[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Peter's logical fallacies

On 20 Jan 1997 20:08:42 GMT, Yuri K. demonstrated how out of touch he is:

> Peter van Rossum (pmv100@psu.edu) wrote:
> : Marc, Yuri has already been invited on two separate occasions by 
> : archaeologists (myself and Paul Pettennude) to join us in the field.
> : He never responded which I take to be a clear sign of his unwillingness
> : to accompany anyone.  Its very clear that Yuri has no intentions of
> : finding out about how real archaeologists do their work. That would
> : simply take too much time away from lounging in an easy chair
> : whining about how people just don't understand him.  If he actually
> : went to the field he'd realize just what a complete buffoon he makes
> : of himself when he talks of archaeologists missing/covering up
> : corn cobs and chicken bones.  On second thought I think I'm mistaken
> : I don't believe Yuri would ever realize what an ass he's made of himself
> : with such tripe - he's too deluded to ever let reality slip in.
> How nice of you, Peter. I know you like me so much.
> What Peter trots out here are obvious logical fallacies -- more than one. 
> The main one is _argumentum ad populum_, also known as the "bandwagon
> fallacy". "Us, the professional archaeologists vs. them the ignorant, who
> should shut up immediately". 

Oh yes, those archaeologists that everyone believes are right are trying to 
pull rank...I find it odd, but whenever I talk to people about things 
archeological, they think that what is accepted by the scientific community is 
the same as the alternative science opportunist community. If anyone were 
attempting to take advantage of your "bandwagon fallacy", (your words) it 
would be someone in position to do so. This applies more to yourself than 
those you asttempt to criticize.

> Also Peter plays up the "appeal to emotions" fallacy. "Us, the
> professionals, are insulted by the unprofessionals who are casting doubt
> on our professionalism". The enemy must be attacked by all the
> professionals who need defend their honour. These rhetorical tricks are
> obviously effective. 

Wrong. You are referring no doubt to yourself as the enemy needing to be 
attacked. That so much time has been spent on you is an indication both of 
continuing reinspection of their disciplines and conclusions and their desire 
to make sure the "enemies" voice is not the only one heard.

> I am generally not interested in the question whether or not
> archaeologists as a group are good or bad or honest or dishonest or
> professional or otherwise. This way silliness lies. How can one
> generalize in such a way? 
> Also, I'm far -- very far indeed -- from making a claim that just because
> certain evidence was not found by archaeologists, therefore we can make
> such and such conclusions -- either about the archaeologists as a group,
> or about the theories that the above evidence was meant to prove (or
> disprove). This is a mistake in logic that 1st year students should know
> about. Apparently Peter hasn't yet progressed to that stage... 
Yow...then what stage have you progressed to with your wonderful proofs and 
smoking guns? You have actually charted the course of the evolution of *your* 
thoughts and knowledge as if that were the sequence of events in the rest of 
the world.
> Meanwhile, the substance of the argument is ignored through obfuscation. 
> Good work, Peter. You proved once again that propaganda does work.  And
> yet, in the hope that you still have some honesty left in you, I post the
> following helpful file that analyses the above fallacies in detail. 

You mean like continually repeating a big lie, (excuse me, wild extrapolation) 
then listing the particulars as if they were facts and implying that because 
there were so many listed, fallacious or not, there must be some truth 
involved? Referring here to your "smoking gun" reasoning and your followup 
list of same that you claimed implied validity to your ideas because you 
listed so many things.  
> Best regards,
> Yuri.
> The following file is available on the WWW.
> [begin quote]
> Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity
The Obfuscation continues, and it's all from you.
>      ________________________________________________________________
>    Also Known as: Ad Populum
>     Description of Appeal to Popularity
>    The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:
>     1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
>     2. Therefore X is true.
>    The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply
>    because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More
>    formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions
>    associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence
>    for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a
>    claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the
>    claim.
>    It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as
>    evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker
>    managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3.
>    It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because
>    most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute
>    for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such
>    as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than
>    25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these
>    claims turned out to be false.
>    This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an
>    effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with
>    the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority
>    approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept
>    it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell
>    products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In
>    such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval
>    of others as a good reason to buy the product.
>    This fallacy is vaguely similar to such fallacies as [1]Appeal to
>    Belief and [2]Appeal to Common Practice. However, in the case of an
>    Ad Populum the appeal is to the fact that most people approve of a
>    claim. In the case of an [3]Appeal to Belief, the appeal is to the
>    fact that most people believe a claim. In the case of an [4]Appeal to
>    Common Practice, the appeal is to the fact that many people take the
>    action in question.
>    This fallacy is closely related to the [5]Appeal to Emotion fallacy,
>    as discussed in the entry for that fallacy.
>     Examples of Appeal to Popularity
>     1. "My fellow Americans...there has been some talk that the
>        government is overstepping its bounds by allowing police to enter
>        peoples' homes without the warrants traditionally required by the
>        Constitution. However, these are dangerous times and dangerous
>        times require appropriate actions. I have in my office thousands
>        of letters from people who let me know, in no uncertain terms,
>        that they heartily endorse the war against crime in these United
>        States. Because of this overwhelming approval, it is evident that
>        the police are doing the right thing."
>     2. "I read the other day that most people really like the new gun
>        control laws. I was sort of suspicious of them, but I guess if
>        most people like them, then they must be okay."
>     3. Jill and Jane have some concerns that the rules their sorority
>        has set are racist in character. Since Jill is a decent person,
>        she brings her concerns up in the next meeting. The president of
>        the sorority assures her that there is nothing wrong with the
>        rules, since the majority of the sisters like them. Jane accepts
>        this ruling but Jill decides to leave the sorority.
>      ________________________________________________________________
>     [9]The Nizkor Project
>     Content © [14]Copyright 1995 [15]Michael C. Labossiere
>     July 18, 1996
> --
>             =O=    Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto    =O=
>   --- a webpage like any other...  http://www.io.org/~yuku ---
> *** PLEASE NOTE *** my Address and Webpage Location to change soon *** 
>        this address will remain valid: bg364@torfree.net
> We should always be disposed to believe that that which 
> appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the 
> Church so decides       ===      St. Ignatius of Loyola

Your analogies and arguments are so dishonest at heart, and you have 
demonstrated such an incredible gracelessness with regard to the actual time 
and research others have devoted to your "work", that you really have 
qualified yourself for your own personal newsgroup. You could even stick 
"archaeology" in the name, so any search for archaeological newsgroups would 
include you and your world shaking ideas in all their glory.

Hoping that's negative enough for one whose actions are so different from 
their stated concerns; at one time after visiting your homepage I thought you 
were an interesting person with real concerns and ideas about humanity...I now 
see that those are just a feeble attempt at utilizing the bandwagon fallacy.


Follow-Ups: References: