This one gives a useful example of The Blatant Nonsense effect, particular his efforts to explain Chomsky statement about 'libro'. The page he refers to is here.
From: "Chris Rosamond" <kiwdafish_hotmail.com> To: yeh_harlequin.co.uk Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 19:08:46 PST Dear yeh; I have by chance found my way to your web page concerning Mr. Chomsky... I find it interesting that you are unable to understand what Noam is referring to when he claims that science is an amalgamation of human psychobiology and bona fide truth...(in your section titled "science"). furthermore, I must correct you on grammatic grounds: "Chomsky hasn't realized yet that humans has a general intelligence, which they can use in various areas, including science". The plural form "humans" does not fit with the singular 2nd person "has". Before you foolishly attack those whose minds are sharp as tacks, please work on the grammar; reading poor grammar tends to make the reader think that he is dealing with a second rate "hack". But to get to the substance of your attempted "argument", let me remind you of the reality called "the history of science". Thomas Kuhn, in his book "the structure of scientific revolutions", reminds us that paradigmatic shifts in science are all too commonplace. The reader (you) should be reminded that scientific heresy is often punished by those who think that they "know" the truth regarding this or that scientific dogma. I could list a few hundred examples, but let us begin with the case of the uncertainty theory. Heisenberg's uncertainty theory claims that we cannot simultaneously ascertain both the speed and the position of an electron. As a function of that initial postulate, he goes on to claim "because our ability to measure it is limited, the phenomenon itself must be limited..." Einstein himself cried foul on this abominable error in common sense, but was drown out by the swarming idiots then calling themselves physicists. Is this getting through...? I doubt it. Let me explain. If science were to be a function of the great omniscient human mind discovering exactly what the universe is all about, don't you suppose that we would not have so many environmental catastrophes, all brought about by our basic inability to perceive the consequences of the various technologies with which we toy? The human mind seeks what is useful, not what is true or correct according to "objective reality". It is a simple case of enough monkeys sitting at typewriters until they have produced Shakespeare, then applauding when they recognise it for what it is. Think of all the half baked scientific "paradigms" or "theories" which have existed...most of which were (and are, count on it)fantastically incorrect. And now, by chance alone, some of those theories have proven partially descriptive and useful to humans. This is not to say that those theories are totally incorrect; it is merely to say that our arrival at them is based as much upon chance as upon intellect, which is what Mr. Chomsky is driving at. Please read your homework, and expect to be sharply criticised if you insist upon printing such uninformed drivel in the future. P.S; I found a large number of grammar errors throughout the rest of your text...it would seem like a good place to start practicing this general learning ability of humans of which you are so fond... Furthermore, if you always use the phrase "you will have to read it more than once to understand what he is saying" you assume that your audience is all of a particular intellectual capability (moronic), which tends to alienate your audience as much as I suspect that this letter has alienated you. Bon Jour. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ==================================================================== From: "Chris Rosamond" <kiwdafish_hotmail.com> To: yeh_harlequin.co.uk Subject: PS: Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998 19:14:50 PST P.S.; Chomsky does not claim that the novitiate hearing the word "libro" for the first time knows WHAT a libro IS, nor what it MEANS. He merely claims that the listener knows that the word "libro" can have either a concrete or an abstract meaning... Is this too hard for you?? What part of "misunderstanding" don't you understand? Get an education.... Tee Hee. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================== ==== My message =============================== From: Yehouda Harpaz <yeh_harlequin.co.uk> Received: by gaia.cam.harlequin.co.uk (SMI-8.6) id MAA23216; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 12:33:23 GMT Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 12:33:23 GMT Message-Id: <199812141233.MAA23216_gaia.cam.harlequin.co.uk> To: kiwdafish_hotmail.com Subject: PS: In-Reply-To: Chris Rosamond's message of Sun, 13 Dec 1998 19:14:50 PST <19981214031451.27232.qmail_hotmail.com> > > P.S.; Chomsky does not claim that the novitiate hearing the word "libro" > for the first time knows WHAT a libro IS, nor what it MEANS. He merely > claims that the listener knows that the word "libro" can have either a > concrete or an abstract meaning... Very amusing. Are you claiming that every listener knows that "libro" can have either a concrete or abstract meaning? How? I archive your mail messages in http://human-brain.org/rosamond.html (it is not there yet). ========================================== =============================== From: "Chris Rosamond" <kiwdafish_hotmail.com> To: yeh_harlequin.co.uk Subject: Re: PS: Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 13:52:17 PST It is really pathetically simple, and I am sorry that you are unable to grasp this concept. Let me tr to bring this down to your level. The human mind is capable of abstract thought. All human minds which function normally are. As a consequence, any time that a "new" word is presented to a listener, that listener realizes that the word would fit into either the catagory of abstraction, or concrete description. As an example, let us take the word yehouda. I have no clue what the word means, but I do know that it means either an abstract concept, or a concrete description/definition. There are only those two options. For the human mind, there are only those two options. The word "Libro" is no different. The listener knows that there are two types of verbal communications. Abstract and concrete. As a consequence, one need not know the DEFINITION of a word in order to know that ALL WORDS FIT INTO EITHER AN ABSTRACT OR CONCRETE CATEGORY. And Again, as you have misrepresented Mr. Chomsky so blatantly, It is imperative that you re read his statement. He is claiming nothing more than what I just reiterated. Good luck. >From yeh_harlequin.co.uk Mon Dec 14 04:32:36 1998 >Received: from [188.8.131.52] by hotmail.com (1.0) with SMTP id MHotMail30910915535993506532503324639237817940; Mon Dec 14 04:32:36 1998 >Received: from gpo.cam.harlequin.co.uk (gpo.cam.harlequin.co.uk [184.108.40.206]) > by holly.cam.harlequin.co.uk (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP > id MAA20443 for <kiwdafish_hotmail.com>; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 12:33:56 GMT >Received: from gaia.cam.harlequin.co.uk (gaia.cam.harlequin.co.uk [220.127.116.11]) > by gpo.cam.harlequin.co.uk (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP > id MAA07140 for <kiwdafish_hotmail.com>; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 12:33:25 G ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ========================================== ==== My message =============================== To: kiwdafish_hotmail.com Subject: Re: PS: In-Reply-To: Chris Rosamond's message of Tue, 15 Dec 1998 13:52:17 PST <19981215215217.7120.qmail_hotmail.com> -----text follows this line----- > As an example, let us take the word yehouda. I have no clue what the > word means, but I do know that it means either an abstract concept, or a > concrete description/definition. There are only those two options. > For the human mind, there are only those two options. It is not two options for the human mind. By definition, abstract an concrete cover all the possibilities. > The word "Libro" is no different. The listener knows that there are two > types of verbal communications. Abstract and concrete. As a consequence, > one need not know the DEFINITION of a word in order to know that ALL > WORDS FIT INTO EITHER AN ABSTRACT OR CONCRETE CATEGORY. This is not knowledge, because it is true by definition. > And Again, as you have misrepresented Mr. Chomsky so blatantly, It is > imperative that you re read his statement. He is claiming nothing more > than what I just reiterated. Bullshit. Why does he say that it is 'speaker of spanish' that knows it? If he meant what you say, the sentence would be true for any person. =============================== =============================== From: "Chris Rosamond" <kiwdafish_hotmail.com> To: yeh_harlequin.co.uk Subject: Re: PS: Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 10:13:21 PST Look, yehouda, you are obviously incapable of carrying on any kind of meaningful discourse about this subject. All I want to know is: why do you have so much anger and hatred in your soul toward Chomsky? You are essentially calling the man an Idiot. I'm sure that you can go on angrily raving about all this, but there are two important points to consider: 1) Chomsky is a well paid, brilliant man who teaches @ MIT and has single handedly created modern linguistics while you fume away without pay, and 2) I don't want to be involved in your anger. And, furthermore, you still have missed both my and Chomsky's point concerning the "libro" affair. Look, just call it quits. I don't want to waste any more time trying to explain this to you, and you obviously "know" everything there is to know about linguistics and knowledge anyways. Call up Chomsky and whine your incessant, illogical, under-read opinions to him....Please do not write me again. By the by; if I were your 8th grade english teacher (for whom you prepared your "book report" on Chomsky), I'd fail you for spelling, content, logic, and grammar. Cheerio.