Monday, June 27, 2011

Lawrence Krauss: Bigger Sore Loser Than Initially Thought!

Uncommon Descent links to an interview with Lawrence Krauss regarding his reflections on his debate (and I use the term lightly since it was more of a demolition of Krauss) with William Lane Craig.

So apparently accomplished physicists now, as well as not being able to understand Bayesian probability theory, also have to personally denigrate a colleague who thrashes them in the arena of ideas and debate. He also has gained the ability to search someone's motives and label them as evil and malicious within a debate and give that as the reason he looked like a moron.

Yes, people. Lawrence Krauss says WLC was disingenuous, and Campus Crusade for Christ had malicious evil intents in trapping him with an impossible debate question. MUAHAHAHAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!

Oh....er, sorry. My evil inner Christian came out.

Krauss is acting like a small child who lost the playground game and is now calling foul. Wow. Well there's your intellectual atheist folks, and your typical establishment elite college professor (see Barack Hussein Obama and Paul Krugmann for comparison). At least they're useful for a practical lesson and a good laugh.

46 comments:

Jc_Freak: said...

I went and found the debate after I read this. Apparently he was asking for impirical scientific proof, and was upset that Craig was cotent tomerely show evidence.

exreformed said...

The only sore looser is you when you forget to take your medication. Don't make me call the county health department and have you committed again.

bossmanham said...

Wakka wakka wakka!

kilo papa said...

Hey bossymann,

Do you have a post on this site that articulates your personal thoughts on why your invisible sky-god waited 14 billion years after creating this universe to decide to personally impregnate a little girl in the ancient Middle East 2000 years ago?

Did he tire of playing checkers with the angels?

Personally impregnating a brontosaurus seemed a little intimidating?

Maybe the Big Guy's wife hadn't been letting him "walk among the daisies" the last few thousand years?

Was he just in a "vaginia" kind of mood?

Was savage human sacrifice just the new trend in invisible sky-gods?

Any idea how someone can call themselves sane while believing in the Stone Age lunacy that is Christianity?

Thanks for your thoughts!

John said...

"Did he tire of playing checkers with the angels?

Personally impregnating a brontosaurus seemed a little intimidating?
"

-- Awww.. so cute.. Kids these days, eh?

bossmanham said...

Lol.

Ana said...

I haven't watched the Krauss vs. Craig debate yet. However, the 2+2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2 was brought to my attention.

I wondered what "extremely large values of 2" were. 2.5? That doesn't strike me as "extremely large". Extremely large is like, 2.99999...

And 2.999999 + 2.999999 is a lot closer to 6.

Here's what wiki says on the matter (it actually has an article titled "2+2=5", lol)

"However, two plus two can always equal four only when all numbers are integers and absolute in a ratio scale, and when the calculation is done in base 10. Outside these conditions, two plus two does not always equal four".

bossmanham said...

Good points, Ana.

Here's the thing. 2 IS an integer, and 2 + 2 always = 4. Never does it not. A non integer value greater than two and less than three may equal something else, but for Krauss to dumbify the debate in that way just shows his dishonest streak.

kilo papa said...

Any debate is "dumbified" whenever William L. Craig steps up to the podium.

Or, anytime Christianity is being debated.

Virgin births, blood sacrifices, talking donkeys, rules for burying your excrement, menstruating women, spilled seamen, etc.,etc.,etc.,

Oh, to be religious again and allow my brain to descend to the depths of unembarrassed lunacy!

John said...

Someone once argued that most of the smartest people today are atheists yet the downside is that these people only represent a very small, almost microscopic percentage of all atheists, and that, ironically, the bigger percentage is composed of the borderline retarded.

Kilo papa, thanks for confirming this theory to be true.

Ryan Anderson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ryan Anderson said...

So just out of curiosity, how is Krauss' statement here different from what Craig said after the Kagan debate (dialogue, demolition, etc...)?

You can find Craig's statement here.

bossmanham said...

Uh, Craig didn't call him a big meanie and a liar maybe?

David said...

What is a "pretended view"?

bossmanham said...

A view one takes for the sake of a debate that they've never espoused in their written work before.

David said...

"A view one takes for the sake of a debate that they've never espoused in their written work before."

Well, that sounds a little deceptive, doesn't it? If I was expecting to debate someone who is known to promote a given view, and that person unexpectedly presented a view that they've never espoused before, then I would would feel deceived. Wouldn't you?

bossmanham said...

Difference would be Craig never said he was being deceptive, and Craig never was in his debate with Krauss, so your point? The disanalogy is palpable.

David said...

"Difference would be Craig never said he was being deceptive."

I'm having pronoun issues. Who is the "he" in the above sentence?

David said...

One other question.

In describing Craig, did Krauss actually use the L-word? Did he specifically say that Craig was a liar or that Craig lied, using the actually words liar or lied?

David said...

Did Krauss actually, specifically say that Craig was "a big meanie"?

Rhology said...

LOL, "kilo papa" said "seamen".

I thought even public skrewel grads could get that one right. Seems to be all they learn these days.

bossmanham said...

Haha. In other news, David fails logic.

David said...

"Uh, Craig didn't call him a big meanie and a liar maybe?"

This is what you offered as proof that Craig's whining was different from Krauss's whining, correct? By your "logic", if Krauss called Craig a liar and a meanie, then his comments about Craig are different from Craig's comments about Kagan. This is your argument, yes?

Well, if Krauss did not call Craig a liar and if Krauss did not call Craig a "big meanie", then your argument is invalid, and the comparison of Krauss and Craig remains valid.

Now, did Krauss call Craig a liar and a meanie?

bossmanham said...

That's right david. Good job.

David said...

That's right david. Good job.

What? What's right? Are you referring to my summary of your argument or are you saying that Krauss actually used the words "liar" and/or "meanie"? Can you point me to a quote from Krauss in which Krauss uses the words "liar" and "meanie"?

bossmanham said...

Yes, the disanalogy is palpable, as I said. You don't have to use specific words that you want to stack the deck with for the concepts to be on display. Nice try though. You again show why it's useless to take you seriously.

David said...

And you have shown, once again, that you are blinded by your biases.

So, it's clear now. Krauss DIDN'T say "liar" or "meanie". You failed to accurately quote what Krauss said.

You keep saying that the comparisons in question are "palpably disanalogous". However, your argument for this conclusion is invalid, because you claim that Krauss used words that he didn't actually use. How can you claim that something is "palpably different" when you're making things up? You do understand what the word "palpable" means, right?

You have chosen to interpret Krauss's words in such a way as to "stack the deck". This was your choice. It is your desire to see those who disagreed with you (and your hero) in the worst possible light. So, you distort what another person said to get the conclusion you want. You put the words "liar" and "meanie" in Krauss's mouth so that you can claim that he's a sore loser and that's different from the way Craig acts after a debate. But Krauss never said liar or meanie.

By contrast, when your hero *repeatly* says that his opponent took a "pretended view", you ignore the reality that Craig is clearly implying that his opponent deceived him, hoodwinked him, and on some level, lied about his "true" views. Kagan obviously caught Craig off guard, and now Craig is whining about it.

As I asked you before, wouldn't you feel deceived by a debate opponent who did as Kagan did (you never answered the question)? It's accurate to say that Craig "never said...deceptive", but by the Brennon's Rules of Interpretation, I'm free to conclude that Craig was really saying that his opponent was a liar, even if he didn't use the word "liar".

So, we have a genuine, analogous comparison here.

Your problem is that you play by different sets of interpretive rules. It all depends on whether you are interpreting the words of someone you dislike or interpreting the words of someone you admire. And that's why it's useless to take you seriously.

(By the way, this is also why debates such as the Krauss-Craig debate are of little value.)

Rhology said...

this is also why debates such as the Krauss-Craig debate are of little value

Well, even if you were right about the biases and all that, this little aside is quite untrue. Each witness of a debate decides how the debate went. I for one saw 10 gazillion holes in Krauss' "arguments" and concluded with great confidence that WLC destroyed him in the debate. That's quite valuable.

David said...

"Even if you were right about the biases..."

"I for one saw 10 gazillion holes in Krauss' "arguments" and concluded with great confidence that WLC destroyed him in the debate."

Raise your hand if you see what I see.

bossmanham said...

Oh my gosh. Really David? I really want to give you more credit, but I just can't. I can't help but conclude you're kind of dense, man. So I want to help you. All you have to do is follow my directions. First, go look up a few words on Google. It's really fast! Trust me! They are: satire, facetious, and tongue-in-cheek. If you can comprehend those definitions, and then apply them to this post, you're on your way to understanding.

Next, you need to Google how to click on a link, if you can figure out Google. You'll notice a friendly little link conveniently highlighted in this very post. There, you'll see what Krauss said verbatim, and then you can apply the definitions of the words mentioned above. Maybe you can connect the dots there...

You can then think about how one can say their debate opponent defended a view in a debate that he's never defended otherwise without insinuating he's a liar, and how no words that could be interpreted as "that person lied" (such as "meaningless," "disingenuous in the extreme," "hoodwinking the students," or that the debate topic was "a trap.") present in the text. Seems to me you can just say someone defended a view that they've not taken. That is deceptive, but Craig never said as much. Further, your analogy falls apart in that Craig didn't defend a view that wasn't his!

Finally, you can hopefully see that the disanalogy is so clear that, metaphorically if disanalogy were a concrete object, it is "So intense as to be almost touched or felt."

PS, perhaps you can take the rocks out of your head so as to reduce the density.

David said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
David said...

"Further, your analogy falls apart in that Craig didn't defend a view that wasn't his!"

Huh? That's not at all what I was saying. How did you come to this conclusion? You've badly misinterpreted my point.

"So I want to help you."

Ok. Just point to the place where Krauss said specifically and precisely that Craig was a liar and a big meanie. All I ask is that you use the words that Krauss actually used. It cuts down on the insults that follow a biased interpretation of the data. I guess that's asking too much.

“That is deceptive, but Craig never said as much.”

But maybe you can connect the dots here! Maybe you can connect the dots from “pretend view” to deception to hoodwinking to... Do you get it yet? Krauss never said that Craig was a liar and a big meanie, but you want to play connect the dots to “liar”. But you refuse to play connect the dots with Craig. See how you want to “connect dots” with Krauss but refuse to do the same with Craig?

Perhaps you can take the rocks out of your head so as to reduce your inability to see how your biases lead to you use different rules for interpreting the words of those you disagree with versus versus those you hero worship. Given that you fail to understand what Craig is doing when he *repeatedly* uses the phrase "pretend view", I don't hold out much hope. You will continue to use different rules for those you despise and those you slurp. So it goes.

I see that you prefer insult to self-examination. This is "thinking God's thoughts"? Somehow, I always thought better of God. How disappointing.

Thinking God's Thought? Really? I don't think that I could ever reach such a level of arrogance if you gave me a lifetime to do it.

bossmanham said...

Uh, you never really made a point other than trying to draw a comparison between the two post debate comments. I pointed out the disanalogy. End.

bossmanham said...

And if it's an insult to point out a stubborn God hater's intellectual blockage, then the New Testament writers threw some insults around to the most hard hearted of their day. I don't just call anyone dense, David. You've given me no alternative but to think so. I'm trying to help you. Listen to the Holy Spirit and repent of this silliness.

David said...

"I pointed out the disanalogy."

Right, using the "Brennon's Rules of Interpretation". I get it. Do you?

"God hater"? Really? Again with the "God hater".

I disagree with your opinions about what you chose to call "God". I seriously doubt that your version of God exists. And that's it. Nothing more. It's very difficult to hate something that I don't think exists.

I know that it makes some Christians feel good to call those who disagree with them "God haters". I've reached this point of disussion many times. It's usually the final insult to be flung when all else fails. If I disagree with you, then I must be a "God hater".

Well, now you can feel free to insult at will. (Back in the day, you'd now be justified in burning me at the stake.) Hey, the NT writers did it, so it's ok, right? Totally contradicts the commandment to love and Paul's definition of love, but the Bible is full of contradictions, so what's one more? Being called a God hater is all extremely tiresome, but if it makes you feel better and helps you to justify your behavior by calling me a "God hater", well, enjoy.

I guess I can't expect more from someone who would think for an instant that he might be thinking something even remotely like the thoughts of any entity capable of creating universes. Thinking God's Thoughts? I'm sorry, but I just can't summon up that level of arrogance myself. Maybe you'll grow out of it some day.

bossmanham said...

Wow, an atheist telling me what Paul was like. Amazing. Course Paul called God haters of his day snakes, dogs, and other disparaging things. But yeah, you're probably right.

Discernment is required to know when it's time. You've proven many times that you're dense. That isn't an insult, but the truth. You may find it insulting, but I can't help how you take what I say.

bossmanham said...

I'm perfectly able to recognize that I have biases, but they certainly aren't baseless. Further, it's irrelevant in your constant inability to follow logical argumentation and see simple satire and humor for what it is. The fact that I have to spell out every little thing to you, and then you ignore about 3/4 of what I say anyway is simple evidence that you're dense, David. You like evidence, do you not? The truth is tough, but it's the truth.

bossmanham said...

I deleted your comments beacuse I deleted mine, and therefore yours were irrelevant.

David said...

"Course Paul called God haters of his day snakes, dogs, and other disparaging things."

Hey, don't forget that you still have to explain the contradiction inherent in the use of insults when you are commanded to love your enemies and when love is defined by Paul in I Cor 13.

bossmanham said...

I deleted your comments beacuse I deleted mine, and therefore yours were irrelevant. Trying to gain rhetorical points by focusing on an irrelevant issue will get you nowhere here, but it's something we've all come to expect from you. You don't know how to reason logically, David, and that's just one symptom of your density.

bossmanham said...

Hey, don't forget that you still have to explain the contradiction inherent in the use of insults when you are commanded to love your enemies and when love is defined by Paul in I Cor 13.

There's no contradiction in insulting someone you love. Some people willingly and deliberately suppress the truth in unrighteousness. I can love them and still point out that they're being dense, and so can Paul.

See, another piece of evidence that shows your inability to think beyond your own nose. You're so befuddled in your contempt for God, or the idea of God (which is evident in your constant attacks on his existence) that you make up weird non-sequitur arguments as last ditch efforts to justify whatever sinful behavior you engage in and your constant rebellion against God.

Truth hurts, but it's the truth.

bossmanham said...

And that is all I'll allow you to take the conversation off track of the original post.

bossmanham said...

For the purposes of full disclosure:

David, along with showing himself to be very dense and unable to reason logically, has also proven that he is not above scumbag debate tactics here. He is attempting to practice character assassination by focusing on a factual error I made regarding a quotation from scripture, specifically that Paul used the term "filthy rags" (literally menstrual cloths) when it was actually Isaiah. He is alleging a conspiratorial cover up by me, which is fine, but untrue. I deleted my post because it was factually inaccurate and I wanted to edit it. I then deleted his related to it because he was playing the "gotcha" game (see modern politics) where a debate opponent focuses on a factual error and tries to discredit the person altogether, and this is irrelevant to the original post.

He then wants to claim this is a pattern, but as far as I can remember this is the only time I've deleted a post of mine due to a factual inaccuracy I've stated (though I have deleted posts due to spelling and grammatical errors). So, yet again, he shows his incompetence at reasoning. If I were him, I'd examine the foundations of my reasoning and see if, perhaps, I am dense.

David said...

Yeah, that's what I expected. You accuse me of scumbag tactics, character assassination, gotcha games...and then you delete my response. Looks like you're as covered in mud as I am.

David said...

By the way, there's nothing wrong with my logic or reasoning. The problem is that you what to play by different rules when you interpret the words of different people. My logic seems faulty because your "logic" changes to accomodate the desired ends.

David said...

Spelling correction:

By the way, there's nothing wrong with my logic or reasoning. The problem is that you *want* to play by different rules when you interpret the words of different people. My logic seems faulty because your "logic" changes to accomodate the desired ends.