Is there a God?

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

If that's not what you intended, then what in the world DID you intend...

I think I see how you read me now. Let me restate:

Point 2: You approached the quiz with a critical eye. You looked for problems with the questions, from the outset. Yet, you seemingly passed over some of the glaring problems you uncovered in the article. Consider the following: I asked how does the author define prosperity. Your answer was to give him a very charitable interpretation: prosperity could mean something generally understood by the specific social scientists he is talking to. No mention is made of the problems when an author uses an undefined term which is central to a paper. No critical eye is bent to this issue.

Look at your responses to me, and tell me you were just as critical of the paper as you were with my words.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Point 2: You approached the quiz with a critical eye. You looked for problems with the questions, from the outset. Yet, you seemingly passed over some of the glaring problems you uncovered in the article. For example, consider the following: I asked how does the author define prosperity. Your answer was to give him a very charitable interpretation: prosperity must mean something generally understood by the specific social scientists he is talking to. No mention is made of the problems when an author uses an undefined term which is central to a paper. No critical eye is bent to this issue.

Look at your responses to me, and tell me you were just as critical of the paper as you were with my words.

You have not yet presented any justification for treating the paper as critically as I have treated your recent words since post #105!!

The paper never accusing me of doing things I hadn't done. You did.

The paper never accused me of failing to do things someone else thought I should have done. You did.

The paper was just (from the subtitle)

A First Look

.

It doesn't claim to be definitive.

I introduced it in this thread (in post #99) as simply:

Originally Posted by cheesehead

A look at the relationship between religious belief and societal ills

That's all I editorialized about it. Saying that it was "a look" at a relationship that I thought (at that time) was relevant to this thread.

A list of possible justifications for criticizing me for a noncritical attitude toward the paper, with my denials:

1. I made a great claim about the article.

No.

2. I claimed it was flawless.

No.

3. I claimed it was a model of perfection.

No.

4. I stated, "I have meticulously examined this article, and I certify that it fulfills every ideal standard of what an article should say."

No.

5. I claimed that no one else had found, or would ever find, any problem with the article.

No.

6. I said, "I promise to always apply exactly the same level of criticism to any future posts in this thread as I have applied to this article."

No.

(For one thing, I never anticipated, at that time, being accused of oversights, or being subjected to an undisclosed test, by another participant.)

- -

In other words, I said nothing about the paper that justifies accusing me of a noncritical attitude. But you made that accusation anyway, without any of those potential justifications.

You, in your first response (post #105), asked "Did you not notice the bias of the author? Did you not notice the unscientific manner in which statistics were used?" This implies that you did notice a bias and did notice an unscientific manner in which statistics were used -- or at least IMO that would be a standard interpretation of the wording of your questions by most native English speakers.

Why did you direct those questions to me? Do you think that just because I link to an article, I am contaminated by the sins of the author? Why didn't you instead direct your comments of bias and unscientific use to the author?

Was it because you somehow associated, in your mind, the author's faults with me?

You didn't ask, "Did you notice a bias of the author?", which carries no implied assertion that there was a bias and simply asks whether I noticed one. Instead, you chose to use the form, "Did you not notice the bias of the author?", in which "the bias" implies that a bias definitely exists and "Did you not notice", which implies that noticing the bias that definitely exists would have been the expected action, and you are questioning whether I exhibited a deficiency in that regard.

So, right away you were accusing me of oversights or deficiencies. My initial response to that was, quite understandably, to defend myself from those accusations: "I fail to see, from your arguments, where the study's author is any more biased, or uses statistics in a less scientific manner, than any of the other contributors to this thread."

Note that I did not even deny that I had made any oversights or exhibited any deficiencies. I simply stated that I'd not seen evidence of those based on what you'd posted so far. I referenced other participants only as a casual standard for levels of bias or unscientific use of statistics, not as a straw horse.

My response was less accusatory (if at all) than your previous post had been.

But now you say, "You approached the quiz with a critical eye."

You bet your booty I did, and with good justification. You'd already accused me of failings, but had not yet shown me how those accusations were justified. Your introduction of the "quiz" seemed very suspicious in light of your just-previous accusations.

So OF COURSE I "looked for problems with the questions, from the outset." Since you'd seen fit to make accusations just because I'd simply introduced something as "A look at the relationship between religious belief and societal ills", it seemed obvious to me that you were in a mood to find fault with anything I'd say!! Of course, I carefully examined the wording for verbal traps.

You would have, too, if the situation were reversed -- as amply shown by your reactions to posts I've made since then.

Now you have the gall to try to blame ME for an adversarial atmosphere YOU introduced.

You should be ashamed of yourself, and not just for that. Look what happens next:

Yet, you seemingly passed over some of the glaring problems you uncovered in the article. For example, consider the following: I asked how does the author define prosperity. Your answer was to give him a very charitable interpretation: prosperity must mean something generally understood by the specific social scientists he is talking to.

Zeta-Flux, I just finished refuting that accusation of "charitable interpretation" in post #168 !!

Originally Posted by cheesehead

I said the definition of prosperity was missing! How, exactly, did that seem to pass over the question about definition of prosperity?

. . .

No, I said "I find none." That is NOT a charitable interpretation, and so certainly not the "most charitable" interpretation.

Tell us all how "I find none" is a very charitable interpretation.

Tell us why you never mention my primary answer to the prosperity definition question, only a secondary answer that was never intended to replace the primary answer but was only a trying-to-be-helpful guess.

Tell us why you drop that data point of my primary answer.

Tell us why you repeat this even after my post #168.

[Zeta-Flux]

cheesehead, you wrote

The paper never accusing me of doing things I hadn't done. You did.

The paper never accused me of failing to do things someone else thought I should have done. You did.

I think I see. You read my words as implying you were deficient. To you, this justified being more critical of that which I wrote.

In that case, what is the point of continuing discussion? Will you not continue to read me in the light of implying you were deficient? Repeatedly, I've pointed out that when you've read my words as implying deficiency, I have not meant such. Consider our conversation on fallacies for example; you read me as implying you were a liar or dishonest. That was not the case.

In any discussion, where one side disagrees with the other, is it not the case that they are implicitly implying the other side is deficient in some way? I'm sorry you read my words as a personal attack. That was not my intent. I'm further sorry if I used personal pronouns overly much.

Some signs that this was not my intent are the following: (1) I didn't join the rabble rousers (whose posts you might not see if you've blocked those posters) who have continually mocked you, (2) I have repeatedly apologized when you've shown I was at fault, (3) I have granted certain aspects of your arguments have merit, etc... Have you reciprocated? Have you granted validity to any of my arguments (besides those merely explicating on my meaning)? Have you apologized?

When I asked you to remove emotion from the discussion, did you do so? Have I been overly critical? Have I introduced emotionality? Have I asked questions with multiply question marks, bolded and underlines? For the most part, have my recent questions involved your internal states, or have they been questions on what you've meant? It appears that you think so (to answer just this last question). That is not my intention, and I don't really want to participate in a discussion where the other party believes it is my intent.

So, anyway, I'm done for now. You clearly do not enjoy communicating with me. Why should I continue? What are you getting out of the discussion?

[cheesehead]

Folks,

Is any participant of this thread who posts a link to an article somehow made responsible for all faults of the author? Is that why Zeta-Flux started in on me about stuff the author did or didn't do?

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Folks,

Is any participant of this thread who posts a link to an article somehow made responsible for all faults of the author? Is that why Zeta-Flux started in on me about stuff the author did or didn't do?

cheesehead,

I do not believe you are responsible for all faults of the author. Nor do I believe you are responsible for any individual fault of the author. I'm sorry if my words have implied, or have been read to imply, such.

However, I'd like to see what the impressions of the other posters have been. Other posters, have I "started in on cheesehead"? Have I been unfairly critical?

Best,
Zeta-Flux

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

I think I see. You read my words as implying you were deficient. To you, this justified being more critical of that which I wrote.

No, it was that plus your not providing any good reason for implying that I was deficient. You had shown, starting with post #105, that you were making false accusations about me.

In that case, what is the point of continuing discussion?

I thought you might apologize.

Will you not continue to read me in the light of implying you were deficient?

Only if you continue, for example, to repeat false accusations that I already refuted in post #168.

Why don't you apologize for repeating that?

Repeatedly, I've pointed out that when you've read my words as implying deficiency, I have not meant such. Consider our conversation on fallacies for example; you read me as implying you were a liar or dishonest. That was not the case.

Why don't you apologize for repeating the false accusation that I refuted in #168?

In any discussion, where one side disagrees with the other, is it not the case that they are implicitly implying the other side is deficient in some way?

No, of course not!

I'm sorry you read my words as a personal attack. That was not my intent.

Then why do you repeat a false accusation I refuted in post #168, then after I complain about that, never bother to even mention it, much less apologize for it.

Had you done so, that would show good faith.

Some signs that this was not my intent are the following: (1) I didn't join the rabble rousers (whose posts you might not see if you've blocked those posters) who have continually mocked you,

Let's see: how am I supposed to notice that you have not joined in mocking that I never see because the posts are blocked?

Exactly how do you expect me to give you credit for something I can't see?

In my last post, however, I specifically made a big deal about post #168 and related issues -- but your response is not to even mention it. Are you going to claim you didn't see my complaint?

If you would simply have apologized for repeating the false accusation I made a big deal about, that would show your good faith!

If you have the good faith you claim, why oh why do you completely avoid mentioning the fals accusation I just now made a big deal about?

If you are posting in good faith, why can't you make even one teeny tiny acknowledgement of something I called so prominently to your attention?

That's why I don't think your motives are innocent.

(2) I have repeatedly apologized when you've shown I was at fault,

I just complained about one of your faults, but you don't even mention it!!!

See, what happens is that you apologize for something, then prompt do something that's essentially the same -- false accusation!

If you are really, truly, genuinely apologetic for something (false accusation), then why oh why do you promptly do the very same thing (false accusation) -- AND THEN NOT APOLOGIZE?

You don't like accusations of unintelligence -- then what is your explanation?

Your actions contradict your words.

[Zeta-Flux]

I thought you might apologize.

If you had ever explained to me you thought I was personally attacking you, I would have apologized. I'll do so again now. I'm sorry.

Only if you continue, for example, to repeat false accusations that I already refuted in post #168.

Why don't you apologize for repeating that?

I'm sorry that I accused you of being charitable. I only meant it with respect to part of your answer.

how am I supposed to notice that you have not joined in mocking that I never see because the posts are blocked?

By me pointing it out (a little late). Have you blocked HRB then?

Are you going to claim you didn't see my complaint?

If you have the good faith you claim, why oh why do you completely avoid mentioning the fals accusation I just now made a big deal about?

I saw it, but didn't realize it meant so much to you. Your posts are quite long, and it would take me quite a while to respond to each and every point. I try to focus on one aspect at a time, to keep direction to a discussion.

No, of course not!

To all: Do other posters agree with this assessment?

[rogue]

My suggestion is "Take it outside". I'm rather annoyed that the arguments have nothing to do with the thread and much of what I would characterize as a lack of respect between two people (more if you include HRB). I suspect that most readers of this thread (with the possible exceptions of garo and ewmayer) lost interest in the bickering between you two days ago.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by rogue

My suggestion is "Take it outside". I'm rather annoyed that the arguments have nothing to do with the thread and much of what I would characterize as a lack of respect between two people (more if you include HRB). I suspect that most readers of this thread (with the possible exceptions of garo and ewmayer) lost interest in the bickering between you two days ago.

It would be satisfactory to me to have our entire interchange (including comments by third parties), from #99 on, moved to a separate thread.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

If you had ever explained to me you thought I was personally attacking you, I would have apologized. I'll do so again now. I'm sorry.

The problem is not lack of apology.

The problem is that you have devalued your apologies by repeating the same offense after you apologize.

To me, "apologize" means "I understand what I did wrong, I accept responsibility for it, and I will make a good-faith effort not to repeat the offense."

I'm sorry that I accused you of being charitable. I only meant it with respect to part of your answer.

... but you didn't notice that the way you wrote it implied that that part of my answer was the only part of my answer, with no mention or acknowledgment that the original, most important, primary answer was "I find none."?

That part somehow always disappears, without acknowledgment, in your accusation. Why?

Why do you find it useful to repeat the part that wasn't my real, original, primary answer, always accompanied by the observation that it was charitable, while omitting the noncharitable primary answer? Would it tend to weaken your argument about my differing standards if you treated my noncharitable primary answer with more respect than the casually charitable secondary guess you've repeated?

[cheesehead]

Zeta-Flux,

Thank you for taking the discussion off-line to PM.

However, after I composed my PM reply, I was informed:

"Zeta-Flux has chosen not to receive private messages or may not be allowed to receive private messages. Therefore you may not send your message to him/her."