Date: Mar 25, 2014 6:14 AM
Author: GS Chandy
Subject: Re: How science shaped modern 'rejection of religion'
Robert Hansen (RH) posted Mar 21, 2014 10:41 PM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9417249) - GSC's remarks interspersed:
> On Mar 21, 2014, at 11:06 AM, Joe Niederberger
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> > (Joe Niederberger): I myself said I don't know if
> > Davies quest for an
> >explanation of the ultimate laws of nature was
> >possible or impossible, Hell! We don't even have the
> >TOE yet, much less an explanation for it. Perhaps
> >they arrive together, perhaps never at all.
> > But you offer your opinion (you say it never will
> >happen.) You may be entirely correct.
> > Its the reasons you advance for your position,
> >which are paltry, and the cock-suredness with which
> >you fling them around, that I am mocking. They indeed
> >make you look foolish when you do that, which is
> > If others you interact with don't hit the BS buzzer
> >when you go off like that, either they are gullible,
> >or don't want to cause a riff, that's all. I'm not
> >the only one on this forum calling BS on many of your
> >pronouncements, but you seem to feel a particular
> >sting from me. Perhaps my criticisms are duller than
> >the others -- the really sharps ones I don't think
> >you feel at all.
> (Robert Hansen): So if I have cock-suredness insight
> into topics that
> you don't,
Vs. "cocksure insight":
(From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insight)
Insight is the understanding of a specific cause and effect in a specific context. The term insight can have several related meanings:
-- a piece of information
the act or result of understanding the inner nature
of things or of seeing intuitively in Greek called
-- an introspection
the power of acute observation and deduction,
penetration, discernment, perception called
intellection or noesis
-- an understanding of cause and effect based on
identification of relationships and behaviors within
a model, context, or scenario (see artificial
An insight that manifests itself suddenly, such as understanding how to solve a difficult problem, is sometimes called by the German word Aha-Erlebnis. The term was coined by the German psychologist and theoretical linguist Karl Bühler. It is also known as an epiphany.
'cock-suredness': (from Meriam-Webster Online - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cocksure):
: having or showing confidence in a way that is annoying to other people
By and large, 'real scientists' are not likely to be 'cocksure' about their insights. It's an accepted part of the scientific culture to understand that insights gained about a complex world can go wrong in many ways: thus, 'cock-suredness' would generally not be the rule amongst scientists who have real insights into the world around them.
Religious 'knowledge' is believed to be based on what God has told the religious person, and such people are often 'cocksure'. GW Bush, for instance, was 'cock-sure', mainly because he was sure that Jesus Christ spoke to him daily, giving him instructions on how to conduct his 'shock and awe' campaign, etc. Hence, "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!" - which is something that no real scientist would have proclaimed.
Further, the fact that RH actually boasts about his "cock-suredness insight" appears to be an indication that his 'insights' into language (English, and the like) are rather less masterful than he has claimed them to be.
> but am unable to communicate that insight
> to you through the best prose I can muster, then my
> cock-suredness insight is just BS. And furthermore,
> the fact that I can communicate this insight to
> others just means they are either gullible or
> unwilling to tell me that my cock-suridness insight
> in such topics is just BS.
By and large, the "best prose that (you) can muster" is of pretty poor quality - to judge by all that we've seen of it thus far at Math-teach.
> And no chance in convincing you that this is simply
> because you don't appreciate insight? Just kidding.
> That is like asking ?what if? and when you ask ?what
> if? you are acknowledging that what is, isn?t what
> you wanted.
> I won?t lie. My cock-suredness can be off putting.
> But most people get over that relatively quickly. I
> know how it feels from both sides. When I first
> replied to Haim it was to tell him he was crazy. But
> then I realized he was a genius. I guess it has to do
> with the value some people place on insight over
> credentials and big words. And I actually use a
> better bedside manner with my clients. It is really
> simple, but took me a long time to learn. Keep my
> mouth shut and listen.
> But you and Kirby haven?t budged an inch since I have
> posted here. Just posting a straightforward narrative
> regarding religion and science set you two aflame.
> And I don?t think that is just because of
> cock-suredness. Your bias' run much deeper than that.
> Kirby has stated (paraphrasing) that he doesn?t buy
> any authoritative theory of anything. It?s just one
> big mess (mash up of stuff) as far as he is
> concerned. Something you even despised. But as they
> say, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
> If you and kirby are the only two lead weights I have
> to carry, then I shouldn?t really complain. That
> isn?t much of a load.
> Bob Hansen
The major "lead weight (you) have to carry" is actually, (IMHO), your "cock-suredness".
("Still Shoveling! Not PUSHING!! Not GOADING!!!")
Message was edited by: GS Chandy