too bad we can't ban people from p&n for 2 weeks for committing a logical fallacy

This is all over the web. I first saw it in a Dilbert book:

AMAZINGLY BAD ANALOGY
Example: You can train a dog to fetch a stick. Therefore, you can train a potato to dance.

FAULTY CAUSE AND EFFECT
Example: On the basis of my observations, wearing huge pants makes you fat.

I AM THE WORLD
Example: I don't listen to country music. Therefore, country music is not popular.

IGNORING EVERYTHING SCIENCE KNOWS ABOUT THE BRAIN
Example: People choose to be obese/gay/alcoholic because they prefer the lifestyle.

THE FEW ARE THE SAME AS THE WHOLE
Example: Some Elbonians are animal rights activists. Some Elbonians wear fur coats. Therefore, Elbonians are hypocrites.

GENERALIZING FROM SELF
Example: I'm a liar. Therefore I don't believe what you're saying.

TOTAL LOGICAL DISCONNECTION
Example: I enjoy pasta because my house is made of bricks.

ARGUMENT BY BIZARRE DEFINITION
Example: He's not a criminal. He just does things that are against the law.

ANYTHING YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IS EASY TO DO
Example: If you have the right tools, how hard can it be to generate nuclear fission at home.

IGNORANCE OF STATISTICS
Example: I'm putting ALL of my money on the lottery this week because the jackpot is so big.

IGNORING THE DOWNSIDE RISK
Example: I know that bungee jumping could kill me, but it's three seconds of pure fun!

SUBSTITUTING FAMOUS QUOTES FOR COMMON SENSE
Example: Remember "all things come to those who wait." So don't bother looking for a job.

IRRELEVANT COMPARISONS
Example: $100 is a good price for a toaster, compared to buying a Ferrari.

CIRCULAR REASONING
Example: I'm correct because I'm smarter than you. And I must be smarter than you because I'm correct.

INCOMPLETENESS AS PROOF OF FACT
Example: Your theory of gravity doesn't address the question of why there are no unicorns, so it must be wrong.

IGNORING THE ADVICE OF EXPERTS WITHOUT GOOD REASON
Example: Sure, the experts say you shouldn't ride a bicycle in the eye of a hurricane, but I have my own theory.

FOLLOWING THE ADVICE OF KNOWN IDIOTS
Example: Uncle Horace says eating pork makes you smarter. That's good enough for me.

REACHING BIZARRE CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT ANY INFORMATION
Example: My car won't start. I'm certain the spark plugs have been stolen by rogue clowns.

FAULTY PATTERN RECOGNITION
Example: His last six wives were murdered mysteriously. I hope to be wife number seven.

FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE WHAT'S IMPORTANT
Example: My house is on fire! Quick, call the post office and tell them to hold my mail!

OVERAPPLICATION OF OCCAM'S RAZOR (WHICH SAYS THE SIMPLEST EXPLANATION MUST BE CORRECT)
Example: The simplest explanation for the moon landings is that they were hoaxes.

INABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THAT SOME THINGS HAVE MULTIPLE CAUSES
Example: The Beatles were popular for one reason only: They were good singers.

JUDGING THE WHOLE BY ONE OF ITS CHARACTERISTICS
Example: The sun causes sunburns. Therefore the planet would be better off without the sun.

BLINDING FLASHES OF THE OBVIOUS
Example: If everyone had more money, we could eliminate poverty.

BLAMING THE TOOL
Example: I bought an encyclopedia but I'm still stupid.

TAKING THINGS TO THEIR ILLOGICAL CONCLUSION
Example: If you let your barber cut your hair, the next thing you know he'll be lopping your limbs off.

PROOF BY LACK OF EVIDENCE
Example: I've never seen you drunk, so you must be one of those Amish people.

 

[ElFenix]

 

[Moonbeam]

M: Anyway, because all this happens unconsciously, this attachment to ideas, the underlying assumptions on which our opinions are founded remain invisible.

LMK: This doen'st mean we can't make logical arguments, what is underlying is unimportant in the marketplace of ideas.

"90% of our opinions are based on emotion, the other 10% logic"
-Justice Rehnquist.

M: Of what use are opinions to people who know they know nothing. They don't have opinions.

LMK: We all come to our conclusions for esoteric reasons.

M: That's all well and good as a naive and comforting dream for people who have opinions that protect themselves from feeling worthless, but for those who have cleared the table of illusion there's no such need. They know we com to our conclusions based on unconscious factors that disappear in consciousness. Of what use is a belief if you are unaware of why you believe?

LMK: It's in supporting those reasons with logic that we can all make arguable points that allow those with differing subscriptions come to a conclusion.

M: You mean one opinionated fool arguing with another. What you call logic is rationalization, the ascription of a fictional logical pretext to an irrational feeling.

M: When the thinker reaches his last thought he dies, but the heart beats on.

LMK: Such is the outcome of error, but with focus on and submission to the positive the thinker never reaches a last thought.

M: Yes, you have never arrived at a last thought and so you have no idea what I'm talking about. You still imagine there's truth in your thousand pounds of cabbage. What you won't do does not mean that others won't or haven't.

LMK: that is to say the wages of sin is death but salvation is free to all who have faith in Jesus.

M: You are tight wound in the wages of sin, the wages of illusion. The kingdom of heaven is within you, but you don't see. You are still nailed by the notion of sin. When man ate of the Tree of Knowledge he acquired sin. He who has no knowledge has no sin. You are full of knowledge and you know. I don't know anything.

M: What is the fate of a mind that is empty of truth; what is a man who is stripped of everything? What can't be taken away?

LMK: Faith. Humbleness in the sight of the single bright incomprehensible truth makes you free in all else.

M: Still clinging to faith, I see. My question asked what is left when faith is gone, when you have been stripped of everything, of every vestige of truth?

What you call faith, others call knowing. They don't need faith. They know. It's the difference between believing something is true and being that truth. Of course what they know is that they don't know in the way that you know but know by being.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The problem as I see it is that people feel bad about themselves and identify with their beliefs because those beliefs have some imagined worth in the world. But this happens on an unconscious level and when somebody comes along that has all his self-worth tied up in an opposing point of view all hell breaks loose. Generally one side is as loony as the other because, while each opinion embraces an aspect of truth, it is only partial and exclusive of the truth on the other side. That is why truth always requires the integration of opposites and is approached only as a paradox. Truth is the annihilation of paradox in a higher synthesis and is less a fact that can be stated and more a way of seeing.

Anyway, because all this happens unconsciously, this attachment to ideas, the underlying assumptions on which our opinions are founded remain invisible. Most of us have never carefully, mercilessly, and to the root examined what we believe and why, it is true, if at all, because we believe what we believe, not because we seek truth, but as tection for our egos. For those that have made such an inner analysis and done it thoroughly, my opinion is that what they find is nothing at all. We in fact know nothing. We only believe in a thousand pounds of cabbage.

Can you live with the realization that you know nothing at all? Can you live in modesty? What is the fate of a mind that is empty of truth; what is a man who is stripped of everything? What can't be taken away?

I would suggest that if you have become completely aware of your own need to BS, you will recognize it in others. You won't need to memorize a list of the fallacious arguments when you've seen that every argument is false.

When the thinker reaches his last thought he dies, but the heart beats on.

Amen!

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
But what you actually know is nothing.

As Karl Popper would say, this claim is not falsifiable. It is in the same realm as religious claims that aren't based on any observations or evidence (such as the claim that Thor is the God of Lightning, anytime you try to set up an experiment to show Thor is not the god of Lightning the believer can always come up with other claims that the experiments are not detecting Thor because of his very nature as a god). Falsifiable means you can set up an experiment that would show the claim to be false. In this case if we set up an experiment to show this claim to be false by trying to prove that I know nothing(would be knowledge in and of itself) and it is discovered that I do know nothing, then we have arrived at a conclusion that is totally contradictory to the orginal statement that I know nothing. In other words, my quest to discover if I really know nothing will contradict the very statement that I know nothing if it is discovered that I do in fact know nothing.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
But what you actually know is nothing.

As Karl Popper would say, this claim is not falsifiable. It is in the same realm as religious claims that aren't based on any observations or evidence (such as the claim that Thor is the God of Lightning, anytime you try to set up an experiment to show Thor is not the god of Lightning the believer can always come up with other claims that the experiments are not detecting Thor because of his very nature as a god). Falsifiable means you can set up an experiment that would show the claim to be false. In this case if we set up an experiment to show this claim to be false by trying to prove that I know nothing(would be knowledge in and of itself) and it is discovered that I do know nothing, then we have arrived at a conclusion that is totally contradictory to the orginal statement that I know nothing. In other words, my quest to discover if I really know nothing will contradict the very statement that I know nothing if it is discovered that I do in fact know nothing.

Your words:

Exhibit A: "So as you can see arriving at truth doesn't have anything to do with paradoxes ...."

Exhibit B: "In this case if we set up an experiment to show this claim to be false by trying to prove that I know nothing(would be knowledge in and of itself) and it is discovered that I do know nothing, then we have arrived at a conclusion that is totally contradictory to the original statement that I know nothing. In other words, my quest to discover if I really know nothing will contradict the very statement that I know nothing if it is discovered that I do in fact know nothing."

My words: "That is why truth always requires the integration of opposites and is approached only as a paradox. Truth is the annihilation of paradox in a higher synthesis and is less a fact that can be stated and more a way of seeing."

You're getting warm.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
But what you actually know is nothing.

As Karl Popper would say, this claim is not falsifiable. It is in the same realm as religious claims that aren't based on any observations or evidence (such as the claim that Thor is the God of Lightning, anytime you try to set up an experiment to show Thor is not the god of Lightning the believer can always come up with other claims that the experiments are not detecting Thor because of his very nature as a god). Falsifiable means you can set up an experiment that would show the claim to be false. In this case if we set up an experiment to show this claim to be false by trying to prove that I know nothing(would be knowledge in and of itself) and it is discovered that I do know nothing, then we have arrived at a conclusion that is totally contradictory to the orginal statement that I know nothing. In other words, my quest to discover if I really know nothing will contradict the very statement that I know nothing if it is discovered that I do in fact know nothing.

Your words:

Exhibit A: "So as you can see arriving at truth doesn't have anything to do with paradoxes ...."

Exhibit B: "In this case if we set up an experiment to show this claim to be false by trying to prove that I know nothing(would be knowledge in and of itself) and it is discovered that I do know nothing, then we have arrived at a conclusion that is totally contradictory to the original statement that I know nothing. In other words, my quest to discover if I really know nothing will contradict the very statement that I know nothing if it is discovered that I do in fact know nothing."

My words: "That is why truth always requires the integration of opposites and is approached only as a paradox. Truth is the annihilation of paradox in a higher synthesis and is less a fact that can be stated and more a way of seeing."

You're getting warm.

I didn't say it is a paradox. I said it is not falsifiable. Big difference. Descartes already showed that we know at least one thing: "I think, therefore I am." You are very cold.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
But what you actually know is nothing.

As Karl Popper would say, this claim is not falsifiable. It is in the same realm as religious claims that aren't based on any observations or evidence (such as the claim that Thor is the God of Lightning, anytime you try to set up an experiment to show Thor is not the god of Lightning the believer can always come up with other claims that the experiments are not detecting Thor because of his very nature as a god). Falsifiable means you can set up an experiment that would show the claim to be false. In this case if we set up an experiment to show this claim to be false by trying to prove that I know nothing(would be knowledge in and of itself) and it is discovered that I do know nothing, then we have arrived at a conclusion that is totally contradictory to the orginal statement that I know nothing. In other words, my quest to discover if I really know nothing will contradict the very statement that I know nothing if it is discovered that I do in fact know nothing.

Your words:

Exhibit A: "So as you can see arriving at truth doesn't have anything to do with paradoxes ...."

Exhibit B: "In this case if we set up an experiment to show this claim to be false by trying to prove that I know nothing(would be knowledge in and of itself) and it is discovered that I do know nothing, then we have arrived at a conclusion that is totally contradictory to the original statement that I know nothing. In other words, my quest to discover if I really know nothing will contradict the very statement that I know nothing if it is discovered that I do in fact know nothing."

My words: "That is why truth always requires the integration of opposites and is approached only as a paradox. Truth is the annihilation of paradox in a higher synthesis and is less a fact that can be stated and more a way of seeing."

You're getting warm.

I didn't say it is a paradox. I said it is not falsifiable. Big difference. Descartes already showed that we know at least one thing: "I think, therefore I am." You are very cold.

I didn't say you had it, I said you're getting warm. I implied that the truth of what is not falsifiable is a paradox resolved at a higher level of understand. Big difference. Descartes made a big mistake. He who thinks he is has stepped out of the being of time to contemplate what he was at the moment he began to think. So when I think, it's not that I am, but that I am not. Thought is separation from being, thought is fear, thought is always of the past. The mind that knows nothing does not think. The mind that knows nothing is aware, awareness without self. It is the thinker who is cold.

 

[Perknose]

Phew. I am simply in awe of Moonbeam, a man who can nail the trickiest ur concepts at the highest level with a few choice words casually tossed off during a running debate amongst us nattering nabobs on this regrettably low S/N computer forum, to wit:

"That is why truth always requires the integration of opposites and is approached only as a paradox. Truth is the annihilation of paradox in a higher synthesis and is less a fact that can be stated and more a way of seeing."

:wine:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Perknose
Phew. I am simply in awe of <STRONG>Moonbeam</STRONG>, a man who can nail the trickiest ur concepts at the highest level with a few choice words casually tossed off during a running debate amongst us nattering nabobs on this regrettably low S/N computer forum, to wit:

"That is why truth always requires the integration of opposites and is approached only as a paradox. Truth is the annihilation of paradox in a higher synthesis and is less a fact that can be stated and more a way of seeing."

:wine:

Hehe, it's not really that hard when you don't know anything.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Still clinging to faith, I see. My question asked what is left when faith is gone, when you have been stripped of everything, of every vestige of truth?

you have a grave of your own creation, but such is the outcome of any free will that does not stand in the light of the word, but centers itself on the empty.

I suggest death and resurrection through perfect forgiveness and grace via humble faith.

 

[Moonbeam]

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Still clinging to faith, I see. My question asked what is left when faith is gone, when you have been stripped of everything, of every vestige of truth?

you have a grave of your own creation, but such is the outcome of any free will that does not stand in the light of the word, but centers itself on the empty.

I suggest death and resurrection through perfect forgiveness and grace via humble faith.

What happens when the light of the word becomes tainted, when the men were trusted to interpret that book ended up revising it?

The grave of my creation became my rebirth, in the shattered remains of my Christian faith I found a confidence in the God I feel in the world around me, the God I see when I stargaze, or when I spend time with my cousins. God is the realization that pain is necessary for change, and that to feel pain is to be alive.

God is indeed love, He is birth and He is also mercifully death, for death is a part of our universe.

Giving up my faith was a dive, LMK, a free fall into an unknown. I sat there for a good two hours on that night when I pondered the fate of my soul, and I was scared, scared of what will happen to my soul after death, scared of going to Hell. It was at the moment when I realized that I was scared of going to hell that I made that final jump. My faith in God is predicated upon love, and a faith which relies upon fear as a bedrock of its belief structure is not my faith.

 

[Moonbeam]

Screwed up the last post s lets try thin again:

M: Still clinging to faith, I see. My question asked what is left when faith is gone, when you have been stripped of everything, of every vestige of truth?

LMK: you have a grave of your own creation, but such is the outcome of any free will that does not stand in the light of the word, but centers itself on the empty.

M: That's what you found when you were stripped of all? I don't think you know of what you speak. But your description fits you to a tee. Your faith is your grave because it is the delusion that you as ego have assumed stands in the light of words your ego thinks it understands, but centers itself not on truth but the desires of the ego.

LMK: I suggest death and resurrection through perfect forgiveness and grace via humble faith.

M: But you just told me I was in a grave. And humble as defined by you? How humble of you. You need to follow through on your own suggestion.

You know words, but you do not know the Word, but such is the outcome of any free will that imagines it stands in the light of the Word , but centers itself of the ego. It is not the ego that comes out of the grave, my friend.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Still clinging to faith, I see. My question asked what is left when faith is gone, when you have been stripped of everything, of every vestige of truth?

you have a grave of your own creation, but such is the outcome of any free will that does not stand in the light of the word, but centers itself on the empty.

I suggest death and resurrection through perfect forgiveness and grace via humble faith.

What happens when the light of the word becomes tainted, when the men were trusted to interpret that book ended up revising it?

The grave of my creation became my rebirth, in the shattered remains of my Christian faith I found a confidence in the God I feel in the world around me, the God I see when I stargaze, or when I spend time with my cousins. God is the realization that pain is necessary for change, and that to feel pain is to be alive.

God is indeed love, He is birth and He is also mercifully death, for death is a part of our universe.

Giving up my faith was a dive, LMK, a free fall into an unknown. I sat there for a good two hours on that night when I pondered the fate of my soul, and I was scared, scared of what will happen to my soul after death, scared of going to Hell. It was at the moment when I realized that I was scared of going to hell that I made that final jump. My faith in God is predicated upon love, and a faith which relies upon fear as a bedrock of its belief structure is not my faith.

I am so envious of some one who can so easily put words to a thought process
that has eluded me for years and years. I have searched high and low to find
words that explain why I believe what I believe, words that explain me
and I find them in a politics and news forum.

The things we search for that so often elude us are right there in front of us.

Orsorum, your persona has made a difference, and it is time for me to start living again.

I hope the person behind the persona is the same.





LMK, how is that for getting saved??

I'm outaaaa here!