Your first point must ALLWAYS contain the evidence it is based on, BEFORE moving on. For example;
“Pigs can fly, flying is achieved by the length of the wing being greater on the top, creating an area of low pressure, effectively sucking the plane into the sky.”
The first 3 words, were not verified in any way.
If it is indeed “the map and not the territory” as you say. Then it is the arguers fault (arguers for the proposition).
You see; debating method (all academic debating methods) require the argument is taken in turns. And if the guy has not presented any evidence at the end of the first sentence, let alone after a 15 min and part 1 of the video. Then they are going to get torn a new one, by the other team (arguers against the proposition).
“You didn’t cite any[fallacies].”
I said: “generalisations, using the words ‘all conspiracy theorists’”
That counts as 1 fallacy (why did you miss that?), and in debating terms, he is now 1 point down. My argument, which contains no fallacies (and you haven’t found any yet). Is still at 0. Therefore not much more analysis is needed to know he is wrong.
“The video’s creator’s name should be capitalized. Also, she prefers to be addressed as Miss Shirley Representing the Point.”
Wat… oh I see… what a robust argument… descending into criticizing spelling errors.
“Please read the material that is the background for many on this site if you are going to try to engage with the ideas here: Map and Territory, Words”
I might… but as of yet, your “map and territory” is looking mighty fallacious. I really REALLY doubt that you can vindicate it.
I’m seeing the shadow of flaws and fallacies, cast throughout this entire website, for 2 main reasons; no experience debating and actually testing the theory, and, very little experience using strict critical thinking.
And above all else, TOO MANY PSYCHOLOGY THEORIES.
Psychology AND theory, bare no impact upon evidence based arguments. The evidence is either real or fake, true or false. It exists in a binary state of 1 or 0, it does not matter who is looking at it, or what state their mind is in, as evidence is independent of mind as it exists outside of it. (oh here come the thumbs-down due to biased psychologists)
You obviously have no idea how to debate.
Your first point must ALLWAYS contain the evidence it is based on, BEFORE moving on. For example;
Appealing to “proper” debating technique is going to be counter-productive here. We’re interested in getting the right answer. Debates as commonly practiced train you to write your conclusion before searching for the reasons, which is exactly backwards from what a responsible rationalist should do.
When a bunch of smart people disagree with you, sometimes it is because they are crazy; sometimes, because you are crazy. You should read much more of the sequences before calling us wrong so authoritatively.
“Appealing to “proper” debating technique is going to be counter-productive here.”
What!? Appealing to logical, turn based, evidence based arguments, is not relevant to this argument?!?
“getting the right answer.”
And you think.… that thats going to happen without debating right? Right?
“Debates as commonly practiced train you to write your conclusion before searching for the reasons”
No it doesnt. Being for the proposition of an argument is NOT a conclusion, it is a theory.
You get points here because your actually talking about scientific method (i hope).
“You should read much more of the sequences before calling us wrong so authoritatively.”
I’m willing to admit thats possible. But my last post. Is fine the way it is.
You didnt prove anything, and my later researching of “map and territory” or “belief and reality” (which i take to be a theory which is a proposed addition to the list of flaws and fallacies.) didnt lend any greater credibility to your point.
Its use of the term belief immediately characterises my argument as a belief, instead of evidenced based. Beliefs do not require evidence, they require faith. Therefore your fallacy does not apply here.
Furthermore, it is very fallacious and risky to use this fallacy “belief and reality” because it can be stated, without the user ever having to prove the veracity of “belief and reality” by; disproving the evidence submitted, proving something is a ‘belief’ and based on faith, providing contrary evidence to prove that ‘reality’ is indeed different from the so called ‘belief’.
This new fallacy, “belief and reality” instead substitutes a group of different fallacies which could be used instead. They are:
appeal to authority (in the case the map/belief is issued by an authority that does not evidence that it is correct)
correlation not causation (where it is confused which is the map/belief and which is the reality)
thin end of the wedge (where the maps representatives is taken to extremes)
restricting the options (where the map omits valuable information about reality)
Of all the fallacies I expect that restricting the options is the one that is the most representative of the bias their trying to convey here.
Your highschool debate club appears to have done you a disservice. Reality is not changed by your ability to spin the opponent’s words into the nearest accessible fallacy so that you can prove yourself superior to the enemy in the eyes of a judge. In my observation the more skill someone has in debating (and more importantly the more they focus on it) the more they are able to prove how unnecessary it is to update based on evidence. 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.
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.
sigh You obviously have no idea how to debate.
Your first point must ALLWAYS contain the evidence it is based on, BEFORE moving on. For example;
“Pigs can fly, flying is achieved by the length of the wing being greater on the top, creating an area of low pressure, effectively sucking the plane into the sky.”
The first 3 words, were not verified in any way.
If it is indeed “the map and not the territory” as you say. Then it is the arguers fault (arguers for the proposition).
You see; debating method (all academic debating methods) require the argument is taken in turns. And if the guy has not presented any evidence at the end of the first sentence, let alone after a 15 min and part 1 of the video. Then they are going to get torn a new one, by the other team (arguers against the proposition).
“You didn’t cite any[fallacies].”
I said: “generalisations, using the words ‘all conspiracy theorists’”
That counts as 1 fallacy (why did you miss that?), and in debating terms, he is now 1 point down. My argument, which contains no fallacies (and you haven’t found any yet). Is still at 0. Therefore not much more analysis is needed to know he is wrong.
“The video’s creator’s name should be capitalized. Also, she prefers to be addressed as Miss Shirley Representing the Point.” Wat… oh I see… what a robust argument… descending into criticizing spelling errors.
“Please read the material that is the background for many on this site if you are going to try to engage with the ideas here: Map and Territory, Words”
I might… but as of yet, your “map and territory” is looking mighty fallacious. I really REALLY doubt that you can vindicate it.
I’m seeing the shadow of flaws and fallacies, cast throughout this entire website, for 2 main reasons; no experience debating and actually testing the theory, and, very little experience using strict critical thinking. And above all else, TOO MANY PSYCHOLOGY THEORIES.
Psychology AND theory, bare no impact upon evidence based arguments. The evidence is either real or fake, true or false. It exists in a binary state of 1 or 0, it does not matter who is looking at it, or what state their mind is in, as evidence is independent of mind as it exists outside of it. (oh here come the thumbs-down due to biased psychologists)
Appealing to “proper” debating technique is going to be counter-productive here. We’re interested in getting the right answer. Debates as commonly practiced train you to write your conclusion before searching for the reasons, which is exactly backwards from what a responsible rationalist should do.
When a bunch of smart people disagree with you, sometimes it is because they are crazy; sometimes, because you are crazy. You should read much more of the sequences before calling us wrong so authoritatively.
“Appealing to “proper” debating technique is going to be counter-productive here.”
What!? Appealing to logical, turn based, evidence based arguments, is not relevant to this argument?!?
“getting the right answer.”
And you think.… that thats going to happen without debating right? Right?
“Debates as commonly practiced train you to write your conclusion before searching for the reasons”
No it doesnt. Being for the proposition of an argument is NOT a conclusion, it is a theory.
You get points here because your actually talking about scientific method (i hope).
“You should read much more of the sequences before calling us wrong so authoritatively.”
I’m willing to admit thats possible. But my last post. Is fine the way it is.
You didnt prove anything, and my later researching of “map and territory” or “belief and reality” (which i take to be a theory which is a proposed addition to the list of flaws and fallacies.) didnt lend any greater credibility to your point.
Its use of the term belief immediately characterises my argument as a belief, instead of evidenced based. Beliefs do not require evidence, they require faith. Therefore your fallacy does not apply here. Furthermore, it is very fallacious and risky to use this fallacy “belief and reality” because it can be stated, without the user ever having to prove the veracity of “belief and reality” by; disproving the evidence submitted, proving something is a ‘belief’ and based on faith, providing contrary evidence to prove that ‘reality’ is indeed different from the so called ‘belief’.
This new fallacy, “belief and reality” instead substitutes a group of different fallacies which could be used instead. They are:
appeal to authority (in the case the map/belief is issued by an authority that does not evidence that it is correct)
correlation not causation (where it is confused which is the map/belief and which is the reality)
thin end of the wedge (where the maps representatives is taken to extremes)
restricting the options (where the map omits valuable information about reality)
Of all the fallacies I expect that restricting the options is the one that is the most representative of the bias their trying to convey here.
Your highschool debate club appears to have done you a disservice. Reality is not changed by your ability to spin the opponent’s words into the nearest accessible fallacy so that you can prove yourself superior to the enemy in the eyes of a judge. In my observation the more skill someone has in debating (and more importantly the more they focus on it) the more they are able to prove how unnecessary it is to update based on evidence. 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.
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?
Oh my god....
I just found out what you meant by core sequences.… if you think that
You people are wrong… or… less right than me...
And yes… i may get around to proving this. I may HAVE to.
I earnestly and sincerely pray for your success.
Is that your way of saying that you suspect divine intervention may be required?
No. I’m serious.