« A Post About Rob Kailey, What Rob Kailey Did, How Rob Kailey Did It and Why Rob Kailey Did It. | Main | A Neccesary Repost »

January 20, 2015

Comments

Dpogreba

Damn it, man. Next thing, you'll tell me that the moon landing wasn't a Nixon-Kennedy-CIA plot.

Wulfgar

Follow the evidence, man, THE EVIDENCE!

Nameless Range

Good points. I apologize for the long comment....

Despite Mark's sophomoric attempts at explaining physics - treating buildings and planes as singular objects (Hint: They aren't and even if they were he has shown he doesn't understand what he is talking about) his failure to proclaim his fringe theories convincingly has always stemmed from his broken epistemology. Last time I tried to reason with him about the energy beam theory, and how it doesn't pass thousands of iterations of the:

Given X, how likely is Y?

Thus making it incredibly unlikely.

He then proceeded to list ten lines of evidence in support of the energy beam theory. Nearly all were simply "claims" made by one individual - a kooky woman who's knowledge of the situation is exclusive to her, and dismissed by the rest of the scientific world. Given X......?

Yes, and the existence of the moon is evidence in favor of the existence of the man on the moon. But not all evidence is created equal.

I knew he was off his rocker when he said Sandy Hook was a hoax. All those children, their parents, all the subsequent fundraisers and interviews - faked. Thus putting himself in a position exponentially worse than an Obama Birther, but hey, they are really nothing but agitprop!

But the Media! Television! Brainwashed! Too afraid to confront reality! They've infiltrated everything! Open your eyes!

The Parallels with creationism really are astounding.

I have found the commenter Vladimir_M's (from the website LessWrong) take on media bias to be far more parsimonious with reality than the Super-Rational-Perfectly-Organized-Never-Identified-Contingency that Mark claims runs the show.

"So, for example, the mainstream media often exhibit strong and practically uniform bias in their coverage of politicians, events, and issues. Thus, for many people it's tempting to assume that they are indeed under some centralized editorial command. Depending on their ideological inclinations, they may imagine these commands coming from boardrooms of nefarious media tycoons, or perhaps (for even loonier types) from scheming cabals of Jews. Yet in reality, even the strongest and most uniform biases simply reflect those beliefs that are considered high-status among the sort of people that tend to work in the media -- and the prevalence of this sort of people is itself not a matter of any conspiracy or centralized control, but a spontaneously originating and self-perpetuating artifact of normal human social behavior."

Yet, he will continue to draw the bulls-eye around the arrow after it is has been shot.

Wulfgar

As you're well aware, I've challenged Mark before regarding his repetitious misunderstanding of Newton's Third Law of motion. I have patiently and otherwise explained that law to be a calculable formulation, and not a stated observation. It's not hard to find engineers online who debate the math of a plane (mass X) hitting a concrete building with steel supports, and watching the structure tumble given the weight above the fracture, heat added to the system and the simple reliable force of gravity. Without endorsing any "official" view of events, almost universally the math checks out that yes, a several ton plane could make a fairly sizable (and uniquely 'plane-shaped') hole in a building. I've never seen Engineer Judy Wood's math, save the simplest inequality of the structure of aluminum vs. steel. You are absolutely right. Some evidence really does seem better than others.

But, just to be politely deferent, what if there are controlling overminds who seek to capture our wealth and hoard power through manipulating events. The goal of 9/11 was obviously to gin up support for a war which would secure their wealth as a national treasure. Relying on Occam's Razor, which is more likely, that the overlords would spend enormous amounts of time and wealth creating a weapon that relies on obscene amounts of energy transfer, energy almost immeasurably more powerful than a lightning strike, and even more immeasurable energy to contain it in a focused manner capable of aiming at a specific target, or ...

They hired a bunch of suicidal zealots to fly jetliners into buildings. Even if one has decided that 9/11 was an 'inside job', it doesn't make sense the super-villains of Mark's ideal would create super-weapons and then simply shelve them for 13+ years. And, as a rational point of social entropy, wouldn't one or some of the powerful use such tactics and weapons against the others, to further consolidate power until there can be only one? Of course, rationalizations can be made for those phenomena as well, but eventually, most folk are going to realize that they are reading fiction, and most fiction that people want to read will have a happy ending. Such is the place that Tokarski finds himself in, a writer of fictions that people have lost interest in.

As cathartic as writing the last paragraphs has been, questioning his theories was not the point of writing this post. I read and will continue to read his essays because there are sometimes points worth considering and voices I haven't heard. There is value in that, just none left in dealing with Tokarski. Mark has a grand unified conspiracy theory of human stupidity, one sadly shared by most who think themselves 'outsiders'. Every post or comment Mark leaves anywhere that describes his path to wisdom has common elements and a particular pattern.

I am not stupid.
People are stupid.
I used to be stupid and was one of the stupid.
But I'm too smart to remain stupid.
I found out that people must be stupid because (whatever reason he pulls out of his ass, whether it defies reality or not.)
I learned (whatever he pulls out of his ass) by the choices I made, being special and all, or by reading wise man X.
I know, you don't.
If you disagree with me, you must be stupid.
Why? I know, because I'm not stupid.

It isn't a matter of what he thinks, but rather how he thinks. It is the impenetrable circular logic of Catholic reasoning, reasoning Tokarski claims to have shed long ago. Yet he displays it every single encounter he has with another real human being. My ultimate sin in his eyes, and yes it is a Sin, is that I noticed when he was stupid, and have the audacity not to 'forgive and MOSTLY forget". My point to writing this post was that I don't respect Tokarski, I don't care about his opinions, I don't add anything to my life by arguing with him or engaging with him at all. I enjoy pointing a finger and laughing at the absurdity that is his existence, but really he does nothing save amuse me, anymore.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Read This!

Friends like Family

Blog powered by Typepad