Gravity - is it really there?

[JohnEmmett]

It's an opinion.

K… but it is (also) a straw man argument

 

[Hans Blaster]

this is called a straw man argument


From Wikipedia

Technically it was an ad hominem as I attacked the person rather than the argument.

That said, Graham Hancock is not a person who has an ounce of credibility. His "evidence" can be cast aside without concern given the depth, breadth, duration, and consistency of his nonsense.

To expect fact from Hancock would be akin to expecting drinking water to start flowing from the sewer pipe. (Oops, I did it again!)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

K… but it is (also) a straw man argument

Explain how.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Explain how.

easily dismissing X would be possible if the source "is a terrorist"


which is a straw man because Graham is a saintly person


however, the article was not written by Graham

 

[Hans Blaster]

easily dismissing X would be possible if the source "is a terrorist"


which is a straw man because Graham is a saintly person


however, the article was not written by Graham

If we skip back a few years to avoid the rather intense current phase and consider the thirty years prior (1985-2015), it would be hard to make a list of the top 10 purveyors* of pseudoscience, woo, and disinformation that didn't include Graham Hancock. Others on the list would include "Dr. Phil", "Dr. Oz", and at the top, their queen -- Oprah, the worst of the worst. (Other strong candidates would be the anti-vaxxers Andrew Wakefield, Jenny McCarthy, and RFK Jr.)

Your posting was obvious nonsense from a site run by a purveyor of obvious nonsense. It can be dismissed without concern.


*I construct my list from an American perspective, others may be more relevant in other countries.

 

[JohnEmmett]

It can be dismissed without concern.

that's far from loving the truth and being made glad by those who speak it


just saying…

 

[essentialsaltes]

that's far from loving the truth and being made glad by those who speak it

A corollary of that is being made a little angry by those who speak pernicious falsehoods and nonsense.

 

[JohnEmmett]

A corollary of that is being made a little angry by those who speak pernicious falsehoods and nonsense.

such is your way of thinking and nothing more

 

[Hans Blaster]

that's far from loving the truth and being made glad by those who speak it


just saying…

This sounds like a quote, but it is not something I've ever written, nor do I know the source.

such is your way of thinking and nothing more

For someone who complained about my ad hom (and mischaracterized it to boot), you have been so ready to attack the thinking of those of us who have bothered to respond to your posts. Why do you do that?

 

[JohnEmmett]

This sounds like a quote

from me

you have been so ready to attack the thinking of those of us who have bothered to respond to your posts. Why do you do that?

merely to offer insight

 

[Hans Blaster]

from me



merely to offer insight

John,

While I generally find little I could call insightful in your postings, your comments about me or my thinking are not only not insightful, they are much closer to insulting. Please stop.

 

[JohnEmmett]

closer to insulting. Please stop.

realize you are calling people terrorists


I merely say it is a strawman argument

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

easily dismissing X would be possible if the source "is a terrorist"

which is a straw man because Graham is a saintly person

That would be (as Hans Blaster said) an 'ad-hominem' fallacy - specifically, 'poisoning the well'. But Graham is the worst kind of shyster, there are few ad-homs that don't do him justice.

A 'straw man' fallacy is when you change an argument to make it easier to refute. IOW, what you refute is not the same as the original argument, although you implicitly claim it is.

however, the article was not written by Graham

In that case, the comment is simply an opinion about Graham.

 

[JohnEmmett]

But Graham is the worst kind of shyster

meet straw man Graham

 

[Hans Blaster]

realize you are calling people terrorists


I merely say it is a strawman argument

No, I said that *Graham Hancock* was a terrorist, not "people" or the specific article. (I only looked at the URL, I will not click it.) And he is -- an information terrorist of a kind. Maybe mind/thought saboteur would be a better word (the best one I cant write here, but it's about messing with peoples minds and thought processes.)

If you'd care to illustrate the argument I "strawmanned" and how I did it, feel free to do so.

 

[JohnEmmett]

No, I said that *Graham Hancock* was a terrorist,

(I only looked at the URL, I will not click it.)

If you'd care to illustrate the argument I "strawmaned" and how I did it, feel free to do so.

you are misrepresenting him, hence you easily dismiss the info


I realize you believe the straw man is real


whereas you do not believe in real people, like Graham…

 

[Hans Blaster]

you are misrepresenting him, hence you easily dismiss the info


I realize you believe the straw man is real


whereas you do not believe in real people, like Graham…

I am familiar with the work of Graham Hancock. It is garbage.

(I have no problem believing that Graham Hancock is a real person. I just don't think his is a good person.)

 

[JohnEmmett]

(I have no problem believing that Graham Hancock is a real person. I just don't think his is a good person.)

would a "good" person be Christopher Hitchens?

 

[Hans Blaster]

would a "good" person be Christopher Hitchens?

Did Hitchens or his website post something about gravity? If not he is irrelevant to this thread and any recent replies.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Did Hitchens or his website post something about gravity? If not he is irrelevant to this thread and any recent replies.

K, back to topic