Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages « < 4 5 6 7 >Bottom

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

> Let me teach you Logical Thinking and Fallacies, to debunk False Arguments

views
     
SUSlowya
post Jun 27 2021, 10:54 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,821 posts

Joined: Mar 2009

QUOTE(lowya @ Jun 27 2021, 08:01 AM)
actual example from a thread title: "If there's no God, how come this thing so amazing."

it's a critical thinking sin to commit appeal to ignorant fallacy (with a twist of confusion of correlation and causation), but some people live through this their entire life. No amount of formal education can help to fix this.
*
the main problem lies in the inability to clearly define 'god' universally as compared to astronomy (when we discuss how amazing the planetary is), because everyone's spiritual understanding is unique to their own.

How could you discuss something that is interpreted differently by everyone?

But if you look at the planets, astronomers can measure the size, detect the color and shape etc, which everyone can understand on the same page.

Such argument "If there's no God, how come <fill in the blank>." not only irrelevant comparison but meaningless to engage.

Michio Kaku, whom i have a lot of respect for, explained this before.

This post has been edited by lowya: Jun 27 2021, 11:12 AM
Ruris
post Jun 27 2021, 11:47 AM

New Member
*
Junior Member
47 posts

Joined: Oct 2020


Hmm, here's a pattern based filter which I apply. If a typical unker from k write a typical low quality post, about how the universe came to be. Sure go ahead and write it off, it's probably a troll post.

But if you did some reading, you will find out that there's a following that the universe is a simulation, based on.... Wait for it, a filter called Fermi paradox and also some probable quantum science. In fact there's a good amount of similarity between god/simulation created universe.

Now I want to posit that the statement above are unlikely to proven wrong or right in this generation. But subject like that is not a fallacy by itself.

Also, people do throng to religion due to the narrative and meaning it provides. Things can have empirical evidence but at the same time you can't prove the supernatural stuff. Again, no fallacy here.

Judgment based on corporate, working, live experience, that's what makes a quality post/writing and an engaging discussion. Going all out to rip apart someone statement does not.

Someone just quoted an authoritative figure of science... Is that a sin or what?

Just kidding.




SUSlowya
post Jun 27 2021, 12:10 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,821 posts

Joined: Mar 2009

QUOTE(Ruris @ Jun 27 2021, 11:47 AM)
Hmm, here's a pattern based filter which I apply. If a typical unker from k write a typical low quality post, about how the universe came to be. Sure go ahead and write it off, it's probably a troll post.

But if you did some reading, you will find out that there's a following that the universe is a simulation, based on.... Wait for it, a filter called Fermi paradox and also some probable quantum science. In fact there's a good amount of similarity between god/simulation created universe.

Now I want to posit that the statement above are unlikely to proven wrong or right in this generation. But subject like that is not a fallacy by itself.

Also, people do throng to religion due to the narrative and meaning it provides. Things can have empirical evidence but at the same time you can't prove the supernatural stuff. Again, no fallacy here.

Judgment based on corporate, working, live experience, that's what makes a quality post/writing and an engaging discussion. Going all out to rip apart someone statement does not.

Someone just quoted an authoritative figure of science... Is that a sin or what?

Just kidding.
*
if u read from the beginning you will understand that, again i need to repeat it here that there is 2 layers of onion: one is the Argument Methodology, and the second layer is Fact Finding.

In this thread we are peeling the first one on How Do You Argue Your Points; NOT peeling the second onion layer of Whether Your Argued Fact is True of False.

We are critically investigating into HOW you think (logical or not), not WHAT you think. Do you read me?

if how you think is illogical, it doesn't matter further what you says is "right/wrong". So filter what other says is logical or not first before you jump into arguing, if not logical avoid arguing for nothing.

This post has been edited by lowya: Jun 27 2021, 12:15 PM
Accord2018
post Jun 27 2021, 01:36 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Junior Member
784 posts

Joined: Aug 2015

Jun 27 2021, 10:57 PM
This post has been deleted by lowya because: you are banned.

jojojoget
post Jun 27 2021, 02:25 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
51 posts

Joined: Nov 2020
QUOTE(diffyhelman2 @ Jun 27 2021, 01:05 AM)
I would say this is the argument by design controversy, I dont know if it can be definitely called a fallacy.

On the larger issue of that TS topic, he falls into the divine fallacy argument.

ie, the Universe is so amazing, I cannot imagine it could have come into its own by itself without a creator.
*
In a way it's a false analogy, the universe and a sock are not alike and cannot be compared in such a way.
diffyhelman2
post Jun 27 2021, 02:29 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
460 posts

Joined: Apr 2019
QUOTE(jojojoget @ Jun 27 2021, 02:25 PM)
In a way it's a false analogy, the universe and a sock are not alike and cannot be compared in such a way.
*
Yes, that’s one of the arguments put forth against those who believe in the watchmakers analogy.

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

SUSlowya
post Jun 27 2021, 04:15 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,821 posts

Joined: Mar 2009

QUOTE(Accord2018 @ Jun 27 2021, 01:36 PM)
anything can be fabricated. Even evidence in the court may be fabricated. You are not even involved in the process of obtaining the data. If the chain of evidence is broken, then whole things are not reliable, just like TOE based on circumstantial evidence only. You just merely honestly believe the data provided by certain parties. God/religions are based on belief. Belief does not require evidence ya. As long as you cannot prove the belief is wrong, they can continue to believe it. Just like if Bijan believes that he will be acquitted in the SRC case, can you say that he is wrong?
*
true.

again, We are critically investigating into HOW you think (logical or not) here, not WHAT you think.

(how many times i need to say this?)
prophetjul
post Jun 27 2021, 05:50 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
9,570 posts

Joined: Oct 2010
“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”
Accord2018
post Jun 27 2021, 06:14 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Junior Member
784 posts

Joined: Aug 2015

Jun 27 2021, 06:29 PM
This post has been deleted by lowya because: you'll never get it, pls play at the kopitiam, not here.

Accord2018
post Jun 27 2021, 08:10 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Junior Member
784 posts

Joined: Aug 2015

Jun 27 2021, 10:06 PM
This post has been deleted by lowya because: don't spam anymore.

SUSlowya
post Aug 2 2021, 11:32 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,821 posts

Joined: Mar 2009

QUOTE(xtylish @ Aug 2 2021, 10:58 AM)
my mum believed so. she said if she not vaccinated, byebye already
*
survival bias with slippery slope.

This post has been edited by lowya: Aug 2 2021, 11:33 AM
Spitzer
post Aug 2 2021, 11:42 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
305 posts

Joined: Jul 2005
From: K.Hills




QUOTE(Ruris @ Jun 14 2021, 07:45 PM)
Very fast tips /filter to see if the person replying to you is a troll/psycho.
You describe a situation in very precise manner.

The opposing person reply with "so, you're saying" or straight away use an analogy despite having no reason to do so as you're not describing quantum mechanics.
*
I would like to think that, but it’s been proven time and time again it’s usually just because they lack the intelligence to comprehend it.

As much as i love a troll, unfortunately ours here are very basic and uninteresting.
jojojoget
post Aug 12 2021, 06:15 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
51 posts

Joined: Nov 2020
user posted image
Is this really begging the question aka circular reasoning? It just seems like the premise is unsubstantiated and it might be missing a link

SUSlowya
post Aug 12 2021, 06:21 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,821 posts

Joined: Mar 2009

QUOTE(jojojoget @ Aug 12 2021, 06:15 PM)
user posted image
Is this really begging the question aka circular reasoning? It just seems like the premise is unsubstantiated and it might be missing a link
*
Oh i almost forgot abt this thread tongue.gif

Begging the questions refers to question with built-in assumed facts to bulldoze the narratives.

whereas,

Circular reasoning is using X to prove Y, then Y to prove X. Similar to correlation is not causation.

p/s: how did u manage to get this thread going?
jojojoget
post Aug 12 2021, 09:08 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
51 posts

Joined: Nov 2020
QUOTE(lowya @ Aug 12 2021, 06:21 PM)
Oh i almost forgot abt this thread  tongue.gif

Begging the questions refers to question with built-in assumed facts to bulldoze the narratives.

whereas,

Circular reasoning is using X to prove Y, then Y to prove X. Similar to correlation is not causation.

p/s: how did u manage to get this thread going?
*
so what do you think about the example?
SUSlowya
post Aug 13 2021, 08:45 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,821 posts

Joined: Mar 2009

QUOTE(jojojoget @ Aug 12 2021, 09:08 PM)
so what do you think about the example?
*
the example is correct, it's how the arguement is carried out we look at, we do not look at opinions, because it could be easily twisted supposed if u murder a murderer example.

This post has been edited by lowya: Aug 13 2021, 08:47 AM
jojojoget
post Aug 13 2021, 01:33 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
51 posts

Joined: Nov 2020
QUOTE(lowya @ Aug 13 2021, 08:45 AM)
the example is correct, it's how the arguement is carried out we look at, we do not look at opinions, because it could be easily twisted supposed if u murder a murderer example.
*
I disagree with the first part and agree with the second. Let me abstract the argument to make it more clear, substituting the content words we get the following:
A is always B.
Therefore, C is B.

This is definitely not circular reasoning as I mentioned. However is it really begging the question? It seems to be missing a link from C to A which would make this a valid deduction. Although it could be that the assumption as you mentioned in your definition of begging the question is that abortion is murder. Is this analysis correct?

The logical form of begging the question is as follows:

Claim X assumes X is true.

Therefore, claim X is true.

Example: The reason everyone wants the new "Slap Me Silly Elmo" doll is because this is the hottest toy of the season!

The example would be better if it said "Abortion is murder because you are murdering a person".

This post has been edited by jojojoget: Aug 13 2021, 01:41 PM
SUSlowya
post Aug 13 2021, 01:42 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,821 posts

Joined: Mar 2009

QUOTE(jojojoget @ Aug 13 2021, 01:33 PM)
I disagree with the first part and agree with the second. Let me abstract the argument to make it more clear, substituting the content words we get the following:
A is always B.
Therefore, C is B.

This is definitely not circular reasoning as I mentioned. However is it really begging the question? It seems to be missing a link from C to A which would make this a valid deduction. Although it could be that the assumption as you mentioned in your definition of begging the question is that abortion is murder. Is this analysis correct?
*
the link is both murder and abortion are IMPLIED action of LIVES ENDING.
SUSlowya
post Aug 13 2021, 05:03 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,821 posts

Joined: Mar 2009

QUOTE([email protected] @ Aug 13 2021, 05:01 PM)
Without him, the figure could be 100k. talk is cheap!
*
now THAT is "begging the question" with builtin ASSumption.
jojojoget
post Aug 13 2021, 05:18 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
51 posts

Joined: Nov 2020
QUOTE(lowya @ Aug 13 2021, 05:03 PM)
now THAT is "begging the question" with builtin ASSumption.
*
Hmmm I still don't get this example though. The person is making a claim that if the DG wasn't there the cases would be higher. You can ask for justification of this claim but it isn't begging the question. It would be begging the question if he said "The DG is great because he's doing a good job". Am I just confused?

7 Pages « < 4 5 6 7 >Top
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0236sec    0.93    5 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 17th September 2021 - 12:54 AM