“Not at all. It is entirely legitimate to down-vote completely crackpot ideas purely because hearing the same old completely crackpot ideas can be annoying.”
Just because you call something crackpot doesn’t mean its true.
Just because you call something legitimate doesn’t mean its true.
Indeed you are committing a circular argument fallacy right now.
“Circular arguments are arguments that assume what they’re trying to prove. If the conclusion of an argument is also one of its reasons, then the argument is circular.”
And by criticising me instead of my argument, you are also committing an ad hominem fallacy.
““Ad hominem” is Latin for “against the man”. The ad hominem fallacy is the fallacy of attacking the person offering an argument rather than the argument itself.”
The only problem is. Every time you fail to PROVE it is crackpot. You commit another one of these fallacies.
“entirely different kind of ‘conspiracy’ used in law”
There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between the conspiracies used in law.
Your dangerously close to making an appeal to authority fallacy. These 3 usually come as a set.
“An appeal to an authority is an argument that attempts to establish its conclusion by citing a perceived authority who claims that the conclusion is true. In all cases, appeals to authority are fallacious; no matter how well-respected someone is, it is possible for them to make a mistake.”
The site you keep linking to is a grade school-level (junior-high level at best) introduction to reasoning, that still uses Aristotelian ideas about “proof”. But reasoning has progressed significantly since the time of Aristotle 2400 years ago—even since the time of the invention of the scientific method in medieval times.
We know how to calculate the approximate proper weight of evidence now. We have equations for probability and proper updating of beliefs. Have you even heard of Bayes’ theorem?
“Appeals to Authority” aren’t fallacies as long as the word of said authorities is weighted appropriately as Bayesian evidence, instead of treated as absolute proof.
Next you’ll tell us that “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence” when of course it is evidence of such, and everyone here knows it well, and anyone mathematically inclined could even give you the mathematical proof to that.
Start learning about Occam’s razor, Bayesian updating, Solomonoff Induction, Kolmogorov Complexity—also about cognitive biases (especially selection bias) and affective death spirals. Instead of talking about fallacies all the time, start thinking about biases.
Just because you call something crackpot doesn’t mean its true. Just because you call something legitimate doesn’t mean its true.
Indeed you are committing a circular argument fallacy right now.
“Circular arguments are arguments that assume what they’re trying to prove. If the conclusion of an argument is also one of its reasons, then the argument is circular.”
http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/unit2/fundamentals/logicalfallacies/circularity/
And by criticising me instead of my argument, you are also committing an ad hominem fallacy.
““Ad hominem” is Latin for “against the man”. The ad hominem fallacy is the fallacy of attacking the person offering an argument rather than the argument itself.”
http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/unit2/fundamentals/logicalfallacies/adhominem/
The only problem is. Every time you fail to PROVE it is crackpot. You commit another one of these fallacies.
There is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between the conspiracies used in law.
Your dangerously close to making an appeal to authority fallacy. These 3 usually come as a set.
“An appeal to an authority is an argument that attempts to establish its conclusion by citing a perceived authority who claims that the conclusion is true. In all cases, appeals to authority are fallacious; no matter how well-respected someone is, it is possible for them to make a mistake.”
http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/unit2/fundamentals/logicalfallacies/appealtoauthority/
The site you keep linking to is a grade school-level (junior-high level at best) introduction to reasoning, that still uses Aristotelian ideas about “proof”. But reasoning has progressed significantly since the time of Aristotle 2400 years ago—even since the time of the invention of the scientific method in medieval times.
We know how to calculate the approximate proper weight of evidence now. We have equations for probability and proper updating of beliefs. Have you even heard of Bayes’ theorem?
“Appeals to Authority” aren’t fallacies as long as the word of said authorities is weighted appropriately as Bayesian evidence, instead of treated as absolute proof.
Next you’ll tell us that “absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence” when of course it is evidence of such, and everyone here knows it well, and anyone mathematically inclined could even give you the mathematical proof to that.
Start learning about Occam’s razor, Bayesian updating, Solomonoff Induction, Kolmogorov Complexity—also about cognitive biases (especially selection bias) and affective death spirals. Instead of talking about fallacies all the time, start thinking about biases.
Fish in a barrel… Must stop myself...
Be strong!