Fatheaded Ed gossips about himself: No degree
Ed Brayton says,
In this credentialist age, pontificating about legal and scientific subjects the way Ed does when one does not have even just a bachelor's degree is almost considered to be presumptuous. A psychology professor's explanation of why well-educated people tend to do better than poorly educated people on intelligence tests was, "you can't be a genius if you don't know anything," and that statement applies in spades to Ed.
Also, it looks like Darwinist Nick Matzke is doing the same thing that anti-Darwinist Jonathan Wells did -- going back to school to learn better ways of attacking the opposition.
The National Center for Science Education is looking for someone to replace Nick Matzke as their public information director (Nick is going to Berkeley in the fall to do his PhD). . . . If I had a degree, I'd throw my hat into the ring . .
In this credentialist age, pontificating about legal and scientific subjects the way Ed does when one does not have even just a bachelor's degree is almost considered to be presumptuous. A psychology professor's explanation of why well-educated people tend to do better than poorly educated people on intelligence tests was, "you can't be a genius if you don't know anything," and that statement applies in spades to Ed.
Also, it looks like Darwinist Nick Matzke is doing the same thing that anti-Darwinist Jonathan Wells did -- going back to school to learn better ways of attacking the opposition.
Labels: Ed Brayton (1 of 2)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 6/21/2007 10:41:00 AM
7 Comments:
> In this credentialist age, pontificating about legal and scientific subjects the way Ed does when one does not have even just a bachelor's degree is almost considered to be presumptuous. <
Do you believe your engineering degrees qualify you to bleat ignorantly about law, as you often do? You don't even seem to know much about engineering.
>>>>>> Do you believe your engineering degrees qualify you to bleat ignorantly about law, as you often do? <<<<<<<
What qualifies you to talk about law and science? And what qualifies Ed?
You Darwinists are always attacking the credentials of others, but people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
>>>>> You don't even seem to know much about engineering. <<<<<<
I have made little discussion of engineering subjects on this blog. I have only discussed the following engineering subjects: (1) the 2nd Law of Thermodymamics and evolution; (2) the use of imaginary numbers and complex planes in the analysis of AC circuits and aerodynamics (in arguing that scientists can use the principles of Darwinism in their work without feeling that Darwinism is entirely true); and (3) auto emissions control technology (in discussions of California's "smog impact fee"). I assert that all of those discussions were technically accurate, and no one even attempted to show otherwise. You are always making blind criticisms just for the purpose of making criticisms.
> What qualifies you to talk about law <
Success in my legal cases. You have lost all of yours.
> and science? <
Three degrees.
> And what qualifies Ed? <
He seems to know quite a bit. You make endless errors.
> You Darwinists are always attacking the credentials of others, but people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. <
Unlike you, I don't live in a glass house. I am free to throw stones at those who do.
> I have only discussed the following engineering subjects: (1) the 2nd Law of Thermodymamics and evolution; <
... In which you demonstrated your ignorance.
> (2) the use of imaginary numbers and complex planes in the analysis of AC circuits and aerodynamics <
... Where you showed your complete lack of understanding.
> (3) auto emissions control technology (in discussions of California's "smog impact fee"). <
I do not remember seeing this. Perhaps you could show where it is. All I have seen is your legal tretises which are all laughable.
> I assert that all of those discussions were technically accurate <
You assert many things that are untrue.
> and no one even attempted to show otherwise. <
The evidence of this outright lie is still here on your blog. You seem to believe that if you don't understand or agree with something, it hasn't been said. You should discuss this with your therapist.
You are always making blind criticisms just for the purpose of making criticisms.
> I assert that all of those discussions were technically accurate, and no one even attempted to show otherwise. <
I don't think that Larry is intentionally lying. I think that this is a symptom of his mental disorder. He actually believes that the discussions that are still here on this blog were never made!
in the Wilderness driveled,
>>>>>> What qualifies you to talk about law <
Success in my legal cases. You have lost all of yours. <<<<<<
You wrote your unintelligible arguments on the back of an envelope and the judge ruled in your favor because he felt sorry for you. In my lawsuits, the brilliance of my arguments made the judges insanely jealous and so they ruled against me.
BTW, I have never heard of attorneys being rated on their records of wins-losses. If they were, they would try to avoid taking tough cases -- they would particularly try to avoid tough pro bono cases in which they are not paid when they lose (and are not paid when they win, either).
>>>>>> And what qualifies Ed? <
He seems to know quite a bit. <<<<<<<
The key word is "seems." Ed is a charlatan who pulls "facts" out of thin air to try to give the false impression that he is very knowledgeable.
>>>>>> Unlike you, I don't live in a glass house. I am free to throw stones at those who do. <<<<<<
You have no originality -- all you can do is just throw my retorts back at me.
Anyway, it is very easy to make wild, unsupported claims that someone else is stupid or ignorant -- anyone can do it. What counts is who wins the debates -- and I have been winning them all.
> You wrote your unintelligible arguments on the back of an envelope and the judge ruled in your favor because he felt sorry for you. <
Perhaps he had the intelligence to understand the brilliance of my arguments.
> In my lawsuits, the brilliance of my arguments made the judges insanely jealous and so they ruled against me. <
Let's bring back the Lunatic of the Month contest. This would be the winning entry.
> BTW, I have never heard of attorneys being rated on their records of wins-losses. <
When someone has such an unparalleled record of failure as you do, it becomes an issue.
>>>>> He seems to know quite a bit. <<<<<<<
> Ed is a charlatan who pulls "facts" out of thin air to try to give the false impression that he is very knowledgeable. <
You are projecting again. Ed backs up what he says with facts and references. You attempt to back up your baseless and irrational statements with repetition.
> You have no originality -- all you can do is just throw my retorts back at me. <
You need to read the whole posts, but often your retorts fit you better than anyone else. You are the emperor with no clothes, for example.
> Anyway, it is very easy to make wild, unsupported claims that someone else is stupid or ignorant <
It is especially easy when they prove it daily.
> What counts is who wins the debates <
And you have never won a debate in your life. Keep trying.
Larry, you post an awful lot about Ed. I'm beginning to think you have a crush on him.
Just sayin'.
Post a Comment
<< Home