Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's also easier to complain about other people's lack of ability/education than to make a real contribution. The irony that the OP calls himself "uber genius" and complains about people pretending to be smart should be lost on no one.
The title above is a Halle Berry line off a movie called, "The Program."
One of my continuing frustrations on most forums these days is running into individuals who pretend to have done their homework but haven't.
Anachronistic fallacy (wait what?) (no, wait when!)
Slavery is bad. The bible condones slavery. The Bible is bad.
Here we just pretend that values we hold for the last few decades in the west are ubiquitous across all culture and all times. Again, I have yet to see a New Atheist that doesn't return over and over to this method. Don't worry few people have ever heard of the anachronistic fallacy so you can use it on theists with impunity.
Lol, I'm going to walk into a black neighborhood and tell them that slavery was not wrong.
Or, you could hold a conversation with them about why they think their ancestors ended up as slaves in Europe and the Americas in the first place, maybe even as slaves of Native Americans. Or, you might ask them if they know whose tribe sold out the other tribes to the white slavers in the first place. Wouldn't this be a bit more productive conversation if you dared to do something akin to what you've just humored about?
I'm not suffering from white guilt, but that doesn't mean I want to go down the delusional path of excusing whites from what they did or shifting the blame. Whites committed atrocities on basically everyone.
Straw man!Right. So read the peer-reviewed literature, not a journalist's often woefully inaccurate interpretation of the research.
If you think reading a magazine about science adequately informs you about research you are mistaken.
This "false trichotomy," is accepted by just about every physcisict writing about fine-tuning since Brandon Carter in the early 1970s.I think the OP has reguarly fallen into the trap that it is easy to demand more of people who disagree with you.
It's called confirmation bias, most suffer from it.
It's also easier to complain about other people's lack of ability/education than to make a real contribution. The irony that the OP calls himself "uber genius" and complains about people pretending to be smart should be lost on no one.
Educated people are probably aware of the idea of a false trichotomy.
You made a suggestion, that people do research using respected sources. That was a good suggestion. Then you wrote, "Peer-reviewed literature in journals specializing in a particular body of knowledge. "Science News" as opposed to "Scientific American". That is a bad suggestion. "Science News" is not a more respected source than "Scientific American." and neither is a substitute for consulting peer-reviewed research. Pointing out that you made a bad suggestion is not a straw man.Straw man!
You extended my statement (an introductory method to approaching knowledge) to the ridiculous (that I am suggesting reading a peer-reviewed journal adequately informs one of all research in that area).
Quoted you exactly.You made a suggestion, that people do research using respected sources. That was a good suggestion. Then you wrote, "Peer-reviewed literature in journals specializing in a particular body of knowledge. "Science News" as opposed to "Scientific American". That is a bad suggestion. "Science News" is not a more respected source than "Scientific American." and neither is a substitute for consulting peer-reviewed research. Pointing out that you made a bad suggestion is not a straw man.
Your parenthetical comment then completely mischaracterizes what I actually wrote.
I see no evidence that you are in a position to be lecturing others on how to argue effectively.
You wrote: "You extended my statement (an introductory method to approaching knowledge) to the ridiculous (that I am suggesting reading a peer-reviewed journal adequately informs one of all research in that area)."Quoted you exactly.
I guess I'd better turn in all my degrees then, and retract the 150 or so scientific papers I'm an author of. (Well, I would if I had any integrity. . .)Stop pretending.
Your lack of clarity is due to lack of training and integrity.
Your inability to handle correction is understandable -- but not laudable.Your rhetorical tricks are disingenuous.
Your misrepresentations are obvious.
This "false trichotomy," is accepted by just about every physcisict writing about fine-tuning since Brandon Carter in the early 1970s.
Now most don't hold to design but they do hold to the three options.
So instead of demonstrating your ignorance of the body of knowledge why not give us an alternative to the three (which is how all false dichotomies are rectified). Please show at least someone from the field that holds to your fourth or fifth or sixth inference.
Quoted you exactly.
Stop pretending.
Your lack of clarity is due to lack of training and integrity.
Your rhetorical tricks are disingenuous.
Your misrepresentations are obvious.
Please engage the material and stop leading us down rabbit trails.
"Ignored"
The title above is a Halle Berry line off a movie called, "The Program."
One of my continuing frustrations on most forums these days is running into individuals who pretend to have done their homework but haven't. In fact within a few seconds of reading a post it is clear that they haven't even done a 30-second Google search on the topic of which they are pontificating.
Method for Pretending to Be Smart:
Questioning ad nauseam
Don't do research just repeat back you objector's question and put a "What causes that," in front of it. Trick is you don't have to know anything and can produce an infinite amount of questions pretending to be engaged intellectually (especially effective with complex inferences such as philosophical arguments, or historical sciences). Further you can avoid justifying truth claims by pretending you don't have to justify you own claims. (Young Earth creationist and just about every atheist (sorry I meant to say "seeker") on this forum use this method.
Create and then attack straw men
This method is so simple (pronounced in a thick New Jersey accent). Just misrepresent the particular inference such as "Faith is believing something for which there is no evidence." Next attack the ridiculousness of the statement (remember you must pretend that it actually is a fair representation...not your own absurd definition) for more: read any New Atheist publication.
Anachronistic fallacy (wait what?) (no, wait when!)
Slavery is bad. The bible condones slavery. The Bible is bad.
Here we just pretend that values we hold for the last few decades in the west are ubiquitous across all culture and all times. Again, I have yet to see a New Atheist that doesn't return over and over to this method. Don't worry few people have ever heard of the anachronistic fallacy so you can use it on theists with impunity.
How to avoid pretense and actually learn something.
1 - Research the topic
Use respected sources (not wiki crowd sourced research
which can be at times excellent at at other times complete
propaganda)
Peer-reviewed literature in journals specializing in a
particular body of knowledge. "Science News" as opposed
to "Scientific American"
For philosophical topics try Plato.org or internet
encyclopedia of philosophy.
2 - Represent the topic and particular problem and give reasons why you pick one inference over the next. No shifting burden of proof. If you claim no knowledge (agnostic) then fine, but if you claim that a particular inference is true in the real external world be prepared to defend it with reasons and evidence. (Atheists often fall into this fallacy regarding God's existence, theists also make a similar mistake when they refuse to give reasons for God's existence (claiming their faith is superior because they don't have reasons (I will do an entire post on this foolishness).
Example:
Universe appears fine-tuned for life.
The cause is:
Chance, or a result of the physical laws, or design.
An educated person would represent the best evidence for all 3 inferences. Then give reasons such as explanatory power why one inference is better than the next.
I hope I have offended those who are intellectually lazy and just pretend to be smart. I have included an IQ test hidden in this post and will reveal it once I get some comments.
No. They are beliefs.Opinions are knowledge claims. They are based on knowledge.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?