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: 14
23
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

Okay, fine. I give up. You win.


I kind of figured you would ever since I asked you to provide evidence on the CH equal in weight to the ETH


No thanks. I have already defeated you.


Once again, ladies and gentlemen...your pseudoskeptic!



They claim to support reason/logic while in fact filling their arguments with plenty of ad-hominems, straw-man, poisoning-the-well, and numerous other emotion-enflaming fallacies and debating tactics.


[edit on 3-4-2009 by SaviorComplex]




posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Heike
Okay, fine. I give up.


Heike, it is for the best. As I've said before, it is better not to engage them. They have been exposed for that they are. They are hypocrites and worse. Every definition they put forward for "pseudoskeptics" fits them.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Heike
Okay, fine. I give up.


Heike, it is for the best. As I've said before, it is better not to engage them. They have been exposed for that they are. They are hypocrites and worse. Every definition they put forward for "pseudoskeptics" fits them.




That about sums up my feeling too.

This supposed discussion of the common fallacies of pseudoskeptics, a categorization I personally don't buy into, ended up in an attempt to throw around terminology and constructs of logic to bolster an ego rather than objectively demonstrate errors in reasoning.

One had to read through a lot of double talk in the process.

After a solid argument was brought forward the self-appointed prosecuting attorney tried to have it thrown out of kangaroo court as inadmissable evidence.

I don't remember if I've said it here or elsewhere, but if there are aliens among us, they need to find more credible PR managers.


Mike



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   
So do you lot have anything to say regarding the topic? As in, rebuttals of the points made in the OP, rather than the merits or otherwise of raising the debate in the first place or endless critiques of those who raised it?

[edit on 3-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


Evidently not. I think all this shows is that the pseudoskepticism has been succesfully debunked and refuted. I encourage the "believers" to use the so far unrefuted arguments in this thread whenever you debate with people using pseudoskeptical fallacies. They have no answers to them and as soon you use them it will expose them. They will react by refusing to engage your arguments, they will by assertion call your arguments invalid but not be able to demonstrate it, they resort to excessive adhominem, strawman and emotional fallacies, and if all else fails they will resort to the mystery argument, which is "Nobody knows, it's a mystery"

These are tried and tested arguments and I hope as stated in previous posts it leads to 'believers' gaining more confidence in dealing with pseudoskepticism. I also hope it facilitates more clear thinking. Just some tips for my believer friends:

1. Challenge everything they say but do it logically

Nobody has ownership of absolute knowledge, everybody has an interpretation of it. If somebody claims to have absolute knowledge then challenge it, and once you do their position will fall apart. The usual words that prop up are proof and likely/unlikely. There is no such thing as conclusive-proof, not even science has conclusive proof for anything. Likely/unlikely is another version of this argument, nobody knows what is likely and unlikely, because we don't have complete knowledge of all events in the universe.

The usual argument that will crop up, "Prove ET exists by giving us scientific evidence" But this is presupposing that science has proven things. It is a cop-out, a no-win situation for you. Even if you had infinite evidence you could still not "prove" it. So reject their demand and say it is an impossible demand.

2. Reject all arguments from authority

They will try and couch arguments from authority in scientific language to give it an air of credibility such as, "Eye witness testimony is not valid. Show me peer-reviewed evidence" This argument assumes that there is one peer-group in the world, when actually there are hundreds, and if one peer group agrees, does not mean another peer group will agree. Therefore all peer-group evidence is as subject to belief as eye-witness testimony is.

3. Reject null-hypothesis fallacies

They will set standards on what evidence is acceptable and what isn't. Ask them, "Who decides what is acceptable and what isn't" Sooner or later they will buckle and start contradicting themselves. Then tell them either they accept the evidence at hand or keep their silence.

4. Expose their inconsistencies

They will argue that "UFO's are unknown, therefore we know nothing about them untill they are proven" Remind them that gravity, electricity, light, consciousness, atoms are also unknown, but that does not us from explaining them using science. Therefore nothing is stopping us from explaining UFO's either. If they argue there is no proof ET exists, tell them there is no proof that they are not in your dream, but still they generalise from their once instance of mind and conclude that other minds exist. Therefore it is just as valid conclude from one instance of life on Earth, that there is life on other planets. Then watch them disintergrate.


[edit on 3-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


is that not the nature of a debate?

I and others have given clear counter arguments to the very word the thread was about?

I even pointed out "indigo_child" used her own anology to infact describe the very actions she is trying to get others to agree on?

You see, She/He made this thread to more or less say "i seen another thread about skeptics" and i think im smart enought to make a simlar thread about pskeptics"

the epic fail was : Hypocrisy : on her/his part




posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


I think all this shows is that the pseudoskepticism has been succesfully debunked and refuted

yes it has ..

Your words not mine lol "debunked" you said?


this is truley amazing



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I encourage the "believers" to use the so far unrefuted arguments in this thread whenever you debate with people


Finally the truth.

As I have been saying all along, the purpose of this thread is to provide "believers" with ammunition for arguing with anyone who has the presumption to disagree that UFOs are extraterrestrial spaceships.

This was the point I have been after from the beginning; after all the denial she finally admits it on her own.

I'm done here.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


the funny part is, there aint no proof they come from other planets....

thats the point i have made on that topic, why? well we do have multidimnetional theory..

and has just as much theoretical "evidence" as them coming form another planet..


lol sad really considering some are ment to be open minded.. every read a book on quantum physics?

shees



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
what if they warp space, project with gravity waves, etc?



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Finally the truth.

As I have been saying all along, the purpose of this thread is to provide "believers" with ammunition for arguing with anyone who has the presumption to disagree that UFOs are extraterrestrial spaceships.


Heikie, by the above you have confirmed what you have been accused of all along, you misunderstood this thread right from the word go:

This is the OP:


I just want to say as a cautionary note. I am not trying to be some crusader against pseudoskeptics or pretend to be a master of logic. I am merely making a contribution to the forum in hope that it will contribute to more clear thinking on this forum and to create awareness on how to discern the common fallacies used by pseudoskeptics to facilitate more healthy and constructive discussion. I also hope these rebuttals are used by members who encounter fallacious pseudoskeptical arguments.


If it's taken you 14 pages to understand the the purpose of this thread, then one wonders what else did you not understand in this thread? This actually verifies what many people have accused you off from the word go: You are not understanding the arguments and reacting off-the-cuff.

By the way even your final realization is incorrect. This thread is not against people who disagree UFO's are ET's, it is against common pseudoskeptical arguments. As said in the thread title, as announced in the OP, as clarified by numerous people on numerous occasions to you.
It is evident you don't read arguments presented to you, you react off-the-cuff because you don't like them. Then you proceed to misrepresent them, attack the author of them and make baseless allegations. Sorry but none of this valid and respectable and it has taken a toll on your reputation with some of the "believers" And I will take stock of your repeated underhand tactics and consider and reconsider if I should engage any of your future posts.

By the way I am a he



I have talked to many people who disagree with me in both threads: Marsattack, Travis, Logical-Response, who have really been sincere enough to engage the arguments and try and refute them, and keep me on my toes. So this is not at all about who disagrees with me, it's about who has the strongest arguments.

Of course constant adhominems, constant accusations, constant misrepresentations is not at all a strong argument. It is completely dishonourable.

[edit on 3-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

[edit on 3-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
***ATTENTION***

On Topic and Civil Posts Please.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Further, despite denials by certain members that this was not designed as an effort to attack anyone, believer or skeptic, who does not agree with them, their behavior shows otherwise.

This quote from Polomontana sums up their intentions and mentality.


Originally posted by platosallegory
The pseudoskeptic vs. the skeptical person who accepts the ET hypothesis.



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Further, despite denials by certain members that this was not designed as an effort to attack anyone, believer or skeptic, who does not agree with them, their behavior shows otherwise.

This quote from Polomontana sums up their intentions and mentality.


Originally posted by platosallegory
The pseudoskeptic vs. the skeptical person who accepts the ET hypothesis.


How legitimate would you think it if I took another members comments and tried to insist that they represented your position SC? You would be the first to complain that this was absolutely unacceptable and completely underhand.

Now do you have anything to say that is on topic in rebuttal of the OPs or are you going to simply continue your campaign of character assassination and personal attacks?



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Now do you have anything to say that is on topic in rebuttal of the OPs or are you going to simply continue your campaign of character assassination and personal attacks?


What make an on-topic post? Now there's an idea!

SC and Heikie have been attacking individuals exposing pseudoskepticism, does this mean they agree with the pseudoskeptical arguments I outlined earlier, or perhaps they don't think they are pseudoskeptical? In which case perhaps they should be refuting my rebuttals no?

I am pretty sure going into a topic and attacking the OP is not considered acceptable at ATS. So Heikie and SC, please stop and be civil as ATS rules stipulate and as mods have requested. There have been other people who have disageed with me Travis, Logical Response and Marsattack, and they actually doing a very good job of trying to refute my arguments and I have a lot of respect for them and I an engaging they them in kind and with respect. I would also engage you in exactly the same way if you would be kind enough and be civil and actually engage the arguments like they are doing. If you think you can't do that, perhaps this is not the thread for you.

[edit on 3-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 3 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
first late me sate im sorry for somewhat neandering off topic 3 times.. one was hyperthetical akin to skeptic p's and the other 2 well i dunno but was off topic neways "sorry mod"..


Now do you have anything to say that is on topic in rebuttal of the OPs or are you going to simply continue your campaign of character assassination and personal attacks?


well I think we are doing rebuttals but what is interesting is that when we do rebuttal we get flamed for it? I have pointed out MANY many ways that the op could infact be wrong? infact i got put on ignore..

and as for a campaign of character assasination and personal attacks..

May i remid you i was attacked by the op? or do you wish to brush this under the carpet?

I was accused of insulting her.him when i did infact NOT.. ? then i was called a troll Insutlting derogty term much like DITTHEAD or any other name one wants to use.. but yet you are still defending the OP asif we are here to debate Him.her when infact we are debating the concept of the word?

So if we dont agree on the word that is what? our flaut? i think not.. i think its more of a case that some people are happy to be as closed minded as they claim to be open minded

for if one is open to change then one would infact admit when one is WRONG

and indog fails and you trying to boalster your own argument vs her thread topic is just nonsensical at best..

prove to me ET comes from another planet.. does that make me pskeptic?

when infact there is no proof but only a theroy because one can not rule out god? "your opinion" correct?

if i said all aliens are multidimentional would that be the very same argument one puts forth for life on other planets?

well i leave out a key word PLANETS.. this is down to oberservation that the OP talks about correct?


so you see its only a matter of opinion and ego that has warrented this tthread only to prove to him.her self they have a clue when infact they are closed minded and using this word as a reason to backup ones own interlect that is very much lacking in my opinion...

and just for the record.. i have been doing mathmatics more than indigo_child as been on earth

is that evidence? there you go... silly argument dont you think



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join