Gpuccio: The Case of the Starry Sky is Bad Faith

Not sure where to put this since most of the threads discussing gpuccio’s FI calculations have been locked. Gpuccio is back at UD today bragging about how he thrashed all the scholars at PS who tried to refute his FI claims. :smile:

Gpuccio: "I was really surpised by Hunt’s tornado argument. Is it possible that he does not understand?

Yes, I suppose it’s possible. Because I believe he is, after all, in some good faith. So, he does not understand.

By the way, my final confutation of the tornado “argument” is here, at #614.

Frankly, Swamidass’ starry sky was much worse. And not in good faith, IMO.

Perhaps it’s easy to state falsities, or even frank lies, when you have some dozen fanatics ready to tell that you are right, or at least to stay silent."

Does anyone really wonder why he bailed out here and left his underlings Bill and Giltil to defend his FI nonsense? :slightly_smiling_face:


I was just observing the thread, but I certainly didn’t get the impression that he exactly knocked it out of the park regarding FI. He presented his case but it seemed like there were serious challenges.

What I find more shocking is:

Frankly, Swamidass’ starry sky was much worse. And not in good faith, IMO.

Perhaps it’s easy to state falsities, or even frank lies, when you have some dozen fanatics ready to tell that you are right, or at least to stay silent.

We (moderators) intentionally cleared out the thread so that it was only a defined few people who could engage with @gpuccio specifically to allow him space to engage. That’s the first time we’ve done that to that extent I believe. I don’t know where this talk of bad faith and lies came from, that’s not very cool.


For reference, @gpuccio is referencing this exchange: Gpuccio: Functional Information Methodology.

Please provide a link.

Well, @Jordan, it has to be hard for him. At UD he has a lot of people who totally agree with him and seem as their hero. For most people, we want to save face after exchanges that doesn’t go well.

For what it is worth, I do not think he was acting in bad faith or being dishonest. It really seems he is buying what he is selling. If that is true (and I think it is), how should he make sense of a group of scholars (including Christians and atheists) that were in uniform agreement about several mistakes he made? That is his challenge.

Look at how he describes the situation he perceives at PS:

Perhaps it’s easy to state falsities, or even frank lies, when you have some dozen fanatics ready to tell that you are right, or at least to stay silent.

Undermining this narrative, these fanatics have no trouble calling me out when they think I am making a bad argument. That is certainly not the situation. So where does he get that idea from? Well, there is the cognitive dissonance, which really needs to be resolved, but also this:

Well, it turns out that he intends to describe us, but he is really describing his situation at UD. This is classic projection. I think we should let it go for now. It normally takes a while for people to work their way out of the thicket when they are in a situation like this. He needs time.

Instead, I recommend we focus on our common ground: Gpuccio on Common Descent. @gpuccio is a respected member of ID who argues for common descent. If we can make his case clearer, with support and explication, I am sure that will important for many people in their camp to understand.


Frankly, Swamidass’ starry sky was much worse. And not in good faith, IMO.

For reference, let’s pull that example. I said there is more than 1000 bits of Functional Information in the starry sky.

And I will let @gpuccio have last word on this:

1 Like

I’d wager it’s a case of good old-fashioned sour grapes. :slightly_smiling_face:


It’s here.


I think this is right as it takes time to work through ideas. The tornado discussion is a very complex one and I think it is valuable to try and work through it without passion or prejudice. I gave him an out that @Art agreed with. He did not take the out and I salute him for that whether he is right or wrong. I think this discussion is converging with Physics and Boltzman’s equations. If Boltzman’s equation is bogus as Einstein claimed that is really important to flush out.

E. G. D. Cohen

The Rockefeller University, 1230 York Avenue, New York, New York 10065, USA

Abstract Boltzmann’s Principle S = k ln W was repeatedly criticized by Einstein since it lacked a proper dynamical foundation in view of the thermal motion of the particles, out of which a physical system consists.

Yes. Since he is accusing you of lying, that means that he is acting in bad faith.

Normally, people never “work their way out of the thicket,” no matter how much time you give them.


Agreed, based on his follow-up comments at UD, he seems to be perfectly content ensconced in his thicket.


Everyone lives in some level of a Thicket. Josh is just trying to get them to talk and share ideas. I have seen it work it just takes time.


I would have more faith in gpuccio if it wasn’t for his blatant misrepresentation of the interaction.


Can you be more specific.

Bill you’ve been reading and responding to his comments at UD. You know damn well what gpuccio is falsely claiming about his interactions at PS.


I simply asked for clarification to understand Curtis’s view. You do not have a monopoly on truth as much as you wish you had.

Your knee-jerk denial of empirically observed facts won’t make the facts go away as much as you wish they will.


And now Tim is accusing gpuccio of lying. Bad faith cuts both ways.

@Timothy_Horton shared probably the most caustic of gpuccio’s posts, but there are others. He essentially offers accusations of bad faith arguments and lies. It seems a very poor response to the platform he was given to exchange thoughts exclusively with professional scientists, and not “some dozen fanatics”. If he really thinks that the dozen fanatics either tell @swamidass he is right or stay silent, then he hasn’t sampled much of the PS site!

Frankly, I would characterize gpuccio’s response as unchristian, but I don’t know if that is relevant for him.


Do you prefer the phrase “misrepresenting the facts”?


Please retract this falsehood Bill. I never accused gpuccio of lying. I said he’s posting false claims at UD about his interactions here at PS which he is. He may very well believe what he writes but that doesn’t make his statements less false.

Gpuccio on the other hand did specifically use the word “lie” when describing inputs from PS folks.

Your knee-jerk defense of anything and everything to do with ID-Creationism is pathetic.


It is depressing to see how Gpuccio and some of his resident followers here seem to be revealing themselves more as salesmen and advertisers(propagandists? for lack of a better term), willing to state almost anything they believe will sell their product, than as people who are genuinely interested in the truth.

I find it nothing short of fantastic that there are people who will allow themselves to continue to to declare stuff like there have been no good responses to Gpuccio’s methods.

It’s challenging to keep taking people who say such things seriously in light of the interactions that have taken place here recently.