Jump to content

My breaking of the rules.


Recommended Posts

We've really tried to remove as much judgement from overall moderation as is possible, so that all we're doing is enforcing the rules the site owners have approved. So the times when you've been "told off" for breaking the rules should be pretty easy to figure out. That about covers my staff contribution.

 

The other bits I've noticed as a member are mostly logical fallacies. It's usually the membership that point these out as weak arguments, and it normally stops there because everyone can see the fallacies once they're pointed out. But when someone uses fallacious logic a LOT, and continues to use it even after someone mentions it, well, we have rules against that.

 

imatfaal gave you a really good description of the ad hominem fallacy this morning, which you've used a lot.

 

I can't count the number of times you used the Argument from Incredulity fallacy in the Global Warming Skeptic thread. That one was explained as well, so we begin to see a pattern here. You ask for explanations, they're given to you, and you then promptly ignore them, dismiss them, or perhaps don't read them. This thread seems to be the same thing. "I can't believe I've got so many tellins off here at SFN". Incredulity is not evidence, it's not a good argument.

 

The other big one you use is Strawman, but you're not alone there, it's a common fallacy. You're told that a 2 degree rise in temperature in a specific area will cause more deaths, but instead of refuting that, you point to a completely different area that's already 2 degrees hotter and argue that they have fewer deaths due to heat. You should be capable of seeing why those are two completely different circumstances and context, but you don't post that way, continuing to aim at a different target and claiming you hit the bullseye.

 

The upshot is, trying to discuss things with someone who seems to be ignoring your best points is pretty frustrating. And when you do present an argument, a lot of times it's based on some faulty critical thinking. You keep telling people you're a skeptic, but few of your positions reflect that accurately. True skeptics are waiting to be shown how data was gathered, and how the interpretations of that data were performed, how they led to any conclusions. When they get that confirmation, that sound methodology was used, they're no longer skeptical, they accept the evidence for what it shows them. You've been given all this, yet claim to still be skeptical.

 

That's just denialism, not skepticism. Which makes it seem like you have an agenda that's impervious to any external voice of reason. I'm sure you're a very honest person, but your arguments make ME skeptical.

 

Nothing personal, sorry if this wasn't what you were after.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've really tried to remove as much judgement from overall moderation as is possible, so that all we're doing is enforcing the rules the site owners have approved. So the times when you've been "told off" for breaking the rules should be pretty easy to figure out. That about covers my staff contribution.

 

The other bits I've noticed as a member are mostly logical fallacies. It's usually the membership that point these out as weak arguments, and it normally stops there because everyone can see the fallacies once they're pointed out. But when someone uses fallacious logic a LOT, and continues to use it even after someone mentions it, well, we have rules against that.

 

imatfaal gave you a really good description of the ad hominem fallacy this morning, which you've used a lot.

 

I can't count the number of times you used the Argument from Incredulity fallacy in the Global Warming Skeptic thread. That one was explained as well, so we begin to see a pattern here. You ask for explanations, they're given to you, and you then promptly ignore them, dismiss them, or perhaps don't read them. This thread seems to be the same thing. "I can't believe I've got so many tellins off here at SFN". Incredulity is not evidence, it's not a good argument.

 

The other big one you use is Strawman, but you're not alone there, it's a common fallacy. You're told that a 2 degree rise in temperature in a specific area will cause more deaths, but instead of refuting that, you point to a completely different area that's already 2 degrees hotter and argue that they have fewer deaths due to heat. You should be capable of seeing why those are two completely different circumstances and context, but you don't post that way, continuing to aim at a different target and claiming you hit the bullseye.

 

The upshot is, trying to discuss things with someone who seems to be ignoring your best points is pretty frustrating. And when you do present an argument, a lot of times it's based on some faulty critical thinking. You keep telling people you're a skeptic, but few of your positions reflect that accurately. True skeptics are waiting to be shown how data was gathered, and how the interpretations of that data were performed, how they led to any conclusions. When they get that confirmation, that sound methodology was used, they're no longer skeptical, they accept the evidence for what it shows them. You've been given all this, yet claim to still be skeptical.

 

That's just denialism, not skepticism. Which makes it seem like you have an agenda that's impervious to any external voice of reason. I'm sure you're a very honest person, but your arguments make ME skeptical.

 

Nothing personal, sorry if this wasn't what you were after.

So you can explain where I have ever used an logical fallacy. Then I might be able to understand how it is wrong. Should be easy for you to do that.

 

Today the NHS (British health service) is overloaded by the usual winter rush of extra patients. Happens most winters. This one is unusually mild but still the rush is even greater than ever.

 

Winter is the bad time in the UK. Summertime is when the living is easy.

 

The other big one you use is Strawman, but you're not alone there, it's a common fallacy. You're told that a 2 degree rise in temperature in a specific area will cause more deaths, but instead of refuting that, you point to a completely different area that's already 2 degrees hotter and argue that they have fewer deaths due to heat. You should be capable of seeing why those are two completely different circumstances and context, but you don't post that way, continuing to aim at a different target and claiming you hit the bullseye.

Fabulous!!!

 

You have actually said that the paper was used to tell me that it would make the UK less habitable if the climate was 2 degrees warmer.

 

1 It didn't. It said that if we made no alterations to our life style it would add 5,000 deaths. Well, we will change our life styles if it gets a bit warmer!!

 

2 How the hell is that out of context??????

 

When presented with "evidence" which says x and told that it says x+y I say that this is why I am a skeptic. You are why I am a skeptic.

 

Pick one.

Any. Go ahead I am sure it must be so easy for somebody who is so clearly much more clever than me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are ad homs. Each of them negatively characterises the other party(ies) in the discussion in order to imply that their argument is worthless or that yours is unassailable by them

 

Don't hold your breath waiting for a reply.

 

It would take an understanding of what forcing is and what a watt is to make sense of such a graph.

 

I take it you don't think it good to have dissenters allowed in a discussion.

 

Not a fan of democracy are you.

 

Garbage in garbage out. You call yourself a scientist?

 

If you have read this and ever post this graph again you are lying and know it.

 

I have no intention of looking for other forms of the logical fallacies you have been reprimanded for using. Neither will I argue the toss on the validity of the above statements or their perceived natures as ad hominems. If you spent as much time reading about climate science as you do complaining that you have been maltreated then your arguments might be more credible and the positions you take more believable [and that's another ad hom - sorry, but I thought a last example from me would cement the idea !]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Any. Go ahead I am sure it must be so easy for somebody who is so clearly much more clever than me.

Because this puts the onus on me to go through your posts. If it's not worth your time and effort, it sure as heck isn't worth mine.

 

It said that if we made no alterations to our life style it would add 5,000 deaths. Well, we will change our life styles if it gets a bit warmer!!

 

You were just given an example of changing the argument in trying to refute it, and you respond by changing the argument in order to refute it. Fabulous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These are ad homs. Each of them negatively characterises the other party(ies) in the discussion in order to imply that their argument is worthless or that yours is unassailable by them

 

 

 

 

 

I have no intention of looking for other forms of the logical fallacies you have been reprimanded for using. Neither will I argue the toss on the validity of the above statements or their perceived natures as ad hominems. If you spent as much time reading about climate science as you do complaining that you have been maltreated then your arguments might be more credible and the positions you take more believable [and that's another ad hom - sorry, but I thought a last example from me would cement the idea !]

No, those are direct insults.

 

The ad hom thing is about attacking the person rather than the argument.

 

Saying that somebody has presented something which is a lie and thus they are a luiar is clear and part of the debating process. It is, when linked to what they have done wrong, not an ad hom.

 

At least that's how I see it.

 

But OK, if this is a "NO INSULTING THE SCIENTIFICALLY DISINGENUOUS " forum I'll moderate my approach. Lying gets me all ryled up, I might flip now and agin though.

Because this puts the onus on me to go through your posts. If it's not worth your time and effort, it sure as heck isn't worth mine.

 

You were just given an example of changing the argument in trying to refute it, and you respond by changing the argument in order to refute it. Fabulous.

If you think that talking about how people live in a warmer place is out of order in a discussion about how we would live if it got a little warmer you are .... well ... I have no words for that... strange is a start.

Edited by Tim the plumber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim. since you are online,

 

I had a couple of discussions with you, but discontinued them when you attacked me, even though I actually supported your view.

 

 

My support is not uncommon as I often support the underdog when I see 'ganging up', even if I don't agree with his argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there are also strawmen like this:

I thought it was an emotional piece about some sort of philosophy on humans being bad and anything they do is always bad. That nature should free it's self from the infection of humanity.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim. since you are online,

 

I had a couple of discussions with you, but discontinued them when you attacked me, even though I actually supported your view.

 

 

My support is not uncommon as I often support the underdog when I see 'ganging up', even if I don't agree with his argument.

My apologies. I tend to get a little punch drunck here.

Tim,

The increasing CO2 is, of itself, a philosophical problem. It is impolite of us to contaminate the world in this way.

However, whether you like it or not, that CO2 contributes to global warming which does cause real problems.

 

Ooops, i got the wrong quote first time and the thread is rolling fast.

 

That was the philosophy bit i was responding to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you think that talking about how people live in a warmer place is out of order in a discussion about how we would live if it got a little warmer you are .... well ... I have no words for that... strange is a start.

 

That's not the topic of the discussion, though — the paper was drawing a conclusion under a fairly clear set of conditions. This is just a continuation of the pattern of answering a different question than the one which was posed.

 

Saying that somebody has presented something which is a lie and thus they are a luiar is clear and part of the debating process. It is, when linked to what they have done wrong, not an ad hom.

 

Accusations of lying are pretty serious. The person has to not only be telling a falsehood, but must also be aware that they are doing so. Further, calling someone a liar is even more serious, owing to the implication that this is habitual. Unless you can establish that they are a liar, that is an ad hom, since the implication is that nothing they say is worthy of response, simply because of their character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, those are direct insults.

 

Which breaks rule #1:

 

To maintain civility in discussions on SFN, the following rules are enforced:

  • Be civil.
    • No flaming. Refrain from insulting or attacking users in a discussion.
Edited by elfmotat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 

That's not the topic of the discussion, though — the paper was drawing a conclusion under a fairly clear set of conditions. This is just a continuation of the pattern of answering a different question than the one which was posed.

 

Accusations of lying are pretty serious. The person has to not only be telling a falsehood, but must also be aware that they are doing so. Further, calling someone a liar is even more serious, owing to the implication that this is habitual. Unless you can establish that they are a liar, that is an ad hom, since the implication is that nothing they say is worthy of response, simply because of their character.

 

In a discussion about the impacts of increased temperatures on human health in the UK you, or who ever, posted a paper which discussed the impacts of a 2 degree rise assuming that our behavior did not change as a result of that temperature rise.

 

I talked about the fact that we would change our behavior and that people who live in warmer places live longer, other factors aside.

 

You say that I am out of order because my point is not relevant to the impact of a 2 degree temperature rise.

 

Can you explain why my point about comparing the life styles and life expectancies of people in different climates is not relevant and comparing the death rate assuming we do not alter our behavior is at all relevant? I currently do not at all understand your reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In a discussion about the impacts of increased temperatures on human health in the UK you, or who ever, posted a paper which discussed the impacts of a 2 degree rise assuming that our behavior did not change as a result of that temperature rise.

 

I talked about the fact that we would change our behavior and that people who live in warmer places live longer, other factors aside.

 

You say that I am out of order because my point is not relevant to the impact of a 2 degree temperature rise.

 

Can you explain why my point about comparing the life styles and life expectancies of people in different climates is not relevant and comparing the death rate assuming we do not alter our behavior is at all relevant? I currently do not at all understand your reasoning.

 

Because the latter was the subject of the paper under discussion, and the former was not.

 

In a scientific study, you try and look at the effect of a single variable if you can. Much like looking at a thermodynamic effect if you held temperature and volume constant and looked at effects from pressure variations. It makes no sense to begin arguing about what happens when temperature changed, since that's not the focus of the paper. That would be a different experiment.

 

The paper's topic was of the format "if X, then Y". X is a given. You don't get to argue X in that discussion — that's changing the subject. You only get to argue about Y. You could, if you wish, open up a new thread and discuss X.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Because the latter was the subject of the paper under discussion, and the former was not.

 

In a scientific study, you try and look at the effect of a single variable if you can. Much like looking at a thermodynamic effect if you held temperature and volume constant and looked at effects from pressure variations. It makes no sense to begin arguing about what happens when temperature changed, since that's not the focus of the paper. That would be a different experiment.

 

The paper's topic was of the format "if X, then Y". X is a given. You don't get to argue X in that discussion — that's changing the subject. You only get to argue about Y. You could, if you wish, open up a new thread and discuss X.

 

Drivel.

 

The paper was posted as evidence of what the negative impacts of warming would be.

 

You then retreat to "well you have to look at one variable at a time". Utterly unscientific drivel. Ever heard of a control experiment? Ever heard of the real world?

 

Why is it wrong to consider how people live in warmer places when considering the imapct of a little warming?

 

This is why people get angry about your utterly biased moderation. You post your stupid "DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS ATTACK" things when you have clearly lost an argument. That is a form of dishonesty. Grow up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Drivel.

 

The paper was posted as evidence of what the negative impacts of warming would be.

 

You then retreat to "well you have to look at one variable at a time". Utterly unscientific drivel. Ever heard of a control experiment? Ever heard of the real world?

 

Why is it wrong to consider how people live in warmer places when considering the imapct of a little warming?

 

This is why people get angry about your utterly biased moderation. You post your stupid "DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS ATTACK" things when you have clearly lost an argument. That is a form of dishonesty. Grow up.

Nice straw man attack there.

Did not spot the difference between

"well you have to look at one variable at a time".

and

"you try and look at the effect of a single variable if you can."

or did you just hope we wouldn't notice?

 

Also, would you like to explain exactly what arguments you have won?

Edited by John Cuthber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drivel.

 

The paper was posted as evidence of what the negative impacts of warming would be.

Under the assumption that nothing else changed.

 

You then retreat to "well you have to look at one variable at a time". Utterly unscientific drivel. Ever heard of a control experiment? Ever heard of the real world?

Ask around. (Ask scientists, I mean). Ask them if the goal of trying to isolate one variable is a sound scientific principle or or not.

 

 

This is why people get angry about your utterly biased moderation. You post your stupid "DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS ATTACK" things when you have clearly lost an argument. That is a form of dishonesty. Grow up.

I just did a search for "DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS ATTACK" and can only find it posted in this thread. If you meant "Do not respond to this modnote" or something like that, I think you'll find that in science discussions it's usually posted by someone not involved in that thread, so how can they have lost an argument, when they are not involved in it?

 

(BTW, personal attacks are an example of breaking the rules, e.g. accusations of dishonesty, and telling someone to grow up. Rule 2.1)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

x

 

Harold Squared, on 24 Jan 2015 - 5:21 PM, said:snapback.png

It had better be faster to build, since such facilities in the USA at least, are always exploding and burning, look it up and weep, my friends. SEGS I and II and Solar One all were affected. If I recall correctly Solar One has ceased operations altogether as a power generation facility, while many nuclear power stations built in the 1970s are still chugging along.


Harold Squared, on 24 Jan 2015 - 8:21 PM, said:snapback.png

By law and at higher cost? Certainly. Thanks for the update, though...


!

Moderator Note

If you are going to make claims, you need to back them up, i.e. post a citation. Otherwise this is just trolling, and will not be tolerated.

Do not respond to this modnote in the thread.

 

 

x

 

 

 

You could have asked him to cite his sources rather than come down like a school teacher finding a boy smoking behind the bike sheds.

 

Maturity.


Nice straw man attack there.

Did not spot the difference between

"well you have to look at one variable at a time".

and

"you try and look at the effect of a single variable if you can."

or did you just hope we wouldn't notice?

 

Also, would you like to explain exactly what arguments you have won?

What???

 

In a debate about why you are or are not a global warming skeptic the argument turned to the effects of warming on the UK population. A paper was introduced which said that if it warmed up by 2 degrees and there was no change in behaviour there would be 5,000 more deaths per year.

 

I said that we would change our behaviour. That populations which live in hotter places did not show lower life expectancies, in fact they live longer when comparing people of equal wealth.

 

So far I have not seen any logical or reasonable reason why the power of the moderator was brough in to attack me for saying this.

 

If you can explain why it is wrong to look at populations which are living in the conditions which are predicted as the base assumption of a paper to consider if the results of the paper are correct and reasonable do tell!


Under the assumption that nothing else changed.

 

Which, when that includes making adjustments to the warmer weather, is garbage.

 

Ask around. (Ask scientists, I mean). Ask them if the goal of trying to isolate one variable is a sound scientific principle or or not.

Ever heard of a control group? You take a population, divide it into different groups, then apply the factor you are testing to one group. The result is the difference between the 2 groups. Not the number the test group produced.


I just did a search for "DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS ATTACK" and can only find it posted in this thread. If you meant "Do not respond to this modnote" or something like that, I think you'll find that in science discussions it's usually posted by someone not involved in that thread, so how can they have lost an argument, when they are not involved in it?

(BTW, personal attacks are an example of breaking the rules, e.g. accusations of dishonesty, and telling someone to grow up. Rule 2.1)

 

 

When you attack somebody by saying that their post was out of order you also post a do not respond notice in your big green moderator "I'm better than you!" style.

 

You will expect me to start a thread about any future such attacks against me and posible other where I feel it is waranted. You can then have a clear field to explain your attitude and maybe I will become convinced you are not an .......

Edited by Tim the plumber
Link to comment
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

 

Tim the Plumber

 

I have had it with this thread - it smacks of whining self-justification mixed with insults. I cannot tell if you really do not understand the points put to you or whether you are trolling - in either case the thread is neither edifying nor educational.

 

The combination of a lack of purpose and the insulting language used is enough to close this thread down.

 

The rules to our forum are here

http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

Capt R's guide to etiquette is here

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/7813-science-forums-etiquette/

The Nizkor Project guide to fallacies is here

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

And Stanford Philosophy's guide to Scientific Objectivity is here

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/

 

Thread locked. Do not start any more threads on this topic - they will be locked. You can always report any moderations that you feel are unjust (as I am pretty sure you have already done and will continue to do so).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.