Posted by: graemebird | June 2, 2012

Stupidity As A Force Of Nature

No-one has the stupid-stamina like Cambria. No-one caps-Cambria for idiocy:

 

I SEZ:

You saw an actor playing Osama whose nose was half as long as Osama’s and you thought that was evidence for an Osama confession..

IDIOT SEZ:

Who was the actor, Birdie? Name names please.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The stupid is so strong it almost knocks you off your feet.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. […] uncensored on “Stupidity As A Force Of Nature“ @ A Better World: Graeme Bird For High Office. Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe […]

  2. Cambria never lets me down for displays of almost supernatural idiocy:

    “Naaa, same old crap Gab.

    Funny how the US basically band-aided its banking system on a weekend and these absolute morons, these idiots and clowns in euroweenie land are still bumbling around for the past 3 1/2 years.”

  3. That Stupid Dago is a dirty Jew Bastard.

  4. Well you know. Its really all about assassination and fractional reserve. These are not exclusively Jew bad-habits.

  5. We need to get to a place where there is no debt-money, and more money then debt. Its really that simple. But this is nothing that anyone at Catallaxy is going to come clean about.

  6. There’s a pattern at Catallaxy wherein if someone sounds too interesting they pronounce him me, and ruthlessly block him. This is why its such a boring blog.

    • Replace “too interesting” with “like a crank” and you might have something.

      How many regular commenters are posting at Catallaxy? How many are posting here?

      THE CUTTING EDGE ISN’T FOR EVERYONE. MY BLOG IS ABOUT SCIENCE. ITS ONLY SCIENCE BUT I LIKE IT.

  7. You may think you are not under observation by the CIA, Mr Bird, but I warn you to beware of drones over the Central Coast.

  8. Graeme, you don’t appear to like my summary of your version of science. How about I put it in a less mocking way and you tell me where I am wrong or alternatively post your Bird approved scientific method, in point form as I have.

    Science according to Bird:

    1) Peruse alternative internet sites and choose a claim for evaluation.

    2) Visit more sites and glean information that supports the claim.

    3) Compare 3 (or preferably 6 is best) lines of evidence.

    4) Rank these paradigms to determine which is most likely to be correct.

    5) The claim is proven true based on highest ranked paradigm.

    Is that more or less accurate, Graeme?

  9. 3) Compare 3 (or preferably 6 is best) lines of evidence.

    4) Rank these paradigms to determine which is most likely to be correct.

    5) The claim is proven true based on highest ranked paradigm.”

    Correct. It’s known as Science you dopey wog.

  10. Its not surprising that they want 30 drones over the US population at all times. These are mass-murdering criminals who know they have been busted. They must be like the son-of-sam Berkowitz, who when arrested said “What took you so long”. These are people who have the highest standing in society, and yet who must know that if the law is applied, they would get the lethal injection. Its very dangerous to leave guilty rich people unpunished.

    Ron’s on top of the science situation. He’s correctly sorted that part of your scientific method summary that has some validity.

    • “Ron’s on top of the science situation. He’s correctly sorted that part of your scientific method summary that has some validity.”

      There is no mention of testing in your version of science. Care to explain why testing of hypotheses isn’t required?

      • Its not my version of science. Its your characterisation OF my version of science. But it would be fair to say that I would have a different view of testing an hypothesis then the idiots running things at the moment.

        Supposing you have a view of light-bulbs. And this view says that there is a parallel universe, with pink elephants in that parallel universe, who can see us, and we cannot see them. And by the way they are far from fucking pleased with your behaviour and the behaviour of people like you.

        But these pink elephants aren’t just given over to displeasure; Nay they are beings responsible for the illumination of the human race, both metaphorically and literally. Every time I switch on the light-bulb these pink elephants see this, with great haste they say “let their be light” and the light comes on.

        Now go to your light-switch and test this hypothesis. You will find that you switch on the light, and amazingly the pink elephant hypothesis is confirmed. All over the world, millions of times per second, the pink elephant hypothesis is being confirmed, over and over and over again. Now we come to a bullshit phrase the anti-scientists have. THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE.

        How can you doubt the pink elephant story, when the weight of evidence is so strong. Look! Try again. Go to your light-switch, and prove the hypothesis anew?

        You see the problem here? Its impossible to test any hypothesis in isolation. And should you have a NULL HYPOTHESIS this is simply and excuse for not defining an alternative. So science doesn’t really begin until you have a third option.

        Here we have the problem with the alleged confirmation of special relativity. Total bullshit. More stupid then the pink elephant theory, since at least the elephant story isn’t so far self-contradictory. But if they want to run tests all over the world, the confirmation is going to pile up and no matter how many times this utter bullshit (childish bullshit) is proven wrong, they will start talking about the WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE.

        “I”ve turned the light-switch on myself” they will in effect say, with great anger, just before they block you from their blog for all time.

        In logic its simply impossible to prove anything without looking at all the main options. Even the two options of the Null and the tested hypothesis are really only testing one option and finding what you want to know. Try as you might you cannot logically describe a working testing process that doesn’t look at three or more possibilities.

  11. The claim is only proven “provisionally true” by way of highest ranking. By this I mean its valid for me to talk as if its true, in the face of assholes pushing nonsense like comets are snowballs, or special relativity, or other lies and fantasies. But for something to be authentically true you need a great measure of convergent evidence, coupled with no outstanding anomalies. So the fusion in the centre model of the sun falls down on that basis. Continental drift has convergent evidence in its favour but it cannot happen, so we have to accept the growing earth theory as having the same evidence in its favour, but unlike Continental drift, we have a realistic array of forces to explain the apparent movement of continents.

  12. Its not comparing 3 or better six lines of evidence. Its comparing 3-6 hypotheses. Or even better 3 to 6 paradigms. You never want to get into this bullshit about the null hypothesis versus the proposed hypothesis. This is one of the biggest mistakes in modern science. This dualist bullshit when the answer is likely to be neither of the above.


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: