List of RandomGuy's Logical Fallacies

[FuzzyLumpkins]

nah he likes anti-trust laws. He must be a communist.

[Poptech]

nah he likes anti-trust laws. He must be a communist.

Oh my, whatever are you talking about? I was just making that statement. It was not referring to anyone here.

I have heard that the MiG was communist.

[Winehole23]

Reading the Political Forum always makes me realize just how little free time I've got.

WTF are you talking about, CF? It's all free time... ;-)

[RandomGuy]

Oh wow, I just read the OP. Lol @ RG calling Poptech "poopdeck."

Logic sucks.

You like that? I thought it was very clever... satire.

Someone doesn't get the funny.

[RandomGuy]

Let me use some of his "logic"

RG was a Nazi.

(sighs)
Now little Johnny, "PoopDeck" is funny, because it sort of sounds like your name and is an actual, if unfortunately named, noun.

You are not wrong about anything, just because your chosen name can be humorouly modified.

"Randomlie" is the best mine seems to elicit, but the people that came up with that aren't quite as smart as I think you might be. You can do better than "Nazi".

Unless of course, you aren't really all that funny, which I strongly suspect.

[TeyshaBlue]

butthurt thread delivers

[RandomGuy]

The following is list of RandomGuys' logical fallacies both implied and stated,

1. Argumentum ad populum

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.

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.

Now that we have the structure, let's look at my question:

900 out of how many papers total?

If memory serves the body of work is on the order of 200,000 papers

900/200000= 0.45%

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 do ents, claimed to be 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 do ents 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:

1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.

Let's get to where PoopDeck wants this to go:

1. Most people approve of Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true.

Next, we have to add in a little extra:

1. Most people approve of Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true +, and therefore evidence skeptical of this is false.

Now, we are getting somewhere.

We have to start messing with things a bit further:

1. Most [scientific papers support] Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true, and therefore [scientific papers that do not support this are false]

Another step

1. [199,100 out of 200,000] scientific papers support Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true, and therefore scientific papers that do not support this are false.

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:

1. [199,100 out of 200,000] scientific papers support Global Warming Alarmism.
2. Therefore Global Warming Alarmism is true, and therefore scientific papers that do not support this are false.

from:

"I don't really know how big the body of all scientific papers on the subject is, how big is it?"

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:

The underlying validity of a position cannot be proven by the volume of published papers. That is not my argument.

(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 )

-------------------------------Provable strawman #2-------------------------

I write this with the foreknowledge that PopTart's response will be to say "RG is just building another ad hominem"

All you can do is ad hominem because you cannot debate me on the facts,

(sighs heavily)

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her cir stances, or her actions is made (or the character, cir stances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1) Person A makes claim X.
2) Person B makes an attack on person A.
3) Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, cir stances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

-----------------------------------------

PopTech = Person A
RandomGuy = Person B
An attack = PopTech is mildly insane, or, alternately, PopTech's modus operendi about the catastrophic effects of AGW has direct parallels to the clearly insane people who believe in vast evil conspiracies about 9-11 and faked moon landings.
Claim X = Human-caused effects on global climate are negligible and/or mostly innocuous.

1) PopTech make the claim that human-caused effects on global climate are negligible and/or mostly innocuous.

2) Randomguy says that PopTech is mildly insane.

3) Randomguy says that since PopTech is mildly insane, his claim that human-caused effects on global climate are negligible and/or mostly innocuous is false.

The kicker is that the truth of AGW, and its potential catastrophic effects, exists outside of how credible [this theory's] skeptics are. You can't conclude it is valid/false and the "no harm" theory is wrong simply because they are nutters.

It is perfectly reasonable and logical though, to assign very little weight to their interpretation of the facts and evidence, and to subject their claims to a great deal of scrutiny.

You can't show the last step of that chain, since that is directly contradicted by what I actually said.

Once again, a provable strawman on your part. That is two, and I have not bothered with the rest, nor am I currently inclined to.

--------------Provabe Ad hominem------------

You brought up intelligent design due to your religious bigotry.

A scientist's religious beliefs have no bearing on their scientific credibility regarding climate change.

Implied:


"Randomguy says that Roy Spencer is not a credible scientist because he believes that non-scientific theories can be as valid as scientific ones"

Random guy is a religious bigot.

Therefore, I, PopTech say Randomguy is wrong about Roy Spencer"


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fallacy: Ad Hominem

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her cir stances, or her actions is made (or the character, cir stances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

---------------------------------------------------

Person A = RandomGuy
Claim X = Roy Spencer is not a credible scientist because he believes that non-scientific theories can be as valid as scientific ones
Person B = Poptech
Attack = Random guy is a religious bigot

Once again, I am sorry to hurt your feelings with my statements about your sanity. I understand you are deeply insecure and my statements and rather merciless shredding of your arguments and claims does not help.

The larger issue at hand, however, is much more important than any one person's hurt feelings. It would be a disservice to ignore the weaknesses in your arguments and claims to spare your feelings about how smart you are.

It is what it is, and I mean nothing hostile in all of this. To sure, I could use slightly less loaded language than "nutter". Sorry.

I hope someday you get better.




I am genuinely concerned about my own well-being. Such people do not care who they hurt, and do not view others with any empathy. That raises a whole lot of things I would rather not risk.

[RandomGuy]

butthurt thread delivers

I'm like ringworm that way. I get under your skin. BUWHWHAHAHAHAHA.

[RandomGuy]

when another poster throws that same argument back in his grill, using science in debate, he dismisses it.

Second let me repeat, as I have periodically and in the OP itself, that not all people who are skeptical of AGW or whatever you want to call it, are what I would call "deniers". I allow for honest skeptics.

I allow for the fact that the science on a complex subject not to be uniformly in support of a theory. I am perfectly content for every paper on that list to contradict the theory that AGW will have catastrophic effects. I would be happy if the science ultimately says that will be the case.

Those are my givens.
...
I think [the list on PopTech] is valid science...

I'm not that bad, honest.

Not all skeptics are intellectually dishonest asshats. I can even agree with Yonivore on some things about the subject, and can find the post to back that up, if you want. Scary, I know.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Not quite, your memory is a bit fuzzy:

We will have gasoline for a looong time it will certainly be around in 40 years.

By the time my grandchildren come of driving age, it will be uneconomical to burn in vehicles.

jack is not the brightest guy around.. he's not sure what a lie is.. but he hates them...er he only likes liars when they aren't Obama the liar..

[DarrinS]

RandomGuy's back yard (preparing for climategeddon)

[George Gervin's Afro]

I see all of the Randomguy butthurt club is out in full force..

[Poptech]

RandomGuy's back yard (preparing for climategeddon)

[RandomGuy]

I see all of the Randomguy butthurt club is out in full force..

You missed Wile E. Cobra's bromantic overture to PT:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=3355

[RandomGuy]

RandomGuy's back yard (preparing for climategeddon)

I will save some room for you, if you ask nicely.

[MannyIsGod]

RG broke this guy so fast its not even funny.

[Poptech]

RG broke this guy so fast its not even funny.

Actually, you can see the examples of him breaking up in the first post. You will find no such behavior from me here.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh I see a broken person in the first post alright.

[Poptech]

Oh I see a broken person in the first post alright.

What you see is a list of his logical fallacies where he actually breaks down. Just like I shut down all of your failed attempts at arguments.

[RandomGuy]

Oh I see a broken person in the first post alright.

By the by, I think this was spot on:

Well, I was mostly ignoring him regarding the discussion of the list because it seems he's incapable of addressing things out of [the] cone he's obviously gotten used to framing it within. Everything outside of that envelope is irrelevant to him and he just ignores it or dodges the question.

But I LOVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE when people say that humans don't have an appreciable affect on the global climate. Its just laughable to me when that is said and I love to pick apart that foolish argument.

I would guess I am somewhat of an outlier in his experience. He is used to flinging those "fallacy" charges, because he is used to leveling them at people far less able to defend against them.

Since I have been beating 9-11 truthers, creationists, and moon landing hoaxers over the head with them for more than a decade, I have gotten pretty good at de-constructing them.

There are some genuine, intellectually honest, skeptics of AGW out there, as Yoni has shown. There is even a body of at least mildly countervening evidence about the potential catastrophic effects, as PT has shown.

The problem with that is that they get drowned out by the idiots. That is why I started my happy-fun polemic.

Being evasive and/or intellectually dishonest is not the way to win people to your cause. When there is contradicting evidence about an issue, one should be deeply skeptical when one side can't frame the debate fairly and in good faith. It is fully possible to be honest in an absolute sense, but dishonest using lies of omission, when leaving out important facts, like admissions that some aspect of your evidence is particularly weak.

That goes for people screaming about the world coming to an end from AGW, as for those who are self-professed "skeptics".

I saddens me to see the subject attract so many people who simply cannot get past their own biases.

[RandomGuy]

anyhoo. lunch is over.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...3&postcount=32

[crickets]

[Wild Cobra]

I see all of the Randomguy butthurt club is out in full force..

You missed Wile E. Cobra's bromantic overture to PT:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...postcount=3355

I don't need to pile on Random any more than he's getting. I'm fine being a spectator, and starting to feel sorry for him.

Hold on...

Gotta pop some more popcorn...

[clambake]

I don't need to pile on Random any more than he's getting. I'm fine being a spectator, and starting to feel sorry for him.

Hold on...

Gotta pop some more popcorn...

just can't get that word pop off your mind.

you better hit him fast and hard before he finds out about you.

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm thinking about clams now.


Is that wrong?