Slashdot Mirror

Nope, my claim is that light is neither novel or unnatural and that there is research and empirical evidence available to build from. I have also previously in the thread claimed that with a minimal amount of research you should be sceptical about Kruse.

That's called genetic fallacy. Whether Kruse's narrative is correct is less important than the question that is raised of the long term health effects of artificial lighting, particularly in the blue spectrum.

Posting links to other peoples research has not changed my mind about any of my previous claims, in fact it seems to validate at least one of them.

I'm not interested in changing your mind. But, other people may be interested or have raised similar doubts themselves.

The way that that light cycle affects your brain is to use vitamin A inside your eyes to communicate to your brain that it is daytime when the blue light is on, and then it is nighttime when the blue light is gone. https://t.co/yg7kjNsDum

— Chris Masterjohn (@ChrisMasterjohn) March 7, 2019

Genetic Fallacy, much? https://www.logicalfallacies.i...

So opposite of the boy who cried wolf then?

Genetic Fallacy, much? https://www.logicalfallacies.i...

Ad verecundiam

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/

I bet his family name was originally along the lines of McIninch, because he certainly seems like a true Scotsman.

link

Ms. Rudd should be called out quite clearly for employing such blatant logical fallacy.

Philosophy humor, not everyone gets it. Kind of like Psychology humor, not everyone gets id either.

And therefore, the GM Sunraycer is proof that the Tesla Model S is not possible. I understand.

"A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it."
Straw Man Fallacy

I gave a specific mathematical argument as to why a solar-powered AIRPLANE is an inherently bad idea. Cars are not airplanes. Moreover, the Tesla Model S is NOT SOLAR-POWERED; it is battery powered. I have already stated that a useful battery-powered airplane could plausibly be developed in the future.

More generally, you are falsely accusing me of saying, "because this technology is bad today, therefore it always will be." But, what I actually said is, "there are basic scientific reasons why this technology is bad, and probably always will be." If you don't understand the difference between those two statements, then you have no understanding of how science and engineering work.

Although imagine the surface area and power requirements of something like this [shiply.com].

Many other people in this discussion have already suggested solar-powered airships, and I already replied to a couple of them agreeing that the idea has some potential. Nevertheless, airships are not airplanes, and will never compete in the same markets as a Cessna 188. (They could overlap a little with the Boeing 747, but not that much.)

The point I'm trying to make is that it's a stupid argument to say that the Solar Impulse 2 is not a drop-in replacement for any existing aircraft. It is a technology demonstrator.

And the point which I made rather clearly in my original post, was that the inadequacy of the Solar Impulse 2 is not due to technological immaturity, but rather due to fundamental physics that are unlikely to ever be overcome, no matter how much money and time is spent trying.

Of course it's not going to replace anything. It's going to advance the state of the art though, and it's going to bring about additional research and investment into related technologies in various applications.

No doubt. When did I ever suggest otherwise? That's not the subject of the article, though.

Gigantic successful companies would crash and burn if they constantly hire the under qualified, under performing, incompetent white guy over the much more skilled minority who is better at doing his job. It's the same with video game makers. If you hire whoever you want regardless of skill, you get Dai Katana. If you hire the best workers in the world regardless of color or background, you get Skyrim. The fact that these companies are successful means they aren't hiring in a racist manner.

Man, you are just affirming the SHIT out of that consequent!

So, you respond to a defense against a genetic fallacy by using another genetic fallacy?

So, you respond to a defense against a genetic fallacy by using another genetic fallacy?

Slippery slope fallacy.

You are here: Logical Fallacies > Fallacies of Presumption > Slippery Slope Fallacy
Slippery Slope Fallacy
Explanation
Slippery slope arguments falsely assume that one thing must lead to another. They begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead to another, and before we know it we'll be doing something that we don't want to do. They conclude that we therefore shouldn't do the first thing. The problem with these arguments is that it is possible to do the first thing that they mention without going on to do the other things; restraint is possible.
Example
(1) If you buy a Green Day album, then next you'll be buying Buzzcocks albums, and before you know it you'll be a punk with green hair and everything.
(2) You don't want to become a punk.
Therefore:
(3) You shouldn't buy a Green Day album.
This argument commits the slippery slope fallacy because it is perfectly possible to buy a Green Day album without going on to become a punk; we could buy the album and then stop there. The conclusion therefore hasn't been proven, because the argument's first premise is false.

------------
http://www.logicalfallacies.in...

In order for an argument to be valid, all the links in the chain of argument must work, otherwise it's a bogus argument. The moralist hand-wringing over genetic modification of embryos assumes that we will eventually be making monsters through our vanity. It assumes that there are parents that would willfully create damaged babies for whims. (yes, I know that there are people who go through with pregnancies where they know the baby will have chromosomal problems, but that's not the same as a /manufactured/ genetic problem).

It's difficult enough bringing up a "normal" child.

--
BMO

I have faith that physicists have done their work well, and are impartial and not lying to me. But my mother that attends church feels the same way about her pastor. I do not have enough time left in my life to turn around and learn the skills I'd need to actually verify what scientist have told me, nor the money to buy the equipment. So I therefor am going on faith, just like my mother. It would be the hight of hypocrisy for me to scold her for doing the exact same thing I'm doing.

You have just committed a fallacy of equivocation. You are using two different meanings of the word faith here and trying to say that they are the same when they are not.

For example, when I drive through a green light without looking I have "faith" that others are not going to drive through the red light and hit me. This is based off of experience and is one defintion of faith, which is a trust based on experience.

Religious faith is different. It is a belief that is not based on proof.

Now you may say that you are talking about faith in the individuals(scientists and preachers) which is the same as trust in the individual, but that is a little disingenuous. You are basically relying on extreme ignorance and a severe lack of curiosity in the "believer". In other words you are claiming in this case that you are ignorant of the scientific method and of the importance of evidence. You are also claiming that your mother is ignorant of these things as well as the lack of evidence of the claims of religion.

I sincerely doubt that you and your mother are that stupid.

Don't feel bad. Fallacies of equivocation are very easy to fall into in the English language.

Yes, but why? Just because Netflix chose to use it doesn't in any way justify anything. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-popularity/ BSD (2 flavors) vs. Linux: How should I decide? They're all Unix-like, open source, and supported. Which is faster? More stable? Reliable? Secure? In all cases, anecdotes are not useful. Where's the evidence? Is it the license that matters?

I take anything said by anyone with a grain of salt especially when there is no supporting evidence. There is a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Authority". To put it succinctly, without evidence statements from anyone, even an expert in the field, may be false. All I am saying is that a statement from anyone, even a lawyer needs to be questioned. without evidence I must rely on the reputation of the lawyer. The fact he is a lawyer does not impress me and I do not know him personally so I do not take his opinion as fact.People need to think for themselves and not allow titles to turn opinion into fact.

No, actually, it's the "no true scotsman" fallacy:

Assertion: No capitalist would fear change.

Counterexample: But these [examples listed] capitalists fear change.

Rebuttal: those are no true capitalists!

No, Wikipedia is wrong. Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious. And don't flatter yourself, I just happened to notice you commenting yet again on a climate change post.

What logic? I stated a fact. But as long as we're talking about logic, I invite you to read about sweeping generalization, hasty generalization, weak analogy, appeal to consequences, and slippery slope before you lecture anyone about the topic.

I think plaintiffs have a strong case, and I hope they win, but the debate isn't enhanced by hysterical claims about how this is "illegal, plain and simple" by people whose grasp of the law is little better than a herring's, or by flawed analogies, or by comparisons to various mid-twentieth-century dictators. Let's maintain some perspective and a basic grasp of common sense, folks!

What logic? I stated a fact. But as long as we're talking about logic, I invite you to read about sweeping generalization, hasty generalization, weak analogy, appeal to consequences, and slippery slope before you lecture anyone about the topic.

I think plaintiffs have a strong case, and I hope they win, but the debate isn't enhanced by hysterical claims about how this is "illegal, plain and simple" by people whose grasp of the law is little better than a herring's, or by flawed analogies, or by comparisons to various mid-twentieth-century dictators. Let's maintain some perspective and a basic grasp of common sense, folks!

What logic? I stated a fact. But as long as we're talking about logic, I invite you to read about sweeping generalization, hasty generalization, weak analogy, appeal to consequences, and slippery slope before you lecture anyone about the topic.

I think plaintiffs have a strong case, and I hope they win, but the debate isn't enhanced by hysterical claims about how this is "illegal, plain and simple" by people whose grasp of the law is little better than a herring's, or by flawed analogies, or by comparisons to various mid-twentieth-century dictators. Let's maintain some perspective and a basic grasp of common sense, folks!

What logic? I stated a fact. But as long as we're talking about logic, I invite you to read about sweeping generalization, hasty generalization, weak analogy, appeal to consequences, and slippery slope before you lecture anyone about the topic.

I think plaintiffs have a strong case, and I hope they win, but the debate isn't enhanced by hysterical claims about how this is "illegal, plain and simple" by people whose grasp of the law is little better than a herring's, or by flawed analogies, or by comparisons to various mid-twentieth-century dictators. Let's maintain some perspective and a basic grasp of common sense, folks!

What logic? I stated a fact. But as long as we're talking about logic, I invite you to read about sweeping generalization, hasty generalization, weak analogy, appeal to consequences, and slippery slope before you lecture anyone about the topic.

I think plaintiffs have a strong case, and I hope they win, but the debate isn't enhanced by hysterical claims about how this is "illegal, plain and simple" by people whose grasp of the law is little better than a herring's, or by flawed analogies, or by comparisons to various mid-twentieth-century dictators. Let's maintain some perspective and a basic grasp of common sense, folks!

• http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambiguity/straw-man/
• http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/slippery-slope/

• http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ambiguity/straw-man/
• http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/slippery-slope/

Nice ad hominem. :-/

Genetic logical fallacy.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/genetic/

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/genetic/

Every one? Even the abbreviated list is pretty long.

Are you making a Hasty Generalization? Then have you committed the Fallacist's Fallacy. For added fun, explain how your use of a fallacy doesn't mean you're wrong--which kind of defeats your point.

Proofs must be constructive. Without a counter-example, this is just doubt. Proof (and consequently counter-proof) generates certainty. This is the mechanic of science.

To all repliers claiming that OP's laptop is not a laptop because it's CPU is too powerful, please meet the No True Scotsman logical fallacy:
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/

The claim made in the summary is: "The Apple MacBook Pro (Thunderbolt) is the fastest laptop out there."

The summary is NOT, it is the fastest "true" laptop out there weighing X pounds or running at Y degrees.

This is a classic No True Scotsman.

Appeal to Consequences

The TSA has very little to do with the economic situation of the USA. If you say that the almost unnecessary TSA is helping by employing folks, then 1.) I would remind you that every TSA employee increases the tax burden of the average US citizen & 2.) that would be a great example of the Broken Window Fallacy.

You act like we can only take care *one thing at a time* which is so silly it almost doesn't warrant comment. There are ~230 million adults in the USA & I'd hope we weren't so ADD that we can concentrate on more than one issue at a time. Of course, all we can really do is vote, write & rally. Hopefully our next group of leaders will be a little more responsible than those of the last 30 years or so, but I seriously doubt it. They will keep selling us out to foreign powers, keep eroding our civil liberties & keep sucking at the teats of multinational corporations.

So let's just throw our civil liberties to the wind so we can catch up to China? Your Red Herring is easily one of the stupidest things I've ever read on Slashdot. There must be an achievement for that or something.

No true scotsman would do such a thing...

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/

Right, it isn't real computer science, giving us the no true Scotsman fallacy.

it doesn't matter, cults aren't okay.

Thank you for that textbook example of the Genetic Fallacy. If the program actually works, it doesn't really matter who takes credit for it.

If the program works but is also used to recruit for a religion, then I wouldn't consider it a good thing. You're taking them off one drug and putting them on another. I'm not even entirely sure which one I would consider to be the worse problem either. I've had first-hand experience with drug abusing family members, but I think that that's probably easier to deal with than having one that's a scientologist. Also, it's not an example of the genetic fallacy when the statement reflects the merits rather than the source either. Cults, in the colloquial use of the term, are bad because they either hold extremist views that are harmful to their members or society, or they are scams designed to benefit the leaders of the cult, or both.

it doesn't matter, cults aren't okay.

Thank you for that textbook example of the Genetic Fallacy.

If the program actually works, it doesn't really matter who takes credit for it.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/

Uh, what?

One single scientist won't give you his raw data because he doesn't have it, and therefore AGW is suddenly a hoax? Maybe you just didn't ask nicely enough!

Your post is a target-rich environment for logical fallacies. Here's
a link to help you find them all.

No, you moron, it does NOT fall on me. That's argument from ignorance, and it is the exclusive domain of liars and idiots.

It falls on YOU to show where these "censoring child pornography is just as bad as censoring anything else" comments even EXIST, much less are a common sentiment on Slashdot.

You'll do this by pointing to specific examples of such comments expressing that EXACT sentiment, or you won't do it at all. Thus far all you've said is "They're, like, totally over there if you look!", which goes in the "not at all" category.

You are equivocating on the word faith. This is a common error, please don't perpetuate it.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/equivocation.html

the lawlessness of the 1980s made the city unliveable...in the 1990s and 2000s, new york city is liveable again. crime is way down, murders are way down. how is this anything but a good thing?

You ought to familiarize yourself with the fallacy of "post hoc ergo prompter hoc".

Crime rates fell across the nation during the 1990s.

no, the real world is an environment that is unliveable and dangerous, and the police come in and make it safe and liveable... for you

Ah, you've bought the "thin blue line" propaganda.

You do know that full-time professional police are a relatively recent invention in human society, right?

you seem to believe police are the enemy. no, lawlessness is the enemy.

No, lawlessness is the goal - that is, the development of a social order that doesn't need to be constantly re-enforced at gunpoint. As Thoreau put it:

I heartily accept the motto, -- "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, -- "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. [emphasis added]

It's an asymptotic goal, of course.

police abuse IS real. and when it happens, it gets punished.

No, police abuse is SOP throughout the United States, and is rarely punished.

The immediate suspension of the US Notes backed by silver after JFK's death says it.

Yes, it is circumstantial. But didn't bush argue the same about Iraq? The absence of WMD's doesn't prove the presence of the same. Same twisted logic if applied here proves it.

Yes, am a slashdotter, not a criminal judge

and yes, the proof doesn't exist

Am sorry

OO oo I learned about this recently- That's a logical falacy!!

Your "greatest evidence" sucks.

Actually what I find most amazing about the 9/11 Saddam link myth: The ONLY people I have ever met that believes it are liberals. Not that they believe it themselves, but they constantly repeat it over and over and over and over (such as in this story) that conservatives believe the link exists, as "evidence" of liberal superiority. No conservative I have ever met has ever repeated this myth as truth. Most conservatives have asked why do the liberals constantly repeat this tired mantra when no one believes it? I mean, each group does enough stuff that is incredibly stupid without having to resort to lies.

Exactly!! I have - NEVER - heard anyone, especially Republicans or conservatives, make the claim that Saddam was involved in 9-11, yet democrats constantly cite this BS.
Condalzzea Rice has even dispelled this in public telecasts. No, the only myth here is the one that claims that people believe Saddam had anything directly to do with 9/11.
In the logical fallacies, this is known as the "Straw Man Argument" ( http://www.logicalfallacies.info/strawmanarguments .html ), whereby you redefine the opposing side's position and claims so that you can attack them on these bogus grounds that would otherwise not exist.
Even if there are a few out there who believe Saddam orchestrated 9/11, it's a minute, tiny, microscopic handful of people; certainly not the majority of conservatives that this myth would have people believe.

I wonder if appeals to authority contribute to the resiliency of popular myths?

The punk scene followed the rise of punk music, so I don't understand how you could say it's not about music. Sure, there was fashion and politics and lifestyle and "attitude", but all that varied from person to person. Music was the one thing everyone had in common.

But then, any real punk* would know this.

* see also

You, yourself, commit the fallacy of the weak analogy and also failed to note that the GP's biggest problem was that of the false dilemna because you were trying to be a high-horse nitwit instead of reading between the lines of the guy you cutting down.

How about this analogy? "The end of OSX (or whatever flavor is the current OS for a Macintosh) would be the end of the Macintosh computer". It's not a perfect, but I think it's a fairer one than the chip/computer one you proferred. People buy consoles largely for games and price point (See the PS2's continued success as an example). If you give a competitor the edge in both of those categories and offer very little incentive to purchase your own product, they'll bail. It's really that simple. Losing exclusives hurts your console, especialy when you're $100-$200 more than the competition's "premium" model.

You also failed to make the mistake