Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, there is nothing illogical about saying "this person or source of information has a reputation for being wrong or deceitful, therefore I will not be spending my time examining their claims." This is not really an ad hominem, just saying that due to the unlikelihood of an individual having anything to contribute, you are choosing to not engage their argument. I suppose this falls under "running away from the arg…
Very true — it's not illogical to think that, or to use it as a reason to ignore the discussion. Responding to someone by pointing that reasoning out, however, is very seldom going to lead to productive discussion. It's usually best left unsaid.
Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly
131–134 of 134 posts
Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly
#132And given the topic, there's neccesarily a relevant Less Wrong link: http://lesswrong.com/lw/he/knowing_about_biases_can_hurt_peo... Once upon a time I tried to tell my mother about the problem of expert calibration, saying: "So when an expert says they're 99% confident, it only happens about 70% of the time." Then there was a pause as, suddenly, I realized I was talking to my mother, and I hastily added: "Of course,…
the author of TFA also has bad things to say about less wrong: http://plover.net/~bonds/cultofbayes.html
Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've both diagnosed me with autism and insinuated it could land me in jail if left untreated? You're lovely. I'll ask you again. What's so wrong with calmly asking someone in an elevator for coffee? I remember these discussions after Rebecca Watson publicly complained about it—the vast majority of people felt she was vastly overreacting. So it's definitely not an "established societal norm". Despite their rhetoric,…
Would you feel uncomfortable if a fat, ugly woman with an annoying nasal voice opened conversation at the beginning of a 30-floor elevator ride by asking you out for coffee? "Can I get a coffee with you mister? You're so handsome." "Er, no, sorry, I'm busy." 45 seconds of lift going up in embarrassed silence I'm sure anyone can handle it, but it's definitely uncomfortable. Now imagine if this happened every day, beca…
I'm at a fairly small club downtown. A woman is walking toward me, so I make eye contact and say "hi!".
She sits down next to me, and we begin to talk. She's very nice, but after a few minutes of conversation, I'm not attracted to her at all, and it's clear we have very little in common.
"Hacker789, you have a really cute smile. I'd love to get your number."
"Ah..."
I look down, and out of the corner of my eye, I see her nervously twisting her hair in her fingers.
I cringe just thinking about that, because it's happened to me before! But I would never shame her for asking me, and I would never charge her with making me feel "unsafe". That would make me into a villain.
And let's be clear—it can be dreadfully awkward to leave the table at a small club, often taking more than a minute to politely finish the task without hurting the other person's feelings too badly. It's even worse if your friend is at the table, happily talking to an acquaintance of the person you just rejected!
At least in an elevator, you're automatically free after the doors open.
Would I ever ask someone at the beginning of a long elevator ride a question that might make them uncomfortable? No, not if I could avoid it. In fact, I wouldn't ask anyone an uncomfortable question at the beginning of a long bus or train ride, either. But not every situation that has the potential to create discomfort is socially unacceptable; part of being a social creature is to take minor discomfort in stride, giving the other person the benefit of the doubt.
And the more frequently an uncomfortable situation happens to you, the better you get at handling it.
Re: Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Deductive logical systems cannot reliably find truth. Don't you mean inductive. > That is the lesson of the scientific revolution and the revolution in mathematics that is most closely associated with Godel. A lesson which hasn't permeated the "scientific revolution" perhaps with good reason.
Prior to the scientific revolution, philosophers attempted to deduce truth from first principles. Their record was mixed to say the least. The revolution of science was to say we don't need Truth, we just need to look systematically at real facts, and come up with provisional theories that provide testable predictions about them. It has pulled humanity's collective head out of the clouds and created useful, practical…
As is post-"scientific revolution", whatever that means.
> The revolution of science was to say we don't need Truth
Do you have anything real to say?