I have officially become frustrated enough to make a new post. Technically this belongs in my conversation with Tao over at the Atlantean Conspiracy, but in the event that this rant would even be read, it would be sure to be interpreted as rude (to be fair, it is rude) and surely wouldn't be welcome in that forum. Therefore I shall use the power of the Internet to rant on my own forum, in which I define what is welcome.
"Tao" over there, who appears to be a regular commentor (although I am not, I have read a decent number of old posts, and his name appears as often as any other), has finally expressed an opinion which I cannot call anything less than insanity. He has postulated that the universe is inherently unknowable, and to use rationality is "irrational." In the interests of being fully accurate, I have quoted his statements below:
"feeling over rationality: I'd rather be feel happy than be right, and as no one can know only guess then it is a good place to sit."
"In a universe that ultimately no one can ever know, then to use rationality is entirely irrational."
To start with, the universe is knowable. To deny this fact is nothing short of insanity. It is impossible to function at all without accepting this. There is no point in eating if you don't know whether it will satiate your hunger; there is no point in drinking if you don't know whether it will slake your thirst; there is no point in Mr. Tao pressing the "post" button if he doesn't know whether it will put his post up or not. When I push my foot against the ground, I know that I will move forward; otherwise, I would never walk anywhere. If Mr. Tao truly believes the universe is irrational, then he might as well wave his arms as his feet in order to cover distances, he may as well press "delete" as "post." The fact that he does things with clear intent, as he must in order to survive, indicates that whatever he may say, he knows that the universe is rational and follows rational laws. It is impossible to live without this. The rationality of the universe is apparent not only in the sciences, but in every minute of every day, when events proceed in a predictable manner.
Now, I know there are mysteries. We don't know why gravity exists. We don't know what the smallest particle is. We don't know if matter is particles or waves, or both. So what? It doesn't matter how or why it happens; it just matters that it happens rationally. If I hold a ball 5 feet off the ground and then drop it, it will fall. I don't have the slightest clue why it will fall; but I know, with absolute certainty, that it will. And so does Mr. Tao. A denial of this is indicative of what I can't describe as anything but an underlying insanity - a denial of what you know to be true.
On to the second thing that irks me: "I'd rather be feel happy than be right." This...saddens me, actually, more than it irks me. Man is reason. Reason is that quality which distinguishes man from beast. Without reason, therefore, man is not man, he is beast. To deny our reason is to deny the gift we have received (from God or evolution, I don't care what you believe) and relegate ourselves among the animals. A lion might as well shed his teeth and claws and live with his prey. I cannot comprehend why anyone would willingly do this to themselves. Why don't we all just get doctors to induce artificial comas and set up intravenous dopamine drips? You'd be feeling real good for the rest of your life - setting aside for the moment the little problem that the universe is unknowable and therefore, so is your brain, and therefore, dopamine is as likely to stimulate agony as pleasure.
It's completely absurd. Sorry for the rant.
49 comments:
*grins* yes, he is very, very dumb. I actually made another appearance over there and made this point for you. Tao does not believe in rationality, meaning that Tao is actually a madman. That he has not yet proven dangerous is just a matter of luck. I hope not to be around him when he is in a bad mood!
It's kinda like having a bear around. Sure it seems nice enough (cute fluffy bears!), but if he gets hungry, you had better look out!
Benjamin, after following the conversation over at Atlantean Conspiracy, I do agree with you completely.
However, I would like to point out that you often lack (in this post and in other discussions that we've had) clarity and precision in your word choice. For example, "rational" and "reason" have a broad spectrum of linguistic meaning, though, funnily enough, they come from similar Latin terms.
There can be "reason", being the word that is tied to rational thinking, and hence tying "rationality" to "reason", or it could just mean "cause" or "because of something", an example being, "My name is Angela for a reason". The origin of my name DOES NOT have to have a rational reason, it could just have a reason. All definitions of both words are not inherently tied together, despite what may seem.
On a slight side note, that I just thought of, if my name were chosen purposely to be an irrational choice (say my mother named me something completely irrational like, "Boy"), would that be rational in nature?
Sorry, what I guess I really want to say, as an English major and hopeful linguist eventually, is that sometimes you confuse me because I have such a broad knowledge of words and their varied definitions and nuances and I don't always get what you're saying. Or sometimes I just like to pick it apart because it can be picked apart. Either way.
PS. I also agree with Torq. Bears are awesome, just not Mr. Tao bears. Isn't that what you were getting at? =P
I am unfortunate enough to be stuck with my father for a few days, who is both a philosopher and a linguist (You think you can pick apart my posts? He picks apart the English and the philosophy...). He also places great stock in word choice. Hopefully a few days of conversation with him has taught me to be a little more careful.
The word "rational" is intended to mean simply that it follows logical laws. All this technically requires, I think, is that it have a cause, or a reason, as you say.
"Reason" is slightly more difficult for me to quantify. I do not think I have used it at all in my posting as "a reason," a cause. I have been using it, hopefully consistently, to mean the capacity for rational thought.
I am most certainly not a linguist. I do, however, have a broad knowledge of words, just not in the same way as you do. My way is far less accurate; my knowledge of vocabulary stems from reading and deducing meanings from context. This means that I have no knowledge of actual definitions, and therefore am quite prone to error in matters where definitions are important. Please, continue pointing these things out - I would never catch a linguistic mistake on my own.
Well, thank you for your permission.
Anyway, I think what I was getting at in reading your post and thinking about it was that it's possible Mr. Tao has "reason", and by that I mean "cause" or "a cause" to believe and say what he does, yet no "reason", rationality, to what he says.
And I don't believe that what everyone says all the time has rationality, yet it must always have cause. Rationality, I think, is almost contextual, when talking about things like speech and communication.
PFFT!
His reason appears to be that he wants to be happy, and he will presumably believe or disbelieve anything he hears based on this criteria. I have no idea how to converse with someone like this.
When we think about speech, we aren't talking about a "thing," we're talking about an idea. It is enough for "things" to merely have predictable causes, but ideas can be evaluated based upon a different criteria. It is impossible for any "thing" to be irrational, but it is not impossible for an idea to be irrational.
It's impossible for a correct idea to be irrational, but not all ideas have to be correct...as Mr. Tao so conveniently illustrates.
Hi Angela!
It's great to talk to you, even if at this distance, and in this indirect way.
"Reason" does indeed have a range of (related) meanings. Sometimes it's used in the sense of "cause", and sometimes in the sense of "rationality". Context will have to be our guide.
The word "cause" is worth a deeper look. All "causes" are rational, but there are different sorts of causes. Classical philosophy distinguishes between efficient, formal, substantial, final, and first causes.
I agree with you that Mr Tao's rants have a cause, in the sense of "final cause". The final cause is the reward or motivation for something. In this case, his motivation is clearly not truth, because his writing is manifestly not true, and he apparently (supposedly) does not believe in truth. In his case, the final cause of his writing must be the attention it draws.
So, it's "rational" in this sense: it is carefully calculated to create a specific reaction in the reader: admiration. In your case (and Benjamin's), he miscalculated!
I think my brain just exploded.
Yo Ben, you'd better be careful of trying too hard to be gramatically correct... They might just kick you out of Engineering for it (I know I would)!
I think it is worth noting that persons such as Tao (just an example as he seems the subject) are not actually speaking thier own words. When you discover/read something which is logical, you can 'put it in your own words' because you can UNDERSTAND it. If it is not truly logical, it is much harder to put in your own words. You see this often in the postings of the "Religious Conspiracy". There are very few people demented enough to actually initiate such arguments. The vast majority simply regurgitate in an attempt to appear intelligent by 'knowing' something most others do not.
Now here is an interesting wrinkle. If, as the Capitalist points out, these individuals are simply trying to make themselves sound smart, haven't they made the fatal mistake of slipping into the role of propagandists?
Further, as they are regurgitating arguments which they don't understand, are they not the unwitting tools of the propagandists who came before them (and who they have "bought into")?
I am afraid that I do classify what they are talking about as propaganda. They are not really trying to explain or enlighten, or they would be using legitimate argument and logic, but rather to overwhelm the reader and to make them FEEL that one answer is true.
Well, once you reject reason, the entire purpose of education disappears. It becomes simply an exercise in making people "feel" like something or another is true. They don't have to believe that what they're doing is propaganda, because in this worldview, there is no difference between education and propaganda.
And yeah, I think the Capitalist has a very good point, both here and over on the other blog. Their opinions are completely dogmatic, and they won't accept reasonable challenges to them. They are truly "sheeple" themselves, unwilling to open thier eyes and see the cage of insanity they have built for themselves.
I really can't understand what they're hoping to do, either. If what's true is merely what I feel to be true, then why on earth would I try to convince anyone else to agree with me? The attempt to reestablish absolute truth (by convincing everyone to agree with you) after deciding that truth is infinitely subjective is really quite amusing.
The whole thing is a joke. I can only conclude that the Old Man is right; they're doing this for the fun of it, because it's a game to them. The contradictions and irrationalities are too many and obvious for it to be anything else.
I agree with you but I do think that there is a little more too it that they are just doing it for the "fun of it." I think it is actually a great deal more malignant than this. Pressing on other people an illusion (that there is truth) which you yourself have discarded is a genuinely evil activity.
I think that Eric is doing this for respect (after all everyone who disagrees with him is delusional and thus their opinion does not matter), out of pride (the deep seated desire to prove that he is smarter than everyone else who are just stupid sheeple and not people at all), out of a desire for power and fame, and let's not forget that he is actually making money from that website.
I think he is turning into the very thing which he claims to be fighting against. The only reason why he is not subjecting everyone else to what HE insists is right is that he lacks the power to actually do it.
Hey, I found a cartoon for Tao!
Eric can't be making much money: it doesn't look like he has many readers. But arguing with these guys just reinforces their belief that they are correct. There's no point.
That's a perfect depiction of Tao...
You're absolutely right, of course...it just frustrates me when people refuse to think. What can I say, I'm flawed:
http://xkcd.com/386/
HA!
A lot of people feel that way. I trust you've seen the rants people send me. :)
You just have to remember that these guys need to believe that they are smarter than everyone around them because they know something that other people don't. Therefore, your (perfectly reasonable) arguments simply reinforce their delusions. They WANT you to show up and correct them.
Matt is quite right: these guys are closer to "sheeple" than anyone I've ever met in the real world. Their beliefs are completely irrational and have very little basis in fact. I say "very little" because there is likely a small bit of truth in what they say. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush and Kerry were cousins sixteen times removed (or whatever it was they were saying). The leap from that to a global conspiracy, on the other hand, is laughable. We're all related if you go back far enough.
Yes, and it is that little bit of truth hidden in all their weirdness that keeps me coming back. I know (even if they do not) that to hold to ANY truth is to uphold the existence of truth its self. I keep trying to point out that if they really tear down all these other things just because they feel like it, there is nothing real to prevent the same thing from happening to their own belief system.
Oh well! Hope lives eternal and all that jazz...
To be fair, we fairly consistently attempt to tear down their belief system. It just... doesn't work. Their tenacity is astounding.
I'm just hoping that if we poke gaping holes in every single one of thier arguments, maybe they'll start to think they might be wrong. A couple minor holes in one part of thier belief system is easy to ignore, but maybe when they're consistently shown why practically everything they believe is irrational, they might stop and think.
*Grins* unless of course, they ARE irrational! In that event there is not telling what they will do. That said, I am for some reason confident that they will keep on doing just what they have been all along. If they were rational, they would be able to see that this is a highly improbable situation. As they are not, they will just keep on doing what they have been all along.
I wonder if this is what people who have given up their free will look like?
I don't think so. They appear to be exerting thier free will, not only over thier actions, but over thier beliefs. Rational people must accept limitations on thier free will, in that they are only free to believe things that are true. These people, apparently, think that is too limiting.
But, Benjamin, pigs CAN fly. You just don't believe they can, so they won't do it while you're around.
Wow, that could open up a whole new can of worms in the fabric of the space-time continuum.
Oh, my god, I thought "vacuum" was the only word in English that had two Us in a row. I've failed as an English major.
Ben: Yes I see your point.
I keep thinking about free will and the more I think about it, the more it seems that people who are hard determinists (and don't believe in their own free will) can end up without free will. By accepting that you do things for reasons which you cannot understand, it seems that you concede power over your body and thoughts to physical urges and pure genetics. *muses apart a little space* (Who can guess the poem I am referencing! It's a new game!)
Demosthenes: In my experience neither grammatical correctness nor the ability to spell is particularly characteristic of English majors.
Touché. (:
I am still not certain what to think about free will. It seems to me that practically every system of thought in the world involves a surrendering of the free will - religions require, essentially, that you surrender your free will to God's will, while atheists "surrender" their free will to their physical impulses.
Any time that you do anything for a reason, it would seem to be a form of surrendering your free will, whether that reason is because you "should" or because you "feel like it." I keep coming back to the position that free will is an illusion, but as you mention, that has the flavor of a slippery slope.
I "feel" as though we must have free will (possibly as a result of growing up with Christianity, which emphasizes that), but I can't seem to figure out if it's true.
Hey, how are you doing? Hope all is well.
Hi Ben,
Let an old man give his take on the "free will" issue:
I know I am free, the same way that I know that I am. Knowledge of my existence does not come as a conclusion of some sort of argument; I know that I exist IMMEDIATELY. (Thomistic philosophy calls this "intuition", but they don't mean the sort of "intuition" that tells you to by a lottery ticket.) I know that I am, because... well, I just know, and I would be a liar to say that I don't know it, and a fool to try to create an argument for it (sorry, Descartes!)
IN THE SAME WAY, I know that I am free. There is no way (and no purpose) to develop an argument for my freedom. I know that I am, and that I am a choosing. If I am a chooser, of course I a free chooser, because an determined chooser wouldn't be choosing!
So, my freedom, like my existence, is an immediate (unmediated) sort of knowledge, which I cannot honestly deny.
Dad
But that's the deterministic argument. You are NOT choosing. The path you are taking was destined from the first instant in time.
...I don't agree. Certainly I am a chooser, I don't disagree with that - it is clear that I make decisions between a set of alternatives. However, I don't agree that a determined chooser is impossible. To choose means simply to select from alternatives (correct me if you're using a more philosophically imbued conception of the word); I can easily program a computer to choose between a red and blue square based on some set of criteria, for instance. The choice the program will make is completely deterministic, and given the same inputs it will make the same choice every single time, but it is still selecting from alternatives.
It is not reasonable, though, to propose that the computer has free will because it is engaged in the act of choosing.
I do feel as though there is something to your argument, which I interpret as "it's not really choosing if you're following preset laws," but with the above definition of choosing, it doesn't follow. And, in order to remedy the definition to include the idea of "free" in the word "choose," your argument becomes simply that it is self-evident that you are free.
Which, again, "feels" like it's true, but if you think about it, everything that we do has a reason. We choose, but we choose based on a set of inputs.
Think of it this way: If we make a choice than we have exercised free will. A thing which we might call "choice" would not be a choice at all if there were no alternative to making the "choice." For example, you couldn't say that I chose to come to work today if there were no possibility of my staying home. Thus your computer is programmed to make a selection between two options, but the selection which it makes could never be any different than it actually is. Ergo your computer does not actually make a choice.
That there is a REASON for our choices does not necessarily obstruct our free-will. For instance, I came in to work today because I have meetings which I did not want to miss and I didn't want to get fired. However, I could indeed have chosen to stay home. You have found your way deep into the crisis of this philosophical question, quite well done!
Now, the real question is that if I were able to accurately weigh either one of two options would I ever make the lesser choice knowing full well that it is the lesser? To deny that I might, is to deny free-will. In making the lesser choice I am exert my free will. We know that such decisions are in fact made, I have made them myself.
The great difficulty in our position is that we exist in time and so are never given to know what "might have been" and so we are not able to ever actually know if we could have chosen differently than we did.
The Reverend claims that free-will is intuitive in the same way as existence is intuitive (in the Aristotelian sense). I am afraid that this is the only way that such a thing can ever be known. It must be a first principle or it cannot be a principle at all. In the same way we know that we ourselves exist and that we are not the only things that exist.
To look at this issue from another angle:
I can argue that the universe is an illusion and that nothing other than myself exists in reality (a philosophical question a la Matrix). In this case the universe may or may not exist. The truth or falsity of this question cannot be proven or disproven by anything which is actually IN the universe as that thing may or may not it's self be an illusion. We are stuck with a difficult question with no possible answer.
The question is then not whether or not the universe exists, but whether or not I will act as if the universe exists. The universe is indifferent to my belief or disbelief, however I am not indifferent. The choice of which option I will believe makes a very real difference to how I will behave every day.
In the same way the question of free-will may in fact be unanswerable. However, there is a very real difference as to how I will behave if I believe in free will or if I do not believe in free will (of course the person who does not believe in free will can't say that, but I can).
There is the strong evidence of our personal experience arguing in favor of both a real universe and the reality of free will, but they do not appear to me to be truths which can be placed above question.
There certainly was a possibility of the computer making a different selection - but only if the inputs were different. For example, I might program a random number generator which makes a different selection every time you run it (I know they're not actually random, it just illustrates my point better).
The only situation in which you can reliably say the selection will be the same is one in which the inputs are exactly the same.
You could repeatedly place a human being in the path of an oncoming vehicle, too, and as long as the inputs are the same (no broken limbs, vehicle isn't a Tonka truck, subject isn't too Emo), the human being will always make the same selection - get out of the way.
I'm not sure how often people ever choose the "lesser" option, really. You might be lying in bed saying "damn it, I should really get to that meeting..." but if you stay in bed, you stayed because at the moment you made your choice, you wanted sleep more than meetings. There is always a reason - an input.
I'm also not certain how people would behave differently if they believed or did not believe in free will. It doesn't seem like it would make all that much difference to me, except maybe cases like Tao who decide to exert free will over thier belief systems.
It is an interesting question: Would the same person keep making the same decision over and over again if we could re-wind time for a second? The reasons why the decision were made will remain consistent and he would have no additional knowledge of the outcome, so it would make sense that he would make the same decision over and over again. Does that deny free-will or is he actually making the same choice over and over again?
Hmmm... I think we need to define the word choice... This is a very sticky problem!
choose
verb (used with object)
1. to select from a number of possibilities; pick by preference: She chose Sunday for her departure.
I see nothing wrong with this definition - Anyone else?
A more difficult term that I think we need to describe is "free will". I think that the way I have been using it is "the capacity to choose without cause." This may be slightly more controversial.
It is important to note that I am including nonmaterial causes in this statement - emotions, preferences, etc - things that we do not really have direct control over - not at the moment that we make any choice, at least.
Also, to anticipate an obvious objection:
It could be argued that although we do have reasons for our decisions, this does not necessarily preclude free will. This same argument, however, could as easily be applied to a rock once you drop it or a computer running a program. If you say that humans are free, but happen to always choose based on causes, then you must also say that stones are free, but happen to always choose based on gravity. There is no inherent difference between the two statements.
That's why I think my above definition of free will is the only one that works; if you omit the "without cause" part, it could be applied to anything.
My objection to the definition of choice is when you say that a stone rolling down a hill doesn't choose to go right or left, it will go right or left based on the slope and the application of certain physical laws. In the same sense it can be argued that human beings make don't actually choose they will go in one way or another based on certain laws. These laws are simply not transparent to the scientific method. Human motivation is too complex, is untestable and relies on self disclosure (and thus is subject to being misunderstood or misrepresented).
Doesn't the rock choose to fall to the ground? I suppose not because doesn't choice require reason?
Dad's suggestion has not been overcome though. We have a direct experience of making a choice, that our reason assists us in determining which option we will go with does not obliterate the experience of choice.
I suppose you cannot say that a rock "chooses," because a rock is not an entity that is capable of doing anything actively. As far as reason goes...I guess from my position of arguing against free will, I'd have to say that reason simply gives us more rules to follow than the rock has. We follow rules on a different level than the rock does, but we still follow rules.
Dad's suggestion has not been overcome per se, I simply don't see what difference it makes. We have a direct experience of choosing, but we do not have a direct experience of free will. Unless the act of choosing requires the possession of free will, this does not provide us with any evidence for the question at hand.
I'd like to ask Dad for a philosophical/theological definition of free will, however; I think clarifying that would be helpful.
Well, to pull back to the rock analogy and to presume determinism for a moment: The causes of a human action may be more complex than that of the rock, but they are equally pre-set and are equally invariable. In fact EVERYTHING falls under the scope of pre-determined reality, including our thoughts (which after all we only have because of certain other things or thoughts prompted us to have them). Thus it is simply a matter of complexity between the rock and the human. No actual "Choice" was made.
If it helps my definition of free-will from a post I have been working on is: that faculty which grants it's possessor the conscious ability to choose between multiple options.
This may or may not prove correct or useful!
The problem with that definition is that is essentially nullifies the entire argument. No one is going to argue that we don't choose between multiple options - it's obvious that we do.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing, of course, but it doesn't really address the difference between free will and determinism at all. It defines free will as something which is not in opposition to anything. I've always thought of free will as something beyond that somehow - although I must admit that I am unable to quantify exactly how.
Perhaps this definition is useful; perhaps the entire discussion is, as Dad seems to imply, a wholly man-made phenomenon that is difficult to discuss because the concepts don't actually exist. If free will is simply the ability to choose, then I'm not sure any commonly accepted definition of determinism would really be in opposition to that.
Either I totally misunderstand the whole issue or there are people who actually deny that we have the ability to choose. This is to be held distinct from things which we do which we do not choose to do, like falling out of an airplane if we are pushed. If you think about it this is what it would mean to deny free will, our previous experiences make it impossible to choose anything other than that which we do choose, and that means that there is no choice at all.
This is why I hold Father's position to be so powerful. It certainly CAN be argued against though.
Of course I may just be misunderstanding the opposition.
As the Old Man said, I, and everyone, has a direct experience of the act of choosing. It's not reasonable to argue against that. We certainly do make selections out of a set of options on a continuous basis.
The "fact" that our previous experience makes it impossible to choose something other than what we choose does not make the choice anything but a choice. It remains a choice completely regardless of your reasons for making that choice and of the predictability of that choice. The definition of the word "choice" has absolutely nothing to do with motivation.
There appears to be a popularly held connection between the words "choice" and "free will" which I was unaware existed. Dad's ideas, and the ideas which you just posted, appear to consider the two terms essentially synonymous. My problem with this is that it either lowers "free will" to a level that is true a priori or lifts "choice" up to the level of what we're arguing about.
Both results appear, at least to me, to be equally irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. We can either elevate choice to mean free will and start talking about the act of selecting, or we can define free will as something distinct from choice. All of this, as far as I can see, is semantics.
I am puzzled as to how a definition of free-will could exist without appealing to choice. To put that in the opposite way, if a person cannot actually choose between alternatives than I am not sure how he is in any way free (or in possession of a will for that matter).
Perhaps it would help me if you can try to articulate what you mean when you say that free-will should in some way be more than choice. I am hesitant to insist that I am correct, after all Bertrand Russel (in that article posted to my blog) argues for determinism but does not seem to be denying choice.
Well, we can use the definition I gave above, to choose without cause. Obviously any definition of free will must refer to choice, but it should not be synonymous.
I would say that the ability to choose should be "necessary but not sufficient" for the possession of free will. I hold it distinct because it can't really be argued that we don't choose; we obviously do. In order for a discussion on free will to have any relevance, it must mean something besides the ability to choose - if free will is simply the ability to make selections, then the conversation is over.
-Ben
Hmmm... to choose without cause? Would that actually make you "free?" It seems to me that that would be simple randomness. I don't think that anything which we do is purely unreflective, unbiological and unthinking. We lack the ability to be "purely creative," all our creativity and originality are purely derivative. By your definition we would not have free will, but we would still be (in part) masters of our own destinies.
I don't think that there is any disagreement between our positions other than that which you mention above, semantic. We disagree not about meaning but about the actual letters which we use to describe the meaning! Good talk!
Hi :)
Anyone read my blog?
No, I don't.
I prefer to read blogs that are interesting and well-written. Thanks for linking to yours, but I won't be back.
I've read every post you've made, in addition to your book. My opinion of you remains completely unaltered.
Megan said...
No, I don't.
I prefer to read blogs that are interesting and well-written. Thanks for linking to yours, but I won't be back.
So you draw conclusions from not even having the evidence - This bolsters my point of how you obtain information from others and not self.
Mr. Mandal said...
I've read every post you've made, in addition to your book. My opinion of you remains completely unaltered.
That is great. I particularly like the inability to reference a single point or after reading it all make one comment.
Well you did say you liked my post on silence so I'll just assume you liked more too but are so trapped by what others think that you can not say.
Love to you all, see ya :)
As I said on your blog, I made a point to refrain from commenting because I didn't think you'd appreciate it. I assure you, there were many times that I had something to say, but it probably would have served no purpose but to annoy you.
I like how you just made more assumptions about my and Megan's beliefs. Since you're making this a point, I'll clarify: Your post on silence was essentially the only one that I liked. Almost everything else I would probably argue against in some way or another, but refrained from doing so because it would have fallen upon deaf ears. I do not draw upon the thoughts of anyone else to disagree with you; I assure you, I think you're very wrong all by myself.
Megan had very clear evidence for drawing her conclusions - she considers your blog poorly written and uninteresting. There is nothing in that which implies that she is obtaining information from others.
Your continued assumptions about the people you're arguing with are quite amusing.
Tao, I didn't get information from anyone else when I made my decision that your blog is uninteresting and poorly written; I made it based on direct observation of your site. I would not accept any other sort of evidence about a blog's quality. I did not ask anyone else's opinion, although I see that you do have readers and from that I'll infer that you are serving an audience.
I find your ability to use English words without making sense in English very unusual. I'm not totally sure that I've fully responded to your concern about my comment. I'd forgotten all about this thread until you brought it up.
Post a Comment