posted
Well, a friend of mine came up with Galen's Law: in any thread discussing youth rights, as the length of the thread approaches infinity, the probabibilty of someone using the age of one of the participants against them approaches one. From countless threads in various forums, this law is true in my experience. That's what impresses me about Hatrack. Oh yes: King of Men, you only say that because you're a Nazi.
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:In any discussion of evolution, the probability of someone using the word 'information' without defining it approaches unity.
Or entropy. (The sun, people. You're forgetting the sun!)
quote:In any discussion of abortion, the probability of someone using the phrase 'killing children' approaches unity.
Well, yes, but the idea that the principle underlying premise of half the participants' position will be expressed isn't exactly useful or startling information now, is it?
My contribution, Hatrack-specific:
In any discussion about cooking, the probability of somebody mentioning Alton Brown approaches unity.
quote:using the age of one of the participants against them approaches one.
Not to go all Kung Fu outside of the applicable thread, but I think that there are cases where the age of the participants is an important part of the back information.
When you talk about parenting, say, it's useful to know if the person is a parent or not.
If you're talking about age, the age of the person is important information. The "use" of these things against the person can be a matter of opinion.
Anyway, continue with you regularly scheduled lighthearted thread.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the evolution argument, I would simply say that the probability of someone substituting the word "evolution" with "Darwinism," when they don't actually mean natural selection, approaches unity.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In any debate about evolutionary theory, the probability of abiogenesis being assumed to be an integral part of evolution is pretty much unity from the get-go.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you know, I do feel that this is not totally unreasonable. I mean, it's not strictly speaking part of the Theory of Evolution as such, sure. But it's definitely one of the things a naturalistic worldview has to explain, and a debate on evolution is really not a bad place for it. It's all part and parcel of the same thing, namely, whether sheer chemistry can explain the richness of life we see.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yah, but actually calling the theory of evolution "Darwinism" is just stupid. Its only the psuedo-educated of today who believe that Darwin discovered evolution.
Fine to mention Darwin, but it really kills the discussion when people start throwing in all the Darwin crap as a catch all denial.
So: the probability of a proponent of evolutionary theory being called a "Darwinist" approaches unity.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In any discussion about religion on Hatrack, the probability of someone comparing another poster to King Of Men approaches unity.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In a discussion about nuclear weapons the probability of someone incorrectly using the term "Mutually Assured Destruction" approaches unity.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, this is a reasonable term to use in discussion. For instance, Godwin's law permits people to talk about wwii and about Nazis, but not to COMPARE other people to them.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In any meta discussion, as the length of the discussion reaches infinity, the probability that the discussion will cease being meta and become unsubtle discussion of the meta-topics approaches one.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In any unsubtle discussion of meta-topics, the possibility of someone chiming in with a little two-bit philosophy approaches unity. Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For any forum poster describing rhetorical genius as "two-bit philosophy", the probability of being a butthead approaches unity. Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by narrativium: In any non-serious thread on hatrack, the probability of a pun war erupting approaches unity.
Used to. I don't think it does so much any more. I find this a double edged sword. I don't particularly like puns, but I miss the hatrack that produced them.
Or maybe I'm just reading the wrong threads.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For each post in which a forum poster must defend his dime store philosophies as "Rhetorical Genius," the chances that he will make a rhetorical error approach unity.
Read your last post again- something went wrong in the beginning.
posted
In any thread in which math is a topic, the probability of basic, definition-level mathematical errors approaches unity. The likelihood increases dramatically for posters pointing out rhetorical errors.
Orincoro, probabilities range from 0 to 1="unity". Odds can approach infinity, if an event is very unlikely, but odds are actually fractions (again, always ranging from 0 to 1) colloquially expressed as whole numbers (usually whole numbers.)
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In any thread in which differing tastes collide, the probability of one poster pointing out the spelling errors of another approaches unity.
Furthermore, additional spelling errors are likely to follow, but I have not yet calculated the probability. I'll report back later Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just getting started on the other thread but I thought I'd point this out: Darwinism=natural selection. If there is a new mechanism for increasing complexity in the theory, I'd like to hear it.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Evolution isn't driven by just natural selection, but by natural selection + random (the randomness isn't essential, we've just observed it) genetic changes.
Are you going to assert next that natural selection + random genetic changes (such as those we observe) can't increase complexity? If so, please provide a definition for complexity so I can provide counterexamples.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
And there is your fallacy, Fugu. It is not incumbent upon me to disprove your theory. I don't care if Natural selection + random mutations could have increased complexity. You need to prove that it did.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Go read a definition of a counterexample. A counterexample is an example of something you have said can't happen, actually happening. I can't provide one, though, until you have given a sufficiently specific definition of what can't happen -- which means a definition of complexity.
I do not intend to provide a way in which they 'could' have increased complexity, I intend to provide a way in which they did improve complexity, which I can't do until I know what you think complexity is. If your definition is sufficiently silly, I might instead prove that no increase in complexity (by your definition) would be required to change something from one species to another.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Getting back to the idea of rhetorical laws, I'd like to propose one in which the word "masturbation" is used to describe someone's mental process in order to make them feel ashamed and dirty. I guess we could call it Onan's law.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Resh, no changing the subject. Provide the definition of complexity that you are asserting evolution cannot increase.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
