Logical Fallacies

[Phebe]

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.

Sounds good to me. Monty Python has a special grace for that kind of fallacy.

 

[Craig Weiler]

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.

Hi Muir,

When we speak of elites there are two different groups here. Those pulling the strings in government and the media are the rich, and they do so in order to preserve and grow their wealth. That's another topic for another day.

In science though, the elites are really just the hive mind of the scientific community that is overloaded with left brain dominant personalities. You can find the same thing in churches: A central mythology at odds with the facts; (String theory, many worlds theory, the big bang, etc.) a strong fight against new ideas that disrupt the currently agreed upon viewpoint and shunning of outliers within the group who think differently.

That's how I see it, anyway.

 

[muir]

Hi Muir,

When we speak of elites there are two different groups here. Those pulling the strings in government and the media are the rich, and they do so in order to preserve and grow their wealth. That's another topic for another day.

In science though, the elites are really just the hive mind of the scientific community that is overloaded with left brain dominant personalities. You can find the same thing in churches: A central mythology at odds with the facts; (String theory, many worlds theory, the big bang, etc.) a strong fight against new ideas that disrupt the currently agreed upon viewpoint and shunning of outliers within the group who think differently.

That's how I see it, anyway.

I agree with everything you are saying here, but i just want to add a further dimension to this

The first elite you mention is 'the rich' then you mention the hive mind that is resistant to change, but i want to make the suggestion that unfortunately the two are often intimately linked.

We know that history is written by the victor. In science funding for research is allocated by the rich, findings protected by patents, pieces hand picked for publishing, secrets withheld, and often research is used by the rich to justify their aims which is why it seems that both sides in a debate will often be able to get 'experts' to support their claims.

There is ongoing debate over the causes of climate change for example. I recently spoke with someone who works with the scientists in the Antarctic and thought i had a great opportunity to find out the latest view straight from the horses mouth, but i was informed that the scientists are themselves pretty much split down the middle.

We know that think tanks of the extremly rich for example the Club of Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Club_of_Rome) which first met in the Italian villa of David Rockefeller have exerted a lot of influence in the debate for example through their 1972 paper 'The Limits of Growth'

Concerning churches of various hues, i really see them as another arm of the elites. They have always been intimately linked in a hierarchic system of control eg 'the three estates': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_three_estates, which may even be a far older model of societal control from the top, dating to the proto-indo-european phase as suggested in the trifunctional hypothesis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trifunctional_hypothesis

It seems if you want to control the public you need to put various apparatus in place. You must be able to control their mind, their body and their spirit.

 

[InvisibleJim]

luddite fallacy!

 

[muir]

luddite fallacy!

Lol

I am not against labour saving devices or technology. I am against a small number of people constantly changing the rules of the game so that regardless of how much labour saving technology is available the majority of people are still made to go and work all the time!

I believe you are guilty there of a 'straw man'

Perhaps also you are allowing your Jungian shadow to project onto me your own unconscious guilt due to the fact that you are paid highly for not doing much?

 

[Faye]

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

I don't believe that science is capable of verifying any particular theory. When we have any theory, we don't have a particular theory that we are able to isolate. We a theory T, related theories R, auxiliary hypotheses A, and assumptions S.

So lets see we want to test the theory, we get the logical form (T & R & A & S) -> P, which means if our theory is true, then prediction P will come true.

Lets say prediction P doesn't come true. So we have not P or ~P. By the logical rule of modus tollens (iirc), that gives us ~(T & R & A & S). By the De Morgan rule, we then get, (~T v ~R v ~A v ~S), which means that either our theory was wrong or a related theory was wrong or an auxiliary hypothesis was wrong or one of our assumptions, even our sacred logic was wrong. We don't know which one was wrong.

The result is that we cannot verify our theories and also we can't falsify them in isolation either. The relationship between scientific theory and observation is dubious at best. I think that any normative reliance on scientific paradigms is scientism. We can falsify a particular phenomenon, but science we have yet to make the leap to universal falsification. Our empiricism is not deductively valid and is guesswork at best.

Okay, I'll quit trolling science now.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Perhaps also you are allowing your Jungian shadow to project onto me your own unconscious guilt due to the fact that you are paid highly for not doing much?

Luddite fallacy!!!!

 

[Nixie]

I needed the giggle this thread provided. Thanks [MENTION=4717]subwayrider[/MENTION]

[MENTION=3473]InvisibleJim[/MENTION] Are you catching my ESP mind waves Scottish Lurv Bug?

 

[muir]

Luddite fallacy!!!!

Its only a fallacy if it ain't true!

How are employment figures doing at the moment? Also do you think that 'growth' can be sustained indefinately?

 

[InvisibleJim]

Its only a fallacy if it ain't true!

How are employment figures doing at the moment? Also do you think that 'growth' can be sustained indefinately?

Luddite fallacy AND correlation does not imply causation AND fallacy of a single cause

InvisibleJim are you catching my ESP mind waves Scottish Lurv Bug?

Like a boss.

 

[Nixie]

[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]
I'd fall back on "Nuh Uh, says you"

 

[InvisibleJim]

[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] I'd fall back on "Nuh Uh, says you"

That's not an easy thing; especially as I cheat at hunting elephants in rooms by dragging the elephant into the room and then start pointing at it.

 

[Nixie]

*resists urge to make joke about IJ just liking to play with big trunks*

 

[muir]

Luddite fallacy AND correlation does not imply causation AND fallacy of a single cause

I've covered the luddite fallacy

Concerning the fallacy of the single cause, i do believe that although there are innumerable actions contributing to events there are actions which stand out in their significance and lacking a godlike ability to factor in all the variables the best way to achieve a viable understanding is to focus on the main factors

'Correlation doesn't imply causation': you use your methods of attaining understanding and i'll use mine and we'll see who makes the most correct predictions

 

[Nixie]

*swoons*

My money is still on Jim though

 

[InvisibleJim]

*resists urge to make joke about IJ just liking to play with big trunks*

Only on a Monday...

Oh shi.....!

*salivates*

 

[muir]

*swoons*

My money is still on Jim though

So's mine....anyone wanna take a side bet on me throwing this pissing contest to the elephant herder?

 

[Nixie]

*sigh*
Yea, you Feelers get all bent out of shape over a good debate...call it arguing and such. Pity. It was just starting to be interesting.

 

[muir]

I just don't see poring over lists of logical fallacies in order to satisfy my own pride as a very useful way to spend time; i also don't think it would benefit me or Jim or any reader

I spar with jim but i see something in him and i want him to get to where he wants to go; i hope he feels the same way about me.

I don't think tying ourselves up in logical fallacy knots will do that but if nothing else it might expose the absurdity of it all!

 

[Matt3737]

( . Y . ) Fallacy these.