Remember me
▼ Content

Fallacy Fallacy



Page 1 of 212>
Fallacy Fallacy18-09-2016 00:26
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Climate change deniers like to take a non-expert's arguments apart, and then claim that they have "disproved global warming." This is the fallacy fallacy, a wonderful meta-y kind of fallacy. In essence, it is the fallacy of assuming that an incorrect line of knowledge must lead to an incorrect result.

"The sky is blue, because baby ninjas paint it blue every morning. At night, the Time Sharks eat the paint and spread their dire, doomy darkness across the sky."

Obviously false reasoning. Obviously true result.

So don't say that you've "disproved global warming" when you've only knocked down one amateur.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
18-09-2016 02:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Climate change deniers like to take a non-expert's arguments apart, and then claim that they have "disproved global warming." This is the fallacy fallacy, a wonderful meta-y kind of fallacy. In essence, it is the fallacy of assuming that an incorrect line of knowledge must lead to an incorrect result.

To a certain extent, this is correct. You are being overly generalistic, however.
jwoodward48 wrote:
"The sky is blue, because baby ninjas paint it blue every morning. At night, the Time Sharks eat the paint and spread their dire, doomy darkness across the sky."

This by itself is possible, as given.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Obviously false reasoning. Obviously true result.

This is where you make a false equivalence. It doesn't even result in a fallacy fallacy.

You simply assume 'obviously fake reasoning'. Oddly, the reasoning is NOT fake at all.

What makes it fake is we have far better theories to explain it without requiring baby ninjas or Time Sharks. We can falsify the 'baby ninja' theory by showing there is no sky to paint. It is not a surface. This also falsifies the Time Sharks because there is nothing to eat.

We DO have a theory that has not been falsified, and continues to be used simply because it has not been falsified YET.

Regardless of the theory, the sky is still blue. The false information still results in a blue sky. The conclusion has NOT been shown to be incorrect, thus no fallacy fallacy.


jwoodward48 wrote:
So don't say that you've "disproved global warming" when you've only knocked down one amateur.


This is basically the argument of the Stone.

The basic problem is this: Global Warming can only exist as a circular argument. Nothing has shown it to be anything more than that.

You have provided numerous theories about how it occurs by first assuming that it does occur.

Each of those theories has been falsified, either by internal inconsistencies (logic flaws), or by external inconsistencies (violation of another theory of science without giving a method of changing the other theory). In other cases, the theory has been falsified by simply math errors, especially in the area of statistics, probability, and the definition of a random number.

The globe itself may be warming, cooling, or just staying the same. No falsification of a conclusion is claimed, because no conclusion is possible with the available surviving predicates.

No fallacy fallacy.

No one is disproving global warming. We simply don't know. There is insufficient information TO know.

We DO know that carbon dioxide has no such power to do add energy to the surface, and that regulating it is pointless. IBDaMann and I have described why.

What we are disproving is not warming or cooling itself, but the Church of Global Warming, which builds their religion on a variety of fallacies and denials of science.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 02:26
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No. A fallacy is an incorrect piece of logic. Saying that incorrect logic must produce incorrect results is incorrect logic. Thus, the fallacy fallacy.

We can discuss gw elsewhere. I am trying to discuss logic and fallacies.

Furthermore, the "baby ninja" explanation is obviously false given our current knowledge. It has been "knocked down". It's conclusion is still correct. It is a disproof of the fallacy argument.

Fallacies show faulty logic. They do not falsify results, only the specific method by which one person reached them.
18-09-2016 02:28
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
jwoodward48 wrote: Climate change deniers

What is "Climate" to you? It's not defined in science, but it is a word in the dictionary.

To me, "Climate" is the temperature in my car, which I adjust with my "climate control" setting.

I love the climate change I get when my climate control works properly.

Hey, you don't deny that many cars have climate control, do you? You don't deny the climate change do you?

jwoodward48 wrote: ...like to take a non-expert's arguments apart,

Those silly non-experts who nonetheless preach WACKY opinions and become ashsoles when someone corrects one of the myriad of their errors, deserve all the mockery they get...for obvious reasons.


jwoodward48 wrote: ...and then claim that they have "disproved global warming."

I just stick to disproving "greenhouse effect." It's a simple matter.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-09-2016 02:53
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
When there are more tornadoes in a region, and the trend is consistent over time, that's climate change. When currents are redirected and Europe is cooled, that's climate change. When the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie, that's amore.
18-09-2016 04:10
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
jwoodward48 wrote: When there are more tornadoes in a region, and the trend is consistent over time, that's climate change

Thank you. This is an admission that "climate"=contradiction.

There is no such thing as a "trend" in randon events, e.g. coin flips, weather, etc...


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-09-2016 04:50
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I wonder what you think of weathermen?


The weather is not random.
18-09-2016 05:18
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Wait a second...

IB, has the average temperature of the Earth ever had an upward or downward trend?

Also, how do you explain the cooling effect of smoke and ash in the atmosphere from volcanoes? After all, the atmosphere cannot affect the average surface temperature - at all! [/s]
18-09-2016 09:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
jwoodward48 wrote:
No. A fallacy is an incorrect piece of logic. Saying that incorrect logic must produce incorrect results is incorrect logic. Thus, the fallacy fallacy.
You're not paying attention at all, are you?
jwoodward48 wrote:
We can discuss gw elsewhere. I am trying to discuss logic and fallacies.
There is nothing to discuss. I have explained the fallacy fallacy, why your example is not it, and the fallacy you have made in trying to use the fallacy fallacy in this way. You are illiterate in both formal and informal logic. You don't pay attention to anything anybody says. You just keep plowing ahead ignoring any explanations at all. You have learned nothing.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Furthermore, the "baby ninja" explanation is obviously false given our current knowledge. It has been "knocked down". It's conclusion is still correct. It is a disproof of the fallacy argument.
You missed this lesson too. I can only assume you insist on being dumb.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Fallacies show faulty logic. They do not falsify results, only the specific method by which one person reached them.

You missed this lesson too. You have no idea what a fallacy fallacy is. You are now attempting to redefine it to suit your not getting accused of being stupid. Too late. You did it to yourself.

I accuse you of being stupid.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 09:41
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
jwoodward48 wrote:
When there are more tornadoes in a region, and the trend is consistent over time, that's climate change. When currents are redirected and Europe is cooled, that's climate change. When the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie, that's amore.


That is NOT climate change. That is weather.

Climate has no units. It is not possible to describe a change in a thing without units.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 09:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I wonder what you think of weathermen?


The weather is not random.


Then tell me where the exact latitude and longitude the first raindrop in Seattle will fall at exactly 1 am.

Weather is random. That's why weatherman always describe forecasts in terms of probabilities.

Weatherman forecast by watching the weather, like watching waves on the sea as they approach shore. When it will hit is fairly predictable, what it will do when it gets there is not.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 09:52
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Anti-qualitative bias, anybody?

Look, yes, you can describe a change in a thing without using units. "Red" and "orange" have no units. Thoughts have no units. You can describe an overall difference between two species of bird - that does not have units. The individual components often do have units, but that's beside the point.

My father is a sociologist, and he works with information every day, scientifically, that is not composed of numbers. Are you saying that he is not, in fact, doing science?
18-09-2016 11:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Anti-qualitative bias, anybody?

Look, yes, you can describe a change in a thing without using units.

No.
jwoodward48 wrote:
"Red" and "orange" have no units.
Actually they do. The unit is frequency. in cycles per second.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Thoughts have no units
True. But...do you change thoughts, or do you just think you do? The thing is, you are not trying to measure thoughts.
jwoodward48 wrote:
You can describe an overall difference between two species of bird - that does not have units.
True. You will find that the description is quite subjective as a result. It has no units in the description.
jwoodward48 wrote:
The individual components often do have units, but that's beside the point.
No, it IS the point. If you are trying to measure a change of something, you MUST have units to describe the change. Weather changes. You have units. Climate is defined as weather over 'a long time'. There is no unit for 'a long time'. The description of change cannot be described in units. it cannot really be described at all. How does 'weather over a long time' change to another value of 'weather over a long time'?
jwoodward48 wrote:
My father is a sociologist, and he works with information every day, scientifically, that is not composed of numbers. Are you saying that he is not, in fact, doing science?

I don't know what he is doing. Being a sociologist does not make one use science. Being a physicist does not make one use science either.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 11:55
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
If there are 200 times as many tornadoes, 240 times as many hurricanes, and 440 times as many floods in the year 2020 as there were in the year 1900 (they won't btw), and this trend is not limited to a single year or location, but a measured gradual increase in almost all places, what would you call it? A change in the overall weather?

Weather has a random aspect to it, yes. It is very unpredictable. But analysis of weather data can show overall trends. If most temperatures were at 93 C, hell yes the weather has changed?

A question for you: If weather is completely random, then how do we notice Ice Ages? Wouldn't that be a long-term trend in the average temperature? Isn't temperature an aspect of weather?

Another one for you: If weather is completely random, then roughly the same amount of snowstorms that happen in Canada should happen in Mexico, accounting for the difference in size.
18-09-2016 12:15
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
jwoodward48 wrote:
If there are 200 times as many tornadoes, 240 times as many hurricanes, and 440 times as many floods in the year 2020 as there were in the year 1900 (they won't btw), and this trend is not limited to a single year or location, but a measured gradual increase in almost all places, what would you call it? A change in the overall weather?
Works for me.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Weather has a random aspect to it, yes. It is very unpredictable. But analysis of weather data can show overall trends. If most temperatures were at 93 C, hell yes the weather has changed?

Learn how probability works. Meanwhile stay outta Vegas.
jwoodward48 wrote:
A question for you: If weather is completely random, then how do we notice Ice Ages? Wouldn't that be a long-term trend in the average temperature? Isn't temperature an aspect of weather?

Yes. The weather has changed.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Another one for you: If weather is completely random, then roughly the same amount of snowstorms that happen in Canada should happen in Mexico, accounting for the difference in size.

Learn how probability works, including the definition and generation of a random number.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 12:51
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I don't get it. Every time I point out an inconsistency in your thinking you insist that I simply don't know enough.

IB was claiming that weather cannot have a trend. I was saying that it is not [completely] random. Is there a random aspect? Yes. I was arguing that it is not purely random, like a "coinflip." It seems that you disagree with him, and agree with me, that the weather can have a trend. No, you'll find some way of weaseling out of it. Your good friend IB is always right, and the evil commie unpatriotic religiously dogmatic (any I missed?) Jwood is always wrong.
18-09-2016 13:24
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
No. A fallacy is an incorrect piece of logic. Saying that incorrect logic must produce incorrect results is incorrect logic. Thus, the fallacy fallacy.
You're not paying attention at all, are you?


Oh, I'm paying quite a bit of attention.

jwoodward48 wrote:
We can discuss gw elsewhere. I am trying to discuss logic and fallacies.
There is nothing to discuss. I have explained the fallacy fallacy, why your example is not it, and the fallacy you have made in trying to use the fallacy fallacy in this way. You are illiterate in both formal and informal logic. You don't pay attention to anything anybody says. You just keep plowing ahead ignoring any explanations at all. You have learned nothing.


You did not explain how I was false. You nitpicked at terminology, and misread "false" as "fake."

jwoodward48 wrote:
Furthermore, the "baby ninja" explanation is obviously false given our current knowledge. It has been "knocked down". It's conclusion is still correct. It is a disproof of the fallacy argument.
You missed this lesson too. I can only assume you insist on being dumb.


What lesson? I am right; see below.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Fallacies show faulty logic. They do not falsify results, only the specific method by which one person reached them.

You missed this lesson too. You have no idea what a fallacy fallacy is. You are now attempting to redefine it to suit your not getting accused of being stupid. Too late. You did it to yourself.

I accuse you of being stupid.


Here's my definition of "fallacy fallacy":

the fallacy of assuming that an incorrect line of knowledge must lead to an incorrect result.


Here's a slightly different, perhaps clearer, definition, also by me:

the fallacy of assuming that the result of fallacious logic must necessarily be false


Note how they mean the same thing.

Here's a definition by somebody who is not me (not cherry-picked, the first site I found):

presuming that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.


Claim = result. See? I am right.

But maybe that was a fluke. Maybe they're wrong. Let's look at other definitions.

the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false


a logical fallacy that occurs when it is claimed that if an argument contains a logical fallacy, the proposition it was used to support is wrong


Concluding that the truth value of an argument is false based on the fact that the argument contains a fallacy.


Argument A for the conclusion C is fallacious.
Therefore, C is false.


Claiming that a position must be false because the argument used to get to that position is invalid or used a fallacy.


The fallacist's fallacy involves rejecting an idea as false simply because the argument offered for it is fallacious.


See? I am right.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
18-09-2016 23:40
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I don't get it. Every time I point out an inconsistency in your thinking you insist that I simply don't know enough.
You don't. I know why too. It is because you intentionally discard any conflicting knowledge and return to quoting dogma from the Church of Global Warming.

jwoodward48 wrote:
IB was claiming that weather cannot have a trend.
He's right.
jwoodward48 wrote:
I was saying that it is not [completely] random. Is there a random aspect? Yes. I was arguing that it is not purely random, like a "coinflip." It seems that you disagree with him, and agree with me, that the weather can have a trend. No, you'll find some way of weaseling out of it. Your good friend IB is always right, and the evil commie unpatriotic religiously dogmatic (any I missed?) Jwood is always wrong.

I am not 'weasling out of it'. You don't understand probability or random numbers and how they are generated.


The Parrot Killer
18-09-2016 23:46
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I don't... You think that I'm trying intentionally to be unscientific?

FALLACY ALERT: AD HOMINEM

Really? Weather is just like a coin flip?

No. There are trends in the weather over seasons and over distances. Why can't we define similar trends for over years and decades?

I don't understand probability? How so? Stop asserting and start backing up your claims.
Edited on 18-09-2016 23:47
18-09-2016 23:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
No. A fallacy is an incorrect piece of logic. Saying that incorrect logic must produce incorrect results is incorrect logic. Thus, the fallacy fallacy.
You're not paying attention at all, are you?


Oh, I'm paying quite a bit of attention.

No, you are not. You have ignored anything we've discussed. Most of the time you ignore a key piece of information in a discussion. It's a package deal, dude.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
We can discuss gw elsewhere. I am trying to discuss logic and fallacies.
There is nothing to discuss. I have explained the fallacy fallacy, why your example is not it, and the fallacy you have made in trying to use the fallacy fallacy in this way. You are illiterate in both formal and informal logic. You don't pay attention to anything anybody says. You just keep plowing ahead ignoring any explanations at all. You have learned nothing.


You did not explain how I was false. You nitpicked at terminology, and misread "false" as "fake."

I *did* explain how you were false. I did not misread false as fake. I am not nitpicking. I am addressing the fundamental problem of your redefinition. Don't say I'm nitpicking again. It pisses me off.
jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Furthermore, the "baby ninja" explanation is obviously false given our current knowledge. It has been "knocked down". It's conclusion is still correct. It is a disproof of the fallacy argument.
You missed this lesson too. I can only assume you insist on being dumb.


What lesson? I am right; see below.

The one you are not getting. The one that shows why you are attempting a redefinition.

jwoodward48 wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Fallacies show faulty logic. They do not falsify results, only the specific method by which one person reached them.

You missed this lesson too. You have no idea what a fallacy fallacy is. You are now attempting to redefine it to suit your not getting accused of being stupid. Too late. You did it to yourself.

I accuse you of being stupid.


Here's my definition of "fallacy fallacy":

the fallacy of assuming that an incorrect line of knowledge must lead to an incorrect result.


Here's a slightly different, perhaps clearer, definition, also by me:

the fallacy of assuming that the result of fallacious logic must necessarily be false


Note how they mean the same thing.

Here's a definition by somebody who is not me (not cherry-picked, the first site I found):

presuming that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.


Claim = result. See? I am right.

But maybe that was a fluke. Maybe they're wrong. Let's look at other definitions.

the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false


a logical fallacy that occurs when it is claimed that if an argument contains a logical fallacy, the proposition it was used to support is wrong


Concluding that the truth value of an argument is false based on the fact that the argument contains a fallacy.


Argument A for the conclusion C is fallacious.
Therefore, C is false.


Claiming that a position must be false because the argument used to get to that position is invalid or used a fallacy.


The fallacist's fallacy involves rejecting an idea as false simply because the argument offered for it is fallacious.


See? I am right.


You have no A. It's up in smoke. You cannot determine C.

That is MY argument, which you can't seem to get your head wrapped around.


The Parrot Killer
19-09-2016 00:02
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
I have no A? But that would mean that no fallacious arguments for GW exist.

"You missed this lesson too. You have no idea what a fallacy fallacy is. You are now attempting to redefine it to suit your not getting accused of being stupid. Too late. You did it to yourself."

That was your argument. Stop weaseling out of your falsehoods. You said I didn't understand fallacy fallacies. I do. You said I redefined them. I did not.
Edited on 19-09-2016 00:04
19-09-2016 00:06
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
As for your very first post, is your "better explanation" for data supporting GW that the scientists are being bribed by the evil commie liberals in our government? I'll stick with science, thanks.
20-09-2016 07:47
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
A good way of explaining this might be a straw man set up by somebody else, whether intentional or not.
20-09-2016 14:47
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
jwoodward48 wrote: I'll stick with science, thanks.

You're switching over to science? Awesome! I want to be there when you do.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-09-2016 15:26
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No, I'll be sticking with the evil Commie scientists, not your obviously-unbiased science funded largely by fossil fuel companies.
20-09-2016 17:48
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
jwoodward48 wrote: No, I'll be sticking with the evil Commie scientists, not your obviously-unbiased science funded largely by fossil fuel companies.

I was waiting for you to get to that part of your faith, i.e. successful industries that add mega value to our society are perceived by your religion as the most evil of the "demons".

After all, corporations are creating value in our world, ...the very antithesis of making everyone dirt broke. Successful corporations MUST be evil.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-09-2016 19:00
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Creating value = necessarily evil

but also

Creating value = necessarily good

Also, if I write a single sentence that appears to agree with you and demonize myself and most scientists, it's probably sarcasm.

Why don't you take your great distrust of the government and apply it to companies?
20-09-2016 20:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
jwoodward48 wrote:
I have no A? But that would mean that no fallacious arguments for GW exist.

Wrong. A fallacious argument is not a valid predicate in the first place. You have no A.

jwoodward48 wrote:
"You missed this lesson too. You have no idea what a fallacy fallacy is. You are now attempting to redefine it to suit your not getting accused of being stupid. Too late. You did it to yourself."

That was your argument. Stop weaseling out of your falsehoods. You said I didn't understand fallacy fallacies. I do. You said I redefined them. I did not.


You did and you still are trying to.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2016 20:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
jwoodward48 wrote:
As for your very first post, is your "better explanation" for data supporting GW that the scientists are being bribed by the evil commie liberals in our government? I'll stick with science, thanks.


Really? I see no science from you at all. All I see are various fallacies.

You are doing the equivalent of trying to make hot coffee with ice.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2016 20:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
jwoodward48 wrote:
A good way of explaining this might be a straw man set up by somebody else, whether intentional or not.


?


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2016 21:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
jwoodward48 wrote:
No, I'll be sticking with the evil Commie scientists, not your obviously-unbiased science funded largely by fossil fuel companies.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I never knew Carnot, Clausius, Planck, or Boltzmann ever worked for any fossil fuel company!


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2016 21:22
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]jwoodward48 wrote:
I have no A? But that would mean that no fallacious arguments for GW exist.

Wrong. A fallacious argument is not a valid predicate in the first place. You have no A.


What? Of course it is! "A fallacious argument exists for C" is B. B does not imply !C.

Look, if the arguments for GW "go up in smoke", then they're fallacious. Now I have an A.

jwoodward48 wrote:
"You missed this lesson too. You have no idea what a fallacy fallacy is. You are now attempting to redefine it to suit your not getting accused of being stupid. Too late. You did it to yourself."

That was your argument. Stop weaseling out of your falsehoods. You said I didn't understand fallacy fallacies. I do. You said I redefined them. I did not.


You did and you still are trying to.


I'm using the definition given by everybody else in the universe. Would you like to make a new term for... whatever you're trying to claim a fallacy fallacy is?


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
20-09-2016 22:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]jwoodward48 wrote:
I have no A? But that would mean that no fallacious arguments for GW exist.

Wrong. A fallacious argument is not a valid predicate in the first place. You have no A.


What? Of course it is! "A fallacious argument exists for C" is B. B does not imply !C.

Look, if the arguments for GW "go up in smoke", then they're fallacious. Now I have an A.

jwoodward48 wrote:
"You missed this lesson too. You have no idea what a fallacy fallacy is. You are now attempting to redefine it to suit your not getting accused of being stupid. Too late. You did it to yourself."

That was your argument. Stop weaseling out of your falsehoods. You said I didn't understand fallacy fallacies. I do. You said I redefined them. I did not.


You did and you still are trying to.


I'm using the definition given by everybody else in the universe. Would you like to make a new term for... whatever you're trying to claim a fallacy fallacy is?


No, you are not using the same definition as most people do, particularly those who study logic.


The Parrot Killer
20-09-2016 23:56
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Would you care to give a brief definition, instead of a bunch of complaints about mine? You're just saying "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong" - why don't you say what's right then?
21-09-2016 00:09
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
jwoodward48 wrote:Also, how do you explain the cooling effect of smoke and ash in the atmosphere from volcanoes? After all, the atmosphere cannot affect the average surface temperature - at all! [/s]

Did you YET AGAIN move the goal posts from the average global temperature to that of a point at the bottom of the atmosphere?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-09-2016 01:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8694)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Would you care to give a brief definition, instead of a bunch of complaints about mine? You're just saying "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong" - why don't you say what's right then?


I already have. Go read it.


The Parrot Killer
21-09-2016 02:03
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
This is where you make a false equivalence. It doesn't even result in a fallacy fallacy.

You simply assume 'obviously fake reasoning'. Oddly, the reasoning is NOT fake at all.

What makes it fake is we have far better theories to explain it without requiring baby ninjas or Time Sharks. We can falsify the 'baby ninja' theory by showing there is no sky to paint. It is not a surface. This also falsifies the Time Sharks because there is nothing to eat.

We DO have a theory that has not been falsified, and continues to be used simply because it has not been falsified YET.

Regardless of the theory, the sky is still blue. The false information still results in a blue sky. The conclusion has NOT been shown to be incorrect, thus no fallacy fallacy.


Yeaaaaaaaaah. Sure. Great definition, except there's a. no definition and b. this is as untrue as it is possible to get.

(A->B) and (A is false) -> (B is false) is only a fallacy if B is false. How do you say these things?

I am discussing pure logical fallacies. You keep trying to insist that you are not making them. I am not accusing [/I] you of making them. You then cover this up by accusing me of not understanding logic. How do you even?
Edited on 21-09-2016 02:09
22-09-2016 17:26
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
jwoodward48 wrote: ...this is as untrue as it is possible to get.


Right. Our logic system used to be binary, based on TRUE, FALSE.

Today, as you astutely noticed, it has evolved into a ternary system based on TRUE, UNTRUE and VERY, VERY UNTRUE.

jwoodward48 wrote: (A->
and (A is false) -> (B is false) is only a fallacy if B is false. How do you say these things?


Given [A->B] and ~A then [A->B] is TRUE.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2016 00:47
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
That is a trivial, circular argument. And furthermore, the logical statement in my post that you quoted was really a representation of what Into was saying. So if it looks ridiculous, good.
Edited on 23-09-2016 00:49
23-09-2016 01:00
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4312)
jwoodward48 wrote:
That is a trivial, circular argument. And furthermore, the logical statement in my post that you quoted was really a representation of what Into was saying. So if it looks ridiculous, good.

You should try not not reading so much into posts.

I was simply giving a rule of logic.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Fallacy Fallacy:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The issue of the Moral Fallacy613-10-2016 23:15
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact