The Deadly Spread of Bulverism on ATS, page 4

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 11:30 AM

link

reply to post by FyreByrd

Your post just made me think of something, and that is "logic" tends to be used interchangeably with "science."

In the scientific method, logic is just a tool, but it is quite subjective (even if its logical, it may not be scientifically accurate).

Logic is used in argument, where science is used in exploration. At least, that is the tendency I see even though "science" can be used to argue and "logic" can be used to explore.

Perhaps debate should not necessarily be the focus, but instead, teaching children how to learn first and what to learn second. Currently, we do it the other way around, and as I have said before, that is indoctrination that leads to stagnation, and is not education.

I think all of this leads directly to things like bulverism. We simply have a society that encourages it, and beyond that, is considered the "best" way to approach many situations.

edit on 5-10-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)

Bleeeeep

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 11:34 AM

link

reply to post by charles1952

You saw yeti, chemtrails, and ufo, and I saw a satirical connotation of your intellectual dishonesty.

I think his point was clear.

p.s. I wouldn't charge you for understanding - I'm not that type a person!

Serdgiam

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 11:42 AM

link

reply to post by Bleeeeep

Considering I am a Yeti who travels by flying saucer (which obviously leaves chemtrails), I would have to say its all quite true.

BLAAARRGHRYAAARRGGHHHH *raises hairy fists in air*

Spiramirabilis

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 11:46 AM

link

reply to post by charles1952

I try not to do this too often here at ATS, but I kinda have to this morning: LOL Charles...lol

Thanks for the laugh - and the creative and mostly sincere little run of obsequiousness - always appreciated :-)

I hope you mean the OP. I wasn't intending to put any in my other writing, but if I have, let me know and I'll scold myself and issue an apology.

Absolutely meant the OP - too funny

(But that's because the people who agree with me are better, cleaner, taller, and are more proficient whistlers. Don't hate us.)

I am a hater of hate - and an admirer of blatant (an admitted) dishonesty - so, we're good :-)

I will also admit that I'm a sneaky, sly sort of fellow. The sort that you don't want to take home to mother.

My mom would have had you sussed out before you got out of the car Charles - but, not to worry - she also always had a sort of warm spot in her heart for Eddie Haskell

:-)

edit on 10/5/2013 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)

charles1952

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 12:10 PM

link

reply to post by FyreByrd

Dear FyreByrd,

You are absolutely correct in your descriptions of some problems with logic. I would not have thought of them. Honestly and sincerely, I admire you work.

But, so what? (Don't shoot me, give me a chance, please.)

1) the normal mistakes of inference that we all tend to make if not careful.

You're right, that's a problem, but I think it's less of a problem than our current situation which seems to involve accepting the position which has the catchiest jingle. We have an additional guard which we, in our isolated society, fail to use. When I say something stupid here, someone will catch it and let me know my brain is switched off.

2) Traditional logic (Aristotle, Eucld, Liebniz, Boole) is no longer sufficient to explain reality.

Fine, I can agree with that as well, but I'm not trying to explain reality by advocating against Bulverism. All I want to do is avoid a tactic which is common, fallacious, and hurtful.

You're right that quantum physics is the cat's meow (Sorry) for coming up with strange ideas of the universe. But if you want to figure the speed of a falling apple, Newton's the man to go to. For the purposes of daily human life (The best kind, in my opinion), simply being able to think clearly is a gigantic step towards a mental Utopia.

For further assistance in this area, please make an appointment with the Secretary for Getting Our #@#$% Country's Head on Straight.

As far as the cat experiment goes, it only discusses quantum systems, not axioms of logic. For any purpose humans might have in their lives, it is perfectly fine to say that if you put a cat in a box, it is either alive or dead. The cat problem was created by quantum theory, just like chess problems are created by the rules of chess. In the past, we were quite content to say the cat might be alive or dead, and we would know which when we looked in the box.

I believe this is right on the edge and essential to the next dominate worldview.

If so, I am way out of luck. Any plans I might have had to be part of the dominate worldview (or even understand it) have flown away.

With respect,
Charles1952

poet1b

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 12:41 PM

link

reply to post by charles1952

CS Lewis was quite the Bulverist himself.

My experience has shown me that the first to cry foul is often the first to have committed a foul.

We sure see that a lot here on ATS.

It is much easier to win a debate when the facts are on your side.

When the judges are on your side, it is possible to win the debate, even though the facts are against you, but that is winning the battle in a war that you will ultimately loose.

poet1b

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 12:49 PM

link

reply to post by Serdgiam

I think you need to use all the intellectual senses.

Desire - what do you really want out of this exercise, sure we are all looking for the truth, but you have to be honest with yourself and identify your true desires, if you are going to expunge your own prejudices.

Logic - how do things add up, how do the pieces of the puzzle fit together.

Reason - What are the critical parts of this issue, what has the most influence.

Probability - What are the odds that any possibility is right, and what are the chances that the most probably answer is the answer in this issue. If the most probable answer is 90% the probability, 10% of the time it will be other answers. That means in one out of ten times, the most probable answer will not be correct, and so on. If you are looking at an occurrence with a high frequency of repetition, than those .1% possibilities, and those .01% possibilities will happen fairly frequently.

This is my theory on the subject, which I think should be included in the scientific process.

Kaboose

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 12:51 PM

link

reply to post by charles1952

I think I see your point, but really what I do not like is people who start discussions with the only real objective of the post to attack, or incite hate. Some anti-Christian people do this, starting a subject with the only intention of attacking Christianity, they have no intention of a real discussion, just an attack. Of course other morons jump on with stars and additional comments, then they get mad when a Christian tried to defend and explain the truth of the matter.
For example someone posted recently about a so called Christian family abusing their kids, meanwhile child abuse occurs just as often or more so by atheist parents, so what is the point of this? Only reason is to attack and entice hate against Christianity. Everyone with half a brain knows that Christianity teaches to love and care for your kids.

These direct attacks posts should be removed really, not only against Christianity, but to be fair against other beliefs as well.

Serdgiam

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 01:07 PM

link

reply to post by poet1b

I agree completely. There are many tools that science uses, but societally, we tend to use the tools "out of context," so to speak.

So, people will use logic, but without ever having explored their hypothesis through real world exploration. Probability is frequently used to completely illegitimize hypotheses, but without actual exploration.

I think that those things you list, amongst several others, are tools that are implicit in science but only because they are an innate part of the human condition. Science provides some different scenarios to use those tools (wrenches work better on bolts than a hammer, usually) and guidelines on an over-arcing goal.

Given that, I think the tools themselves are widely used not only without regard to overall consequence, but without any insight as to where and when to actually use the subjective tools in objective ways. All of this could indeed be included in a reformed educational system. In a representative republic, we have the capability to lay down an infrastructure that is built using the combined knowledge of the society (rather than a system built on receiving funding). What we use determines the outcome of the overall system.

I think that with technology, we can put all of the brightest minds together to start designing systems that take advantage of all of the things we have learned over the centuries. And just as importantly, a system that is designed to take into account that it may need to change when the society further advances. Currently, all systems are built to maintain status quo, which is constant growth of industry titans and their firm stranglehold on the market.

Things like Bulverism are symptoms of a society that has not encouraged its citizens to explore, learn, and be wrong. I think that by pointing it out, however, that we can start to see a clearer picture of a much larger epidemic that we, as humans, are entirely capable of figuring out. The only thing that is missing is people actively working to figure it out. Its not only discouraged by industry titans (so then can have slow, planned technology releases), but its discouraged even in our educational system.

We have sites like ATS that could be incredible starting points, but they do not allow for recruiting of any kind (afaik). We have some incredibly brilliant minds here, and if we were allowed to collectively work together alongside the rest of the world (all through technology), we could really achieve something amazing. It doesnt take *everyone*, just enough people to get the ball rolling and enough people to at least consider it as an option.

RedCairo

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 01:40 PM

link

Replying to: Bleeeeep

Reply to C.S. Lewis: (if he were alive)

Remove the parenthesis portion and it's even better. After all, people at ATS have arguments with others about things they didn't even say and perspectives they don't even hold, so I don't see why you can't have a conversation with someone who is no longer alive. For that matter, if I can talk about talking to aliens, you can talk to dead authors -- and you'd probably win any fair debate about which was more reasonable. Dammit. (But not, perhaps, about which is more fun.) Besides. Lewis has probably been even more fun since he died. You just can't hear him.

Replying to: Charles1952

I know I'm misunderstanding you, but, together we'll get somewhere.

Who ARE you and how did you get here? And why in my previous brief visits over the years (followed by my running screaming into the night), did I never see you? Despite your inexplicable unwillingness to provide your home address I continue my devotion.

Stalkerfan journal: Today, Charles1952 wrote: 'Love, the smell of flowers, trust, music, all irrational, but perfectly wonderful.' Who says such things AND still has a brain? In reverence for his virtual awesomeness I wrote it on the wall of the alley behind the cafe. Because the world needs to know this stuff. I even wrote it in John Deere green, which only a few would understand the extra meaning within and possibly not him but I will forgive. Sadly, a manly-man in uniform gave me a ticket for the spray paint. Turns out the cafe owner was not appreciative about the green because as everyone knows, men are patriarchal barbarians. Except Charles1952.

Serdgiam

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link

RedCairo
Thank you. I am going to take that quote out of context and use it as the ideal response from now on. In fact, I think that single sentence might be the most perfect response to... everything. Next time I am losing a debate about absolutely anything, I am simply going to use that. Used in this way, it becomes literally a mass-applied generic Bulverism, no matter how fair it might have been in your original context. I think you have accidentally summarized this entire thread topic in a single sentence.

No problem! Each person reading it would take it out of my context and into theirs anyway!

I do not see its perfection as you do, but c'est la vie.

No one is immune from the subtle hum of the society they came from.

RedCairo

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link

Replying to charles1952

I do wish you would spend more time communicating with your mother. If you are still asking "Why?" it indicates you're not as close as you should be. Any 8 year-old will tell you that the eternally true answer to "Why?" is "Because I told you so."

See, that's just it. I communicate with my mother all the time! And then people here at ATS make fun of me.

She died when I was 9, so maybe that relates...

I have alternative sources of wisdom though -- for example, I am now a mother myself. Which in case you don't know, magically instilled into me the fount of all knowledge. Merely ask. Ommmmn.

I provide endless wisdom even without request to my only child, my 17 year old daughter, who on the average day has only slightly less emotion than ATS flame-ridden religious-political threads, about such life-altering topics like the need to re-dye her already pink hair, why it is not at all unreasonable that she recently stuck a needle through her own face to pierce the skin just below her lip to put a little jewel there, why her father [an intellectual and programmer who speaks 6 languages] is an idiot [though blessedly lives a continent away from the Ozarks (in Canada) which is only slightly too close for me], why some people are soooo stupid that they can't even recognize posers in "dubstep" music (even once they figure out what it IS), and other topics --

-- most of which make visiting ATS, where people merely argue about the fall of mankind and the end of the world and All Those Haterz, seem like trivial things. A pleasant break from daily life.

Bulverism, by the way, is apparently a "phase" of human development, one of those hidden Eriksonian stages or something. She went into it at about age 11 and, um, I'm still waiting for her to get through it...

edit on 5-10-2013 by RedCairo because: (no reason given)

Bleeeeep

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link

reply to post by RedCairo

So you only meant to mock imaginative rebuttals with an exorbitant one? That's great. :slow clap:

And if you would like to meet you at the end of the universe, I could show you there is no singularity. There is only a trinity of limitless structure, will, and imagination. Hologram, no. Mental image, yes. There is no way to encapsulate space because there is no boundary to the depth of God's consciousness.

...If there were only a single truth, how would we discuss otherwise?

Good post though - freethinker award for you. (star)

FyreByrd

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link

Serdgiam
reply to post by FyreByrd

Your post just made me think of something, and that is "logic" tends to be used interchangeably with "science."

logic is in the very foundation of science. It's first incarnation is attributed to Aristole. It has usage in both the hard and soft sciences. In mathematics and computer science, formal logic is in use daily. In social science (and detective stories) formal logic is used (and judged) in a step by step way to prove an inference from a premise.

[qoute]

In the scientific method, logic is just a tool, but it is quite subjective (even if its logical, it may not be scientifically accurate).

Logic is not subjective. The premises may be but the conclusion must follow exact rules. Interpretation is subjective - the logical presentation is regimented or it is not logical.

Logic is used in argument, where science is used in exploration. At least, that is the tendency I see even though "science" can be used to argue and "logic" can be used to explore.

See above. Logic is necessary to science as well as argument. The rules of the 'field' are the same in both arenas.

Perhaps debate should not necessarily be the focus, but instead, teaching children how to learn first and what to learn second. Currently, we do it the other way around, and as I have said before, that is indoctrination that leads to stagnation, and is not education.

I think all of this leads directly to things like bulverism. We simply have a society that encourages it, and beyond that, is considered the "best" way to approach many situations.
edit on 5-10-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)

I'll agree that lack of education about 'critical thinking' and logic is lacking in modern (sic) education.

I do think that logic is taught in the negative at higher levels of education (see the OP on Bulverism) as a tactic to control the content and direction of agrument (i.e. pivoting, deflection - Bulverisms).

Another quote from my current reading: "Logic Made Easy" by DJ Bennet, pg. 20

While a system of formal deductionwas being developed in geometry, pilosophersbegan to try to apply similar rules to metaphysical argument. As the earliest figure associated with the logical argument, Plato was trouble by the arguments of the Sophists. The Sophists used deliberate confusion and verbal tricks in teh course of a debate to win an argument. If your were unsophistticated, you might be fooled by their arguments

Without Boolean logic (science) we wouldn't be having this discussion (philosophy). Logic is a form that is consistant across different domains of knowledge. Logic has evolved in different directions (as all systems do) but should not be unduely segmented.

FyreByrd

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link

charles1952
reply to post by FyreByrd

Dear FyreByrd,

You are absolutely correct in your descriptions of some problems with logic. I would not have thought of them. Honestly and sincerely, I admire you work.

But, so what? (Don't shoot me, give me a chance, please.)

LOL - your point is well taken and accurate in the particular.

It is my particular curse that I can't separate the premises from the argument. The argument can be valid even with fallacious premises but that doesn't make the argument wrong.

And here you point out a big error in reasoning (at my expense, I might add).

Logic is the steps (or in Carroll's analogy - the arithmetic of the account) leading from premise to conclusion. It is not concerned directly with the accuracy of the premise.

Serdgiam

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link

reply to post by FyreByrd

As some may tell you, I have a different outlook on many things.

I stand by logic being subjective though, then we explore our logical premise with science. We can not separate ourselves from the subjectivity at any point, unless it is an experiment without a subject performing it, nor could it include a subject that interprets the data. It is always open to interpretation, and "logic" is only confirming bias in many, many ways. If logic was strictly objective, there would be no need for science.

Regardless, we probably agree more than you might think, though it is veering off topic for the thread.

TrueBrit

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link

reply to post by Serdgiam

I usually think about the separation between logical and science in the following way.

When I reason out how an event may have transpired, I use logic to guide my thinking on a subject. When I then wish to test the theory that I have constructed with logical reasoning, I use science to establish the physical reality of the event, and thereby either confirm my thinking, or learn that my thinking was missing some variable that I had not foreseen.

For example, if I receive a phone call from a client, saying that their lock has seized up, (I am a locksmith) I will ask them what kind of door they have (plastic or wooden) to establish what sort of locking gear is likely to be in place, wether they have had trouble with the lock before and a range of other questions. The answers inform my theory of what may be the trouble, meaning that I can pack a selection of replacement materials, or the required tools to fix the issue, without having to go back and forth several times between the shop and the customer.

If I get to the customers address to find that the situation is not quite as I was lead to believe (sometimes people just do not know what they have on their door... Crazy if you ask me) however, I use my eyes and the physical condition of the equipment I am working with, to establish what has caused the failure, and my experience to correct the fault.

Serdgiam

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link

reply to post by TrueBrit

I apply things in much the same way, but I would be dishonest with myself if I didnt also say it is all just based in bias on previous experience. Bias tends to be viewed negatively, but in many cases, it gives us a great foundation to work off of, especially if we have a lot of experience behind that bias.

I know on topics where I am extremely experienced, my bias is 99% correct. However, that 1% is the real tricky part, and every time it happens, it just adds more experience to an expanded bias, or perspective. The only way that we, as humans, could ever be truly objective is if we were able to directly perceive things without the filter of the brain. I wont say it will never happen (who knows), but for now, we just try to align our experience and perspective with the source of what it perceives and try to utilize it in new and different ways as we collectively learn more and more.

charles1952

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link

reply to post by poet1b

Dear poet1b,

Thanks for coming into this. I can always count on your contributions to make me think and wonder. It's good for me. May I ask a couple of questions?

CS Lewis was quite the Bulverist himself.
If that is a criticism of his debate techniques, then I am delighted to have you on board. By criticizing what you see as Lewis' Bulverism, you criticize all Bulverism. Go forth, oh mighty knight, and slay the dragon of Bulverism wherever you find it.

But, was Lewis a Bulverist? Examples don't spring readily to mind. I'd honestly appreciate a few links to places where he used it to prove or support a point.

My experience has shown me that the first to cry foul is often the first to have committed a foul.
But the victim of a mugging may be dead before he can cry foul.

It is much easier to win a debate when the facts are on your side.

When the judges are on your side, it is possible to win the debate, even though the facts are against you, but that is winning the battle in a war that you will ultimately loose.

Dear poet1b, this is not directed specifically to you, but to several ATSers who seem to misunderstand me.

I don't care about winning debates. I won't sacrifice anything, except time and patience, to win a debate. I'm looking for Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. If I have any, it's my job to share it. If someone else has some, it's my job to receive it.

What good are stars, flags, applause, or even people thinking you're a swell guy, if your goal is simply dominating others? I don't know, I'd better not get started on this subject again. Just know that I'd be willing to lose a hundred times if I received one truth from the experience.

With respect,
Charles1952

charles1952

posted on Oct, 5 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link

reply to post by Kaboose

Dear Kaboose,

You have, intentionally or not, discovered Meta-Bulverism! Shall we call it Kaboosism? Kabuki? You'll have to decide.

While Bulverism takes the form of addressing one's argument by ignoring it's validity, and going directly to an analysis of the source of the assumed error, Meta-Bulverism goes further. It goes directly to crediting the psychological basis of the error, before it's even heard the argument!

As you point out, some threads don't need an argument to reject, they just begin accusing those who differ of various psychological maladies; racism, sexism, hatred and insanity of various forms.

While Bulverism may first be attacked simply by pointing out the offender's use of it, dealing with blind hate from the start is a little tougher and depends on several factors. My advice to some is to just walk away from the thread as soon as you discover it. Staying in it will only cover you with mud. There are other approaches, however.

These direct attacks posts should be removed really, not only against Christianity, but to be fair against other beliefs as well.
I know you heard it before, and I apologize for being repetitive, but shoot a message out to the Mods using the alert button. Offer a one or two sentence explanation of why you find it offensive, and sit back, you've done what you can.

With respect,
Charles1952