Total Posts:237|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Fallacies of relevance

Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 8:42:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The more i think of fallacies such as ad populum, appealing to authority etc., the more I think that they're not fallacies at all.

It's more that there are better sources of information and that you should use those better sources if they're available. If they're not, for whatever reason, then it's not a fallacy to be influenced by popular opinion or whatever.

For example, there used to be a TV show called "who wants to be a millionaire" and contestants had to answer multiple choice questions for money and they lost everything as soon as they got a wrong answer. They had these "lifelines" - they could call a friend, or they could get the audience to answer. For the audience one, everyone in the studio audience would say what they thought the answer was, and the contestant could see the answer frequencies.

The audience lifeline was best for easy questions, like, who won last years' football premiership or what's the name of the dog in a popular TV show. The majority of the audience always got those sorts of questions right. They weren't so good for obscure questions, and then of course there was always the possibility that popular knowledge is just incorrect.

The TV show is an interesting example, because the contestant had no other sources of knowledge, and so it was entirely rational to be influenced by popular opinion. Then, there are other circumstances where popular opinion is the best source of information, for example if the question is what is the most popular vegetable at thanksgiving, obviously, the best way to find out is to source popular opinion.

Therefore, I can't help but think that it's not a fallacy to pay attention to popular opinion depending on the circumstances. For example, a friend of mine showed me a proof that the square root of 2 is an irrational number. A mathematical proof is the best reference for something like that. However, if I didn't know that, and I was on who wants to be a millionaire, it wouldn't be a fallacy to ask the audience or phone a friend, because I wouldn't have access to those better sources.

Same for ad hominem. If we're lost in the forest without a phone and the person I'm with has some theory about going downhill to the river, or something about snakes, of course I will weigh that opinion/advice differently depending on my assessment of that person, whether she is experienced in the forest, dependable or whatever. It's reasonable to do that. On the other hand, if I had some other, better, source so I could independently check that information, and her personal qualities would be irrelevant.
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 11:25:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 8:42:51 PM, Garbanza wrote:
The more i think of fallacies such as ad populum, appealing to authority etc., the more I think that they're not fallacies at all.

It's more that there are better sources of information and that you should use those better sources if they're available. If they're not, for whatever reason, then it's not a fallacy to be influenced by popular opinion or whatever.

Well the reason for this is that they are what you call "Informal Fallacies". What that means is that they are not always fallacious. There is situations where they may be, or where they may not be. This is in contrast with "Formal" Fallacies, which are always wrong, no matter the situation, such as Affirming the Consequence. In this case, Ad Populum can be valid in cases where it's a matter of popular opinion (such as much of our morality, or whether a nation mostly loves a food), whereas it is fallacious if one were to say you were quilty of the murder because "everyone knows it". As for Appeal to Authority, it is valid in some situations, but in many it isn't. For example, many people who had authority in a field have proven to be wrong, therefore to build your argument entirely around ones authority, or to ignore another person's argument because of they don't appear to have a authority, is fallacious.

For example, there used to be a TV show called "who wants to be a millionaire" and contestants had to answer multiple choice questions for money and they lost everything as soon as they got a wrong answer. They had these "lifelines" - they could call a friend, or they could get the audience to answer. For the audience one, everyone in the studio audience would say what they thought the answer was, and the contestant could see the answer frequencies.

The audience lifeline was best for easy questions, like, who won last years' football premiership or what's the name of the dog in a popular TV show. The majority of the audience always got those sorts of questions right. They weren't so good for obscure questions, and then of course there was always the possibility that popular knowledge is just incorrect.

The TV show is an interesting example, because the contestant had no other sources of knowledge, and so it was entirely rational to be influenced by popular opinion. Then, there are other circumstances where popular opinion is the best source of information, for example if the question is what is the most popular vegetable at thanksgiving, obviously, the best way to find out is to source popular opinion.


Well yes the audience was often right, and yes for the contestant it was best to listen, however they weren't always right. Had the audience been wrong, the contestant would have been fallacious to attempt to argue against the right answer on the grounds that the audience couldn't be wrong. As the contestant never did that, he never performed a fallacy. And yes the thanksgiving example (happy thanksgiving btw) shows that, just as I said, it's not always fallacious, which is why it's an informal fallacy.

Therefore, I can't help but think that it's not a fallacy to pay attention to popular opinion depending on the circumstances. For example, a friend of mine showed me a proof that the square root of 2 is an irrational number. A mathematical proof is the best reference for something like that. However, if I didn't know that, and I was on who wants to be a millionaire, it wouldn't be a fallacy to ask the audience or phone a friend, because I wouldn't have access to those better sources.

Like I said, it wouldn't be a fallacy, unless you continued to argue against the answer using only the audience to support you.
Same for ad hominem. If we're lost in the forest without a phone and the person I'm with has some theory about going downhill to the river, or something about snakes, of course I will weigh that opinion/advice differently depending on my assessment of that person, whether she is experienced in the forest, dependable or whatever. It's reasonable to do that. On the other hand, if I had some other, better, source so I could independently check that information, and her personal qualities would be irrelevant.

Well no by weighing the odds of them being right by your assessment of their experience and qualifications, that's fits into Appeal to Authority, not Ad Hominem. Because your basing it off their authority. In order for it to be Ad Hominem, you must have decided you don't want to listen based off something that has truly nothing to do the argument, such as you not liking her clothes, or because they voted for some else to be homecoming queen. You're talking about Ad Hominem, but your example isn't Ad Hominem. But a fact is that Ad Hominem is technically Informal, however I view it as formal. Often times it's considered acceptable in arguments of morality to point out the opponents hypocrisy, however I don't believe hypocrisy is a valid argument against a morality, and in fact sometimes Hypocrisy may justify ones views in morality as it may give them experience (such as an unmarried mother arguing for abstinence, her hypocrisy actually gives her an understanding of the hardships, rather then invalidating her claims).

But again, I remind you that your example isn't Ad hominem but rather Authority, which in this case isn't Fallacious (though as with most Informal Fallacies, it's best to remember that his authority won't make him right, rather it just makes him the best source to use at the moment)

==Unitomic==
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 12:42:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 11:25:48 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/26/2014 8:42:51 PM, Garbanza wrote:
The more i think of fallacies such as ad populum, appealing to authority etc., the more I think that they're not fallacies at all.

It's more that there are better sources of information and that you should use those better sources if they're available. If they're not, for whatever reason, then it's not a fallacy to be influenced by popular opinion or whatever.

Well the reason for this is that they are what you call "Informal Fallacies". What that means is that they are not always fallacious. There is situations where they may be, or where they may not be. This is in contrast with "Formal" Fallacies, which are always wrong, no matter the situation, such as Affirming the Consequence. In this case, Ad Populum can be valid in cases where it's a matter of popular opinion (such as much of our morality, or whether a nation mostly loves a food), whereas it is fallacious if one were to say you were quilty of the murder because "everyone knows it".

You'd have to assume that people are wrong, though. If everyone saw you murder someone, then that would be good enough evidence of your guilt. Or they might have been sitting in the courtroom when you were convicted of murder, or they might have some other good reason for thinking it.

Well yes the audience was often right, and yes for the contestant it was best to listen, however they weren't always right. Had the audience been wrong, the contestant would have been fallacious to attempt to argue against the right answer on the grounds that the audience couldn't be wrong. As the contestant never did that, he never performed a fallacy. And yes the thanksgiving example (happy thanksgiving btw) shows that, just as I said, it's not always fallacious, which is why it's an informal fallacy.

Yes, if the contestant argued with the "right" answer it would be a fallacy, but that's only because part of the game is the assumption that the official answer is right. If there was a gimmick of a wrong answer every show, or we just had no faith in the answers given because they'd been wrong in the past (much more like real information outside a game show), then there might be more grounds for backing the answer that 99% of the audience think is right.

Therefore, I can't help but think that it's not a fallacy to pay attention to popular opinion depending on the circumstances. For example, a friend of mine showed me a proof that the square root of 2 is an irrational number. A mathematical proof is the best reference for something like that. However, if I didn't know that, and I was on who wants to be a millionaire, it wouldn't be a fallacy to ask the audience or phone a friend, because I wouldn't have access to those better sources.

Like I said, it wouldn't be a fallacy, unless you continued to argue against the answer using only the audience to support you.
Same for ad hominem. If we're lost in the forest without a phone and the person I'm with has some theory about going downhill to the river, or something about snakes, of course I will weigh that opinion/advice differently depending on my assessment of that person, whether she is experienced in the forest, dependable or whatever. It's reasonable to do that. On the other hand, if I had some other, better, source so I could independently check that information, and her personal qualities would be irrelevant.

Well no by weighing the odds of them being right by your assessment of their experience and qualifications, that's fits into Appeal to Authority, not Ad Hominem. Because your basing it off their authority. In order for it to be Ad Hominem, you must have decided you don't want to listen based off something that has truly nothing to do the argument, such as you not liking her clothes, or because they voted for some else to be homecoming queen. You're talking about Ad Hominem, but your example isn't Ad Hominem.

Okay.

But a fact is that Ad Hominem is technically Informal, however I view it as formal. Often times it's considered acceptable in arguments of morality to point out the opponents hypocrisy, however I don't believe hypocrisy is a valid argument against a morality, and in fact sometimes Hypocrisy may justify ones views in morality as it may give them experience (such as an unmarried mother arguing for abstinence, her hypocrisy actually gives her an understanding of the hardships, rather then invalidating her claims).

But again, I remind you that your example isn't Ad hominem but rather Authority, which in this case isn't Fallacious (though as with most Informal Fallacies, it's best to remember that his authority won't make him right, rather it just makes him the best source to use at the moment)

==Unitomic==

Thanks for this. I didn't know there was a difference between informal and formal fallacies. To call them "fallacies" at all seems a bit of an overstatement, then, if they are often justified.
Unitomic
Posts: 591
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 2:17:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 12:42:06 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:25:48 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/26/2014 8:42:51 PM, Garbanza wrote:
The more i think of fallacies such as ad populum, appealing to authority etc., the more I think that they're not fallacies at all.

It's more that there are better sources of information and that you should use those better sources if they're available. If they're not, for whatever reason, then it's not a fallacy to be influenced by popular opinion or whatever.

Well the reason for this is that they are what you call "Informal Fallacies". What that means is that they are not always fallacious. There is situations where they may be, or where they may not be. This is in contrast with "Formal" Fallacies, which are always wrong, no matter the situation, such as Affirming the Consequence. In this case, Ad Populum can be valid in cases where it's a matter of popular opinion (such as much of our morality, or whether a nation mostly loves a food), whereas it is fallacious if one were to say you were quilty of the murder because "everyone knows it".

You'd have to assume that people are wrong, though. If everyone saw you murder someone, then that would be good enough evidence of your guilt. Or they might have been sitting in the courtroom when you were convicted of murder, or they might have some other good reason for thinking it.

If they have such a good reason such as seeing it, then it isn't Populum, as there was in truth established facts, which is empirical evidence, not popular opinion. The fact that it was everyone that saw in and not a few is simply reinforcement

Well yes the audience was often right, and yes for the contestant it was best to listen, however they weren't always right. Had the audience been wrong, the contestant would have been fallacious to attempt to argue against the right answer on the grounds that the audience couldn't be wrong. As the contestant never did that, he never performed a fallacy. And yes the thanksgiving example (happy thanksgiving btw) shows that, just as I said, it's not always fallacious, which is why it's an informal fallacy.

Yes, if the contestant argued with the "right" answer it would be a fallacy, but that's only because part of the game is the assumption that the official answer is right. If there was a gimmick of a wrong answer every show, or we just had no faith in the answers given because they'd been wrong in the past (much more like real information outside a game show), then there might be more grounds for backing the answer that 99% of the audience think is right.

Therefore, I can't help but think that it's not a fallacy to pay attention to popular opinion depending on the circumstances. For example, a friend of mine showed me a proof that the square root of 2 is an irrational number. A mathematical proof is the best reference for something like that. However, if I didn't know that, and I was on who wants to be a millionaire, it wouldn't be a fallacy to ask the audience or phone a friend, because I wouldn't have access to those better sources.

Like I said, it wouldn't be a fallacy, unless you continued to argue against the answer using only the audience to support you.
Same for ad hominem. If we're lost in the forest without a phone and the person I'm with has some theory about going downhill to the river, or something about snakes, of course I will weigh that opinion/advice differently depending on my assessment of that person, whether she is experienced in the forest, dependable or whatever. It's reasonable to do that. On the other hand, if I had some other, better, source so I could independently check that information, and her personal qualities would be irrelevant.

Well no by weighing the odds of them being right by your assessment of their experience and qualifications, that's fits into Appeal to Authority, not Ad Hominem. Because your basing it off their authority. In order for it to be Ad Hominem, you must have decided you don't want to listen based off something that has truly nothing to do the argument, such as you not liking her clothes, or because they voted for some else to be homecoming queen. You're talking about Ad Hominem, but your example isn't Ad Hominem.

Okay.

But a fact is that Ad Hominem is technically Informal, however I view it as formal. Often times it's considered acceptable in arguments of morality to point out the opponents hypocrisy, however I don't believe hypocrisy is a valid argument against a morality, and in fact sometimes Hypocrisy may justify ones views in morality as it may give them experience (such as an unmarried mother arguing for abstinence, her hypocrisy actually gives her an understanding of the hardships, rather then invalidating her claims).

But again, I remind you that your example isn't Ad hominem but rather Authority, which in this case isn't Fallacious (though as with most Informal Fallacies, it's best to remember that his authority won't make him right, rather it just makes him the best source to use at the moment)

==Unitomic==

Thanks for this. I didn't know there was a difference between informal and formal fallacies. To call them "fallacies" at all seems a bit of an overstatement, then, if they are often justified.

Well that's because they aren't always fallacies. They are only Fallacies in certain circumstances, but when they fit those circumstances they are entirely fallacious. Outside of those circumstances they aren't really fallacies, however I'd bear in mind they aren't winning arguments (except in the case of Populum where it's about a matter of popular opinion), because they don't truly prove a point, rather they simply reinforce it.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 7:40:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 12:42:06 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:25:48 PM, Unitomic wrote:
At 11/26/2014 8:42:51 PM, Garbanza wrote:
The more i think of fallacies such as ad populum, appealing to authority etc., the more I think that they're not fallacies at all.

It's more that there are better sources of information and that you should use those better sources if they're available. If they're not, for whatever reason, then it's not a fallacy to be influenced by popular opinion or whatever.

Well the reason for this is that they are what you call "Informal Fallacies". What that means is that they are not always fallacious. There is situations where they may be, or where they may not be. This is in contrast with "Formal" Fallacies, which are always wrong, no matter the situation, such as Affirming the Consequence. In this case, Ad Populum can be valid in cases where it's a matter of popular opinion (such as much of our morality, or whether a nation mostly loves a food), whereas it is fallacious if one were to say you were quilty of the murder because "everyone knows it".

You'd have to assume that people are wrong, though. If everyone saw you murder someone, then that would be good enough evidence of your guilt. Or they might have been sitting in the courtroom when you were convicted of murder, or they might have some other good reason for thinking it.

Well yes the audience was often right, and yes for the contestant it was best to listen, however they weren't always right. Had the audience been wrong, the contestant would have been fallacious to attempt to argue against the right answer on the grounds that the audience couldn't be wrong. As the contestant never did that, he never performed a fallacy. And yes the thanksgiving example (happy thanksgiving btw) shows that, just as I said, it's not always fallacious, which is why it's an informal fallacy.

Yes, if the contestant argued with the "right" answer it would be a fallacy, but that's only because part of the game is the assumption that the official answer is right. If there was a gimmick of a wrong answer every show, or we just had no faith in the answers given because they'd been wrong in the past (much more like real information outside a game show), then there might be more grounds for backing the answer that 99% of the audience think is right.

Therefore, I can't help but think that it's not a fallacy to pay attention to popular opinion depending on the circumstances. For example, a friend of mine showed me a proof that the square root of 2 is an irrational number. A mathematical proof is the best reference for something like that. However, if I didn't know that, and I was on who wants to be a millionaire, it wouldn't be a fallacy to ask the audience or phone a friend, because I wouldn't have access to those better sources.

Like I said, it wouldn't be a fallacy, unless you continued to argue against the answer using only the audience to support you.
Same for ad hominem. If we're lost in the forest without a phone and the person I'm with has some theory about going downhill to the river, or something about snakes, of course I will weigh that opinion/advice differently depending on my assessment of that person, whether she is experienced in the forest, dependable or whatever. It's reasonable to do that. On the other hand, if I had some other, better, source so I could independently check that information, and her personal qualities would be irrelevant.

Well no by weighing the odds of them being right by your assessment of their experience and qualifications, that's fits into Appeal to Authority, not Ad Hominem. Because your basing it off their authority. In order for it to be Ad Hominem, you must have decided you don't want to listen based off something that has truly nothing to do the argument, such as you not liking her clothes, or because they voted for some else to be homecoming queen. You're talking about Ad Hominem, but your example isn't Ad Hominem.

Okay.

But a fact is that Ad Hominem is technically Informal, however I view it as formal. Often times it's considered acceptable in arguments of morality to point out the opponents hypocrisy, however I don't believe hypocrisy is a valid argument against a morality, and in fact sometimes Hypocrisy may justify ones views in morality as it may give them experience (such as an unmarried mother arguing for abstinence, her hypocrisy actually gives her an understanding of the hardships, rather then invalidating her claims).

But again, I remind you that your example isn't Ad hominem but rather Authority, which in this case isn't Fallacious (though as with most Informal Fallacies, it's best to remember that his authority won't make him right, rather it just makes him the best source to use at the moment)

==Unitomic==

Thanks for this. I didn't know there was a difference between informal and formal fallacies. To call them "fallacies" at all seems a bit of an overstatement, then, if they are often justified.

If something isn't ALWAYS true, then it is false. You may dispute the level or frequency of fallaciousness, but in the end, it's still fallacious.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 8:09:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 7:40:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Thanks for this. I didn't know there was a difference between informal and formal fallacies. To call them "fallacies" at all seems a bit of an overstatement, then, if they are often justified.

If something isn't ALWAYS true, then it is false. You may dispute the level or frequency of fallaciousness, but in the end, it's still fallacious.

but only because it's not defined well enough and is unhelpful. It's not the appealing to popularity part that's wrong, it's something else. Maybe the rule should be about refering to the best or most official source, rather than a blanket disapproval of referring to popularity, when actually it can be a very useful source of information.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 8:10:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 8:09:07 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/27/2014 7:40:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Thanks for this. I didn't know there was a difference between informal and formal fallacies. To call them "fallacies" at all seems a bit of an overstatement, then, if they are often justified.

If something isn't ALWAYS true, then it is false. You may dispute the level or frequency of fallaciousness, but in the end, it's still fallacious.

but only because it's not defined well enough and is unhelpful. It's not the appealing to popularity part that's wrong, it's something else.

Right, and to say that popular opinion is what makes it true is fallacious reasoning, while the underlined would be the better option. That's the nature of the ad populum fallacy.

Maybe the rule should be about refering to the best or most official source, rather than a blanket disapproval of referring to popularity, when actually it can be a very useful source of information.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 8:43:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 8:10:36 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/27/2014 8:09:07 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/27/2014 7:40:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Thanks for this. I didn't know there was a difference between informal and formal fallacies. To call them "fallacies" at all seems a bit of an overstatement, then, if they are often justified.

If something isn't ALWAYS true, then it is false. You may dispute the level or frequency of fallaciousness, but in the end, it's still fallacious.

but only because it's not defined well enough and is unhelpful. It's not the appealing to popularity part that's wrong, it's something else.

Right, and to say that popular opinion is what makes it true is fallacious reasoning, while the underlined would be the better option. That's the nature of the ad populum fallacy.

But all sources of information are fallible, and to blindly trust in them is fallacious. So why pick on this source particularly?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 8:44:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 8:43:03 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/27/2014 8:10:36 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/27/2014 8:09:07 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/27/2014 7:40:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Thanks for this. I didn't know there was a difference between informal and formal fallacies. To call them "fallacies" at all seems a bit of an overstatement, then, if they are often justified.

If something isn't ALWAYS true, then it is false. You may dispute the level or frequency of fallaciousness, but in the end, it's still fallacious.

but only because it's not defined well enough and is unhelpful. It's not the appealing to popularity part that's wrong, it's something else.

Right, and to say that popular opinion is what makes it true is fallacious reasoning, while the underlined would be the better option. That's the nature of the ad populum fallacy.

But all sources of information are fallible, and to blindly trust in them is fallacious. So why pick on this source particularly?

Tautologies are not fallacious. In the end, all arguments that cannot be reduced to such are fallacious arguments.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 1:46:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 8:09:07 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/27/2014 7:40:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Thanks for this. I didn't know there was a difference between informal and formal fallacies. To call them "fallacies" at all seems a bit of an overstatement, then, if they are often justified.

If something isn't ALWAYS true, then it is [invalid/fallacious]. You may dispute the level or frequency of fallaciousness, but in the end, it's still fallacious.

but only because it's not defined well enough and is unhelpful. It's not the appealing to popularity part that's wrong, it's something else. Maybe the rule should be about refering to the best or most official source, rather than a blanket disapproval of referring to popularity, when actually it can be a very useful source of information.

In case this helps:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 8:36:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 1:46:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
but only because it's not defined well enough and is unhelpful. It's not the appealing to popularity part that's wrong, it's something else. Maybe the rule should be about refering to the best or most official source, rather than a blanket disapproval of referring to popularity, when actually it can be a very useful source of information.

In case this helps:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Not really. I don't really get it. Thanks anyway though. :)
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 9:46:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 8:36:23 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/27/2014 1:46:28 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
but only because it's not defined well enough and is unhelpful. It's not the appealing to popularity part that's wrong, it's something else. Maybe the rule should be about refering to the best or most official source, rather than a blanket disapproval of referring to popularity, when actually it can be a very useful source of information.

In case this helps:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Not really. I don't really get it. Thanks anyway though. :)

Hmm...how about this?

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Anything that does not contain sound reasoning is fallacious. That means the premises must be true, and the conclusion must follow it. Not "might" follow it, "MUST" follow it.

That's why ad populum is fallacious reasoning...it's not necessarily true that popular opinion is correct:

P) Everyone believes the world is flat
C) Therefore, the world is flat

Fallacious reasoning.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 9:49:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 9:46:48 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/27/2014 8:36:23 PM, Garbanza wrote:

Anything that does not contain sound reasoning is fallacious. That means the premises must be true, and the conclusion must follow it. Not "might" follow it, "MUST" follow it.

That's why ad populum is fallacious reasoning...it's not necessarily true that popular opinion is correct:

P1) Everyone believes the world is flat
P2) What everyone believes is always correct.
C) Therefore, the world is flat

Fallacious reasoning.

Added underlined.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 10:07:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just to expand this further:

P1) Everyone believes the world is flat
P2) What everyone believes is always correct.
C) Therefore, the world is flat

P1) Everyone believes the dollar is worthless
P2) The value of money is based solely upon people's perceptions...it has no intrinsic value
P3) The dollar is money
C) Therefore, the dollar is worthless

Ad populum arguments only work in the latter case, where the basis of the argument is whether or not people believe it to be true (i.e. social convention). It does not work in the former case...what people think about the world being flat has absolutely no bearing as to whether or not the world is actually flat.

This is all stated in the wiki link on the topic, btw.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 10:19:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 9:49:00 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/27/2014 9:46:48 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/27/2014 8:36:23 PM, Garbanza wrote:

Anything that does not contain sound reasoning is fallacious. That means the premises must be true, and the conclusion must follow it. Not "might" follow it, "MUST" follow it.

That's why ad populum is fallacious reasoning...it's not necessarily true that popular opinion is correct:

P1) Everyone believes the world is flat
P2) What everyone believes is always correct.
C) Therefore, the world is flat

Fallacious reasoning.

Added underlined.

Yes, but what I don't understand is why there's a special fallacy for ad populum when the same objection could be applied to any source of knowledge.

P1) Blah blah has been demonstrated scientifically in a peer-reviewed journal
P2) What is demonstrated scientifically in a peer-reviewed journal is always correct.
C) Therefore, blah blah is true.

Fallacious.

P1) I remember seeing xyz with my own eyes!
P2) My perceptual memories are always correct.
C) Therefore, xyz is true.

Fallacious.

Point is, no source of evidence is perfect. Some are more reliable than others is all. But there's no use writing off sources of information entirely by calling them "fallacies" especially when, in some circumstances, they may be the best sources of information available.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 11:24:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/28/2014 10:19:47 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/27/2014 9:49:00 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/27/2014 9:46:48 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/27/2014 8:36:23 PM, Garbanza wrote:

Anything that does not contain sound reasoning is fallacious. That means the premises must be true, and the conclusion must follow it. Not "might" follow it, "MUST" follow it.

That's why ad populum is fallacious reasoning...it's not necessarily true that popular opinion is correct:

P1) Everyone believes the world is flat
P2) What everyone believes is always correct.
C) Therefore, the world is flat

Fallacious reasoning.

Added underlined.

Yes, but what I don't understand is why there's a special fallacy for ad populum when the same objection could be applied to any source of knowledge.

I want you to look at the examples you gave here. All of the examples you utilized specifically use the ad populum fallacy. Compare it to the following example:

P1) The world is not flat.
P2) Everyone believes the world is flat.
P3) What everyone believes is not necessarily true.
C) Therefore, the world is not flat.

This is a tautology...P2 and P3 don't affect the conclusion. P1 and the conclusion are identical, identities being the simplest form of a tautology. If you accept P1 as being true, the argument is sound (and therefore true). If not, it is at least internally consistent (but still fallacious).

P1) Blah blah has been demonstrated scientifically in a peer-reviewed journal
P2) What is demonstrated scientifically in a peer-reviewed journal is always correct.
C) Therefore, blah blah is true.

Fallacious.

P1) I remember seeing xyz with my own eyes!
P2) My perceptual memories are always correct.
C) Therefore, xyz is true.

Fallacious.

Point is, no source of evidence is perfect. Some are more reliable than others is all. But there's no use writing off sources of information entirely by calling them "fallacies" especially when, in some circumstances, they may be the best sources of information available.

Perfection of evidence is not relevant to this issue:

P1) You are you.
C) Therefore, you are you.

This argument is true regardless of whether or not you're perfect.

The underlined is exactly what scientists do, because scientists make no claim to the truth. Scientists are quite cognizant that their observations are more than likely fallacious in the long run due to faulty premises. It's not about "writing things off", it's about determining whether or not an argument is internally consistent. Scientists would not make arguments like "1+1 =/= 1+1".

I mean, a cornerstone of science is the ability to replicate results within a certain threshold of reliability. That's internally consistent because scientists don't claim that their methods are perfect.

The problem with ad populum is that you need to explain why we should assume something besides social convention to be true just because everyone says it's true. The operation assumption should very easily be that it's not necessarily true.

Finally, I will note that you've completely ignored the difference between knowledge dependent upon social convention, and knowledge independent of social convention.

Again:

P1) What everyone says about something is how we go about naming things.
P2) Everyone says that this is an apple.
C) Therefore, this is an apple.

This is ad populum but not fallacious.

P1) Someone has demonstrated that the world is more than likely not flat via scientific method.
P2) Everyone believes the world is flat.
C) Therefore, the world is flat.

This is fallacious ad populum. It should be self-evident right here that social convention is useless when it comes to knowledge independent of social convention.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 11:48:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/28/2014 11:24:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Perfection of evidence is not relevant to this issue:

P1) You are you.
C) Therefore, you are you.

This argument is true regardless of whether or not you're perfect.

The underlined is exactly what scientists do, because scientists make no claim to the truth. Scientists are quite cognizant that their observations are more than likely fallacious in the long run due to faulty premises. It's not about "writing things off", it's about determining whether or not an argument is internally consistent. Scientists would not make arguments like "1+1 =/= 1+1".

I mean, a cornerstone of science is the ability to replicate results within a certain threshold of reliability. That's internally consistent because scientists don't claim that their methods are perfect.

The problem with ad populum is that you need to explain why we should assume something besides social convention to be true just because everyone says it's true. The operation assumption should very easily be that it's not necessarily true.

Finally, I will note that you've completely ignored the difference between knowledge dependent upon social convention, and knowledge independent of social convention.

Again:

P1) What everyone says about something is how we go about naming things.
P2) Everyone says that this is an apple.
C) Therefore, this is an apple.

This is ad populum but not fallacious.

P1) Someone has demonstrated that the world is more than likely not flat via scientific method.
P2) Everyone believes the world is flat.
C) Therefore, the world is flat.

This is fallacious ad populum. It should be self-evident right here that social convention is useless when it comes to knowledge independent of social convention.

I agree. My point is only that it's a fallacy that applies to any source of knowledge, so I don't really understand why popular knowledge has been singled out.

For example - and I've changed it because the world being flat is so obviously wrong.

P1) Someone has demonstrated that maternal stress is unlikely to be responsible for premature births via scientific method.
P2) Everyone believes that stress can bring on early labor.
C) Therefore, stress can bring on labor.

P1) Someone has demonstrated a connection between maternal stress and premature births via scientific method.
P2) Everyone believes that maternal stress has nothing to do with how early the baby is born.
C) Therefore, stress can bring on labor.

These are both equally fallacious. So it's the structure of the argument that's faulty, not that popular opinion is involved. That's why I don't understand why there's a special fallacy for popular opinion.

I mean, your point seems to be that scientists don't make the mistake of thinking they've established truth when they haven't. So maybe you just think the second kind of fallacy is less frequent? I disagree, because even just on this site, people seem to have an unholy trust in scientific "evidence". Anyway, it's not just for science and popular opinion. Any source of evidence has the same limitations.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 11:54:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/28/2014 11:48:43 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/28/2014 11:24:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Perfection of evidence is not relevant to this issue:

P1) You are you.
C) Therefore, you are you.

This argument is true regardless of whether or not you're perfect.

The underlined is exactly what scientists do, because scientists make no claim to the truth. Scientists are quite cognizant that their observations are more than likely fallacious in the long run due to faulty premises. It's not about "writing things off", it's about determining whether or not an argument is internally consistent. Scientists would not make arguments like "1+1 =/= 1+1".

I mean, a cornerstone of science is the ability to replicate results within a certain threshold of reliability. That's internally consistent because scientists don't claim that their methods are perfect.

The problem with ad populum is that you need to explain why we should assume something besides social convention to be true just because everyone says it's true. The operation assumption should very easily be that it's not necessarily true.

Finally, I will note that you've completely ignored the difference between knowledge dependent upon social convention, and knowledge independent of social convention.

Again:

P1) What everyone says about something is how we go about naming things.
P2) Everyone says that this is an apple.
C) Therefore, this is an apple.

This is ad populum but not fallacious.

P1) Someone has demonstrated that the world is more than likely not flat via scientific method.
P2) Everyone believes the world is flat.
C) Therefore, the world is flat.

This is fallacious ad populum. It should be self-evident right here that social convention is useless when it comes to knowledge independent of social convention.

I agree. My point is only that it's a fallacy that applies to any source of knowledge, so I don't really understand why popular knowledge has been singled out.

For example - and I've changed it because the world being flat is so obviously wrong.

P1) Someone has demonstrated that maternal stress is unlikely to be responsible for premature births via scientific method.
P2) Everyone believes that stress can bring on early labor.
C) Therefore, stress can bring on labor.


P1) Someone has demonstrated a connection between maternal stress and premature births via scientific method.
P2) Everyone believes that maternal stress has nothing to do with how early the baby is born.
C) Therefore, stress can bring on labor.

These are both equally fallacious. So it's the structure of the argument that's faulty, not that popular opinion is involved. That's why I don't understand why there's a special fallacy for popular opinion.

What exactly do you mean by "structure"? I would note that P1 in both your examples would not lead to either conclusion that "stress can/cannot bring on labor". The best you can do is simply repeat your P1 as your conclusion, and that is what scientists would do, yes? I would point to a structural error in how you're formulating your conclusion in both examples.

I mean, your point seems to be that scientists don't make the mistake of thinking they've established truth when they haven't. So maybe you just think the second kind of fallacy is less frequent? I disagree, because even just on this site, people seem to have an unholy trust in scientific "evidence". Anyway, it's not just for science and popular opinion. Any source of evidence has the same limitations.

Well, yes, on this site, it's about what people find to be more convincing, not what is true.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2014 11:55:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/28/2014 11:48:43 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/28/2014 11:24:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

These are both equally fallacious. So it's the structure of the argument that's faulty, not that popular opinion is involved. That's why I don't understand why there's a special fallacy for popular opinion.

It's a fallacy because in both cases, popular opinion does not affect the conclusion, and to think it does is fallacious.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 12:01:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/28/2014 11:48:43 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/28/2014 11:24:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

Finally, I will note that you've completely ignored the difference between knowledge dependent upon social convention, and knowledge independent of social convention.

Again:

P1) What everyone says about something is how we go about naming things.
P2) Everyone says that this is an apple.
C) Therefore, this is an apple.

This is ad populum but not fallacious.


It should be self-evident right here that social convention is useless when it comes to knowledge independent of social convention.

I agree. My point is only that it's a fallacy that applies to any source of knowledge

Again, no...reread the underlined.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 9:57:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/28/2014 11:55:46 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/28/2014 11:48:43 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/28/2014 11:24:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

These are both equally fallacious. So it's the structure of the argument that's faulty, not that popular opinion is involved. That's why I don't understand why there's a special fallacy for popular opinion.

It's a fallacy because in both cases, popular opinion does not affect the conclusion, and to think it does is fallacious.

No, but there's NO source of knowledge that establishes truth absolutely, so you put up any information source and not be able reach that conclusion. So any knowledge source would be fallacious.

So why have ad populum as a fallacy and not book fallacy, internet fallacy, own memory fallacy etc.? I mean it's weird. I've never studied logic, but all this premise, fallacy stuff seems to me to be entirely artificial. Kind of like maths where you create an imaginary world of numbers, relationships and processes and make comments within that framework. Whereas in the real world, nothing is certain, and popular opinion DOES carry information, albeit imperfectly. So why single it out for a fallacy? That's what I don't understand.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 10:30:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 9:57:57 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/28/2014 11:55:46 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/28/2014 11:48:43 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/28/2014 11:24:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

These are both equally fallacious. So it's the structure of the argument that's faulty, not that popular opinion is involved. That's why I don't understand why there's a special fallacy for popular opinion.

It's a fallacy because in both cases, popular opinion does not affect the conclusion, and to think it does is fallacious.

No, but there's NO source of knowledge that establishes truth absolutely, so you put up any information source and not be able reach that conclusion. So any knowledge source would be fallacious.

So why have ad populum as a fallacy and not book fallacy, internet fallacy, own memory fallacy etc.?

Saying that something is true because "you read it in a book somewhere" or "you saw it on the internet" are appeals to authority, another type of fallacy. Just because you saw it somewhere does not make it true either. It may very well be true, but the fact that you saw it in a book somewhere has no relevance to it being true, i.e. "fallacy of relevance" per your thread title.

I mean it's weird. I've never studied logic, but all this premise, fallacy stuff seems to me to be entirely artificial. Kind of like maths where you create an imaginary world of numbers, relationships and processes and make comments within that framework. Whereas in the real world, nothing is certain, and popular opinion DOES carry information, albeit imperfectly. So why single it out for a fallacy? That's what I don't understand.

Well yes, all logic is is a model for reason. All reasoning is is a model for consistency. All fallacies are are errors in reasoning and logic.

What you're essentially saying is that we should put serious weight on whether or not the world is flat simply because many people believe it to be true. I sincerely hope you can understand why this kind of reasoning does not work. Just because people believe it to be true does not make it true. Again, the exception is for matters pertaining to social convention.

Now, think of satellite imagery, astronomy, etc, that can demonstrate that the world is indeed not flat. I sincerely hope you can understand why this kind of reasoning does work...it can be replicated to demonstrate consistency.

You may say that this is obvious, but it's in the most obvious cases where the justification becomes most evident. Why obfuscate this matter for yourself?

I don't know how well you'd rate your math capabilities, but if you have any respect for the subject, you'd understand that people put a lot of trust in mathematical formulae because math is one of the best methods we have of accurately and consistently describing the world around us. That is because it is internally consistent and relies upon proofs in order to demonstrate such. Proofs always boil down to tautological statements.

I sincerely hope you're not going to pull out an asinine argument like "but you can't apply math directly to the real world!" The answer is you can, that's how we build bridges and automobiles. For example, sure, the theory of gravity by itself is useless to describe at what rate "what goes up must come down", but you add in other factors such as air friction and aerodynamics and you get a much, much more accurate assessment that really does mirror the real world. All that is math.

You keep making the assertion that no knowledge is reliable. I would ask you what is unreliable about the observation "1 = 1"? Or, "you are you"? How unreliable would you consider such identities to be?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 11:02:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 10:30:27 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

These are both equally fallacious. So it's the structure of the argument that's faulty, not that popular opinion is involved. That's why I don't understand why there's a special fallacy for popular opinion.

It's a fallacy because in both cases, popular opinion does not affect the conclusion, and to think it does is fallacious.

No, but there's NO source of knowledge that establishes truth absolutely, so you put up any information source and not be able reach that conclusion. So any knowledge source would be fallacious.

So why have ad populum as a fallacy and not book fallacy, internet fallacy, own memory fallacy etc.?

Saying that something is true because "you read it in a book somewhere" or "you saw it on the internet" are appeals to authority, another type of fallacy. Just because you saw it somewhere does not make it true either. It may very well be true, but the fact that you saw it in a book somewhere has no relevance to it being true, i.e. "fallacy of relevance" per your thread title.

I mean it's weird. I've never studied logic, but all this premise, fallacy stuff seems to me to be entirely artificial. Kind of like maths where you create an imaginary world of numbers, relationships and processes and make comments within that framework. Whereas in the real world, nothing is certain, and popular opinion DOES carry information, albeit imperfectly. So why single it out for a fallacy? That's what I don't understand.

Well yes, all logic is is a model for reason. All reasoning is is a model for consistency. All fallacies are are errors in reasoning and logic.

What you're essentially saying is that we should put serious weight on whether or not the world is flat simply because many people believe it to be true. I sincerely hope you can understand why this kind of reasoning does not work. Just because people believe it to be true does not make it true. Again, the exception is for matters pertaining to social convention.

Now, think of satellite imagery, astronomy, etc, that can demonstrate that the world is indeed not flat. I sincerely hope you can understand why this kind of reasoning does work...it can be replicated to demonstrate consistency.

Actually, though, most people DON'T think the world is flat. They think that it's approximately spherical, and that belief has been influenced by information sources such as satellite imagery etc.

In the olden days, people thought that the world was flat based, very reasonably, on the way it looks flat close up. So yes, later knowledge has made us change our minds, but I don't think it was unreasonable or IS unreasonable to be influenced by popular opinion on these matters. Short of fanatically believing popular opinion to represent absolute truth, obviously.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 11:05:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 11:02:06 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/30/2014 10:30:27 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

These are both equally fallacious. So it's the structure of the argument that's faulty, not that popular opinion is involved. That's why I don't understand why there's a special fallacy for popular opinion.

It's a fallacy because in both cases, popular opinion does not affect the conclusion, and to think it does is fallacious.

No, but there's NO source of knowledge that establishes truth absolutely, so you put up any information source and not be able reach that conclusion. So any knowledge source would be fallacious.

So why have ad populum as a fallacy and not book fallacy, internet fallacy, own memory fallacy etc.?

Saying that something is true because "you read it in a book somewhere" or "you saw it on the internet" are appeals to authority, another type of fallacy. Just because you saw it somewhere does not make it true either. It may very well be true, but the fact that you saw it in a book somewhere has no relevance to it being true, i.e. "fallacy of relevance" per your thread title.

I mean it's weird. I've never studied logic, but all this premise, fallacy stuff seems to me to be entirely artificial. Kind of like maths where you create an imaginary world of numbers, relationships and processes and make comments within that framework. Whereas in the real world, nothing is certain, and popular opinion DOES carry information, albeit imperfectly. So why single it out for a fallacy? That's what I don't understand.

Well yes, all logic is is a model for reason. All reasoning is is a model for consistency. All fallacies are are errors in reasoning and logic.

What you're essentially saying is that we should put serious weight on whether or not the world is flat simply because many people believe it to be true. I sincerely hope you can understand why this kind of reasoning does not work. Just because people believe it to be true does not make it true. Again, the exception is for matters pertaining to social convention.

Now, think of satellite imagery, astronomy, etc, that can demonstrate that the world is indeed not flat. I sincerely hope you can understand why this kind of reasoning does work...it can be replicated to demonstrate consistency.

Actually, though, most people DON'T think the world is flat. They think that it's approximately spherical, and that belief has been influenced by information sources such as satellite imagery etc.

In the olden days, people thought that the world was flat based, very reasonably, on the way it looks flat close up. So yes, later knowledge has made us change our minds, but I don't think it was unreasonable or IS unreasonable to be influenced by popular opinion on these matters. Short of fanatically believing popular opinion to represent absolute truth, obviously.

Astronomers all around the world proved that the world was round several thousand years ago. Just because people thought the world was flat did not prove these astronomers wrong, didn't it?

The underlined statement essentially says that yes, we should indeed think the world is flat simply because people say it's flat. Do you truly believe that that is compelling evidence?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 11:44:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 11:05:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Astronomers all around the world proved that the world was round several thousand years ago. Just because people thought the world was flat did not prove these astronomers wrong, didn't it?

The underlined statement essentially says that yes, we should indeed think the world is flat simply because people say it's flat. Do you truly believe that that is compelling evidence?

No, it's not conclusive evidence, but nothing is. We have to weigh up the different sources. Let's be honest. You don't believe the earth is round because of the evidence from astronomy, you believe it's round because that's what everyone believes. Same with me. We just trust someone out of everyone has looked at the evidence at some point. And also those photos are very compelling.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 11:56:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 11:44:33 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:05:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Astronomers all around the world proved that the world was round several thousand years ago. Just because people thought the world was flat did not prove these astronomers wrong, didn't it?

The underlined statement essentially says that yes, we should indeed think the world is flat simply because people say it's flat. Do you truly believe that that is compelling evidence?

No, it's not conclusive evidence, but nothing is. We have to weigh up the different sources. Let's be honest. You don't believe the earth is round because of the evidence from astronomy, you believe it's round because that's what everyone believes. Same with me. We just trust someone out of everyone has looked at the evidence at some point. And also those photos are very compelling.

The underlined is simply false. I don't know why you would make such a blatantly ignorant assumption.

I've learned the techniques that would lead to the same conclusion that others use to reach that conclusion. It's not particularly complicated and only requires rudimentary geometry.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 8:41:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 11:56:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:44:33 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:05:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Astronomers all around the world proved that the world was round several thousand years ago. Just because people thought the world was flat did not prove these astronomers wrong, didn't it?

The underlined statement essentially says that yes, we should indeed think the world is flat simply because people say it's flat. Do you truly believe that that is compelling evidence?

No, it's not conclusive evidence, but nothing is. We have to weigh up the different sources. Let's be honest. You don't believe the earth is round because of the evidence from astronomy, you believe it's round because that's what everyone believes. Same with me. We just trust someone out of everyone has looked at the evidence at some point. And also those photos are very compelling.

The underlined is simply false. I don't know why you would make such a blatantly ignorant assumption.

I've learned the techniques that would lead to the same conclusion that others use to reach that conclusion. It's not particularly complicated and only requires rudimentary geometry.

Well...okay...but you must have checked your calculations against your predictions which were based on popular opinion? If your calculations had concluded that the earth is indeed flat, you would have done them again, right? But because they proved that it's round, you assumed that they were good.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 12:06:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 8:41:16 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:56:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:44:33 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:05:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Astronomers all around the world proved that the world was round several thousand years ago. Just because people thought the world was flat did not prove these astronomers wrong, didn't it?

The underlined statement essentially says that yes, we should indeed think the world is flat simply because people say it's flat. Do you truly believe that that is compelling evidence?

No, it's not conclusive evidence, but nothing is. We have to weigh up the different sources. Let's be honest. You don't believe the earth is round because of the evidence from astronomy, you believe it's round because that's what everyone believes. Same with me. We just trust someone out of everyone has looked at the evidence at some point. And also those photos are very compelling.

The underlined is simply false. I don't know why you would make such a blatantly ignorant assumption.

I've learned the techniques that would lead to the same conclusion that others use to reach that conclusion. It's not particularly complicated and only requires rudimentary geometry.

Well...okay...but you must have checked your calculations against your predictions which were based on popular opinion? If your calculations had concluded that the earth is indeed flat, you would have done them again, right? But because they proved that it's round, you assumed that they were good.

Your statement here doesn't make sense. What exactly constitutes "popular opinion" to you? Why would you assume that my calculations would conclude the earth is flat?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 12:12:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 8:41:16 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 11/30/2014 11:56:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Well...okay...but you must have checked your calculations against your predictions which were based on popular opinion? If your calculations had concluded that the earth is indeed flat, you would have done them again, right? But because they proved that it's round, you assumed that they were good.

I want you to really pay attention to the underlined, because I find myself repeating the same, simple statement over and over again.

It's not the popular opinion that is convincing or logically sound...it's that the predictions were checked and verified to be consistent.

Popular opinion could easily say the opposite, and if the calculations show popular opinion to be inconsistent, then popular opinion would be wrong. Popular opinion would not be right simply because it is popular opinion.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2014 12:17:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/30/2014 8:41:16 PM, Garbanza wrote:

You seem to not care what the reason is behind any assertion...you seem to only care whether or not an assertion is correct.

You ascertain the accuracy of any assertion by asking WHY. If you do not ask that question, you will not be able to ascertain the accuracy of any assertion.

Popular opinion does NOT in any way provide a satisfactory answer to the question WHY (again, excluding matters pertaining to social convention). This is a very, very simple concept to understand.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?