Calling all conspiracy theorists - do you believe in this one?

[Graystone]

I've already addressed this. It is clear from the written record that you did exactly what I said you did and a post hoc justification doesn't wash.



You were perfectly happy to declare you don't consider his credentials valid when disputing the Exception, yet when asked for a reason as to why you don't consider them valid - you've gone all shy...

It's almost like you know that you have no leg to stand on.



You re-worded the clarification you sought from me into something I did not say. That's Disingenuous.



Ah I see, so we are back to make accusations of Fallacies without actually understanding the fallacy then. Good Job, Well done, Keep it up!



A valid argument does not necessarily equate to proof. Furthermore, there are some fields where such a proof doesn't really exist, only a series of valid arguments.



There's a reason why I specifically included the qualification.

That you removed it, in of itself (without the underlying motive that I suspect to be the case) is dishonest argumentation.



Nice try - Except the form of the argument is not:

You are wrong because you are dishonest (which is the Ad Hominem you are trying to accuse me of)

So go back, try again and learn your fallacies.

1) That is not clear at all. Removing the 'in selected fields' does not make it incorrect, this is basic English.

His credentials are irrelevant.

See #1 So it is not the exceptions I reworded, just your interpretation of it, which again, was done for clarity, not disenginuity.

A series of valid arguments is fine if you do not seek to prove, or to claim that you are correct and others are wrong. In case which you do assert your correctness, then proof is required to back yourself up.

See #1 It's a simplification, how exactly does it make the statement incorrect?

I'm not dishonest. To portray me as such is the fallacy. I'm seeing a trend in which you come up with some 'exception' to all the fallacies you commit; it's quite hilarious because that is precisely the delusion and illogic the fallacies are there to prevent but you just can't see it.

[husaberg]

[Graystone]

Orphan Black, fantastic series. Tatiana Maslany deserved all the awards she got (and then some) for her performances.

[husaberg]

[Viking01]

I see that clinical trials have progressed from lab monkeys up to field trials
on US diplomats around the globe. Wonder how long before the production
version becomes available.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/ne...-injuries.html

No, Donald. The ringing in your ears is simply the western press "showing
their appreciation of a job well done" following your week of diplomacy
around the globe.

[TheDemonLord]

1) That is not clear at all. Removing the 'in selected fields' does not make it incorrect, this is basic English.

See #1 So it is not the exceptions I reworded, just your interpretation of it, which again, was done for clarity, not disenginuity.

See #1 It's a simplification, how exactly does it make the statement incorrect?

Which is a rather fancy way of admitting that you are re-wording what I said (and what I meant) into what you wanted it to mean.

His credentials are irrelevant.

Except you repeatedly stated you didn't accept his status - If it is because of a genuine disagreement - you'd be able to post that up. If, however, it was purely to avoid conceeding the point all along, you wouldn't have any reason to dispute this and would avoid answering the challenge.

Oh Look!

A series of valid arguments is fine if you do not seek to prove, or to claim that you are correct and others are wrong. In case which you do assert your correctness, then proof is required to back yourself up.

In such realms as Economics (and various other fields) all there is are series of valid arguments. This is due to their subjective nature and the lack of objective measuring data - especially in economics because a large section of Economic theory is devoted to the Ethics and morality of various systems. For example Laissez-faire type systems tend to produce the most amount of entrepreneurial activity and large amounts of technological advancement - but it comes at the cost of consumer protections - can you prove that this system is the right system? Of course not -all you can do is make a series of valid arguments.

I'm not dishonest. To portray me as such is the fallacy.

In this debate, I think you are being dishonest, but at no point have I used that as the basis to rebut what you have said.

I'll (again) refer you to the form of the Fallacy:

"Person 1 is claiming Y.
Person 1 is a moron.
Therefore, Y is not true."

Which is not what has happened:

Me: I think X
You: So what you are saying is Y
Me: No, I meant X
You: Which is Y
Me: X is not Y therefore you are being dishonest.

I've not used the accusation of dishonesty as the basis for what you have said to be wrong.

I'm seeing a trend in which you come up with some 'exception' to all the fallacies you commit;

You mean - I actually understand what the Fallacies are and how to correctly use them? Well, I'll take the compliment...

it's quite hilarious because that is precisely the delusion and illogic the fallacies are there to prevent but you just can't see it.

Sargon's Law (again)

[Graystone]

Which is a rather fancy way of admitting that you are re-wording what I said (and what I meant) into what you wanted it to mean.



Except you repeatedly stated you didn't accept his status - If it is because of a genuine disagreement - you'd be able to post that up. If, however, it was purely to avoid conceeding the point all along, you wouldn't have any reason to dispute this and would avoid answering the challenge.

Oh Look!



In such realms as Economics (and various other fields) all there is are series of valid arguments. This is due to their subjective nature and the lack of objective measuring data - especially in economics because a large section of Economic theory is devoted to the Ethics and morality of various systems. For example Laissez-faire type systems tend to produce the most amount of entrepreneurial activity and large amounts of technological advancement - but it comes at the cost of consumer protections - can you prove that this system is the right system? Of course not -all you can do is make a series of valid arguments.



In this debate, I think you are being dishonest, but at no point have I used that as the basis to rebut what you have said.

I'll (again) refer you to the form of the Fallacy:

"Person 1 is claiming Y.
Person 1 is a moron.
Therefore, Y is not true."

Which is not what has happened:

Me: I think X
You: So what you are saying is Y
Me: No, I meant X
You: Which is Y
Me: X is not Y therefore you are being dishonest.

I've not used the accusation of dishonesty as the basis for what you have said to be wrong.



You mean - I actually understand what the Fallacies are and how to correctly use them? Well, I'll take the compliment...



Sargon's Law (again)

1) You're yet to explain how the rewording makes it incorrect...

Yet, they remain irrelevant, that's how the argument from authority fallacy works.

So there is no proof in those fields? or is a series of valid arguments constitutes proof in those fields?

See #1, I'm still waiting for you to explain how X and Y mean different things... the 'therefore' in that sentence needs to be a known fact or shared opinion. Since it is neither of those things, and you cannot even show how the meaning is made different after I have repeatedly asked you to, your supposition that X and Y mean different things is invalid, and the conclusion that I am dishonest is also invalid. It should also be noted, the "You: Which is Y" would be more accurately interpreted as "You: Which covers Y"

I'd move Sargon's law to #2 on the list of shit you should understand before using, it's getting embarrassing dude.

[husaberg]

[Banditbandit]

'Bout time this thread had a silly hat ...

[Banditbandit]

Or two ..

[TheDemonLord]

1) You're yet to explain how the rewording makes it incorrect...

The rewording doesn't take into account a degree of nuance and differentiation between two unique concepts, one which later on is rather key.

If you were being honest in the debate, regardless of how you felt about the succinctness, you'd accept the addendum and carry on.

but you didn't

You've given a post-hoc justification for doing so, but my issue is you omitted the clarification that I provided, after asking for said clarification - that is a disingenuous method of debate.

Yet, they remain irrelevant, that's how the argument from authority fallacy works.

Do you need to read the "Exceptions" area from your own sources again? Although to be honest if you don't understand it by now, there's not much hope.

You were more than happy to dispute his status as an Expert (so as to avoid conceding my point all along) yet, when asked for a reason why, you've refused.

What you are demonstrating, is the very reason why there is an exception and why it takes the form it does.

So there is no proof in those fields? or is a series of valid arguments constitutes proof in those fields?

And now, you have come to the problem with your position all along - try answering that question from your point of view, in relation to what is being discussed...

Furthermore - it's the reason why I added the clarification that I did - to draw a distinct line between areas with varying levels of Proof.

See #1, I'm still waiting for you to explain how X and Y mean different things... the 'therefore' in that sentence needs to be a known fact or shared opinion. Since it is neither of those things, and you cannot even show how the meaning is made different after I have repeatedly asked you to, your supposition that X and Y mean different things is invalid, and the conclusion that I am dishonest is also invalid. It should also be noted, the "You: Which is Y" would be more accurately interpreted as "You: Which covers Y"

I've outlined the difference as above - which would render you claims of Ad Hominem (just like all your other attempts to claim a fallacy) as false.

I'd move Sargon's law to #2 on the list of shit you should understand before using, it's getting embarrassing dude.

Sargons Law for a third time...

[Graystone]

The rewording doesn't take into account a degree of nuance and differentiation between two unique concepts, one which later on is rather key.

If you were being honest in the debate, regardless of how you felt about the succinctness, you'd accept the addendum and carry on.

but you didn't

You've given a post-hoc justification for doing so, but my issue is you omitted the clarification that I provided, after asking for said clarification - that is a disingenuous method of debate.



Do you need to read the "Exceptions" area from your own sources again? Although to be honest if you don't understand it by now, there's not much hope.

You were more than happy to dispute his status as an Expert (so as to avoid conceding my point all along) yet, when asked for a reason why, you've refused.

What you are demonstrating, is the very reason why there is an exception and why it takes the form it does.



And now, you have come to the problem with your position all along - try answering that question from your point of view, in relation to what is being discussed...

Furthermore - it's the reason why I added the clarification that I did - to draw a distinct line between areas with varying levels of Proof.



I've outlined the difference as above - which would render you claims of Ad Hominem (just like all your other attempts to claim a fallacy) as false.



Sargons Law for a third time...

How does the re-wording make it incorrect? By explaining that you would ensure we both understand the degree of nuance and differentiation between the two concepts. There's no third party here, just explain what it is you mean, to me. I really don't see why this is such a difficult task or concept for you?

Cart, horse, irrelevant.

There were two questions there, can you answer even one of them! "So there is no proof in those fields? or is a series of valid arguments constitutes proof in those fields?" For me, it is a No to both for your example, but I wouldn't characterise a whole field as unprovable or provable and instead evaluate it on a case by case basis.

Now we are getting somewhere, so the difference in meaning is "to draw a distinct line between areas with varying levels of Proof" which would be a third premise.

1) The fallacy's exception is when a recognized expert's opinion counts as proof
2) That an inductive argument can be a valid form of proof
3) That the level/standard of proof varies between different fields of study, but remains consistent within each feild

Now please just go through the three premises and let me know which ones you disagree with and why.

[Katman]

This will go down in KB folklore as the most pointless argument ever.

[Graystone]

This will go down in KB folklore as the most pointless argument ever.

No you.

[husaberg]