jump to navigation

Rules of this Blog

I would prefer to have a blog without rules or moderation, but due to expected problems with that approach, I will enforce certain rules, at least within the categories I do not exempt from these rules. I may have a free for all category, depending on how much trouble trolls make. I will be final arbiter as to compliance with these rules and consequences of breaking them, but opinions of others involved will signify in my decision. If the offense is gross the offender may be banned with all posts removed without warning. I hope not to have to resort to screening comments.

Unless otherwise specified, some forms of stupidity will not be tolerated. These include, but are not limited to:

Personal attacks, harassment, or threats against myself or anyone who chooses to participate, excepting trolls or anyone breaking the rules. Argument, satire, poking fun are no problem. There are ways to make points without stooping to personal attacks. I would prefer civil discussion, but that is beyond what I could realistically hope for.

Obvious lies, distortions, or other misrepresentations.

Obvious BS, especially if fanatical or antifeminist. If you present an intelligent argument against some feminist principle, you may merely be subject to shredding from myself or friends. If your argument is not intelligent, it might get you banned. If you present a reasonable argument against my statements about psychology or science, you will get a reasonable discussion. I am interested in the truth of matters I bother to write about, so if you think I am in error, your argument will get the attention it deserves, though agreement may not necessarily result. I like a stout debate. I am disinclined to censor, but will not tolerate blatant trolls.


1. Obvious Troll - August 6, 2007

Due to a troll invasion (see the entry My Troll Invasion), I’ve edited the initial idiocy to explain why comments are now fully moderated:

If you wish to comment intelligently, you may do so. I’ve turned commenting into requiring moderation for now. This comment and others from you and others like you I’m sure will join in the fun will be moved when I have a little time to think about how to deal with fools like you.

2. Lord Lister - December 30, 2008

A scientist huh? I’m surprised having read some of your comments concerning trolls, feminists, and women… Bah! Not every scientist can be intelligent! So what’s your Science?

3. angryscientist - December 30, 2008

Ha ha. This coming from an antifeminist? I have substantial knowledge of logic, mathematics, physics…

4. Lord Lister - December 31, 2008

”I have substantial knowledge of logic, mathematics, physics…”

So what kind of scientist are you? For example, with substantial knowledge of biology, you could be a geneticist, a molecular biologist, a zoologist, etc. Or are you an amateur scientist?

In any case, I like the idea of “Blowing the whistle on misuse of science”. Good stuff. I’ll have to take a look at some of the posts.

5. angryscientist - December 31, 2008

You could try reading the About page. While attending Caltech I thought I’d be a physicist, until I realized I’d probably end up working for the Defense Dept., so I changed majors.

6. Lord Lister - January 3, 2009

I don’t understand this part, “I call misuse of science and language ideas based on male superiority over female in any capacity that could matter outside the world of sports defined in ways that give the male physique an edge; that science forges better living through genetic manipulation, nukes, or poisoning farms and bodies to combat infestations; that people are similar or inferior to machines, to be programmed or drugged to conform to proper conventional wisdom.”

Any chance you could explain it to me using less complex sentence structure?

7. angryscientist - January 5, 2009

Maybe if you specified which part you don’t understand, I could break it down. It seems pretty clear to me, but I know that’s because I wrote it, so I know what I mean by it.

8. Lord Lister - January 6, 2009

All of it… But I think I understand now: you’re saying that if someone says the male physique gives an advantage over women outside sports, than it is a misuse of Science and language ideas. Then you say that Science ISN’T best used to manipulate genetics, poison farms, etc. Finally, that people are superior to machines.

Am I correct?

9. angryscientist - January 6, 2009

Close enough. The point I was trying to make about artificial intelligence is that it’s qualitatively different from real intelligence, in important ways. The mechanistic view of intelligence downplays these differences, trying to fit humans into a neat logical model that’s appropriate for AI, but not humans. AI will never manifest true feelings or creativity, for example, though it might be possible to create crude imitations.

10. Lord Lister - January 7, 2009

True enough.

11. Cory Percevault - September 22, 2010

This may be something you’d be interested in. I’m sure you have profiled this ‘scientist’ before – David Suzuki and some Inconvenient Science

12. angryscientist - September 22, 2010

Yeah, so Suzuki may have overstated his case. I’m suspicious of that web site you cite, being an opponent of fish farming myself. Suzuki was mentioned in my post about genetically engineered trees. I guess your point is he’s not credible? Or are you trying to make a more general point about environmentalists?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: