George Scott Fallacy

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on May 04, 2010, 01:59:00 PM

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?

An argument is seldom if ever about whether one should be having said argument.

Why are you quoting me?

Why are you quoting me?

Apologies, misclick.

Quote from: Marcus Aurelius on May 04, 2010, 01:47:08 PM

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.

Is it not an attempt to discredit the person making the argument?

While I believe that its hard for roundies to accept that someone believes something so radically outside their worldview, I think they should take this fault and keep it out of arguments - if only at the risk of them appearing incorrect or faulted.

I think the point can be summed up more easily.

Imagine a tobacco representative comes up to you and says cigarettes were recently discovered to cause white teeth and fresh breath, as well as fight cancer.  He also says anything you can show him to the contrary is part of a gigantic conspiracy.

Not only is this person clearly lying, he is in a position that would be greatly advantageous if people were to believe his statements.  Are you going to have an honest, drawn-out discussion with that person citing sources against each of his claims individually while he simply rejects them outright, or are you going to say "You're full of shit," and walk away?  I'd go with the latter.

Sure it's an ad hominem, but it's not unwise or unjustified.

I think the point can be summed up more easily.

Imagine a tobacco representative comes up to you and says cigarettes were recently discovered to cause white teeth and fresh breath, as well as fight cancer.  He also says anything you can show him to the contrary is part of a gigantic conspiracy.

Not only is this person clearly lying, he is in a position that would be greatly advantageous if people were to believe his statements.  Are you going to have an honest, drawn-out discussion with that person citing sources against each of his claims individually while he simply rejects them outright, or are you going to say "You're full of shit," and walk away?  I'd go with the latter.

Sure it's an ad hominem, but it's not unwise or unjustified.

Are you drawing the parallel that its advantageous to be a flat earther in modern times?

Is it not an attempt to discredit the person making the argument?

I suppose it is. But in and of itself it isn't a fallacy as you stated it, just rhetoric.

You don't believe what you're saying because you:

a) make posts intentionally mocking TFES
b) used to mock FEers yourself until they promoted you
c) post absurd ideas that no one could believe (see dino galleons et al)
d) post self contradictory information


is a proper form of the "attack".

Are you drawing the parallel that its advantageous to be a flat earther in modern times?

In the analogy, it is advantageous monetarily.  With FEers, it is advantageous psychologically.  If you believe in something in spite of all evidence to the contrary, you're going to feel psychological relief if you can get others to believe it as well.

Quote from: John Davis on May 04, 2010, 02:34:56 PM

Are you drawing the parallel that its advantageous to be a flat earther in modern times?

In the analogy, it is advantageous monetarily.  With FEers, it is advantageous psychologically.  If you believe in something in spite of all evidence to the contrary, you're going to feel psychological relief if you can get others to believe it as well.

But in your analogy we supposedly don't believe in it, and thus would get no psychological relief.

But in your analogy we supposedly don't believe in it, and thus would get no psychological relief.

It (FE) is easy to profess belief in, even if one internally doubts it.  It's the most predictable outcome when people cling to the "I have to be correct no matter what, right?" mindset and something comes contrary to them.

Edit: Even if they have doubts about it, they still claim with utter conviction that they are correct.  The same thing is observed with many faiths.

Quote from: John Davis on May 04, 2010, 02:41:16 PM

But in your analogy we supposedly don't believe in it, and thus would get no psychological relief.

It (FE) is easy to profess belief in, even if one internally doubts it.  It's the most predictable outcome when people cling to the "I have to be correct no matter what, right?" mindset and something comes contrary to them.

Edit: Even if they have doubts about it, they still claim with utter conviction that they are correct.  The same thing is observed with many faiths.

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification.  I disagree we get said relief, but I suppose its a valid opinion.

edit:
If anything we get made fun of or ridiculed.  I've even lost a client or two due to it.

I think the question we should ask is "would we accept a vald argument against us?"
If the answer is no then the debade is unwinnable. If the answer is yes, how do we prove that it is true?  A man can believe himself fair while being unjust.

I think the question we should ask is "would we accept a vald argument against us?"

See my thread: "FE'ers don't accept anything" and you'll see that no argument is valid.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 04, 2010, 03:13:04 PM

I think the question we should ask is "would we accept a vald argument against us?"

See my thread: "FE'ers don't accept anything" and you'll see that no argument is valid.

Therefore debating here is pointless as RET could never win, even if it is correct.

I've accepted being incorrect when evidence was put before me that contradicted my beliefs.  This method of trying to discredit flat earthers by prejudicing them all to some made up standard by globularists can only be due to the lack of evidence to present.

I've accepted being incorrect when evidence was put before me that contradicted my beliefs.  This method of trying to discredit flat earthers by prejudicing them all to some made up standard by globularists can only be due to the lack of evidence to present.

Can you name one instance so I can look it up?  Perhaps a keyword?

Evidence has always been presented.  The FE model, however, merely copies those phenomena and makes up new forces governing them.  It's because of this that evidence for RE tends to be dismissed with a "that makes sense in FE as well" kind of statement.  The real difference is that RE makes fewer assumptions and more accurate predictions, whereas FE has things moving in circles around circles for no apparent reason.

Evidence has always been presented.  The FE model, however, merely copies those phenomena and makes up new forces governing them.  It's because of this that evidence for RE tends to be dismissed with a "that makes sense in FE as well" kind of statement.  The real difference is that RE makes fewer assumptions and more accurate predictions, whereas FE has things moving in circles around circles for no apparent reason.

There is no limit to the evidence against a FE.

For how 'theory' is developed by FE'rs, the thread on the properties of the moon demonstrates beyond any doubt that 'evidence' is what you want it to be. It seems that FE'rs discuss amongst themselves how to best satisfy some observed phenomenon, and then pick the most intellectually satisfying answer. In cases where there is no such consensus, they merely stick to whatever they like the best... versus the alternative... that is, observing, testing, collecting data and THEN drawing conclusions and making interpretations. But I suppose we're all familiar with this pseudoscience methodology already.

Anyway,
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=38615.0

Quote from: John Davis on May 04, 2010, 04:30:58 PM

I've accepted being incorrect when evidence was put before me that contradicted my beliefs.  This method of trying to discredit flat earthers by prejudicing them all to some made up standard by globularists can only be due to the lack of evidence to present.

Can you name one instance so I can look it up?  Perhaps a keyword?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17185.msg298864#msg298864
Is the first I could dig up with minimal effort.  Its not really pertaining to FET but it really doesn't have to be.

Quote from: Lorddave on May 04, 2010, 04:35:31 PM

Quote from: John Davis on May 04, 2010, 04:30:58 PM

I've accepted being incorrect when evidence was put before me that contradicted my beliefs.  This method of trying to discredit flat earthers by prejudicing them all to some made up standard by globularists can only be due to the lack of evidence to present.

Can you name one instance so I can look it up?  Perhaps a keyword?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=17185.msg298864#msg298864
Is the first I could dig up with minimal effort.  Its not really pertaining to FET but it really doesn't have to be.

Sure it does.
Being wrong about the order math is learned in school is not the same has having the fundamental belief of how the universe works being contradicted.

John, you like Rawlolbums map best right?

How do you explain the 12000miles of Antarctic Coastline being able to encircle the 78000miles of the edge of the Earth?


Let's see how this goes.

John, you like Rawlolbums map best right?

How do you explain the 12000miles of Antarctic Coastline being able to encircle the 78000miles of the edge of the Earth?


Let's see how this goes.

I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand.

I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand.

I've accepted being incorrect when evidence was put before me that contradicted my beliefs.

There, see?

I see it went how I expected.

Thank you for the experiment.

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.

I think the thread could really have ended here.

No, you don't.

No, you don't.

George Scott fallacy.

No.

Quote from: OneStarBandit on May 02, 2010, 09:19:34 PM

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.

I think the thread could really have ended here.

Let me ask you this:
Let's say one person has the best, most logical argument that proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the other person is wrong...
Then the other person denies it and say it's wrong for (insert reason).

What do you do?  I mean, isn't the goal here to debate something until someone yields?  Or do we debate until the thread dies?