It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies

page: 11
23
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
Mike's comment was not regarding himself, clearly, but came on the heels of you and Heike tag teaming indigo.


Just because more than one person was debating does not mean any 'tag teaming' was going on.

First off - what would be the point?

Secondly - I thought that kind of activity was against T&Cs?

Are you accusing me of breaking T&Cs?

If you are you had better report me asap - if not you had better retract your accusation and if you really feel like it, you could always apologise too. Assuming that's not too beneath you of course.


I had you both in mind actually.


I hope your hands were above waist height and on the keyboard at this moment!!



There was no intent to cause offense, I just don't think your arguments were very strong


You see, you can make a point without resorting to personal attacks.

I don't mind that you feel that way - that's your business.

Why did you feel that it was better to resort to personal attacks behind a person's back rather than actually forming a structured response to their (online)face in the relevant thread?


The reason I am now refraining from engaging, as you suggest, especially with certain members, is precisely because if they don't have a good grasp of logic then they are unable to recognize when they are being illogical, despite invoking 'logic', and when their arguments have been defeated. It becomes a futile exercise.


It seems that you are more concerned about the winning of an argument rather than listening to other people's opinions and accepting and respecting them.

You would also do well to remember that if someone is not understanding you, maybe it is less to do with their inability to grasp knowledge, and more to do with your inability to impart it consistently and coherently.

As an aside: I thought Indigo_Child was a bloke not a bird?!


[edit on 2/4/2009 by skibtz]




posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


Well, I know. The trouble is there's no way to put a warning sign on the "door" that says "innocents and skeptics stay out!!!"

As long as the thread is open, people can wander in here, have an issue with the OP, and get trounced for their trouble.

We could let this thread die a natural death and eventually it will recede from the recent posts and threads lists.

But .. as soon as it does that, one of the Little Rascals will start another thread.

I guess I was hoping that maybe .. just maybe .. I could either exhaust them or convince them that they don't need to do this again because they aren't accomplishing anything except upsetting people for no good reason.

But .. maybe you're right. Maybe it's useless.
:Sigh:



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
It is not a personal attack to say that your refutation is embarrasingly weak, at least I don't see it that way. I would be a personal attack to call you a "liar" or suchlike. I have no intention of apologizing for expressing that I feel your arguments are weak, as much as you might be - and evidently are - enraged to have someone say that. Granted you may not like my opinion, which his why you are making such an issue of it and trying to twist my comments into accusations regarding T&Cs and repeatedly insisting they are "personal attacks" and "behind your back", when they were in open forum on a thread you are participating in. It's this kind of unreasonableness that I have no intention of engaging any further with.

But seeing as you ask what the point would be a of a group of people repeatedly and heatedly focusing on a poster: the point would be to simply overwhelm them with numbers- or as Heike admits she was attempting above, "exhaust them" - and so shout down and shut down the debate. As I said on the other thread, I see a certain pack mentality in operation. One particular tactic might be to repeatedly focus on small diversionary details not relevant to the theme of the thread and make huge issues over them and demand that the poster answer your claims or contrived accusations regarding them - such as "are you accusing me of breaking T&C's" when no such accusation was made. Is this behaviour against T&C's? Not that I'm aware of. Is it unfair and unreasonable? I think so.

I feel that your relentlessly pursuing someone daring to voice that they thought your debating skills and grasp of logic were weak expresses exactly what you accuse me of when you say: "It seems that you are more concerned about the winning of an argument rather than listening to other people's opinions"


[edit on 2-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


yes but i was accused of attacking when i was only asking questions???

To me and i agree with hieki that its belittling

just wanted to add to this., there is a way to make your case without putting others down..

Infact i hate the word skeptic, its a lable and i hate lables.. like black white rich poor whatever..

it puts one into a class another can use to abuse and use as a way to gain the upper hand

we should know this by the very rules our goverment tears us all down with each day taking away our freedom to THINK...

I may be wrong You may be wrong, but at the end of the day WE are ALL wrong..

is that not the case? or am i missing something here?

or do you infact KNOW everything? based on WHAT? .. im egar to find out

[edit on 2-4-2009 by symmetricAvenger]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


I did not see any personal attacks whatsoever in your post. To tell someone their argument is weak is not a personal attack, but an opinion one is entitled to. I agree with you none of the arguments by Heikie, Skitz have been up to the mark. Much to the contray, they have been fallacious and pseudoskeptical and have used very disrespectable tactics(stawmans, adhominems, quibbles, moving the goal post, equivocation) This either betrays a lack of understanding of logic, reason and logical ethic, or it is mallicious.

I agree with your assessment that a debate should not be about winning, but about understanding ones opinions and arguments. I don't think Heike and Skitz have made even the slightest attempt to do that.

In any case none of my arguments have been refuted as of yet. This is the most spectacular display of just how irrational common objections to ET are and of the unnoble tactics used in psueodoskepticism. It really has shone a very bright light on what separates a genune skeptic from a pseudoskeptic.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I have never accused you of attacking me, SymmetricAvenger. I don't even think we have spoken, so why are you addressing me? I have no idea what you are referring to or if you attacked or didn't LOL And if you weren't attacking, well join the club. If you go back the the start of this thread you will see how the accusation of "attacking" was falsely leveled at myself and others simply because an issue was raised that they didn't want to see exposed. And now you will notice there is no discussion of the issue at hand. That is what usually happens with threads like this. They are derailed by mob attacks - attempts to "exhaust" such as Heike was attempting - and appeals to emotionalism. Which is why another thread has to be created.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
It is not a personal attack...


Considering that your post was removed for exceptionally displeasureable behaviour it would be pointless in debating this issue further.



I have no intention of apologizing for expressing that I feel your arguments are weak, as much as you might be - and evidently are - enraged to have someone say that.


Rage will find no home here my friend.

Trust me - I'm more chilled that a polar bear's paws



Granted you may not like my opinion, which his why you are making such an issue of it and trying to twist my comments into accusations regarding T&Cs and repeatedly insisting they are "personal attacks"


As above, considering that your post was removed for exceptionally displeasureable behaviour it would be pointless in debating this issue further.



and "behind your back", when they were in open forum on a thread you are participating in.


I first entered the thread to reply to your post that was eventually removed matey.


But seeing as you ask what the point would be a of a group of people repeatedly and heatedly focusing on a poster: the point would be to simply overwhelm them with numbers and so shout down and shut down the debate.


I think that would be a crap thing to do and is not something that I would condone. Trust me. No one needs me on their side and I do not need anyone backing me up.



I feel that your relentlessly pursuing someone daring to voice that they thought your debating skills and grasp of logic were weak expresses exactly what you accuse me of when you say: "It seems that you are more concerned about the winning of an argument rather than listening to other people's opinions"


No relentless pursuit my friend. Really? Relentless? Pursuit?

Winning is for losers.

And I have already stated that I have no problem with you holding and sharing the views you have - that always has been and always will be the case.

Just do it with non-exceptionally displeasureable behaviour as the T&Cs ask.

We are guests on ATS and should act accordingly



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


Yes, Malcram, I also see a pack mentality in action, and I freely admit that I'm trying to stop it.

For months now there have been thread after thread after thread, all by the same small group of people, aimed at some aspect of "skepticism" or "pseudoskepticism" or something like that.

Why can't ya'll just get over the fact that some people don't and won't believe until ET walks up and smacks 'em over the head with it, and leave it at that? Why must there constantly be threads aimed at discrediting and insulting people who happen not to believe (yet) that extraterrestrials are visiting (or living on) Earth?

Won't you feel reallybad if someday we find out it's been some kind of normal atmospheric phenomenon all along? High EMF fields cause hallucinations, maybe Skyfish do too...


Y'all remind me of the guy who calls everyone who drives faster than him a lunatic and everyone who drives slower than him a doddering old fool, never realizing that to the people he passes, he is the lunatic, and to the people who pass him he is the doddering old fool.

In the same way that Indigo has not even looked at the evidence for an underwater civilization because it is patently absurd, so do many people perceive the ETH. In fact, as Indigo dismisses the SCH and the EDH by means of contempt prior to investigation, she herself becomes a pseudoskeptic in regards to those hypotheses, by her own definition.

There's no such thing as a pseudoskeptic, there are only people who don't believe what you believe, and for what are perfectly good reasons from their point of view.

Why must they be labeled, insulted, refuted, debunked, and stereotyped?



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz

Considering that your post was removed...


LOL The old Appeal to Authority fallacy. Wow, seeing as you referred to the post being removed (what was it four times?
) then you really seem to be cranking that one up as supposed definitive "proof" that it was a heinous personal attack on you (a post no one can now view in order to confim this)

However, that doesn't allow for over eager alerting and over-zealous or perhaps even biased moderation.

The post was not a personal attack. I said I found your refutations embarrassingly weak. So. I'm afraid it's not as cut and dried as you would like to claim.

In fact, I imagine the reason it was removed had nothing to do with the portions which referred to you but to my comments regarding Mike's 'crowing'.


[edit on 2-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


In any case none of my arguments have been refuted as of yet.

can i just say. You have infact made no argument?

I dont know about the others but reading you posts You are ALWAYS correct?

Look at what you have said "In any case None of my arguments have been refuted as of yet"

can you not see why me and others question this????

am i a pseudoskptic? because i question your own logic? I have read alot of posts and i agree with some and not some others,, does that make them psktps?

your rational for this is somewhat mind blowing....

IF and i do mean IF you have an argument its about NOTHING? you see you put forth NO evidence to back up what infact your argument is, but rattle of a long winded post about what?

that you are correct? and others are stupid based on "your logic"?

how can one deduce this from the very thread you made? hmm i wonder?

You see as i stated befor.. You are infact Incorrect.. and to put others down just because you think infact YOU KNOW IT ALL when the chances are you have it just as wrong as the other 7 billion people on this planet is

arrogant and a joke...

Now tell me What infact IS your argument? and what was the meaning of this thread other than to prove your own self importance to the rest of ATS

because from where i am sitting THATS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME

i shall say this again

Why did you feel it nesseracy to make a thread debunking psdkpts when the argument is the very same thing "in your logical account" they do?

You are a pseudoskeptic.... dont u understand that?????



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heike

I guess I was hoping that maybe .. just maybe .. I could either exhaust them or convince them that they don't need to do this again...

There's no such thing as a pseudoskeptic


And there we have it. The point, at last. The reason for your and others attempts to "exhaust" the likes of Indigo. The reason for the mob tactics and the endless diversions and the false claims of "attacks" etc.

We are exposing pseudo-skepticism.

I'm afraid pseudo-skepticism is very real and alive and thriving at ATS. We didn't make it up. Google it. Click the links in my signature. Then carefully observe it's documented tactics being used day in and day out at ATS, and in this thread.

And I haven't been posting here that long regarding pseudo-skepticism Heike.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
However, that doesn't allow for over eager alerting and over-zealous or perhaps even biased moderation.


Damn. Now the mods are 'in on it'!

Go Tag Team Alpha Centauri Moderators!


In fact, I imagine the reason it was removed had nothing to do with the portions which referred to you but to my comments regarding Mike's 'crowing'.


Not at all. In fact I would go with your above hunch that it was removed because the whole world is against you, especially the mods.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by skibtz
 


LOL. Did I say the whole world was against me? Did I say "Mods", plural? More use of fallacy. Look, I think your refutations were embarrassingly weak. (Oh, Alert! Alert!) Deal with it. That's my opinion. Do you really need to hijack a thread and try to make an epic case out of a simple bruise to your ego?


[edit on 2-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


I know you didn't make it up. That's not what I'm saying. I can see the link in your sig (and I can READ, too.
).

Find me one person, anywhere, who will say "I am a pseudoskeptic."

You won't, because it is a DEROGATORY term. An insult. Just like calling someone an idiot or a moron or ignorant or narrow-minded.

So the OP is basically saying "How to argue with morons and win." [sarcasm]Yeah, great topic. We need more threads like that. [/sarcasm]

Pseudoskepticism is a stereotype that someone invented - and it caught on, more's the pity - for people who are bit less gullible than the norm, or a bit more resistant to the "extraterrestrials have been here since the 1940's and the government knows all about it and they've been covering it up and the aliens are in charge and ..." spiel than the average person.

Pseudoskepticism is a form of bigotry. It is a way to categorize people who disagree with you so that you don't have to feel bad about insulting and attacking them.

Because, from the other person's point of view, your "debunking a pseudoskeptical fallacy" is their "you attacking my opinion."



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I think you hit the nail on the head there Malcram. The whole bone of contention has been that pseudoskepticism has been exposed and those who identify with pseudoskepticism have not liked the fact that they are being stripped bare and exposed to all of ATS, because those arguments I debunked in the OP are the kind of arguments they use all the time.

The argument that "Pseudoskepticism" does not exist and apparently was made up by me to ridicule skeptics levelled by Heikie, is as valid as her arguments that nobody makes any of the arguments I made in the post. It is an argument from denial. The truth is there such thing as a pseudoskeptic and it is a term that is used in the academic world, as much as the term pseudoscience and pseudointellectual.

The prefix pseudo means, (false imitation) and the suffix skeptic means, inquirer/investigator. Therefore a pseudoskeptic is someone who is only imitating an investigator, but actually is not an investigator or inquier. A pseudoskeptic is somebody who is bigoted and close minded, and make false appeals to science and logic to support their dogma. Although we have many lived-examples of pseudoskepticism in this thread, here is another example.

Pilot: I saw a UFO when I was flying
Pseudoskeptic: No you didn't.
Claim: But I took a photograph. There are radar reports and I saw it with my own eyes
Pseudoskeptic: They are likely fake, anybody could reproduce them. The radar report is just a malfunction of the the machine.

Pseuskeptics assert dogmas, they do not try and explain using reason or logic. They assert whatever they want, whether it has substance or not.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


malcram, i have agreed with you alot in other threads, but in all fairness.. you cant say mob mentality.. for that requires order and for people to be willing to use u2us as a form to put down indigo..

this is not the case here. Me and heiki agree on things you may find silly or infac totaly wrong

but look at you link read it again.. then read what the topic infact is about

Its the very description he/she is arguing against?

now if i can understand that link between the thread and your sig link

what does that infact make me? the very same thing she is putting across? or is it that im stupid and can not connect the very same dots she claims to use in her defecence in regards to the thread?

and by no means do i call anyone a skeptic nor u nor anyone on ats,, we all have our own opinion on each subject and thats all it is.. one mans view vs another..

some will use evidence or links or littriture (sp) but that does not infact changes ones mind..it only enforces your own argument.

What way is up, when one lives on a round planet?

do you see my argument?

for every person on this planet there is infact there own way to show what way is up

please understand we all start out on a round planet.. with a view that is 360 degrees in view

no one is right, but everyone is right according to where it is infact you stand on the planet..

i hope that helps understand why it is infact i question the reason and fullness of this thread.. even tho i was said to be insulting when infact i was not...

that was her/his point of view.. did that show with the mods? Nope so who is infact correct?

one wonders



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heike
 


Pseudoskepticism is a form of bigotry. It is a way to categorize people who disagree with you so that you don't have to feel bad about insulting and attacking them.


Now that's political correctness gone mad. Pseudo-skepticism is the use of specific fallacious arguments in denial. Fallacious arguments should rightly be identified and challenged. Some people don't want that to happen. Now you are claiming it's "bigotry" to challenge a body of fallacies? Give me a break. Maybe we should start defending "lies" now in case we hurt "liars" feelings?

"There is no such thing as a liar! That's bigotry! Liars just have a different perspective on the truth and lies should be respected"

Ridiculous right? Deception is deception, whether by employing logical fallacies or by lying. Both should be identified and dismissed.


[edit on 2-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by skibtz
 

a simple bruise to your ego?


- no chance of any bruises here my friend


I feel like you are relentlessly pursuing me now in a strange stalky kinda way - this thread has seen too much action - we are done here.

U2U me if you want to talk some more.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

In the same way that Indigo has not even looked at the evidence for an underwater civilization because it is patently absurd,


False accusation. You have not provided me a single shred of evidence to support your theory of underwater civilisations, while I have provided you tons of evidnce to support the ETH.

And before you go accusing me of being close-minded to the CH, I suggest you read my thread on the "Lacetra files" and my spirited defense of it.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


Pilot: I saw a UFO when I was flying
Pseudoskeptic: No you didn't.
Claim: But I took a photograph. There are radar reports and I saw it with my own eyes
Pseudoskeptic: They are likely fake, anybody could reproduce them. The radar report is just a malfunction of the the machine.


this is totaly rubbish!!!!

Pilot: I saw a UFO when i was flying
pseudoskeptic: Prove it.....
claim????? where does this fit in?

ther are radar reports and i with my own eyes: im sure they did, but can they deduce from your agument that being skeptical of the report in order to find out WHAT IT WAS??? you assume... pathetic

Pseudoskeptic: They are likely fake, anybody could reproduce them. The radar report is just a malfunction of the the machine.


No wrong again.. : Provide me the evidence of the radar and eye witness testiomny so one can rule out missunderstanding what you are telling me...

You cant even make an argument,/.. what you are infact doing is using the words to justify your own assumptions of other people based on a load of tripe...

you cant argue against and argument as it makes it toaly stupid and irrelevent.. ( and no im not calling you stupid ) but you are claming logica as your weapon

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

THIS is what i get from all your arguments

Look and read what it is infact you say + that name of yours

You are the very person you are flaming

You can NOT prove aliens come from other planets.. YOU assume they do.. 2nd You flame others for saying what they are in there right to.. and not only this you EPICLY fail to even understand what it is you are saying..

like i said befor You are not as smart as your name indicates.. sit down take a deep breath and LISTEN to OTHERS who infact ARE more SMARTER than you

regardless of you big long retotcial posts that make no sens what so ever regarding backing up your argument "that was not infact an argument in the first place"

The thread was only to stroke ones ego... and i just proved it

btw That was not an insult it was me showing you a REAL argument that is on topic

and i did infact not use one derogtry teram nore call you stupid.. just arrogant

and that is fair to say not a sware word but more of a word one uses to correct someones OWN blindness

correct?



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join