Anyone who downvoted CriticalSteel just for his unpopular positions should be ashamed of themselves.
That having been said, he deserves enough downvotes, for the obnoxious and arrogant manner he uses later in the thread. Just not for this initial post.
Anyone who downvoted CriticalSteel just for his unpopular positions should be ashamed of themselves.
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. It would also be legitimate to downvote the grandparent based off the arguments therein. They aren’t nearly as ridiculous as what they descend into later in the thread but the “like a true evangelist” line as well as move to the entirely different kind of ‘conspiracy’ used in law (rather far removed from popular ‘conspiracy theories’) are both potentially downvote-worthy.
It is entirely legitimate to down-vote completely crackpot ideas
Would it be legitimate for me to downvote people the next time they mention ideas that I consider completely crackpot (like quantum immortality), or ideas that most of the world considers completely crackpot (like many-worlds)?
The arguments contained in the ancestor post criticize “Here Be Dragons” for actual failings contained therein. That the specific ideas mentioned (9/11 conspiracy, autism-vaccine connection) are considered crackpot doesn’t mean one is allowed to strawman them. It’s all the more reason that one doesn″t even have to strawman them.
Would it be legitimate for me to downvote people the next time they mention ideas that I consider completely crackpot (like quantum immortality), or ideas that most of the world considers completely crackpot (like many-worlds)?
I tend to presume less control of other people’s voting behavior than you seem to.
“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.
I tried to accommodate the 9/11 trutherism by pointing to videos discussing the problems inherent in conspiracy theories that did not use that as an example. I didn’t downvote the original post and ignored early signs of confusion about how words work:
he casts doubt on “conspiracy theories” with a generalisation (that they are all theories)
This was followed in subsequent posts by map-territory confusion:
I’d have to dissagree, based on evidence...The evidence is: In his description of conspiricies in part 1, he never even once mentiones the word evidence.
That the video did not use the word “evidence” does not strongly imply that evidence was not provided. Spelling and grammar are tools to limit confusion, and writing “the word ‘evidence’” as “the word evidence” isn’t helping him.
The response:
your “map and territory” is looking mighty fallacious. I really REALLY doubt that you can vindicate it.
At this point, I was done but he went on:
as of yet, your “map and territory” is looking mighty fallacious. I really REALLY doubt that you can vindicate it.
To his credit, he apparently actually went and read about it, as he later said:
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”
He doesn’t understand how words work, doesn’t understand beliefs and reality, and doesn’t understand how to change his mind. I disagree with the implication that things other than tone aren’t sufficient reasons to downvote his other posts.
It is not a coincidence that one person’s arguments, sentences, and words are all muddled.
I endorse what wedrifid said as a reply to the new person’s posts:
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”.
I agree. I downvoted some of his posts, not because he might not have a point, but because he was using a style that I do not appreciate on lesswrong: unneeded profanity, half-formed thoughts, aggressive tone, and (I’ll admit) bad spelling.
However, I would not (and did not) down vote this original post, which seems like a reasonable argument (from the POV of someone who has not watched whatever video they are discussing)
Obnoxious and arrogant is in the eye of the beholder...
I tell people about the flaws in their arguments and theories and suddenly I AM THE ONE who’s being arrogant. I find its verry common for people to start to criticise me personally after i have identified a number of critical thinking fallacies in their arguments.
This conforms to the definition of an ad hominem fallacy.
Most often they criticise my tone, or by taking everything ive said as an insult instead of as identifying a logical puzzle for them to solve.
If they used critical thinking and scientific method and debated often, like me, then they would work out many of lifes puzzles, which is why i am such a strong proponent of it as a teaching method.
I tell people about the flaws in their arguments and theories and suddenly I AM THE ONE who’s being arrogant.
Your comments were full of implicit and explicit signals of condescension towards the people you were talking to.
I find its verry common for people to start to criticise me personally after i have identified a number of critical thinking fallacies in their arguments. This conforms to the definition of an ad hominem fallacy. “the fallacy of attacking the person offering an argument rather than the argument itself.”
It would only be an “ad hominem” fallacy if I was pretending to attack your argument: if I used an attack on your person in order to undermine your position. But I’m not doing that : I’m attacking your person, in order to have you improve your attitude, regardless of what position you hold.
I really don’t give a shit about your position on 9/11 or vaccination. As I’m not an American I really don’t have an emotional investment on your government being innocent or guilty on these issues. I find your government already significantly much more guilty on worse issues than these two.
Most often they criticise my tone,
They properly criticize your tone, because your tone is absolutely horrible. Grow up or go away. This is a place for civilized discussion.
“Your comments were full of implicit and explicit signals of condescension towards the people you were talking to.”
no source.
“It would only be an “ad hominem” fallacy if I was pretending to attack your argument: if I used an attack on your person in order to undermine your position. But I’m not doing that : I’m attacking your person, in order to have you improve your attitude, regardless of what position you hold.”
So, the reason are trying to improve my attitude, is because of my attitude (which is your conclusion).
So if you believe the attitude is there. Then you are fine with this conclusion. But if you don’t… Either way you keep believing exactly what you did before.
My attitude is proportionate to my position; my argument is not disproven. So, if i disprove others argument. It is their position which should change.
You need to get used to abandoning positions which no longer work. Instead of trying to re-enforce a failed position.
“As I’m not an American I really don’t have an emotional investment on your government”
I’m not American. I was discussing conspiracies. Why is it you think we have to have an emotional investment in things? It is merely a matter of evidence.
CriticalSteel—I’ve not made any argument to you, circular or otherwise. I refuse to argue with you because you’re obnoxious and rude.
No, I’m not making arguments about the validity of my estimation of you either, I’m just communicating it to you.
You still think people are debating you. We’re not. We’re telling you to improve your behavior or go AWAY. This is not an argument, this is an instruction: Improve your manners or be downvoted to oblivion, again, and again, and again.
Aris, I’ve noticed you keep engaging low-quality contributions (from different users). It’s better to avoid commenting on posts that are expected to be downvoted to hidden-by-default (or already have been), otherwise you encourage further low-quality contributions.
Yeah, you’re right. It’s a bad habit I need to break myself out of—I keep deluding myself into thinking that I have a chance to fix their broken behaviours and make them actually useful members or atleast plant useful ideas into them.
All i did was challenge the “here be dragons” video, on its flaws, as per critical thinking. Which is the premier, logical method. But none of you seem to know it.
Now, having challenged your beliefs i am subjected to a cascade of arguments filled with logical fallacies in their critical thinking.
Simply put. You condemn what you don’t understand.
Also, most of you here are completely illogical and cannot even make a comment without handicapping yourself.
Just what makes you think you can down vote a critical thinker, when you yourself cannot even do it?
There are massive, gaping flaws in the core principles you all take for granted. Most of them are based on opinion and never tested, obviously, because their full of logical fallacies which people have known about since the 1700s.
Everything you SAY is an argument, a proposition, everything is a theory until proven. Which the credibility must be analysed by critical thinking criteria.
and,
If your making an argument that doesnt include evidence then your not being logical.
“this is an instruction”
Who are you, who is to suggest instructions to me, without any evidence or credibility atall by the critical thinking criteria.
“Improve your manners or be downvoted to oblivion, again, and again, and again.”
Obnoxious and arrogant is in the eye of the beholder...
This is, for all practical purposes, false. “Obnoxious” and “arrogant” are not properties like “blue” or “spherical” or “rumbling” that correspond to objective phenomena independent of social context.
If you say the ball is spherical and everyone else around you says the ball is cubic, you are almost certainly correct despite being a minority of one.
If everyone around you says that you are obnoxious and arrogant, then you are, in fact, obnoxious and arrogant, even if you beg to difer.
Because YOU say so? Wheres your evidence? Coz all i see is a theory...
“Obnoxious” and “arrogant” are not properties like “blue” or “spherical” or “rumbling” that correspond to objective phenomena independent of social context.
Yes they are.
They have set definitions in dictionaries. The evidence would be a specific quote, and the explanation of how the quote achieves the criteria of the dictionary.
Your “social context” does not prove anything besides you perception. Which is hardly evidence on its own.
“If you say the ball is spherical and everyone else around you says the ball is cubic, you are almost certainly correct despite being a minority of one.”
No you arnt… jeez, you people dont understand a damned thing about logic or scientific method.
Things arnt real just because you perceive them to be real. Their real because they can be repeatable PROVEN to be real.
What you just described is being biased to your own view. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I’VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ALL THIS TIME...
“If everyone around you says that you are obnoxious and arrogant, then you are, in fact, obnoxious and arrogant, even if you beg to difer.”
This is the complete opposite of what you just explained. Now, i’m not “certainly correct despite being a minority of one.” Because “If everyone around you says that you are obnoxious and arrogant, then you are, in fact, obnoxious and arrogant”.
If everyone around me said we should all jump off a bridge that wouldnt make them any more correct than if i was on my own saying we should all jump off a bridge.
The missing link is; evidence.
For example, if i was the only one on fire, and the bridge had water below, and was the only way i could be extinguished. Then, considering the evidence, i would be justified. But if i tried to convince others who were not on fire. Then i wouldn’t be justified.
Anyone who downvoted CriticalSteel just for his unpopular positions should be ashamed of themselves.
That having been said, he deserves enough downvotes, for the obnoxious and arrogant manner he uses later in the thread. Just not for this initial post.
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. It would also be legitimate to downvote the grandparent based off the arguments therein. They aren’t nearly as ridiculous as what they descend into later in the thread but the “like a true evangelist” line as well as move to the entirely different kind of ‘conspiracy’ used in law (rather far removed from popular ‘conspiracy theories’) are both potentially downvote-worthy.
Would it be legitimate for me to downvote people the next time they mention ideas that I consider completely crackpot (like quantum immortality), or ideas that most of the world considers completely crackpot (like many-worlds)?
The arguments contained in the ancestor post criticize “Here Be Dragons” for actual failings contained therein. That the specific ideas mentioned (9/11 conspiracy, autism-vaccine connection) are considered crackpot doesn’t mean one is allowed to strawman them. It’s all the more reason that one doesn″t even have to strawman them.
I tend to presume less control of other people’s voting behavior than you seem to.
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!
I tried to accommodate the 9/11 trutherism by pointing to videos discussing the problems inherent in conspiracy theories that did not use that as an example. I didn’t downvote the original post and ignored early signs of confusion about how words work:
This was followed in subsequent posts by map-territory confusion:
That the video did not use the word “evidence” does not strongly imply that evidence was not provided. Spelling and grammar are tools to limit confusion, and writing “the word ‘evidence’” as “the word evidence” isn’t helping him.
The response:
At this point, I was done but he went on:
To his credit, he apparently actually went and read about it, as he later said:
He doesn’t understand how words work, doesn’t understand beliefs and reality, and doesn’t understand how to change his mind. I disagree with the implication that things other than tone aren’t sufficient reasons to downvote his other posts.
It is not a coincidence that one person’s arguments, sentences, and words are all muddled.
I endorse what wedrifid said as a reply to the new person’s posts:
I agree. I downvoted some of his posts, not because he might not have a point, but because he was using a style that I do not appreciate on lesswrong: unneeded profanity, half-formed thoughts, aggressive tone, and (I’ll admit) bad spelling.
However, I would not (and did not) down vote this original post, which seems like a reasonable argument (from the POV of someone who has not watched whatever video they are discussing)
D:
Obnoxious and arrogant is in the eye of the beholder...
I tell people about the flaws in their arguments and theories and suddenly I AM THE ONE who’s being arrogant. I find its verry common for people to start to criticise me personally after i have identified a number of critical thinking fallacies in their arguments.
This conforms to the definition of an ad hominem fallacy.
“the fallacy of attacking the person offering an argument rather than the argument itself.” ~ http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/unit2/fundamentals/logicalfallacies/adhominem/
Most often they criticise my tone, or by taking everything ive said as an insult instead of as identifying a logical puzzle for them to solve.
If they used critical thinking and scientific method and debated often, like me, then they would work out many of lifes puzzles, which is why i am such a strong proponent of it as a teaching method.
Your comments were full of implicit and explicit signals of condescension towards the people you were talking to.
It would only be an “ad hominem” fallacy if I was pretending to attack your argument: if I used an attack on your person in order to undermine your position. But I’m not doing that : I’m attacking your person, in order to have you improve your attitude, regardless of what position you hold.
I really don’t give a shit about your position on 9/11 or vaccination. As I’m not an American I really don’t have an emotional investment on your government being innocent or guilty on these issues. I find your government already significantly much more guilty on worse issues than these two.
They properly criticize your tone, because your tone is absolutely horrible. Grow up or go away. This is a place for civilized discussion.
no source.
“Ad hominem” is Latin for “against the man”. “Ad hominems can simply take the form of abuse: e.g. “don’t listen to him, he’s a jerk”. http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/unit2/fundamentals/logicalfallacies/adhominem/
Your above argument, is also a circular argument. “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/
So, the reason are trying to improve my attitude, is because of my attitude (which is your conclusion). So if you believe the attitude is there. Then you are fine with this conclusion. But if you don’t… Either way you keep believing exactly what you did before.
My attitude is proportionate to my position; my argument is not disproven. So, if i disprove others argument. It is their position which should change.
You need to get used to abandoning positions which no longer work. Instead of trying to re-enforce a failed position.
“As I’m not an American I really don’t have an emotional investment on your government”
I’m not American. I was discussing conspiracies. Why is it you think we have to have an emotional investment in things? It is merely a matter of evidence.
CriticalSteel—I’ve not made any argument to you, circular or otherwise. I refuse to argue with you because you’re obnoxious and rude.
No, I’m not making arguments about the validity of my estimation of you either, I’m just communicating it to you.
You still think people are debating you. We’re not. We’re telling you to improve your behavior or go AWAY. This is not an argument, this is an instruction: Improve your manners or be downvoted to oblivion, again, and again, and again.
Aris, I’ve noticed you keep engaging low-quality contributions (from different users). It’s better to avoid commenting on posts that are expected to be downvoted to hidden-by-default (or already have been), otherwise you encourage further low-quality contributions.
Yeah, you’re right. It’s a bad habit I need to break myself out of—I keep deluding myself into thinking that I have a chance to fix their broken behaviours and make them actually useful members or atleast plant useful ideas into them.
He hasn’t proven anything yet...
All i did was challenge the “here be dragons” video, on its flaws, as per critical thinking. Which is the premier, logical method. But none of you seem to know it.
Now, having challenged your beliefs i am subjected to a cascade of arguments filled with logical fallacies in their critical thinking.
Simply put. You condemn what you don’t understand.
Also, most of you here are completely illogical and cannot even make a comment without handicapping yourself.
Just what makes you think you can down vote a critical thinker, when you yourself cannot even do it?
There are massive, gaping flaws in the core principles you all take for granted. Most of them are based on opinion and never tested, obviously, because their full of logical fallacies which people have known about since the 1700s.
Everything you SAY is an argument, a proposition, everything is a theory until proven. Which the credibility must be analysed by critical thinking criteria.
and,
If your making an argument that doesnt include evidence then your not being logical.
Who are you, who is to suggest instructions to me, without any evidence or credibility atall by the critical thinking criteria.
Restricting the options fallacy http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/unit2/fundamentals/logicalfallacies/restrictingtheoptions/
I’ll choose door number 3 please: I’ll continue using critical thinking, proving you wrong. Untill you all come around… or not.
This is, for all practical purposes, false. “Obnoxious” and “arrogant” are not properties like “blue” or “spherical” or “rumbling” that correspond to objective phenomena independent of social context.
If you say the ball is spherical and everyone else around you says the ball is cubic, you are almost certainly correct despite being a minority of one.
If everyone around you says that you are obnoxious and arrogant, then you are, in fact, obnoxious and arrogant, even if you beg to difer.
Because YOU say so? Wheres your evidence? Coz all i see is a theory...
Yes they are. They have set definitions in dictionaries. The evidence would be a specific quote, and the explanation of how the quote achieves the criteria of the dictionary.
Your “social context” does not prove anything besides you perception. Which is hardly evidence on its own.
No you arnt… jeez, you people dont understand a damned thing about logic or scientific method.
Things arnt real just because you perceive them to be real. Their real because they can be repeatable PROVEN to be real.
What you just described is being biased to your own view. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I’VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ALL THIS TIME...
This is the complete opposite of what you just explained. Now, i’m not “certainly correct despite being a minority of one.” Because “If everyone around you says that you are obnoxious and arrogant, then you are, in fact, obnoxious and arrogant”.
If everyone around me said we should all jump off a bridge that wouldnt make them any more correct than if i was on my own saying we should all jump off a bridge.
The missing link is; evidence.
For example, if i was the only one on fire, and the bridge had water below, and was the only way i could be extinguished. Then, considering the evidence, i would be justified. But if i tried to convince others who were not on fire. Then i wouldn’t be justified.
BUT YOU!!! You would jump along with me!
Huehuehue.… aint i a stinka?