by THWOTH wrote:Zorg wrote:...
And I'm still waiting for Thwoth to provide a list of all the logical fallacies in my 50 word paragraph. We ought to wait for that reply before continuing.
To say that we can only continue (that you will only continue) if I reply presents a false dilemma, it is also erecting a spurious condition on the discussion which shifts the burden. There's three more!
A good faith discussion is more than simply proceeding on the presumption that the parties will be honest and fair in their dealings, it also requires that parties do not misrepresent each other, and in the context of exploring objective claims is ultimately an endeavour in which parties seeks to arrive at the truth in collaboration. In that sense a good faith discussion is not an exercise in persuasion, or of converting one party to the position of another. In that spirit...Zorg wrote:THWOTH wrote:Zorg wrote:So I see several replies. Which one actually shows where I am wrong? Do you all do science by applying irrationality? I did not see in Einstein's 1905 or 1907 Papers on SR, any mention of GPS Satellites in his Hypothesis, did I miss that?
The number of logical fallacies you've managed to cram into 50 words or less there is quite admirable in a way.
OK, Please list all the logical fallacies in the 50 words above.
I must admit, I didn't actually tot them up, but I make the word count 45.
"So I see several replies. Which one actually shows where I am wrong?"
The argument/s of one party do not stand until another party demonstrates that they fail, and to suggest otherwise is to shift the burden(1). Shifting the burden presumes that a propositional statement is true because it has not yet been proven false, and is thus a common feature of the argument from ignorance(2). Furthermore, the implication that it is impossible for a propositional statement to be untrue and that there is no situation that has caused the statement to be false falls foul of logical modality(3) and of the weighted premise referred to as feathering the nest(4). A further presumption is implied: that the party forwarding an argument is the only proper party to adjudicate the validity of counter arguments, which is to assert that the party forwarding the propositional is a neutral arbiter(5), to erect spurious conditions upon the discussion(6) by which only the forwarding party can authenticate or declare counters conclusive, as well as to argue from a position of presumed authority(7).
"Do you all do science by applying irrationality?"
This rhetorical question implies that "You all do science b apply irrationality", which not only is an attack on the personal characteristics, qualities or capacities of those offering counters to the forwarder's propositional(8), but also falls foul of nest feathering(9), erecting conditions(10), false arbitration(11), and arguing from authority(12), in the presumption that the fowarder's argument is necessarily rational(13) and that they are the only proper party to adjudicate the scope of rationality, such that their interlocutors have failed that test.
"I did not see in Einstein's 1905 or 1907 Papers on SR, any mention of GPS Satellites in his Hypothesis, did I miss that?"
This is perhaps more egregious than fallacious, because it is undoubtedly true that Einstein's papers did not mention GPS. However, it as much as it denies a conclusion (that Einstein's propositions re relativity are demonstrably correct with regard to GPS) because he did not mention GPS in his papers makes the compositional error of presuming that what happened later did not follow from what happened before, or of putting the cart before the horse(15). In this regard it is also a form of the fallacy of implication(16) in which the conclusion is denied (A: Einstein correct) because the spurious condition(17) was not met (B: mentioning GPS) - the implication being because not-B then not-A. Again, this position can only be maintained by the forwarder relying on false arbitration(18) and by arguing from a position of presumed authority(19). The statement "I did not see in Einstein's 1905 or 1907 Papers on SR, any mention of GPS Satellites in his Hypothesis" is egregious in as much as it is a bad faith misrepresentation of T_M's proposition that the function of GPS demonstrably relies on accounting and compensating for the relativistic effects proposed by Einstein in his papers.
Primarily though, this can all be encapsulated by the forwarder presuming their conclusion(20), and when their argument necessarily relies on so many formal and informal logical failures we can can characterise their argument as relying on the fallacy of fallacies(21).
Fallacies = 21 (at least).
Basically the post contained a fallacy for every 2.14 words which, as I said, is quite an achievement in its own way.
Nice try, but to get to these claimed fallacies you have misrepresented and taken my words out of context.
First, "that you will only continue) if I reply presents a false dilemma" This is a false statement, as I never said that I WILL NOT continue, UNLESS you reply, I said that we should give you the chance to reply, because that is the right way to proceed, in good faith, as you say.
Now the other claimed false logic example are similar.
I made a statement, and asked where I was wrong. I get several replies, all ridiculing me. So I pointed out with my rhetorical question, "Which reply shows where I was wrong? Knowing full well that no one even attempted to explain where I was wrong.
The Question, "Do you all do science by applying irrationality?" Is again a rhetorical one, because I specifically stated that I wanted to so a critical review of Einstein's Paper, and examine the validity of it based on reason and logic. The arguments I got back were suggesting that 'We do science by experimental evidence, that is the final Arbiter" Which suggests that reason and logic are not required. If I say, "its not rational:, you counter, "but this experiment shows that its true". So then I had to reaffirm that experimental evidence is NOT above Reason and Logic. That is the meaning of my rhetorical question, not what you try to make it.
I assumed that you would be able to follow my reasoning here, but maybe I was assuming too much of you.
The same applies with the third question, "I did not see in Einstein's 1905 or 1907 Papers on SR, any mention of GPS Satellites in his Hypothesis, did I miss that?" Again, with that rhetorical question, I'm reminding you that I specifically wanted to restrict all discussion to an examination of Einstein's own Paper, so jumping off to other subjects not in the Paper is just wasting time. If its not in the Paper, then it not part of what I'm discussing, the analysis of Einstein's Paper. So all those imaginative logical fallacies you came up with are simply not valid. What interpretations of various experiments you want to make are outside the scope of the critical review of Einstein's Paper.
So all these claimed logical errors are on fact just demonstrations that you never understood what was the nature of the subject I raised.
