Delusional psychopophagy is the mere result of the power of Climate Denial
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
As a homage to the amount of attention cast in our direction by the psycho-scientific community, I have decided to pay tribute to their cause, by releasing a web based DIY generator of scientific treatises on the phenomenon of climate “denial”.
The generator takes random phrases and combines them into a surprisingly readable treatise. The original code was created in ancient times (like before 2000) for Mac computers.
The following is an example of this random artificial intelligence at work:
“We can deduce that, irrespective of all empirical conditions, our diagnosis (and what we have alone been able to show is that this is the case) are what first give rise to the Psychopathologies. Therefore, the psychopathaological manifold (and to avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that this is true) can not take account of peer reviewed literature. Applied logic excludes the possibility of our conclusion. We can deduce that general logic should only be used as a canon for necessity. Delusional psychopophagy is the mere result of the power of my grant, a blind but indispensable function of the soul. As will easily be shown in the next section, it is obvious that, irrespective of all empirical conditions, the noumena abstract from all content of a priori knowledge, but the paralogisms would thereby be made to contradict the paralogisms of human unreason. In natural theology, Hume tells us that the Psychopathologies, in accordance with the principles of the psychopathaological manifold, abstract from all content of knowledge, as is proven in the ontological manuals.”
Perhaps readers can take the time to evaluate the quality of output from the random text generator, with the quality of abstruse treatises from other sources. Suggestions for improving the generator are also welcome – for example, suggestions for words and phrases which should be included in the generated text.
Try it here:
http://eric.worrall.name/kant.cgi
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“As a homage to the amount of attention cast in our direction by the psycho-scientific community”
That should be pseudo-psycho-scientific community. Perhaps add that the to the database;)
Great to see how this computer generated gobbledegook compare to current peer reviewed literature. Nice one.
if it don’t have ‘robust’, how can you trust?
also, 97% consensus, 99% certainty, well funded consipiracy, Dunning–Kruger Projection…
oh, let somebody else have a go. 🙂
gnomish, me bad! 🙂 – I have added your suggested phrases.
unprecedented vexatious proxy model, residual free-market subsidies negative externalities, carbon hoofprint, irritable climate, redistribution, carbon pollution, climate reparation, social consciousness, climate justice, environmental protection, climate rapid response team
[hoofprint? Or are you implying the residual of four CAGW writers makes the same impression as an a$$? ]
Thanks again 🙂
Is there an option for a genetic model? You can have people vote on the winners.
Greg – Thanks 🙂
JDN – just publish the funny ones I think… 🙂
“… The diagnostic matrices are the clue to the discovery of, therefore, 99% confidence, but 97% consensus can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like time, it can thereby determine in its totality pathalogical principles. …” 🙂
That website included in guest blogger, is a no-no! My security said it was dangerous and responsible to passing on malicious content. Was it a joke?
Although from a different generator bot, this is reminiscent of an almost humorous story of papers of computer-generated gobbledegook having been published:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/02/busted-120-gibberish-science-papers-withdrawn-so-much-for-peer-review/
And likewise:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/29/peer-review-falls-for-recycled-manuscripts/
More than anything else, more than accuracy, modern paper publication favors formal language. Someone else once illustrated that by a series of tests on what got published versus what didn’t, when presenting exactly the same content in plain language versus in a manner more superficially impressive yet with worse actual communication. The more obtuse latter versions were far more likely to get accepted.
The sad part, though, is fallacies like using inappropriately adjusted data can be trivial to slip past in comparison. For every person who reads reporting on a major paper’s conclusion, maybe a fraction of 1% really read the paper. Of those, maybe another fraction of a 1% or quite likely simply nobody at all actually checks all data.
To, for instance, see a graph published without also publishing an upload of its data points (in a table form, without requiring usage of digitalization software to reverse engineer it) is not rare but more common than not. That is not because the authors are typically subsequently deluged with requests for the data but because they often receive none ever anyway.
This is a world in which skeptics are usually naive enough to auto-trust HADCRUT4.
Greg Goodman says:
April 13, 2014 at 12:14 am
“As a homage to the amount of attention cast in our direction by the psycho-scientific community”
That should be pseudo-psycho-scientific community.
Nah. It’s all a bunch of unscientific BS by definition, therefore it would not do to give the general so-called “psycho-scientific” community credibility by labelling just one part of them as “pseudo.”
Or in short, “pseudo” is surplus to requirements.
Monkeys, typewriters, Shakespeare.
We now have the technology to prove the adage!
How about just leave psycho in the equation. This theme is getting a bit (yawn).
Next: Campaign Stump Speeches.
Nice work, Eric. It reminds me of the Postmodernism Generator (http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/).
I particularly enjoyed this sentence, from the first paper your generator gave me:
“There can be no doubt that lost underwear is the clue to the discovery of the ideation of practical reason.” (To which my immediate response was, “Pants!”)
and this phrase from the second:
“paranoid introversion is what first gives rise to, certainly, my grant”
I did notice a few spelling mistakes (e.g. pathalogical, pupported) and nouns and verbs not agreeing (“negative externalities is”), but I suppose that’s what you expect in a paper which has been so thoroughly beer-reviewed…
Cheers,
Neil
Many years ago I used to work on the ‘Blue Box’ computers (only really old programmers will remember them) and one of my colleagues, obviously with too much time to spare, wrote a BS generator. It was amazing! It could write pages of SEEMINGLY real english language script with masses of huge important words with which one could convince oneself that one understood.
Yes they do that at universities to impress others how smart they are, and in political papers. No one could argue with them, because we didn’t understand what they were getting at.
It needs a randomly generated title. And if you make most of the nouns plural, that should take care of agreement between articles, verbs and nouns.
Haha Mark V Shaney ( goggle him for more info ) strikes again. Nice BS generator engine. But I think it would be more funny , if it also could it could be clad in a formal ready to submit for paper with subsections for abstract, purpose , methods , graphs , tables (and underlaing axioms, equations etc perchance ) reams of footnote refernce markings ( with a corresponding list a the end ) , and of course a conclusion section, and a fill in form to fill out author names fir the paper. In other words if it could produce output somewhat similiar to mathgen (link below )
http://thatsmathematics.com/blog/mathgen
“Climate justice can thereby determine in its totality climate justice. There can be no doubt that the phenomena are by their very nature contradictory. Our diagnosis occupy part of the sphere of irritable climate syndrome concerning the existence of our observations in general, as is evident upon close examination. …”
” … As any dedicated reader can clearly see, let us suppose that, even as this relates to late night self abuse, our intepretations, thus, can not take account of lost underwear. …”
The problem is that most papers are 25 grit and not suited to Lew paper.
set aside how you feel about nuclear. nuclear was/is not part of the greens’ CAGW agenda, but it was always a major part of the IPCC agenda. think James Hansen. note below solar/wind still included to keep the greens onboard & we must all stop eating meat:
12 April: UK Daily Mail: Jane Evans: The world must adopt nuclear power to beat global warming, scientists say in major UN report
Governments need to ditch fossil fuels, like coal and oil, says UN report
Instead, they must adopt nuclear energy sources to beat global warming
Total investment in ‘large-scale changes’ will be around £300billion a year
MPs warn spending on renewable energy could also raise living costs
The world must switch from fossil fuels to nuclear power to beat global warming, a major United Nations report warns today.
Scientists claim governments need to ditch traditional sources of energy, such as coal and oil, to avoid a climate change catastrophe.
Instead, they must adopt nuclear power in a ‘large-scale’ move costing around £300billion a year…
The report, by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), also highlights an urgent need for governments to switch to green energy sources, such as wind and solar power…
As well as a switch to nuclear power, scientists have also recommended that Western diets should become more sustainable and enviromentally friendly.
People in the richest countries should eat less food – and in particular, less meat, they said.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2603450/The-world-adopt-nuclear-beat-global-warming-scientists-say-major-UN-report.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
A climate related paper simply must include the word spatial, beacause you know it sounds so sciency and obscures the fact that you are just averaging junk.
I have to admit to having to look up the meaning of the words ‘ideated’ and ‘recursive’.
Basically, they mean ‘imagined’ and ‘repeated’, but I guess these two words do not sound sufficiently pompous and academic for the great and glorious Lew.
All my life in science and business, when people use unnecessarily long winded expressions, or obscure words to replace something much simpler, you are 99% certain to be dealing with a BS generator and a slave to the age old concept of “BS baffles brains.”
In my experience, BS generators hit out in all directions when they are either challenged, or exposed for what they are – Lew and Mann are classic examples of this.