was shown to be a fool and a fraud and the Z man reluctantly ascended to his rightful and well-earned position, his thighs astride the throne. Anybody who disputes this obvious and self-evident revolution which has occurred under our very noses is clearly not paying attention.

Now, just wait a minute, does this mean that two or three of my favorite physics scientists, who believed in Popper, but still created real science that could be turned into engineering feats...OMG, all those feats have to be undone, as Popper was an influence.

Blogger SirGroggy November 10, 2017 12:00 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger SirGroggy November 10, 2017 12:02 PM  

@11 From what I understand nihilism is not a truth statement which is 'true' or 'false'. It is a value system in which nothing is valuable because nothing has any ultimate meaning. Value systems or systems of meaning are not really scientific because science is objective whereas values are subjective. Therefore, nihilism is not a scientific claim to be falsified scientifically.

Blogger seeingsights November 10, 2017 12:13 PM  

I've read some stuff by David Stove. In my opinion, he is a third rate philosopher is science. Elsewhere on the internet I and another person demolished one of his arguments for the validity of inductive inference. If anyone here would like to see it, let me know.
David Stove was on the Right, politically, so that could be a reason why some conservatives like David Stove.

Blogger Hauen Holzwanderer November 10, 2017 12:13 PM  

What's that old saying? "Better to keep your mouth shut and look like an idiot than to open it and have it confirmed." Something like that. Copying something word for word and then trying to pass it off as original thought is beyond idiocy, especially when it's out of context.

TL;DR
Dimwit exercises moral nihilism to chide nihilists.

Blogger SirGroggy November 10, 2017 12:14 PM  

thezman
Karl Popper was wrong. If everything can be falsified, then there is no truth. That’s nihilism.


Nihilism online definition:
* the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.
* the belief that nothing in the world has a real existence.

If everything can be falsified, there is still truth, but the truth is not absolutely accessible to mankind but rather by repeated revision, which entails falsification of the previous revision necessarily.

That is NOT nihilism. QED

Blogger SirGroggy November 10, 2017 12:21 PM  

One more firm whip onto the prostrate form of the deceased equestrian beast.

It is not the absolute truth itself which is liable to revision, and not the real existence of the root of being itself which is liable to revision, but it is mankind's approximation of the truth via conclusions derived via the scientific method which are liable to revision. Scientific truth is not absolute truth - and it never has been!

Blogger SirGroggy November 10, 2017 12:24 PM  

Dimwit exercises moral nihilism to chide nihilists.

Exactly.

OpenID widlast November 10, 2017 12:36 PM  

If it cannot be measured it is not science.
Science is all about quantifying and describing.
Science has nothing whatsoever to do with "truth".

Blogger Todd Brown November 10, 2017 1:03 PM  

If you held the rest of your kinsmen in the Merchant-Right(VD, Milo, and Cernovich) to these same standards, one would not wonder what your real issue with Z-Man is here. My guess is Z-Man's line that VD isn't the "leader of the alt-right" is what really got your goat, VD. Or maybe it's because he's not pushing anyone to buy your comic books.

Anonymous Man of the Atom November 10, 2017 1:09 PM  

Todd Brown wrote: ...
You are apparently a newbie here. Enjoy the tingles.

Obviously you need to change out the filters on that 3M mask you're wearing.

Blogger Nate November 10, 2017 1:15 PM  

Hallmark of the midwit... I read this thing and it sounded smart to me so I am going to repeat it because I am smart.

Blogger VD November 10, 2017 1:19 PM  

If you held the rest of your kinsmen in the Merchant-Right(VD, Milo, and Cernovich) to these same standards, one would not wonder what your real issue with Z-Man is here.

That would not happen. They have not publicly challenged me; they are smart enough to know better than to do so. The Zman foolishly decided to challenge me and was duly exposed for the intellectual inferior, charlatan, and apparently, plagiarist, that he is.

I have nothing personal against the Zman. But he came at me. So I slapped him down and exposed him for what he is. It's what I do. Shapiro, Dawkins, Harris, Anglin, Zman, I don't care.

Blogger VD November 10, 2017 1:21 PM  

Hallmark of the midwit... I read this thing and it sounded smart to me so I am going to repeat it because I am smart.

(nods)

Blogger Josh (the sexiest thing here) November 10, 2017 1:30 PM  

Wtf does the merchant right mean? Is merchant the next alt retard code word for Jewish?

Blogger VD November 10, 2017 1:31 PM  

Wtf does the merchant right mean?

They're just upset that we're literate and can actually write actual books, whereas their Fake Right Clown leaders can barely string three coherent words together while dancing like monkeys for the media.

Blogger Josh (the sexiest thing here) November 10, 2017 1:35 PM  

They're just upset that we're literate and can actually write actual books, whereas their Fake Right Clown leaders can barely string three coherent words together while dancing like monkeys for the media.

How dare you write things that people want to read and sell things that people want to buy. How dare you, sir!

Blogger Matthew November 10, 2017 1:36 PM  

They think it's an insult to call Vox an "ebook merchant".

Blogger VD November 10, 2017 1:37 PM  

They think it's an insult to call Vox an "ebook merchant".

Well, they are Fake Right socialists.

Blogger Zimri November 10, 2017 1:42 PM  

If you must devise prose or poetry the words you use should be your own;
Don't plagiarise or take-on-loan!
There's always (((someone))) some where
With a big nose, who knows...

Anonymous Looking Glass November 10, 2017 1:46 PM  

@26 VD

This would help explain why sometimes Zman seems quite cogent and other times I couldn't figure out what he was going on about.

Anonymous E Deploribus Unum November 10, 2017 1:47 PM  

They think it's an insult to call Vox an "ebook merchant".

Oh no! CAPITALISM!

Evidently they really ARE of the Left.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener November 10, 2017 1:48 PM  

@27 Merchant has been alt right & /pol/ code for Jewish for years now. Classic example: Le Happy Merchant

Anonymous GrayMan November 10, 2017 1:50 PM  

older "though leaders" on the X-right spectrum will struggle as we go forward. They still have the idea of America the Great in their mind. That time and place is dead and we now struggle through some indeterminant transitional state until the chaos of breakup begins. Sort of like a terminal patient in a coma on full life support. You see them as the person you knew even though they are simply an artificially warm lump of flesh at that point.
Understanding whats coming and the implications of the shift to X-right while still holding onto that mental image of "America the Great" causes some cognitive dissonance. In this way Derb is a perfect example, its unlikely he will ever fully cross that threshold because he is old enough that he strongly identifies with the America of old

Anonymous Proud and Jewish November 10, 2017 1:54 PM  

The alt-retards hate classical liberalism. They are anti-liberal and thus Leftist. The #FakeRight hates Wall Street bankers, Hollywood producers and ebook merchants most of all. It says it all.

Blogger S1AL November 10, 2017 1:54 PM  

"Merchant has been alt right & /pol/ code for Jewish for years now. Classic example"

Vox Day, Noble Prairie Merchant

Kinda has a ring to it.

Blogger VD November 10, 2017 2:11 PM  

The #FakeRight hates Wall Street bankers, Hollywood producers

Well, pretty much EVERYONE hates Wall Street bankers and Hollywood producers. And with good cause.

Blogger tuberman November 10, 2017 2:27 PM  

"Merchant of Venice" how Shakespearean??

Another silly "Prairie Jew" insinuation? Clever, well, NO.

Blogger Josh (the sexiest thing here) November 10, 2017 2:52 PM  

Vox's ancestral people are proud casino Americans

Anonymous Toddy Cat November 10, 2017 2:56 PM  

"In this way Derb is a perfect example, its unlikely he will ever fully cross that threshold because he is old enough that he strongly identifies with the America of old"

Lots of truth to this. They often talk about how guys who have been married for long periods of time skews your vision of the woman you married, gives you "wife goggles". The same thing happens to guys who have loved a country for a long time. Guys my age (50's) and even more so Derbyshire (70's) tend to see their old country, the country they loved, when they look around. It can be really hard to combat.

Also, two comments that I posted over at Z-Man's; First, I tent to agree much more with Vox's view of the "Scientific" community than I do Z's and Derbyshire's. Secondly, I'm not sure that not citing a source in a response to a blog comment actually rises to the dignity of "plagiarism".

Blogger weka November 10, 2017 2:59 PM  

Tubulcaine is right, sort of. It reads like Stove. The trouble is that when you think of paraphrasing Stove -- you end up writing this way.

It is far better to quote.

David Stove should be read more widely. He was the last conservative philosopher. He was defeated. He ended up suiciding. His life is a warning.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Fine Purveyor of Quality Artisanal Gorm ) November 10, 2017 3:00 PM  

37. Proud and Jewish November 10, 2017 1:54 PM
They are anti-liberal and thus Leftist.


baw-hahahahahaha. that's a good one.

count on a Jew to try to spin Liberalism / Progressivism as not being 'of the Left'.

how about this?

Narcissists love autocracy / monarchy because they all imagine themselves as Secret Princes who may one day take the throne and be their own god.

Narcissists love Democracy because every citizen is each their own god.

Narcissists hate Republican forms of government because God is God and all else is subject before Him. further, there is respect for the opinions of all, because all are equally subject before the Judge of Ages.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Fine Purveyor of Quality Artisanal Gorm ) November 10, 2017 4:15 PM  

here's a cartoon representation of 'Proud and Jewish':

https://youtu.be/NFsJwURoP3k?t=4m15s

Blogger seeingsights November 10, 2017 4:55 PM  

'David Stove should be read more widely. He was the last conservative philosopher. He was defeated. He ended up suiciding. His life is a warning.'

David Stove was not primarily a political philosopher.

From what I understand, David Stove committed suicide because of the pain of lung cancer which he got from smoking.

Blogger Tank November 10, 2017 5:27 PM  

ZMan has a couple of funny responses today. I enjoy both his and this blog.

Anonymous Sidehill Dodger November 10, 2017 5:43 PM  

SirGroggy wrote:thezman

Karl Popper was wrong. If everything can be falsified, then there is no truth. That’s nihilism.


If everything can be falsified, there is still truth, but the truth is not absolutely accessible to mankind but rather by repeated revision, which entails falsification of the previous revision necessarily.

That is NOT nihilism. QED


And that's neither here nor there. Neither of these gentlemen seem to know of what they speak. The verifiability criterion has no connection to "nihilism", however you choose to define it. I didn't pay close attention to the original dialogue in the previous posting, but this ZMan certainly shows an astounding lack of understanding of Popper's falsifiability criterion.

Popper did not assert that everything can be falsified; he said that, in order for a hypothesis to be considered scientific, there must be a conceivable way in which it could be falsified. For example, Freudian psychoanalytic theory can't be falsified--its practitioners always have a handy explanation for every observation that seems to contradict their beliefs. Such systems persist until their followers grow tired of them; they are never disproven.

Global warming is a scientific proposition, given a reasonably coherent and precise definition of the hypothesis. (Let's put it like this: "There is a causal relationship between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and higher global temperatures, and this rise in CO2 is brought about by human industrial activity.) If the hypothesis holds that the average temperature of the earth (assuming we have a reasonable way to measure this) will rise x fraction of a degree Celsius for every .0001% increase in the CO2 content of the Earth's atmosphere, then our measurements can bear this out--or falsify it. If we observe a cooling earth while CO2 levels rise, then this would constitute a falsification of the hypothesis--as would a lowering of the CO2 atmospheric fraction accompanied by global warming. (I realize that this would not be a final proof of the causal relationship of CO2 levels and global temperature, but it would be evidence that should be taken into consideration.)

"Climate change", on the other hand, is obviously non-scientific, and for two reasons. First, it is a trivial truth: no climatologist would deny that global climate has changed drastically and periodically over time. We know that there have been multiple ice ages and thaws. We know that North Africa supplied the entire Roman Empire with grain 2,000 years ago, so it must have rained more in that region back then. Second, the "climate change" hysteria includes the assumption that whatever these future changes may be, they are caused by human activity--specifically releasing more of that dreadfully poisonous CO2 into the atmosphere. (An additional assumption is that all these changes will be bad. How could all the effects of such wide-reaching changes be bad? That's an indication that something is off right there.)

It should be clear that any bad weather at all counts as proof for "climate change". Indeed, there is literally nothing at all that could conceivably happen that would disprove the hypothesis. Long stretches of balmy good weather over England would be pointed to as signs of ominous "climate change"--as will every hurricane that hits some land mass, and every iceberg that calves off the South Polar ice shelf. This is true Popperian unfalsifiability; this is failed science.

Blogger Dire Badger November 10, 2017 6:17 PM  

You know how people talked about how those of higher IQ have trouble relating with anyone who is not of the same IQ?

This is why. I have never heard of David Stove, nor do I wish to, and the only thing I want to know about some dude named Popper is his penguins. Zman is interesting, and often funny, and while I do not agree with everything he has to say, I do not agree with everything ANYONE has to say.

Frankly, I don't say "Robert Heinlein said:" every time I say "There's no such thing as a free lunch.". I don't expect anyone else to either.

So Zman read and internalized some dude and spat it back out in one of his articles. So he publicly 'disagreed' with Vox and was wrong. Humans are imperfect and at least he's trying (and doing very well at) exposing the same sort of leftist bullshit that Vox is doing.

One does not have to be a genius or even particularly well-read in dry, boring philosophy books by old dead dudes to recognize bullshit when you hear it. This is the same sort of Authoritarian intellectual arrogance that commie professors and 'I am God' atheist scientists use as proof that they should rule.

Lord save us from Noocracy.

Anonymous grey enlightenment November 10, 2017 6:20 PM  

what happened between you and zman

Blogger Meng Greenleaf November 10, 2017 6:37 PM  

I've never heard of or read Z-Man. I'm going to assume he's not an author? I personally hate plagiarists. There are plenty to be found in the medical sciences, that and outright liars and fraudaters.

That aside, Popper's attempts to shoehorn Bacon's method for dealing with induction via his scientific methodology (which in my mind is the dose-response curve via modus ponens) into modus tollens is problematic and feels artifial. Modus tollens is meant to deal with deductive arguments. It's like trying force water and oil to mix. I know quite a bit has been written in the past on this topic. I may look into it later this year. I'm also interested in how one can apply basic Bayesian statistics to the dose curve given each data point along the increasing concencemtration informs the experimenter who then expects the next data point to increase, decrease or platue. Or maybe its not possible using this type of analysis? Certainly inferential statistics does not seem correct as the data points are not "really independent normality curves.
Anyway.... I'm falling behind on work 😣

Blogger VD November 10, 2017 6:49 PM  

what happened between you and zman

Nothing. He got butt-hurt about Gab and started posturing. I bitch-slapped him and put him in his place. No big deal. It's nothing personal.

I do the same thing to literally everyone who challenges me, including people I like, as readers of this blog well know.

Blogger Meng Greenleaf November 10, 2017 6:50 PM  

I'd like read your argument for the validity of inductive inference. I was trained to only refer to deductive arguments as sound valid, whereas inductive are strong cogent. But ttytt its not really my area of expertise, though I think it's important.

Blogger Meng Greenleaf November 10, 2017 6:52 PM  

LOL
Thanks 😁

Blogger Increase November 10, 2017 7:10 PM  

VD wrote:

Nothing. He got butt-hurt about Gab and started posturing. I bitch-slapped him and put him in his place. No big deal. It's nothing personal.

I do the same thing to literally everyone who challenges me, including people I like, as readers of this blog well know.


Retcon much?

grey enlightenment wrote:what happened between you and zman

Same thing as happened between Anglin and Vox, Pax and Vox, Jim and Vox, Torba and Vox, etc.
Reading both, it does date back to the whole Gab libel affair. Zman gave Vox some ribbing on social media WRT the legal action, saying that we need to stop the infighting, though Vox was still an "A-list" blog on Z's sight until Vox responded with http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/09/real-alt-right.html indirectly calling Z a charlatan - though to be fair Z's thought resembles real political philosophy more than Vox's in line with Derb's critique. After that things escalated Z kept it to bantz on Gab and the comments section while Vox laid into him here with a few whole blog posts directed at Z (not at all but hurt ... no unnecessary escalation ... no deflection there).

Any bets (collectable after the final judgment) on whether Tublecane first learned about the alleged "plagiarism" by reading two comments down on Zman's blog?

The rest is current events.

Blogger seeingsights November 10, 2017 7:15 PM  

@ Meng Greenleaf

David Stove gave an argument for the validity of inductive inference, which me (and another person, who is a now a professional philosopher) criticized.

That discussion can be found in the Yahoo Group, post-Popper, starting at message #337:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/post-Popper/conversations/messages/337

Blogger VD November 10, 2017 7:31 PM  

Retcon much?

Not in the slightest. I still have no idea what Zman has said about me on Gab, nor do I care. I don't think I have even been on Gab at all since we filed the lawsuit. I had heard that he had been talking a bit of post-lawsuit nonsense from commenters here, but that was the extent of my knowledge until I read his summary of Derb's speech at the Mencken Club.

indirectly calling Z a charlatan

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. That was not directed at Zman in any way, shape or form, directly or indirectly. That was directed at Richard Spencer and Andrew Anglin.

not at all but hurt ... no unnecessary escalation ... no deflection there

How can I be butt-hurt about something I don't even know about? And given your inability to correctly grasp who that other post was directed at, I have to question your opinion about who the other posts are directed at.

It's really not that hard. As everyone from one side of the political spectrum to the other have learned to their chagrin, if you come directly at me, I will dissect your argument, expose your pretenses and posturings, and demonstrate to everyone that you are not in my league. This isn't posturing on my part. It's a simple fact. Everyone here has seen this again and again and again.

You can whine about it, you can mischaracterize it, and you can come up with complicated psychological theories to try to make me look bad, but none of that will change anything.

Anonymous dr kill November 10, 2017 7:50 PM  

What he said.

Blogger Increase November 10, 2017 8:41 PM  

Sept 10, 2017 Context + "That would put fascism on the Right, but only when it is defined on a spectrum that has not had relevance for close to a century now." etc., etc.

http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=11446

Sept 11, 2017

" Because the Fake Right Clowns are not of the Right, do not believe in the Right-Left spectrum, and even openly claim that the historical ideological Right is entirely irrelevant today. Which, of course, is precisely what makes them frauds and charlatans"
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/09/real-alt-right.html

Funny coincidence I guess.

Retcon much?

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Fine Purveyor of Quality Artisanal Gorm ) November 10, 2017 9:09 PM  

59. Increase November 10, 2017 8:41 PM
Funny coincidence I guess.
Retcon much?



you stupid gayfag.

i've been saying that for decades, well before Jonah Goldberg's book came out.

i've been saying it HERE since 2010-ish. got into a knock down drag out argument with the Kratman over it.

what Vox is saying comes directly from his debate with Anglin, as expressed by him specifically citing that the Alt-Retard doesn't even know what Fascism is ... yet demands to be referred too as such.

if you want to be really special and nit picky, i'm also the one who extrapolated past the Pournelle Axes to point out that there are a multitude of intellectual and philosophical axes upon which distinctions can be drawn and that restricting it to two or even a single axis is absurdly constraining.

Blogger VD November 10, 2017 9:15 PM  

Funny coincidence I guess. Retcon much?

It is. I didn't read that post. If I had, and if I was responding to it, I would have linked to it. I don't consider Zman to be a Fake Right Clown and I have never accused him of being one. You don't seem to realize that there he is also echoing the arguments of others, in that case, others whom I had already addressed and was addressing again.

Anonymous Nosireebob November 10, 2017 9:23 PM  

Vox Day is the only True Rightist in the Known Universe.

Therefore everyone else is Leftism.

So when he punches Zman/Anglin/Spencer/every alt-right account on Twitter & Gab...

He isn’t punching right.

No way Jose.

Cucky libertarian D&D indians who sell ebooks are the True Right Wing.

Blogger Tim November 10, 2017 9:24 PM  

When zman inverted the meaning of "moral hazard" in a blog post, several people pointed out his mistake. He refused to admit his error and threw an unseemly tantrum. He's incredibly insecure and not nearly as smart as he thinks he is.

Blogger wreckage November 10, 2017 9:31 PM  

Popper in a nutshell: science must be testable. Coherent theory must at least conceivably have a testable condition. Any testable condition, even imagined, has to converge on one of two: is or is not.

Which is to say, a hypothesis, theory or model must be falsifiable. If no conceivable test of any conceivable condition can conclusively be made, even in theory, if there is not possible way to decide that a thing is or is not, then it cannot be scientifically known.

In fact if there isn't any conceivable falsifiable condition (for example, if we measure the distance from the Sun to Venus, there is a falsifiable condition right there; all of the "totally known facts" have trivially simple falsification criteria, you muppets!) then the question or theory as formulated is a logical fallacy and a shitty theory at the formal level.

Popper, at the basic level, was just pointing out the obvious. It's appalling that people quibble over it!

Blogger wreckage November 10, 2017 9:33 PM  

We have a replication crisis - and if fact there can only BE a repeatability crisis if Popper was essentially correct. Because if not, who cares how many times the test fails?

Blogger S1AL November 10, 2017 9:36 PM  

Hm...

Whose arguments are more tiresome and predictable: Nazis or traditional Leftists?

Blogger Dad29 November 10, 2017 9:47 PM  

Perhaps this is quibbling, but....

Zman claims to have been well-educated yet he has trouble with spelling. Nothing major--just the usual homonymns. When the Jebbies edumakated ME, such errors would have been cause for torture.

Anonymous Brick Hardslab November 10, 2017 9:49 PM  

Josh, you forgot his Frito bandito side. When he returns to America to fit in with his people he'll have to be a Comanchero or something.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Fine Purveyor of Quality Artisanal Gorm ) November 10, 2017 9:51 PM  

62. Nosireebob November 10, 2017 9:23 PM
He isn’t punching right.



curious how you elide the fact that every specific person you named attacked Vox before he attacked them.

oh wait, no it's not.

because Alt-Retards are of the Left ( the Far Left spectrum is thus; Anarchist, Marxist Communist, Marxist / International Socialist, National Socialist, Democrat ) and always lie.

Anonymous grayman November 10, 2017 10:27 PM  

Zman may miss the mark on occasion, but that said he still has good commentary more often then not.
Whether derb, zman, vox, or any one else take what is useful discard the rest.
The X-right is an evolving group and no one "thought leader" is going to be in line, on target all the time. Also consider the audience. While Zman and vox overlap, their respective core audiences are NOT on the same. Zman is more approachable for the average guy than vox is if nothing else.

Blogger SirGroggy November 10, 2017 11:19 PM  

I have nothing personal against the Zman. But he came at me. So I slapped him down and exposed him for what he is. It's what I do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MszR0zuSJBc

:)

Blogger SirGroggy November 10, 2017 11:24 PM  

We know that North Africa supplied the entire Roman Empire with grain 2,000 years ago, so it must have rained more in that region back then.

That was before the whole of North Africa was devastated by the Islamic conquests. The Romans were farmers but the Muslims were not, they were animal herders. The Roman agricultural lands were used for grazing instead of farming, the local farmers had no choice but to accept it, as they were Dhimmis under Islam.

Anonymous Nemesis November 11, 2017 12:17 AM  

"Especially on the Internet, someone is bound to eventually notice that you are an intellectual fraud." cosmic irony alert!!

Anonymous Sidehill Dodger, doctor of sick philosophies November 11, 2017 12:21 AM  

wreckage wrote:In fact if there isn't any conceivable falsifiable condition (for example, if we measure the distance from the Sun to Venus, there is a falsifiable condition right there; all of the "totally known facts" have trivially simple falsification criteria, you muppets!) then the question or theory as formulated is a logical fallacy and a shitty theory at the formal level.

Popper, at the basic level, was just pointing out the obvious. It's appalling that people quibble over it!


Actually, some considerable philosophical criticism has been directed at Popper, so he's not as obviously right as we'd like to think--at least as far as philosophers are concerned. If you really want to discuss this, I will do the research to remember what I forgot. I'd really like an excuse to do philosophy again (why do you think I post these sporadic rants?)

Also, be careful: what seems to be "trivial" often isn't. You know that Venus moves about the sun in an elliptical orbit subject to various perturbations, and that that--of course--its distance from the sun varies over time. Ptolemy didn't know that. Oddly enough, Galileo didn't know it either--he still thought all orbits were perfectly circular. That's why his theories weren't verifiable by using them to predict the position of celestial objects. In fact he was not much better than Ptolemy at doing this. No wonder the Pope got mad at him.

I'm not sure what you mean by that "shitty theory" stuff at the end. If something fails Popper's test, then Popper would say it's not science. Non-verifiability doesn't prove a hypothesis or theory false--it just proves it's not scientific.

Anonymous Sidehill Dodger, who wants to be taught better November 11, 2017 12:27 AM  

SirGroggy wrote:We know that North Africa supplied the entire Roman Empire with grain 2,000 years ago, so it must have rained more in that region back then.

That was before the whole of North Africa was devastated by the Islamic conquests. The Romans were farmers but the Muslims were not, they were animal herders. The Roman agricultural lands were used for grazing instead of farming, the local farmers had no choice but to accept it, as they were Dhimmis under Islam.


Um...so your theory is "blame to Mussulmans"? I'd be happy to fly with it, if you can tell me why they can't do any better today.

Actually, that stuff about "more rainfall 2,000 years ago" was just a wild guess on my part. I was hoping somebody would get pissed off with me, and tell me what really happened, because I'd sure like to know.

And then you can tell me how the Holy Land could possibly qualify as a "land of milk and honey" if it looked to Moses like it looks today.

Blogger Dire Badger November 11, 2017 1:42 AM  

for starts:
https://books.google.com/books?id=UfQWT_esc5cC&pg=PA459&lpg=PA459&dq=muslim+goats+turn+plains+into+deserts&source=bl&ots=J-pTtFTZYa&sig=M0IN7FQzFq1ErqAd__Dq8rSDfGo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7k-TH87XXAhUmrFQKHXG5D_gQ6AEIQzAH#v=onepage&q&f=false

What the book does not go into depth about is the fact that two factors... primarily Muslim reliance on sheep and goats instead of Pigs and Cattle, as well as the tenant farming retarding crop rotation.

Look up the southern 'dust bowl' effect. This was not the first time humanity had experienced conditions in which a combination of animal overcropping (which sheep and goats do naturally, and cows and pigs generally do not) as well as reduced fertility and lack of fallow areas, literally turns paradise into a desert within a single generation.

The Tribals, such as the bedouins, do not care... when they have ruined one area, they move on to strip the next, and they might not return for several hundred years, by which time the land will have refreshed itself.


The problem comes in when you have too much population for such a free-roaming lifestyle, as in much of Africa today. The land gets wrecked, and STAYS wrecked, because the people never leave. They cannot, because any movement involves intruding into someone else's space.

Anonymous tublecane November 11, 2017 2:19 AM  

@43-I thought of the paraphrasing defense, but that doesn't hold up. It's not that Z-man comes off sounding like Stove because uses the same general form of argument, borrowing a phrase or two. No, Z-man either has the book open in front of him or has it committed to memory. The only other explanation would be that he has photographic memory and somehow confused dictating from his memory for dictating from his active mind.

I believe it was deliberate. Compare:

thezman: "Much more is known now about the natural world, than was known fifty years ago..."

My copy of Scientific Irrationalism by David Stove, page one: "Much more is known now than was known fifty years ago..."

thezman: "...and much more was known then than in 1580."

Stove: "...and much more was known then than in 1580."

thezman: "So there has been a great accumulation or growth of knowledge in the last four hundred years."

Stove: "So there has been a great accumulation or growth of knowledge in the last four hundred years."

thezman: "This is an extremely well-known fact."

Stove: "This is an extremely well-known fact..."

thezman: "Let's call this (A)."

Stove: "...which I will refer to as (A)."

thezman: "A person, who did not know (A), would be uncommonly ignorant."

Stove: "A philosopher, in particular, who did not know it, would be uncommonly ignorant."

The remainder of the post veers away from Stove's text, though I wouldn't be surprised if it were stolen from somewhere else.

Now, whether such a thing as plagiarism exists in internet comment sections, that's a different matter. I say yes, because it's publicly passing off someone else's writing as your own.

Anonymous tublecane November 11, 2017 2:25 AM  

@49-For what it's worth, Stove is funny. The funniest writer that was also an actual working philosopher I remember reading.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( Fine Purveyor of Quality Artisanal Gorm ) November 11, 2017 2:26 AM  

72. SirGroggy November 10, 2017 11:24 PM
That was before the whole of North Africa was devastated by the Islamic conquests.


wut? Islam created the Sahara?

you DO realize that Mohammed didn't even start preaching until +600 AD, yes? whereas the desertification of the Sahara started approximately 10,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age.


72. SirGroggy November 10, 2017 11:24 PM
The Roman agricultural lands were used for grazing instead of farming,



see, this indicates that you have no idea what you're talking about. the biggest problem with long term agriculture is disposing of the previous season plant matter. the structural cellulose doesn't break down very quickly, locks up vital nutrients and physically provides ground cover making it difficult for the new season plant growth to break through.

grazing animals, grazed properly ( that is, constrained for intensive grazing, so they don't simply cherry pick the most succulent ), don't merely break down the cellulose ( which plants can't use ), they convert it to highly valuable dung / fertilizer.

which, you know, farmers kind of need.

this is ( part of the reason ) why farmers almost always run grazing animals of their own. the farm functions better with them. also, excellent protein source.

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit November 11, 2017 2:28 AM  

Here's the antidote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eR931xhpfts

Blogger OGRE November 11, 2017 3:05 AM  

@76 tublecane

Its absolutely plagiarism in the sense of "presenting the words of another as your own." And thats really the only kind of plagiarism we care about here. Whether it could be considered academic plagiarism (I don't know) or copyright infringement (its not), its still a dishonest and unethical thing to do. Especially given the context in which it was presented.

Its just more evidence of his posturing--passing off anothers arguments and expressions as his own in order to bolster his perceived intelligence.

Anonymous Tanjil Bren November 11, 2017 3:27 AM  

Vox totally gets to define a definitional paradigm fit for purpose.
But that they don't get that isn't necessarily because they're low IQ.
EGO...

Anonymous Expat Aftermath November 11, 2017 3:45 AM  

I realized something was a bit off about Zman when I noticed that he didn't seem to be able to restrain himself from attacking absolutely everyone whose agenda or audience overlapped with his own. Derb and a handful of sub-mediocrities like Spencer and Johnson are pretty much the only people spared his sneering contempt.

Zman has a particular obsession with Cerno, for some reason, whom he regards (as he reminds us over and over and over again) as a talentless hack and fraud, which is interesting, because even New York magazine has grudgingly acknowledged him to be a "not-so-fake" journalist on the strength of his verified scoops.

Zman strikes me as someone with an intense need to be seen as an intellectual leader of a movement - what he refers to as "our thing" - and this may explain why he feels compelled to mock and denigrate others who are simply more effective at poking holes in the reigning narrative.

Blogger SirGroggy November 11, 2017 5:28 AM  

Sidehill: Um...so your theory is "blame to Mussulmans"?

Bob kek mando: wut? Islam created the Sahara?

This is my source:
https://youtu.be/t_Qpy0mXg8Y?t=24m48s

Blogger Dire Badger November 11, 2017 7:04 AM  

Semites created the sahara.

They cannot help themselves. They are locusts. They move into an area, strip it of every resource both economic and physical, and then move on to the next area. It's what 30,000 years of psychological evolution has taught them is the best strategy for success.

Why do you think they are so demanding that the world is 'overpopulated' while ignoring the african problem?

When there are too many people, there's no new places to strip bare.

Anonymous Avalanche November 11, 2017 10:18 AM  

@74 "Actually, that stuff about "more rainfall 2,000 years ago" was just a wild guess on my part. I was hoping somebody would get pissed off with me, and tell me what really happened, because I'd sure like to know. "

Read Lierre Keith's "The Vegetarian Myth." She starts/started an unbelievably blind idiot liberal vegan... and ends up as 'scientifically better educated' still mostly idiot leftie. (Really, just skip her last chapter where she starts warning about the authoritarian right.) Her 20 years as a full, card-carrying, fundie vegan destroyed her health. The book is amazingly well-done alternating viewpoints: one, about her and her trying to recover her health, learn why humans are at least omnivores if not mostly carnivores, and her path back to "hobby farming" and then (semi-) 'normal' human eating. The other were really well researched chapters on human 'food systems' and how they end up destroying the planet's ability to provide it. E.g., irrigation -- which humans invented to allow for ever more food production RESULTS (always) in desertification. Whether in the "land of milk and honey" -- now inarrable desert; or Peru, SAmerica, China, India.

Really fascinating book, and if she weren't an completely insane leftie -- and ameliorating her diet did NOT recover her from that (really,she CRIED over disrupting an ant mound to enlarge her garden!!) she'd've been a good science writer!

Worth the read, even WITH the insanity!

Blogger Akulkis November 11, 2017 12:30 PM  

"Semites created the sahara.

They cannot help themselves. They are locusts. They move into an area, strip it of every resource both economic and physical, and then move on to the next area."

Makes Biblical plagues of locusts kind of ironic, doesn't it.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts