frame
Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register


Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Have logical fallacies become too convoluted to the point of being self-defeating?

edited July 6 in Philosophy
Logical fallacies are used to gauge consistent logical thinking but have these methods become self-defeating by becoming conflicting and convoluted? 
northsouthkoreajoecavalry
  1. Have logical fallacies become redundant?5 votes
    1. I don't know
      40.00%
    2. Yes
      40.00%
    3. No
      20.00%

Comments

  • edited July 6
    I think that they could and have become self-defeating, an example of this can be seen in the definition of a logical fallacy - A logical fallacy is an error in reasoning that renders an argument invalid. If this is the definition then aren't all logical fallacies guilty of the Fallacist's fallacy? Which is basically the fallacy of not taking an argument seriously because it contains a fallacy.
    northsouthkorea
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    I guess it depends on what type of fallacy really. If an argument is based entirely on the appeal to authority fallacy but has empirical evidence against it, it's not unreasonable to dismiss the argument from authority. But an argument that is supported by authority with no empirical evidence against it, that would be a different story.

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Alternatively, an anecodotal fallacy that is commonly experienced that cannot be logically or empirically challenged, should not be dismissed. Best to use an argument that contains no logical fallacies to be safe.

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • Erfisflat said:
    But an argument that is supported by authority with no empirical evidence against it, that would be a different story.
    Nope, still fallacious.
  • A fallacy (also, a "reaction" on this website in addition to informative, funny etc.) can be brought up when an argument seems to have morning reasoning or logic to it.
    SnakesOfferingApples
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    edited July 6 Premium Member
    Erfisflat said:
    But an argument that is supported by authority with no empirical evidence against it, that would be a different story.
    Nope, still fallacious.
    I didn't claim it was not fallacious, but if the authority is an expert on the subject (similar to your entire argument for climate change), and there is no empirical data that contradicts the claim, it shouldn't be dismissed. Like I said.

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • @Erfisflat

    I don't know if you've actually looked at my argument for climate change, but if you did you didn't look well because pretty much the entirety of what I posted is that you need to look at the actual data. 

    Also you seem to be equivocating quite badly here. Apparently it is fallacious (Or at least not not fallacious) but still shouldn't be dismissed. So does it exist in some state of quantum relevance, where it both is and is not a valid argument simultaneously?
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Erfisflat

    I don't know if you've actually looked at my argument for climate change, but if you did you didn't look well because pretty much the entirety of what I posted is that you need to look at the actual data. 

    Also you seem to be equivocating quite badly here. Apparently it is fallacious (Or at least not not fallacious) but still shouldn't be dismissed. So does it exist in some state of quantum relevance, where it both is and is not a valid argument simultaneously?
    Actual Data? You mean the graphs that experts put together for ya? Wow.

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Erfisflat

    I don't know if you've actually looked at my argument for climate change, but if you did you didn't look well because pretty much the entirety of what I posted is that you need to look at the actual data. 

    Also you seem to be equivocating quite badly here. Apparently it is fallacious (Or at least not not fallacious) but still shouldn't be dismissed. So does it exist in some state of quantum relevance, where it both is and is not a valid argument simultaneously?
    @evidence This guy like a talking indoctrination pamphlet. 

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • Erfisflat said:
    @Erfisflat

    I don't know if you've actually looked at my argument for climate change, but if you did you didn't look well because pretty much the entirety of what I posted is that you need to look at the actual data. 

    Also you seem to be equivocating quite badly here. Apparently it is fallacious (Or at least not not fallacious) but still shouldn't be dismissed. So does it exist in some state of quantum relevance, where it both is and is not a valid argument simultaneously?
    Actual Data? You mean the graphs that experts put together for ya? Wow.
    You know that those graphs are based on data, right? They aren't just random pretty lines that people with doctorates have drawn, they represent information that has been collected.

    Contrary to what you might believe it isn't a case of experts picking numbers out of thin air, it's a case of data being gathered and presented in graph format. It doesn't matter who does the gathering and presentation, whether it's an expert of an amateur, as long as the methodology of how the data was gathered and presented is sound and it is documented so that it can be checked.

    That's the basis of what makes something worthwhile evidence, if there is factual data supporting it - not just because someone put their name behind it.

    Also you haven't clarified your equivocation.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @AlwaysCorrect

    It's data that is given to you from another source. The data can't be empirically validated. That would make it a fact. It's fallacious. You need some empirical data?


    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    "Also you haven't clarified your equivocation."

    I'm in the process.

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @AlwaysCorrect

    What you have in that Climate debate is pretty much "but, but, muh science book !"

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @AlwaysCorrect
    I don't expect you to understand, you still think you're a monkey on a spinning ball. 

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 156 Pts
    edited July 7
    @Erfisflat

    Sounds like sour grapes from someone who almost constantly relies on the argument of "A random unqualified person on the internet claimed this is true with no proof!" and has seen someone produce testable evidence to back up their views.

    Also, humans are apes. Like it's not even up for debate. Even if you don't believe in evolution, we classify animals based on their shared characteristics. Even if you think God just happened to create the great apes in a way where they share a lot of characteristics, those characteristics have lead humans, chimps, gorillas, etc to all be classified under the Hominadae family of great apes.

    Lastly, feel free to tout your flat eartherism all you want. It just makes me look better by comparison to the person insisting we live on a flat earth.

    That said, I do as always suggest you look to get the help of a mental healthcare professional as your disconnect from reality is genuinely worrying.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    edited July 7 Premium Member
    @Erfisflat

    Sounds like sour grapes from someone who almost constantly relies on the argument of "A random unqualified person on the internet claimed this is true with no proof!" and has seen someone produce testable evidence to back up their views.

    Also, humans are apes. Like it's not even up for debate. Even if you don't believe in evolution, we classify animals based on their shared characteristics. Even if you think God just happened to create the great apes in a way where they share a lot of characteristics, those characteristics have lead humans, chimps, gorillas, etc to all be classified under the Hominadae family of great apes.

    Lastly, feel free to tout your flat eartherism all you want. It just makes me look better by comparison to the person insisting we live on a flat earth.

    That said, I do as always suggest you look to get the help of a mental healthcare professional as your disconnect from reality is genuinely worrying.
    All those words and i dont see even an attempt to address anything I said, I dont think you said a thing. Fine display of dodgery friend, almost as good as your last rhetorical stone kicking fallacy. I'll consider that your concession. Have fun with your graphs and fallacies.

    Edit: Testable evidence he says!





    joecavalry

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 156 Pts
    edited July 7
    @Erfisflat

    The issue then seems to be your reading comprehension.

    Just to give one example, you attacked me as someone who believes humans are monkeys. In fact that's incorrect and I have never claimed that (humans are a type of ape, not monkey) but regardless I responded to your underlying logic and explained how there is no real argument for humans not being apes even if you don't believe in evolution.

    If you disagree with my points then feel free to respond with a rationale for why they are incorrect, but by pretending you can't see them you just look disingenuous and illiterate.
    joecavalry
  • joecavalryjoecavalry 145 Pts
    Fallacies tend to be made as a last resort when all arguments for that side fail.
    SnakesOfferingApples
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Erfisflat

    The issue then seems to be your reading comprehension.

    Just to give one example, you attacked me as someone who believes humans are monkeys. In fact that's incorrect and I have never claimed that (humans are a type of ape, not monkey) but regardless I responded to your underlying logic and explained how there is no real argument for humans not being apes even if you don't believe in evolution.

    If you disagree with my points then feel free to respond with a rationale for why they are incorrect, but by pretending you can't see them you just look disingenuous and illiterate.
    Oh, so you're going semantics now? Points you dodged, that still stand:

    " It's data that is given to you from another source. The data can't be empirically validated. That would make it a fact. It's fallacious."



    But you know the difference between a monkey and an ape! Tell me again, why do you believe you come from apes?

     

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • EvidenceEvidence 64 Pts
    Erfisflat said:
    @Erfisflat

    I don't know if you've actually looked at my argument for climate change, but if you did you didn't look well because pretty much the entirety of what I posted is that you need to look at the actual data. 

    Also you seem to be equivocating quite badly here. Apparently it is fallacious (Or at least not not fallacious) but still shouldn't be dismissed. So does it exist in some state of quantum relevance, where it both is and is not a valid argument simultaneously?
    @evidence This guy like a talking indoctrination pamphlet. 

    @Erfisflat ; ha, ha, ha .. "indoctrination pamphlet", .. where you come up with this stuff, lol!? Love it, and so true.
    I mean come on, "look at the actual data"?

    Hey Erfisflat, lets you and I go to the beach with all kinds of gauges, cameras, petri dishes (make it look all science-like) and video the tide going out, and show how the "Ocean water level are falling" by the hour, signifying another Ice-Age. The data is there.
    Erfisflat
  • @ErfiErfisflat said:
    @Erfisflat

    The issue then seems to be your reading comprehension.

    Just to give one example, you attacked me as someone who believes humans are monkeys. In fact that's incorrect and I have never claimed that (humans are a type of ape, not monkey) but regardless I responded to your underlying logic and explained how there is no real argument for humans not being apes even if you don't believe in evolution.

    If you disagree with my points then feel free to respond with a rationale for why they are incorrect, but by pretending you can't see them you just look disingenuous and illiterate.
    Oh, so you're going semantics now? Points you dodged, that still stand:

    " It's data that is given to you from another source. The data can't be empirically validated. That would make it a fact. It's fallacious."



    But you know the difference between a monkey and an ape! Tell me again, why do you believe you come from apes?

     
    Ah, so you are illiterate.

    You claim that I am making a semantic difference. 'Not answering any of your points' and 'answering most of your points' are actually very different things, so obviously not a case of mere semantics.Rather, as always,  it's a case of you making false claims because you can't accept reality. And where is your reply to my rebuttal of your points? You show yourself to be a hypocrite by demanding responses to my points while refusing to give responses to mine.

    What's the matter, going to have to concede again?

    In your next sentence, you again make a load of false claims, seemingly because you don't even know what basic scientific words means.

    You state " It's data that is given to you from another source. The data can't be empirically validated. That would make it a fact. It's fallacious."

    However the data is empirically validated. Empirical means "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic." The data points referenced for the global temperate were collected by actual observatories, not just by theorising what it could be, hence it is empirical.

    Your claim that empirical evidence is automatically fact is of course equally proposterous to anyone who knows what they're talking about. As discussed, empirical means verified by actual observation e.g. scientific studies. Scientific studies can be wrong - indeed I could give examples of studies which are empirical but come to mutually exclusive results. This is because experiments, observations and empirical evidence can be flawed, hence the necessity to review the evidence critically.

    As to what comment you expect in relation to a random video presented without comment, I have no idea. More symptoms of your underlying problem, I would assume.

    Lastly, of course we come from apes. There is no argument that we don't. Even if you believe humans were created by god 6,000 years ago, presumably your parents were humans - Homo Sapiens, yes? And Homo Sapien is part of the ape family, yes?

    Humans being apes isn't something where we even reach evolution in the argument., it's down to the binomial classification system. If God created Humans and Gorillas and Chimpanzees 6K years ago, we're still apes because we classify genus, families, suborders, etc on shared characteristics and we share the same characteristics as apes whether you believe they came from evolution or magic.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    "However the data is empirically validated. Empirical means "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience"

    You have a time machine? If so, I concede that the data is empirical, because you can go back in time and physically observe and experience the average worldwide tempurature on any given day. You don't have to take the experts word that any data was fudged.

    The video was of an ultra zoomed star. You know, what your heliocentric priests claim is a giant ball of burning gas comparable to our sun, only trillions of miles away? 

    Lastly, you know the difference between a monkey and an ape, but not a human and an ape. Expert classification based on evolutionary assumptions is begging the question. 

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • Erfisflat said:
    "However the data is empirically validated. Empirical means "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience"

    You have a time machine? If so, I concede that the data is empirical, because you can go back in time and physically observe and experience the average worldwide tempurature on any given day. You don't have to take the experts word that any data was fudged.

    The video was of an ultra zoomed star. You know, what your heliocentric priests claim is a giant ball of burning gas comparable to our sun, only trillions of miles away? 

    Lastly, you know the difference between a monkey and an ape, but not a human and an ape. Expert classification based on evolutionary assumptions is begging the question. 
    Can you sort out your hypocrisy and then come back to me with arguments that aren't mutually exclusive? Stating that you can't trust evidence you have't validated yourself and then trusting random youtube videos is not consistent. Afterall, to paraphrase you "You have a time machine? If so, I concede that the video is real, because you can go back in time and physically observe and experience the video being taken. You don't have to take the photographer's word that any imagery was fudged."

    Lastly, to tick off your points one by one:

    - You don't need to personally observe experiments for them to be empirical. Note how that is not a part of the definition. Now if you want to claim there is some reason that every single thing has to be personally observed then feel free to make that argument, but don't try and make it seem reasonable by conflating it with empiricism.

    - Okay, it's a video of a start. Great.

    - Taxominic classifications were around long before evolution. Regardless of how you think life began and has changed, apes do share 97%+ of our dna and a multitude of physical and societal features. If evolution were universally rejected by every single person tomorrow, we would still want to classify the similarities between different types of animals and we would classify humans as apes because the similarities between apes and humans are modern day observable facts that do not rely on evolution. All that would change is that we would consider there to be a different cause for these similarities.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Erfisflat said:
    "However the data is empirically validated. Empirical means "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience"

    You have a time machine? If so, I concede that the data is empirical, because you can go back in time and physically observe and experience the average worldwide tempurature on any given day. You don't have to take the experts word that any data was fudged.

    The video was of an ultra zoomed star. You know, what your heliocentric priests claim is a giant ball of burning gas comparable to our sun, only trillions of miles away? 

    Lastly, you know the difference between a monkey and an ape, but not a human and an ape. Expert classification based on evolutionary assumptions is begging the question. 
    Can you sort out your hypocrisy and then come back to me with arguments that aren't mutually exclusive? Stating that you can't trust evidence you have't validated yourself and then trusting random youtube videos is not consistent. Afterall, to paraphrase you "You have a time machine? If so, I concede that the video is real, because you can go back in time and physically observe and experience the video being taken. You don't have to take the photographer's word that any imagery was fudged."

    Lastly, to tick off your points one by one:

    - You don't need to personally observe experiments for them to be empirical. Note how that is not a part of the definition. Now if you want to claim there is some reason that every single thing has to be personally observed then feel free to make that argument, but don't try and make it seem reasonable by conflating it with empiricism.

    - Okay, it's a video of a start. Great.

    - Taxominic classifications were around long before evolution. Regardless of how you think life began and has changed, apes do share 97%+ of our dna and a multitude of physical and societal features. If evolution were universally rejected by every single person tomorrow, we would still want to classify the similarities between different types of animals and we would classify humans as apes because the similarities between apes and humans are modern day observable facts that do not rely on evolution. All that would change is that we would consider there to be a different cause for these similarities.
    I have personally observed and recorded the same star. A ton of people have. They're all over YouTube. That's the point, you can empirically verify this observation. For about $50 and a clear night anyone can.
    https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/nikon-coolpix-p900




    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    edited July 8 Premium Member
    @AlwaysCorrect
    "Note how that is not a part of the definition."

    It is. "Observed or experienced"? do we need to pull up some definitions? When you take a graph, that is subject to falsification as infallible, you are committing a logical fallacy whether you want to admit it or not.

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    If apes are considered a 97% match with humans, there should be apes still producing humans, where are the 96% matches? The 98 and 99%?

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • @Erfisflat ;

    Great, I look forward to you posting a video tonight of this star on youtube, with the video beforehand showing your username and the date written in hand on a piece of paper or cardboard or whatever so we know it's you. As you like to constantly say how much you love doing experiments and you obviously have the equipment available as you've done this already, i look forward to you putting your money where.

    Erfisflat said:
    @AlwaysCorrect
    "Note how that is not a part of the definition."

    It is. "Observed or experienced"? do we need to pull up some definitions? When you take a graph, that is subject to falsification as infallible, you are committing a logical fallacy whether you want to admit it or not.
    A graph is just a different way of displaying data. it's where the data comes from that matters. For, say, the Global Mean Surface Temperature, do scientists get this via theories or via observing the temperature in numerous locations across the globe?

    Erfisflat said:
    If apes are considered a 97% match with humans, there should be apes still producing humans, where are the 96% matches? The 98 and 99%?
    Why should they? And why does it matter to this debate?

    Also jut for your reference as it doesn't actually matter, the great apes are collectively around 97%. Chimpanzees are 98% and you are at 99% because we all have genetic differences from each other that set us apart in terms of height, skin colour, predisposition to different genetic conditions, etc and there is no one single perfect genetic human template. Gibbons are 96%.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    "...you posting a video tonight of this star on youtube...

    ...you obviously have the equipment available as you've done this already"

    I send a link to a rental site, and you still refuse to do anything for youself, assuming I already have the camera handy, am not getting summer evening showers, and am willing to prove anything to you. 

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    "A graph is just a different way of displaying data. it's where the data comes from that matters. For, say, the Global Mean Surface Temperature, do scientists get this via theories or via observing the temperature in numerous locations across the globe?"

    Some has programmed the computer that records the temperate and gathers the data, there the data is subject to human error or manipulation. Then the scientists must interpret the data and produce the graph more room for human error or manipulation. It's not infallible by any means. It is a logical fallacy from authority

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • AlwaysCorrectAlwaysCorrect 156 Pts
    edited July 8
    @Erfisflat

    I asked you a question. "For, say, the Global Mean Surface Temperature, do scientists get this via theories or via observing the temperature in numerous locations across the globe?" Answer it and stop dodging.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Erfisflat

    i asked you a question. "For, say, the Global Mean Surface Temperature, do scientists get this via theories or via observing the temperature in numerous locations across the globe?" Answer it and stop dodging.
    They are observing data. Is it infallible? 

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • So it meets the definition of empirical and you were incorrect.

    If you'd like to bring up any specific issues of fallibility feel free, though that is a separate issue.
    Erfisflat
  • You gentlemen are having too much fun with this debate :)

    SnakesOfferingApplesImbster
  • edited July 9
    @love2debate I'm glad for it though, I am happy that I was able to provide a fruitful topic. :)

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    So it meets the definition of empirical and you were incorrect.

    If you'd like to bring up any specific issues of fallibility feel free, though that is a separate issue.
    just because they empirically observe data, they still relay that information to you, it then becomes theoretical, theoretically they could be misrepresenting data. You have to have faith in their word. You have to believe men you don't know. The issue isn't the meaning of empirical, the issue is assuming something you cannot personally validate, then pretending it's gospel truth is  appealing to authority. Plain and simple.

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • @Erfisflat

    I think you need to look up the definition of the words you are using and try again.

    The two contrary methods of discerning the truth are the empirical and rationalist methods. Empiricism relies on observation, testing and using your senses while rationalism relies on logic, thought and reason rather than actually testing truths. If you rely on observations, even if you don't use them yourself, you are using the empirical method.

    Also an appeal to authority is where you rely on an authority's opinion rather than looking at the data. If you are looking at the data to come to your own conclusions, you are not relying on their opinion and are instead actually checking the facts.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @AlwaysCorrect

    You have no way of validating whether the data is based on fact. By your logic, burning bushes can talk because someone has recorded this event as factual in a book. You're observing data that has been reported. You may observe, empirically, numbers that are given to you by authority, but it is physically impossible to empirically observe the tempuratures themselves.

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • @Erfisflat

    If you have a brain you are capable of validating if data is based in fact. You can investigate if it stacks up with other measurements, both historic and contempory, you can check their methodology, you can perform the calculations, yourselves, etc, etc.

    Now if you want to get all solipsistic and say that at some point any data is based on assumptions like "You can believe your senses, you're not in a Matrix style computer generated reality", but then the same is true of literally every action you have taken in your entire life and shows that your argument has entered the territory of nonsense hand-wringing that has no basis in scientific enquiry.
    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @AlwaysCorrect

    I don't know how you can confuse looking at a computer screen as empirical evidence of anything other than looking at a computer screen. There's no attempt at injecting the matrix in any of my argument here. I've proved your source as unreliable on multiple counts, and you conveniently ignore it. 

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • @Erfisflat

    In my very last post I just listed things you can do to validate data which aren't simply looking at computer screen, so try responding to my argument rather than strawmanning.

    Also if you remember you were meant to be trying to criticise my climate change assumptions. As far as I can see the only evidence I've ignored is that some people have provided videos which show they think stars look funny when you zoom in at them with commercial cameras, which as well as hardly being compelling is also irrelevant.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    edited July 10 Premium Member

    @AlwaysCorrect
    "In my very last post I just listed things you can do to validate data which aren't simply looking at computer screen, so try responding to my argument rather than strawmanning."

    And none of them bringing you any closer to observing or experiencing exactly the tempurature and humidity at London on September 14th 1906. I can walk outside and see, empirically, if it is raining outside my house. I have observed it raining outside. Then I can say matter of factly, that it is raining.  Several accounts of a major flood has been recorded in history books. Is this reason to say the bible I infallible? 

    "As far as I can see the only evidence I've ignored is"

    http://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/4229#Comment_4229


    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • @Erfisflat

    I don't need to observe or predict the temperature in the past, empirical measurements were taken at the time and validated currently as explained. Also to empirically test whether it was raining, you wouldn't physically have to be there, although that is one method. It's not a very good method to use as the sole use of empirical analysis though as it leaves you unable to offer any critical analysis of anything in history or anything that doesn't occur directly in front of you.

    Also, why don't you hold to your own standards. You've often made statements about the past that you did not observe, sometimes based on nothing more than imagination.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 262 PtsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @Erfisflat

    I don't need to observe or predict the temperature in the past, empirical measurements were taken at the time and validated currently as explained. Also to empirically test whether it was raining, you wouldn't physically have to be there, although that is one method. It's not a very good method to use as the sole use of empirical analysis though as it leaves you unable to offer any critical analysis of anything in history or anything that doesn't occur directly in front of you.

    Also, why don't you hold to your own standards. You've often made statements about the past that you did not observe, sometimes based on nothing more than imagination.
    I've never held any historical accounts as infallible, especially if the source was found unreliable and or there was empirical evidence against it. For instance NASA claims we live on a spinning ball, you can check most every book I the world and confirm. I know that's a lie, empirical evidence tells me so. What shape is the earth again, and how do you know? 

    http:/ /youtu.be/Zj7Cw545f44

    https:/ /youtu.be/QpXSQDVqzsA


    Hubble is a plane.

    https:/ /youtu.be/SIfp0lIpyxs

  • Erfisflat said:
    @Erfisflat

    I don't need to observe or predict the temperature in the past, empirical measurements were taken at the time and validated currently as explained. Also to empirically test whether it was raining, you wouldn't physically have to be there, although that is one method. It's not a very good method to use as the sole use of empirical analysis though as it leaves you unable to offer any critical analysis of anything in history or anything that doesn't occur directly in front of you.

    Also, why don't you hold to your own standards. You've often made statements about the past that you did not observe, sometimes based on nothing more than imagination.
    I've never held any historical accounts as infallible, especially if the source was found unreliable and or there was empirical evidence against it. For instance NASA claims we live on a spinning ball, you can check most every book I the world and confirm. I know that's a lie, empirical evidence tells me so. What shape is the earth again, and how do you know? 
    Flagrant lie. You're a holocaust denying anti-semite conspiracy theorist who believes it was Jews who were behind 9/11.


Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch