From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jan 11 2002 - 09:10:20 MST
[Yash] said very little and replied to less.
[Hermit] Yash, while I note that you have avoided all of the challenges to
support your assertions (as usual/again!), and they appear to contradict
your previous actions, I'll assume that this message is a symbolic white
flag.
[Hermit] Please do the same. If you can get past your (very) erroneous
assumptions, perhaps we can try again. If not, we will understand that you
didn't mean what you said here, and can resume the flamefest for as long, or
longer than you desire. But I would rather not, as I am reasonably sure that
you are simply not following the arguments due to faulty base assumptions.
As I could care less if you want to toss 2,000+ years of development and
revert to bronze-age arithmetic, there will be no problem so long as you
don't make claims that you cannot support. If you mean what you appear to
say here, then I suggest that you read the following carefully.
[Hermit] Please note that the following is not I speaking for the CoV (we
have no dogma only our sins and virtues - refer http://virus.lucifer.com),
but me speaking for myself. Others in the CoV are free to agree or disagree
with me as they please, but I think the following advice is generally good,
I know I will be corrected if I err. Corrections from anyone except the
Mermaid will be responded to using the same tone as that in which they are
offered.
[Yash] 1. I'm don't view discussions as 'opportunities' to sneer at people.
[Hermit] I don't take discussions as an opportunity to sneer at others
either. But when the dog bites, I take it as an invitation to bite back.
And, as you may have noticed, years of practice have left me reasonably
competent at the task. If you didn't notice then I retract the truce, as you
are a great deal denser than I took you to be.
[Hermit] Please note that the sneering is reserved for those who do not
respond to challenges to support their assertions. This is exactly how a
discussion is initiated. So far you have appeared to be unable or unwilling
to engage in defending your assertions - and thus you have not been
discussing anything. You have been preaching. Perhaps this letter will
encourage you to engage in discussion, and sneering will become redundant.
[Hermit] When people indulge themselves in content light postings, which
take personal jabs, I tend to reciprocate. Being somewhat experienced in
this, my bites tend to be worse than my bark. But, it is not terribly
difficult to avoid being bitten. The adage about sleeping dogs applies.
Herewith some good general advice:
Research your topics as best you can.
Present facts to support your opinions.
Be prepared to defend your points.
When arguments are presented to you, (And an argument is a connect series of
propositions designed to support a conclusion - not a random stream of
fantastic assertions), listen to them and respond to the argument.
Attempt not to misrepresent the argument.
If you feel you are being misrepresented, explain why this is the case -
don't just claim that it is the case.
Do not simply repeat an assertion in response to an objection or query.
Avoid personal comment completely.
Label opinion. Be prepared to have to justify it.
Appeal to reason, not emotion.
Don't make claims that you are not prepared to substantiate.
Earn respect by demonstrating that you know what you are talking about
before disagreeing with others.
Don't argue on the basis of authority. Claims to authority will generally
(and rightly IMO) be ignored. There are far more years of education present
on the CoV than on most forums, and expertise in many fields, yet a sensible
fourteen year old can post here without concern that their opinion will be
sneered at simply because they don't have a grey beard and a PhD. And
(rightly again) a PhD will be sneered at if they post nonsense (although, in
all fairness, it is usually the other way around. But then, I'm biased).
In particular, posting a deliberate distortion of what is said by others
will almost certainly earn you a well deserved taunting - and if I notice it
I will flame you - as will others. And you will deserve it.
It is quite naturally, always insufficient to repeat an assertion in an
attempt to support it, or to support one assertion with another. (Something
you seem especially prone to doing. Avoid it.)
If you read my previous notes carefully, you will observe that I always
provided justification for my stance (at least in the initial post). That is
what has to be spoken to.
You cannot address why you think I made an assertion unless it forms a
component of your response - and then it should be restricted to a very
small component if you seek peaceful coexistence.
In general behave in the exact opposite manner to the Mermaid and you will
probably get along with most everyone - including me.
It is traditional that when an assertion is challenged, that the issuer of
the assertion should be prepared to defend it. When that happens, if the
issuer refuses to support the assertion, his (or her) credibility is
lessened, and if it happens enough times they will probably end up being
sneered at, taunted - or what may be worse, ignored. Even if your defense is
inadequate, you will at least be listened to. If you say something silly,
you will probably be jumped on. But the boots are not fitted with hobnails.
There is no chairman here and ad hominem is used as a moderating tactic when
all else appears to have failed.
If you are being told that you are being silly, at least consider the
proposition that the person saying so has a reason - particularly if it is
supplied. Most of those doing so know that others will jump on them if they
do so invalidly or excessively - which means that it is usually competent
people who resort to this strategy. If <em>after thinking about it</em> you
still disagree, justify why you disagree - and then close the issue. It is
very rare that you will persuade anyone of anything through debate - and
persistence in the face of either being ignored or opposed simply pisses
people off.
If you feel that you have been insulted, request an apology. If you don't
get one, try not to issue insult in return. The uninvolved, who are more
competent to judge will defend people against undefended insult - unless the
subject is so unpopular that nobody chooses to defend them. If you ever find
yourself in that position, consider leaving, as this is likely to become
worse not better over time and the Internet is a big place.
If you deliberately insult people without justification, you will rapidly
become as popular as the Mermaid.
This includes calling people liars or plagiarists no matter how sure you are
of the "facts." You still could be wrong, no matter how "certain" you are.
Don't look at the Mermaid as an example. She has not the first idea about
the importance of academic integrity and an unjustified attack of that
nature will never be forgiven. So when you think you have determined a
problem, ask, don't assert.
If you are out argued, you need not accept the result (although it is
gracious to do so), but it should give you pause for thought - and it would
be foolhardy to reassert that contention without developing a new argument -
as you are bound to be flamed for your troubles.
[Yash] 2. I dont view a person who has different opinions as me as an
opponent.
[Hermit] I don't <em>always</em> either, although there are certain
conditions under which it is almost guaranteed to happen in this forum.
[Hermit] Anyone advocating belief over reason or not generally conforming to
the above suggestions in this forum will almost certainly end up being
treated not just as an opponent, but as an undesirable alien.
[Hermit] This is not a matter of "rules," simply of appropriateness. Given
that the vast majority of people here are smart, and that we are a "rational
atheistic religion," and that those here "subscribe to the ideas" (yes, it
says so right on the package - see http://www.lucifer.com) it does not much
please the audience to have irrational or theist based (Christian or
otherwise) ideas propounded. There are many other forums where that is
appropriate.
[Hermit] The above suggestions were designed to address rationality.
Advocacy of belief (acceptance on the grounds of insufficient evidence or in
the face of evidence) is far worse.
[Hermit] Advocating a thesis which supports a religious stance (based on any
religion, e.g. "Vedic PI") will be seen as such unless you qualify and
justify your statements. Even so, should you follow such a course, you
should anticipate challenges - and not just from me. Simply because it is
not appropriate here. Anticipate a negative reaction or even hostile
reaction if you try this. From me and others.
[Hermit] Note that in the CoV is not a debating society. It is a peer
moderated anarchy. Unlike at debate, we tolerate assertion, simply because
those of us who attempt to make meaningful posts recognize:
the amount of effort which goes into a well written post.
the fact that people use this forum as a sounding board to advance their
thinking without necessarily being in a position to fully expound an
argument.
[Hermit] It is quite safe to say (in contrast to some assertions made
recently), that we would rather see open discussion than people sitting
huddled in a corner afraid of posting because they may have their heads
bitten off - and that biting heads off is generally depreciated anyway.
[Yash] 3. I'm not on a list to fight other people.
[Hermit] <Surprise>. I this true? Only your words and actions can persuade
us that it is true.
[Hermit] Who (other than the Mermaid) is? I come here to have fun, to teach
and to learn. So do most of the rest of the people here. But some of us are
not pacifists - me for example, and when somebody attempts to slap my face,
as you appear to me to have repeatedly attempted, I take it as an invitation
to slap back rather than turning the other cheek. And delivering carefully
calibrated flames, designed to keep the "opposition" enraged and being silly
can be quite an amusing challenge in its own right. At least for some of us
here. And not just me.
[Yash] I have asked that you prove only one thing: 1. Prove that you have
read and investigated the whole book (as you claimed to be quite 'familiar'
with the author and his work) i.e. that you also tried the exercise.
[Hermit] But this is not what I have ever claimed.
[Hermit] And I have said so repeatedly.
[Hermit] Which statements you have repeatedly ignored.
[Hermit] Which is silly.
[Hermit] And represents a mischaracterization of my argument.
[Hermit]Which is, as pointed out above, invalid.
[Hermit] Note: my argument. Argument. Not assertion.
[Hermit] Ignore the assertions of others and read my words.
[Hermit] Demanding that I "prove" something that is not my claim is
guaranteed to generate more heat than light.
[Hermit] I have stated I was familiar with the author and his work. I have
justified why I hold this opinion. You have not responded to this.
[Hermit] I have not and did not claim to have read <em>all</em> of his book.
[Hermit] Indeed, while I could have said that I have read it and left it at
that - and nobody would have been the wiser - I did not as I prefer
accuracy.
[Hermit] Consider this for a moment before going ballistic again.
[Hermit] I stated (accurately) that I had read sufficient of it in order to
form an opinion of the work. No matter what my background, that claim made
by me suffices, as no refutation by somebody else is possible - not even you
– no matter how much you would like it to be so. The best you can hope to
show to overturn this opinion is to prove that the justification I provided
for my opinion is insufficient or that my argument does not support my
conclusion.
[Hermit] You have not done this. I do not think that you can do this.
[Hermit] You can attempt to counter my opinion with your opinion, but then
you have to justify your opinion.
[Hermit] You have not done the latter half of this, which leads us to the
conclusion that your argument is based on unsupported opinion, otherwise
known as belief. Which is not valid here. This is not a forum for the
propagation of belief.
[Hermit] The onus is upon you to justify your claim.
[Hermit] As a scientist (specialized in communication theory and
structures), as an amateur historian with far deeper knowledge of the
Ancient World and Orient (as well as the late Renaissance, Restoration and
early Industrial Age) than most, and having extensive cryptographic and
actuarial experience, I feel more than qualified and competent to comment on
it - and largely in field.
[Hermit] My opinion was negative and my comments damning.
[Hermit] I note that you have not supported your asserted qualifications,
despite repeated requests and challenges. I now repeat my challenge to your
claimed qualifications.
[Hermit] My opinion is backed by the following facts, and should you wish
your opinion to prevail, you will have to counter these facts.
[Hermit] So far you have not even addressed them, never mind challenged or
overthrown them.
[Hermit] My justification is as follows:
1 "Vedic Maths" made exaggerated (to be kind) claims of accuracy and
significance for early Indian mathematics - claims not supported by any
non-religious affiliated source;
2 "Vedic Maths" asserted that a cited work contained PI, this is not
evident;
3 "Vedic Maths" asserted that PI was encoded in the cited text, using a
"hidden writing" method, there was no claim to this within the work in
question;
4 "Vedic Maths" asserted that a multi-variable "key" was used; there was no
evidence that this "key" was appropriate and that it was not selected
specifically to unearth PI. There was no evidence showing the vast number of
results which could be shown to appear to contain PI given this methodology
and alleged key;
5 "Vedic Maths" asserted that the key applied only to the portion of the
cited work where PI was supposedly encoded, but did not support this
assertion, or explain why the key did not unearth other "significant"
information;
6 "Vedic Maths" failed to explain why the source works in question contain
multiple values for the ratio we know as PI, demonstrating that the
essential nature of PI was unknown to the authors of those works;
7 "Vedic Maths" implied that the accuracy of the alleged hidden value of PI
proved the significant value of the culture and religion from which it
supposedly originated, not noting that the work had been rewritten over a
number of centuries by people who had greater understanding of mathematics
than the source and who undoubtedly modified the source works over that
period;
8 "Vedic Maths" failed to acknowledge that the written language was invented
centuries after the work supposedly embedding PI was first created;
9 "Vedic Maths" asserted knowledge that there was no possible way to explain
without a vast body of prior art. No evidence is found for such prior art
except to the assertions of "Vedic Maths";
10 "Vedic Maths" makes no attempt to explain why these techniques were then
"lost" until the author of "Vedic Maths" then "rediscovered" them;
11 "Vedic Maths" interpolated a number of arithmetic techniques which,
though valid, are trivial and were well known to other cultures which unlike
the Harrapans and their immediate successors had Mathematical cultures (e.g.
Sumerian, Babylonian, not so much the Egyptians who like the Harrapans and
their successors were primarily interested in practical and religious
results);
12 "Vedic Maths" asserted, that these arithmetic techniques were present,
not because they were stated, but because they could be argued to match "key
phrases" in the text. Granted that these techniques are (and were) trivial
and the majority known to other cultures including that of the author of
"Vedic Maths," the assertion that they were implied by the Sutras is tenuous
at best. Many other techniques, some which would work, some which would not
could also be implied by the same "key phrases." The author makes no attempt
to show why these "key phrases" were chosen, why others were not, or why
they <em>had</em> to imply the alleged techniques.;
13 "Vedic Maths" does not attempt to explain why, contrary to other
evidence, the people who allegedly calculated a value for PI were content to
accept measurements sufficient for construction purposes for all their other
work;
14 And most damning of all, "Vedic Mathematics" claimed a spurious antiquity
for its source works not supported by anything but assertion, presumably on
the common but never the less invalid assumption that age would prove
something to the authors readership (and it very probably did).
[Hermit] I also observed that:
15 the author was unqualified in the field;
16 occupied a less than universally respected position as priest (cf liar);
17 kept the company of charlatans and irrationals;
18 still attracts the support of irrational people today;
19 and quoted unrecognized sources (which, if you were familiar with the
field, you would realize is significant).
[Hermit] None of the above inspires me with confidence in his (or your)
assertions.
[Hermit] Particularly as:
20 Not even Hindu mathematicians (and contrary to your assertions of bias,
many Hindu Mathematicians and historians are recognized as being very
significant) recognize his claims.
[Hermit] You failed and still are failing to address a single one of the
above issues. I challenge you to respond to them numerically. If you do not
do so, the attacks which you have brought upon yourself will be shown to
have been justified and your claim not to be looking for a fight shown to be
a lie. I await your response with interest.
[Hermit] When you failed to support your assertions (and when you quote an
assertion, you have to be able to support it on request), except to make
further assertions, I did the research and work required to substantiate my
position.
[Hermit] Rather than respond with argument - or a retraction, as I saw it,
you (and Mermaid) chose to attempt to bluster and made personal (and
invalid) comments about me or about my competency without providing
justification for your position.
[Hermit] This is as good a way to start a war as any and appears to make a
lie of your claim not to be here to fight.
[Hermit] The fact that your comments were invalid was less important than
the fact that everyone here, particularly those who have been here long
enough to know me, knew that you could not possibly have sufficient
knowledge of me to substantiate your assertions - which - again to those who
know me - were prima facie unlikely in the extreme.
[Hermit] Rather than engage in dialog, you appeared to engage in tentative
hit-and-run attacks.
[Hermit] I responded in kind and attempted to escalate the situation only as
I perceived you as doing so.
[Hermit] If you are now prepared to defend your thesis or at least that part
of it which I objected to, which I shall broaden (to remove all religious
aspects of it) and narrow to make it easier to disprove, to:
"The assertion that any Indian source prior to 500 CE contains PI to more
than 4 digits of precision (the limits of simple measurement) in an
unequivocal form", or to retract it, we can hopefully adopt a different
tone.
[Hermit] This is the full proposition that you have to defend. You need to
respond with a refutation of the twenty points above, together with your
qualifications.
[Hermit] If not, and you wish to continue in an aggressive mode despite your
(at this stage unsubstantiated claims above), I am more than prepared and
willing to continue to respond appropriately.
[Hermit] It is, as it ever was, despite all and any assertions to the
contrary, your choice.
[Yash] And I never even once suggested that I would or others would 'sneer'
at you.
[Hermit] I take the effect of the attempt at it, no matter how invalid, as
being at least as serious as my suggesting that I would do so, if you would
or could not substantiate your rash assertions.
[Hermit] Your denials do not gel with your words. Consider your personal
attacks referenced above and the example immediately following.
[Yash] I have showed enough of your devious ways of thinking and going into
sidelines arguments that at least two persons noticed. That's more than
enough.
[Hermit] Consider please, is not the above an attempt, pathetic, but none
the less an attempt, to get in a little jab or three? How is this different
from a "sneer"? Consider that the "two people," whoever they are, and
however deluded they may be, might have their own reasons for providing you
with support. You might like to defend this thesis too if you choose to
resume hostilities, else it return to haunt you. Consider the size of our
total membership and think that you think that if you have two that you have
convinced, that more than 99 % of the membership thinks that you are being
silly.
[Hermit] For extra points, you might choose to explain how “That's more than
enough” differs qualitatively from “They laughed at the Wright Bros. too”
[Hermit] Then again, if you choose to surprise me and apologize, and if you
have ever performed a structured walkthrough (and I can teach you that too
if needed and you so desire), consider using that technique as an
alternative when investigating what somebody else says. If you do, you may
find that your head and torso remain connected more nearly than they are
right now even when you are silly.
[Yash] So if you consider me non-intelligent or dumb, etc... That's fine by
me. I have my own opinions and I can live happily without the consideration
of Your Highness.
[Hermit] As it is, I do, on the evidence you have provided thus far. I also
think that you are misguided and not nearly skeptical or rational enough,
but that, if you correct your attitude, that appropriate training might
rectify the situation. If you succeed in sticking around here, your
deficiencies will almost certainly be improved upon. You are welcome to stay
- and possibly to continue to disagree with me if that makes you happy.
There is a small caveat. If you hang around and persist in asserting belief
and rejecting rational discussion, your stay will no doubt be shorter and
less pleasant for everyone and you will learn nothing - not because there is
nothing to learn, but because you will have chosen not to be able to benefit
from it.
[Hermit] Still your choice.
[Hermit] Bear in mind that when you show no consideration, you should expect
the sentiment to be returned in abundance. And many of us have been here a
long time. We don’t much appreciate the stink.
[Yash] You mean you never noticed that if you write natural numbers starting
from one in a square configuratio, you actually get Square numbers in the
far corner? It's the same for a cube. You mean you never learned how to
derive triangular numbers by writing them in a triangular configuration? I
learned that in primary school.
[Hermit] You are making another sequence of rash assumptions and
unsupportable assertions about me here. Consider your words (which you
snipped, but did not mark) from a mathematical perspective and if that is
not possible for you, consider it from a position of common sense – if you
have any – which I admit to doubting. While frequency analysis and variance
may be helpful (but not very, other than to detect errors (due to invalid
distributions in the erroneous section) and computers can do it faster and
more accurately, than humans.
[Hermit] Meditating on PI and shuffling its digits about is <em>not</em>
going to find <em>meaningful<em> patterns - people have tried that for
thousands of years to no avail.
PS Walter you missed a vital point. The key factor I was pointing to was
"the liar's paradox", attributed to the philosopher Epimenides, a Cretan, in
the sixth century BCE.
He is reported to have said, "All Cretans are liars...One of their own poets
has said so."
This is not a true paradox since the poet may have knowledge that at least
one Cretan is, in fact, honest, and so be lying when he says that all
Cretans are liars. There therefore need be no self-contradiction in what
could simply be a false statement by a person who is himself a liar.
So I was indicating that I was lying.
PPS Casey, I hope you are happier. Now we shall see if Yash can respond to
the challenge. For myself, I suspect that I have just thrown more good time
after bad.
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:39 MDT