Why should I believe you?

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Theoryofrelativity, Sep 2, 2006.

Page 5 of 11
  1. lixluke

    lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    Yes you do. Reputations of pure ignorance.


    Repeating your ignorant logic does not make it logic.
     
    lixluke, Sep 5, 2006
    #81

  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. perplexity

    perplexity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,179
    Deleted
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2007
    perplexity, Sep 5, 2006
    #82

  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spuriousmonkey

    spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Now you are talking about yourself.

    Cool skill actually does make valid points once in a while.
     
    spuriousmonkey, Sep 5, 2006
    #83

  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. lixluke

    lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    Speak for yourself. Proof is proof. What you idiots have is nothing.
     
    lixluke, Sep 5, 2006
    #84
  8. perplexity

    perplexity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,179
    Deleted
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2007
    perplexity, Sep 5, 2006
    #85
  9. Theoryofrelativity

    Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,595
    Note how like minded personality comes to the defence of like minded personality. They could almost be one and the same person. Either way valid points are irrelevant if no one is listening or in this case reading. Cool skill will never get a point across to me because as soon as I see the first insult directed to me or other I stop reading. Spurious, I do not see at all unless his points are copied. Only a fool takes financial advice from a poor man.
     
    Theoryofrelativity, Sep 5, 2006
    #86
  10. Fraggle Rocker

    Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Huh? The post above mine says
    Using the words "stupid," "idiots," and "mass stupidity" in the space of two lines is a textbook example of flaming. He may be "stunned" at our reaction, but only because he is apparently accustomed to bullying people into submission with verbal abuse and has not developed any other tactics for winning an argument.
    I think he understands perfectly. He is clever enough to sidestep every request for supporting documentation, to lift quotes out of context, and to let a thread grow long enough that comments from a few days ago are buried and new visitors won't see them, before repeating a challenged assertion without acknowledging the challenge.

    This technique is the stock in trade of creationists, racists, and other antiscientists. This is why I suggest that you youngsters all become familiar with it and develop the discipline to deal with it. You will encounter it many times, and in situations far more critical than this one, where the antiscientists are in a tiny beleaguered minority.
    You pasted his entire post above this, so I'm not sure what "this" refers to. I don't quite understand what you might be wrong about.
    Earned trust is not the same thing as blind faith. I trust the things my wife tells me because her research skills are far better than mine and she knows more than I do, but also because she has always been honest with me in more easily verifiable ways and because whenever I've been interested enough to read her original sources for myself she has never hesitated to lead me to them.

    Civilization is built on trust, but not on blind faith.

    There are lots of physicists who are smart enough to understand Einstein's research even if they're not quite smart enough to have thought of it themselves. They have students who are smart enough to understand their original research and find no errors or lies in it, so they make a reasoned choice to believe them when they say that they have found Einstein to be correct. If enough brilliant students have enough brilliant professors who all say they find no flaws in Einstein's work, then it becomes a reasoned choice to believe them because the probability that they are members of a vast conspiracy to cover up shoddy or deceptive work is vanishingly small. Those brilliant students become the people who educated our teachers, whom we decide to trust in the same way. At each step a reasoned choice is made to trust an entire community of scholars, based upon a perfectly objective assessment of the probability of them being evil or just plain wrong.

    Of course at each step the probability increases due to the extra degree of separation, but it also decreases due to the proliferation of trust among an ever-larger community.

    This is the same way you pick a mechanic to fix your car. If enough people whom you personally trust go to the same guy and have found him to be trustworthy, you make a reasoned choice to trust him yourself. This is not blind faith. It is riskier than Einstein because the community in this case is much smaller and most of them don't know much about cars, but you know that and peek while he's doing the work, ask intelligent questions, and ask to examine the replaced parts, so it's still reason in action.
    Most people don't understand the basic concept of electricity. Is it blind faith for them to plug in their new waffle iron and hope that it won't electrocute them or burn their house down? Of course not. They trust the company that built it, as well as the tradesmen who installed the circuit breakers in their house, as well as their power company, etc. etc., because people whom they trust, people who understand such things, assure them that it won't happen.
     
    Fraggle Rocker, Sep 5, 2006
    #87
  11. spuriousmonkey

    spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    I think cool skill was pretty much on the ball in the entire thing. I might be wrong about cool skill being on the ball on everything. Especially since I probably contradicted myself in the posts that followed this one.
     
    spuriousmonkey, Sep 5, 2006
    #88
  12. spuriousmonkey

    spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    They can plug all they want. You don't see them rejecting the current theory of electricity on this forum because it makes them feel less significant, or less human, or less divine.

    A proper analogy to natural selection would have been: most people do not understand evolution, but you don't see them stop plugging their wives.
     
    spuriousmonkey, Sep 5, 2006
    #89
  13. perplexity

    perplexity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,179
    Deleted
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2007
    perplexity, Sep 5, 2006
    #90
  14. spuriousmonkey

    spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Dear king of morons and assholes,

    plugging as in having sex with them.


    translation: just get lost.
     
    spuriousmonkey, Sep 5, 2006
    #91
  15. perplexity

    perplexity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,179
    Deleted
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2007
    perplexity, Sep 5, 2006
    #92
  16. spuriousmonkey

    spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Yeah right ronnie,

    an analogy is a privacy issue.

    Stop your crap or go back on your meds.
     
    spuriousmonkey, Sep 5, 2006
    #93
  17. Theoryofrelativity

    Theoryofrelativity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,595
    sorry, you misunderstood me, I meant that what I was about to say was not a flame but observation, I shall try to word myself better in future.
     
    Theoryofrelativity, Sep 5, 2006
    #94
  18. lixluke

    lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    Which court of law?
    You do not know what logic is.

    Youp mean like minded idiots such as yourself.


    Oh I see. Real great reasoning there.
    You really are a geniuass



    You obviously do not understand logic, since I have provided proof over and over which you have yet to break.

    The mechanic scenario makes sense. Same with hiring employees to work for you. Trust. As for validating points. They stand alone regardless of the speaker. They always have and they always will. Anybody that attacks the credentials or conduct of a speaker has completely sidestepped the point. Especially you retards that choose to base your entire argument proving/disporiving the validity of a point around the conduct/credentials of the speaker rather than the logical soundess of a point. You are a trained prejudice idiot.
     
    lixluke, Sep 5, 2006
    #95
  19. baumgarten

    baumgarten fuck the man Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,611
    Attacking the credentials of a speaker
    {
    "How do you know?"
    "Why should I believe you?"
    }

    is fair game. Attacking the speaker himself
    {
    "illogical morons such as yourself"
    "utter morons"
    "You are too stupid to understand"
    "you idiots"
    "your mass stupidity"
    "Typical idiat behavior"
    "You do not know what logic is"
    "like minded idiots such as yourself"
    "You really are a geniuass"
    }

    is not. The former is essentially a call for evidence, to be answered to the satisfaction of most either by an acceptable claim to authority or a reasonable argument. The latter is abuse at best, inflammatory nonsense at worst.
     
    baumgarten, Sep 5, 2006
    #96
  20. lixluke

    lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    Conduct or credentials still remain irrelevant.
    u idyats hav yet 2 giv me ne logcal reasn y i shud nt treat all statements equl as thy r withot bias 2 the crdntials/condct/bhavior of who is mking th statement. intelgnt ppol do nt tak "reputation" in2 considration. i personly cud giv a rat which idyat or so called exprt is making th statement. i luk at the statement and the statement alon w 0 bias. anything else is twisted ignornt brained logic.
     
    lixluke, Sep 6, 2006
    #97
  21. perplexity

    perplexity Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,179
    Deleted
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2007
    perplexity, Sep 6, 2006
    #98
  22. lixluke

    lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    Either way, if person 1 makes statement, and person 2 makes an opposite statement, it is illogical to give one of them more sawy. This is the mindset of the easily deceived because they are illogical or ignorant. It is bias, and shows extreme stupidity.
     
    lixluke, Sep 6, 2006
    #99
  23. lixluke

    lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    It doesn't matter how much credibility you have, how well spoken you are, or what supposedly great conduct/reputation you have. What you say will be subject to the same scrutiny as what anybody else says. No exception.
     
    lixluke, Sep 6, 2006
    #100
Page 5 of 11

Share This Page