Intelligence in Debate

  • 133 Replies
  • 24716 Views
?

Soulfien

  • 73
  • Spherical Earther
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #120 on: April 14, 2012, 06:48:57 PM »
again... since, in your utter denial, you pretend not to have seen it the first time I posted it, that has NOTHING... nothing!!! to do with flat earth theory.  nothing.  at all.  He was talking about his theories on time travel and such.  not flat earth.

A brief history in time contains a joke about the earth being flat.  A joke.  Stephen Hawking did not believe in flat earth. 
The flat earth is just as round as the spherical earth.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #121 on: April 17, 2012, 11:04:28 AM »
I'm curious what the basis for this is....

When we have such brilliant minds at work researching the size, shape, and nature of the celestial heavens (I'm talking about Astronomy), how is it that these brilliant minds have got everything so wrong. [...]

Appealing to authority.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #122 on: April 17, 2012, 11:57:36 AM »
I'm curious what the basis for this is....

When we have such brilliant minds at work researching the size, shape, and nature of the celestial heavens (I'm talking about Astronomy), how is it that these brilliant minds have got everything so wrong. [...]

Appealing to authority.
Yes, he is. Did you think that appealing to authority is always a fallacy? I find his use here logical.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #123 on: April 17, 2012, 09:51:26 PM »
I'm curious what the basis for this is....

When we have such brilliant minds at work researching the size, shape, and nature of the celestial heavens (I'm talking about Astronomy), how is it that these brilliant minds have got everything so wrong. [...]

Appealing to authority.
Yes, he is. Did you think that appealing to authority is always a fallacy? I find his use here logical.

We've danced this waltz before.
If you'll recall, this is a site dedicated establishing the factual accuracy or lack thereof of specific claims primarily via debate. So yes, making assumptions and/or taking others' word for the sake of practicality by intentionally sacrificing factual accuracy, is of course a logical fallacy, because examining the accuracy of said presented facts is the whole point of this society.

He's either externalizing/advocating a point open to others (which invites logical critique), or he's babbling about some internal belief he holds without attempting any justification. The latter should never be considered a case with any substance. It shouldn't change or mean anything to anyone else. It's as worthless to advancing our collective knowledge as a religious man preaching faith.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2012, 10:04:32 PM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #124 on: April 17, 2012, 10:29:10 PM »
I'm curious what the basis for this is....

When we have such brilliant minds at work researching the size, shape, and nature of the celestial heavens (I'm talking about Astronomy), how is it that these brilliant minds have got everything so wrong. [...]

Appealing to authority.
Yes, he is. Did you think that appealing to authority is always a fallacy? I find his use here logical.

We've danced this waltz before.
If you'll recall, this is a site dedicated establishing the factual accuracy or lack thereof of specific claims primarily via debate. So yes, making assumptions and/or taking others' word for the sake of practicality by intentionally sacrificing factual accuracy, is of course a logical fallacy, because examining the accuracy of said presented facts is the whole point of this society.

He's either externalizing/advocating a point open to others (which invites logical critique), or he's babbling about some internal belief he holds without attempting any justification. The latter should never be considered a case with any substance. It shouldn't change or mean anything to anyone else. It's as worthless to advancing our collective knowledge as a religious man preaching faith.
Nope. Appealing to authority remains a proper technique in establishing accuracy.

Since the authorities Soulfien references have published their conclusion with both evidence and peer review, these authorities accurately advance our collective knowledge. Tom Bishop often appeals to the authority Parallax, for example.

You're welcome, of course, to challenge the publications of these authorities. For example, FEer regularly rely on Einstein to support using the EP to explain away terrestrial gravity, yet assail him on his claim that all matter curves space-time.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #125 on: April 17, 2012, 10:41:39 PM »
I'm curious what the basis for this is....

When we have such brilliant minds at work researching the size, shape, and nature of the celestial heavens (I'm talking about Astronomy), how is it that these brilliant minds have got everything so wrong. [...]

Appealing to authority.
Yes, he is. Did you think that appealing to authority is always a fallacy? I find his use here logical.

We've danced this waltz before.
If you'll recall, this is a site dedicated establishing the factual accuracy or lack thereof of specific claims primarily via debate. So yes, making assumptions and/or taking others' word for the sake of practicality by intentionally sacrificing factual accuracy, is of course a logical fallacy, because examining the accuracy of said presented facts is the whole point of this society.

He's either externalizing/advocating a point open to others (which invites logical critique), or he's babbling about some internal belief he holds without attempting any justification. The latter should never be considered a case with any substance. It shouldn't change or mean anything to anyone else. It's as worthless to advancing our collective knowledge as a religious man preaching faith.
Nope. Appealing to authority remains a proper technique in establishing accuracy.
You clearly don't know what it means to "establish" accuracy of a claim. The case for it must be made, not the conclusions recited.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2012, 10:43:48 PM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #126 on: April 18, 2012, 12:28:38 AM »
I'm curious what the basis for this is....

When we have such brilliant minds at work researching the size, shape, and nature of the celestial heavens (I'm talking about Astronomy), how is it that these brilliant minds have got everything so wrong. [...]

Appealing to authority.
Yes, he is. Did you think that appealing to authority is always a fallacy? I find his use here logical.

We've danced this waltz before.
If you'll recall, this is a site dedicated establishing the factual accuracy or lack thereof of specific claims primarily via debate. So yes, making assumptions and/or taking others' word for the sake of practicality by intentionally sacrificing factual accuracy, is of course a logical fallacy, because examining the accuracy of said presented facts is the whole point of this society.

He's either externalizing/advocating a point open to others (which invites logical critique), or he's babbling about some internal belief he holds without attempting any justification. The latter should never be considered a case with any substance. It shouldn't change or mean anything to anyone else. It's as worthless to advancing our collective knowledge as a religious man preaching faith.
Nope. Appealing to authority remains a proper technique in establishing accuracy.
You clearly don't know what it means to "establish" accuracy of a claim. The case for it must be made, not the conclusions recited.
Do tell me of the error of my ways here please. How is relying on the efforts of an authority with expertise in the field under review not establishing accuracy of a claim? Are you saying the building a house on a firm foundation is not building a house? Are you just being pedantic claiming that just such an appeal is not adequate in your opinion?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #127 on: April 18, 2012, 12:51:20 AM »
I'm curious what the basis for this is....

When we have such brilliant minds at work researching the size, shape, and nature of the celestial heavens (I'm talking about Astronomy), how is it that these brilliant minds have got everything so wrong. [...]

Appealing to authority.
Yes, he is. Did you think that appealing to authority is always a fallacy? I find his use here logical.

We've danced this waltz before.
If you'll recall, this is a site dedicated establishing the factual accuracy or lack thereof of specific claims primarily via debate. So yes, making assumptions and/or taking others' word for the sake of practicality by intentionally sacrificing factual accuracy, is of course a logical fallacy, because examining the accuracy of said presented facts is the whole point of this society.

He's either externalizing/advocating a point open to others (which invites logical critique), or he's babbling about some internal belief he holds without attempting any justification. The latter should never be considered a case with any substance. It shouldn't change or mean anything to anyone else. It's as worthless to advancing our collective knowledge as a religious man preaching faith.
Nope. Appealing to authority remains a proper technique in establishing accuracy.
You clearly don't know what it means to "establish" accuracy of a claim. The case for it must be made, not the conclusions recited.
Do tell me of the error of my ways here please. How is relying on the efforts of an authority with expertise in the field under review not establishing accuracy of a claim?
Because you are relying on and trusting that someone has made your case. It is a belief that your case is supported, not knowledge. By definition, establishing something as fact requires that its factual nature be demonstrated.

Without any demonstration, it remains a personal faith-based assessment.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2012, 01:06:26 AM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #128 on: April 18, 2012, 01:28:49 AM »
I'm curious what the basis for this is....

When we have such brilliant minds at work researching the size, shape, and nature of the celestial heavens (I'm talking about Astronomy), how is it that these brilliant minds have got everything so wrong. [...]

Appealing to authority.
Yes, he is. Did you think that appealing to authority is always a fallacy? I find his use here logical.

We've danced this waltz before.
If you'll recall, this is a site dedicated establishing the factual accuracy or lack thereof of specific claims primarily via debate. So yes, making assumptions and/or taking others' word for the sake of practicality by intentionally sacrificing factual accuracy, is of course a logical fallacy, because examining the accuracy of said presented facts is the whole point of this society.

He's either externalizing/advocating a point open to others (which invites logical critique), or he's babbling about some internal belief he holds without attempting any justification. The latter should never be considered a case with any substance. It shouldn't change or mean anything to anyone else. It's as worthless to advancing our collective knowledge as a religious man preaching faith.
Nope. Appealing to authority remains a proper technique in establishing accuracy.
You clearly don't know what it means to "establish" accuracy of a claim. The case for it must be made, not the conclusions recited.
Do tell me of the error of my ways here please. How is relying on the efforts of an authority with expertise in the field under review not establishing accuracy of a claim?
Because you are relying on and trusting that someone has made your case. It is a belief that your case is supported, not knowledge. By definition, establishing something as fact requires that its factual nature be demonstrated.

Without any demonstration, it remains a personal faith-based assessment.
So? The authority has demonstrated the result, published it, and even gone through peer review. Authorities in the field aren't beyond reproach, but each are better at establishing accuracy than anyone here.

Oh, and who said anything about facts? Unless we rely on Parallax's magical "It's true because I check everything myself" technique, we don't deal with establishing facts. They take care of themselves. You should be discussing conclusions.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #129 on: April 18, 2012, 01:36:54 AM »
I'm curious what the basis for this is....

When we have such brilliant minds at work researching the size, shape, and nature of the celestial heavens (I'm talking about Astronomy), how is it that these brilliant minds have got everything so wrong. [...]

Appealing to authority.
Yes, he is. Did you think that appealing to authority is always a fallacy? I find his use here logical.

We've danced this waltz before.
If you'll recall, this is a site dedicated establishing the factual accuracy or lack thereof of specific claims primarily via debate. So yes, making assumptions and/or taking others' word for the sake of practicality by intentionally sacrificing factual accuracy, is of course a logical fallacy, because examining the accuracy of said presented facts is the whole point of this society.

He's either externalizing/advocating a point open to others (which invites logical critique), or he's babbling about some internal belief he holds without attempting any justification. The latter should never be considered a case with any substance. It shouldn't change or mean anything to anyone else. It's as worthless to advancing our collective knowledge as a religious man preaching faith.
Nope. Appealing to authority remains a proper technique in establishing accuracy.
You clearly don't know what it means to "establish" accuracy of a claim. The case for it must be made, not the conclusions recited.
Do tell me of the error of my ways here please. How is relying on the efforts of an authority with expertise in the field under review not establishing accuracy of a claim?
Because you are relying on and trusting that someone has made your case. It is a belief that your case is supported, not knowledge. By definition, establishing something as fact requires that its factual nature be demonstrated.

Without any demonstration, it remains a personal faith-based assessment.
So? The authority has demonstrated the result.

You're showing the exact same confusion between belief and knowledge I tried to highlight. You believe the authority has demonstrated the result.

However, assuming you can follow the processes and/or deductions of the experts you blindly trust, you could attempt to demonstrate their cases yourself by recreating/reiterating them here for scrutiny. Simply saying that experts have proven 'x' is the fallacious appeal when establishing 'x'. But saying 'x' must be true because of reasons 'a', 'b', and 'c' would be a way to establish the claim (assuming the logic was sound).

Oh, and who said anything about facts?
Factual accuracy has been the subject for awhile... It shows up as early as in my third sentence within this thread.  ???
« Last Edit: April 18, 2012, 02:12:37 AM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #130 on: April 18, 2012, 01:47:57 AM »
You're showing the exact same confusion between belief and knowledge I tried to highlight. You believe the authority has demonstrated the result.

Furthermore, you could attempt to demonstrate it yourself by recreating/reiterating their processes and/or deductions here for scrutiny. Simply saying that experts have proven "x" is the fallacious appeal. Saying "x" must be true because of reasons "a, b, and c" would be establishing the claim (assuming the logic was sound).
Wrong. Appeal to authority is not always fallacious. If the expert has the needed knowledge and experience, then appealing to him or her or them is a logical step. Unless you're using some pedantic definition of knowledge, there is not significant difference in Science between "knowing that 'a' causes 'b'" and "believing that 'a' causes 'b'. Science only allows for "knowing" in the sense of "believing". We could always be wrong.

Expecting everyone to reproduce every experiment involved in an argument is beyond any sense of reasonable.
Quote
Oh, and who said anything about facts?
Factual accuracy has been the subject for awhile...
Provide a quote please to support your claim "factual accuracy" has been the subject "for a while".
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #131 on: April 18, 2012, 02:12:16 AM »
You're showing the exact same confusion between belief and knowledge I tried to highlight. You believe the authority has demonstrated the result.

Furthermore, you could attempt to demonstrate it yourself by recreating/reiterating their processes and/or deductions here for scrutiny. Simply saying that experts have proven 'x' is the fallacious appeal when establishing 'x'. Saying 'x' must be true because of reasons 'a', 'b', and 'c' would be establishing the claim (assuming the logic was sound).

Wrong. Appeal to authority is not always fallacious.
Provide a quote of where I said it was. If you are using it as a general rule of thumb for what is probably correct (based on people's reputations) then it can be a practical personal approach. Wikipedia acknowledged this under "statistical syllogisms" meaning that something is probably factual. This is where the discussion of personal assessment fits in; choosing to believe something without assuring that it fits certain standards.

Quote
If the expert has the needed knowledge and experience, then appealing to him or her or them is a logical step.
Practical step.

Quote
Unless you're using some pedantic definition of knowledge, there is not significant difference in Science between "knowing that 'a' causes 'b'" and "believing that 'a' causes 'b'. Science only allows for "knowing" in the sense of "believing". We could always be wrong.
Yes, scientific knowledge is open to revision and is not completely sure. Let me adapt that term of "scientific belief" for grammatical ease.
However, [1]believing in the legitimacy of a [2]scientific belief is a secondary layer of belief that doesn't use any sound logic to justify it. It is simply having faith that those scientific "beliefs" were formed in a sound manner. Current accepted scientific theories are all generally considered sound by those who review them. That role of faith is preventable, and much more open to disappointment. This happens when you don't review them.

Quote
Expecting everyone to reproduce every experiment involved in an argument is beyond any sense of reasonable.
Not if they expect to force their beliefs specifically regarding the results of those experiments on others. Demonstration is really quite rudimentary to making a sound case. Same goes for trying to publicly convincing others of anything faith-based. It should be ignored until actual reasons can be given.

Quote
Quote
Oh, and who said anything about facts?
Factual accuracy has been the subject for awhile...
Provide a quote please to support your claim "factual accuracy" has been the subject "for a while".
VVV
We've danced this waltz before.
If you'll recall, this is a site dedicated establishing the factual accuracy or lack thereof of specific claims primarily via debate.

I know you're too stubborn to give up on a lost cause, but I'm gonna grab some sleep. Catch ya in the morning.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2012, 02:23:47 AM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #132 on: April 18, 2012, 02:28:16 AM »
You're showing the exact same confusion between belief and knowledge I tried to highlight. You believe the authority has demonstrated the result.

Furthermore, you could attempt to demonstrate it yourself by recreating/reiterating their processes and/or deductions here for scrutiny. Simply saying that experts have proven 'x' is the fallacious appeal when establishing 'x'. Saying 'x' must be true because of reasons 'a', 'b', and 'c' would be establishing the claim (assuming the logic was sound).

Wrong. Appeal to authority is not always fallacious.
Provide a quote of where I said it was.
Did I say you said it was?
Quote
Quote
If the expert has the needed knowledge and experience, then appealing to him or her or them is a logical step.
Practical step.
Both.
Quote from: wiki
As a statistical syllogism, it will have the following basic structure:[1]
Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct.
a says p about S.
Therefore, p is correct.
Quote

Quote
Unless you're using some pedantic definition of knowledge, there is not significant difference in Science between "knowing that 'a' causes 'b'" and "believing that 'a' causes 'b'. Science only allows for "knowing" in the sense of "believing". We could always be wrong.
Yes, scientific knowledge is open to revision and is not completely sure. However, believing in the scientific knowledge/belief is a secondary layer of belief that concerns its existence and doesn't use any sound logic to justify it. It is simply having faith that those scientific "beliefs" were formed in a sound manner. That role of faith is preventable, and much more open to disappointment.

Quote
Expecting everyone to reproduce every experiment involved in an argument is beyond any sense of reasonable.
Not if they expect to force their beliefs specifically regarding the results of those experiments on others. Demonstration is really quite rudimentary to making a sound case. Same goes for trying to publicly convincing others of anything faith-based. It should be ignored until actual reasons can be given.
Irrelevant and false. Demonstration is not really quite rudimentary. For example, in 1997 frame dragging can only be measured by a tandem of specialized satellites. Refernce: http://www.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/framedrag.html. A person could never afford such a complex and expensive (not really quite rudimentary) demonstration.
Quote
Quote
Quote
Oh, and who said anything about facts?
Factual accuracy has been the subject for awhile...
Provide a quote please to support your claim "factual accuracy" has been the subject "for a while".
VVV
We've danced this waltz before.
If you'll recall, this is a site dedicated establishing the factual accuracy or lack thereof of specific claims primarily via debate.
Tangential, inaccurate, and your saying "factual" does not make it the subject of the discussion. (You might want to tone down your sense of importance.)
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Intelligence in Debate
« Reply #133 on: April 18, 2012, 09:57:01 AM »
You're showing the exact same confusion between belief and knowledge I tried to highlight. You believe the authority has demonstrated the result.

Furthermore, you could attempt to demonstrate it yourself by recreating/reiterating their processes and/or deductions here for scrutiny. Simply saying that experts have proven 'x' is the fallacious appeal when establishing 'x'. Saying 'x' must be true because of reasons 'a', 'b', and 'c' would be establishing the claim (assuming the logic was sound).

Wrong. Appeal to authority is not always fallacious.
Provide a quote of where I said it was.
Did I say you said it was?
You implied it. I made it red in case you're confused.

Quote from: ClockTower
Quote from: wiki
As a statistical syllogism, it will have the following basic structure:[1]
Most of what authority a has to say on subject matter S is correct.
a says p about S.
Therefore, p is correct.
This is completely compatible with the point I was making. Despite having a format of two premises and a conclusion, this is not a logical deduction and doesn't/cannot guarantee any truth or falsity. It only surmises a generalization based on probability.

Quote from: ClockTower
Quote
Quote from: ClockTower
Expecting everyone to reproduce every experiment involved in an argument is beyond any sense of reasonable.
Not if they expect to force their beliefs specifically regarding the results of those experiments on others. Demonstration is really quite rudimentary to making a sound case. Same goes for trying to publicly convincing others of anything faith-based. It should be ignored until actual reasons can be given.
Irrelevant and false. Demonstration is not really quite rudimentary. For example, in 1997 frame dragging can only be measured by a tandem of specialized satellites. Refernce: http://www.phy.duke.edu/~kolena/framedrag.html. A person could never afford such a complex and expensive (not really quite rudimentary) demonstration.
I said demonstration was rudimentary (basic and foundational) for persuasion, not that all examples of demonstration were "simple". You neither show why it is irrelevant nor false. Since we are discussing establishing a claim to others, demonstration seems very relevant. What is really unreasonable, is demanding others to agree with you without providing a sound supporting argument. See my closing question.

Quote
Quote from: ClockTower
Provide a quote please to support your claim "factual accuracy" has been the subject "for a while".
VVV
We've danced this waltz before.
If you'll recall, this is a site dedicated establishing the factual accuracy or lack thereof of specific claims primarily via debate.
Tangential, inaccurate, and your saying "factual" does not make it the subject of the discussion. (You might want to tone down your sense of importance.)
Your inability to admit your mistakes is getting old.

Tell me, which statement do you deny?
1. A claim is an assertion you are trying to prove.
2. Establishing a claim is to prove it.
3. Proof requires a demonstration of the claim's factual accuracy.
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.