The Logical Trickery of the UFO Skeptic

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

log in

join

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 



Do you know how many strong cases there are? It's subjective. But "many" captures the idea. So what are the odds that there's not a thing to even a single one of them? This is where some course work in statistics might come in handy.


So we have a deck of cards and are playing Texas Holdem. The odds of being dealt 2 aces are 220 : 1. We can figure this out because we know how many cards we have and exactly what value each card has.

So now lets take your course work in statistics and figure out how many times an alien vehicle pops up in your sample size.

Where do we start? I don't know I never took statistics...or maybe I did, I can't remember. But I think the first thing we have to do is determine how often alien vehicles show up and then we can calculate exactly what the odds are in your sample. Your sample size is exactly "many" so lets see....after some quick calculations...2. The answer is 2. 2 of your cases have aliens.




posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Oh how clever of you. If only you'd included my few sentences that followed. (About the diversity of the phenomenon, how that affects the evidence, the Air Force findings, etc...) But it's easier for you to engage in this game -- just make your 'opponent' look bad, whatever it takes -- than it is to have a serious discussion about evidence and the official history of UFOs. You might've told us whether you thought the traits and diversity of the phenomenon increase or decrease the odds that something far from mundane is going on, but yeah, why expose your ideas to scrutiny when a cheap shot can be had, right?

Looking back over this thread, I think it's clear which members know what they're talking about, and which just ad lib as needed and hope they're not later corrected. We've got pages and pages of the same few 'skeptics' reminding us of the patently obvious -- that there's no hard proof in support of the ETH -- interspersed with posts by several other members, obviously a little more informed, trying to steer the discussion towards relevant government documents, the nuances of 'evidence', credibility, and so on. But let's face it, the very LAST thing any skeptic wants to do is start talking seriously about Condon, Hynek, Special Report 14, McDonald, and so on.

If you 'skeptics' can't do better than this and address the evidence and the history, then it's just not engaging enough for the rational posters to stick around. (Druscilla is right, actually -- I did stop reading parts of her posts. I had to, due to the circularity and absurdity level.)

So here's your big chance at the last word, I suppose. Why not use it to tell everyone, once again, how we don't have an alien body or a spacecraft to poke and prod, and that therefore all discussion of the possibility is just pointless. Go ahead....



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets


All that's needed is for us to abandon the 20th-century assumption that 'they' cannot get here from there. Really abandon it. Because it's not a proper assumption.

At this point what difference does one more improper assumption really make?


Maybe I'm dense, or maybe I just haven't taken special notice of your opinions, but I'm actually not sure which direction your jab is intended.

I'm guessing that you think "they can't get here from there" is a valid assumption?



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


Oh how clever of you. If only you'd included my few sentences that followed. (About the diversity of the phenomenon, how that affects the evidence, the Air Force findings, etc...) But it's easier for you to engage in this game -- just make your 'opponent' look bad, whatever it takes -- than it is to have a serious discussion about evidence and the official history of UFOs. You might've told us whether you thought the traits and diversity of the phenomenon increase or decrease the odds that something far from mundane is going on, but yeah, why expose your ideas to scrutiny when a cheap shot can be had, right?

throwing in the diversity variable and calculating the odds of an occurace of something that we don't even know exists, has very little effect. Taking the sample of the subjectvely good cases and comparing that to the Known alien vehicles visiting earth seems absurd. It's like taking the deck of 52 cards (representing your good cases) and trying to calculate the odds of being dealt two aces (representing alien vehicles) except we don't how many aces there are or even if there are aces in the deck. The discussion is about logical trickery and this appears to be one. Cheap shot?


Looking back over this thread, I think it's clear which members know what they're talking about, and which just ad lib as needed and hope they're not later corrected.
go correct them. Correct me. Go for it.


We've got pages and pages of the same few 'skeptics' reminding us of the patently obvious -- that there's no hard proof in support of the ETH -- interspersed with posts by several other members, obviously a little more informed, trying to steer the discussion towards relevant government documents, the nuances of 'evidence', credibility, and so on.

The actual topic is logical trickery. Lets make that clear.


But let's face it, the very LAST thing any skeptic wants to do is start talking seriously about Condon, Hynek, Special Report 14, McDonald, and so on.
yes, THAT does sound formidable.


If you 'skeptics' can't do better than this and address the evidence and the history, then it's just not engaging enough for the rational posters to stick around. (Druscilla is right, actually -- I did stop reading parts of her posts. I had to, due to the circularity and absurdity level.)

So here's your big chance at the last word, I suppose. Why not use it to tell everyone, once again, how we don't have an alien body or a spacecraft to poke and prod, and that therefore all discussion of the possibility is just pointless. Go ahead....

thanks! we don't have an alien body or a spacecraft to poke and prod, and that therefore all discussion of the possibility is just pointless.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by jclmavg
Lemme see. TeaAndStrumpets attempts to debate rationally and give you a heads up concerning some serious literature, yet you retort merely with ad hominems. Gee, if I didn't know any better I'd say you are a bigot. Fortunately, there are smarter men and women than you who come to different conclusions. No reason to take Druscilla seriously.
edit on 19-2-2013 by jclmavg because: (no reason given)


Look at you, so utterly adorable; yipping away in defense of an untenable over-rationalized entirely non-sum valued crack.

Perhaps you'd like to inform the rest of the planet how you can divide by zero?
Hmm?

Have you even followed the entirety of the dialogue from page 1? Every post, every page, every word?

UFOs have a zero sum value since we don't know what they are, or if there's even a singular explanation for variable random events.

Aliens are also a zero sum value since we know absolutely nothing about aliens; not even if, when, or where they might exist anywhere in the universe.

Does taking an unknown and attributing to some other completely other, possibly even unrelated unknown sound like science to you?

As explained before, in the examination of ANY unknown, you collect data. You collect enough data to compare with the universal body of data already established in the scientific forum.
If you don't find a match, you remain at null, and you continue to collect data until you either find a match, or the data you've collected (in the case of new species for instance) stands on its own as unique, or similar to known X, related to known X, but independently unique due factors Z.

You don't just make up stuff and then rationalize the imaginary fantasy explanation into fitting.

Until we have data on aliens, we cannot use aliens as even the remotest of possibilities beyond equivalence to unicorns, fairies, Greek gods, cartoon characters like superman, and everything else we have ZERO real data on, even if there's supposed mythical or imaginary data associated with whatever fantasy one wants to grasp at.

Thus, please, explain how we can successfully divide by zero.

Further, if you're going to jump in, stay in, as opposed to taking little Chihuahua opportunities. If you lack the fortitude to do so, then, stick to starring your favorites, whoever that might be and lend your support that way.
Additionally, if somehow these little words on a screen have affected you so deeply you're incapable of self restraint, then feel free to send me, or whomever, a Respected Foe notice (I'm developing quite the proud collection btw).

In or out?
None of that Chihuahua nonsense though, please.
It's strongly recommended you read the entire thread, every page, every post, every word before committing.
Do I need to translate this into Dutch for you, or is all that fairly clear?
I ask about the language as there's another member displaying chronic difficulty with the English and it's only fair to ensure your skin is thick enough to peel off without concern for mortality.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 02:33 AM
link   
Oops.
edit on 20-2-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)


Additionally, if somehow these little words on a screen have affected you so deeply you're incapable of self restraint, then feel free to send me, or whomever, a Respected Foe notice (I'm developing quite the proud collection btw).

You have got to be kidding me.
edit on 20-2-2013 by ZetaRediculian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


It's humor. Go with it.
But, yes, I've a rather impressive (at least I like to think so) collection of Respected Foe notices.
It's hilarious that people actually use that function. I don't. Still, I can't help but feel a little pride when someone actually does.
I mean, really?

It's even funnier when I get hate mail.



edit on 20-2-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


It's humor. Go with it.
But, yes, I've a rather impressive (at least I like to think so) collection of Respected Foe notices.
It's hilarious that people actually use that function. I don't. Still, I can't help but feel a little pride when someone actually does.
I mean, really?



the coolest thing I got was a magical spell hex message from that alien dude. I had that coming since I evaporated his planet with my robot army.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
Do I need to translate this into Dutch for you, or is all that fairly clear?
Yawn. Get a clue lady, you're printing ad hominems as if they were dollar bills. Do I take your tripe seriously? Nope. It's mind-numbingly dull. To be fair, I did get a few laughs out of it. That said, I'll stick with Clark, Sturrock, Haisch, etc. etc. for serious discussion and intellectual appraisal. Druscilla is not on that list, given the extent of your vapid reply that seems to hurt more than you care to admit.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


The above post is just but one example of the fantastic vitriol like flies to honey that are popular visitors in my in box. That's actually one of the more civilized.

Everyone filled with whatever sense of loathing they have for me seems all too compelled to express it, as if, oh so original, I haven't heard it before.
If anything it's a compliment. I've upset someone. My stupid little words on a screen have pulled someone's strings like a puppet such so, they're incapable of squelching their negative reaction.
Boo Hoo.

Is the depth of commonality really so shallow there's no separation of emotional involvement in these debates?
People actually in reality invest their real emotions and emotional attachment to these dialogues?

Edit: For the record; I'm keeping my eye on Einstein, Heisenberg, Alcubierre & White, Hawking, Welter, etc., etc.


edit on 20-2-2013 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets


Maybe I'm dense, or maybe I just haven't taken special notice of your opinions, but I'm actually not sure which direction your jab is intended.



Then it was a successful post.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets

Or, one can recognize that there are many reports of nuts and bolts craft which are seen by multiple witnesses,



Here's a report of a nuts and bolts monster [literally], complete with photographic "evidence" and submitted by a well respected, credible witness who just happened to be in cahoots with another public figure also claiming to have evidence of the same [footprints].

Now how much weight are we to give eyewitness accounts?



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian
throwing in the diversity variable and calculating the odds of an occurace of something that we don't even know exists, has very little effect. Taking the sample of the subjectvely good cases and comparing that to the Known alien vehicles visiting earth seems absurd. It's like taking the deck of 52 cards (representing your good cases) and trying to calculate the odds of being dealt two aces (representing alien vehicles) except we don't how many aces there are or even if there are aces in the deck. The discussion is about logical trickery and this appears to be one. Cheap shot?
Good lord.... But we're not "comparing [the "subjectvely good cases"] to the Known alien vehicles visiting earth", and you KNOW IT. This is why you get accused of intentionally muddying the waters. Either you're doing exactly that, or you're not aware of what BB SR14 actually says. Ignorance, or intentional? You choose.... And I mentioned SR14 in the next sentence of the (conveniently truncated) paragraph that you previously quoted. So there's no excuse for not knowing what was being discussed.

So get this straight: what we're comparing is whether the 'knowns' are statistically different from the 'unknowns'. Are they just 'knowns' waiting for some leg-work, in other words. Are you aware of what SR14 had to say about that? Have you read the source? It found the unknoowns to be specifically and quantitatively different from the knowns. It also found that longer sightings, with higher quality witnesses had the greatest percentage of unknowns. Read that again. How will you explain it away? And back to this "diversity of the phenomenon" issue: that's part of what shielded those unknowns from becoming mere 'not-yet-identified knowns' when the the Air Force / Battelle tried to manipulate the raw stats in other ways. (Ultimately, of course, they found a way to say that this diversity prevented them from constructing a single theoretical 'model' of a UFO, so UFOs must not be real, but most any person of intelligence can see through that....)

Your response to that? How will you twist it? What portion will you selectively quote?

I'm not bothering with the rest of your reply. It's more of the same, and I don't have time for these games. Were there a good, relevant point in there, I'd come back later, but I'm just not seeing any....

ETA: It occurs to me that what we see above from the same few 'skeptics' is EXACTLY what this thread was intended to address. I'm just delighted that there are so many examples of this "trickery" nicely archived in a single thread. (Perhaps you all were baited by the OP?) Funny.
edit on 20-2-2013 by TeaAndStrumpets because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
This is why you get accused of intentionally muddying the waters.


Umm, no - I was the one who got accused of intentionally "muddying the waters", and the reason for that was that I had the audacity to hold one of your logic clones accountable for their own words.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 20-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets


ETA: It occurs to me that what we see above from the same few 'skeptics' is EXACTLY what this thread was intended to address. I'm just delighted that there are so many examples of this "trickery" nicely archived in a single thread. (Perhaps you all were baited by the OP?) Funny.


So blissfully self-unaware, aren't we?

:-))



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 08:39 AM
link   
I'm toning down on direct address since it's been adequately demonstrated a pointless exercise in attempting to elucidate as well as elicit some independent critical thinking.
Thus, here's passive address.

Note: Independent. Critical. Thinking

Not Dependent, Sycophantic, Obedience.

In my previous post I made the following statement:


Edit: For the record; I'm keeping my eye on Einstein, Heisenberg, Alcubierre & White, Hawking, Welter, etc., etc.



In this thread, and many others, a motley gang of names attached to the investigation of the UFO phenomenon is paraded around.
I like to think of them as the sacred saints of the religion of Cirque du Ufology.
Names and statements made by these names are quoted like biblical scripture.
Questioning, or criticizing any of the 'findings', or considerations made by these, erm, 'saints', is akin to a militant assault on Holy verse.

I've personally zero compunction toward criticizing these names and putting anything including their credibility to the question.
In science, this is actually expected, and even encouraged.
It's what the peer review process is when a paper on any topic is published. New ideas, or even simply revised ideas are rigorously crash tested. Rigorous, highly prejudicial review, replication, and confirmation is what makes the difference between Hypothesis and Theory, or accepted Paradigm.

The names bandied all over the place in Ufology, however, are kept like Faberge eggs.
Due this cultural split with actual science, those adherents to said literature and names become parrots, zombies, helpless robots willingly self-programmed to think like Ufo saint #1, 2, etc.
The subject, as can be seen in this thread alone, is all the weaker for it since the abundance of speculations inside the topic, if presented by one of these sacred cows are not adequately, sufficiently, and rigorously crash tested through the peer review process, nor is criticism very well accepted.

So and so and whatshisname and ABC government organization mucky muck Dr. Wxyz, and Colonel GenericExample claim points 1. 2. 3. ...
Because they're part of the Ufology canon, they're untouchable and woe on those that question their lofty wisdom because there's simply no possibility in these now sacred names being completely wrong.
Points 1. 2. 3. ... etc thus go without proper crash testing, and as a result is a thing without much by way of backbone.
This in turn results in a weaker, false assumption, name and idea dependent following.

Einstein, Heisenberg, Alcubierre & White, Hawking, Welter, etc., etc as mentioned previously (names alive and dead), regardless the strength of data contributed each name, unending and constant criticism is welcome.
If as a result any Theory is broken, then said theory by breaking proves unfit as an explanation.

Break the theory of Gravity, for instance, by merely pointing out errors, where if independently confirmed and replicable as well as reliably replicated, your contribution becomes part of the greater data set in the world scientific forum.
Because of peer reviewed crash testing, breaking a theory is often a very difficult thing to do.

Einstein, Heisenberg, Alcubierre & White, Hawking, Welter, etc., etc. have been crash tested, at the very least on paper and in computer modelling. I'm watching them among all the etc of other names (alive and dead) because by breaking or amending their materials, science then advances.
Whether of not any outcome may effect this UFO topic, is also yet to be seen.

I'll stick with the more rigorously tested names thank you.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by TeaAndStrumpets
 


Don't you think it's strange that in a time when more people have some kind of camera on them be it phone/point and shoot/dslr/video that we don't seem to get any better photographic evidence after all you guys claim we get regular visits but pictures/videos seem to get worse!



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by TeaAndStrumpets
Good lord.... But we're not "comparing [the "subjectvely good cases"] to the Known alien vehicles visiting earth", and you KNOW IT. This is why you get accused of intentionally muddying the waters. Either you're doing exactly that, or you're not aware of what BB SR14 actually says.

What I was doing was trying to calculate the odds of one your cases being an alien vehicle. Thats what it souded like to me.


Ignorance, or intentional? You choose.... And I mentioned SR14 in the next sentence of the (conveniently truncated) paragraph that you previously quoted. So there's no excuse for not knowing what was being discussed.

Here is what I quoted:

Do you know how many strong cases there are? It's subjective. But "many" captures the idea. So what are the odds that there's not a thing to even a single one of them? This is where some course work in statistics might come in handy.

This is a full and complete thought to me and I responded with what I know of statistics, which is very little. I admit that I didn't pay much attention to the rest of it because this stuck out like a sore thumb. Here is the anology that comes to mind: you have "many" cards in front of you. What are the odds of "not a single one of them" being an ace when we don't know if the aces exist? What I think you are saying from this post and previous posts is that "there are so many good case that one has to be something based on odds alone". Feel free to clarify that but that is what i understand.

I don't see how the rest of your comment is relevant.


So get this straight: what we're comparing is whether the 'knowns' are statistically different from the 'unknowns'. Are they just 'knowns' waiting for some leg-work, in other words. Are you aware of what SR14 had to say about that? Have you read the source? It found the unknoowns to be specifically and quantitatively different from the knowns. It also found that longer sightings, with higher quality witnesses had the greatest percentage of unknowns. Read that again. How will you explain it away? And back to this "diversity of the phenomenon" issue: that's part of what shielded those unknowns from becoming mere 'not-yet-identified knowns' when the the Air Force / Battelle tried to manipulate the raw stats in other ways. (Ultimately, of course, they found a way to say that this diversity prevented them from constructing a single theoretical 'model' of a UFO, so UFOs must not be real, but most any person of intelligence can see through that....)

While we are handing out reading assignments, I will compile a list of my own for you to read.


Your response to that? How will you twist it? What portion will you selectively quote?
I say we settle this with a game of poker. But we will use a deck with 4 aces in it.



ETA: It occurs to me that what we see above from the same few 'skeptics' is EXACTLY what this thread was intended to address. I'm just delighted that there are so many examples of this "trickery" nicely archived in a single thread. (Perhaps you all were baited by the OP?) Funny

Good. point out the "trickery". Here is one that you seem to employ incessantly: "have you even read X, Y or Z?!" so instead of answering any point made, you fall back on some author or report or something. I suggest you read the Strassman study so that we can have an actual discussion of how someone might see something that is not there. For saome basic statistics, I recommend Sklansky or Harrington.



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 



Originally posted by draknoir2

Here's a report of a nuts and bolts monster [literally], complete with photographic "evidence" and submitted by a well respected, credible witness who just happened to be in cahoots with another public figure also claiming to have evidence of the same [footprints].

Now how much weight are we to give eyewitness accounts?



You don't know what a false inference is, do you? I feel as though I'm constantly having to point this out, and it's truly a mystery to me, as it's not a difficult concept to grasp.

According to this reasoning, because some doctors are quacks, therefore all of them are.

Do you see any problems with the general form of such a move?

If that's not clear, let's make the point more visceral: If you went to a doctor when you were younger, and they failed to treat your illness properly, would it be sound behavior to refuse to go to any other doctor for the rest of your life?

Back to your example, you've pointed to a single example of poor witness testimony (that doesn't even come close to mirroring the rich history of witness, radar and physical trace UFO evidence), and you'd like us to conclude that all witness testimony is weak?

Let me ask you this: If you were asked to critique the above reasoning, what would you say? Surely you wouldn't say it's sound reasoning. Or maybe you would.

Your comment also involved a false analogy. You attempted to implicitly compare monsters to UFOs without providing any even remotely compelling argument for the soundness of such a comparison. You can't just make blanket assertions - you have to provide reasons for your beliefs, and those reasons need to at least hold up to some basic logical scrutiny.

Basically, you're just unreflectively parroting the arguments of others who like to make the old 'UFOs, fairies and unicorns' argument. I'm here to let you know that it doesn't work. It's based on false reasoning. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

This just further strengthens my contention that the entire anti-UFO position rests on silly diversions and dodging the real issues, and poor, uncritical thinking. And it's truly a shame, as the existence of UFOs is one of the most interesting - and very real - issues facing the world today. The problem is many of you have been more susceptible to suggestion than others, and have been convinced through media conditioning that UFOs are fiction, and so you take it purely as given that they don't exist. I think you need to be a little more critical of where these beliefs came from, and not just accept them as gospel, and then find yourself fumbling around embarrassing yourself with arguments that don't work because they're trying to defend the indefensible. The only way to undo such conditioning is to educate yourself. TeaAndStrumpets has made numerous and constant references to a number of authors worth reading.

In fact, the consistent futility of your arguments are actually contributing to the strength of the UFO position. Most intelligent and intellectually honest people (like J. Allen Hynek) realize this early on, and adapt their position to the reality of UFOs. They adapt their position because the evidence demands it. In fact, most people, when they do accept it, initially begrudgingly accept it. We're not 'drawn' to it because it's 'out there' or 'fringe'. In fact, those are things I don't really care for. But like most social norms, they're inaccurate appraisals. In fact, just like racist (and other negative) social norms, their very existence should make one immediately pause and reflect on their veracity. Why am I defending this position? Is it rational? Are my arguments for it valid and sound? Should I continue to perpetuate it?

Continued...



posted on Feb, 20 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I think the reason for the kneejerk reaction against the UFO hypothesis is rooted in a principle that helps keep social conformance alive: this idea that 'unusual' implies 'implausible' (call this X). When you reflect on this move, it's obviously false, yet it continues to provide the impetus for initial subconscious belief selection: between two beliefs that you're confronted with for the first time, immediately adopt the 'less unusual' one and attempt to rationalize it. I'm sure this inference has been biologically bred into us for some kind of adaptive reasons, but that's not the point. The trouble with it is, what happens when your community subconsciously selects the belief that doesn't correspond with reality? The belief would only be overturned when one or more individuals came along to excise it by pointing out reasons why the current reasons for maintaining it are untenable. And even then, because this is a socially held belief, the belief won't be overturned unless the majority of individuals are clever and educated enough to recognize those reasons as rational. So unfortunately, social belief development is often held up by the 'weakest links'.

So there are two things here: 1) the principle engine driving initial belief selection (X) is unreliable and 2) easily leads to false initial beliefs. And X survives due to a kind of feedback system whereby your holding of that belief that it generated induces feelings of social belonging that itself encourages the further employment of X. Most forms of racism or prejudice survive by injecting themselves into such a feedback system. The same goes for religious beliefs. Don't believe something that was produced by a faulty belief generator.

So what I strongly suspect is happening is that people are letting X determine their initial belief (that UFOs don't exist), and that the real reason people continue to defend this irrational belief is rooted in current and previous concerns for social acceptance. It's certainly not rooted in education, evidence or clear thinking. In fact, those are the very things that expose the belief as not maintainable on rational grounds.

If you continue to fail to properly educate yourself, you will continue to simply defend a belief that was chosen for you. Education is about learning to think properly and for yourself. You will not become educated overnight by googling definitions for logical fallacies and then posting hyperlinks as evidence for your proper application of them. The ability to post a hyperlink does not imply knowledge of proper application, as evidenced quite often around here. They involve subtle points that are easily misapplied, and this is obvious to pick out to someone who's actually been trained and trained others in logic. You need to actually take courses in these subjects or undertake a serious, day in and day out reading regimen with proven texts. Even then, you're going to need someone to correct your mistakes and provide accurate explanations if you're going to learn. And even then, no one is going to force you to apply those same tools in critiquing your own beliefs. You have to do this on your own. Google or the Internet aren't going to do this for you.





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join