Fresh from South Carolina’s East Butthurt River PS-1 (aka “Thurd graid siunce clas / Cumunitee Collej / Bowlin’ Allee & Gloree Hole Emporium”), comes the delightfully mondaine, world-wise bon vivant, and all-around incandescent Wildean wit orcenio, sibling-sybarite sophistique!
orcenio, Excrement Connoisseur Extraordinaire and two-time winner of the Nobel Farting Prize, happily brought his vast scientific experience and acumen from the “thurd graid” to the Why does evolutionary psychology get such a bum rap? thread in GD, as follows:
What a clever bon mot, no? Dorothy Parker, move over! And that devastating put-down suggesting that I should be among those incredibly stupid “philosophy majors”! Hilarious! What a bunch of morons! I guess if you’re too stupid to get into Stanford’s Industrial Arts fast-track doctorate program, the only lower rung is dumb-ol’ philosophy! Can ya’ stand it? What a great zinger he laid me so low with!
Wait – “Dorothy Parker”, what am I saying? Shoot, move over Larry the Cable Guy! Who the hell knows who Parker is anyway? Larry’s the Big Guy for we sophisticates!
I’m ashamed to have to sheepishly admit that all my tiny little philosopher’s brain could come up with in reply to that level of stellar scientific subtlety was:
Well, orcenio sure made me pay for that one! Sheee it! What a painful and humbling experience it was to have to face the the pain of shame from the astute, agile mind of BUDDING BACHELOR OF SCIENCE super-egghead orcenio! He sure is nobody’s fool, yessiree! Here is his nimble, masterful reply: orcenio strikes back!
Ouch! How will I ever recover from that!
I’ll just be cryin’ my stupid ol’ babyish philosopher’s tears over here… Don’t look!
Please explain your reasoning. I’m genuinely curious why you think mocking such an infantile rant from orcenio makes me look like an idiot. Did you read all the back and forth?
Please explain your reasoning. I’m genuinely curious why you think mocking such an infantile rant from sub-moronic orcenio makes me come off worse considering orcenio’s posts. Did you read all the back and forth?
This was a little argument, about almost nothing at all, on a message board. You have posted stuff that a normal adult wouldn’t post over a mass-murder. You seem over-excited about trivia. That’s all. I don’t owe you an explanation. Your posts in the linked thread and here make you look, to me, like a complete ass.
That’s not an explanation, you’ve merely repeated yourself. I can’t help but suspect that you’re basing your insults on too little reading of the thread in question or perhaps too little comprehension.
Please try again. I honestly do not understand the basis of your insults.
Well, you’re psychic powers appear to be malfunctioning. I do not detect the smarminess you speak of. Can you specify your criticism in a more complete and straightforward way, please?
Let me try again. You’re saying that a dispute over the actual nature and character of working science and what distinguishes science from pseudo-science – whether it’s a 5’th grade-level textbook large-block-letter recipe or a dazzlingly complex and enormously sophisticated intellectual endeavor, rife with epistemological and other philosophical difficulties that even many scientists don’t understand – is “a little argument, about almost nothing at all”.
Look, whatever the relative merits or demerits of orcenio’s posts in that other thread (and I am neither defending nor condemning them here), in both threads you’re coming across as a pompous dickhead so convinced of your own intellectual superiority that you think that bluff, bluster and sesquipedalian abuse constitute a valid rebuttal of your opponent’s position. They don’t, and your continued supercilious attitude merely reinforces the opinions expressed in this thread about your particular chosen tenor of discourse.
At this point you could present a detailed critique of Einstein’s theories and I wouldn’t give it any credence because you’ve effectively stamped the words “I am a pretentious twat” across your virtual forehead, thus indicating that the actual value of anything you’ve written is likely to be low.
Has comprehension struck yet, or do we need to use a few more long words before you begin to consider that maybe you’re going about making your points in the wrong way?
That’s always been the way I write. I actually advanced from grammar and high school, at least a little bit, anyway. Complain to my… never mind, can’t admit I’m not one of you, I know! Read my other posts in that and other threads and kindly accept my apology for not being sufficiently learned to match your reading level. Epistemology and the philosophy of science uses all those big poseur words 'n stuff, but I just cut & paste 'em from Wikipedia without knowing what they mean, I 'spose I gotta admit that. You found me out, blast you!
From your post, it is abundantly clear that I can learn a great deal from sitting at your feet for a few decades, oh sage. Whose version of pragmatism do you prefer, for example, RR’s or CP’s?