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: 19
23
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


mmiichael was not calling this thread an attack on skeptics. He was saying that this threads attempts to redefine the word "pseudo-skeptic" despite any previous usage. This appears to be more of an ad-hominem attack against people who don't agree with whatever matter was brought up in OP.

Even if someone were slinging fallacies left and right, you have to consider whether or not his underlying message is supported by evidence.




posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by symmetricAvenger
 



The word "UFO" was used incorrectly.

If this is a real example, then obviously the "pseudoskeptic" could simply be dismissed by mentioning his incorrect usage of the word "UFO." There's no need to open a seperate thread and cry over it.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by vcwxvwligen
 


If you click my link you will see that pseudo-skepticism has not been redefined at all. Skeptics don't employ fallacies in denial. The OP addresses fallacies used in denial, therefore they do not belong to skepticism, but pseudo-skepticism. Pseudo-skepticism is a well defined concept and well recognized phenomenon in society and in the academic and scientific communities, and it's definition has not been changed, therefore it's discussion is pertinent at ATS as it applies to the UFO debate. But again, we are not discussing the merits of this topic or those who raised it - as per Mods instructions - we are debating the subject itself, the fallacies and their rebuttals. If you don't like the topic there is an easy solution to that.


[edit on 4-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 



No, it's condescending.

It's simpler just to say that his arguments are fallacious. Calling him "pseudo-skeptical" is an ad-hominem attack.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

No, arguing from incredulity is claiming that ETs exist because you personally don't have any proof that they don't exist


Who has made a claim in that manner? I agree that would be a silly basis for a claim - especially as it's entirely unnecessary as there is evidence - but I'm not aware of anyone making it. So either it's a straw man, of some people have been formulating some unnecessarily silly claims. LOL (Of course, anything is possible at ATS).


Those who argue that it's possible for ETs to exist are arguing that point.

They say that we are being intolerant by not giving ETs fair consideration. This is ridiculous. Next they are going to ask for immigrations rights for ETs



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
Pseudo-skepticism is a well defined concept and well recognized phenomenon in society and in the academic and scientific communities,


back up a bit there pal....might want to go over that and check for that statements truthiness.

woudnt want to throw out an assumption in a thread so heavily weighted with logic would you?

you wouldnt want to be using a 'fallacy' would you?

or does carefuly worded rhetoric serve your agenda?



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by vcwxvwligen
 


No that utterly misrepresents the position of those who propose the ETH. It could not misrepresent it more. You may not feel the evidence is sufficient, but you can't deny there is evidence, and on that basis the ETH is proposed and accepted by some. Therefore to claim that those who propose the ETH do so solely on the basis that "ETs exist because you personally don't have any proof that they don't exist" is a completely false and a gross misrepresentation of their position.

And I just reread your post and you are not merely confining your statement to those who think the earth has been visited by ETs but even to "those who argue that it's possible for ETs to exist"

Thats a pretty extreme claim, even more so than I first realized. Is that what you are really suggesting?


[edit on 4-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by cranberrydork
 


What is your point? Google pseudo-skepticism. Or begin by clicking the links in my signature.


[edit on 4-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


i'd rather not rely on your links.

the snarl words are kind of a turnoff

i apologize if my point was a little obscure.

i'm just not sure of the validity of the statement of a 'well recognized phenomena in society, science, and academia'

that is a broad statement.

can you show that it has sum accuracy?

in other words thats a conclusion. what are the premises it is based on?



[edit on 4-4-2009 by cranberrydork]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

mmiichael was not calling this thread an attack on skeptics. He was saying that this threads attempts to redefine the word "pseudo-skeptic" despite any previous usage. This appears to be more of an ad-hominem attack against people who don't agree with whatever matter was brought up in OP.

Even if someone were slinging fallacies left and right, you have to consider whether or not his underlying message is supported by evidence.




Thanks for the vote of confidence and the ongoing voice of reason.

A personal attack can bother me, but from some sources it's almost a compliment.

I would prefer being classified in some possibly new category of not so much being skeptical of alien intelligences as of their self-appointed human spokesmen (and -women.) Somewhere online there has to be a dictionary definition that describes this state of mind.



Mike







[edit on 4-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by cranberrydork
 


I did, that is what the links and the suggestion of an internet search were for. I am not going to do your work for you. I am aware that the statement I made is true, which is why I made it, and have provided an introduction to quick and easy ways you can verify this for yourself. I suggest you and anyone else unclear on this point do so.


[edit on 4-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by vcwxvwligen
 


No that utterly misrepresents the position of those who propose the ETH. It could not misrepresent it more. You may not feel the evidence is sufficient, but you can't deny there is evidence, and on that basis the ETH is proposed and accepted by some. Therefore to claim that those who propose the ETH do so solely on the basis that "ETs exist because you personally don't have any proof that they don't exist" is a completely false and gross misrepresentation of their position.

And I just reread your post and you are not merely confining your statement to those who think the earth has been visited by ETs but even to "those who argue that it's possible for ETs to exist"

Thats a pretty extreme claim, even more so than I first realized. Is that what you are really suggesting?

I already posted a refutation against ETH earlier in this thread, but by now restating it would be going off-topic.

In response to your post and in keeping with the topic of pseudo-skepticism I will say this: there's no scientific proof of ETs. Therefore, until you produce proof, you are engaging in speculation, not discussion of material fact.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
So simply put there are no limits on whether ET can get here or not. Nothing is prohibiting ET from getting here.


Ok, that was like .. 2 paragraphs, and basically all you said was "we don't know anything, so we don't know if ET can get here or not." So it's possible for ET to get here. It's possible for a politician to be honest, too, but that doesn't mean it has happened.

I skipped a bunch of paragraphs here. Was it really worth all that just to say "we don't know" again?

You may have proved all those fallacies wrong, but what's the point? All we get out of it is "we don't know." Everything is possible, anything is possible, etc.

Forcing people to admit that they are wrong and that these things are possible gets us to .. where?

They can exist, they can get here, they can be inscrutable .. so what? Proving they CAN does not prove they DO.

So I'm asking again, what's the point? Just to prove people wrong?



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


Cant be proven that is the point.. the argument is based on opinion not facts..

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

– Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987

and trying to debunk it is silly!! coz its not factual its opinion!! thread is an opinion NOT a fact.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
I am aware that the statement I made is true, which is why I made it,


that sounds like a page right out of pseudo skepticism

it also sounds like a clumsy side step of a direct question

can you support the previous conclusion i asked about with the premises that lead to the conclusion?

a good for the goose, good for the gander sort of thing

i dont need you to do any work for me, i've done enough to ask the important questions

[edit on 4-4-2009 by cranberrydork]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by cranberrydork


I've already told you to do your own work. I won't jump through irrelevant hoops for you. The topic is about how pseudo-skepticism manifests itself in the UFO debate, not how well it is understood and commonly referred to outside of ATS. It is. That is a side issue and easily confirmed. I gave you links. Click them. Your request is as ridiculous as asking me to prove that a word I might use actually exists, simply because you are ignorant of it, and when I tell you to look it up for yourself, claiming that you don't want to, that it's a cop out, and I have to prove the word exists and prove the definition for you. I'm afraid you will have to educate yourself.



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


That's a rather gross trivialization of what I said.

I am not arguing from possibility, but logic. According to the logical arguments we have no reason to believe ET does not exist and every reason to accept ET exists; we have no reason to believe ET cannot visit us and every reason to believe that ET can visit us. In the case of UFO's the ETH is the only explanation that is consistent and rational for them.

In a null shell: I have basically destroyed every argument against ETH

[edit on 4-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   
By the way we have already gone through several pages of discussions on my intentions on creating this thead and exhausted it. Several mods have requested that we discuss the topic and not the intentions of people. The topic is "common fallacies" and the arguments have been outlined in the OP with their rebuttals from me. If you have anything to say about those arguments, whether you agree or disagree with my refutations, or if you want to introduce new stronger arguments then use this thread to do that.

Please stay on-topic. We have finally started making progress, so don't throw a spanner in the works.

[edit on 4-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
I've already told you to do your own work.


you seem skeptical about my level of understanding about this. in fact you seem to be almost pseudo skeptical about it

are you my algebra teacher from high school?

my work right now is trying to get you to answer a simple straight up question. you dont seem able to do that



The topic is about how pseudo-skepticism manifests itself in the UFO debate,


thanks i got that from my work.

this is the aliens and ufos forum. isnt it?

and im trying to help you avoid some of the 'fallacies' you dont like.

i apologize, i thought the standards that skeptics were being held to should be applied to everyone.

now, can you go back to my question, please?

and your post offends me.

i find it to be needlessly aggressive

i dont think attacking posters is allowed here

im just asking simple questions of someone who says they no better than me

please, help me do that "work"......answer my question

[edit on 4-4-2009 by cranberrydork]



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 16  17  18    20  21 >>

log in

join