1. CanuckRob says

    Sean has a great post there alright. However I am sure that a perusal of the writings of the IDiots would easily demonstrate that the amount of wrongness often exceeds one wrong per declarative statement so wrongness cannot be a fermion and subject to the Pauli exclusion principle. Also someone at Cosmic Variance pointed out that if wrongness is a fermion then two wrongs would make a right. This is obviously silly since everyone knows three rights make a left.

    I am not a physicist and cannot propse a new Pauli principle but I think we can come up with a new terminology. The unit of wrongness should be the dembski. One dembski reflects the situation where the number of wrongs equals the number of declarative statements. To calculate the dembski number you divide the number of wrongs by the number of declarative statment and square the answer. So Seans example of five wrongs in four statements would be the square of 5/4 or 1.5625 dembski. Something like Ken Hovinds presentations would have dembski numbers in the 9 to 25 range. I am currently trying to get time on a supercomputer to calulate the dembski number of the bible.

  2. says

    “If we seized the Saudi and Iranian oil fields and ran the pumps full speed, oil prices would plummet, dictators would be broke, and poor nations would benefit from cheap energy. But we’d be called imperialist oppressors, then.” Yeah, we’d be called that instead of dead meat, because the Iraq war is going so well…

    ‘Tis brillig! And we slithy toves
    could gyre and gimble in the wabe!
    All mimsy will be the borogoves,
    And the mome raths outgrabe!

    Sounds like a plan to me!
    But then we’d be accused of being a bunch of poetry-spouting liberals when we point out that the pumps are currently running at full speed. (Need I add that the real problem is that we’re creating a whole new stratum of former fossils in the atmosphere? I wonder how many dembskis that is.)

  3. says

    Of course, if we seized the Saudi and Iranian oil fields and ran the pumps full speed, oil prices would plummet, dictators would be broke, and poor nations would benefit from cheap energy. But we’d be called imperialist oppressors, then.


  4. Left_Wing_Fox says

    Oh, I love the comments on that site. People obliquely arguing whether Reynolds’ contributions to rhetorical physics will collapse into a logical sinularity from which no truth can escape, or merely into a white dwarf state of a spent star.

    I’m thinking that with enough material from companion stars, in the Wingnut constellation, we might just expeience a type Ia supernova. Bring marshmallows. :)

  5. MNDarwinist says

    Hi everybody. This may not be the right thread for my post, but I will leave it anyway. I am new in Minnesota and I am quite delighted to stumble on this blog while surfing. I am a fan of Richard Dawkins and I particularly enjoyed his book, the Ancestor’s Tale. But that makes finding like minded people not so easy. Anyways, I thought I might find some friends. My email is, if anyone cares.


  6. Dustin says

    Well, I still can’t see any reason that wrongness doesn’t follow Bose-Einstein statistics (and I’m pretty sure, for example, that AiG is a condensate of wrong), but that was still a funny post.

  7. Torbjörn Larsson says

    I think you missed some points. Gravitation can first force a fermion system to have a degeneracy pressure (from energetic (relative) fermions) exceeding the normal (from thermodynamics). Later it will force a collapse as Sean remarks and then the dembski number will exceed one.

    But I agree with your categorisation of the name for the new fermion. The prior suggestion of “Reynolds number” is funny but already taken. I further suggest that a “behe” is observed to be particularly wrong, it is double the spin of a dembski. Note that all these fermions are massless, ie there is no realistic mechanism that attributes any weight to wrongness.

    I note that one of Pharyngulas resident trolls comments on CV with the clueless off beat statements we are used to see from him. Apparently compass has permantly lost his bearings, he spins wildly on all blogs.

  8. Dustin says

    Humbug, I say! Look, here’s more evidence that wrong is not fermionic:

    “You are so wrong. I can’t believe you are so wrong. How could you be so wrong? You are such a boson!”

    If you try replacing that with “fermion”, it just doesn’t work.

  9. CanuckRob says

    Thank you T. Larsson, I apprecaite your correction. Tell me, would the behe be stable or would it decay? If so would it decay to a dembski and an antidembski (sometimes refered to as a judge or a jones)or would it decay into more exotic products? Is there a potential source of energy here? If so the amount you oculd extract from all the creationists in America would solve the energy problem.

  10. says

    Wait, is the dembski a unit or a property, Torbjörn? (I.e. is it like columb or electric charge?)

    Dustin: I’m reminded of a time in high school where my (admittedly intellectual) friends started using “you boron!” as an insult.

  11. Torbjörn Larsson says

    Canuck, Douglas,
    You got me there, I was confusing two different concepts. Dembski is the wrongness unit and a behe is one of the simplest bozons we observe.

    In this system of fundamentalistic mechanics everything above the gound state of correct (no wrongness) must be unstable. Their halflife is still unmeasured even though they constantly emit decay(ed) products. Paradoxically it seems that ID particulars generate energy (hot air) foir ever.