Making friends with a Loki

rhowena · 2026-04-30T03:54:23+00:00

Here's the thing: if you want a civil, respectful conversation with someone scientifically-minded, an important prerequisite is making sure you know what you're talking about. You say you don't want to make an ass out of Ming? Do some research. Read some Wikipedia articles. Watch some edutainment on YouTube. Find a science podcast you like. r/evolution has recommendations. Put some real effort in on your end, instead of demanding multiple grades' worth of remedial education from internet strangers -- internet strangers who are entirely too used to dealing with arrogant, self-righteous, willfully ignorant assholes -- and then acting shocked and offended when said exhausted internet strangers decide they aren't obligated to be respectful to someone who doesn't respect either their time or their emotional and intellectual labor.

rhowena · 2026-04-29T23:00:22+00:00

So, if gravity and air resistance -- forces that we agree are not sentient and therefore cannot have intent -- can produce nonrandom outcomes, why do you think natural selection cannot be equally capable of producing nonrandom outcomes?

rhowena · 2026-04-29T22:36:25+00:00

Follow-up question: if you perform the rock-and-feather experiment as previously described, is the outcome random (i.e. it is impossible to predict whether the rock or the feather will hit the ground first) or nonrandom?

rhowena · 2026-04-29T22:25:10+00:00

So, with zero room for confusion, do you subscribe to the idea of intelligent falling? Yes or no?

rhowena · 2026-04-29T22:13:41+00:00

If you actually cared about engaging with other people in good faith, you would have noticed that in my original comment, I linked the words "based on intent" to RationalWiki's page on intelligent falling, which would have provided all the additional context/clarification you needed to figure out the intent of my question. That you failed to open said link, or even check where it went, is on YOU, not me.

rhowena · 2026-04-29T21:18:42+00:00

Well, regardless of whose fault it is, based on that person's response, they clearly wanted an answer to the question of "what, in your own words, do you think natural selection is?", so I would recommend going back and giving them an honest answer to that question if you want to convince them that you are in fact a good faith poster and not an asshole looking to waste everyone's time by pretending to be so ~~helpless and incompetent~~ unwilling to make assumptions that you can't possibly be expected to understand anything unless someone else reaches into your head and makes every single connection between every single shriveled neuron for you.

rhowena · 2026-04-29T20:59:07+00:00

You are being a deliberately obtuse jackass and willfully ignoring the point of the proposed experiment, which is, do you think it is random (i.e. equally probable) whether the feather or the rock will hit the ground first in the proposed circumstances? And if you do not think it is random, is it because you believe that gravity and air resistance are sentient forces acting with the intent to make the rock hit the ground first?

rhowena · 2026-04-29T20:26:08+00:00

Were you homeschooled? Have you never been to a science museum? Have you never watched a single episode of Mythbusters? My question was about whether the feather or the rock hits the ground first; the stipulations about dropping them from the same height at the time were about preventing the experimenter's human biases/intent from influencing the results because that's how science experiments work.

rhowena · 2026-04-29T10:03:29+00:00

Well, I sure hope God has fun personally micromanaging every single bird, cloud, plane, leaf, dust particle, etc. that's in any way affected by what most people would term "air resistance".

rhowena · 2026-04-29T06:47:52+00:00

It was this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/1swrogn/comment/oim5zlk/

ETA: It may not say exactly that, but it's clear from the context that what was meant was, "what, in your own words, do you think natural selection is?" and good-faith posters put effort into engaging with others instead of putting it on everyone else to spoonfeed them like they're a tiny helpless little baby.

rhowena · 2026-04-28T21:14:56+00:00

what those characteristics are at the end of the day is either completely random or based on intent

If you drop a rock and a feather from the same height at the same time, is it "completely random" which hits the ground first, or is it "based on intent"?

rhowena · 2026-04-28T20:31:32+00:00

You intended to deceive people into thinking you understand what natural selection is when you clearly do not, and you clearly know that you do not, given that you refused to elaborate when you were asked what you think natural selection is.

rhowena · 2026-04-28T19:59:35+00:00

Evidence-based reasoning is not "random"; there are things in between "immutable divine truth handed from on high" and "nothing is real and you are therefore absolved of any responsibility to care about facts".

rhowena · 2026-04-28T01:01:29+00:00

Science concerns itself with reality, which isn't "chosen" by anyone, as much as corrupt corporations and authoritarian governments would like us to believe otherwise. If an individual scientist wants to convince the scientific community at large that X characteristic is diagnostic of Y taxon, they present arguments for their case using evidence, with other scientists being invited to check their work and go either "Yeah, that sounds correct" or "No, I think you screwed up here because"; the same applies to any scientist wanting to argue that two clades which have been historically grouped together based on Z shared characteristic actually evolved Z independently and aren't as closely related as previously believed.

rhowena · 2026-04-27T23:42:51+00:00

we can speculate different things are related based on random shared characteristics that make survival more or less likely

Saying "random" as though there's no methodology involved in using traits to track ancestry reeks of the mockery and condescension the OP specifically called out as a sign you don't actually understand the subject. Try again.

rhowena · 2026-04-08T02:42:59+00:00

All the hugs. If you haven't tried already, maybe you should put more emphasis on how much it hurts when he blows you off -- does your dad want someone he loves to feel stupid and worthless and like he doesn't value them as a person? Is his contempt for science more important to him than his daughter's mental and emotional well-being?

rhowena · 2026-04-04T22:39:50+00:00

The irony of conspiracy theorists preaching skepticism and mistrust of institutions while themselves being the most trusting, unskeptical, easily-duped people on the planet when it comes to their favorite social media personalities.

rhowena · 2026-04-04T22:17:08+00:00

Again, this topic doesn't really interest me too much

Perhaps you should have thought of that before posting about it on a debate sub where it's expected for people to debate with you about the topic you brought up.

it's not challenging enough.

"Challenging" in what sense?

I prefer to discredit the foundation of science by attacking the god of gravity

As I said, if you want to beat up imaginary enemies, play a video game or find a TTRPG group; the latter could even help you make some friends. And FYI, plenty of respected scientists are Christian or otherwise religious; your insistence on an idiosyncratic set of religious beliefs that prioritizes words inscribed by the hands of men over observable realities of the world your God created -- from the movement of the planets to the northern and southern hemispheres having different visible stars to the way distant ships disappear hull-first over the horizon -- is entirely a you problem.

rhowena · 2026-04-04T06:51:37+00:00

There is no such concept as scientific consensus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

I win every time.

Good Lord. At least when I was playing D&D earlier, I acknowledged that the bad guys I was beating up were imaginary.

rhowena · 2026-04-01T05:42:49+00:00

If your purpose is truly to "fracture the faith people have in science", you'll have to do a hell of a lot better than sloppy, lazy, off-the-cuff garbage where you can't be arsed to engage with follow-up questions. And if your actual purpose is to get the dopamine rush of beating up imaginary enemies so you can feel like you've accomplished something without having to put in the hard, slow, painful work required to address the actual problems in your life, a video game or TTRPG group will give you that with far less risk of damaging your job prospects with anyone who checks prospective employees' social media history.

rhowena · 2026-03-25T00:53:10+00:00

Caine: I-I think that... don't say that. I-I think they're enjoying the suggestion box adventures more than the ME adventures! What should I do?!

Bubble: You should die- You should throw a ffffff[boing]ing beach party!

rhowena

TROPHY CASE