Reply With Quote
Dunno. Might buy you some 93 octane if you put that purty dress on I bought ya.
you hittin on me?I'm thinking about clams now.
Is that wrong?
Dunno. Might buy you some 93 octane if you put that purty dress on I bought ya.
Yeah man, you shut everyone down with your amazing logic. I am simply here to bask in your glory.
It's so funny that you never realize when you are beat. I guess I should give you props for the positive at ude.
TAKE THAT MANNY!
The irony, she burns.
Jack is right (about RG)...I hope I never say those words again
Or says he won't watch it because it's 2 hours long...I bring science up because he tries to pull a bill NYE the science guy on us but when another poster throws that same argument back in his grill, using science in debate, he dismisses it.
All of your attempts at criticizing the list were completely shutdown, which is why you deflected.
Yeah, I am a real e for not wanted to subject myself to a two hour bukkake of twoofer stupid, when you won't watch 2 minutes of debunking.Jack is right (about RG)...I hope I never say those words again
Or says he won't watch it because it's 2 hours long...
Jack is right (about RG)...I hope I never say those words again
Or says he won't watch it because it's 2 hours long...
I see all of the Randomguy butthurt club is out in full force..
Yeah, he really deflected on the topic of climate change science, by talking about .... climate science.
Gonna wear that smiley out.
Well, since you have not bothered to ever try and prove this, I will do it for your lazy ass. I am going to keep adding personal attacks, so that you can make your list longer, as a favor to you, mostly because it will make you seem horrendously petty, as you keep cataloguing them, and because I find it deeply funny.
So let's examine your claim.
Rather than taking your butthurt word for it, let's see for ourselves.
Here is a good working definition of an "appeal to popularity", from our friends at a website that fights holocaust deniers. It is as good any for a place to start, and I like it because they lay it out very clearly.
Now that we have the structure, let's look at my question:Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity
Also Known as: Ad Populum
Description of Appeal to Popularity
The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:
1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.
The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is subs uted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.
It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no subs ute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.
This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.
For this to be an appeal to popularity, you must somehow shoehorn this post into that form. If you can't reasonably do it, then the claim can be rejected.
To understand the claim PoopDeck has a list that is very near and dear to him of papers that, in his opinion, support skepticism of Global warming "alarmism", which he defines.
This list of acedemic papers, all genuine, peer-reviewed papers, has about 900, although it isn't numbered, so one would have to count them all to get an exact figure, but 900 will work as well as 950 or 901. These papers have been pulled from a larger body of work on climate science, i.e. it is a subset of that work. The ultimate size of that body of evidence is unknown to me. I don't read all the journals, nor would I bother to, if I had the time.
The easiest way to see if the claim stands up is to work backwards, I think.
Here is the fallacy:
Let's get to where PoopDeck wants this to go:
Next, we have to add in a little extra:
Now, we are getting somewhere.
We have to start messing with things a bit further:
Another step
This is, I believe, the "implied logical fallacy", according to PopTech. Remember, he has, despite being asked to repeatedly, chosen not to specifically spell this out, because it is, in essence, a strawman argument, i.e. not what I actually believe, and I am pretty sure he knows it.
Now, ask yourself the following critial thinking questions:
Did I directly state anything was true? If so, what was that?
There are two statements there.
1. "900/200000= 0.45%"
and
2. "If memory serves the body of work is on the order of 200,000 papers"
Kind of hard to get to:
from:
If you can make the leap from the question, to the implied statement, then you can accept that it is an appeal to popularity.
Just one, small thing more, that PoopDeck left out:
(out of time, I will add in how distorting someone else's view's becomes a strawman logical fallacy later. For those who want to play the game:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html )
Strawman, thanks!Yeah, he really deflected on the topic of climate change science, by talking about .... climate science.
Well, since you have not bothered to ever try and prove this, I will do it for your lazy ass. I am going to keep adding personal attacks, so that you can make your list longer, as a favor to you, mostly because it will make you seem horrendously petty, as you keep cataloguing them, and because I find it deeply funny.
So let's examine your claim.
Rather than taking your butthurt word for it, let's see for ourselves.
Here is a good working definition of an "appeal to popularity", from our friends at a website that fights holocaust deniers. It is as good any for a place to start, and I like it because they lay it out very clearly.
Now that we have the structure, let's look at my question:Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity
Also Known as: Ad Populum
Description of Appeal to Popularity
The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:
1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.
The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is subs uted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.
It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no subs ute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.
This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.
For this to be an appeal to popularity, you must somehow shoehorn this post into that form. If you can't reasonably do it, then the claim can be rejected.
To understand the claim PoopDeck has a list that is very near and dear to him of papers that, in his opinion, support skepticism of Global warming "alarmism", which he defines.
This list of acedemic papers, all genuine, peer-reviewed papers, has about 900, although it isn't numbered, so one would have to count them all to get an exact figure, but 900 will work as well as 950 or 901. These papers have been pulled from a larger body of work on climate science, i.e. it is a subset of that work. The ultimate size of that body of evidence is unknown to me. I don't read all the journals, nor would I bother to, if I had the time.
The easiest way to see if the claim stands up is to work backwards, I think.
Here is the fallacy:
Let's get to where PoopDeck wants this to go:
Next, we have to add in a little extra:
Now, we are getting somewhere.
We have to start messing with things a bit further:
Another step
This is, I believe, the "implied logical fallacy", according to PopTech. Remember, he has, despite being asked to repeatedly, chosen not to specifically spell this out, because it is, in essence, a strawman argument, i.e. not what I actually believe, and I am pretty sure he knows it.
Now, ask yourself the following critial thinking questions:
Did I directly state anything was true? If so, what was that?
There are two statements there.
1. "900/200000= 0.45%"
and
2. "If memory serves the body of work is on the order of 200,000 papers"
Kind of hard to get to:
from:
If you can make the leap from the question, to the implied statement, then you can accept that it is an appeal to popularity.
Just one, small thing more, that PoopDeck left out:
(out of time, I will add in how distorting someone else's view's becomes a strawman logical fallacy later. For those who want to play the game:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html )
The conclusion of the argument is the arithmetic. It should stand on its own. Stating two numbers and then dividing them is not ad hominem.
I didn't realize that he was modifying the OP every time you made fun of him. This thread may go down as the biggest butthurt thread in ST Political Forum history.
This is good to know.
I did not know RG was gay.
Fatback is bad for you.
lol 29 hours of OP editing
It may indeed.
When anybody brings up any effective criticisms against him, or his precious list, that is what he does.
Dude is like some Denier smeagol... preciousssss lissssst....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
