Hilarious Peer Reviewed Climate Hoax: "The conceptual penis as a social construct"

Gunga Din says “Someone who says something that they believe to be true but is not, or turns out to not be true (I’ll pick you at 5 but then have a flat tire at 4:45) is still a liar.”
No. There’s a reason that the word “lying” is different than “mistaken”. Both are wrong, lying is intentionally wrong and thus has a moral component. Being mistaken does not have a moral component although it might challenge your knowledge ability.

gnomish writes “connie hamza you are not”
Amazing! Scotland Yard needs you.
“we won’t be having any conversation about logic”
Drat, I was so looking forward to it.
“but here we have a chance to examine your fabulous ‘mind mods’.”
Yes, but not directly. I cannot probe myself but by observing the actions of other people (you) as they interact with me, calibrated to a baseline of you interacting with others as differenced by my interaction with others, I can see how I alter your behavior and in that manner can detect something of the properties of my mind mods.

gnomish writes “shakespeare phrased it ‘to be or not to be’”
That was part of a computer program: 2b | !(2b)
Which for any value of “b” is always true (depending perhaps on the CPU implementation).
“if those 2 states were represented by the symbols T and F, respectively, would you confuse them with numbers?”
There would be no confusion and they would be numbers (in a computer; where the only things that exist are numbers, or more precisely, “bits” with number values).
T and F are usually represented by integers, such that partially true cannot exist in a computer. It is considered a weakness when applying computers to real world situations.
“the purpose of the question is to establish one of the scotomae which is inappropriate transposition of conceptual mapping. (abuse of metaphor)”
I like it when people use Big Words ™. It makes me look things up. Whether you are using them correctly is unclear but at least I admire the effort.
“a simple example to illustrate this concept would be to ask ‘what color is 3?’ “
A very dark blue. (try it in HTML bgcolor=”3″)
But I take your meaning. You are trying to salvage your argument, and it’s okay, just not entirely relevant. Argumentatively true is not the same as objectively true is not the same as boolean logic true.

Gnomish mentions “noumena” so I study it briefly. [https]://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon

By Kant’s Critique, our minds may attempt to correlate in useful ways, perhaps even closely accurate ways, with the structure and order of the various aspects of the universe, but cannot know these “things-in-themselves” (noumena) directly.

Yes, that is reasonable. When you see something, the “seeing” is taking place in your mind and the actual reality of the thing is uncertain. You might be having a vivid hallucination for instance. Usually the correspondence with the world is reasonably accurate as learned by experience growing up.
What is useful about this line of thinking is exemplified in the search for truth, or claiming to possess it. It is more likely that each person possess a thing that exists only in his mind; his perception of a thing, but not the thing itself.
Another reader discusses that different people can describe the color of an object in different ways; and these descriptions can be synthesized into a new way (the gray fallacy). But the object doesn’t have color per se. Its properties include reflectance at each wavelength of light that impinges upon it. It is a human mind that turns this into “color” and people can declare it variously, might even see it variously.
[http]://colorvisiontesting.com/ishihara.htm#fifth%20test%20plate%20answer
That particular example can be truthfully said to represent a 29, or a 70, or no numerals at all, depending on the eyes of the observer. Is it a “29”? No, that judgment takes place in a human mind after processing by human senses. if your senses process it differently, which some will, you’ll get a 70; and you will truthfully report it as “70” while others report truthfully that it is a “29” — in fact, it is both and a third option is also true; no numerals at all.
Language that denotes the properties of an object ought to be distinct from language by which you “see” the properties of an object but others might see the same object differently.
I take from this brief review that “noumena” is the word Kant uses to denote the thing itself, impossible to know or prove objectively, but is known through our senses — we see it, touch it; but in all cases passed through the filters of our senses and thus does not and cannot BE the object.
God (or telepathic aliens) can plant directly in your mind knowledge that has not passed through your senses and consequently might be more accurate and corresponding with objective reality than anything else you know. It can also be pure fiction. But whatever it is remains uncolored by your sensory apparatus and becomes the new gauge by which everything else is measured.

gnomish writes: “the alphabet is a sequence of symbols. if one desires post normal validity fluidity and assumes there is a letter between A and B, how does he find A * 1.5?
A) computer model. B) divine revelation. C) pal review & consensus. D) need additional funding to study this.”
I believe any of those approaches would suffice. Probably a combination and definitely need funding to study it. Algebraically it would just stay “A*1.5” rather like we tend to leave “pi” in an equation rather than substituting its value, particularly when it’s going to eventually be canceled out anyway.

gnomish writes: (well, you can read it above but here for context establishment) “oh, mr michael2 – i heard bill nye say this just the other day – did you let him put those words in your mouth?”
No.
“you say it is insensitive to assume that a fact has a cisboolean identity.”
I regret not knowing the meaning of cisboolean. Consequently it is unlikely that I said what you say I said.
“should i check my rational privilege?”
There is no “should”. Check or not check as you please.
“when someone tries to use logic to prove that logic can’t prove anything, is it: A cute as my little pony.
…”
A. It’s cute.
“Dejoice! you have achieved Very Impotent Person status.”
Thank you. I enjoy awards even when only one person knows what it means.
“popper is a mystic.”
Likely so. Maybe someday I will meet a person that is not. It will likely be rather boring.
“he repackaged plato’s unknowable essence so it could be fed to the gullible and cripple their cognitive abilities.”
Since I don’t quite get Plato, perhaps I won’t quite get Popper, but I *do* understand some of his arguments. They resemble Bertrand Russel’s arguments; you do not seem to be deprecating Bertrand Russel but perhaps that’s in your next chapter. Russel argues that asserting a thing in a believable way requires to show that alternative possibilities have been explored and found not existing. This is the weakness of climate science, and along ago it was the same weakness for Christianity; it is easy to say God created the Earth, it is difficult to say how exactly it was done. Many have gone to great lengths to explore how indeed might it be done. Bertrand Russel, if I remember the story right, postulates the existence of a teapot in orbit somewhere between Mars and Jupiter. It can neither be proven to exist nor can it be proven to not exist; but this deficiency does not alter its actual existence, or the truth of its actual existence.
So it is that nearly everything in the universe exists that exists, but you do not know that it exists, but that ignorance on your part does not suddenly cause the universe to cease to exist, or to become untrue or false.
“popper is anti-science.”
Maybe. The word “anti” gets used for a great many things, but in this case, to be anti-science would require science to be converted to a “thing” about which one can be “anti”. As it happens I don’t accept that science is a “thing” and therefore I doubt one could be anti-science. One can certainly be against the new religion called Science with its holy writs, preachers, acolytes, disciples and demands for money.
“it’s already done a job on you.”
I’m still hoping to figure out what “it” is.
“look at all the absurd assertions you are presenting as if they were true.”
How could I not? I wrote them!
“how can you claim to know that anything is true?”
I do not know the “how” exactly. It is a lot easier to know the “what”. Descartes provides a way to establish the First Truth, that of one’s own existence. All other truths must flow from that one, because if you don’t know for sure of your own existence, but it is your senses by which you detect everything else, it may be that nothing exists if you do not.
But once you have determined your own existence then you can try to validate your sensory apparatus toward an objective truth rather than a sensory truth. I haven’t quite figured out how to do that with 100 percent assurance.
“didn’t popper tell you that the only thing you can prove is that proof is unprovable?”
Yes, he didn’t. Over the years I have seen some discussions on the meta-question of whether the methods of proof also need proving, and if so, the methods of proving the methods of proving need proving, and so on, recursively, ad infinitum.
“and didn’t you utterly fail to recognize the self contradiction?”
Too many negatives; “didn’t fail” is not the same as succeeding in a trinary world, but in a binary world perhaps this construction makes sense. At any rate, an argument (which is what I believe Popper makes) is not a proof.
“or did you have some divine revelation? do you have supernatural powers?”
Yes to both.
“don’t look now, but there’s a noumenal essence under your bed”
If you say there is, I won’t dispute it. Could be true, might not be, I’ll start with 0.5 true!