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.
Gilbert and Dr. K. A.: It was so long ago that I can’t remember the model numbers, but I too wrote FORTRAN for the blue boxes. I’m amazed you can remember the models. I also wrote BASIC code for Tek 4051s. The first (but not recognized as such) personal computers.
Robin Hewitt says:
April 13, 2014 at 6:01 am
If it is psychobabble you have to replace “97%” with “up to 100%”.
Up to and including 100%
Such psychobabble horse hockey. Computers will never take over the world and the same goes for shrinks.
Dr K.A. Rodgers says:
April 13, 2014 at 5:12 am
Gilbert K. Arnold says: …1123?
How about a 1620??
I cearly have more grey hair than thee.
____________________________________________
There was a 1130 a nice small machine that had a 1132 printer and a 1800 but the only references to a 1123 isn’t to a machine. Now there were one off special systems.
I got started on an 1130 and also had access to both an 1800 and 1620.
Around seventy years ago my parents insisted that I read a terribly earnest weekly publication called ‘The Childrens Newspaper’. It occassionaly contained some lighter news items and one was on a competition held in the USA to devise a new word.
The winner was a noun – ‘Bafflegab’, which was defined as:
‘Multiloquence, characterised by a consumate interfusion of circumlocution, periphrases, inscrutability, incognisablity and similar manifestations of obtruse expation commonly utilised for implementing procrustean determinations by governmental bodies’
In otherwords official ‘flannel’ (CAGW Papers?)
I don’t know how my ROM has retained this piece of trivia, but it has.
whoops obtruse = abstruse
Sherry Moore says:
April 13, 2014 at 6:12 am
ha! Late night self abuse, then, should only be used as a canon for the Ideal. Let us apply this to climate physics.
Let’s not forget the Shakespeare Insult Generator, who wouldn’t like to say “Thou reeky flap-mouthed lout!”to the AGW moonbats
http://www.pangloss.com/seidel/Shaker/
__________________________
Where’s Magma now that we need him?
I wish to raise two points which I believe are relevant in the climate community:
1.) First, if you wish to retain credibility in the climate community you must release the code and the data so that people of the requisite skill set may ascertain the veracity of your findings.
2) The second item is a definitive test. If one parses at least two Lew(andowsky) Papers and submits the data to your program and it’s internal algorithms, and then examines the output — what can one determine was produced? Does your algorithm, produce:
a) Another incite-ful and erudite Lew-Paper?, or does it produce:
b) Loo-paper of the type that is available at most supply houses.
Only in this way can we arrive at the truth of the matter.
Respectfully and sincerely,
Will
sides ache, laughing to hard to contribute effective psychobabble for BOT enhanced BS peer review worthy paper generation, at this time of living dangerously requiring 99.99% certainty CAGW induced Super El Nino Godzilla will require the of virgins.
“Warming over the warm pool has accelerated the recurrent postulation of the 97% consensus in recent decades. Therefore, a close monitoring of that warming is important for long-term variations and modeled inconsistency with an acceleration in the amplitude of deniers, taking into account the juxtaposition of public awareness toward the various observations and lack of sustained commitment among the consensus in observations over the spectrum. This poses constraints in the results, irrespective of all empirical conditions.”
Analise that..
Eric Worrall,
Thanks for all the fun at Lewandowsky’s unprofessional expense.
The material at the link which was created by your program calls forth this mental image:
John
WillR
I wish to raise two points which I believe are relevant in the climate community:
1.) First, if you wish to retain credibility in the climate community you must release the code and the data so that people of the requisite skill set may ascertain the veracity of your findings.
Sharing data and method is not a requirement in the field of climate science. As a leading climate scientist once explained, nobody ever asks for data and method in the climate science community, they just take a chap’s word for it that they got their sums right – http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18599-climategate-scientist-questioned-in-parliament.html#.U0qiOa2SyWU
DirkH
Never forget the leading light of the New Left, Noam Chomsky.
I’m trying to avoid adding the names of people who might sue me… 🙂
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE! You just gave the Warmmongers a frighteningly powerful weapon! They’ll be churning out paper after paper now. lol. I wonder if any of those generated would pass peer review. har har. Probably.
(for the Mod, I posted as “Gene” last time. Sorry. That’s my anonymous name for posting to the mainstream. I forgot where I was. No need for puppets here.)
Steve Case says:
April 13, 2014 at 2:50 am
Speaking of bullshît I had to look up what DIY means.
DIY = Destroy It Yourself.
From Wikipedia:
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate
Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:
1.tend to overestimate their own level of skill;
2.fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
3.fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
4.recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill.
Yes, that applies to the Warmistas, well not point 4, unfortunately 🙂
Chomsky has done something very useful and enlightening for us. In his book
“The Washington Connection and Third World Fascism (Political Economy of Human Rights)” he spends a lot of time demonstrating that the MSM cleave to a particular establishment ideology. They deliberately print falsehoods and when those are pointed out, they do not print retractions.
Chomsky faced the same problem skeptics have with the MSM. He documented the problem thoroughly and proved that the MSM operates as the establishment propaganda agency, all without any need for government censorship.
North of 43 and south of 44 says:
You are correct. It was an 1130. If memory serves me correctly the 1130 was intended to be the I/O terminal for the larger Model 360’s… I have worked on 360-40, 360-44, and a 360-50… beeg honkin’ pieces of machinery. Tape drives, and 7-disk disk packs. Multiple sets of each…
John Whitman, that image is not nice. I’m just about to go to bed and I’m sure it is going to give me bad dreams…
Pretty comprehensive statement about the “science” of psychology: it can be replaced by a random BS generator.
Th only thing more painful than these academic wannabes begging for academic recognition & respect is watching the media try to give it to them. Lesson learned: be careful who your friends are…and save money by not scribing to the (possibly randomly generated) Psychology Today.
Dilbert Jargonator on steroids.
I see you are using kant.cgi. Is it the “Critique of Pure Baloney”? To be true to Kant, you would generate paragraph-long sentences. When I read actual Kant a long time ago in high school, the words made sense, I thought I was following the arguments, but frequently by the time I got to the end I couldn’t be sure what to conclude. I could reread the text a couple times, and eventually I got it. The problem was, upon finishing, there wasn’t any amazing take-home lesson. There was much more to be gained from reading Locke, Hume, Nietzsche, and many others. Maybe I would get more from Kant today, but I’d rather read A Game of Thrones by George R R Martin, or reread the Silmarillion by J R R Tolkien for the third time. Or, I could just go back to R / python. Yes, that sounds like fun.
Sounds like something Nuccitelli would write.
Also sounds suspiciously like Lew’s latest:
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rfSpeech2.html
Eric Worrall says:
April 13, 2014 at 7:46 am
WillR Says…..
I wish to raise two points which I believe are relevant in the climate community:
1.) First, if you wish to retain credibility in the climate community you must release the code and the data so that people of the requisite skill set may ascertain the veracity of your findings.
Sharing data and method is not a requirement in the field of climate science. As a leading climate scientist once explained, nobody ever asks for data and method in the climate science community, they just take a chap’s word for it that they got their sums right
Clearly you are just another so-called Skeptic <em>playing fast and Lews with un-commonly accepted standards.
Shameful indeed.
Free the code — free the data!
I see Commie Bob has mentioned the Sokal Affair. Here it is again if you haven’t read it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
Such a brilliant prank!