Why "sceptic" claims there is no evidence don't hold water

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Malcram
So after all your pontificating about the evils of labeling people you are in fact hypocritically doing that very thing yourself...

Again you miss the point.

I will spell it out for you. The point is not that you and Child are pseudoskeptics. The point is that the labels and tactics you have employed against other people can just as easily be applied to you and to demonstrate you are guilty of the exact same behaviors you accuse others of.

My posts have been discussing fallacies. You are relentlessly attacking individuals. SC. You will say anything no matter how ridiculous or untrue in order to slur those you oppose. But not for much longer. Your response only shows me how much this subject threatens you. You had better get used to the discussion of pseudo-skepticism and it's fallacies at ATS SC. Nothing you try to do will stop this. It's here to stay.

You start from the premise that ET life exists. For the sake of argument let say that that is 100% certain.

Nope, I did not start from that premise. I start from the premise of life on earth and then conclude by scientific generalization that there is life on other planets. So it is not a premise, but a logical conclusion.

For ET to be here you have to suppose that that life evolved into a sentient race, then into a highly technical civilisation, then discovered spaceflight, managed to avoid destroying themselves or being destroyed in the process, travelled out into space, discovered the Earth and that their civilisation came into being and endured in the same time frame as our own civilisation i.e they didn't exist millions of years before we evolved nor millions of years afterwards. I'm not arguing that this hasn't occurred but with each step outlined above the initial figure of 100% probability drops.

There is no problem of probability here, because we cannot say what is probable and what is improbable about the development of civilisations. You have insufficient information to draw conclusions on what probable and improbable. The fact remains that that there is intelligent life, it is a known observable, and thus there is no reason to believe it doesn't happen elsewhere.

That is a different scenario from saying I have a mind therefore I infer other people have minds too. I see people all the time. I'm constantly interacting with people. There is no reason to suppose they don't have minds.

You have concluded exactly what I've concluded with ET - "There is no reason to suppose" You have one instance of mind(your own) and you have certain behaviour distinct from inanimate matter, thus you draw a relationship of invariable concomitance. Then when you see another instance of that behaviour, you infer mind. I think that is valid.

But then you become logically inconsistent by objecting to exactly the same generalization but with different observables. I am once instance of life, and I observe that life actually grows from this planet, thus I can draw a relationship of invariable concomitance. Then when I see another planet, I infer, that it must have life. That is logically equivalent and thus your objection is invalid. Just as your inference is based on observation and generalization, so is mine.

For the two to be analogous the Earth would have to be in daily interaction with other planets. Life on those planets could then be inferred by observations made. The current situation with regard to life on other planets is more analogous to someone who has been kept isolated for most of their life but who has recently begun to see the odd person walking past in the far distance. They might hypothesise that these other people have minds but their case would be immeasurably strengthened if they could meet the people and hold a conversation with them.

Meeting a person and holding a conversation with somebody does not strengthen the case for other minds, because you can meet and have a conversation with a robot, with a hologram or with an imaginary character.
You have to admit here how you arrive at your conclusion for other minds is based on observation and then generalization. Likewise, so is mine.

or to put it another way - if other people have minds then UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft which I don't think is a particularly tenable argument.

Strawman. I did not say that if other people have minds then UFO's are ET. I said if you accept people have minds from B then M then you must accept ET from P then L.

But we haven't yet built a spacecraft that can carry humans to another star sytem and we don't yet know that such a craft is technically feasible. There may be no reason to believe that there isn't intelligent life on other planets but there is no evidence there is yet. UFOs cannot be considered strong evidence of life on other planets because as yet they haven't been observed on other planets, only this one. Their origins remain unknown.

But our knowledge of science and physics does not apply to ET and thus there can be no valid objection to ET getting here.

I don't agree. I am arguing that empirical evidence actually strengthens the belief that other people have minds or that planets have life. It's just I think the evidence that people have minds is greater and more convincing than the evidence that life exists on other planets at this current juncture.

Then yours is an argument from faith. You believe that the evidence for other minds is convincing, but you don't know that other minds exist. I could believe that the evidence for x is convincing, doesn't mean that the evidence actually proves x.

It's not just me that argues that, the science of genetics is predicated on it. If a man and a woman with brown hair have a child with brown hair, it's because the child has inherited its parents' traits.

Simply put our science of genetics is incomplete. We are yet to understand how life happens. Assuming we did, we could find out that life is determined by intelligent principles and their archetypal forms.

Personally, I think demanding proof is a good habit. Such thinking allows me to debate with you via the internet.

Demanding evidence is a good habit. Not demanding proof, because proof cannot be given for an unknown.

Quantum Mechanics would seem to suggest at the least that the classical deterministic model of the universe cannot explain all it's aspects. As far as we know the universe is governed by probabilities not simple cause and effect.

I love QM, but QM is just a theory and an incomplete one at that. If it is true that the universe is governing by probability, then why is it that that an apple seed will always give an apple and not an orange? Logic dictates that cause and effect is at work. If we look at String theory, cause and effect logic is supported because rather than the universe being just potential, the universe is actually real and vibrating quantum strings. At this moment in our rational universe we have no reason not to believe in cause and effect.

[edit on 3-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Malcram
You had better get used to the discussion of pseudo-skepticism and it's fallacies at ATS SC. Nothing you try to do will stop this. It's here to stay.

Malcram, this is a very sad thing and I find it to be even more sad that you seem to think it is a good thing.

What you are saying is that the "war" between "believers" and "skeptics" will continue, and you intend to support it and participate in it.

Why?

Originally posted by sebarud

Originally posted by Donnie Darko

The thing is - there is evidence.

Then present the evidence, please.

[edit on 27-3-2009 by sebarud]

The OP did. You just obviously missed it.

He presented valid 'semi-examples' of the evidence. Can you deny that there are former high up military and government officials (including astronauts) that have come forward with statements about UFO or extraterrestrial life? Well, I know for a fact that I have seen many of these officials come forward.

Is it proof? Nope. But it IS evidence.

Eye witness reports. Are they proof? Nope. But they are evidence.

Your post simply displays in the boldest way, the worst possible kind of skeptical mindset. It's one that simply ignores anything put in front of it and says, "Show me." The OP did.

Originally posted by Heike

Originally posted by Malcram
You had better get used to the discussion of pseudo-skepticism and it's fallacies at ATS SC. Nothing you try to do will stop this. It's here to stay.

Malcram, this is a very sad thing and I find it to be even more sad that you seem to think it is a good thing.

What you are saying is that the "war" between "believers" and "skeptics" will continue, and you intend to support it and participate in it.

Why?

Heike that's simply a lie and by now you must know that. This has noting to do with skeptics. I was talking about pseudo-skepticism, I've only EVER talked about pseudo-scepticism, so your bait and switch won't work. I am saying that the fallacies of pseudo-skepticism will continue to be discussed no matter what anyone tries to do to shut down that debate. My 'war' is again pseudo-skeptical fallacies. your and SC's war is against those individuals who dare to discuss pseudo-skepticism. One is legitimate, the other is not. I won't let underhand tactics and personal slurs stop this discussion. In fact, every time a thread is derailed by those who oppose this subject being raised, it necessitates another thread being created. And so it will be. Censorship through personal attack and complaint will not work.

Originally posted by Malcram
You are relentlessly attacking individuals. SC. You will say anything no matter how ridiculous or untrue in order to slur those you oppose.

Saying I do not agree with your tactics, pointing our where your own attacks apply to you, and showing where you have outright lied or twisted the truth is not an attack, Malcram. I have not stated one falsehood; you may not agree with a point I have made, Malcram, but I am mature enough to recognize the difference between believing someone is wrong and believing someone is lying.

Originally posted by Malcram
But not for much longer.

Is that some sort of threat?

Originally posted by Malcram
Your response only shows me how much this subject threatens you. .

Your focus on "pseudoskepticism" demonstrates how threatened you are by anyone who does not agree with you and a lack of self-confidence in your own beliefs. Instead of focusing on evidence and arguments, you would rather focus on the person presenting that evidence and arguments.

Originally posted by MalcramYou had better get used to the discussion of pseudo-skepticism and it's fallacies at ATS SC. Nothing you try to do will stop this. It's here to stay
Nothing you try to do will stop this.

You are right. I cannot stop it.

However, I can make sure that the only people engaging in those discussions are people like you and Child. One will be by no longer participating in these discussions and urging others to do the same. And if you come into a discussion spouting this drivel, accusing someone of being a pseudoskeptic, attempting to derail it by making them the focus rather than the topic, that will be a violation of the T&C and will ask for a moderator to step in.

In this and other threads you and Child are celebrating a supposed victory. Yet you fail to understand what it cost you to achieve this false victory. Only when you come to realize how much damage you have done to your cause will you recognize who really won.

Look around you, Malcram. Who supports you? Look at all the believers who choose not to participate in this. That should tell you something. And please, spare us the lies that there are many people U2Uing you in support.

So please, continue to create your threads about the evils of skepticism. I hope you enjoy the company of your strawmen.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
So please, continue to create your threads about the evils of skepticism. I hope you enjoy the company of your strawmen.

That is the foundational lie upon which you launch all others in an attempt to misrepresent both myself and the threads I have supported.

I have never spoken of skepticism as evil. Not once. Nor said anything like that. In fact I have praised skepticism as a useful counterbalance.

I have only ever focused on pseudo-skepticism, ever since becoming familiar with the phrase a couple of weeks ago and learning exactly what it involved. And you have no basis for trying to claim otherwise.

[edit on 3-4-2009 by Malcram]

Pseudoskepticism is a label put on people from the outside. You call someone a pseudoskeptic like you call someone a pinko commie or a bigot. It is a derogatory term invented to describe people who reject certain hypotheses or beliefs.

No one says "I am a pseudoskeptic!"

Thus the pseudoskepticism label is being used to (putting this very bluntly now because the polite scientific words didn't work) make people who don't believe in aliens or extraterrestrial spaceships shut up and go away.

Example:

Person1: We need to petition the government to release info about aliens!
Person2: What aliens?
Person1: The ones they have at Area 51.
Person2: What? There is no evidence that they have aliens at Area 51. There isn't even any evidence that there are aliens on Earth.
Person3: Hey 2, that's a logical fallacy. You're a pseudoskeptic!
Person2: I'm a what? What are you talking about? Do you have any evidence that they have aliens at area 51?
Person3: Your requests for evidence are specious. If we show you evidence you will only move the goalposts or appeal to authority. Furthermore, the truth claim of there being no aliens is a logical fallacy and I'm going to debunk it. (fill in another couple of paragraphs from the OP).
Person2: What? I didn't understand most of that, but never mind. Can't get a straight answer anywhere these days. (goes away)
Person1: So does anybody want to help me write a petition?
Person3: Another victory over pseudoskeptical fallacies!!!

In other words, every time someone says something that can be construed as a "pseudoskeptical fallacy" in the course of disagreeing with someone about whether the world is really run by reptilian overlords, our Guardians of Logic can swoop in and debunk the fallacies with paragraphs full of science and logic until the person who didn't believe in reptilian overlords finally gives up, shuts up, and goes away. Thus, over time, everyone who disagrees with "believers" will be silenced and there will be no one left able or willing to argue with any of the "believer" stuff about reptilian overlords, aliens living among us, the Galactic Federation of Light, telepathic communications from aliens who want to help us, etc. etc. etc.

Then the UFOS and Aliens forum will be all peace and goodness and alien supporters and no more nasty disbelievers.

reply to post by Heike


Um, so ok. I understood, half of what you didnt say and half of what you did, so im going to assume your on the ....good side! (assuming there is a side)



Peace!


[edit on 3-4-2009 by Armour For Victor]

reply to post by Heike


Heike. Point to me where in the OP's of the threads discussing pseudo-skepticism, the suggestion was made the anybody label someone as a pseudo-skeptic?

What you are suggesting is as silly as saying we can't discuss 'pseudo-science' in case some people might label others as 'pseudo-scientists'.

We are discussing fallacies, concepts. It is not our problem that some words or phrases used to identify concepts or arguments can be turned into nouns. We are not encouraging that. We are discussing the fallacies. But I've made this point a thousand times to you. You are being completely unreasonable and inconsistent in this regard.

Stop trying to censor legitimate discussion at ATS by misrepresenting myself and the subject and creating false dilemmas.


[edit on 3-4-2009 by Malcram]

reply to post by Malcram


Malcram. Sweetheart..

Are you really rather dense, or are you playing me? Just asking.

People say stuff like "there's no proof" all the time. (Actually, there is no proof, since nothing in science can ever be proven .. right? but I digress)

What they MEAN is "there isn't enough evidence to convince me." Which is a reasonable statement, right? But because they said "there's no proof" instead of the "correct" phrase .. whammo! they're using a pseudoskeptical fallacy and you have every right to NAIL 'em!!

You quibble over semantics to make people into something they aren't and then attack them.

Any objection that anyone could possibly have to the ETH can be turned into a "pseudoskeptical fallacy" with the right mix of rhetoric, logic, and "science."

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Nope, I did not start from that premise. I start from the premise of life on earth and then conclude by scientific generalization that there is life on other planets. So it is not a premise, but a logical conclusion.

This is our point of disagreement. You have extrapolated life on other planets from one sample. It might be a reasonable assumption to conclude there is a high probability of other life elsewhere but the fact of life on Earth does not make this a definite.

You have concluded exactly what I've concluded with ET - "There is no reason to suppose" You have one instance of mind(your own) and you have certain behaviour distinct from inanimate matter, thus you draw a relationship of invariable concomitance. Then when you see another instance of that behaviour, you infer mind. I think that is valid.

But then you become logically inconsistent by objecting to exactly the same generalization but with different observables. I am once instance of life, and I observe that life actually grows from this planet, thus I can draw a relationship of invariable concomitance. Then when I see another planet, I infer, that it must have life. That is logically equivalent and thus your objection is invalid. Just as your inference is based on observation and generalization, so is mine.

It is not the same generalization and it is not logically equivalent. When I observe another person's behaviour I can see that they behave in similar ways to me. Because I ascribe my own behaviour to my mind it is reasonable to deduce the existence of minds in people who exhibit similar behaviour. What behaviour or attributes have you observed in planets other than the Earth that are consistent with them bearing life?

Meeting a person and holding a conversation with somebody does not strengthen the case for other minds, because you can meet and have a conversation with a robot, with a hologram or with an imaginary character.
You have to admit here how you arrive at your conclusion for other minds is based on observation and then generalization. Likewise, so is mine.

I've never had a conversation with a hologram. I'm not sure how a conversation with an imaginary character would go. The only robots I've had conversations with are AI bots on the internet and I can tell you that nothing about their conversation led me to conclude that they had a mind. If the day came when I conversed with a turing-compliant AI I may very well conclude that it had a mind. I've said all along that my conclusion that other people have minds is based on observation of those people. What observation of other planets have you done that leads you to conclude they bear life?

Strawman. I did not say that if other people have minds then UFO's are ET. I said if you accept people have minds from B then M then you must accept ET from P then L.

But I don't accept it because I don't think they are logically equivalent.

I don't agree. I am arguing that empirical evidence actually strengthens the belief that other people have minds or that planets have life. It's just I think the evidence that people have minds is greater and more convincing than the evidence that life exists on other planets at this current juncture.

Then yours is an argument from faith. You believe that the evidence for other minds is convincing, but you don't know that other minds exist. I could believe that the evidence for x is convincing, doesn't mean that the evidence actually proves x.

But that is exactly what you do argue in respect to the ETH. You've already stated there is no mystery about what UFOs are. To claim my argument is one of faith when you have argued absolutes is frankly bizarre.

Demanding evidence is a good habit. Not demanding proof, because proof cannot be given for an unknown.

Agreed

I love QM, but QM is just a theory and an incomplete one at that. If it is true that the universe is governing by probability, then why is it that that an apple seed will always give an apple and not an orange?

Because such a thing is highly unlikely, all the particles in the seed would have to alter at the same moment. That doesn't mean that each individual particle behaves deterministically. Just because the theory is incomplete that doesn't mean it will be disproved. The Standard Model is experimentally verified to an astonishing degree. Just because Relativity replaced Newtonian physics it didn't mean the Earth stopped orbitting the sun.

I can't help thinking we're straying from the original topic here. I think this thread is just about dead anyway. I'm kind of arguing just for the sake of it now, I actually think our positions are extremely close with regards the UFO phenomenon

Originally posted by Heike

Please don't speak to me like that Heike. If you want to call me dense, U2U me.

You presume that I am referring to something as simple as someone saying "there is no evidence". However, the logical fallacies I want to discuss - but have never yet had a chance before the aggressive backlash kicks in and I find myself having to defend myself continually from the accusations you and other have made against me without basis - are fallacies such as those referred to in the links in my signature.

Pseudo-skepticism is a term commonly used within the scientific community and elsewhere and the fallacies it employs are often quite complex and are sometimes used by very intelligent, if not very honest, people, including scientists. They can be subtle and hard to detect which is why a knowledge of them is vital in a place where debate is among people of various levels of intelligence and education and various agendas. In fact, I have observed that those who employ these fallacies with expertise tend to be of above average intelligence and are quite capable of intimidating and undermining those who have a legitimate argument but do not recognize the fallacies that are being employed against them. What is so wrong with wanting people to have a good grasp of logical fallacies so that they don't have to be taken in by them and think they have been defeated in an argument when in fact some logical sleight of hand has gone on and they have effectively been scammed? That is what I am trying to arm people against, through understanding. Why would you want to prevent that? But there is no point in my asking you, as you will simply misrepresent what I wish to achieve, and paint it as some 'hate crime' as per usual.


[edit on 3-4-2009 by Malcram]

[qupte]This is our point of disagreement. You have extrapolated life on other planets from one sample. It might be a reasonable assumption to conclude there is a high probability of other life elsewhere but the fact of life on Earth does not make this a definite.

But you are extrapolating other minds from just one sample of mind.
I am not certain it is certain that there is ET, only it is entailed by logical argument. In this post I will give you other examples of generalization:

It is not the same generalization and it is not logically equivalent. When I observe another person's behaviour I can see that they behave in similar ways to me. Because I ascribe my own behaviour to my mind it is reasonable to deduce the existence of minds in people who exhibit similar behaviour. What behaviour or attributes have you observed in planets other than the Earth that are consistent with them bearing life?

It is logically equivalent because both are of the form if P then Q. If you represent them in symbolic logic they are if B then M and if P then L.

You make the assumption that B and M are invariably concomitant, then for every instance of B, you infer M. I assume that P and L are invariably concomitant, then for every instance of P, I infer L.

The relationship of invariable concomitance here is causal. We know that mind causes cetain behaviour, and we also know that planet causes life. Thus this is why we establish invariable concomitance.

Here are some other generalizations:

Smoke, then fire
Mass, then gravity
Space, then time
Force, then change

They are all generalizations of of the form if P then Q. Thus all are logically equivalent.

I think you are confusing logic is with the modern scientific method. You're argument is not whether they are logically equivalent but whether they have equal validity in terms of evidence. Your main argument about this comes in your next post:

I've never had a conversation with a hologram. I'm not sure how a conversation with an imaginary character would go. The only robots I've had conversations with are AI bots on the internet and I can tell you that nothing about their conversation led me to conclude that they had a mind. If the day came when I conversed with a turing-compliant AI I may very well conclude that it had a mind. I've said all along that my conclusion that other people have minds is based on observation of those people. What observation of other planets have you done that leads you to conclude they bear life?

But my argument is not evidence, but from logic based on observables. It is true that I have no conclusive evidence of life on other planets, but it is also true that there no such thing as conclusive scientific evidence. You demonstrate this yourself with your example of gathering evidence for other minds by observing a high frequeny of behaviours. However, it may turn out later that all your evidence was wrong and you were mistaking turing-compliant AI for other minds. So irrespective of how much evidence you have to support something it never prove your conclusion. Therefore the modern empirical scientific method is inherently flawed. The only valid method we have is scientific logic, making inferences from observables.

But that is exactly what you do argue in respect to the ETH. You've already stated there is no mystery about what UFOs are. To claim my argument is one of faith when you have argued absolutes is frankly bizarre.

I have stated there is no mystery about UFO's because they can be explained by the ETH logicaly. There is no belief involved.

1. There is a physical craft exhibiting behaviour which falsifies human science and technology
2. It does not belong to humans
3. Therefore it belongs to non-humans.

The first and second premise is based on empirical evidence, and by accepting the premises the conclusion is entailed. So there has been no quantity mutiplication and no suppositions.

Because such a thing is highly unlikely, all the particles in the seed would have to alter at the same moment. That doesn't mean that each individual particle behaves deterministically. Just because the theory is incomplete that doesn't mean it will be disproved. The Standard Model is experimentally verified to an astonishing degree. Just because Relativity replaced Newtonian physics it didn't mean the Earth stopped orbitting the sun.

The problem I have with you call this highly unlikely, is that you don't have statistics of apple seeds which given oranges. If there was such a statistic and lets suppose there was only one in all of history, then you could say that it was highly unlikely that an apple seed would give an orange. However, as there is no instance of an apple seed ever giving an orange, its logically impossible and not unlikely. Therefore there is no reason not to believe in cause and effect and determinism. This is why QM often gets criticsed because of its postulation that all of reality is just probability and observer-dependent.

There is a way to revise this and don't shoot me down for referencing her, but Lacerta explains this very well as observer-dependent-reflective behaviour of a unified reality at different levels. This actually solves the contradiction in QM. Rather than all of reality just being probability, actually there is a reality, and the interpretation of it by the observer is what introduces probability. There are only probabalistic interpretations because the observer is free. So its not reality that is potential, but the observer which is potential.

I actually think our positions are extremely close with regards the UFO phenomenon

I think we are. I think you are inclined my way, only that you want more evidence. I, on the other hand think there is sufficient evidence to explain UFO's. I also think there is sufficient evidence to explain: ancient advanced civilisations, paranormal abilities, the existence of the soul, reincarnation, existence, reality. I do not subscribe to a mysterious universe, I can explain a lot of it.

reply to post by Malcram


Okay, Malcram, if you have some legitimate fallacies that people are deliberately using in a deceitful way, then let's discuss them. The OP did say we were allowed to present other arguments.

The only thing I ask is, please be able to give an example of the fallacy being used .. don't make them up out of your head. Is that unreasonable to ask?

Unfortunately after seeing a lot of really good hoaxes - some of which fooled me - I've become kind of a see it to believe it person, and I've never seen anyone using these fallacies to shut down believers, although I do see a lot of anti-skepticism.

So please, show me where the fallacies are being used and how, and I will discuss them with you and even help if I can. I just don't agree with "pre-emptive strikes."

Originally posted by Heike

I intend to do that. But not in this thread. Probably in the Debunking Pseudo-skepticism thread, if Indigo is agreeable, seeing as it is the only place where order has been restored and the former method of so called "rebuttal" has been prohibited. Either that or a new thread with a different tack to the one Indigo made. But I'll create the thread as I see fit Heike, not according to your requirements. If I give specific examples of the fallacies being employed then that immediately opens me to the accusation of targeting members and "calling people pseudo-skeptics". I'm not going to fall into that trap knowing it will be exploited immediatedly.

It would be perfectly legitimate to discuss the logical fallacies recognized as belonging to "pseudo-skepticism" generally - by the scientific community, for instance - because they also directly apply here. That way I am simply discussing the fallacies and members can learn about them and apply that understanding themselves. I haven't fully decided how I will approach it but I will do so on my own terms. As before, no one will be targeted or labeled. And with the Mods cooperation, no comments attacking the worthiness of the subject or attacking the motivation for posting it will take place. Just the discussion of the fallacies of pseudo-skepticism as they relate to the UFO debate. That's all I've wanted for about two weeks now, but have been blocked at every attempt.

reply to post by Malcram


I'm sorry that you find my one request unreasonable. Please explain to me the point of debating arguments that no one is purposefully using, because I honestly can't understand that.

No, I will not accuse you of targeting individuals, and you do not need to use the poster's name. I do not think you are dishonest.

I merely wish to be discussing real fallacious arguments being used against people instead of things which have been twisted around to be somethng they are not.

Example: I said that the evidence standards for zoology should be applied to Ufoology.

The "argument" derived from that was: "If we believe in ET we have to believe in Bigfoot."

Now, can you perhaps see how my premise being twisted like that and presented as a pseudoskeptical fallacy might just annoy me a tad? That's hardly recognizable as my premise!

And, since it was done to me, I assume that was done to other people as well and that's where those arguments came from. Logical extrapolation from one case, right?

Originally posted by Heike

I am tempted to open with the same opening comment you gave to me a few posts back Heike.

I didn't say I found your request unreasonable.

And I didn't suggest that I would be posting fallacies no one was using. Of course they are being used. That's why I want to discuss them. I thought you said you agreed I was not dishonest?

However, I am not going to let you set conditions which will open me up to further false accusation. You have recognized by now that some people here will do anything to have this topic abandoned? Surely you can see that if I quote a post I will be immediately be accused of "calling the member" who said it a "pseudo-skeptic"? You have accused me of that even without me naming anyone, just because I discussed pseudo-skepticism, so forgive me if I don't readily accept your assurance that you won't accuse me again when I actually quote members in order to give examples of pseudo-skepticism. And if I quote them without giving a reference to the actual post I will be accused of making the quote up. And I'd probably still be accused of "labeling" members because someone - I think we can guess who - would say something like "It doesn't matter that you didn't name them. You are still accusing them because it's obvious who they refer to. Anyone can search for that quote and recognize who you are accusing of being a pseudo-skeptic" etc, etc. I'm sure that sounds quite familiar to you. It's a no win situation. I'm not falling for it.

And even if you did not accuse me, several of your current posting companions would. I'll maybe make a concession however, I will perhaps show these fallacies being used with regard to the UFO debate outside ATS. I'll have to think about it. Any mistep on my part will be exploited and spun (even no mistep will be spun) in order to make accusations against me in order to undermine the thread.

And as I said, I don't agree that your request is reasonable even if it didn't open me up to false accusation. It's reasonable for me to post the fallacies and let the members apply their understanding of them for themselves. You realize that the fallacies are of a recognized, documented, general type (see the links in my signature). It is only their application that is specific. They are like a recipe. You are saying "show me where the recipe has been used". I don't have to. I can discuss the recipe and let the members see where it has been used, or not, for themselves. In any case, it's not up for further discussion. Clearly, you are not among the members that I would be providing the information for, so I don't think it's fair I should construct the thread to suit you. I'll do what I think best.

reply to post by Malcram


Okay, fine. Whatever. The last set of fallacies posted were pretty ridiculous; I don't want to be trying to debate stuff like that again, because it's nearly impossible.

Would you consider suggestions? If I come up with the stuff that people actually say, then you can't be accused of anything.

Originally posted by Heike

I don't mind. However, I don't think you quite understand what I am talking about when I refer to the logical fallacies of pseudo-skepticism. These have already been documented and categorized. It's not like I will be creating them or that they can be compiled from members suggestions. They are like a system of mathematics. You don't just make it up as you go along. It is already established. What pseudo-skepticism is, and the fallacies it employs, is not something we here have to define. I has been strictly defined long ago, just as "skepticism" has. These things have clear cut definitions accepted throughout society. For instance, if you have a fairly good grasp of maths and you see someone calculating numbers in a post and they make an error, it's not debatable. Mathematics is a fixed system (except at it's extreme limits). It has rules. Logic has been similarly codified as have logical fallacies, as have the particular logical fallacies that belong to pseudo-skepticism. So we don't need examples of their application. We just need to learn about the system and then go away with the knowledge and see how it applies, if at all, at ATS. See what I mean? If you go to this page regarding logical fallacies you will see what I mean about codified definitions.

I contend that one of the reasons that Indigo's thread was dismissed by you and others was because it applied the fallacies to arguments in example, however, there was no general understanding by some readers that the fallacies applied were fallacies, therefore they could not understand that they had been rebutted, and claimed they had not. Whereas, if the fallacies themselves were explained and understood first, then when they were later applied to examples, the reader would understand what they were seeing and would recognize when a fallacy had been employed and would not mistake it for a legitimate argument. Having a comprehensive understanding of logic and logical fallacies himself, I suspect that Indigo imagined most other people would recognize the fallacies being referenced by example in the OP, as fallacies. Apparently not. Therefore the fallacies need to be explained further.

Of course, for some people such logical fallacies are their daily 'bread and butter' at ATS and so any discussion for them is intensely resisted.

[edit on 3-4-2009 by Malcram]