You cant spin something which has a clearly defined definition.
Judge
Hum… oh i see. So when an opponent (not enemy) commits 2 fallacies and i only commit 1. Then the judge is somehow being unfair by telling them to improve their argument style.… is that what your saying? The judge is merely working out verisimilitude and is not an appeal to authority, which is what you would say if you knew a damn thing about logic and critical thinking.
“the more they are able to prove how unnecessary it is to update based on evidence.”
But wait. Isnt that exactly why your saying that you wont update to learn debating? In that way your making a circular argument and have no proof.
“Whether you are too far gone to recover is yet to be seen but your arguments here remind me more of boxing than of thinking. Which is fine—epistemic rationality is a less useful skill in most situations than rhetoric.”
This is just some rehearsed argument that you wished to give to some other debater and bares no resemblance to me or anything i have said. Critical thinking and debating procedure certainly arnt rhetoric, but the fact that you say so proves you are emotionally involved (something which debating trains you not to do), so it is clear you arnt very logical.
My skills far exceed debating but i accept it as the first experimental test of a theory. Since this site is composed mainly of theories which manifest into ideologies like the singularity, then debating is clearly something you need. Furthermore it is a bias of yours. You are biased against debating. It is likly you are home to several theories that dont hold up under much scrutiny, and scrutiny by standards such as critical thinking, which it is certain you do not grasp. Why is it certain? Because you made a circular argument fallacy. And i still, have made none.
I believe I have resolved my former uncertainty to my satisfaction. The parent is an example of the kind of arguing that I associate with ‘debating’ but fails to meet even the most basic standards of rational discussion that is accepted here. It would be damn near perfect when participating in the MENSA online discussion groups which I have been involved in. Since you are most likely intelligent enough to join that community I expect you would gain much more status and personal satisfaction demonstrating your skills there than you are likely to achieve here.
For the sake of brevity assume that the remainder of my reply consists of quotes of most of the sentences of the parent, each followed by “straw man”, “non sequitur” or “no, that’s just plain wrong”.
(And no. For most part the above does not consist of argument. Merely discription and observation which readers can agree with or disagree with themselves based on their own observations of the context and intellectually oriented social dynamics. Basically I just agree with lavalamp in the ancestor and will downvote all comments of the form seen here without further engagement.)
Denial is soo last centaury… whats the null hypothesis on that one btw?
“standards of rational discussion”
“assume that the remainder of my reply consists of”
“rational discussion”
“assume”
“RATIONAL DISCUSSION”
“ASSUME”
What the fuck am i reading!?
“straw man”, “non sequitur” or “no, that’s just plain wrong”.
Wait… you really have no idea what book i’m getting this from do you? Because that last indulgence of yours, is not a part of critical thinking. Which means your condemning something which you cannot do yourself.
“Merely description and observation which readers can agree with or disagree with themselves based on their own observations of the context and intellectually oriented social dynamics.”
Why is it you dont say evidence there and avoid doing so. You do know scientific method, dont you?
“Basically I just agree with lavalamp in the ancestor and will down vote all comments of the form seen here without further engagement.”
So, not only will you not learn critical thinking or debating. But you wont review any document which i produce which contains them. Furthermore, you find it reasonable and good, to down vote all the above argument, without reviewing it.
Bias and generalisation.
You cant honestly expect to have credibility under these circumstances...
How about this for a contract. You learn from whatever sources fit with your biases. And i’ll learn from everything there is available. Then, we can compare whos smarter.
Rationality is not a game you play by twisting words into the most similar sounding fallacy. Please go troll somewhere else.
I’m actually beginning to think you are right and he is trolling. I had originally just modeled him as just another victim of too much debate practice (and a tad too much arrogance to be healthy). But surely this caricature of the phenomenon can’t be sincere? I’m not even sure which way giving the benefit of the doubt would go here.
It may not be worth the effort, but it would be interesting if one were blocked from posting as long as one’s karma earned in past 30 days was < −30 or so. Might make it easier to ignore trolls.
I’d be wary of a limit like that which is so easily reached by a few downvotes on a top level post, at least if the person has a record of positive contribution. Maybe if their karma earned in the last 30 days is <-30, and their total karma is not greater than 0?
It may not be worth the effort, but it would be interesting if one were blocked from posting as long as one’s karma earned in past 30 days was < −30 or so. Might make it easier to ignore trolls.
I’ve been thinking something along those lines myself. Although it would be kind of awkward if one of us made a single main page post that people didn’t find interesting and was downvoted just to −4. I think Eliezer and Luke may even have done that at least once out of all their respective posts. It just takes doing that once in a month that they haven’t contributed much and bam, no more commenting for those top contributors for a month!
A solution that might work is having comments by < −10 total karma users greyed out or otherwise made less visible. Just any sort of automated troll warning system at all would be great!
My $0.02: I think benefit of the doubt would involve assuming that he genuinely believes that what he’s doing has value as a way of arriving at truth, and relatedly believes that the fact that the rest of us aren’t doing the same thing (and, further, are not supportive of his practice when he comes here and demonstrates it to us) means that we’re not really interested in rationality, just signalling.
Well, that, and that he’s kind of obnoxious.
(Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that’s [i]true[/i] -- my confidence level in my predictions about other people’s motives is extremely low—just that it seems like the most charitable interpretation.)
Furthermore. I prefer the term logical. Because rationales can be different. But logic is a matter of evidence. You either are logical, or you arnt.
“troll somewhere else.”
You’d rather attack me than the reasoning of my augment, because you’d lose if you did. Ad hominem fallacy.
So far your only criticism of me is something which you have failed to prove. Indeed you are not resisting debating. Now you are resisting critical thinking. And if you refuse, repeatable demonstrated evidence, then you also refuse scientific method.
You are backtracking your way away from logic merely because it doesnt fit with your dearly held opinions and biases.
Your not making your opinions pay rent. Even when their worth less than a wooden nickel.
Somtimes people like you make me think that the lessons i have learnt, cannot be tought by exercising them, like in a debate.
But the information that you absorbe is not under my control, and eventually put down to biases.
You cant spin something which has a clearly defined definition.
Hum… oh i see. So when an opponent (not enemy) commits 2 fallacies and i only commit 1. Then the judge is somehow being unfair by telling them to improve their argument style.… is that what your saying? The judge is merely working out verisimilitude and is not an appeal to authority, which is what you would say if you knew a damn thing about logic and critical thinking.
But wait. Isnt that exactly why your saying that you wont update to learn debating? In that way your making a circular argument and have no proof.
This is just some rehearsed argument that you wished to give to some other debater and bares no resemblance to me or anything i have said. Critical thinking and debating procedure certainly arnt rhetoric, but the fact that you say so proves you are emotionally involved (something which debating trains you not to do), so it is clear you arnt very logical.
My skills far exceed debating but i accept it as the first experimental test of a theory. Since this site is composed mainly of theories which manifest into ideologies like the singularity, then debating is clearly something you need. Furthermore it is a bias of yours. You are biased against debating. It is likly you are home to several theories that dont hold up under much scrutiny, and scrutiny by standards such as critical thinking, which it is certain you do not grasp. Why is it certain? Because you made a circular argument fallacy. And i still, have made none.
I believe I have resolved my former uncertainty to my satisfaction. The parent is an example of the kind of arguing that I associate with ‘debating’ but fails to meet even the most basic standards of rational discussion that is accepted here. It would be damn near perfect when participating in the MENSA online discussion groups which I have been involved in. Since you are most likely intelligent enough to join that community I expect you would gain much more status and personal satisfaction demonstrating your skills there than you are likely to achieve here.
For the sake of brevity assume that the remainder of my reply consists of quotes of most of the sentences of the parent, each followed by “straw man”, “non sequitur” or “no, that’s just plain wrong”.
(And no. For most part the above does not consist of argument. Merely discription and observation which readers can agree with or disagree with themselves based on their own observations of the context and intellectually oriented social dynamics. Basically I just agree with lavalamp in the ancestor and will downvote all comments of the form seen here without further engagement.)
Denial is soo last centaury… whats the null hypothesis on that one btw?
What the fuck am i reading!?
Wait… you really have no idea what book i’m getting this from do you? Because that last indulgence of yours, is not a part of critical thinking. Which means your condemning something which you cannot do yourself.
Why is it you dont say evidence there and avoid doing so. You do know scientific method, dont you?
So, not only will you not learn critical thinking or debating. But you wont review any document which i produce which contains them. Furthermore, you find it reasonable and good, to down vote all the above argument, without reviewing it.
Bias and generalisation.
You cant honestly expect to have credibility under these circumstances...
How about this for a contract. You learn from whatever sources fit with your biases. And i’ll learn from everything there is available. Then, we can compare whos smarter.
Rationality is not a game you play by twisting words into the most similar sounding fallacy. Please go troll somewhere else.
I’m actually beginning to think you are right and he is trolling. I had originally just modeled him as just another victim of too much debate practice (and a tad too much arrogance to be healthy). But surely this caricature of the phenomenon can’t be sincere? I’m not even sure which way giving the benefit of the doubt would go here.
I think he’s a sincere teenager who’s very new to this sort of thing. They sound, behave and type like that.
It may not be worth the effort, but it would be interesting if one were blocked from posting as long as one’s karma earned in past 30 days was < −30 or so. Might make it easier to ignore trolls.
I’d be wary of a limit like that which is so easily reached by a few downvotes on a top level post, at least if the person has a record of positive contribution. Maybe if their karma earned in the last 30 days is <-30, and their total karma is not greater than 0?
I’ve been thinking something along those lines myself. Although it would be kind of awkward if one of us made a single main page post that people didn’t find interesting and was downvoted just to −4. I think Eliezer and Luke may even have done that at least once out of all their respective posts. It just takes doing that once in a month that they haven’t contributed much and bam, no more commenting for those top contributors for a month!
A solution that might work is having comments by < −10 total karma users greyed out or otherwise made less visible. Just any sort of automated troll warning system at all would be great!
My $0.02: I think benefit of the doubt would involve assuming that he genuinely believes that what he’s doing has value as a way of arriving at truth, and relatedly believes that the fact that the rest of us aren’t doing the same thing (and, further, are not supportive of his practice when he comes here and demonstrates it to us) means that we’re not really interested in rationality, just signalling.
Well, that, and that he’s kind of obnoxious.
(Just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that’s [i]true[/i] -- my confidence level in my predictions about other people’s motives is extremely low—just that it seems like the most charitable interpretation.)
What!? This is no game! No matter how much you repeat it.
I am not twisting words. The flaws and fallacies have clear, unequivocal definitions.
http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/unit2/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Furthermore. I prefer the term logical. Because rationales can be different. But logic is a matter of evidence. You either are logical, or you arnt.
“troll somewhere else.”
You’d rather attack me than the reasoning of my augment, because you’d lose if you did. Ad hominem fallacy.
So far your only criticism of me is something which you have failed to prove. Indeed you are not resisting debating. Now you are resisting critical thinking. And if you refuse, repeatable demonstrated evidence, then you also refuse scientific method.
You are backtracking your way away from logic merely because it doesnt fit with your dearly held opinions and biases.
Your not making your opinions pay rent. Even when their worth less than a wooden nickel.
Somtimes people like you make me think that the lessons i have learnt, cannot be tought by exercising them, like in a debate. But the information that you absorbe is not under my control, and eventually put down to biases.
I do ask one thing. What is your IQ, if i may?