The blog of an exceptionally intelligent 17 year old atheist with far too much time on his hands.
Our new weird friend has a post on Ockham's Razor where he says the dualism is necessary and therefore not razorable. Go prove him wrong!
I don't know. I think I'm tired of him. He's suffering from mad Dunning-Kruger.Confirmation word: rasest. What the "Get a brain morans" sign guy was.
That's entirely possible.
I don't know. I think I'm tired of him. He's suffering from mad Dunning-Kruger.And what logical justification do you have for making that assertion? I haven't read Timothy brag about his capabilities. So it seems to be more of a figment of your imagination than reality.
Doesn't mean he brags. Means he thinks he's better at arguing than he is. If I can be winning against him, and I can't even win a goddamn debate tournament, he isn't that good. Though I will give that most of my losses are at least partially because of lack of flowing; when I don't flow one of the opponents points properly, and thus can't address it, I have to drop it.
By the way, the reason the flowing thing matters is because flowing is taking notes, for those of you not fluent in debate jargon; the notes are taken for me online. Got them all nice and pretty in their original forms.
Doesn't mean he brags. Means he thinks he's better at arguing than he is.But how can you know his "thinking process" if he did not express it? If I can be winning against him, and I can't even win a goddamn debate tournament, he isn't that good.Even if this is true, how does that make him a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect? Perhaps he remains unconvinced of your argument not because He thinks he's all kewls, but because he has a counter-argument.
He has mad Dunning-Kruger specifically because he thinks he is an expert when he is not. He has demonstrated a poor understanding of Occam's Razor all while pretending he's the best at it. He has attributed to philosophy more ontological power than philosophers are willing to attribute to it. He pretends his stores of knowledge are vast, when in realty he is mistaking apologetics and trivia for substance.He doesn't have to brag, nor does he have to have an fMRI targeted at his "self-confidence zone." He merely has to refuse to cave in the face of people who really do know about the things he only thinks he knows about, who are explaining those things to him while he continues to wank his ignorant arrogance and condescend to everyone around him, and we can point and say "Dunning-Kruger."Now, its arguable how valid the Dunning-Kruger effect really is, as it's based on only a handful of experiments, but it's a good shortcut to say "That guy isn't nearly as smart as he thinks he is."
I suffer from Dunning-Kruger? That's certainly a novel idea... But seriously, when did I ever claim to be an expert, when did I ever pretend to be a know-it-all, and finally, how does refusing to cave into your arguments makes me a mentally ill person? I did none of these things. I think it's just you folks acting arrogant and condescending.
It's not a mental illness, it's a form of cognitive bias common to almost every human. Not having cognitive bias is probably more of a mental illness. You've claimed to understand Ockham's Razor better than us, but you're the one using it wrong; how do you explain that, except for Dunning-Kruger? It's an inaccurate assessment of ability relative to others due to misunderstanding/not being good at something. That's exactly what Dunning-Kruger is.
By the way, I think Akusai found a case of you being condescending earlier, with the entities and simplicity in Ockham's Razor and your assumption I wouldn't understand it (one place where you were suffering from Dunning-Kruger cognitive bias, imagine that!). Just because I don't know an obscure argument about contingent and necessary beings doesn't mean I don't understand Ockham's damn razor. It's only one of the most useful tools in a skeptic's bullshit-detecting arsenal.
I think your fuss over my apparent misunderstanding of Ockham's razor was based on a misunderstanding of my post. Somewhere I claimed that Ockham's razor was the principle that the simplest explanation is preferred. Several of you hammered me over that definition because technically it's supposed to be the fewer amount of entities. I already knew that, but I was trying to offer a simple definition for the sake of simplicity. I wasn't trying to be condescending, I was trying to give a definition that everyone would understand (because I assumed there would be teens who read this blog and did not understand what Ockham's razor is).
This is a skeptical blog. Everyone knows what Ockham's Razor is.I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment, but I believe there were other criticisms leveled at your usage of it.
Post a Comment