From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Jan 20 2002 - 09:04:20 MST
[Hermit] If Yash had attempted to defend himself along these lines during
the non-discussion, and if Yash had shown some improvement from this
primitive attempt at defense during the non-discussion, Yash may have been
able to create at least the appearance of possessing sufficient mental
capacity to learn. Yash did not.
[Hermit] If Yash had chosen to acknowledge how very wrong he was on every
issue he asserted, there might be some point in continuing. Yash did not.
[Hermit] The plain fact is that when somebody is in as deep a state of
denial as Yash appears to be, only intensive therapy stands a chance of
correcting the situation. I know that I can usually break down the learning
barriers that thinking people have built around themselves in order to teach
them new things, but for this, the subject has to want to learn. It appears
to me that Yash has no desire to learn but only wishes to preach in order to
validate his beliefs - beliefs with which he has so identified, that he is
unable to separate himself from them. In my opinion, this is a clinical
situation and as I am not qualified to deal with clinical pathologies at any
level (other than to restrain them and get them to a doctor), I am reluctant
to attempt to deal with Yash.
[Hermit] I suspect that Yash has reached the level of memeplexion where he
is frightened witless that if his delusions are lost there will be nothing
left - this should be dealt with by a professional clinician. In addition, I
have a life, and a limited amount of time. Even if I thought that I had the
ability and could find the inclination, I simply cannot devote the time that
will be needed to attempt to bring Yash to recognize how ill he is, never
attempting to correct the mush Yash has made of his mind. Call it mental
triage. I choose to apply my time where it can make a difference. In Yash's
case, particularly considering his age, I am certain that this would be
wasted effort. And this is why I am and will be ignoring Yash, and advise
others to do the same.
[Hermit] So, rather than responding to Yash' assertions, I choose to use
this post as an example of why I consider the above to be the case.
[Yash asserts] I did show:
[Yash asserts] 1. The fallacies of his thinking with references from
Ruggiero's textbook as I asserted,
[Hermit thinks] This might be more convincing if (a) Ruggerio had been
shown to be valid and applicable, {b} if Yash had shown his assertions about
me or my views were true and supportable, and (c) if Yash had demonstrated
any signs that he was able to reason. The fact that (a),(b) and (c) were
omitted, means that this is not an argument, but another attempted insult.
One that misses the mark but points to the degree to which Yash is able to
delude himself into believing that he is thinking sufficiently well to
diagnose the cognitive faults of others. In fact, I suspect that the primary
reason that Yash makes the patently false claim that "Hermit thinks badly"
despite all evidence to the contrary is because this is the only way left to
Yash to allow himself to say to himself "Hermit cannot evaluate my thinking
because Hermit thinks badly." The same applies to Kirk Steele, but because
Kirk Steele is addressed the underlying condition, despite my having been
far more aggressive in handling Yash than Kirk Steele, Yash is reserving the
bulk of his screaming agitation for Kirk Steele. Makes you think, doesn't
it.
[Yash asserts] 2. His biases using the Kepler/Newton analogy
[Hermit notes] The fact that Yash has to continue with this invalid claim,
when it was clearly stated that in science, the person and their motives are
relevant only so far as credibility as concerned (viz the Scientific
Method), that it is peoples' works which are evaluated not their motivations
or life-style, is because he has invested so much of his ego in the premise
that his evaluation of his self-worth is now dependent on the validity of
the memeplex infesting him. The reality is that both Kepler and Newton made
massive substantiated discoveries, while Tirthaji did not. Tirthaji
plagiarized the ideas of others, and unlike Newton and Kepler (who both did
the same, but also had insights of their own), presumably was sufficiently
aware of their triviality, and so motivated to provide a respectable
scientific basis for his beliefs, that he fraudulently claimed that his
inventions were rediscoveries of the work of his ancestors (when the value
of PI he asserted that he had "found" would have been significant).
[Yash asserts] 3. References from a historical research work by Georges
Ifrah which show there was already three types of knowledge encoding schemes
at the time Haridatta dies, which Hermit conveniently chose (a) not to
completely read or (b) not to respond to.
[Hermit notes] Yash is unable to accept that it having been conclusively
demonstrated that Tirthaji forged the supposedly significant passages based
on knowing the encoding method, this point is irrelevant. Yash cannot allow
that the harebrained willow-the-whisp that he has asserted is so significant
and has devoted so much time to, is anything but. For anyone not invested in
this belief, this solution to the contradictions exposed (unprecedented
early knowledge of PI without subsequent development) is the logical
conclusion (which is why I noted it in my earliest posts). Yet Yash has
built his entire life around the supposition that knowledge may be "lost"
and can be "recovered" (using this technique), and has persuaded himself
that he can make a substantial name for himself on this predicate. For Yash
to acknowledge that he is so far of the rails that there isn't even a spoor
will require him to admit that his entire memplex is invalid and that he
only internalized it because he was to incompetent or to unlettered to
analyze the facts correctly.
[Yash asserts] 4. That this was a result of his trying to avoid the issue at
hand (doing the same kind of encoding scheme in a new language, which I
revised to make it in english), to which he hasn't contributed the
slightest.
[Hermit notes] I suspect that this assertion is placed primarily to support
(3) above. It makes no sense otherwise. Yet early in the non-discussion, I
mentioned how fallacious the basis of this proposal really is. Encoded works
are only significant if the "value" of the encoding is recognized. Which
means that they are of value only so long as the "encoded knowledge" is not
lost. Which means that Yash's asserted primary motivation is nonsense. It is
quite natural, but hardly helpful to Yash or to rationality, that Yash does
not, cannot, afford to acknowledge this.
[Yash asserts] On the other hand, all the assertions he made about the work
even before he reaad it have to be abcked up by him (he has tried to shift
the burden of proof several times, notably systematically using a Pi
chronology which I supposedly asserted along hte line, (this is masqueraded
as an investigation diversion), and then finally recently asking me to show
a date!!! Which only proves my point: there wasn't any to begin with.
[Hermit notes] My opinion of "Vedic Mathematics" decreased as I worked
through it, and I suspect that this would be the reaction of anybody with a
rational mindset and a background in mathematics. Anybody with the slightest
algebraic, or even mathematical background would recognize the triviality
and deficiencies of all the assertions made by it with the sole exception of
the 'ancient' PI assertion. Which had it not been fraudulent, would indeed
have been significant. Yash also fails to recognize that having asserted
that the value was "ancient" and Tirthaji's assertion of "rediscovery," that
the onus was upon him to substantiate his claims - that I was justified in,
after having done a careful investigation of his assertions in order to
debunk them, to call upon him to provide whatever evidence to the contrary
he may have been suppressing. While I suspect that it is partially Yash's
lack of an appropriate background that caused him to swallow the premises of
"Vedic Mathematics" and to invest so much effort into attempting to advocate
them, but this does not excuse his basic lack of understanding of the
scientific method or rational discussion.
[Hermit] It is worth noting the apparent aggitation with which this
paragraph was written and asking why this, rather than some of the more
direct approaches have upset Yash so much. I would suggest that Yash's
condition originated with Yash seeking some meaning and significance for his
own culture when he was exposed to the superior European culture and
technology. What a pity he stopped at Tirthaji instead of gaining a real
insight into why Indian intellectual prowess was doomed to collapse due to
the belief system (and political and caste system the beliefs necessitated)
and lack of commensurate advancement in the society in which it originated.
Until Yash faces up to this, there is little hope that what appears to be a
deep sense of cultural inferiority can be overcome.
[Yash asserts] But then, if you do like him and do not read how I showed the
fallacies nor the references, what can I do?
[Hermit] And here in a nutshell you have the reason why communicating with
Yash is futile. If you disagree with Yash, then you don't love him. It is,
to what Yash has of a mind, not Yash's arguments which are invalid, but that
you are so intellectually dishonest that you cannot comprehend its points.
He tells himself that because you don't love him, and because you are so
dishonest, that he can safely ignore you. As Kirk pointed out, this is
denial. Denial so deep, so thickly layered that there is no simple way to
penetrate it. And when a person is so firmly in the grip of a pernicious
memeset there is little point attempting to communicate with them. Anything
said to them will be filtered by their memplex so that they only hear
approval and agreement, anything that clashes with the memeplex will be
perceived as being caused by your stupidity and dishonesty. Which is how
they can remain calm no matter how their beliefs are assaulted. When they
insult, they are "just telling the 'truth'." Don't ever turn your back on
them, because their opinion of you also justifies whatever they choose to do
or say to or about you. Sad really.
[Hermit concludes] So please don't be surprised when I do not respond to
Yash's ravings in detail in future. It will be in order to reduce the list
volume and to attempt to persuade him to stay quiet and listen.
[Hermit] On moderation:
The following is not an "official view" - nobody died and appointed me god,
but describes how we have handled the need for moderation in the past, and
how it may apply to the current situation. It should be noted that any
action taken would have four principle objectives.
1) This is our church, and we have a very clear purpose of discussion and
the advocacy of atheist, rational thought. We are hardly "topic nazis," but
are entitled to determine that certain subjects are not appropriate in our
forum. Anyone is not only welcome to join in, but is invited to do so,
<em>if they subscribe to our aims</em>. Nobody is justified in abusing our
"pulpit" to advocate a position with which the church disagrees. Simple
decency requires that such a person build their own church or list (or if
necessary we will help them to set one up) and those who wish to hear what
they have to say may join it.
2) When the volume on the list increases beyond what is reasonable, members
begin to fall behind, people are forced to skip posts, and many will choose
to leave, not having the time to devote to following the discussions. In
other words, the purpose for which we exist can be nullified by too high a
level of posting. People that may be causing this problem will be requested
to change their habits if it becomes apparent that they are potentially
causing harm (and this request has been made of Yash). While there are no
fixed limits and it will depend on the contents and to some extent the
poster, at a certain point, where people cannot or will not moderate their
own posting habits, we may have to act to prevent harm.
3) We do not suppress thought, expression or discussion. When, in the very
few occasions in the past it became apparent that we had to protect the list
from a particular problem, we have asked the problem posters to change, and
when it became apparent that they could or would not, and that moderation
was required to protect the list, the route we have taken is to initially
declare certain subjects "off-topic" and to redirect postings on that topic
to an alternate list. Where that still did not suffice (on only one occasion
to date), we have routed all submissions by or about that poster to an
alternate list.
4) We have not removed people who have created problems from the list, but
have suspended their ability to post to this list. It is after all possible
that such a "suspended person" will learn from the discussions which occur
here.
Have we reached the point where any of this becomes necessary with Yash? In
my opinion, not yet. If Yash persists in "spamming the list" or advocating
his beliefs (as opposed to discussing them) on this mail list, despite
appeals for him to moderate his own behavior, we may take a vote, not to ban
him, but, if the mail list agrees (and if no alternate mechanism has been
established by then), to direct mail from him to an alternate list where
those interested can subscribe and hear what he has to say, while allowing
him to continue to receive mail from this list. In order to keep this fair,
and to stop people from discussing him where he cannot respond, should this
step be taken, we would agree not to discuss Yash or his views here.
[Hermit] My recommendation to Yash is that he consolidate his many opinions
into more structured "aggregated" posts which would reduce the volume and
might indicate that he actually gave them some thought before pressing send.
Regards
Hermit
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:40 MDT