Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 20, 2018 12:08:03 GMT
Once again, please quote where I have made a personal attack on you - as opposed to just flagging up whenever you employ a fallacy of logic when arguing. Finding such in my replies may well be annoying, but it is hardly the same as being called an 'idiot' or 'retard' etc. The suspicion here is that you have had to find something to be 'insulted' about, and so are just reaching.
If we were deciding to build a school on this side of the lake or that side it would make sense to take a vote since that is a totally political issue. Science might have input on the various advantages and disadvantages of each side of the lake, but it would be left to the people which of those matter more to them, unless they already passed other laws on those details. Such an argumentum ad populum would not be a fallacy at all and most political decisions are made based on it.
It is the idea that a proposition must necessarily be true because many or most people believe it, is what constitutes the Argumentum ad populum fallacy. It is not that because a majority say something then it is agreed, as with a popular vote, for a majority can be wrong. Hence, the school could be approved as the best place for construction and yet still fail though flooding when the landowner says 'I told you all so'.. False equivalence, which we see from you here btw is a logical fallacy too: one in which two arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. I hope that helps.
To decide that my arguments here are wrong because they are not yet accepted by a large number of people could be described by some people (correctly) as an argumentum ad populum fallacy. You are very guilty of that fallacy.
This is hardly the case, Arlon when I have said, a couple of times now, that I am not saying you are necessarily wrong when you present your nearly-always unsubstantiated opinions. It is just that when one goes against authorities or an overwhelming consensus (as when say you claim that the age of the Cosmos or the earth is not as science suggests say, or argue with dictionaries), then it is much less likely that someone is right.
You delude yourself that you are supported by science or logic. You delude yourself that you practice science or logic. You accept as fact whatever your herd does because that is how grunts work. You have been shown here each time to have failed logic. People who have never had the opportunity to examine my arguments might be more inclined to agree with you. They have other concerns that require their time and might not have considered my arguments. You have no excuse. You should know by now that I am right.
As always you have your opinions - and are completely welcome to them. As for examining your arguments (or 'opinions' since that is all they usually are) the you ought to remember that I and others, similarly critical, have had that pleasure and challenge for sometime now - both here and on other threads.
The tide turns even now as more realize that you and the current powers in the world are on the wrong course. One day my arguments will be endorsed by an authority you grunts need to follow. Only then can you get it right. Until then you will follow your herd .Your elementary understanding things, especially science and religion, has caused your herd to stray far from actual science and religion. You are totally ignorant of the methods of logic and science you need to set you on a proper course.
The overweening tone of this passage is unfortunately undermined by a lack of indication of what exactly it is referring to lol
You continue to decide issues in science and religion by votes (fallaciously).
Which issues in science and religion have I 'decided' Arlon?
No one even knows what your words mean. Even you don't know what you mean by "gnostic" or "good."
First off: if you really don't know what some words mean, how can you be sure that I am incorrect when I define them for you? And if I give you dictionary definitions for words you would only argue with the dictionary and (think that you) win. If you assert that a proposition such as mine is false because it has not yet been proven true, while not even being to judge either way then, as I have already observed this would just be an Argument from Ignorance. Hey, another fallacy!
You appear to believe that "definitions" exist and are simple to find in dictionaries. Those are however of no use whatever because you do not understand use. You cannot agree yourselves what your words mean when it comes to some real life example, you have no standard criteria for that. You cannot say whether pizza is good by your definition of "good" for example. You are lost at sea with no where to land.
On the contrary Arlon, by insisting that any definition is only meaningful if it meets your arbitrary agreement which must also be mutual with that of others, then everything is reduced to the subjective and you can, presumably veto the meanings you don't like very much or which are inconvenient to acknowledge. And as we see, you do. One is reminded of a young child's attitude towards whether vegetable are good for one.
Quickly then the tide will continue to turn.
Is this like when, say, your copywrited and long-heralded Dover appeal goes through?
Meanwhile you are too plain stupid to distinguish what should be decided by "wide acceptance" and what should be decided by methods you cannot begin to understand.
And, a final reminder that an ad hominem is still a fallacy and is not an argument. But you know that by now...