Logical Fallacies

[subwayrider]

your mother smells of elderberries

I do believe that's

Abusive fallacy – a subtype of "ad hominem" when it turns into name-calling rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.

 

[Feelings]

THAT'S NOT FUNNY.

Thread locked due to passive aggressive insinuations, drama, and hurt feelings. BAM! You heard it here first, thread closing prophecies by Feelings, #1 intuitive on the Internet.

 

[Craig Weiler]

Okay, you've set up a hypothetical situation in which you don't take a job based on some feeling. Why is this useful? I really don't understand. There would be some sort of basis for feeling "funny" about somebody or a company. That's not an "intuitive" trait, it's a human trait. Sure, if you think something is off, then don't take the job. But don't rack that up to being about "intuitives".

It is useful because these gut feeling are almost always right. Intuitives are much better at this than the average person.

Also, gut decisions are based on past experiences and science says that you shouldn't trust your gut unless you've had a lot of experiences and learned from your mistakes.

That is opinion, not science. There are no studies that back up what you're saying. And this is going to vary wildly from person to person.

I said your statement was elitist. And ESP is bullshit by the way. There's actually a great Penn and Teller about ESP.
It's treated like it's some special power. Again, ESP is bullshit. Of course infjs pay attention to their emotions, it's in the definition of infj. I claim that ESP doesn't exist because 9 year old girl disproved it. She was featured in a different Penn and Teller called "New Age Medicine".

If you're getting all of your science from Penn and Teller, this may explain your deficiencies in this area. Did Penn happen to mention that the study was too small to be statistically significant? Did he reference all the other studies in this area? There are a lot of them. And a few have been replicated and meta analyses have demonstrated statistical significance. Did Penn mention that fact? I'm guessing . . . no. (I didn't see the video but I know how skeptics operate.) Google "Braud Healing Studies" and see what real research looks like.

As for ESP. I've done a blog post on the evidence: Feel free to try to refute it.
http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/evidence-for-psi/

Scientific sources only please. I'm not interested in nonsense like the Skeptic's Dictionary, Wikipedia and anything by the Committee for Skeptical Investigation. They are not scientific.

There are at least studies on quantum physics and it is demonstrable and testable. And people know how some of it exists...give science at least some credit.

You require a mechanism to believe that something is real. QM has no known mechanism yet is known to exist. Your argument is nonsense.

 

[Faye]

Um.... good luck.

 

[slant]

@TheLastMohican and [MENTION=20]Satya[/MENTION] used to be our fallacy police... :/ -sigh-

 

[Billy]

Logic is for pussies too afraid to get their hands dirty! I fucked all your mothers!

 

[Craig Weiler]

Um.... good luck.

I hate to have to deal with skeptics, but it has to be done. It's sooooo annoying. They are opinionated, but research nothing; they can never be wrong and argue endlessly long after they've been proven wrong. I'm hoping that Bickelz is better than that, but we'll see.

 

[Faye]

I hate to have to deal with skeptics, but it has to be done. It's sooooo annoying. They are opinionated, but research nothing; they can never be wrong and argue endlessly long after they've been proven wrong. I'm hoping that Bickelz is better than that, but we'll see.

Something wrong there?

I agree skeptics can be very annoying, but what is even more difficult is accurately pointing out the logical fallacies people are using (the informal fallacies, never mind the formal ones). It is actually extremely difficult to identify them correctly, even if you've taken a class in logic.

 

[Craig Weiler]

Something wrong there?

I agree skeptics can be very annoying, but what is even more difficult is accurately pointing out the logical fallacies people are using (the informal fallacies, never mind the formal ones). It is actually extremely difficult to identify them correctly, even if you've taken a class in logic.

I don't place much stock in the logical fallacy arguments mostly because I've seen them used incorrectly too many times and used as a substitution for researching actual facts. Rather than get into philosophical arguments about logical fallacies, I just stick to the verifiable facts. It's not a game to me; I want to know the truth.

 

[Faye]

I don't place much stock in the logical fallacy arguments mostly because I've seen them used incorrectly too many times and used as a substitution for researching actual facts. Rather than get into philosophical arguments about logical fallacies, I just stick to the verifiable facts. It's not a game to me; I want to know the truth.

What is it that makes a fact verifiable?

 

[This]

Argument is an ineffective form of persuasion, I sometimes do it on forums because it's fun to me, or because I get some sort of charge out of it. However in real life the most effective way to get people to do what you want them to is to agree with them and gently influence them over a period of time. All these logical fallacies are the reason argument is ineffective there are just simply too many of them. Using this list I could find a fallacy in any argument, I have a feeling it's things like this that keep US congress in gridlock.

 

[Saru Inc]

I sometimes love how illogical logic can be.


And that is a sincere thought, not some damned faux philosophical jargon.

 

[Craig Weiler]

What is it that makes a fact verifiable?

In the case of the argument I'm having with Bickelz, where we're talking science, this would be replicated scientific studies, preferably published in scientific journals.

In the case of journalism, it's having multiple independent sources tell you the same thing or being an eyewitness or having an extremely reliable source.

In scholarly works, multiple independent sources or an extremely reliable source is preferable.

That's my take on it.

 

[bickelz]

First off Craig...if you don't like by replies to your quotes, at least read the very end.

It is useful because these gut feeling are almost always right. Intuitives are much better at this than the average person.

Again with elitist statements. You just can't say these things...because they're not true. Maybe the people you see who are right all the time about their gut instincts are the only ones alive that haven't died from the phenomena. See? I can post stupid as well.

That is opinion, not science. There are no studies that back up what you're saying. And this is going to vary wildly from person to person.

That being said, gut decisions are mainly based on experiences. That part wasn't opinion.

If you're getting all of your science from Penn and Teller, this may explain your deficiencies in this area. Did Penn happen to mention that the study was too small to be statistically significant? Did he reference all the other studies in this area? There are a lot of them. And a few have been replicated and meta analyses have demonstrated statistical significance. Did Penn mention that fact? I'm guessing . . . no. (I didn't see the video but I know how skeptics operate.) Google "Braud Healing Studies" and see what real research looks like.

ooooh...some of them have showed statistical significance. So, only in some studies, ESP has been shown to be above chance. And too small to be statistically significant? Even if it was 10 people and 9 of them were full of shit, how do we weed out who is actually right? We can't because there is no science behind ESP. No way to actually prove it.

As for ESP. I've done a blog post on the evidence: Feel free to try to refute it.
http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/evidence-for-psi/

Scientific sources only please. I'm not interested in nonsense like the Skeptic's Dictionary, Wikipedia and anything by the Committee for Skeptical Investigation. They are not scientific.

I'll get to this at the end. But that 9 year old girl was in the Guinness book of world records for being the youngest person to have research published in a major medical peer-reviewed journal.

I hate to have to deal with skeptics, but it has to be done. It's sooooo annoying. They are opinionated, but research nothing; they can never be wrong and argue endlessly long after they've been proven wrong. I'm hoping that Bickelz is better than that, but we'll see.

Oh, I am so much better than that, don't you worry. But wait...there's more.

This is from your blog...

There is no smoking gun in parapsychology; no single study by itself is convincing and no results are so obvious that they cannot be questioned. It is only with the gradual accumulation of evidence over time that a clear picture emerges. In other words, you have to see the big picture to really be convinced.

So basically, it's bullshit. If there is no study out there that actually shows that it is actually a thing, then it probably isn't. This isn't a black swan thing. This is an "I'm an intuitive...so give me your money so that I can realign your chi with my mind thing". And your last sentence is incredibly condescending and implies that you have to be an "intuitive" to actually be convinced. In other words, you have to believe...in order to believe. Something can't self-prove itself.


All of your arguments that you have presented sound really familiar. Self-proving, lack of scientific research...yet, you still grapple on to what you believe regardless. These arguments sound familiar because I've heard them from my dad before. I've heard them from my dad when he's trying to prove that his God exists. You're really no different than this because you still choose to believe that you're right, when faced with logic, reason and science that disproves your views. It's sickening to me that people aren't open to ideas and close themselves off behind a wall of religion without being open to alternatives. I really hope you're better than that.

 

[Faye]

In the case of the argument I'm having with Bickelz, where we're talking science, this would be replicated scientific studies, preferably published in scientific journals.

In the case of journalism, it's having multiple independent sources tell you the same thing or being an eyewitness or having an extremely reliable source.

In scholarly works, multiple independent sources or an extremely reliable source is preferable.

That's my take on it.

But is science really capable of verifying things or is it only capable of falsifying things?

 

[Craig Weiler]

But is science really capable of verifying things or is it only capable of falsifying things?

Science does both. It verifies that something is real or it disproves it. If we never verified anything, we wouldn't get very far.

 

[Matt3737]

Science is systemized knowledge based on observation and experimentation that is structured in the form of explanations and predictions (i.e. theory).

Science neither proves nor disproves, but provides evidence in support of or not in support of particular interpretations.

Both of your arguments have valid points to offer, but I find both parties attempts to 'disprove' the others leads to structurally deficient arguments (i.e. you both argue 'too far' to try to prove the other argument invalid).

 

[Craig Weiler]

So basically, it's bullshit. If there is no study out there that actually shows that it is actually a thing, then it probably isn't. This isn't a black swan thing. This is an "I'm an intuitive...so give me your money so that I can realign your chi with my mind thing". And your last sentence is incredibly condescending and implies that you have to be an "intuitive" to actually be convinced. In other words, you have to believe...in order to believe. Something can't self-prove itself.

You've completely misunderstood me. I am just providing you with the best evidence that I have, which is a lot better than yours. You are free to place all of your faith in a single study by a nine year old girl (which did not achieve statistical significance because it was so small) in place of thousands of scientific studies (which, as a group, did achieve statistical significance). The choice is yours. Believe what you want to.

I don't think you understand how statistical sciences work btw. If the evidence I've put forth in the blog post is not good enough for you, you can throw out an awful lot of science in the medical field and others. Statistics are what you use in dealing with small effects.

All of your arguments that you have presented sound really familiar. Self-proving, lack of scientific research...yet, you still grapple on to what you believe regardless. These arguments sound familiar because I've heard them from my dad before. I've heard them from my dad when he's trying to prove that his God exists. You're really no different than this because you still choose to believe that you're right, when faced with logic, reason and science that disproves your views. It's sickening to me that people aren't open to ideas and close themselves off behind a wall of religion without being open to alternatives. I really hope you're better than that.

I've presented you with scientific research, which you have either dismissed or ignored. Your choice, but you cannot claim that there is a lack of it as I have proven otherwise. The rest of this is an argument you're apparently having with someone else. I'm not religious.

 

[Craig Weiler]

Science is systemized knowledge based on observation and experimentation that is structured in the form of explanations and predictions (i.e. theory).

Science neither proves nor disproves, but provides evidence in support of or not in support of particular interpretations.

Both of your arguments have valid points to offer, but I find both parties attempts to 'disprove' the others leads to structurally deficient arguments (i.e. you both argue 'too far' to try to prove the other argument invalid).

I would add that realistically, you go with the best thing you've got at the moment. The best evidence is accepted as the truth until something better comes along.

 

[muir]

Hi Craig

You seem reasonable, i hope that when the dust settles from this particular round of discussion that people can see that your arguments have been well intentioned and well researched

The way i see it is that we don't have all the answers yet so the key is that we keep an open mind and that includes on things such as ESP. I have noticed my perspectives have changed since my early twenties when i became overly sure of certain things which i now realise was a need to gain certainty in my reality as I made a transition from teens into adulthood with the greater responsibilites and unknowns that came with it.

Also i totally agree with the point that you have made that we need both types of people. They both have strengths and should both be able to respect the others abilities and complement each other.

The way i see it is that the elites running society engineer the perceptions of the public by controlling the flow of information to them whether through the media or the education system (which is why they are desperately trying to gain greater control over the internet).

Through this method they have been able to constantly drive wedges between people because they know the greatest rule about dominating people which is 'divide and rule'.

They will drive a wedge between: men and women, old and young, rich and poor, educated and non educated, thinkers and feelers, jews and muslims etc ad nauseum.

So much energy is burnt up in the tensions created by these differences that could instead be used to move everyone forward, but despite the waste and damage you can be sure of one thing: the elites will always gain

Until people can work together they will continue to rely on the scraps thrown to them by the elites.