Log in

View Full Version : Guide to understanding KiwiBiker forum posts



rustyrobot
26th April 2012, 08:46
https://s3.amazonaws.com/yourlogicalfallacyis/pdf/LogicalFallaciesInfographic_A1.pdf

Suddenly it all makes sense!

nathanwhite
26th April 2012, 08:58
Very interesting read... gonna have to link that to some people I know

BigAl
26th April 2012, 09:25
Cool, this gives lots more ideas for posts:niceone:

Big Dave
26th April 2012, 11:33
What's interesting to me is that the same thing was posted previously as a text block and the responses were basically 'what shite'. But put some graphics on it.... I might have to upgrade to CS6 after all.

rustyrobot
26th April 2012, 11:40
What's interesting to me is that the same thing was posted previously as a text block and the responses were basically 'what shite'. But put some graphics on it.... I might have to upgrade to CS6 after all.

...and in that you have noticed a key point not listed on the poster that works wonders in this day and age. People will believe any old BS if you make it look pretty. Heck - that's how duplicitious self-serving politicians get elected right? With expensive marketing campaigns (thereby turning what is called a democracy into an effective plutocracy).

Big Dave
26th April 2012, 12:05
Quite right - although there is the 'lipstick on a pig' scenario too :-)

Stirts
26th April 2012, 12:53
Heck - that's how duplicitious self-serving politicians get elected right?


Quite right - although there is the 'lipstick on a pig' scenario too :-)

Let's put some graphics on that shall we?
<img src="http://conservativehome.blogs.com/international/images/2008/09/18/twoclarks.jpg"></img>

Hitcher
26th April 2012, 18:30
People will believe any old BS if you make it look pretty.

BS. Is that anything like bullshit?

oldrider
26th April 2012, 19:41
BS. Is that anything like bullshit?

BS = boom-tish but with bad spelling! :hitcher: (Sigh, glad I could help!)

rustyrobot
26th April 2012, 20:02
BS = boom-tish but with bad spelling! :hitcher: (Sigh, glad I could help!)

no no, BS = Balance Sheet. And right about election time it IS quite a lot like bullshit. Although you could probably substitute Bob Saget, Bible Studies or Britney Spears without any confusion.

Jantar
26th April 2012, 20:06
I quite like the list of Aristotles Fallacies as given by Lord Monkton. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/20/the-illogic-of-climate-hysteria/


The Greek philosopher Aristotle, 2300 years ago, listed the dozen commonest logical fallacies in human discourse in his book Sophistical Refutations. Not the least of these invalid arguments is what the mediaeval schoolmen would later call the argumentum ad populum – the consensus or headcount fallacy.

A fallacy is a deceptive argument that appears to be logically valid but is in fact invalid. Its conclusion will be unreliable at best, downright false at worst.

One should not make the mistake of thinking that Aristotle’s fallacies are irrelevant archaisms. They are as crucial today as when he first wrote them down. Arguments founded upon any of his fallacies are unsound and unreliable, and that is that.

Startlingly, nearly all of the usual arguments for alarm about the climate are instances of Aristotle’s dozen fallacies of relevance or of presumption, not the least of which is the consensus fallacy.

Just because we are told that many people say they believe a thing to be so, that is no evidence that many people say it, still less that they believe it, still less that it is so. The mere fact of a consensus – even if there were one – tells us nothing whatsoever about whether the proposition to which the consensus supposedly assents is true or false.

Two surveys have purported to show that 97% of climate scientists supported the “consensus”. However, one survey was based on the views of just 77 scientists, far too small a sample to be scientific, and the proposition to which 75 of the 77 assented was merely to the effect that there has been warming since 1950.

The other paper did not state explicitly what question the scientists were asked and did not explain how they had been selected to remove bias. Evidentially, it was valueless. Yet that has not prevented the usual suspects from saying – falsely – that the “consensus” of 97% of all climate scientists is that manmade global warming is potentially catastrophic.

Some climate extremists say there is a “consensus of evidence”. However, evidence cannot hold or express an opinion. There has been no global warming for a decade and a half; sea level has been rising for eight years at a rate equivalent to just 3 cm per century; hurricane activity is at its lowest in the 30-year satellite record; global sea-ice extent has hardly changed in that time; Himalayan glaciers have not lost ice overall; ocean heat content is rising four and a half times more slowly than predicted; and the 50 million “climate refugees” that the UN had said would be displaced by 2010 simply do not exist. To date, the “consensus of evidence” does not support catastrophism.

“Ah,” say the believers, “but there is a consensus of scientists and learned societies.” That is the argumentum ad verecundiam, the reputation or appeal-to-authority fallacy. Merely because a group has a reputation, it may not deserve it; even if it deserves it, it may not be acting in accordance with it; and, even if it is, it may be wrong.

“But it’s only if we include a strong warming effect from Man’s CO2 emissions that we can reproduce the observed warming of the past 60 years. We cannot think of any other reason for the warming.” That argument from the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC, is the argumentum ad ignorantiam, the fallacy of arguing from ignorance. We do not know why the warming has occurred. Arbitrarily to blame Man is impermissible.

“The rate of global warming is accelerating. Therefore it is caused by us.” That is the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi, the red-herring fallacy. Even if global warming were accelerating, that would tell us nothing about whether we were to blame. The IPCC twice uses this fallacious argument in its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report. Even if its argument were not illogical, the warming rate is not increasing. The notion that it is accelerating was based on a statistical abuse that the IPCC has refused to correct.

Superficially, the red-herring fallacy may seem similar to the fallacy of argument from ignorance. However, it is subtly different. The argument from ignorance refers to fundamental ignorance of the matter of the argument (hence an arbitrary conclusion is reached): the red-herring fallacy refers to fundamental ignorance of the manner of conducting an argument (hence an irrelevant consideration is introduced).

“What about the cuddly polar bears?” That is the argumentum ad misericordiam, the fallacy of inappropriate pity. There are five times as many polar bears as there were in the 1940s – hardly the population profile of a species at imminent threat of extinction. There is no need to pity the bears (and they are not cuddly).

“For 60 years we have added CO2 to the atmosphere. That causes warming. Therefore the warming is our fault.” That is the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, the argument from false cause. Merely because one event precedes another it does not necessarily cause it.

“We tell the computer models that there will be strong warming if we add CO2 to the air. The models show there will be a strong warming. Therefore the warming is our fault.” This is the argumentum ad petitionem principii, the circular-argument fallacy, where a premise is also the conclusion.

“Global warming caused Hurricane Katrina.” This is the inappropriate argument from the general to the particular that is the fallacy a dicto simpliciter ad dictum
secundum quid, the fallacy of accident. Even the IPCC admits individual extreme-weather events cannot be ascribed to global warming. Hurricane Katrina was only Category 3 at landfall. The true reason for the damage was failure to maintain the sea walls.

“Arctic sea ice is melting: therefore manmade global warming is a problem.” This is the inappropriate argument from the particular to the general that is the fallacy a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, the fallacy of converse accident. The Arctic ice may be melting, but the Antarctic has been cooling for 30 years and the sea ice there is growing, so the decline in Arctic sea ice does not indicate a global problem.

“Monckton says he’s a member of the House of Lords, but the Clerk of the Parliaments says he isn’t, so everything he says is nonsense.” That is the argumentum ad hominem, the attack on the man rather than on his argument.

“We don’t care what the truth is. We want more taxation and regulation. We will use global warming as an excuse. If you disagree, we will haul you before the International Climate Court.” That is the nastiest of all the logical fallacies: the argumentum ad baculum, the argument of force.