The smartest man in universe believes in Intelligent Design

  • Thread starter PIT2
  • Start date
  • #101
364
0
Langan?Langan who

Twiddle twaddle, use a paddle.
Eat a bagel, don't read Hegel. :smile:
Are you teasing Evo?Our fearless moderator?
Be careful!She belongs to female Borg community...
BTW,Marilyn Vos Savant is still listed in Guinness Book of World Records as smartest person (by I.Q. test standards ).And she is a woman if I'm not mistaken.Therefore...
 
  • #102
857
2
This is what scares me about the world. Why would you rather believe that just because he claims to be the cleverest guy alive, than what you can gather from the situation for yourself?
I dont. I tried reading his thing but i couldnt.
 
  • #103
I dont. I tried reading his thing but i couldnt.
It's not consistent and it's not comprehensible even when you do understand the rather wordy expressions he seems to get off on using, if you ask me this is meant to be appreciated only for it's tendency to be expansive, but not explicit.

Essentially what it says is that he has invented a new language(Self-Configuring Self-Processing Language or SCSPL) That is not only self referential but is capable of self amendment and self evolution, that can explain the development of nature in terms of itself(no explanation of how is given) He says pretty much the same thing five times, adding some obscure quantum reference which is not explained enough to make any sense of it.

At this point he ties in his language with the many states of the quantum, but does little to explain how this happens, then goes on to explain how nature itself is a means to explain his system, but since he never really explains his system, this is a sort of circular argument and leaves you with no insight into his own language or how exactly it would fit into a natural physical picture.
Simultaneously he dismisses science and maths as being old or not able to cope with the new language, but does little to explain why he is making this assumption or why his picture is better.

In other words,I think he's indulging in sophistry or trying to trick or mislead by making very vague and non correlative statements and using very overly wordy phrases.

As I said he says much but imparts nothing, even if you do grasp what he is saying it's impossible to see where he derives such assumptions from, or even what point he is trying to make if any, other than he's found out a new way of talking about reality that makes no coherent sense.

I'll maybe try and comprehend the next 4 pages later, if I work out if it is worth the effort :lol:

EDIT:

I then went on to try and make sense of his explanations, and failed miserably, I obviously am not intelligent enough to understand his reasoning, but then there are no examples here that I can make head nor tale of? Usually he makes an assertion and then holds it true without explaining why? As if somehow we're supposed to understand why there must be intrinsic causality but without an external causation or vice a versa, care to give us an analogy, apparently not.

It's bewilderingly unclear, and to my mind completely incomprehensible, perhaps someone with a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics and philosophy can take a look, but I personally could get little out of it, other than a bemusing array of self contained arguments that had no explanation other than obscure references.

He's either a genius beyond a mere mortals understanding, or more likely he's simply disappeared into a reality no one else is meant to fathom, nor in fact will ever be able to as it simply does not make sense :smile:

And the worst part is he never tries to explain his own language and how it would fit into his argument? It's almost like he's worried by revealing the cogs and bolts, it would uncover his arguments as flimsy.

Reminds me of The Wizard of OZ, all style and no substance. :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #104
D H
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
15,393
682
Brilliant he's just taken a hundred words to describe the meaning of nature? Is this guy having a laugh? ... Reminds me of a flim flam artist ... I made it to the end of page 4, someone tell me it gets better and less excrutiatingly wordy and vague?
This guy reminds me of a coworker from a think-tank job 15 years ago. Guy had two PhDs and sure knew how to talk purdy, but it was almost all BS. More than half of the papers he wrote were his private little joke on the world. Invoking the homunculus, philosophy, and quantum physics to prove some point about artificial intelligence and such. He had one particularly egregious piece of BS accepted at a prestigous conference. He let me in on his little joke, wondering how much more BS he could add to this without the reviewers catching on that it was 100% pure BS.
 
  • #105
218
0
Unless she can provide data that meets the criteria bolded below, I don't see the point.
Well she doesnt want to be quoted. So let's just say, in my own opinion he has had trouble gaining exposure for his work as he is not an academic, hence he included material on how his work relates to the concepts of ID and creationism so that they would give him a venue to publish his work. Cough. In my own opinion.
 
  • #106
Gza
437
0
His paper seemed to just babble on much like something i'd read in Theory Development. He seems to suffer from a severe lack of peer review (or having anyone read his paper and constructively criticize it for that matter.)
 
  • #107
Gza
437
0
Well she doesnt want to be quoted. So let's just say, in my own opinion he has had trouble gaining exposure for his work as he is a crackpot hence he included material on how his work relates to the concepts of ID and creationism so that they would give him a venue to publish his work. Cough. In my own opinion.
Fixed your post.
 
  • #108
J77
1,076
1
  • #109
Well she doesnt want to be quoted. So let's just say, in my own opinion he has had trouble gaining exposure for his work as he is not an academic, hence he included material on how his work relates to the concepts of ID and creationism so that they would give him a venue to publish his work. Cough. In my own opinion.
Here's some pointers for Mr Langan. First of all learn set theory and then if needs be modify to describe what it is he means, just saying this can be shown by venn diagrams is not going to inform anyone if you don't then go on to show said diagrams, or at least use the language and operators to make it clear what your getting at.

Diagrams are fine but only if they reveal something about the nature of what your talking about and tie it to something else. Often the diagrams need a good deal of explanation, which is seldom given.

Don't assume anyone gets obscure references, put a link to a paper, use citation.

It's not necessary to cloud your work in very obscure words, look at scientific papers, one thing that is evident is that every point is explained, every experimental point shown by graph etc, and every new concept clearly represented. Don't just use some term without explaining what it means, no one will have a clue. There's no reason why the prose can't be in depth and tackle high brow philosophical ideas without being a chore to try to comprehend. No Hagelling(inventing your own language, as a point about language)

The above skills would be learnt upon studying for a degree, a degree is not just about understanding the course material but understanding how to manipulate it and present it in a clear manner,learning the language of science. If the guy wont be taken seriously untill he's qualified, get qualified.

Above all though if your going to wax philosophical it's fine to make your language high brow, but make sure you enable those reading it to understand it. There's high brow and there's on another planet brow.:smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #110
218
0
so why dont you send it to email given in article instead of posting it here.
 
  • #111
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,490
51
Okay, I think this thread has gone on long enough with all the same arguments as occur every time ID is brought up, which is to say it goes nowhere. Both sides have had their chance to present their arguments. I'm going to lock it while folks are still showing a decent amount of civility in the discussion.
 

Related Threads for: The smartest man in universe believes in Intelligent Design

Replies
7
Views
21K
Replies
100
Views
11K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
5K
  • Last Post
11
Replies
255
Views
15K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
40
Views
8K
Top