Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies

Originally posted by symmetricAvenger

Hi symmetricavenger.

I do think it's a mob mentality in that it is people with the same basic agenda 'piling on'. I don't think that necessarily involves U2Us. Just shared interests. And I didn't say who was engaged in behaviour based on a mob mentality. For what it's worth, I didn't have you in mind. However, I do think that when you and others were discussing things with Indigo that others took advantage of that and focused on him at the same time in an attempt to overwhelm. So don't take it personally.

Of course I'm I'm not suggesting everyone who disagrees or gets into a debate with indigo or myself is part of a mob mentality. If you go back to the beginning of this thread and other threads discussing pseudo-skepticism and follow them through, you will see who are the 'usual suspects', who are simply desperate to shut down such discussions and who use accusations, underhand tactics and tag teaming to do so.

As for your last point, I'm afriad I don't yet understand the point you are making, but I am keen to. So could you please restate it - the bit about my signature and links etc?

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by symmetricAvenger

You: ALIENS COME FROM PLANET X
Me: prove it
You: Omg are you blind the evidence is overwehlming
Me: welll infact its not...
You: omg gomg aliens i know your stupid connect the dots!!!
Me: well i would if you show me what dots your on about
You: Omg you know eyewitness an ufos n books n stuff!!!
Me: you still not have told me why they come from a planet
You: OMG your stupid and aliens are real

Can we get that on an ATS t-shirt please?!

[edit on 2/4/2009 by skibtz]

reply to post by Malcram


ah yes in fairness i can understand that. i was just trying to point out the logic of the mob thing, I can understand some people get lables on ats were for me i dont use them so i kinda hate it in the first place..

alot of good valid points have been made by everyone.. and its only a debate afterall so its not one thing to get so worked up about, for me i just like to point out things maybe others miss, thats my own view,, i could be labled as whatever feel fit, i cant stop that..

what i was trying to point out about your sig.. is that based on the argument of the orginal post by indigo is that "in refrence to your sig"

they are infact both the same thing

your sig is a description of the very thread we are all debating

There is not one side of the argument and if one does this it inverably retrunes to being a skeptic in your own right

you are skeptical of the people who dont belive. thus requiring them to provide evidence as a rebuttle



there evidence is opinion, and in there right to do so

indigo_childs on the other hand is saying connect the dots read things there is proof..

Just because one reads and takes a side does not infact make one correct

ie Skeptics choose not to belive and Belivers do..

based on the very same evidence both can read.. that infact formulates an opinion

with the scourse one can not even have an opinion to make the case correct?

so this argument about psektipcs is infact a unlogical argument based on idoligy..

the result of this is show in the pages of this thread

Leads to arguments based on idiogly and self importance

This is what i have been trying to point out from the very outset .. and yes i was aaccused of insulting.. but not once have i been off topic or insulted indigo_child

I mearly challanged her/his own logic and as a result of that i was ingnored forth width.

and btw no one has refuted any of my posts.. why? because i do not place blame on a view.. only on ones methord.

there is no way to counter argument the facts unlees one states

lets agree to disagree



cop out as i said... and just to add one more thing.. a skeptic is the opisit to a beliver based on the same evidence BOTH parties have read..

calling a skeptic a skeptic is unlogical at best.. for the question and assumption is infact itself

a question

the world is round, what way is up?

this is my point

reply to post by skibtz


do i get the copyright license?

hehe

im glad it gave you a smile

Originally posted by Malcram
Now that's political correctness gone mad.

Oh, do NOT even go there. I HATE political correctness. It drives me crazy. I tell people "Cry me a river. Then build a bridge and get over it."

Pseudo-skepticism is the use of specific fallacious arguments in denial.

Come on, Malcram. Come back to reality - it's over this way. Most of these people wouldn't know a logical fallacy if it sat in their lap and called them Daddy, and you want to claim it's deliberate deception? Nah.

It's like calling a 4-year-old a liar for telling one of his playmates that Santa Claus is real. Did he tell a lie? Yes. Was he deliberately lying? No. He just didn't know any better.

Attacking him and calling him a liar serves no purpose, it will only upset him.

The same is true of most of your so-called pseudoskeptics. They're going by what they were taught in school, or what their parents told them, or what they read in a book somewhere. They don't know any better, and attacking them accomplishes nothing except to make them angry and upset and put them on the defensive. You do more harm than good and accomplish nothing.

Most of them probably don't even have a clue what a "pseudoskeptic" is, but they're immediately suspicious because "pseudo" doesn't generally mean anything good, and a few minutes of googling will tell them exactly what you meant and what you were calling them. Now instead of a guy who's just somewhat ignorant and confused, you've got a guy who's ignorant, confused, defensive, MAD, and insulted. Yeah, that's really going to be helpful.

I can understand why there might be frustration with the general gist of our argument of "connnecting the dots" because there is an implicit assumption there that those who cannot connect the dots are not smart enough to do it. So those who are riling against this argument the most are probably seeing it as a personal attack on them. Now, while I can understand that this is a natural implication of the conneceting-the-dots arrgument for those who disagree with it, there is nothing much I can do to help with that, because it is a logical consequence of the argument. That does not mean the argument should not be made at all. Only one needs to understand that the intentions of the argument are not to prove that somebody is stupid, the intentions of the argument are neutral.

It is indeed true that some people do connect dots better than others. A detective for instance will walk into the crime scene and notice all kinds of things that the layperson will not. Just because someone cannot connect the dots does not mean they are stupid, it just means they don't know how to connect dots yet, but that does not mean they cannot learn. Now, I have learned to connect dots from my background in Logic, I am not saying I have superor intelligence, I am just trained in a particular system, which others can learn too. I might have a better ability to synthesisze information than the average person, but that just means I have above average intelligence, and not that I am special.

So please do not take the connect-the-dots argument personally.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Indigo_Child


You said:

That said, there is an ideal skeptic. That is somebody who withholds judgment until they have explored all available evidence in a case.

You have labeled several theories, including the SCH, as "absurd" and "fantasy" and now you admit that you have not looked at the evidence for those hypotheses.

Contempt prior to investigation.

You did not say "I haven't investigated that theory; show me some evidence," you judged it absurd. Only now when I have called you on it do you claim that I haven't provided evidence.

So ... that makes you a .. pseudoskeptic?

reply to post by Indigo_Child


I can understand why there might be frustration with the general gist of our argument of "connnecting the dots" because there is an implicit assumption there that those who cannot connect the dots are not smart enough to do it.

read that????? cmon now

Look at this???

How on earth can you make this statement?????? I can (you) udnerstand (meaning pitty) be (confused) with ( my own opinion) of our ( assuption ) of connecting the dots ( what dots? ) because there is an impiclit ( meaning you imply ) assuption ( now you are having a laff ) that those ( meanin pseudoskeptics / me others who dont agree ) cannot connec the dots ( that are only reletive to YOU ) are not smart ( BE LITTLNG ) engough to do so...

I ask you one question and one only

how old are you?

reply to post by Heike

Attacking him and calling him a liar serves no purpose, it will only upset him.

The same is true of most of your so-called pseudoskeptics. They're going by what they were taught in school, or what their parents told them, or what they read in a book somewhere. They don't know any better, and attacking them accomplishes nothing except to make them angry and upset and put them on the defensive. You do more harm than good and accomplish nothing.

Most of them probably don't even have a clue what a "pseudoskeptic" is, but they're immediately suspicious because "pseudo" doesn't generally mean anything good, and a few minutes of googling will tell them exactly what you meant and what you were calling them. Now instead of a guy who's just somewhat ignorant and confused, you've got a guy who's ignorant, confused, defensive, MAD, and insulted. Yeah, that's really going to be helpful.

This is basically a defense of the pseudoskeptics right to be pseudoskeptical. It is an emotional appeal, but has absolutely no validity and which would be outright dismissed in academic debate. In academic debate fallacies, underhand tactics, bigotry is considered disrespctable and it certainly does not recognise the right of an individual to use them. If they do they will be disqualified and discredited.

Pseudoskeptics do indeed exist, just like pseudoscientists and pseudointellectuals and this jargon is common in the academic world, because the terms do have referrents. It indicates people who are unprofessional and yet pretend to be representative.


Heikie, as to your argument that I outright dismissed the CH hypothesis. You have obviously not seen my spirited defense of the Lacerta files. I do not dismiss it, but am inclined to it myself, but I know my logical limits. I asked you to produce evidence to support the CH, and once again you have equivocated. Where is the evidence?

reply to post by Heike


aha this is sooooo funny!! but so correct!!

how is it one can not debate it? why? because the argument is flawed!!

there is no reason what so ever for this meaning as its the most ilogical wording i have ever witnessed

and i state this : Look at my grammer, look at my spelling... if i can work out that this is a controdictive thread and make some what sens "that im able to do so with limits"

then do you "indigo_child" honestly think your are making a valid case?

if anything you are makeing a thread about YOUR view and making the rest of us who dont agree but are willing to liseten sound like total nitwits?

Do you think WE happed to appear on planet earth? just with a click of a finger??? do you find it EASY because you have that name to have some palce in a higher order??

please Read what im about to tell you in regards to this thread:

Your argument is wrong, the very premiss of it is wrong, the mear fact you have made it is to infact inflate your own ego.. and you use others as your counter argument when infact the counter agument is based on ones opinion and NOT facts...

I shall make it more simple for you to read if you did not understand the DOTS IM CONNECTING

you are being selfish and arrogant and the reason for this is :

You think you are always correct when infact YOU ARE NOT...

I did not insult you : tho you claimed i did and would like an apology and i never ever was offtopic,,,


so 1) i would like you to say sorry
2) I would like you to admit infact you have been very wrong in your invalid statements

3) if not then you prove not just to me but the rest of ats you are infact the very thing you are trying to put down..

do you know what it is? someones OPINION

thats right.. its not facts its BELIFE in what you read

we can also make the same argument you try to debunk with "logic"

please for the love of god ( or aliens ) have humility.....

this is a true sign of interlect.. to understand you infact know nothing..

can you tell me hand on heart were you came from? and who made you?

and if you are honest and post it then your argument FAILS.. and if you do post it and im guessing you wont..

that makes you a LIAR and a fraud

becuase out of 7 billion humans on this rock NOT ONE OF US KNOWS THE REAL TRUTH

or that would make them GOD

and as day follows night.. i know the answer to the question.. DO YOU?

stop trying to be smarter than everyone when u make yourself just seem silly...

Originally posted by symmetricAvenger

I think we are pretty much in agreement. And yes, my signature and the links in it is exactly what this thread is about. However, I'd point out that there is a huge difference between skepticism and pseudo-skepticism. They are totally different things. As I pointed out many, many, times in this thread and others I have no problem with skeptics, just pseudo-skepticism (they are chalk and cheese). I have no problem if people don't believe. I have a problem with fallacious arguments (as described in my signature and at pages the links in it take you to) and other underhand tactics used to denyand dismiss legitimate evidence and to otherwise stall a legitimate debate all of which are very commonly used at ATS.


[edit on 2-4-2009 by Malcram]

Indigo ...

We aren't in an academic debate, or in academic circles, or in an academic world. We're on ATS, which basically is a subset of the "real world" which consists of people smart enough to use a computer and access the internet, and who have an interest in at least one topic found on ATS.

In the real world, you don't attack and ridicule people for lack of knowledge. You help them acquire more knowledge. You don't call people names and label them with stereotypes because they don't have all the training and learning that you do. There is no requirement for anyone to know all of this stuff about physics and logic and science and theories and hypotheses and etc. etc. etc. to be on ATS and have an opinion about UFOs!!! Can you understand that?

The guy who posts something on a thread about "Well, I thought they couldn't get here from other planets because of some theory about the speed of light."

Do you really think he KNOWS he's using a logically fallacious argument? Come on now. He sorta remembers something from science class and this is his best effort at it... He's sincere .. misguided maybe, but sincere and honest.

Don't call him names and attack his argument with all that science and physics and logic that he likely won't be able to understand anyway ... be nice and try to help educate him instead. He doesn't deserve to be attacked because HE doesn't know he is doing anything wrong.

Heikie, as to your argument that I outright dismissed the CH hypothesis.

I've asked you twice.. or once .. anyway I've asked you, what does CH stand for? and you didn't answer me. Hard to defend it if I don't know or remember what it is.

reply to post by Malcram


malcum others may not understand you but i do alot.. hence why we have not had a flame debate

its just i understand your pointing out P skeps vs skeps and this is correct but what im pointing out here is idoligicaly based arguments..this is the same for me you indigo and all the others who are talking part..

You see if the rational is to be P skep then that would imply one is being a pain in the bum for nothing? as P would make out a fake skeptic "devils advorcate" ect

Now the reason i say this is only becuase i do dissagree fundermently with ingido on a number of fronts.

would you entertain the idea she.he has genes that are turned on and i dont?

would you infact like proof of that argument?

You see, my date on my name is not correct, but yet one assumes its when infact i joined ATS when its not..

and i have as proof his/her own arguments that me and you and many others on this very forum would question, but yet he/she is claiming to know what he.she is postulating

fact : he.she claimed to have more dna turned on and has a different hexlix to me and you and has made a thread about it.

Look up his . her name please befor you willingly agrree with an asumpstion of Pskeptic

in all cases one would infact judge you and me based on this very argument..

attention seeking at its best, and ones own self importance to boot.. we do not agree because its fun but we do disagree because. he she is wrong and his /. her logic is flawed

and if you wish to i can provide a link to the thread she . he infact made about being special "according to the mutation in his / her dna"

so how can one argue the case? if the very same person is full of #

that was not an insult to indigo but pointing out hypocrisy on the magnitude that insults most peoples interlect inculding my own

and from my grammer and spelling THATS ALOT for one person to do

btw i have no reason to flame you as you do make vaild points and within reason i try my best to listen and understand without shouting I TOLD U SO or some other irractic knee jerk reaction.

Originally posted by Heike

Come on, Malcram. Come back to reality - it's over this way. Most of these people wouldn't know a logical fallacy if it sat in their lap and called them Daddy, and you want to claim it's deliberate deception? Nah.

It doesn't matter whether it's intentional or not, the fallacy still should be challenged. Do we just let it go because the poster doesn't know that their point is fallacious? This isn't a creche. It's a forum for debate about what I think is quite an important issue.

Attacking him and calling him a liar serves no purpose, it will only upset him.

Again, that really misrepresents threads such as these. Their focus - as stated in the thread title - is fallacious arguments that are employed as part of pseudo-skepticism. Now why should anyone take offense at that? Why would they want to defend fallacies? Why would they take offense at pseudo-skepticism being exposed. Who could possibly feel insulted by a thread challenging pseudo-skepticism? Who would even identify with a thread title regarding pseudo-skepticism and think "Hey! I'm being attacked! How dare they!" Not a legitimate skeptic. Not anyone who understands what pseudo-skepticism means - and if they didn't when they first came here then they certainly should have after the umpteenth post clarifying exactly what it was and how it had nothing to do with skepticism. You see my point? This thread did not target any specific individuals. Individuals would have to target themselves by identifying with the fallacies exposed in order to feel under "attack". Either that or have fallen for the lies of those who falsely claimed that an expose of pseudo-skepticism was somehow an "attack" on skeptics.

And, tell me, which members was it who did as much as possible to muddy the waters and cause confusion by falsely claiming that threads such as these were an attack on "skeptics" in an effort to shut down this discussion? Or as you admitted, made efforts to "exhaust" those who made such threads and "to stop them from doing this again"? If some members are confused - as you say - about what pseudo-skepticism is it's because these same few people were falsely trying to claim that it was actually an attack on all skeptics or even trying to claim that pseudo-skepticism doesn't exist.


[edit on 2-4-2009 by Malcram]

reply to post by Malcram


This thread did not target any specific individuals. Individuals would have to target themselves by identifying with the fallacies exposed in order to feel under "attack". Either that or have fallen for the lies of those who falsely claimed that an expose of pseudo-skepticism was somehow an "attack" on skeptics.

it did infact taget people, it infact attacked pskpes who are infact people..

would have to target themselves by identifying with the fallacies exposed in order to feel under "attack".

is this not what happend to me? I asked a question and was accused of the very same thing you pointed out here in this sentance?

did Indigo_child feel under attack? when i questioned her.him? YES and he . she also made the claim i insulted him. her when infact i did not?

the mod or mods who are viewing this thread have not removed ONE of my posts for they are on topic AND i may add not insulting to the OP or person who infact posted *indigo_child@ but he. she flet it in his. her view to make a statement that i was infact INSULTING him.her when i never did???

so if a person can take a question as an insult when infact i never did ? what reason would any ATS memeber try to defend a topic based only on a view of another person who i may add is in there right to not agree??

you see pskpt is another word "or shall i sall a CDS" of words baed on what? someone who is infact not a skpetic but pretends to be one??

how on earth can one deduce this in an argument that is only based on ones stroking of ones ego? regardless of the fact...

A skeptick is a person who has read the same information as the beliver and has come to THERE OWN concultion and formed there OWN opinion??

does that make them stupid becouse they can not connect the dots? i think they are more open minded than the people who try to misslead them into thinking becuase ones evidence is more correct than a valid question somehow they are wrong??

thats not logical nore is it based on any relaity im aware of other than egotistalness "if thats even a word"

and just to point out one thing.. NO one knows why or who put us here...

correct?

Originally posted by symmetricAvenger
reply to post by Malcram

Thanks for your courteous reply. Well at least someone understands me SA. LOL. It's getting late here and my brain is shutting down so forgive me that I don't address all your points. I'm not keen to get into a debate about the DNA issue you mention. Partly because I haven't read that thread, don't know the first thing about it, and I don't think it came up in this thread. If it did I didn't see it. I can understand certain members getting into cross thread arguments that get heated - I've fallen into that trap myself at times - or even some members pursuing vendettas across threads (not accusing you of that, but I have observed it, certainly it has blighted this thread). But you understand why I don't want to get into a disagreement stemming from another thread. Things are clouded enough in this thread as it is LOL.

And even if what you were saying is true - regarding, I gather, your belief that Indigo is being inconsistent with regard to his position in this thread and the application of logic and it's application to another subject - then that still doesn't change the validity of this thread and it's challenge to certain fallacies. I'm sure I don't agree with Indigo on everything. But on the matter this thread is about I do.

And as for him perhaps having an extra gene or an extra gene switched on, or whatever, all I can say is, I haven't a clue. You never know? it would explain what I have observed generally to be markedly advanced reasoning skills and logical acuity.

(But then, I would say that, seeing as I am in agreement with him on several issues LOL)

Originally posted by symmetricAvenger

It did infact taget people, it infact attacked pskpes who are infact people...

I don't accept that as valid. The thread title was aimed at - and the original posts exposed - fallacious arguments. It did not target 'specific individuals". It did not target "Tom', 'Dick', and 'Harry' - specific people. It refuted fallacies. If Tom, Dick and Harry get upset at fallacies being exposed, that is their problem, and one has to wonder why they are upset.

Originally posted by Malcram
They would have to target themselves by identifying with the fallacies exposed in order to feel under "attack".
------------------------------------
is this not what happend to me? I asked a question and was accused of the very same thing you pointed out here in this sentance?

Not in the OPs. I have no idea what transpired between you and Indigo because I wasn't paying that much attention to your debate with him - I don't even know if what you mention actually happened in this thread. But it is clearly bothering you greatly. But your exchange with Indigo is not what this thread is about, at least for me. Maybe you two need to sort out your differences via PM?

A skeptick is a person who has read the same information as the beliver and has come to THERE OWN concultion and formed there OWN opinion??
does that make them stupid becouse they can not connect the dots?

Not at all. I happen to disagree with skeptics that the evidence is not yet sufficient to reach a logical conclusion. But I have no problem with their position. That's not what this thread is about. I've said before I think legitimate skepticism is very valuable and keeps believers focused on the evidence. Pseudo-skepticism on the other hand, is a blight to the debate - for everyone.

We aren't in an academic debate, or in academic circles, or in an academic world. We're on ATS, which basically is a subset of the "real world" which consists of people smart enough to use a computer and access the internet, and who have an interest in at least one topic found on ATS.

I don't see why same standards should not apply. ATS has itself created the forum, "Skunk works" to separate critical disussion from non-critical discussion. So a high standard of critical and logical discussion does seem to be desired, and in a high standard of critical and logical discussion the use of fallacies and underhand tactics is not permissable.

The guy who posts something on a thread about "Well, I thought they couldn't get here from other planets because of some theory about the speed of light."

Do you really think he KNOWS he's using a logically fallacious argument? Come on now. He sorta remembers something from science class and this is his best effort at it... He's sincere .. misguided maybe, but sincere and honest.

Don't call him names and attack his argument with all that science and physics and logic that he likely won't be able to understand anyway ... be nice and try to help educate him instead. He doesn't deserve to be attacked because HE doesn't know he is doing anything wrong.

As soon as he makes an argument with a truth claim, Then he is subject to logical scrutiny of others. Ignorance is not an excuse. If one is arguing and using invalid arguments they should expect refutation.

I've asked you twice.. or once .. anyway I've asked you, what does CH stand for? and you didn't answer me. Hard to defend it if I don't know or remember what it is.

You know what I meant by CH before, and suddenly you have forgotten? I mean your underwater and underground terrestrial civilisations. I am still waiting for evidence because not a shred has been provided as of yet, despite your repeated claims that the CH is the equal of ETH.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Malcram
Do we just let it go because the poster doesn't know that their point is fallacious?

Perhaps not, but what's the point in antagonizing him and putting him on the defensive? Few people learn anything when they're busy defending themselves from a perceived attack. Consider education without aggression.

Again, that really misrepresents threads such as these.

Well, it's not so much the thread itself ... although they do get tiresome, they can be ignored. It's the mindset it encourages, and what it teaches people to do. There are maybe, say, about 10 or 12 people actually posting in this thread .. but how many people are reading it? We have no idea. So people read the OP and then go out onto the rest of the boards and attack anyone they see using these fallacies and accuse them of being pseudoskeptics. Nice. It encourages the tensions that already exist between "believers" and "skeptics."

Suppose the OP said "Hey, if you see people using these arguments against UFOs being extraterrestrials, here is what you can say to help educate them ..." Wouldn't that accomplish the same thing without the "attack" flavor of Pseudoskepticism and fallacies?

Furthermore, we have now seen the true agenda of Indigo_Child. It is to convince everyone that ETs are real, and here, and being covered up by the government so that we can collectively demand disclosure. So it's not about the fallacies of pseudoskepticism, it's about teaching people how to try to get other people to believe in the ETH and refute arguments against it. From where I sit, that's pushing the edge of dishonesty. Why not start a thread that says ET is here, here's the evidence, and we need to demand disclosure?

reply to post by Indigo_Child


Okay, fine. I give up. You win. Keep on attacking people and calling them names and using your academic logic rules and cutting edge scientific theories and see how far it gets you. Most people won't even understand what the hell you're talking about, except that they'll probably pick up on the fact that you're being accusatory, condescending, derogatory, and insulting.

I don't see any reason to go around picking fights with people because they don't have the advantages of knowledge and education that you apparently do, but I've explained it as well as I can and you still don't get it, or you get it and you just don't care.

I don't know.

By the way, that formal debate challenge is still on the table.