Synthetic Smartness Syndrome, or AI-induced Dunning-Kruger

Another encounter with a Progressive Christian pretending to lecture people on subjects that he doesn’t actually understand… This time, with a guest appearance of AI-induced Dunning-Kruger… asks ChatGPT for new phrase to describe that … Synthetic Smartness Syndrome.

Side note: Dunning-Kruger can be related to Freddy with enough malice and a house on Elm Street.  ;-)

The original post was February 3rd; the section of subthreads here started four days ago, with the last engagement this morning (22nd). There may be more comments to come, but PC has since blocked me, so...

The PC in question made a pro-universalism post saying “Great response by Chatgpt” [followed by the rest of the post]. The post focused on the claimed absence of eternal hell in Scripture; the subthread focused on the Greek word kolasis in relation to plants and punishment.

What was revealed, however, is that despite repeatedly lambasting someone who in fact did know more about these subjects than he does, and despite talking about how he is currently researching these subjects for a devotional he is writing…. Well, it took him four days to admit that his “research” consisted of little more than asking AI.

Someone may try to say that this is a one-off individual, that this doesn’t represent most Progressive Christians. In my research, however, this is pretty typical:

• Keith Giles condemns every Bible translator based on not doing enough research to understand how interlinears work. (yes, even David Bentley Hart supposedly translates 1 Cor 14:36 wrong according to this website)
• Randal Rauser condemns Alisa based on not doing enough research to understand who and what Progressive Christianity dot Org is. (nevermind that Brian McLaren is one of the "endorsed successors" to Spong or that Spong never started and maintained Progressive Christianity dot Org)
• And I’ve talked with many PC’s who ardently try to correct me about subjects they’ve obviously never studied; sometimes they even admit they've never done any research. For example, some months back, a 21-year science teacher admitted he didn’t know that there was a definition for what constitutes biological life.

Before we get into the whole thread focusing on 1.12.3, where we see how badly PC treats people for daring to question him, let’s take a look at one comment he made a few times:

Similarly, Theophrastus also occasionally uses the verb κολάζω in its active form, such as in Historia Plantarum 2.9.7: "ἄνθραξ δὲ καὶ τοὺς ὑποβαλλομένους κολάζειν." This translates roughly to: "Charcoal prunes (kolazein) those that are applied." Here, too, κολάζω is used as a verb in the sense of "to prune" or "cut back" to improve the health or condition of the plants.

Except that 2.9.7 doesn’t exist. From Perseus:

Passage reference 2.9.7 could not be resolved. Instead, we are showing you 2.8.4.

https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0093.tlg001.1st1K-grc1:2.9.7

And from Topos:

https://topostext.org/work/242

So, what we have is someone who asked ChatGPT for help, assumed ChatGPT was 100% accurate, and then used that assumption to disparage anyone who questioned him while saying that he had actually checked out the sources directly.

Again, this does not appear to be out of the ordinary for Progressive Christians.

Without any further ado, let’s see a summarization of the thread in question. The below are direct quotes (minus bracketed segments), but does leave out a lot of particular details. For example, the Progressive Christian in question repeatedly mentions other texts, but I only focused on Theophrastus 1.12.3-related comments.

And to be clear: if someone who has read the thread in question thinks I have left out any material that notably affects the issue I'm highlighting, please contact me, let me know what it is and where. I did leave a lot of material out (of all three of our comments), but I don't think I missed anything that would affect the point I'm making.

These are noteworthy comments from the Progressive Christian that are found throughout the below thread"

“In fact, I am doing research about this topic for a devotional I am writing right now.”

“Whether the word means to prune or not means very little to me. I just thought it was arrogant to make the claim that Barkley was wrong and I wanted to look deeper into how he may have gotten there although we may never know what resources he had to come to that conclusion.”

“As David Bentley Hart says, the only way that you are going to understand the scriptures in their original form is to understand classical and ancient Greek.”

“I will say that since I had never heard of Theophrastus before that I had to do an internet search and artificial intelligence did not provide the correct clauses. In other words, it was not intentional. I gave you exactly what was given to me through the use of AI. For that I apologize.”

The discussion:

PC:

In classical Greek usage, kolasis often refers to pruning in agriculture—cutting away parts of a plant to promote healthier growth.

Plato, in Gorgias (525b), distinguishes between timōria (vindictive punishment) and kolasis (disciplinary correction), favoring the latter as beneficial for the soul. Clement emphasized God's punishment as medicinal and corrective rather than purely retributive. In his work Stromata (Book 6, Chapter 6), he states that divine punishment aims at the improvement of the sinner. He contrasts κόλασις (kolasis) with τιμωρία (timōria), the latter referring to vengeance or retributive punishment. As David Bentley Hart says, the only way that you are going to understand the scriptures in their original form is to understand classical and ancient Greek.

Theophrastus (c. 371–287 BC) – Inquiry into Plants

Theophrastus, a student of Aristotle, uses κολάζω (kolazō) in the context of horticulture to describe trimming or pruning plants. Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BC – 50 AD) Philo, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, often uses kolasis in a way that aligns with something similar to the concept of pruning, where unnecessary or harmful parts are removed to allow for healthier growth.

Apologist:

Please quote the passages to which you refer. I don't mean just say X author used the word but to please post the actual statement the author made using κόλασις with the sense of 'pruning'.

PC:

Theophrastus (c. 371–287 BC) – Theophrastus, a student of Aristotle, uses κολάζω (kolazō) in the context of horticulture to describe trimming or pruning plants. Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 BC – 50 AD) Philo, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher, often uses kolasis in a way that aligns with something similar to the concept of pruning, where unnecessary or harmful parts are removed to allow for healthier growth.

Apologist:

where are the quotes? Posting quotes from an author are how claims about how an author used words are verified. You've made the same claim a few times now. I'd like to analyze the evidence for that claim, please.

PC:

A relevant passage where Theophrastus uses κολάζω (kolazō) in the context of horticulture is found in his work Historia Plantarum (Enquiry into Plants). In Historia Plantarum 1.12.3, Theophrastus discusses the practice of pruning plants to promote their growth and health:

"καὶ γὰρ τὰ φυτὰ κολάζω μᾶλλον αὔξεται."

This translates roughly to:

"For plants, when they are pruned (κολάζω), grow more vigorously."

This usage of κολάζω in Theophrastus provides an interesting parallel to its broader meaning, which includes "correcting" or "chastising" in ethical or disciplinary contexts.

Apologist:

I checked this source as I had the reference handy.

I will post the Greek and the English translation of Historia Plantarum 1.12.3.

Ἔχει δὲ αὐτὰ τὰ σπέρματα καὶ οἱ χιτῶνες οἱ περὶ αὐτὰ διαφορὰν τῶν χυλῶν. ὡς δ ἀπλῶς εἰπεῖν ἅπαντα τὰ μόρια τῶν δένδρων καὶ φυτῶν, οἷον ῥίζα καυλὸς ἀκρεμὼν φύλλον καρπός, ἔχει τινὰ οἰκειότητα πρὸς τὴν ὅλην φύσιν, εἰ καὶ παραλλάττει κατά τε τὰς ὀσμὰς καὶ τοὺς χυλούς, ὡς τὰ μὲν εὔοσμα καὶ εὐώδη τὰ δ ἄοσμα καὶ ἄχυλα παντελῶς εἶναι τῶν τοῦ αὐτοῦ μορίων.

https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0093.tlg001.1st1K-grc1:1/

§ 1.12.3 Again the seeds themselves and the coats containing them have different flavours. And, to speak generally, all parts of trees and plants, as root stem branch leaf fruit, have a certain relationship to the character of the whole, even if there is variation in scents and tastes, so that of the parts of the same plant some are fragrant and sweet to the taste, while others are entirely scentless and tasteless.

**https://topostext.org/work/242**

Are you absolutely sure the reference is from Historia Plantarum 1.12.3.?

PC:

[provides a number of other sources other than Theophrastus 1.12.3]

Apologist:

you claimed that καὶ γὰρ τὰ φυτὰ κολάζω μᾶλλον αὔξεται is from Historia Plantarum 1.12.3 but as far as I can see from the actual text it is not.

Can you please explain this?

I will dig down to the other examples you posted. I would like to clear this matter up first.

PC:

what source are you using to discredit my findings?

Apologist:

what source? I looked up Theophrastus and read the very paragraph you cited.

Can you explain why the clause you posted (καὶ γὰρ τὰ φυτὰ κολάζω μᾶλλον αὔξετα) is not in Historia Plantarum 1.12.3?

PC:

Again directly from the following readings In Historia Plantarum 1.12.3, Theophrastus discusses the practice of pruning plants to promote their growth and health:

"καὶ γὰρ τὰ φυτὰ κολαζόμενα μᾶλλον αὔξεται."

This translates roughly to:

"For plants, when they are pruned (kolazomena), grow more vigorously."

Here, κολάζω (kolazō), in its participial form κολαζόμενα, is used to mean "pruned" or "trimmed," illustrating the idea that cutting back a plant can actually encourage its growth—a principle still recognized in modern horticulture.

Where did you learn Greek? What is the level of your education and where did you go to seminary or educational institution?

Apologist:

This is simply a repetition of your previous statement with a change of κολάζω to κολαζόμενα.

As I have previously demonstrated, the original clause is not in Historia Plantarum 1.12.3.

…

The newer version is not there either. You can double check for yourself: καὶ γὰρ τὰ φυτὰ κολαζόμενα μᾶλλον αὔξεται is not in Historia Plantarum 1.12.3

Me:

Do you have any training or education in koine?

PC:

The reason I asked [apologist] about this level of Greek is because of two things. Number one he seems to suggest that Barclay just pulled the meaning of Kolasis or Kolazo out of his butt without cross referencing it or without diving deep into is ancient roots or classical usage from the past and I just merely pointed out two ancient botanist that have used that word or some root form of that word in past literature … The other reason is that he is arrogant and overly cocky. Usually when people are arrogant or overly cocky it is because they need to protect themselves or they are hiding something. … I never claimed to be an expert in Greek. I have taken some courses and am learning more every single day. But [apologist] is totally obsessed with proving he is right about this instead of learning something new or maybe [apologist] does not think he could possibly learn anything new.

Me:

You've repeatedly provided the "for plants, when they are pruned" translation, for Theophrastus, yet I can't seem to find that translation anywhere else.

Can you please clarify whether you are translating that text yourself or otherwise name the source you are using which is providing you with that translation?

PC:

[lengthy talk about LSJ and dictionaries]

Me:

respectfully, I asked a very specific question, not for a copy-paste of stuff you've put in other comments:

Are you translating the text yourself (and we know what names David Bentley Hart would call you if you are)?

Or did you get that translation from somewhere else? If so, from where?

PC:

Do I really need to tell you that the the numbers are the volume, chapter, and section of this work? I even provided the quote. How much more do you need? I paste some things and provide links just like [apologist].

[Apologist] is wrong. That is why provided the context above.

Me:

"Do I really need to tell you"

That sounds just as arrogant as you accuse [apologist] of being.

PC:

I do not think [apologist] have debunked anything of the sort. However, I will say that since I had never heard of Theophrastus before that I had to do an internet search and artificial intelligence did not provide the correct clauses. In other words, it was not intentional. I gave you exactly what was given to me through the use of AI. For that I apologize.

Whether the word means to prune or not means very little to me. I just thought it was arrogant to make the claim that Barkley was wrong and I wanted to look deeper into how he may have gotten there although we may never know what resources he had to come to that conclusion.

Me:

"In other words, it was not intentional. I gave you exactly what was given to me through the use of AI. For that I apologize."

Respectfully, no, you were very much intentional: multiple people asked you for your source and you intentionally refused to admit that you had never read the source yourself but were only repeating an AI result. You had multiple opportunities to confess that you never did the research and had not verified the information which you used to condemn [apologist] as arrogant, and you deliberately refused to reveal your source.

There was nothing accidental in what you did.

I would advise you seriously reconsider whether you are spiritually mature enough to write a devotional if you are going to repeatedly condemn the character of a person who is qualified in these subjects based on information you know you didn't get from any scholar and which you know you never validated.