Jonathan

Members
  • Content Count

    7,210
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    56

Posts posted by Jonathan

  1. This was MSK's octopus post:

    Quote

       On 3/5/2019 at 6:51 AM,  Jonathan said: 
    They really don't seem to grasp the differences between the concepts "hypothesis," "prediction," and "conclusion."

    Jonathan,

    It's funny. When you ask for repeatable scientific results re Climate Change, you always get blah blah blah and they never use the term "repeatable results." 

    It's like going into a small eatery and saying, "Do you have an ice cream cone?"

    And the person says, "Here's some tasty steamed octopus."

    You ask, "What about an ice cream cone?"

    The person says, "Look at these green beans and mashed potatoes. How big a portion do you want?"

    "But I want an ice cream cone."

    "Well, you've come to the right place. Our mac and cheese is amazing."

    "Don't you have ice cream cones?"

    "Only stupid people think we don't have hamburgers."

    "You really don't have ice cream cones?"

    "True believer idiot. The dinner rolls are right in front of you. God, some people..." He throws a stack of menus in your face--ones that do not list ice cream cones...

    And on it goes. It's amazing to watch.

     

    • Like 1
  2. I ran through Billy's original version of this thread, and copy and pasted several of the times that I asked my questions:

    -----

    Um, Billy, don't interpret or spin my words. Read them. Understand them. I'm saying exactly what I mean.

    As I wrote:

    "I ask to be able to review the science and to evaluate the success or failure of its predictions. Give me all of the information. What was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what were the start and finish dates of the experiment, what is the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record?"

    Provide the above, and then also demonstrate that it is reliably repeatable.

    ---

    Um, do you understand why the scientific method needs to be followed? Do you understand the fact that, regardless of how well-informed someone's hypothesis night be, there are always unknowns that might affect the system and the experiment? Each year we hear about new discoveries that scientists had no clue about, and new technologies that are improving our ability to track and model various phenomena which previously had been impossible. And yet there are still many things that we don't know, and many known phenomena that we are nowhere near to being able to isolate as not having significant effects. That's especially true in the realm of climatology.

    Show me the repeatable, successful predictions. Identify specifically what was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what the start and finish dates of the experiment were, provide the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record.

    Nothing else is relevant. Pissing and moaning won't change that reality.

    ---

    Yeah, I don't know how to bridge the communication gap here.

    I'm not asking to be educated. I'm not asking for you to determine what you'll need to teach me, what holes in my knowledge you need to show me how to fill, what learning disabilities you'll need to detect in me and remedy, etc. I'm not asking you to guide me and nurture me. I'm not in need of anything like this: "Let's see, hmmm, do you know what molecules are? You've heard of those? Okay, well, that's wonderful, and maybe we can move along a little faster in your education than I had anticipated. Energy? Have you ever heard of that? Tell me what you think the term 'energy' means, and that might help me in gauging where I should start in your little education..."

    The resolution being debated in the world today is that significant global warming is currently happening, that it is caused primarily, if not completely, by human activities, that it is very dangerous, and perhaps even catastrophic.

    I'm not asking to see 'the science' which led people to hypothesize the above.

    Here's a colloquial version of the hypothesis as you seem to want me to learn it:

    "Scientist X discovered in 1904 that Y causes badness in certain amounts under certain conditions, therefore it logically follows that, since mankind is producing piles of Y, mankind is responsible for the levels of badness that we've adjusted our raw data to report, and The Doom™ is imminent."

    Such statements are not the end of science, but the beginning. They are the point where testing happens via a very well-defined, controlled method which conforms to the questions that I've repeatedly asked, and which is open to review and is inviting and welcoming of criticism. I'm asking to see 'the science' which puts the hypothesis to the test, and succeeds reliably and repeatedly. I'm asking for open access to all of the information. What was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what were the start and finish dates of the experiment, what are the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record?

    ---

    On this thread, I've been hoping to move beyond the panic ploys. Please convince me with the science, I request. Here is what I'll need to see, I say. I've looked for it myself, and haven't succeeded. After following the issue for decades, I've also seen past failed predictions disappear, never to be mentioned again, and others become altered mid-experiment. I've seen the press report blatant untruths, and scientists not correct them -- and I've seen brave individual scientists then step forward to correct the record, earning them vitriol from fellow scientists who were silent about the untruths.

    Let's cut through all of that and have a grown up conversation. Show me what I ask to see. It's what I need to be convinced. I need to see the science, not a substitute and some tee hee hees. I need to see reliably repeatable successful predictions, including all of the details that I've listed several times here.

    I'll wait. I'll continue to laugh at the non-responsive responses, the silent treatment games, the tee hee heeing, and the panic ploys. I'll wait.

    ---

    Cool. It really shouldn't be a difficult thing to figure out. Just answer the questions. Or tell us why you think that the questions are not valid, if that's the case. Do you not like the scientific method? Do you reject it as being silly or old-fashioned or something? If so, explain why, and then identify what you propose to replace it with.

    ---

    Show me the repeatable, successful predictions. Identify specifically what was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what the start and finish dates of the experiment were, provide the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record.

    ---

    What Brad is doing is trying to bog down the discussion by overwhelming it with minutiae. The game is that we asked for repeatable, so Brad is going to pretend to not understand the context, and give all sorts of examples of repeatable in regard to noncontroversial pieces of the puzzle, while hoping that we didn't notice that he switched to talking about pieces when we were specifically asking for repeatable entire picture.

    It's like someone saying that granite floats on air. You ask for proof via repeatable experiments, and douchebag then goes into the repeatable science of the mineralogical composition of granite, and what evidence there is to label it felsic. Do you know what felsic means? Huh, stupid? No? But yet you have your big important opinions about rocks not floating! Science denier!

    That, and another tack is bickering about how badly Brad's being treated, and who said what. Boo hoo hoo. Brad has lots of time for all of that, but no time for answering my questions.

    That's fanboy/activist stuff, not science.

    Science is actually the mindset that the alarmist fanboy/activists ridicule: critical thinking, skepticism, caution, testing, etc. A truly scientific mindset is that of trying as hard as one can to find flaws in any theory. 

    I don't get the impression that Brad, Meatball2, or Billy have ever taken that approach. Their mindset seems to be that of confirmation bias, heroically fighting the silly "denier" rubes, tee hee heeing, and high-fiving.

    But maybe I'm wrong. I guess Meatball2 is gone, but I'd like to ask Brad and Billy to tell us about their critical examination of the idea of anthropogenic climate change. What are your biggest criticisms? Do you have any? What holes have you found in the theory? What are the biggest weaknesses in whatever theory you have the most confidence? Do you feel that you have to hide them? Show us your critical scientific side rather than just the fanboy side. After all, even the IPCC identifies severe weaknesses. It admits to significant limitations.

    Anyway, there's no need for the trick of trying to obscure the forest with leaves. It's really as simple as X amount of CO2 over time period Y should equal temperature Z. Sounding like a broken record: In regard to the big picture issue of anthropogenic climate change (and not isolated, smaller pieces of the picture), show us the repeatable, successful predictions. Identify specifically what was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what the start and finish dates of the experiment were, provide the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record.

    ---

    Great. Let's start with time and falsifiability.

    How long of a time period must we observe temperatures rising, without leveling off or falling, in order to conclude not only that temperatures are indeed rising enough so as to be considered climactic change, but also primarily caused by human activities? Which models/experiments have identified this timeframe prior to the models' predictions being made, and prior to reality then being observed? Where may I find the details of these types of ground rules? We already know that some scientists are asserting that a 12 to 15 year "pause/hiatus," or even a 15 to 18 year one, is not sufficient to falsify their favorite models. With such assertions, determining exactly when the ground rules were established becomes very important. Without these details, it can seem that people are just making it up as they go along.

    What are the specific conditions of falsifiability? What results in reality would invalidate the hypothesis? And why?

    And let's add just one more question. Which single model is the settled science model? I've seen a range of models with a range of predictions. Some have fallen by the wayside over the decades, and we don't hear about them anymore, but, anyway, which of the differing and competing current models settled it once and for all, and what date was it officially determined by the consensus scientists that that single model nailed it?

    ---

    And here, again, are the questions that your surrogate/ringer-wannabe, disappearing Brad, couldn't answer:

    How long of a time period must we observe temperatures rising, without leveling off or falling, in order to conclude not only that temperatures are indeed rising enough so as to be considered climactic change, but also primarily caused by human activities? Which models/experiments have identified this timeframe prior to the models' predictions being made, and prior to reality then being observed? Where may I find the details of these types of ground rules? We already know that some scientists are asserting that a 12 to 15 year "pause/hiatus," or even a 15 to 18 year one, is not sufficient to falsify their favorite models. With such assertions, determining exactly when the ground rules were established becomes very important. Without these details, it can seem that people are just making it up as they go along.

    What are the specific conditions of falsifiability? What results in reality would invalidate the hypothesis? And why?

    And let's add just one more question. Which single model is the settled science model? I've seen a range of models with a range of predictions. Some have fallen by the wayside over the decades, and we don't hear about them anymore, but, anyway, which of the differing and competing current models settled it once and for all, and what date was it officially determined by the consensus scientists that that single model nailed it?

    -----

    J

  3. Billy has closed further comments on his "Placeholder for GW/CC 'How I got here’” climate doom thread, and just when I thought that he might finally be interested in actual discussion.

    So, I’m starting this thread to answer some of the responses that he gave in his last post — and thanks, Billy, for those responses, instead of your typical non-responsiveness.

     

    Billy replied to me:

    Quote

       On 8/20/2019 at 10:57 AM,  Jonathan said: 
    Okay, so can we get past Tyndall now?

    We could, sure.  But I really can's say I know what you think you know about Tyndall's scientific work.

     

    My understanding is that Tyndall's testing of his hypotheses were well-defined and carefully controlled, and his results were and are repeatable.

    I’ve been asking you to provide the same in regard to hypotheses of man-made climate change. Do you understand that Tyndall’s work does not answer my questions?

     

    Billy:

    Quote

    Someone might respond: "I know all that, pedophile."  Another might respond with abrasive what-have-you. Another might affix yet another label to my psyche and morality.

     

    You reap what you sow, Billy. Heh. Don’t like being accused and psychoanalyzed? Hmmm. Maybe consider not doing it to others.

    Let’s have a conversation. I’ve been asking for one for years. I’ve been asking the same questions, and you’ve been ignoring them, dodging them, and serving “tasty steamed octopus” (in other words, posting everything but answers to my questions while acting as if you’re answering the questions).

    I’ve also asked if you have a problem with my requests for you to show me the science, and, if so, to explain why you think that my questions are invalid, improper, not applicable, or whatever. No response. No explanation. Instead of having a discussion, you decide to ignore questions, and then devise ways of testing what I know about Tyndall or Weart, or whomever else.

    Quote

       On 8/19/2019 at 10:08 AM,  Jonathan said: 
    Billy, what is it about my questions that makes you think that we need instruction in climatological superstructure, radiative physics, etc.?

    I disregard posturing and wonder what you know.

     

    You don’t need to know how much I know. Science isn’t about establishing authority. He who knows the most doesn’t become right just by having the most knowledge. All that matters is repeatable results of successfully tested predictions of hypotheses. That’s what I’ve been asking you -- over and over and over again -- to provide.

     

    Quote

    Does the prediction that increasing atmospheric CO2 in a relatively short term will result in an a relatively-quick increase of the Earth's temperature?

     

    That’s the question that I’ve been asking you to provide the answers to. Show me the science.

    I’ve displayed the patience of a saint. I’ve asked countless times in regard to the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change: "Show me the repeatable, successful predictions. Identify specifically what was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what the start and finish dates of the experiment were, provide the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record."

     

    Quote

    Billy says hi. Billy wonders if you would explain how you got here, what your beliefs and understandings are.

     

    My belief and understanding is that you have not answered my questions. Nor did Brad when he was here, nor the second meatball.

     

    Quote

    Billy says he isn't interested in your opinion about him, but is instead interested in, 'what Jonathan believes/knows/suspects/rejects, whether about the basic "Tyndall Gases Effect" and the basic prediction of global warming to come.

     

    I’m not interested in suspecting what will happen in regard to "predictions of global warming to come.” Predictions are not the end of science. For the billionth fucking time, I’m interested in the predictions of the past having come true in reality after having been precisely defined. I'm interested in climatology following the requirements of the scientific method.

    As I’ve asked ad nauseam:

    "I'm asking to see 'the science' which puts the hypothesis to the test, and succeeds reliably and repeatedly. I'm asking for open access to all of the information. What was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what were the start and finish dates of the experiment, what are the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record?”

    "How long of a time period must we observe temperatures rising, without leveling off or falling, in order to conclude not only that temperatures are indeed rising enough so as to be considered climactic change, but also primarily caused by human activities? Which models/experiments have identified this timeframe prior to the models' predictions being made, and prior to reality then being observed? Where may I find the details of these types of ground rules? We already know that some scientists are asserting that a 12 to 15 year "pause/hiatus," or even a 15 to 18 year one, is not sufficient to falsify their favorite models. With such assertions, determining exactly when the ground rules were established becomes very important. Without these details, it can seem that people are just making it up as they go along."

    "What are the specific conditions of falsifiability? What results in reality would invalidate the hypothesis? And why?

    "Which single model is the settled science model? I've seen a range of models with a range of predictions. Some have fallen by the wayside over the decades, and we don't hear about them anymore, but, anyway, which of the differing and competing current models settled it once and for all, and what date was it officially determined by the consensus scientists that that single model nailed it?"

     

    Quote

    I restart at the relative beginning, because I don't see the other guys' cards.

     

    It isn’t a card game. Science isn’t about seeing the other guys' cards. It’s about identifying reality via a specific process. You seem to want to believe that I have beliefs that you need to counter. I don’t. I’m asking to see the science. No other method will work. I don’t accept substitutes, and all you’ve been focusing on is substitutes. Focus on the science. Focus on answering my questions rather than trying to guess my beliefs so that you can formulate a strategy to counter them.

     

    Quote

     

    Here's my one actual question to, say, Jonathan: have any of you ever delved into the Weart book (either in hardback or via the American Institute of Physics website)?


     

     

    I haven’t read it. I’ve come across references to it, and quotes from it. I’m neither excited about reading it, nor opposed. Does it answer my questions? If so, please just cut to the chase and say so. Cite the relevant passages.
     

    Quote

    If the Examining Magistrate will allow follow-ups put to the witness: if not, why not? Is Billy's recommendation a kiss of death?

     

    There’s Billy doing exactly what he complains about when the Others™ do it right back to him. Anyway, to answer your question, no, your recommendation isn’t the kiss of death. Why are you so passionate about getting me to read it? Does it address the questions that I’ve been asking for years? If not, why would I find it worth reading? Are you hoping that, since it convinced you, it will do the same for me, and make me forget all about the questions that I’ve asked that you can’t answer?

     

    Quote

     

    Too many examining magistrates and psychologists can really make the soup hot!


     

    You poor darling. Victims who can’t take what they dish out are the most victimized of all victims. It's do damned unfair that people treat you almost as poorly as you treat them.

     

    Quote

    [ NB, I am almost ready to let this thread die a proper death, by giving it over to the inevitable drift and disappearance. Maybe once a year, during Arctic melt season,  I can come back to check if anyone has changed their costumes or learned some new material.]

    Yes, please do come back if you learn that new material, especially if it answers my questions. We really don't need any more of your new material that doesn't answer the questions, or doesn't explain why you won't answer the questions.

    J

    • Like 2
  4. 39 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

    We generally keep our opinions to ourselves, Canadians, with obvious exceptions. Look what happened to Denmark.

    What happened to Denmark?

    Trump made a suggestion.

    Mette Frederiksen responded publicly with snarky anger, snooty superiority, and delved into imagining the evil of unwashed monster parvenu Trump's motivations.

    Trump described her response as "nasty." Rather understated, I'd say. Then he postponed his visit to Denmark.

    So, what's the tee hee hee that I'm missing? Denmark is somehow now a massive pile of bloody victims in this? Oh, my Lord Jesus, look what happened to Denmark!

    J

  5. 3 hours ago, Peter said:

    I thought President Trump’s bid to buy Greenland was a spoof. But is it? A second, large meteor crater was just found under its ice pack. Coincidence?

    I think Trump's probably been reading too much Clive Cussler, and is hoping to find ancient shipwrecks there.

    J

  6. 23 hours ago, anthony said:

    The consuming drive of the man was to create, in that, I agree with you that he was passionate - "excited" - about his innovative design for the building, hardly aware or caring of who the client was, the government.

    No, he knew and cared. Re-read the novel. He knows exactly what a rip-off and fuck-over the project is. He is morally opposed to it, at least in thought. In action, he decides that the thrill of working on the project is worth joining in on ripping off and fucking over those who are being forced to pay for it.

    Quote

    Just to see it made.

    Yeah, he adopted the principle of the ends justifying the means.

    Quote

    What I take away about dynamiting it, was that for the purpose of art, her novel, a man's moral-values precedes and tops property rights.

    That's just wrong-headed typical Tonyism.

    Quote

    How else was Rand to make her crucial point, by having Roark doing anything tame, less dramatic and controversial? Simple creative licence.

    And you'll be extending that generous attitude to all other artists and works of art, right?

    Just like Rand did?

    Heh.

    J

     

  7. On 8/8/2019 at 12:17 PM, ThatGuy said:

    From Letters of Ayn Rand:

    anthem poem.jpg

    Is Wilder-Lane's review available anywhere that you know of? I'd like to read it.

    J

     

    Poetry, Wilder style:

    Old Dan Tucker was a fine old man
    Washed his face with a fryin' pan
    Combed his hair with a wagon wheel
    And died with a toothache in his heel...

  8. 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    There's an article that gives nine key themes in the manifesto that have nothing to do with what the lefties and anti-Trumpers are yelling about (and the overwhelming vast majority of what they are yelling about is not in the manifesto).

    Nine Themes in El Paso Shooter’s Manifesto the Media Ignored to Blame Trump

    The coverage of this by the mainstream fake news media and anti-Trumpers is a bad joke told by a smarmy asshole.

    Michael

    Thanks for the link.

    An additional ploy us the erasing of Dayton. El Paso is being cited constantly by the press, but Dayton not so much. The shooter doesn't fit the Narrative. So, Dayton needs to be forgotten while El Paso gets hyped.

  9. 17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Jonathan,

    I've done a lot of study in creative writing and screenwriting. Some of your analyses remind me of the technical reason always given by the instructor (or even the director) when a plot hole in a famous film comes up: Because without it, there wouldn't be a movie.

    :) 

    Michael

     

    13 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

    There wouldn't be a novel without Roark fixing up Keating's work, Dominique being flat-assed stupid, and blowing up the housing project. Etc 

    --Brant

    and that was just an overture to AS

    My criticisms here really aren't about the novel, but about the Objectivist Esthetics, and some of Rand's other bluff and bluster. C'mon, you boys know me. I like to apply a person's method of judging others to them and their own work.

    J

  10. 21 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Jonathan,

    Man do we get different messages from The Fountainhead.

    To me, this is a book about the spiritual component of the prime mover of humanity...

    No, I get that, too.

    Recently you wrote a really nice post about the aesthetic trance. In The Fountainhead, Rand achieved that with me, and she succeeded in suspending my disbelief. My comments on the technical holes and deviations are post-trance analyses.

    J

  11. 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Jonathan,

    I don't know...

    Lying to the bad guys?

    What made them "bad guys"?

    In Roark's case, what made them "bad guys" was the fact that they didn't like his work and wouldn't hire him. He was too independent for their tastes. They wanted someone who would be more traditional in his architectural designs. Such a mindset is unappealing to me, but it's not a crime. Someone's holding that point of view doesn't make them a "bad guy," and it certainly doesn't justify force, or property destruction.

     

    1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Punish other people? Instead of blowing up a building, didn't Ragnar Daneskjold sink ships, not just one but many? And how about that little detail of Dagny shooting a guard dead in cold blood?... :) 

    Yes, but the difference is that Ragnar was opposed to government projects, and wanted nothing to do with them, where Roark was excited about working on the government project. Ragnar was retaliating with force against the initiation of force. Roark's dynamiting was the initiation force.

    What would a truly Objectisist Roark have done instead? I think the answer is that he would take up the challenge, design the project for himself, show it to private investors, and convince them to fund it privately.

    But, aesthetically speaking, that probably wouldn't be very exciting, at least not as exciting as blowing up a building and then having an opportunity for a emotionally powerful speech in a courtroom scene. 

     

    1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Commit fraud? Didn't Hank Rearden commit massive fraud to get his divorce from Lillian? And how about all those government bribes?

    I can come up with many, many examples...

    Yes, there are many things in Rand's art that are not consistent with Objectivism. That fact blows a few holes in Rand's theories about art and aesthetics.

     

    1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    I see it more in her early adoption of Nietzsche and later discarding of him...

    I see her as not having quite discarded Nietzsche as much as she claimed, neither during the writing of the Fountainhead, nor during Atlas Shrugged. She never quite rid herself of old Friedrich. (She might have succeeded better had she given up on hating Kant, and actually studied and understood him).

    J

  12. 17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Jonathan,

    Toohey knew.

    :)

    Michael

     

    EDIT: An added thought. The rigged system did not put Toohey on trial even though he orchestrated the whole thing as an intentional fraud on his side from the beginning.

    Yeah, Toohey was a douchebag.

    And Roark pretended not to think of him. And then he punished other people. And committed fraud.

    Dont get me wrong. It's a fabulous novel. It's just that it has some holes. It doesn't say what Rand intended it to say. And it's not consistent with Rand's later philosophy, despite her claim that she always held the same beliefs.

    J

  13. 19 hours ago, anthony said:

     

    "...my purpose is *not* the philosophical enlightenment of my readers..."

    Authenticity in romanticism - why it is Romantic "Realism". Roark made a mistake and is still, unparadoxically, his author's "projection of [her] ideal man". If he were always "perfect", always getting "perfect" results, a reader would find it hard to relate to him, and lose interest - he'd consider that mere sentimentalism, out of touch with tough reality as he knows it to be. Many readers need a character with guts, not scared to stick up for his/her convictions and values, at the risk of making errors of judgment and knowledge.

    Mistakes and errors? Heh.

    Oopsie, I blew up a building. Oh, well. Forgive me?

     

  14. On 8/2/2019 at 6:04 PM, Max said:

    There is nothing moral in Roark's blowing op that building. He made a serious error of judgment by surreptitiously helping Keating in designing that building, and therefore he would have had to bear the consequences when that went wrong. In spite of all the noble excuses for a "morally perfect hero",  this was just an unwarranted  act of scorched earth.

    Roark also was wrong to commit the fraud of passing off his work as someone else’s for the purpose of subverting the owners’ right not to hire him. And his courtroom speech was irrational as hell:  He tried to claim that he had a contract with the people from whom he specifically and intentionally hid his participation in the project.

    i think a typical reader can tell that Rand hadn’t yet worked out her philosophy of Objectivism while writing the novel.

  15. 22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    An awkward tense pose is a Rodin thing, isn't it?

    Rodin's sculptures often present people like that. 

    (Oddly enough, in a discussion I had with Michael Newberry years ago on the old SoloHQ, he was not too approving of Rodin. Yet here I see him doing the same thing as Rodin constantly did. I wonder if he's aware of this? I bet he picked it up without noticing, which happens a lot with artists in all areas...) 

    He would take the above to be evidence of your inferior soul.

     

    22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    I'm rambling right now...

    Thanks for rambling.

    Your comments, in conjunction with Newbsie's having fixed the "claw," brought to mind Diane Arbus's photo, Child with a toy hand grenade in Central Park, N.Y.C., and its specific "trance" effect:

    https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/2001.474/

    Pretty creepy, and intentionally so.

    Not as creepy, though, as certain O-vish works which were intended to be joyously romantic and not creepy at all.

    J

  16. On 3/20/2015 at 2:55 PM, william.scherk said:

    Michael, do you see the same defects as I do? I see hip dysplasia and several other apparently broken bones. I'd say your modeling of the human form/anatomy is significantly off...

    Newbsie has revisited his painting, Counterpose, and has fixed part of it.

    Billy, he calls you an "uncharitable person" for having brought to his attention the reality of his difficulties with human anatomy. Or at least I assume that he's referring to you -- put perhaps I'm misremembering who pointed out the claw hand while we were all helping to mentor him.

    Here he is from Facebook:

    66649450_10215124837655465_8962908126055
     
    Made a change to a 29 year old work, Counterpose, oil on linen, 36x42”. As soon as I finished Olympia I revisited an older work stacked in my studio unsold. It’s one of my favorite paintings with a wild composition, intense color theory of yellow light and purple shadows, contrasted light and dark, and an intensely torqued pose. But the other day I saw that the forward hand should be elegant rather than square-like. An uncharitable person once said “claw-like.” I don’t know why I didn’t see it before, perhaps because the theme was the tension of conflict/contrast? Anyway I arranged with @georgieleahy to pose for the hand reference photo, and I dove in with tweaked the hand, extending the fingers, a much more graceful, natural, and inviting gesture, which coincidentally goes fantastic with the other hand. I’ll check it tomorrow to make sure I’m happy with it. Oh, so weird to revisit the color scheme, very intense colors of pure red, orange, yellow, and purple. #art #colortheory #revisit #figurativeart
    Image may contain: one or more people and indoor
    Image may contain: one or more people
     
     

     

  17. 32 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    ...The corners of his mouth are turned down in a sneer or grimace.

    His nostrils are flared.

    His eyebrows are bunched closer together than when relaxed, which is mostly a sign of anger.

    His throat is tight and we all know what that means.

    Grimace is his predominant baseline countenance...

    I don't ever want to become like Yaron Brook. I prefer to be happy.

     

    You'we just a wacist Twump apowogist, and a wascawwy wabbit, so I expected you to tawk twash about the hewowic Bwook.

    J

  18.  

    Shwill, angwy Bwook is in cwassic Peikoff mode, demanding that "Twump apowogists" nevew use the wowd "Objectivist" to wefew to themsewves, because Bwook owns Objectivism now, and you are not an Objectivist if you disagwee with him.

     

     

    Way to go, Elmer Fudd. You make Trump look calm and reasonable -- and even truly Objectivist -- in comparison.

    J

  19. 2 hours ago, Max said:

     

    Why? Suppose you can...

    There are other means of establishing position other than knowing "where his feet are."

    All of the entities in the space, including the moving ones, not only cast shadows, but receive them as well. You're only considering a few of the shadows. Try accounting for all of them, and see if you can discover how doing so provides the information that you've claimed doesn't exist in th image.

    There are also reflections in the space, and other indicators, such as the height of the camera's viewpoint and the relationships of the entities to the horizon line, and all of the information that such information can tell us.

    And there's more. Scale of common objects, proportional falloff of lighting, shadow distance softening/spread, etc.

    J

  20. 3 hours ago, Max said:

    That picture (I didn't know then it was a still of a video) does not contain enough information to predict where the shadows of the walking people would fall on the wall behind.them.

    False.

    3 hours ago, Max said:

    When I later saw the video and other photos, it became clear that the tall man (whose shadow was supposedly  "missing") was walking farther away from the wall than for example the small woman who followed him, just as I had expected.

    I suspect that you're misidentifying either the number and positions of lights in the room, or whose shadows are whose, or both, and also maybe the depth of the room and the variations of its surfaces.

    J

  21. 18 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Jonathan,

    I had a specific reason for using that word and I borrowed it from audio processing for cleaning up sound and mixing (which I know more about). I knew they used this word in image, and I skooched it over without looking it up, thinking they used it in the same way. I just now looked it up for image, though, and it is the wrong word. In sound, artifacts don't have to come from compression.

    So I don't mind using a different word at all.

    Any suggestions?

    I don't know. Maybe keep it really broad. "Phenomenon"? "Effect"?

    J