Well that works even better actually!
What the hell is Uncanny Valley? A salad dressing for vampires?
I know darling, you always are looking out for me, but I just can’t help it. You know I only drink Mescal for the taste.
It’s when a human simulacrum is almost perfect but not quite and the human brain responds with visceral revulsion. In the context used it was talking about the computer animation in Avatar. It was coined to refer to our reactions to androids. It refers to the space in between a real human and the simulacrum. Basically it’s worse for something to be very nearly human than it is for something to not look human really at all. Think C3P0 vs a Replicant. If you realize the replicant is a robot it’ll disturb you more than C3P0 ever would.
mswas, we have had some differences in the past, and sometimes I thought your arguments were confused or you yourself were fundamentally addled. But I must say that this is perhaps the most idiotic statement I’ve ever seen you offer.
Of course, I intend no insult. Rather, I simply note that you have risen to heights heretofore unimagined. Congratulations! You win the pony.
Aww shucks.
If you think people who type LOL are annoying, how about people who say “LOL” in the real world instead of actually laughing? THAT FUCKING PISSES ME RIGHT OFF. Don’t say “LOL” when something is funny you fuck! Just laugh! @#(@*Q&@(&3(@&#@(*&#@@(#~~!~!!!
Deep breaths.
Yes, but WTF is “naive positivist scientism”? It sounds positively dreadful, what with the word “naive” right there in it.
This thread is a failstrom.
I want to know the answer to this too, 'cause it sounds like fun!
I actually have an idea of what he means, but I’d like to hear mswas’s definition, and perhaps some firm examples of the “naive positivist scientism” he’s witnessed on his board.
The term “scientism” seems to exist mainly as an epithet; its adherents—much like racists, wingnuts, and “Obama worshippers”—apparently seldom self-identify and must be classified from without.
Just a guess, but it sounds like “people who put blind faith in science”.
That’d be mine as well. However that’s still a very broad definition. For instance, I have a passing understanding of how planes fly – yet I have what I believe to be a very rational confidence in them getting me from point A to point B safely. Similar lines of reasoning apply to any number of technological and/or scientific advances and concepts. I need not understand them completely to accept their validity.Then there are things that I simply don’t understand and/or don’t care to study in any depth, such as, say, Quantum Mechanics. Thus I have nothing to say about its credibility.
Does that qualify as “naive positivist scientism”?
‘Naive Positivist Scientism’ is when people invoke scientific theories when they have no clue what they’re talking about. But I’m not going to get into that as it was a joke. **Maeglin **made a comment in another thread about a book about the fact/value dichotomy and said that it made a great case against ‘naive positivist scientism’, so I said I loved the term and was going to go out and abuse it, so I dropped it in this thread.
But what I am talking about is when someone starts off and says something to the effect of, “You’re totally wrong.”, and then their rebuttal agrees with you completely.
It may to someone else, but I wouldn’t call it as such. What makes it naive is when you don’t accept the limits of your own knowledge and overreach for ideological reasons. IE, you make a scientific argument knowing that you don’t really know what you’re talking about but you are pretty certain that the person you are arguing against will know even less and won’t call you on your shit.
“Blind faith” is a trait of a religion, usually. A religion based on science… would that be called, what, Scientology? Nevermind, that’s stupid.
Oh. That doesn’t sound like as much fun.
I thought it might mean someone like me. Like, “Everything is both true and false, but it’s all good.”
I suppose I could call that “goofy optimistic skepticism”. 
No, see, Blind Faith is a late 60’s blues rock group. You are Ginger Baker’s 2nd biggest pet peeve.
Done.