George Scott Fallacy

For those of you who don't know what the George Scott Fallacy is, here's the coining of the term:

Quote from: Kasroa Is Gone on August 05, 2008, 01:13:16 AM

First class reporting though. I mean, who needs to talk to the 99% of the site that don't believe when they can talk to three people who claim to?

As for the "claim to", wow, you and Raist just won't drop this ridiculous line, will you? Face it, there are real Flat Earthers, and some of them post on this website.

From now on, I dub that particular avenue of argument the George Scott Fallacy, after a particular corrsepondant to George Airy who complained of Samuel Rowbotham:

Quote from: George Scott, on Doctor Parallax

I do not for one moment believe that he believes his own theory.

Just drop it would you? Accusing somebody of not believing what they say is not only pointless, in that it can never be truly verified or falsfied; and evasive, in that it distracts from the true contentions of the discussion; but it is also both defamatory (it imples that the subject is a liar) and mildly offensive (it attempts to belittle the sincere opinion of the subject).

My question is this:  is it really a fallacy to question if someone actually believes something that they claim to believe?  Granted, it is difficult (if not impossible) to know if someone someone truly believes something or if they are a devil's advocates who simply refuses to drop character (in pro wrestling, this is known as kayfabe).  Then again, it's also possible (as some believe with Rowbotham) that they are simply a con artist.  Of course mental illness is another legitimate concern in certain cases.

So, how does one truly know if someone is a true believer, a devil's advocate, a con artist or mentally ill (or some combination thereof)?

It's fairly well documented that Rowbotham was a con artist prior to discovering the earths flatness.

It's also known that his shows were ticketed events. Whether he believed or not, he made sure he made (or tried to make) a lot of money out of it.

Most of the senior "believers" here have slipped character on occasion.

Whether they believe or not, they sure do get a lot of press attention.

Or maybe not. Oh well.

So, how does one truly know if someone is a true believer, a devil's advocate, a con artist or mentally ill (or some combination thereof)?

You don't, at least not over something as baseless and vague as the interwebz.

For those of you who don't know what the George Scott Fallacy is, here's the coining of the term:

Quote from: James on August 05, 2008, 05:41:50 AM

Quote from: Kasroa Is Gone on August 05, 2008, 01:13:16 AM

First class reporting though. I mean, who needs to talk to the 99% of the site that don't believe when they can talk to three people who claim to?

As for the "claim to", wow, you and Raist just won't drop this ridiculous line, will you? Face it, there are real Flat Earthers, and some of them post on this website.

From now on, I dub that particular avenue of argument the George Scott Fallacy, after a particular corrsepondant to George Airy who complained of Samuel Rowbotham:

Quote from: George Scott, on Doctor Parallax

I do not for one moment believe that he believes his own theory.

Just drop it would you? Accusing somebody of not believing what they say is not only pointless, in that it can never be truly verified or falsfied; and evasive, in that it distracts from the true contentions of the discussion; but it is also both defamatory (it imples that the subject is a liar) and mildly offensive (it attempts to belittle the sincere opinion of the subject).

My question is this:  is it really a fallacy to question if someone actually believes something that they claim to believe?  Granted, it is difficult (if not impossible) to know if someone someone truly believes something or if they are a devil's advocates who simply refuses to drop character (in pro wrestling, this is known as kayfabe).  Then again, it's also possible (as some believe with Rowbotham) that they are simply a con artist.  Of course mental illness is another legitimate concern in certain cases.

So, how does one truly know if someone is a true believer, a devil's advocate, a con artist or mentally ill (or some combination thereof)?

It shouldn't matter.  The argument is what should be attacked, if needed.  Not the "feeling" behind it.

Whether a person believes their own argument is irrelevant to how valid the argument is. A logical argument is separate from the person doing the arguing. A fallacy is a rhetorical trick to make an argument look less valid by means other than finding fault in the argument itself, which is what the "George Scott" approach does. So, I would say it's the very definition a fallacy.

It shouldn't matter.  The argument is what should be attacked, if needed.  Not the "feeling" behind it.

It really does matter when it goes to an extreme extend. If no one believes it, then there's no point using the idea or opinion in a debate.

I agree in most cases it doesn't really matter though.

It's fairly well documented that Rowbotham was a con artist prior to discovering the earths flatness.

No, it is not well-documented, because it is not true. The only substantiation of this claim is derived from the wild speculation of globularists.

Most of the senior "believers" here have slipped character on occasion.

If by "slip character" you mean "claim to believe globularism", then this is not true either. Levee, 17th November, Raa, Bullhorn, Myself, John Davis, Ski, Tom Bishop, etc., do not "slip character" because there is no "character".

If by "slip character" you mean "claim to believe globularism", then this is not true either. Levee, 17th November, Raa, Bullhorn, Myself, John Davis, Ski, Tom Bishop, etc., do not "slip character" because there is no "character".

And if any of you think that I'm not using my real name and have subsituted a pseudonym, you are sadly mistaken.

The only substantiation of this claim is derived from the wild speculation of globularists.

No. Please read Christine Garwoods FE:THOAII.

Levee, 17th November, Raa, Bullhorn, Myself, John Davis, Ski, Tom Bishop, etc., do not "slip character" because there is no "character".

Sure, I believe you.

Quote from: markjo on May 02, 2010, 06:27:57 PM

For those of you who don't know what the George Scott Fallacy is, here's the coining of the term:

Quote from: James on August 05, 2008, 05:41:50 AM

Quote from: Kasroa Is Gone on August 05, 2008, 01:13:16 AM

First class reporting though. I mean, who needs to talk to the 99% of the site that don't believe when they can talk to three people who claim to?

As for the "claim to", wow, you and Raist just won't drop this ridiculous line, will you? Face it, there are real Flat Earthers, and some of them post on this website.

From now on, I dub that particular avenue of argument the George Scott Fallacy, after a particular corrsepondant to George Airy who complained of Samuel Rowbotham:

Quote from: George Scott, on Doctor Parallax

I do not for one moment believe that he believes his own theory.

Just drop it would you? Accusing somebody of not believing what they say is not only pointless, in that it can never be truly verified or falsfied; and evasive, in that it distracts from the true contentions of the discussion; but it is also both defamatory (it imples that the subject is a liar) and mildly offensive (it attempts to belittle the sincere opinion of the subject).

My question is this:  is it really a fallacy to question if someone actually believes something that they claim to believe?  Granted, it is difficult (if not impossible) to know if someone someone truly believes something or if they are a devil's advocates who simply refuses to drop character (in pro wrestling, this is known as kayfabe).  Then again, it's also possible (as some believe with Rowbotham) that they are simply a con artist.  Of course mental illness is another legitimate concern in certain cases.

So, how does one truly know if someone is a true believer, a devil's advocate, a con artist or mentally ill (or some combination thereof)?

It shouldn't matter.  The argument is what should be attacked, if needed.  Not the "feeling" behind it.

It does.
No matter how good or correct an argument is, you can't win against a brick wall.

Quote from: James on May 03, 2010, 02:36:49 AM

The only substantiation of this claim is derived from the wild speculation of globularists.

No. Please read Christine Garwoods FE:THOAII.

I read it long before you did, and Christine Garwood is a globularist (and her speculation that Rowbotham was taking the piss is wild).

Quote from: James on May 03, 2010, 02:36:49 AM

Levee, 17th November, Raa, Bullhorn, Myself, John Davis, Ski, Tom Bishop, etc., do not "slip character" because there is no "character".

Sure, I believe you.

John is making fun of cmdshift in that post. I don't see how ridiculing globularists constitutes 'breaking character'.

John is making fun of cmdshift in that post. I don't see how ridiculing globularists constitutes 'breaking character'.

... but that is attacking his views on exactly what he's saying! Fallacy! fallacy! fallacy!!!

Oh shiiiit

I read it long before you did, and Christine Garwood is a globularist (and her speculation that Rowbotham was taking the piss is wild).

Why do you say that?  Knowing what little we do about his background, is it truly inconceivable that Rowbotham was a fraud and/or a con man?

Quote from: James on May 03, 2010, 01:56:53 PM

I read it long before you did, and Christine Garwood is a globularist (and her speculation that Rowbotham was taking the piss is wild).

Why do you say that?  Knowing what little we do about his background, is it truly inconceivable that Rowbotham was a fraud and/or a con man?

That's like calling Jesus a con artist.

That's like calling Jesus a con artist.

Nah.  Everyone knows Paul was the real mastermind behind that con.  Jesus was just a scapegoat.

Quote from: markjo on May 03, 2010, 02:56:44 PM

Quote from: James on May 03, 2010, 01:56:53 PM

I read it long before you did, and Christine Garwood is a globularist (and her speculation that Rowbotham was taking the piss is wild).

Why do you say that?  Knowing what little we do about his background, is it truly inconceivable that Rowbotham was a fraud and/or a con man?

That's like calling Jesus a con artist.

Are you comparing Rowbotham to Jesus?

Quote from: Lorddave on May 03, 2010, 03:12:36 PM

Quote from: markjo on May 03, 2010, 02:56:44 PM

Quote from: James on May 03, 2010, 01:56:53 PM

I read it long before you did, and Christine Garwood is a globularist (and her speculation that Rowbotham was taking the piss is wild).

Why do you say that?  Knowing what little we do about his background, is it truly inconceivable that Rowbotham was a fraud and/or a con man?

That's like calling Jesus a con artist.

Are you comparing Rowbotham to Jesus?

With how Tom Bishop puts Rowbotham up... yes.

Are you comparing Rowbotham to Jesus?

The two aren't even comparable, Rowbotham endeavored to open the world's eyes and minds to truth and science.  Jesus started a descending cascade that drowned the logical and educated thinkers in a sea of blackness and destitute that wasn't lifted for ~1500 years.  If we should respect anybody, it should be Rowbotham.  Praise his name.

As much as it pains me to say this, the FE'ers have a point here.  In a criminal trial, the defense attorney does not need to believe that his client did or did not commit the crime.  He only needs to argue that MAYBE he didn't. 

On the other hand, the prosecution is free to point out the major holes in the defense's case and thus proving them wrong.

Quote from: markjo on May 03, 2010, 03:34:49 PM

Are you comparing Rowbotham to Jesus?

The two aren't even comparable, Rowbotham endeavored to open the world's eyes and minds to truth and science.  Jesus started a descending cascade that drowned the logical and educated thinkers in a sea of blackness and destitute that wasn't lifted for ~1500 years.  If we should respect anybody, it should be Rowbotham.  Praise his name.

Jesus just said to be kind to your fellow man.  It's not His fault that people can't understand that simple statement.

As much as it pains me to say this, the FE'ers have a point here.  In a criminal trial, the defense attorney does not need to believe that his client did or did not commit the crime.  He only needs to argue that MAYBE he didn't. 

On the other hand, the prosecution is free to point out the major holes in the defense's case and thus proving them wrong.

Law and science have different burdens of proof.  Merely casting doubt on a competing scientific theory is not enough to show that your theory is the better one.

I read it long before you did,

How do you know this?

and Christine Garwood is a globularist

How do you know this.

(and her speculation that Rowbotham was taking the piss is wild).

Nope. It's backed up with documentation. See the index. I urge you to read it.

John is making fun of cmdshift in that post. I don't see how ridiculing globularists constitutes 'breaking character'.

No he's not. He's talking about FEers plan to overthrow the conspiracy and capture Australia. Maybe links don't work properly on your computer. Are you using Firefoz?

As much as it pains me to say this, the FE'ers have a point here.  In a criminal trial, the defense attorney does not need to believe that his client did or did not commit the crime.  He only needs to argue that MAYBE he didn't. 

On the other hand, the prosecution is free to point out the major holes in the defense's case and thus proving them wrong.

Ah, but the criminal is not the one who needs convincing.  Imagine if the prosecution had to convince the criminal to confess and that was the only way he would be convicted?  That's what it is here.  FET has been disproven by science and regarded as fiction by the population.  By a court of law standards, FET is the loser.  But we can clearly see that FET doesn't want to lose and keeps fighting.

Quote from: Sliver on May 04, 2010, 06:04:23 AM

As much as it pains me to say this, the FE'ers have a point here.  In a criminal trial, the defense attorney does not need to believe that his client did or did not commit the crime.  He only needs to argue that MAYBE he didn't. 

On the other hand, the prosecution is free to point out the major holes in the defense's case and thus proving them wrong.

Ah, but the criminal is not the one who needs convincing.  Imagine if the prosecution had to convince the criminal to confess and that was the only way he would be convicted?  That's what it is here.  FET has been disproven by science and regarded as fiction by the population.  By a court of law standards, FET is the loser.  But we can clearly see that FET doesn't want to lose and keeps fighting.

That's true, however, I think my example is how they're thinking with the whole "George Scott Fallacy" argument.

My question is this:  is it really a fallacy to question if someone actually believes something that they claim to believe?

If you're using it to counter their arguments, then yes, it's a fallacy.  Specifically, it's an ad hominem.  If you're using it to demonstrate that it's pointless to argue with them, then no, it's not a fallacy, and you're right.  No argument you ever make will change the mind of someone who secretly agrees with you.

I didn't read the whole thread, so apoligies if this has been said.  I do think that this would be a fallacy, perhaps a form of ad hominem.  Here's the structure as I see it:

1.  Person one puts forth argument A.
2.  Person two argues that Person one does not believe in argument A, and therefore, argument A is wrong.

Of course we can see that this is flawed.

Just like most, if not all, fallacies there can be times where the fallacy is right to use.

Just like most, if not all, fallacies there can be times where the fallacy is right to use.

Are you saying that this is one of those times?

I didn't read the whole thread, so apoligies if this has been said.  I do think that this would be a fallacy, perhaps a form of ad hominem.

I don't think anyone says "you don't believe what you're saying, therefore what you're saying is wrong".

They just say, you don't believe what you're saying.

It's not therefore any kind of fallacy, just an accusation.

Quote from: James on May 03, 2010, 02:36:49 AM

The only substantiation of this claim is derived from the wild speculation of globularists.

No. Please read Christine Garwoods FE:THOAII.

Quote from: James on May 03, 2010, 02:36:49 AM

Levee, 17th November, Raa, Bullhorn, Myself, John Davis, Ski, Tom Bishop, etc., do not "slip character" because there is no "character".

Sure, I believe you.

Just because I believe in a Flat Earth doesn't mean that I don't have a sense of humour.

Hara believes in a ridiculous conspiracy centered around the administration of the FES with James as kingpin.  I find that funny.

Quote from: Catchpa on May 04, 2010, 01:52:47 PM

Just like most, if not all, fallacies there can be times where the fallacy is right to use.

Are you saying that this is one of those times?

What do you mean?

In the context of "I am wolverine and I can cut your ass up", the George Scott fallacy would clearly not apply. Though if one plays devils advocate, it's a bit of a grey zone - Does he really believe it? if not, then what's the point arguing it if no one has stood forward to represent or believe the idea?