| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75
Comments:
<0> In fact, I wonder if "logical fallacies" has ever been scientifically tested to achieve at the correct answer.
<1> Swigert it good show
<2> Swigert...hrmmm
<0> "recognized"? You mean, as if enough people of authority agree it exists?
<1> do you trust " You are appealing to logical fallacies." are always as they seem to be?
<0> How do you prove or establish that they actually do exist *AND* are correct? [ beyond just any other english word ]
<3> I can't wait!!! Antietam! Harper's Ferry! Appomattox! Monticello! The Seven Days!
<3> cry: never had it
<4> Lupine: heh, using appeal to authority against the existence of a idea itself; is silly. it is designed to go against a person :)
<0> gopp: hence, the irony of those who take "Logic 101"
<1> Libertine again you are putting words in my mouth, I don't deny I ask are you sure you correct or not?
<2> Swigert..I signed you up for it while you were in US :)
<4> Lupine: you might as well use appeal to authority against verbs and direct objects.
<0> Libertine: "appeal to authority" need not be a living human breathing person. For example, a book, or a webpage.
<3> cry: oh great - why couldnt you sign me up to something worse, like the NAACP
<0> in fact, it is rather ignorant to believe it must be a living person actually there, speaking the words.
<5> Logical fallacies can be shown, through testable formal logic, to be illegitimate forms of argument. On the other hand, a person who uses a logical fallacy might still be correct.
<4> eh, both things you listed generally have a credited creator, a human at that.
<2> Swigert..I took you off the list :)
<4> Lupine: humans do make all ideas right? :)
<3> I get to go see where John Brown started the Civil War
<6> Logical fallacies ? I just tell the truth and try to support it with evidence from good authorities ;) Or try to show that seemingly settled issues are not settled at all except in some very closed minds. Did you know the ozone hole is now expected to be completely closed in 2050 ? Had we did our research we would of discovered that ozone holes appear and dissapear over geological time. Sort of like cooling and heating ;)
<0> Libertine: of course. In this case, it is those who compiled and agreed to these "logic of fallacies"
<4> Lupine: see; you ought to be using appeal to authority against anyone who ever claimed to create a logical fallacy.
<4> Lupine: do that; and I will not argue.
<7> ah, and the evidence of the 1degree increase over 100 years is just wrong?
<1> Lupine I bet their professor who teach logic 101, make claim " bush went to iraq" AND "thier oil in iraq" THUS " bush went to iraq for oil", even if it sound logical, it may not be correct
<0> Libertine; No, you are claiming that this list of "logical fallacies" are correct. Yet, you have submitted no valid evidence of it.
<8> sitexec, that's the problem, there isn't any real evdence....
<5> The simple response to an argument by appeal to authority is to ask for the logic of the authority. An appeal to authority is a fallacy because it doesn't actually make a logical argument for the stated proposition, though the authority MIGHT.
<7> your are arguing validity, not correctness, correctness is if the argument is stated right, validness is if it is acctually true from evidence
<8> sitexec, 100 years ago, think about that.
<6> sitexec, .5 celsius and its probably right its hard to tell because not enough world samples were taken over the globe to really get that accurate, we now have space based temperature recorders which show a 10th or so of a degree every decade.
<1> Libertine not a computer based proof
<2> hey gopp
<4> gopp: heh.. you guys are turning into intellectual anarchists :P
<1> Libertine you can have a computer run loop of some sort of code, and the end produce X
<3> publius: already done that...in my dreams when I'm Bo Duke
<0> Libertine: anarchists because I desire proof of your statements?
<1> Libertine and in a machine shop, a machine can bulid a car
<2> well...being a Libertine is fu at times...
<0> phone
<1> with no human interaction
<7> Fr33Trade, well simply look at the ammount of co2 we are putting into the atmosphere, the ammount of nuclear heat we are generating, the logic would seem to create an increase in temperature
<6> So far, they also say (Them Naughty scientists) It could also turn around and start cooling in 50 years, most of the ones who understand meteoology the best say that it has way to many variables to be predictable
<6> C02 has not been proven to be any major cause of global warming and some scientists who accept the theory that it is say it can only account for about 1 degree.
<2> Global Warming is ecowacko science...
<2> its main goal is to push Kyoto
<9> CryArvach: enviroterrism
<7> Fr33Trade, true, which is why i dont tottally agree it, its all inductive arguments, none with strong facts
<6> This is the problem its not wacko science, its full of political people with agendas..
<5> Libertine: Actually, the argument they are making could be seen as legitimate. They are protesting a bald ***ertion that logical fallacy invalidates an argument. They would be correct if the argument in favor of logical fallacy as a test of validity was just an ***erion, but it isn't.
<3> Kyoto is a horrible idea and Canada was right to reject it
<6> The science should be interesting and fascinating and something people want to learn about.
<2> Publius...Ecoterrorism....ELFies :)
<2> Kyoto is bull****
<4> Yaakov: i can't argue a belif :)
<0> Yaakov: it appears to be an ***ertion by Libertine himself. And I do not recognize him as an authority ;-)
<4> belief, even
<6> But just at the very beggining of even ATTEMPTING to understand it peoplle are coming away with conclusions they claim are facts.
<1> CryArvach hi
<2> If they tie Pollution to GDP...thats better
<6> As the scientist said, its not usually the scientists who are lying its people who take the scientists work and make claims bases on it.
<2> bbl
<3> cryarvach: at its heart Kyoto insists that global warming can be fought if we hand over all our money
<3> cryarvach: now tell me that isn't a scam
<1> Fr33Trade how about in the 1970 and gloobal cooling
<10> twenty-nine percent of Americans still buy this ****
<7> gawd, gdp,
<6> One of the major climate model scientists says he wonders if his models will work at all, he would like to be alive in 50 years to see if they are.. in other word he has no clue.
<6> But political people no the models are perfect
<6> no = know
<1> Fr33Trade they have grants, and they have mortages
<0> In any event, many of the issues dismissed as "logical fallacies" are actually very valid and helpful data, necessary to determine the factual validity of the question.
<5> Lupine: Logical fallacies are flaws in reasoning that are used to bolster arguments lacking factual strength. They are sometimes used INTENTIONALLY, in rehtorical circles, to convince people who don't understand the error, but they are usually used unwittingly.
<7> all presidents before bush combined borrowed: 1.01trillion, Bush: 1.02trillion already (borrowed from forign countrys and banks)
<4> Lupine: they do nothing to prove or disprove the argument.
<1> Fr33Trade how you studied geology and such
<4> Lupine: that is why they exist.
<6> moral of the lesson is if people are interested in science let them at it, If people are interested in science for political movtives of any type, right left middle, Al Gore, keep them far away from science because they corrupt it and turn it into lies and people lose faith in science when science should be fun.
<8> sitexec, just wait till the next one.
<6> Instead of a political instrument of fear and electing candidates.
<5> Lupine: Facts alone cannot make a case, they must be connected by logic. The argument must be both factually correct and logically valid. One or the other is insiffucient.
<6> Time to eat!
<0> libertine/yaakov: do you have any evidence that "pointing out a logical fallacy" will prevent someone's arguement from being accepted?
<7> lol, clinton made money muahahhahah
<0> For an example: would telling the people listening to Hitler's speeches.. that Hitler is engaged in a "logical fallacy", have convinced the crowd not to be persuaded by Hitler?
<1> Fr33Trade my sister tells me that all time, like in the news when they say don't eat this or do drink that or drink this, and she a phmaracist md, she say to me, did you read the journal did you , and I am like NO I didn't read the journal then don't trust what the guy on the news is telling you
<4> A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy i
<8> sitexec, see your messages.
<7> i cant accept private messages
<0> Libertine: No, it is your CLAIM it is an error in reasoning.
<4> They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.
<5> Lupine: I only point out logical fallacies if I am arguing with someone directly. I don't try to convince others. However, since most people don't understand argument and logic, it probably doesn't help.
<0> Libertine: Yes, that is your claim. You have been unable to justify it with evidence thou.
<4> In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).
<5> Lupine: Most logical fallacies are fundamental and obviously problematic without using formal proofs.
<11> http://dat.4chan.org/b/src/1148434130736.jpg discuss
<4> There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion!!
<4> my fingers hurt...
<12> my teeth itch
<1> Libertine hugo chavez say that bush is mr danger, and he makes this based on iraq war, and people belive chavez, but is chavez right
<4> spamming? im typing.
<7> oh man, the authority
<5> Lupine: Those were definitions.
<5> Lupine: You can argue with them but there doesn't seem to be much point, they are pretty basic.
<0> Yaakov: I am not argueing against them. I make no claim they are valid or not valid.
<0> I am saying, Libertine has not proven them.
<5> Lupine: That's rhetorical and disingenuous.
<0> Yaakov: No, that is all I am concerned about here.
<1> Libertine I don't accept that as being true, look at my or the cuban people in cuba, they authority is fidel and always right (e.g. bashing bush, and such) but is he always right, even if he has 100000 people supporting him?????
<0> Libertine has made claims, that he has not provided evidence for.
<5> Lupine: No, he has provided definitions, which you can argue with, if you choose--or accept.
<13> logical fallacies are established flaws in reasoning. You learn them in freshman level critical thinking cl***
<4> I accept that neither of them have to accept the existence of a defined logical argument ;)
<1> Lupine I don't accept that as being true, look at my or the cuban people in cuba, they authority is fidel and always right (e.g. bashing bush, and such) but is he always right, even if he has 100000 people supporting him?????
<0> Katey: right, you take them on authority.
<13> Lupine, er..no
<5> Lupine: Calling a definition of a term a "claim" is simply not useful EXCEPT as a rhetorical tactic.
<13> you learn why they are fallacious
<14> Katey: and one of the biggest is ***uming that if one finds a degree of fallacy in an argument that the finder somehow wins
<0> tim: lol. yea.
<1> Katey- you take your professor as the holy authority on the subject so your professor and his textbook where right?
<1> Katey- back it up, that your professor and his textbook where correct
<13> Tim-brb, well, my critical thinking professor always told us to simply disregard any argument that is based upon a fallacy
<0> In any event, Libertine was not using evidence to disprove someone. Rather, he was just applying a bumper sticker slogan.
<14> gopp: Katey doesn't have to 'back up' the notion that one learns basic logic in Philosophy 10.
<13> which I admit, I tend to do
<14> 101
<5> gopp: Logical fallacies can be FORMALLY proven to exist, and the list we generally use today are well understood.
<0> phone again
<1> Lupine my friends always say that, to me, he tryst to find a flaw in my arugment then he say k you lost don't keep going
<13> My professor didn't make them up. :)
<4> Lupine: bumper sticker slogan? I am using facts.
<5> There is a difference between an argument BASED on a fallacy and one that CONTAINS a fallacy. Some people have good points to make but aren't logically adept.
<15> ***erting that Katey has to defend well understood and known logical constructions is stupid.
<15> Yaakov: righto
<4> Lupine: and to be fair now; very few logically fallacies can fit on a bumper sticker :)
<13> Yaakov, of course
<16> Oh, **** yeah.
<16> Publius you around?
<17> hi crispy
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#gentoo
#linuxhelp
rebuild sendmail.cf
#debian
#firebird
#sex
#politics
#gentoo
#politics
#beginner
|
|
