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 [193.128.4.58] 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 
[192.88.238.241])
>          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 
[192.88.238.47])
>          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.