Epic play-pretend logician Fail! (You even misspelled "fallacies"!)
Fail 1: His post contains only one logical argument. The rest is rhetorical.
Fail 2: The implication that if an argument is fallacious, the conclusions must necessarily be false. (Basic logic fail!)
Fail 3:
'Begging the Question':
None of the "premises" you list assume the conclusion.
Fail 4:
Argument from Personal Incredulity,
Does not mean "I disagree with your assertion".
I guess you couldn't think of any other "logical fallacies" after those two, eh?
Here's the parent's argument:
Banning guns will not work in our culture. Even supposing you can "ban" all guns, the shear volume of guns in the wild will assure there presence indefinitely. Remember, with a modest amount of care, guns can last centuries. "Attrition" just isn't an option.
Putting it in to "logic book" form: Premise 1: As there are many guns, banning guns is unlikely to eliminate a significant number of guns from society. "Even supposing you can "ban" all guns, the shear volume of guns in the wild will assure there presence indefinitely" Premise 2: As guns are very durable, guns remaining after a ban are unlikely to significantly reduce in number naturally over time. "Remember, with a modest amount of care, guns can last centuries. 'Attrition' just isn't an option." Conclusion: "Banning guns will not work in our culture."
Bonus Fail 1: You notice immediately that this is an inductive argument! (Bonus Fail 2: You don't realize why that's a 'fail'.)
Perhaps you should stop using words that you don't understand.
No, also in the dictionary. And any other reputable reference.
You're still wrong. I find it interesting that you haven't offered anything to prove your assertion. (No definition, no quote to illustrate that my post fits your criteria, no evidence that such an "error" invalidates the rest of the post. Nothing but bold assertion in face of evidence to the contrary.)
You know what I think? It's a pointless distraction. You can't handle the actual issue here, which you're apparently incapable of defending: "It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts".
Or have you come to your senses and realized that your little pronouncement is ridiculous nonsense?
It's awaiting something more than an ad-hominem from you.
I found this page for you. It's at your level, with many very simple examples, clearly explained.
You've presented nothing else yet
You'll find that a couple posts back. You purposefully ignored the substance because you can't face it. I'm done. It's the finger print scanner all over again. I had thought that was just religious devotion. It was worse. You're willfully ignorant.
Nope. You REALLY need to go read up on what that term means. You very obviously don't know. You've had ample time to go do some reading, so you don't really have any excuse this time.
On the rest of my post, have you finally puzzled out why your nonsense pronouncement was, er, nonsense? I hope so.
No, no it does not. See, you seem to think it means "name calling" or "personal insult" It does not.
Are all autodidacts morons?
It's not really moving on. It's just another non-scientific example, being compared to a scientific one.
So you're making your idiotic claim "It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts" specific to science topics.
Okay, that's fine. It's still incredible stupid, however. Let's go back to the earlier example where we're dealing with a scientific question.
What's a non-domain expert to do? Not being an expert in homeopathy myself, I should look to the experts, right? See what the consensus is about it's efficacy, safety, etc.? If I'm lucky, there's even a few journals specific to the topic. After all, to get the consensus on climate science I should look to climate science journals right? To get the consensus on homeopathy, I should hunt down some homeopathy journals!
So I do some digging and find some peer-reviewed scientific journals. I've got Homeopathy, which is an Elsevier journal. The same group that publishes The Lancet , a well-respected medical journal that even us non-domain experts have heard about. We've also got The American Journal of Homeopathic Medicine which has been around since 1844. Clearly, they're an old and venerable institution, just like the British Homoeopathic Journal.
Looking at the peer-reviewed literature is daunting, not being a domain expert, but there seems to be a clear consensus that homeopathy is efficacious and safe.
So, is it rational for me, a layperson, to adopt the consensus opinion of the domain experts? According to you "It's irrational for non-experts to form a opinion contradicted by the consensus of domain experts."
Do you see now how incredibly stupid your idiotic advice looks to everyone with an IQ above 70?
No, but it is true, and bears repeating in the face of your ad-hominem
Sigh... You're confused. I know it's 'cool' among the autodidact crowd to use fancy Latin terms (it makes them feel smart and important) but if you don't know what they mean, or you otherwise misuse them, you just look like an idiot to those with an actual education.
In short, that term does not mean what you think it means. Your use of the term in your post makes you look like an idiot.
Moving on, if the example I offered isn't to your liking, I can give you another one. I have no interest in further dissecting a simple illustration that you seem intent on misunderstanding. That's just a useless distraction. Give this one a go:
Should I accept the consensus position on the divinity of Jesus from the Vatican?
That is, after all, the "rational" thing to do. I'm wrong if I think otherwise.
But your summary of the similarity of what they did is flawed. It's unlikely Microbox's opinion "just happens to" match the consensus of domain experts. It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts.
Nonsense. As Microbox wrote:
are you capable of learning something about climate science?
Implying that she should not merely accept the opinion of "domain-experts" but that she would form the correct opinion if only she would learn about climate science.
It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts.
Blindly putting faith in someone or some group you believe to be more knowledgeable than you is not rational. Don't be foolish.
Again, the important bit here is that MB completely misses JQP's point. I notice that you also don't bother to address it either?
And from previous posts, it's clear that you share the same non-rationality.
You're one to talk about irrationality! Last time I saw you post, you were defending the quality of a finger-print scanner in direct contradiction to all available evidence! It was pretty sad. I honestly though you'd quit using the site!
Everyone has their blind-spots. Still, I'm curious as to what "irrational" opinion you think I hold?
How about this: Are YOU a climate scientist? (Considering the fact that you work with a YEC, I'd doubt it.)
If not, your opinion just happens to match consensus. Don't pretend for a second that you came to that conclusion on your own after spending years examining the data. You just read a few blogs and popular articles and decided that this is what smart people are supposed to believe.
If JQP is not a climate scientist, there's a good chance she did exactly as you did, and happened to come to a different conclusion.
You are not smarter, better looking, or more intelligent simply because your incompetent and uninformed conclusion just happens to match consensus!
You've also missed the point of her post entirely. This nonsense:
If the warming projections decrease, then that is a very serious problem with their science.
... and the other two like it, completely misrepresent her comment. Do you often have difficulty reading or was this purposeful? If this was intentional, why did you feel the need to flat-out lie about her post? If it was unintentional, why should we listen to someone's opinion on a complicated topic when that person lacks basic literacy?
The worst part about your nonsensical rambling? The +4 insightful your post has right now. Here's hoping that the competent mods can correct this egregious error.
PHP didn't even start out as a programming language. Even now, you can happily look at it as a bunch of stuff that makes it easy for people make dynamic websites. It is clearly quite successful. It's successful because it was really good at doing the job it was, er, "designed" to do.
PHP, then, would fall neatly under the "successful languages" category.
Hate it all you want. Bitch and moan on Slashdot 'till your fingers bleed. It's not going away any time soon. There is no alternative that is even half as easy to set up and use. There is no suitable replacement. That "unusable" language just happens to be the best thing around.
I point out this obvious fact because it drives morons incapable of forming their own opinions crazy. With any luck, they'll stop polluting every programming related thread with their miserable whining.
Do a search for javascript object pool. You'll get lots of stuff.
Be careful with what you find. JS is (apparently) the world most misunderstood language. There's a lot of nonsense and bad examples out there. On "big names", stick with Doug Crockford if you can. Avoid reading anything written by Resig; to call his code 'abysmal' is far too generous.
I'm puzzled how one makes it "fast". When my highly active programs run in a browser they tend to glitch and halt after a while if they have been doing lots and lots of quick object instantiation and destruction.
You've almost figured it out!
Recycle your objects. Enjoy instant performance improvements. (While this is not just true for JavaScript, it's obviously the advice you need.)
Oh, and try learning the language. It's not like Java and C#. If you try to treat it that way, you'll end up writing crap. You can break yourself out of that easily enough by working through The Little Schemer in JS instead of Scheme.
Slashdot Mirror
Harm is even a person coming home smelling of smoke and being thoroughly disgusted.
So ... Reading Slashdot is harmful? I always leave feeling thoroughly disgusted.
you post is nothing but logical fallacys.
Epic play-pretend logician Fail! (You even misspelled "fallacies"!)
Fail 1: His post contains only one logical argument. The rest is rhetorical.
Fail 2: The implication that if an argument is fallacious, the conclusions must necessarily be false. (Basic logic fail!)
Fail 3:
'Begging the Question':
None of the "premises" you list assume the conclusion.
Fail 4:
Argument from Personal Incredulity,
Does not mean "I disagree with your assertion".
I guess you couldn't think of any other "logical fallacies" after those two, eh?
Here's the parent's argument:
Banning guns will not work in our culture. Even supposing you can "ban" all guns, the shear volume of guns in the wild will assure there presence indefinitely. Remember, with a modest amount of care, guns can last centuries. "Attrition" just isn't an option.
Putting it in to "logic book" form:
Premise 1: As there are many guns, banning guns is unlikely to eliminate a significant number of guns from society. "Even supposing you can "ban" all guns, the shear volume of guns in the wild will assure there presence indefinitely"
Premise 2: As guns are very durable, guns remaining after a ban are unlikely to significantly reduce in number naturally over time. "Remember, with a modest amount of care, guns can last centuries. 'Attrition' just isn't an option."
Conclusion: "Banning guns will not work in our culture."
Bonus Fail 1: You notice immediately that this is an inductive argument! (Bonus Fail 2: You don't realize why that's a 'fail'.)
Perhaps you should stop using words that you don't understand.
No, also in the dictionary. And any other reputable reference.
You're still wrong. I find it interesting that you haven't offered anything to prove your assertion. (No definition, no quote to illustrate that my post fits your criteria, no evidence that such an "error" invalidates the rest of the post. Nothing but bold assertion in face of evidence to the contrary.)
You know what I think? It's a pointless distraction. You can't handle the actual issue here, which you're apparently incapable of defending: "It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts".
Or have you come to your senses and realized that your little pronouncement is ridiculous nonsense?
And Ad Hominem continues to be exactly what I think it is
Only in your imagination.
You also continue to be wrong on anthropogenic global warming.
You're delusional. -- I've not offered any opinion on AGW!
It's awaiting something more than an ad-hominem from you.
I found this page for you. It's at your level, with many very simple examples, clearly explained.
You've presented nothing else yet
You'll find that a couple posts back. You purposefully ignored the substance because you can't face it. I'm done. It's the finger print scanner all over again. I had thought that was just religious devotion. It was worse. You're willfully ignorant.
Ad hominem again
Nope. You REALLY need to go read up on what that term means. You very obviously don't know. You've had ample time to go do some reading, so you don't really have any excuse this time.
On the rest of my post, have you finally puzzled out why your nonsense pronouncement was, er, nonsense? I hope so.
No, that would still be step 1. Its not natural to call it step 0.
Haha! Well done!
It means exactly what I think it does.
No, no it does not. See, you seem to think it means "name calling" or "personal insult" It does not.
Are all autodidacts morons?
It's not really moving on. It's just another non-scientific example, being compared to a scientific one.
So you're making your idiotic claim "It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts" specific to science topics.
Okay, that's fine. It's still incredible stupid, however. Let's go back to the earlier example where we're dealing with a scientific question.
What's a non-domain expert to do? Not being an expert in homeopathy myself, I should look to the experts, right? See what the consensus is about it's efficacy, safety, etc.? If I'm lucky, there's even a few journals specific to the topic. After all, to get the consensus on climate science I should look to climate science journals right? To get the consensus on homeopathy, I should hunt down some homeopathy journals!
So I do some digging and find some peer-reviewed scientific journals. I've got Homeopathy, which is an Elsevier journal. The same group that publishes The Lancet , a well-respected medical journal that even us non-domain experts have heard about. We've also got The American Journal of Homeopathic Medicine which has been around since 1844. Clearly, they're an old and venerable institution, just like the British Homoeopathic Journal.
Looking at the peer-reviewed literature is daunting, not being a domain expert, but there seems to be a clear consensus that homeopathy is efficacious and safe.
So, is it rational for me, a layperson, to adopt the consensus opinion of the domain experts? According to you "It's irrational for non-experts to form a opinion contradicted by the consensus of domain experts."
Do you see now how incredibly stupid your idiotic advice looks to everyone with an IQ above 70?
No, but it is true, and bears repeating in the face of your ad-hominem
Sigh... You're confused. I know it's 'cool' among the autodidact crowd to use fancy Latin terms (it makes them feel smart and important) but if you don't know what they mean, or you otherwise misuse them, you just look like an idiot to those with an actual education.
In short, that term does not mean what you think it means. Your use of the term in your post makes you look like an idiot.
Moving on, if the example I offered isn't to your liking, I can give you another one. I have no interest in further dissecting a simple illustration that you seem intent on misunderstanding. That's just a useless distraction. Give this one a go:
Should I accept the consensus position on the divinity of Jesus from the Vatican?
That is, after all, the "rational" thing to do. I'm wrong if I think otherwise.
Saying it again doesn't make it any more true.
Should I accept the consensus position on the efficacy of homeopathy from experts on homeopathy?
That is, after all, the "rational" thing to do. I'm wrong if I think otherwise.
But your summary of the similarity of what they did is flawed. It's unlikely Microbox's opinion "just happens to" match the consensus of domain experts. It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts.
Nonsense. As Microbox wrote:
are you capable of learning something about climate science?
Implying that she should not merely accept the opinion of "domain-experts" but that she would form the correct opinion if only she would learn about climate science.
It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts.
Blindly putting faith in someone or some group you believe to be more knowledgeable than you is not rational. Don't be foolish.
Again, the important bit here is that MB completely misses JQP's point. I notice that you also don't bother to address it either?
And from previous posts, it's clear that you share the same non-rationality.
You're one to talk about irrationality! Last time I saw you post, you were defending the quality of a finger-print scanner in direct contradiction to all available evidence! It was pretty sad. I honestly though you'd quit using the site!
Everyone has their blind-spots. Still, I'm curious as to what "irrational" opinion you think I hold?
How about this: Are YOU a climate scientist? (Considering the fact that you work with a YEC, I'd doubt it.)
If not, your opinion just happens to match consensus. Don't pretend for a second that you came to that conclusion on your own after spending years examining the data. You just read a few blogs and popular articles and decided that this is what smart people are supposed to believe.
If JQP is not a climate scientist, there's a good chance she did exactly as you did, and happened to come to a different conclusion.
You are not smarter, better looking, or more intelligent simply because your incompetent and uninformed conclusion just happens to match consensus!
You've also missed the point of her post entirely. This nonsense:
If the warming projections decrease, then that is a very serious problem with their science.
... and the other two like it, completely misrepresent her comment. Do you often have difficulty reading or was this purposeful? If this was intentional, why did you feel the need to flat-out lie about her post? If it was unintentional, why should we listen to someone's opinion on a complicated topic when that person lacks basic literacy?
The worst part about your nonsensical rambling? The +4 insightful your post has right now. Here's hoping that the competent mods can correct this egregious error.
You've missed the parents point. This is not a technical issue.
Pure practicality?
PHP didn't even start out as a programming language. Even now, you can happily look at it as a bunch of stuff that makes it easy for people make dynamic websites. It is clearly quite successful. It's successful because it was really good at doing the job it was, er, "designed" to do.
PHP, then, would fall neatly under the "successful languages" category.
Hate it all you want. Bitch and moan on Slashdot 'till your fingers bleed. It's not going away any time soon. There is no alternative that is even half as easy to set up and use. There is no suitable replacement. That "unusable" language just happens to be the best thing around.
I point out this obvious fact because it drives morons incapable of forming their own opinions crazy. With any luck, they'll stop polluting every programming related thread with their miserable whining.
That was painful. Really. I can't believe that anyone, even you, could write such total nonsense.
What's with the bit about the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis in the middle of that screed? Have you been drinking?
Do a search for javascript object pool. You'll get lots of stuff.
Be careful with what you find. JS is (apparently) the world most misunderstood language. There's a lot of nonsense and bad examples out there. On "big names", stick with Doug Crockford if you can. Avoid reading anything written by Resig; to call his code 'abysmal' is far too generous.
java can run in parallel and is superior in just about every way
Wow, no. JS is pretty obviously the more sophisticated language.
Try again. You'll get there.
I'm puzzled how one makes it "fast". When my highly active programs run in a browser they tend to glitch and halt after a while if they have been doing lots and lots of quick object instantiation and destruction.
You've almost figured it out!
Recycle your objects. Enjoy instant performance improvements. (While this is not just true for JavaScript, it's obviously the advice you need.)
Oh, and try learning the language. It's not like Java and C#. If you try to treat it that way, you'll end up writing crap. You can break yourself out of that easily enough by working through The Little Schemer in JS instead of Scheme.
It's been corrected from Seven, as evidenced by other early comments, including the one to which I replied.
Seven, of course.
Didn't you read the summary?
Obviously not. He wouldn't have made that "point" if he had.
when did this site jump the shark?
1997
You bet your ass that renters care what they pay for heating and AC.
Obviously. They care a great deal about how much they spend.
They don't give a shit, however, about how much their tenants spend. That's why the parent wrote:
It's a damn shame that apartment owners don't care how much you spend on heating and AC.
Again, you display your gross ignorance of basic science!
Colors *are* genders.