RE: Intuition
- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
TheTrivium4TW post=2690 wrote: I think you believe the argument is undermined because you don’t understand what I actually argued. I NEVER argued that any of the claims presented were false. Never. I never claimed they were true.
What I claimed was that logical fallacy was used (just trust us, we don’t need to present the actual data and logic or links to it – that’s a logical fallacy – call it whatever name you like!) to allegedly prove certain claims – and that the logic, being logical fallacy, didn’t actually establish what the article said it did.
…
So, no – my review wasn’t undermined at all given that I didn’t even offer a conclusion as to validity of the conclusions.
The way to undermine my review is simple, though. I made quite a few very specific claims following the format of, “A was claimed by article, data B and logic C was not presented to support claim A, therefore, we must simply trust in the “authority” of the article author and that is a logical fallacy.”
In order to undermine one of those claims, all one has to do is find where the article actually provides the data B and logic C where I claim it was not presented.
That ought to be a very simple task, IF IT EXISTS. I didn’t find it when I said I didn’t find it, but I make mistakes. I’ve reread a few posts of mine and the grammar and misspelling errors have been more than a few – not intentional, but errors do creep in when I’m knee deep in stuff I’m trying to do.
I know what you were arguing. You did not claim the arguments were true or false. You claimed that they were inherently suspect due to the fact that they were logically fallacious, which you later admitted to mean something much different and more broad than the actual definition of “logical (ATA) fallacy” (now you have somehow managed to claim that the original concept of ATA fallacy is an ATA fallacy…..)
In my responses to you on the other thread, I did explain to you where the data/logic for the claims were presented, and how those referenced papers actually did provide the reasoning behind the specific claims in the article. I have no idea why you still believe those sources were inadequate – please feel free to explain.
I have no problem citing external source AS LONG AS THE EXTERNAL SOURCES PROVIDE THE DATA AND THE LOGIC.
When I claimed it did not, it is because I went to the external source AND DIDN’T FIND IT. In one case, I cited a paragraph from the external source and explained that it didn’t have the data or logic to actually support the conclusion (which might be right or wrong, I don’t know because I can’t review the data and the logic!).
Yes, I remember that, and I remember responding that the paragraph you cited actually did explain how they reached the conclusion, along with other surrounding paragraphs in that same section of the paper. Once again, I have no idea why you find the “data/logic” presented to be inadequate.
I agree – just because the logic is bad doesn’t mean the conclusion is bad. That’s exactly why I repeated that fact throughout the first SS review – I didn’t want people to get confused on that point (and they do quite easily!).
No, that’s not what I said or meant. What I said was that just because you personally cannot be sure whether what’s being claimed is true (no one can ever know anything with confidence without first exploring many different sources and reflecting critically), doesn’t mean the claim is automatically a logically false one (bad logic). That seems to be a big part of your thinking re: ATA logical fallacies.
However, information has come out that there has been no significant global warming to a 95% confidence level.
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
I also know that the headline is misleading (it wasn’t a U-turn) and that people who cite this as proof global warming isn’t occurring are doing so falsely.
The article you linked seems to be a compilation and cesspool of AGW denier arguments that have been found to be 99-100% bogus.
I think SS itself deals with many of those arguments (“climategate” emails, hockey stick “alarmism”, climate has changed before, statistically insignificant warming, no significant warming since 1995, etc. etc.) adequately at these links:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jones-says-no-global-warming-since-1995.htm (anyone who understands short-term variance in data sets should be able to debunk this skeptic argument)
Oh, and remember when you said that the “climate has been warmer before, and therefore is not man-made now” AGW skeptic argument was very weak and a straw man to use?? Well, the article you just linked to for support uses that exact argument:
“Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.”
RBM,
Several reasons really, for the sake of brevity a combination of aging eyes, mid-life crisis, professional and family duties, multi-dimensional information overload cul-de-sac. etc
I had been reading 300 pages a day, non-fiction, for 25 years, everything started to remind me of everything else, so a break was needed.
My Big Toe is kinda the place where I got off the train so it’s a good place to get back on. I like the humourous approach, my wife who usually only reads medical and health care books started reading book one after I finished it yesterday and commented on the enjoyable writing style.
I am a private tutor for first year uni students (physics, maths, chemistry, human biology) and understand the necessity for Repetition in Retention and Understanding.
Anyway I’m probably rambling like an old fellow and Triv and Ash need the space for gnawing on their respective bones. Bad doggie, Sit doggie, Eat the postman doggie (spells Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis).:)
Triv,
I’ve been doing my best to read all the way through your posts. I’m sure there is a way to sum it up in fewer words. Data, logic, blah blah blah.Though I have to agree with you on this:
I’ve reread a few posts of mine and the grammar and misspelling errors have been more than a few – not intentional, but errors do creep in when I’m knee deep in stuff I’m trying to do.
But this is not a fault, we all are short on time. As someone, somewhere once said: “If I had more Time, I would have written you a Shorter letter”. See I have to appeal to Google to get on authority the authorship of that quote and apparently everyone has said it. Because afterall, ‘brevity is the soul of wit’.
And then out of no-where I came across this gem:
Anyway, I don’t trust the “establishment.” If they said the sky was blue and I could look up and see the blue sky, I’d probably take pictures and video with multiple cameras just to make sure.
Truer words, never spoken. You’ve firmly established yourself as THE uber skeptic here at TAE, though Ash might take issue with me crowning you as such. And we can all use a little brush up on the basis of ATA. Hell I make all my shopping decision on likely baseless ATA every time I refer to the ingredients on the box. Thanks for the refresher…
So, as I went back over your writing for a 3rd time just to make sure I wasn’t missing anything, I realized something else had creeped into your writing, ART:
I know the oligarchs are using the good intentions of many environmentally minded people to promote their societal face ripping policies.
I mean wow that is art!
societal face ripping policies.
Keep it up!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.