Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

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

views
     
TSlowya
post Jun 27 2021, 10:54 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,726 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
46 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.




TSlowya
post Jun 27 2021, 12:10 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,726 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
748 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

New Member
*
Junior Member
42 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
393 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... «

TSlowya
post Jun 27 2021, 04:15 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,726 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
9,518 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
748 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
748 posts

Joined: Aug 2015

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


6 Pages « < 4 5 6Top
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0196sec    0.47    5 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 2nd August 2021 - 03:52 AM