|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290 |
Any chance you could copy the piece and send it to me by PM?
Probably not as it's a scan of the paper, not text, in PDF form.
Ceci n'est pas un seing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290 |
Ah, to join in the battle, but I am skeptical about its outcome. Two of my favorite examples from the world of languages are these: In the 19th century, there was a French ANE professor, Halevy, who was skeptical about whether Sumerian (just being to show up in the archeological record in Mesopotamia) was a "real" language or some kind of code or jargon invented by Assyrian scribes and priest to make their writings seem more esoteric held on to this believe to the end, though as more and more evidence that Sumerian was a real language surfaced, many of his supporters decamped. The other one took place in the '50s of the previous century. After Michael Ventris presented his decipherment of Linear B (as an archaic Greek language), there were some old-timers who were not convinced. Most everybody today follows Ventris'.
The thing that was interesting in both cases is how ad hominem and vociferous the argument became. Human nature one suspects. And, how little anybody knows of or even remembers it today.
[Edit: removed a superfluous "in both cases".]
Ceci n'est pas un seing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
Ad hominem is more than just name-calling. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. It is a logical fallacy to say "that person's statement is false, because he is an X." It can happen explicitly or implicitly.
It's not a logical fallacy to say that a source of "information" has repeatedly demonstrated a calculated attempt to misrepresent the facts or even a pathological indifference to truth. Nor is it a logical fallacy to call one who has lied a liar. I'm not even sure it's name-calling. Of course I'm aware that personal perception plays some role in this - but it's also true that some people lack integrity. That some people are at least genuinely, if profoundly, mistaken does not mean that liars do not exist.
Calling one's self "fair and balanced" does not make one "fair and balanced." Calling one's self a skeptic, does not make one a skeptic. I think there's no better word than denialist in some cases (unless it is rejectionist), but I would settle for the term "doubter."
Even someone who comes to accept or reject a particular view can still be considered a genuine skeptic to the extent that she is willing to examine critically evidence contrary to his previously conclusions. But someone who makes up their minds - before they understand the least little details of the matter - that person is not a skeptic, regardless of belief or disbelief.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,290 |
Ad hominem is more than just name-calling. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy.
You talkin' t'me? I don't think I said or implied that ad hominem was name-calling or not a logical fallacy. I was also not suggesting that i side with the Halevy group [extinct) or the anti-Ventrists. BTW, what happened to you avatar? Broken link icon is all I get ...
Ceci n'est pas un seing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
You didn't say or imply either of those things, but I nevertheless wanted to clarify. When there's a fox in the hen house, it's not entirely inappropriate for the farmer to make note of the fact - and pasting chicken feathers on a toothy grin does not allay the concern.
There are surely, SURELY cases where people have honest and very strong disagreements where the differing parties incorrectly surmise bad intent from the other. I see this with dogs in the dog park all the time. Two dogs get along fine with all the other dogs, but not with each other. Most of the time it's just that one dog has misunderstood another dog's action. Same thing happens with people. I know this. I recognize it at least some times. But not every situation involves only two parties. Sometimes there are two legitimate sides, but there are also others who have their own interest in an outcome that has nothing whatever to do with the facts involved.
I'm not sure what happened with my icon. I don't recall doing anything with it. Will look at it later.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
I thought this was apropos to the discussion of skepticism: The Geek Rapture I especially liked this quote - Well, I’m going to go with “I don’t know”. I know it’s not a very sexy answer, but it’s one that thinking about the subject critically leads me to, and it’s one that I’m okay with. And “I don’t know” doesn’t mean something won’t come to light that would make me change my mind. Indeed the subject fascinates me, and I will continue to look into it, and keep an open mind about what the future holds. But I’m not going to make any hard and fast predictions, nor am I going to adjust my life or my thinking as though the Singularity is coming.
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Thanks! Got your PM.
Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. This was one of the relatively few situations that bumfuzzled me as a Child Protective Services investigator. A parent would look at me, chin cocked belligerently, and say, "Oh, yeah? And just what's wrong with the way I'm raising my kid(s)?" The sort answer would have been, "Change your entire lifestyle", but that would have turned them deaf to any future suggestions by the follow-up worker. I never did come up with a really good response.
improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities. I think probably most of us have been through this; as we begin to study something fairly intricate (even learning to use my computer, for me) we realize we don't even know enough to ask the right questions. I read once where the 70-to-100 flying hours range was the most dangerous because after 70, new pilots think they know it all, and after 100 they realize they don't!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
Thanks! Got your PM.
[color:#3333FF]I never did come up with a really good response.
How can one use logic to convince another that he is not logical? What evidence can one supply to another that he completely misunderstands the nature of evidence? It is a very common occurrence for me to hear or read a person quoting some famous scientist that the second law of thermodynamics is paramount in physics and quite inviolable, that abiogenesis and evolution were they true would obviously violate this law, and that therefore they cannot be true. The claimant is typically wholly unfamiliar with the quoted scientist's work beyond this quote. The claims seems incredible. "How do you know this?" He provides a canned comic book summary of second law that is circulating among various creationist sites - generally, but not always, a cut-n-paste. "Have you taken a course in thermodynamics?" No. "Have you read a book on it?" No. "Have you read any scientific papers on it?" No. "Have you solved any problems using thermodynamic either theoretical or real?" No. "Have you discussed the subject with a recognized expert in the field?" No. "Do you realize there are very many people who have read the books, and taken courses, and read journal articles, and solved problems and discussed with the experts who disagree not just with our conclusion, but who would maintain that your entire understanding is mistaken?" They just don't want to admit the obvious conclusion. "I see. Do you think you could read a book on it?" That would be a waste of time. And so forth. It gives me no pleasure to convey to you that my dog knows more about thermodynamics than these people, because my dog's head is not full of a lot of false "knowledge" and surely a little girl dog without even the awareness of a subject is less ignorant than someone with a head full of stupidity who nevertheless feels qualified to educate others on the subject. It is a common tactic or technique to list a bunch of objections to a subject one after the other with demands that each of these items must be refuted; otherwise, the "skeptic" is victorious. We call this "bundle of sticks," but in some circles it's known as "the Gish gallop." The list of items is generally cut-n-pasted or a link is pasted. It takes the person all of 20 seconds to create a challenge when one is unconstrained by intellectual integrity. A good response, of course, might take many minutes or even hours to research - by which time the "victor" has moved 5 assertions ahead. "Ah, but you haven't addressed these other cut-n-pasted, spoon-fed factoids ... er, carefully reasoned, personal conclusions!" It would be conducive to understanding to pick just one thing at a time - just one thing and really try to understand it. I think thermodynamics is a bit ambitious for most of these people - but it's not entirely inaccessible. It would do. They could take the issue and really try to understand it. Read a book, solve some problems, talk it over with people who use it and understand it. But, no, obviously the brainwashed scientists don't understand thermodynamics.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,526 |
is a virtue. Perfectly reasonable to say, "Well, I've thought about this and I can't make up my mind." or even "I don't have the time to go through this right now, but I really doubt what you're saying."
Of course that's very different from presenting poorly researched factoids as reliable data that one has to spend one's valuable time to refute. "My point that I read from some random guy on the Internet holds until you prove me wrong." (Waste of time, because the challenger isn't going to admit he's wrong anyway, but more importantly, we see the clear disparity in thinking. *YOU* have to absolutely prove everything you claim, but the claims they make stand until they are proven false.)
Also very different from demanding the answer to a question with an implied false assertion. "If we came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?"
But, "Really. I don't know." Completely reasonable. OTOH, there is a lot of effort and no small amount of money put into ensuring that we conclude exactly that.
Last edited by TheFallibleFiend; 08/20/10 02:07 AM.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,317
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
759
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
