Absolutism Terminology: How to not sound like an Idiot., page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times

Topic started on 24-4-2007 @ 05:24 PM by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Be sure to not use absolutist terms for things which aren't absolute, otherwise you'll sound like an irrational "Skeptic" or "Kook", and odds are you may just be while you're probably engaging in Logical Fallacies of some sort. For those who aren't keen with specific logical fallacies, this directive is your best bet to avoid engaging in logical fallacies.

For example:
"There's no way fires could have knocked down the towers."
[EDIT: To indent "could have"]
That's in absolutist form, with a nonabsolutist worthy assertion.

Another recent example is the Larry Silverstein comment, and infowars promoting the John Kerry comment in absolutist form.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

"John Kerry: WTC Building 7 Was a Controlled Demolition"
www.jonesreport.com...

I'm generally a fan of infowars coverage, but as a critic of irrational biases and gross logical fallacies, I simply can't let this one go. Irrational biases on general issues are bad enough, but then there's irrational biases applied to small little bits like this that are hard to even excuse as mere misinfo. In fact, examples like this make it hard to even excuse it as merely being driven by irrational biases as it borders on intentional disinfo.

The Kerry video, like the Silverstein comment, is an interesting piece, but neither deserve the broad absolutist treatment they get.

Another example, generally touted by the "Skeptics" camp, is comments like this:
"There isn't a shred of evidence."
This is a trainwreck of a statement. Proper wording would go something like:
"There isn't a shred of evidence that I'm aware of"
or
"There doesn't seem to be a shred of evidence"
Many are careful or reasonable enough to say "proof" instead of "evidence", however, this is still absolutist terminology because the word shred itself is an absolutist word:

shred
n 1: a tiny or scarcely detectable amount
dict.die.net...

So therefore statements like that are highly irrational and bring into question motives of dis/misinfo on subjects like 9/11 where there are tons of shreds of proof, because by definition actual "evidence" would be a shred of proof.

The irrational concept is very imporant, because neuroscience has proven that the average person will self-decieve themselves to maintain their ideal reality:
www.google.com...
For that reason it's improper to state: "That statement shows that he did say that to intentionally disinform us", rather than the way I said it above, assuming is the the only example we have to go by.

[EDIT: New example:]

This one applies to beliefs. For example:
"I've seen some compelling evidence that ALF-ET/UFO's at earth are real. I believe they are real, therefore they are real.

You're entitled to your beleifs, that's not what this entire topic is about. What I'm attacking here is if you declare that your belief is a fact, even though you have no real proof, you're being fallacious / irrational. The lesson is don't confuse beliefs with facts / truth, and even worse declare it as so, unless you absolutely know for a fact that it is true.

If you have genuine proof, that's one thing. If you do not, that's another. There's a very basic fallacy in the example statement, but the purpose of this topic is to give new perspective in avoiding fallacies. Be sure to flip thru the fallacy lists from time to time.

-------------------------------

What this all means is that improperly using "absolutisms" constitutes "misinformation", if it is done unwittingly. If it is done intentionally then it's "disinformation".

-------------------------------

The final important part here is:
When you absolutely know you can speak in absolutist terms, take it to the absolute limit.

-IIB

[edit on 24-4-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

reply posted on 24-4-2007 @ 06:01 PM by sp00n1

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

For example:
"There's no way fires could have knocked down the towers."

That's in absolutist form, with a nonabsolutist worthy assertion.

I agree that we do need to be very aware of the claims that we make. However, i think it is fairly safe to say, "There is no way dirty burn [uncontrolled] jet fuel fires brought down the towers."

There are lots of other engineering studies that strongly support this assertion, and none that i know of that contradict it.

NIST essentially proved this when they failed to initiate a collapse on their scale model floor assemblies. They even used a controlled burn mist-spray of jet fuel that was effectively mixed with tons of fresh oxygen and burned at twice what uncontrolled jet fuel fires can burn at. They maintained these temperatures for over two hours, longer than either tower stood...

While they found some minor deformation, they didnt even achieve a localized collapse, let alone a global collapse initiation.

It is possible for fire to bring down the towers, that is if the entire structure were somehow turned into a blast furnace, but this just didnt happen.

[edit on 4/24/2007 by sp00n1]

reply posted on 24-4-2007 @ 10:15 PM by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

However, i think it is fairly safe to say, "There is no way dirty burn [uncontrolled] jet fuel fires brought down the towers."

If it is fairly safe then it doesn't sound like it is absolutely safe?

I dunno about this issue. I go back and forth on it. I have lots of high quality video from the collapse, and it was pretty nasty at the break zones. But I also have a seperate theory from NIST's own admissions that the floors weren't pancaking before the collapse started. The lynchpin in my view is that it makes the 'squibs' that were some 30 floors below the 'blast zone' that much harder to explain, because if the floors were collapsing on the inside well before the total collapse it allows more room and time to explain how there was activity that far down so soon. I've been meaning to start a thread about my findings, and I'm part way finished with a special release video I'm doing about it specifically...

reply posted on 31-5-2007 @ 03:19 PM by Ahabstar

Now how did I miss this month old thread that embodies everything I feel about the whole 9/11 debate. Believing something to be true does not make something fact, it only makes it "truth". Recently I have been espounding fact over truth in various threads. I may have to collate those ideas into a a single topic starter. Credit me with coining Fact Movement if you want, but I give you props for kick starting the idea that I just mearly summed as a term.

Need to set the wayback machine to throw you a Super WATS vote for this.

reply posted on 31-5-2007 @ 03:24 PM by laiguana

There is nothing wrong with any of those statements you pointed out. The only reason you did point them out was because you did not agree with them and you hold a personal agenda that is seeping through your diatribe.

reply posted on 1-6-2007 @ 12:52 PM by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Feel free to refute them then, otherwise your statements are pointless hogwash.

reply posted on 2-6-2007 @ 12:54 PM by Implosion

I hate to agree with laiguana, but I feel compelled to. The people who populate this site are sharing opinions.

"There's no way fires could have knocked down the towers."

If I saw someone express this example, I would take it as an opinion. The opinion of one person.

The same as "IMO There's no way fires could have knocked down the towers.", just expressed in a more lazy fashion.

I take most statements made by the membership to be an opinion, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

We are all unique beings, and by extension, our thought processes and reasoning are unique. I don't see many people here professing to be in possession of the full truth on any matter, what I do see, is a whole mass of opinions and those seeking to segregate the membership according to thought processes are involved in an act of division.

They are holding up the wall.

You can't separate the observer from the observed. Those who to one person sound like an "idiot" may sound to the next like a genius. This is the reality of the situation when dealing with unique beings.

We each have the power to reason, and we will seldom reach the same conclusions.

Find merit in what you will, but don't attempt to lay your belief system [B.S.] on to another. Does that really sound so hard?

reply posted on 3-6-2007 @ 05:09 PM by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by Implosion
I hate to agree with laiguana, but I feel compelled to. The people who populate this site are sharing opinions.

"There's no way fires could have knocked down the towers."

If I saw someone express this example, I would take it as an opinion. The opinion of one person.

In hindsight, I shouldn't have gone with the rude thread title. This was mostly a response to ongoing fallacious red herring 'skeptinazi' arguments I was encountering. I added some otherside examples to balance it out.

This all comes down to a philisophical battle really.

It begins where someones assertions can be factual, or opinion.

If something being said is a matter of fact, then it is fact. If someones assertions aren't a matter of fact, then it is opinion.

en.wikipedia.org...

If I point out your hair is brown, in real life face to face, that's obvously a fact we can both accept. In more complicated matters (especially typing into a Internet message board), we can't precisely confirm 'the hair color' or whatever on everything that can possibly be said in this environment. However, if we speak logically and realistically on every possible occassion, then such statements are more in the realm as 'matter of fact', over illogical / unfactual opinionated statements.

[edit on 3-6-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

reply posted on 3-6-2007 @ 05:11 PM by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Originally posted by laiguana
There is nothing wrong with any of those statements you pointed out. The only reason you did point them out was because you did not agree with them and you hold a personal agenda that is seeping through your diatribe.

My bad. I forgot to point out that your statements there are in fact dripping with Absolutism Terminology.