By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - the fallacy thread NOW HIRING! fallacy mods!

Mazty on 20 December 2012
dsgrue3 said:
Mazty said:
Okay, I get it now. It was silly of me to suggest that a source which can be modified by anyone, including 5 year olds, babies, mentally-handicapped, etc was credible. Furthermore, I realize that I had no idea what I was talking about with autism and anthropogenic climate change.

Awesome. glad you agree that wikipedia isn't credible for the reason mentioned: ANYONE can edit it.

I suppose you aren't mentally defunct afterall. The other issues aren't really pertinent, but glad you admit you were wrong.


But you can't edit the peer reviewed papers...If you want to check the validity of a claim, go check the paper. 

I cannot make this simpler for you. You are just being pedantic & lazy. If you want to check the statement that "bats shoot lazer beams (source)" then go read that source. The issue was that your education was so grossly lacking on the topic that the easiest way for you to learn the necessary information would have been to read the correctly referenced wiki page. It would have taken you months to read through all the papers from cover to cover if you insist on just papers. 




Around the Network
dsgrue3 on 20 December 2012
Mazty said:

But you can't edit the peer reviewed papers...If you want to check the validity of a claim, go check the paper. 

I cannot make this simpler for you. You are just being pedantic & lazy. If you want to check the statement that "bats shoot lazer beams (source)" then go read that source. The issue was that your education was so grossly lacking on the topic that the easiest way for you to learn the necessary information would have been to read the correctly referenced wiki page. It would have taken you months to read through all the papers from cover to cover if you insist on just papers. 

That's my point. Cite the paper, not the wikipedia entry. Wikipedia entries are modifiable which means the content isn't reliable. You sir, are the lazy one.



happydolphin on 20 December 2012
dsgrue3 said:
happydolphin said:
There exists a trait such that, for all animals A, t(A), where t is the function of having the trait, resolves true if the argument has the trait.

Sure.

Now you need to prove that for all trait t1...tn, ti(A).

From there exists to all, it is a fair stretch of the mind. Easier to disprove that all trait are not shared by all animals. Example: flying.

Once that's done, it's fair to say that there exists a trait tj such that, for an animal A, !tj(A).

If homosexuality is a trait, it is possible !tj(A).

This is incredibly unreasonable and false to begin with haha. Why are you allowing him to attempt this? It's mean.

Because I'm naughty like that



Mazty on 20 December 2012
dsgrue3 said:
Mazty said:

But you can't edit the peer reviewed papers...If you want to check the validity of a claim, go check the paper. 

I cannot make this simpler for you. You are just being pedantic & lazy. If you want to check the statement that "bats shoot lazer beams (source)" then go read that source. The issue was that your education was so grossly lacking on the topic that the easiest way for you to learn the necessary information would have been to read the correctly referenced wiki page. It would have taken you months to read through all the papers from cover to cover if you insist on just papers. 

That's my point. Cite the paper, not the wikipedia entry. Wikipedia entries are modifiable which means the content isn't reliable. You sir, are the lazy one.

But as I have said, the volume of papers required to get you up to scratch on the topics that you have recieved no education on would take you months to read...therefore what do you propose? Are you really saying you'd rather wade through 500+ pages of peer-reviewed work then a quick 1 hour read of a wiki page and taking the time to check the sources?



dsgrue3 on 20 December 2012
Mazty said:
But as I have said, the volume of papers required to get you up to scratch on the topics that you have recieved no education on would take you months to read...therefore what do you propose? Are you really saying you'd rather wade through 500+ pages of peer-reviewed work then a quick 1 hour read of a wiki page and taking the time to check the sources?

 

If you want to cite a piece of information, one usually includes it in quotations and places the source after it. I really shouldn't have to teach you basic things like this. Your assumptions are grand for an individual with absolutely no qualifications, nor would you even supply your age. Easy, tiger. So funny.



Around the Network
Runa216 on 20 December 2012

Been preaching this over in religious threads for a while now. Would be nice if we could rid the world of logical fallacies.



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Mazty on 20 December 2012
dsgrue3 said:
Mazty said:
But as I have said, the volume of papers required to get you up to scratch on the topics that you have recieved no education on would take you months to read...therefore what do you propose? Are you really saying you'd rather wade through 500+ pages of peer-reviewed work then a quick 1 hour read of a wiki page and taking the time to check the sources?

 

If you want to cite a piece of information, one usually includes it in quotations and places the source after it. I really shouldn't have to teach you basic things like this. Your assumptions are grand for an individual with absolutely no qualifications, nor would you even supply your age. Easy, tiger. So funny.

As you completely ignored what I said:

"But as I have said, the volume of papers required to get you up to scratch on the topics that you have recieved no education on would take you months to read...therefore what do you propose? Are you really saying you'd rather wade through 500+ pages of peer-reviewed work then a quick 1 hour read of a wiki page and taking the time to check the sources?"

 



dsgrue3 on 20 December 2012
Mazty said:
As you completely ignored what I said:

"But as I have said, the volume of papers required to get you up to scratch on the topics that you have recieved no education on would take you months to read...therefore what do you propose? Are you really saying you'd rather wade through 500+ pages of peer-reviewed work then a quick 1 hour read of a wiki page and taking the time to check the sources?"

 

Assumptions will get you nowhere. Especially fallacious ones without any merit. Anyways, I'm done with this. I've proven that wikipedia isn't credible. And that was my goal. I won't read any other replies about nonsense like this post above.



Mazty on 20 December 2012
dsgrue3 said:
Mazty said:
As you completely ignored what I said:

"But as I have said, the volume of papers required to get you up to scratch on the topics that you have recieved no education on would take you months to read...therefore what do you propose? Are you really saying you'd rather wade through 500+ pages of peer-reviewed work then a quick 1 hour read of a wiki page and taking the time to check the sources?"

 

Assumptions will get you nowhere. Especially fallacious ones without any merit. Anyways, I'm done with this. I've proven that wikipedia isn't credible. And that was my goal. I won't read any other replies about nonsense like this post above.

Your degree was in computer science, not atmospheric sciences or anything to do with the environment and yet you claim to know better then people with doctorates in the field...


You have proven that you are lazy and won't check out references yourself, that's all. 



happydolphin on 20 December 2012
Runa216 said:
Been preaching this over in religious threads for a while now. Would be nice if we could rid the world of logical fallacies.

I hope you've taken the right path to begin, purging yourself of your own prejudice against religious people.

Start there, and you will make headway.