How could they improve the educational curriculum?

Post Reply New Topic

Well, my opponent isn't addressing the issues either, this is shown by the fact that the arguments are logically flawed. It is also shown by the fact that my opponent is hardly talking about the same things as I am. I have already stated my position on the matter, the logic of my position should be rather clear, if people have a real criticism, I will answer it, otherwise my piece on the matter has been said.

Well, ok, I don't care. Honestly, I don't care about convincing anyone. I am already convinced that the average person or aspie will believe based upon their choice, not upon reason or any other solid grounds, and I don't care about helping the average ignorant yokel get there. In fact, even if I persuade someone, but they still have what I consider to be a bad epistemological understanding, I don't take that as a success, as I care more about my epistemology than any other notion. In fact, a lot of the arguments I get into aren't strongly based upon any specific element of a given matter, but include a lot of epistemological concerns.

this is sad. I presented to my argument to other people and I had a good discussion with other people. I am now invoking my personal rule of not continuing arguments with overly emotional and irrational people as they do not comprehend anything and their responses do not make sense.

thanks Orwell.

Argumentam ad fallacium is itself a logical fallacy, AG. (Am I the only one amused by the possibility of invoking argumentam ad fallacium as an argumentam ad fallacium?) The logic of your position is not terribly clear since you haven't really put forward a position so much as rejected other positions. It's hard to make a real criticism of a position that has not been put forth, other than some vagueness about more flexibility.


Then why do you even bother participating in these endless debates? Is it just pure intellectual masturbation? Right, well, you reject aspects of epistemology when you find them inconvenient.

And with that, I will join Shiggily in withdrawing from this discussion. School and College Life does not deserve this type of clutter, and I am sorry for bringing one of the worst aspects of PPR into another part of WP. Congratulations, AG, you will be able to have the final word in this thread with your next post. But, if you will indulge one last question from me: if the logic of your position is so rock solid, if you don't care about convincing anyone... why must you have the last word?

what is PPR?

^Politics, Philosophy, and Religion, where we go for flamewars and other arguments. It is generally not horrible, but I have lately been studying the interesting phenomenon of AG (Awesomelyglorious) refusing to ever let an argument end. He will take it to any tangent, attack anything he sees, and continue for pages on end until his opponent gets bored and leaves.

If you wish to hear of the horrors of the fiery pit of doom, ask Quatermass what he thinks of PPR. I believe he has actually advocated in the past that it be eliminated entirely, but that is unlikely to happen.

eh, I never enter those types of forums. Logic and rationality is not usually valued.

Tell that to wikipedia. It doesn't have that fallacy. I also plugged it into wiki, not there either. So, I think you should provide me a source. In any case, claiming that your opponent's argument is a flawed argument, when it is, isn't a logical problem, as if such occurs, there is nothing for you to argue with, as the inconsistency disproves the argument. No, the logic of my position isn't terribly clear as I did not try to reveal it, but nobody bothered to question it. You are right, it is hard to make a real criticism of such a vagueness, so?

All debates are intellectual masturbation, nobody ever gets convinced by them from what I've seen, in fact, the format is wrong for such to occur. The ability to reject my epistemology is part of my epistemology.

I must have the last word because I want it. Certain people are more likely to respond than others to posts.

Ok. I don't see how I fit into either category. I see a difference in starting points that prevents meaningful discussion.

It's valued, but it doesn't carry the value-set that most self-proclaimed rationalists tend to hold. Usually when people stand upon logic and rationality, they actually carry certain assumptions on what those terms mean, but those terms don't inherently carry the assumptions, as logic and rationality are merely matters of flowing logically from original premises. This fallacy is commonly made though, as people will use the terms with *all* sorts of embedded assumptions.

All right, I will continue to feed the troll just a tiny bit more. This one will be the last post.

It's termed differently on wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy Now, claiming an argument is flawed does not disprove its conclusions, as a flawed argument may well have a true conclusion. Inconsistency in an argument prevents you from being compelled to accept it, it does not disprove the argument.

Orwell, I don't think I quite fall under that category. I agree, a flawed argument may have a true conclusion, and my attacks were on the arguments. Looking on the wikipedia page, the argument from fallacy is arguably a variant of the ad hominem argument.

In any case, I don't see how exactly I am "the troll" so much as just a poster from a different posting culture. Trolls are significantly different than that.

arguments fail when you back up your stance with a website notorious for being inaccurate.

lolz at wikipedia. if you think that trumps peer-reviewed research then I have no idea how to discuss anything with you.

ad hominem: appealing to personal considerations (rather than to fact or reason)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/we ... %20hominem

fallacy: a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/we ... 4=&o3=&h=0

not even similar.


my assumptions are based on dictionary definitions. and I am quite fluid so I am willing to adjust my beliefs if the person I am discussing with can argue logically and offer solid reasons. I offered numerous peer-reviewed research that you did not read. You offered a newspaper and wikipedia. When you could discount my references you attack my logic. lol its not like I didn't study logic, but ok. When you think you can't attack that you try to shift meanings around.

Provide your peer-reviewed sources upholding your position. Otherwise go find someone else who will listen to your ramblings. Because I do not bend easily to people who try to convince people to believe what they want without facts and rational conclusions to support it.

Wikipedia is actually considered more accurate than inaccurate and even professors use it for their informal writings.


Wikipedia really has little to do with peer-reviewed research in the case of standard definitions, in any case, wikipedia doesn't trump peer-reviewed research, there is no such thing as trump unless we are engaged in a foolish argument from authority. Wikipedia has information, a bit of research has information, the comparative validity of wikipedia vs peer-reviewed research is dependent more upon the content of either, and the accuracy assigned to one or the other.

If you don't know how to think things through, and understand the value of a particular source, then I have no idea how to discuss anything with you.


Umm.... ad hominem is usually considered a short-hand way to write "ad hominem fallacy", this tendency is not even one I invented but rather a common one. Ad hominem fallacies do exist and are well-known to exist.


Shiggily, no they aren't. If you think they are, then actually define them. I also don't have access to those journals, and admitted that, so of course I didn't read it. Nor is your use of journals even valid in this case, as the lines of the argument are not defined well, and it really seems like you used the journals as supports for arguments that we weren't having. Doing such really is not indicative of honest arguing but rather data-dumping, where the attempt is really to make the external sources a painful distraction to end the argument. In any case, it certainly *looks* like you haven't studied logic, and if you have, then it certainly didn't involve the use of logic to argumentation. Not only that, but I really don't see a case where I am being deceptive in this instance. As Orwell already stated, I never gave a position that could be attacked easily but rather made broad statements as to what I wanted, there is very little to attack in this instance, and thus for you to argue that you have refuted anything seems fallacious.


Ok, provide it to uphold what? What exactly are you even arguing against that you attribute to me?

Depending upon the nature of the argument, then I could not *need* peer-reviewed sources. And based upon what I've argued so far, I don't think I need them. I haven't made much of an empirical argument where peer-reviewed sources to establish facts would matter, and where I even draw close, I still end up drawing mostly roughly upon a theoretical model that I consider broadly known, and some facts that I consider to be basic.

^I've honestly never met a professor outside of the softer fields who didn't regard wikipedia as a fairly good (though of course not scholarly) source.

Ad hominem is classified as an "informal fallacy". It is the first fallacy in my intro philosophy book's logic appendix.


Well, I think they both are like red herring fallacies, but the argumentum ad logicam is more of a formal fallacy methinks (really just a variant of denying the antecedent; i.e. let P is "the argument is strong/sound/whathaveyou", P=>Q, ~P, ∴~Q)

I like wikipedia for what it is worth, its nice to read something on a topic I do not know about and if I want to read more or I want to verify then I search for a more scholarly or reliable source. I use it, just not really in arguments. And most of the professors I know view it in a similar way. Its good for informal shallow readings on most subjects. But anything more than face value or within the confines of a more formal discussion (such as a debate) it is considered unreliable.

I supposed that ad hominem is a type of fallacy though I always assumed a more formal approach to the concept of fallacy in that it is an error in the actual reasoning which results in a misguided conclusion, and not the use of poor tactics to deflect an argument (because that doesn't seem much like logical reasoning).

I always understood informal fallacies as dealing with illogical reasoning, misguided presuppositions or vague/unclear/ambiguous language.

I dislike the categorization of scare tactics, ad hominem, ad hoc rescue, or appeals to consequences, emotions, ignorance, or "the majority" (etc.), as actually involving logic.

Mostly they involve deflecting the argument so the listener forgets what the discussion is about and just assume the conclusion is true.

That doesn't seem to have a place in logic, but I suppose the use of it is generally related to the topic of logic.

particularly since I study mathematical logic which has no real place for most of the informal fallacies and deals primarily with formal fallacies. Any informal fallacies I dealt with had to do with illogical reasoning, misguided presuppositions or vague/unclear/ambiguous language.

And I generally avoid philosophical logic for the reason that they engage in "logical" tactics that I find distasteful. You should present your argument with facts in a clear and concise manner and allow the listener/reader to choose. But instead they attack the person, the weather, blah blah blah.

In math you can be bat sh*t crazy and if your work holds up they will accept it. Heck half the famous mathematicians where absolutely insane. It is why I like math, it is about the work not the person. And you are encouraged to question, test, and demand proof.