-
Well, this title may give the wrong idea about this tread, what i really want to do here is show a few forms of false reasoning, false tactics during debates etc..
This way you can submit a few so i can learn those and become more aware of people using them and on the other hand it should help in finding flaws in thinking.
soo, without further ado, i'll give you my two most hated:
The analogy
I'll show this one with an example, someone tries to prove the existance of the creator so he comes up with something like "When you see something as complex as a clock, you know there has to be someone who made that"
Now you can't deny that sentence, but the whole meaning behind it (the universe being made by a god since it is so complex) has nothing to do with that whole analogy, first of all they make a comparation between a clock and the universe, second of all they give people who are unaware of this method the idea that their assumption (the god) is correct since the analogy was correct (god i hate it when people use it).
Sadly enough some times you need the analogy to make people understand a concept but as soon as someone starts to prove by coming up with analogies.. Sic em..
The circle logic
Mostly found with people who try to advert their religion without resorting to 'real' theology.
Circle logic would be something like ..
A is B... why? because B is A.
hmm, this is a bit too abstract, lets put it this way.
someone might say "You have to believe in god"
and as soon as you ask "why"
they would reply with a "because god is good"
look closely, they're supposed to prove a god to you but the only proof they give is that god exists because he is good.
so A exists because A = B.
Just like the baron von Munchausen, who claimed he was able to lift himself on his bootstraps. (i'll give good money if i can ever see someone do that)
but back ontopic if someone uses this, you can just retort that it's a circle logic and see if they can come up with more intelligent arguments than this one
------------------
Sure the universe is a great place, but if it wasn't here, no-one would miss it.
[This message has been edited by zelazny (edited October 29, 2001).]
-
so come on people, what foul tricks did you meet in discussion or what kind of tricks do you have up your sleeve (because i have to admit, feeling quite guilty that i used foul tactics (not the above) to finish a debate with someone who used rubbish as arguments (see above for types))
------------------
Sure the universe is a great place, but if it wasn't here, no-one would miss it.
-
We already know that there are no mountains on the other side of the moon. You guys and Gals check out my new Jerry Vale Fan Club sit here on hostboard when you get a chance. The board is in its infancy, but I expect to have all types of Vegas and Atlantic City Memorabilia type stuff on there. It takes time to build things. My next project is a tribute to Shecky Green. Later, All.
------------------
-
The cliche I resent most: "Thus, your statement is no less an absolute itself" (as a reply to someone who claims that nothing is absolute).
------------------
UlTm8 BOARDOM
-
Don't you just love the way zelazny used both analogy and circle logic to describe his hatred of analogy and circle logic?
------------------
Dare2
DV8
-
well done maturios http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif
indeed, as i said with the analogies,
sometimes it's hard to explain something without resorting to them but as soon as you start to use them as proof for something, there's something wrong.
well... still awaiting your tricks and crookeries http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif
------------------
Sure the universe is a great place, but if it wasn't here, no-one would miss it.
-
btw, the whole crux of this post isn't to show my personal motives towards these things, but more to get a big list and examples of these so that people can at least look at them a bit prepared.
------------------
Sure the universe is a great place, but if it wasn't here, no-one would miss it.
-
ok, i don't know the name for this one, but it goes like this:
When someone states a certain argument that you cannot work around or cannot disarm some people revert to blemishing the person who made that argument so people won't listen to that argument anymore, a foul way of diverting attention since it does not answer the argument but just 'disproves' it by stating that the user of that argument is flawed instead of the argument itself.
------------------
Sure the universe is a great place, but if it wasn't here, no-one would miss it.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by zelazny:
well done maturios http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif
indeed, as i said with the analogies,
sometimes it's hard to explain something without resorting to them but as soon as you start to use them as proof for something, there's something wrong.
well... still awaiting your tricks and crookeries http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
(zaps zela), then redo your message statement!
Analogies are a good thing.
------------------
Alex
-
God is Good.
...Why?
Because the Bible says.....
what would you call that?
Perhaps that is circular reasoning.
------------------
Alex
[This message has been edited by Alex (edited November 01, 2001).]
-
Ok, the following is a list of what I experienced AGAINST ME, as executed from the "three amigos" on the previous board I helped grow and now am no longer welcome on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was called a liar....
Perpetual bellowing on how I had damaged their "reputation"...
I was never given the benefit of the doubt, yet I always gave the benefit of the doubt.
If a post could be interpreted in more than one way...The three amigos ALWAYS assumed the worst of me, then they would accuse me of the three tactics listed above....
I was ridiculed by the three amigos, who would make off topic comments about me, than they would ridicule me for complaining about being ridiculed.
"Oh, you can dish it out, but you can't take it" was a standard line they used...Yet I never criticized others about how they spent their day.
Even though two of the three were the new kids on the block, they insisted on stating to everyone that something else existed that was superior to what the forum was about. They They then defended their claim that this was fact, not opinion. The final tactic invovled Defending the flaming claim by accusing the forum regular of attacking and defaming them who was just doing the right thing and reminding the new guys what the forum was about.
Witness the aggressor apologize for past conflicts to "wipe the slate clean". Witness the apologizing entity continue to harbor anger at the other person anyway, yet see them now feel empowered to new levels of arrogance because they apologized while you didn't.
Personalize arguments that in reality are concept based.
Push the "Personal Attack Syndrome" even if the discussion is truly concept based.
Offer something "romantic" to the "forum at large" to get a slight "swing" vote your way...
Create Faux Personalities who take your side while continuing to criticize the other side.
Appear on a forum completely oblivious to the main contributors or what the forum is about and fire away, making the forum entirely what you want it to be.
(I did this one occasionally too, but usually it was obvious, and NEVER was it designed to impugn the purpose or namesake of the board)
If I tried to re-explain a position, I was accused of changing the subject.
Watch others make meaningless apologies, then attack me for never apologizing...
Never complement me, then ignore any complements I make toward them.
Non-Communicative Moderator who believes they communicated when in actuality they did nothing.
---------------------------------------------
That was therapeutic!
And makes me wonder why I didn't leave before I was forced out....oh yeah, I did more work than anyone else there getting the membership to grow.
[This message has been edited by Alex (edited November 05, 2001).]
-
wow!
when you said you knew me...i didn't think you were serious!!!! http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/wink.gif
------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
-
Ok, you're scaring me, cuz I think you're partially serious. http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/eek.gif
------------------
Alex
-
Any of the following:
http://<a href="http://www.geocities...LLACYS.HTM</a>
I refuse to engage in any of these, as such I have succumb to the ignorance of the majority to the existance of the known fallacy at various times. It's pretty frusterating to try and communicate in a forthright manner and be hit with ad hominem. On occasion I have had the thought that perhapse I should just learn how to openly attack the character of others as does every one else (it seems) and have dipped down into it myself but every time I have found it is somthing I just do not want to engage in . Strangly enough robin seems to enjoy using them.
------------------
-
are we all not determinists in some manner?
i would argue that we are.
------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
-
so, should I tediously point out ever tiny logical fallacy in robins statements as to prove my assertions? Personaly I dont think this should be necessary, nore would I consider it kind, and as I prefer not to engage in logical fallacy, I also prefer(yes indeed) NOT to engage in unkind behavior; I do not derive pleasure from the misery of others.
One thing how ever, Mr. robin has time and time again asaulted my character both directly indirectly, and failed to provide any solid irefutable evidence of his so called knowledge of my character time and time and time again.
I there fore make a formal challenge, and it shall stand.
I hereby challenge Mr robin to justify logicaly his assertions and implications on my character, moreover I go on record as blatently dareing him to do so with out commiting yet more of the logical fallacies he has already commited.
I believe it is gloriously safe to say (althought I do not deem to speak for the members of this board) that if he can not do so, or feels for some reason that logic (which is the root of reasoning) is not the way to go about determining such a thing, then perhapse I am not the confused one.
I would then ask that having completed and satisfied exaustively my afore mentioned requirments his justification for the repeted attacks on my character, and abuse of fallacy,
be judged by the members of the board, and a formal logical conclusion be made.
My challenge stands.
Once more , on a personal note to robin:
Please do not opt in favor of e-mail bombing me again, I found it dis tastefull and cowardly (just my oppinion) , furthermore it is unfriendly, and and inconveniant for me.
While it is true I can not prove you did it , I litteraly now NO ONE else who would do such a thing in my life.
------------------
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Robin:
Stirkes me a funny that you changed the wording on the apology one, as the last wordplay was quite striking, as from the Twidiot. The 'Meaningless' apology was somehting that I had been accused of, having previously humbles myself to apologise for what I had recognised as my mistake.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Funny, I thought it was confusing, that's why I "clairfied" them.
------------------
Alex
-
Wow thats a lengthy edit, do you always wait till people have replied to edit your comments?
that thing was like one paragraph the last time I saw it.
Further more it is totaly appearant that you can not grasp the entirety of my statments since you feel the need to break it down and destroy the obvious compound meaning.
[This message has been edited by Buckminster Fuller (edited November 06, 2001).]
-
*sheepishly raises hand*
i think the idea of a 'logical war' is a good one. i am quite bored here and frankly, this dialogue between the two of you is circular.
it would be nice if you both would cooperate in debating AN issue, not necessarily to see who is ruler, but to see logical and argumentative maneuverability(ies).
do i think that the above is possible? of course not. i can't imagine a thread where either posts that does not resort to trading licks. however, going with the buckminster's suggestion, i dare BOTH of you to this challenge:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI> each of you will start a new thread on a certain UNANSWERABLE or unconfirmed issue.
<LI> the initial post will be just that, a post simply calling into the light a particular issue. of course in the initial post, it would be mandatory that you refrain from personal bias. just state the issue.
<LI> argue effectively. hell, can anyone here claim that GP doesn't need a prime example of such? lol.
<LI> refrain from personal remarks. unless the thread is in need of weighty persuasion, i would suggest against the lick trading. [/list]
do you both think this is a good idea? any objections?
i think that if both of you start your own thread (certainly within reasonable time), you both have control over the issue(s) being discussed. not only that, but you can begin on a subject matter that you both feel knowledgeable in. sounds fair.
as a side note, mr. robin, being thoroughly interested in the 'you've no proof for the existence of god' issue you brought up, i must ask you this:
you state that although you have no 'proof', you feel supported in 'consensus of belief'.
how does this turn itself into a 'fact of (your) knowledge'? when does the sheer support of a belief turn the belief itself into factual evidence?
just curious really.
i await responses from both of you. http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/smile.gif
------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
-
wow, I dont even have time to pick out and determine every fallacy preasant in that post; nor would I choose to if I did.
My challenge stands, if the members of the board so choose to judge the post made by you, Mr. Robin, then I believe I will have the conclusion I wish. as for your additude, I am not moved to angery replies so I will overlook the context in which it (your post) has been placed.
I would whole heartedly beg of the members of this board that they honestly take the time to determine the logical, or ill logical nature of Mr. Robins post, and attemp some sort of agreement. My oppinions are not of consequence and I would ask that the post be judged objectivly and with referance to specific preasance of fallacy (of which I know at least five to be preasent in repetition with in said posts).
I do not claim that I have not at times lowered myself to the use of fallacy, I am well aware of this ,I can only try to do better in the future to avoid this.
With all of that said in the most serious sense possible, I can only hope that the members of the board will aid me in coming to some resolution on what is actualy quite a serious issue. If I am judged to be the guilty party, I will leave, if Mr. robin is judged to be the guilty party he should be asked to leave, if we are both judged guilty then we should both leave, etc etc.
Sincerely,
the buckminster
------------------
-
Please dont edit your post any more it's verry much like saying that you didnt say what you said when you know no one can prove you said what you ...indeed did say.
one more thing, I would ask that the privalage to edit posts be revoked unilateraly if it is possible to do so , as it is obviously being abused.
------------------
-
I accept!
------------------
-
*phew*
i was hoping you would. as well as i hope mr. robin accepts.
and as a side note, the ability to edit a post is available to all registered users.
i have no control over this feature. http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/biggrin.gif
as i hear it, hostboard will be recieving a face-lift pretty soon. (though i am not so certain when this will take place.)
------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
-
er...while thinking on it...
i opt that there be a 3 day maximum allowance in deciding the subject of the thread.
so, if mr. robin agrees to the challenge tomorrow, both new threads should be created no later than by saturday.
also, i think that this goes without saying, buuuuut...
should either one of you find adequate reason to dispute the other's claim, you must offer substantial evidence/argument.
remember that others here will be reading these posts, and we can't read your minds. http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/wink.gif
thanks.
------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
-
hmmm.... now this could get interesting
------------------
Sure the universe is a great place, but if it wasn't here, no-one would miss it.
-
yes, you would each create a new topic.
secondly, keep in mind that the two threads are specifically meant for serious debate. that means that all attempts at petty mockery (by either individual) must be avoided. in such instances where one may 'insult' another, ignoring those subjective forces would be the best jesture.
unlike (pretty much all) other topics in GP, these threads are completely serious, informative and articulated. this goes for other posters as well.
i think that other GP members should have the right to pose questions to either party on any post--but only to stimulate further information.
as i understand that you, mr robin, are in a situation that deprives you of lengthy amounts of time online (as if that is a bad thing http://www.hostboard.com/ubb/wink.gif), you will be allowed time to respond. though i do not feel it is necessary to say, the same goes in reverse.
in short, these two threads are landmark events for GP. at least they should be considered as such. i am very interested in seeing if this can be done.
might i also add that these two threads should be moderated more tightly. meaning only that newbie posters with little to say should be omitted (allowing the fact that time needs to be given for such situations).
should a newbie poster have valid query, fine. the post will stay.
i do not perceive having problems with such posters.
i feel that most of the posters of GP (including the familiar posters from other boards) are capable of understanding what is going on here. likewise, i think that we can all interpret a legitimate question as it arises.
discrimination is the key.
------------------
~~share some greased tea with me~~
General Philosophy
