BS: Don't argue from ignorance

Subject: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 07:16 PM

N. D. Tyson strikes again.

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: kendall
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 07:19 PM

He is so right. So many people decide what is true simply by what they want to be true. Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up.

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 07:32 PM

Well, the thread title approch would likely limit the amount of debate on here:) What an odd concept!

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 07:40 PM

When one uses emotionally charged arguments, instead of FACTS, to get their points across..BEWARE!!...it is usually a manipulation!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 07:59 PM

So, Jack, what is the guy saying, and what do you think of what he's saying? Make a commitment here, not just a link. Even ignorant people can make links, thereby avoiding the pratfalls of arguing from ignorance.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Janie
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 08:25 PM

Nor arrogance either.

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 10:09 PM

I think the link is very straight forward. I think the title compliments the link and the point that Dr. Tyson is making is very straight forward and clear. GfS got it and even took it a little further. Kendall got it, Ed got it and made a joke.

I don't know that there is a stand to take. I believe that Unidentified Flying Objects are exactly that until they are identified.

I posted the link because I thought folks here might like it. I had no intention to argue about it. If you want to argue about it with me, I will argue with you but only out of respect for you. Pick a topic and a side and I will argue the opposite. How about that?

I am not what to make of Janie's post. If she is saying don't argue out of arrogance. I agree. Ignorance and arrogance IMHO are related states of mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 10:19 PM

What about those who argue with the ignorant?? I happens a lot on here!!

Oh, and Cappy, I think Joe DID get it..he worked a bit of the facetious, with wit...and tied it together with a 'suggestion'.
Don't take it personally....he was just working off your line.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 10:28 PM

Oooops....What about those who argue with the ignorant?? It happens a lot on here!!

Oh, and Cappy, I think Joe DID get it..he worked a bit of the facetious, with wit...and tied it together with a 'suggestion'.
Don't take it personally....he was just working off your line.

GfS

You can delete the other one..(typo)

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 11:35 PM

You think so GfS?

One way to avoid arguing from ignorance is not to argue.

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 01:13 AM

OR...only argue with those topics that one is familiar with....
BTW, IGNORance has its roots in 'Ignore'. If one IGNORES facts, then he is 'ignorant'....
..as far as Joe's comments, I took it as well spirited, and NOT insulting you. I think you can be cool with it, and not over-sensitive to it...though, I can clearly see why you may have taken it as a 'negative' reply....AND...that being said, do you think he had a point???
Perhaps make your own statement, in regards to it. You probably won't get as 'beat up' as Akenaton, Keith or I have over the homosexual issue....and we survived!!.......and even have made GREAT headway!
One good thing, false bullshit runs out of steam..so...as Joe alluded to, "Make a commitment here, not just a link. Even ignorant people can make links, thereby avoiding the pratfalls of arguing from ignorance."

I think you're OK with that!!

Hey, Regards!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 03:13 AM

Lets suppose that most folks would agree, here, that it is beneficial to have discussion based only in factual information. I am curious as to what standard is prpoosed to benchmark something as factual? If science and research were used, how would one deal with inconclusive information sources, even those which have been subjected to "somewhat" rigiourous scientific investigation?

How would one deal with those taking somewhat reliable factual information, and extending the meaning beyond the factual reach (filling in the dots, which seems to be a function if the human mind). How does one deal with "cherry picking"of factual information and dismissing other valid factual information, to make a case already chosen? How would one set aside, (non factual) social, religious, (small p) political, idealogical differences, that seem to get discussions off course.

Different interpretations on the meaning of words even seem to have gotten discussions off course. How would one deal with that, as words ofen have a variety if definitions? Even the term ignorance may has a different meanings to different folks, often merely meaning what the other person puts forward.

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 03:27 AM

I don't think arguing from ignorance is a good thing; I do think 'exploring ideas and viewpoints together' is a better way. One can put forward a view or a thought not necessarily backed up by facts, and let others comment or explain. That way, nobody gets obstreperous and everyone can learn and develop their theories. If I were only allowed to comment here from complete knowledge, I'd hardly post at all, because I don't pretend to know very much about stuff. (only too obvious, I expect!)

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 03:42 AM

But you do have shedloads of common sense and manners Eliza. Both count for a very great deal AFAIC.

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: GUEST,BobL
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 03:46 AM

Never argue with a fool, for he is doing the same - Les Barker. Not that the ignorant are all necessarily fools of course, nor all fools necessarily ignorant.

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 03:47 AM

Thank you very much Backwoodsman.

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 04:03 AM

Ed, The most reliable way of discovery is 'the impartial observer', a term used in science, to describe the person gathering the data... not to 'prove a point' but to observe the nature of the item being studied, or observed, to reach an unbiased basis, from which to catalog the properties.....from there one can proceed further.
One place to completely AVOID in seeking the truth about just about anything, is politics!!!...(I just HAD to throw that in to underline the word 'impartial'!!).

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 04:28 AM

facts versus values 
""All facts are a function of interpretation. This unavoidability of interpretation makes all facts a matter of inference, and consequently all evidence - direct or circumstantial - nothing more or less than a contribution to that inferential process. ""

An interesting related article in the link.

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 04:47 AM

he's got a sort of Billy Graham style - anecdotal, personable, persuasive.

wouldn't trust anyone wearing a suit like that...

okay supposing we close our minds to the possibility of urban spacemen, he mr spaceman, groovy cosmic sounds....thank god everybody doesn't - otherwise we would have missed out on some good songs.   kurt Vonnegut's books.

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 04:55 AM

"he's got a sort of Billy Graham style "

What spaceman has that, David Bowie?

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 05:40 AM

when you think of it - this guy really is talking bollocks.

every speculation about the universe....Freudian analysis, Christianity, the periodic table....it all relies on a poetic interpretation of existence.

we all cherry pick our favourite theories.

it reminds me a bit of Thomas Gradgrind ....give me facts! its all just debunking, destructive, negativity. a justification for being nasty to people.

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: GUEST,Triplane
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 05:47 AM

Jack
My ignorncce is infinitely greater than my knowledge. (fact)
Does that mean I should NOT have a point of view based on the little knowledge i have, and allow those with greater BALANCED opinions & knowledge on a subect enlighten me :)>

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: gnu
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 06:35 AM

Arguing about argument. Surely... nay, possibly... the acme of 'below the line'.

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 08:08 AM

BTW, IGNORance has its roots in 'Ignore'. If one IGNORES facts, then he is 'ignorant'....

May have the same stem, GfS, but ignorance has nothing to do with ignore here. In this context, ignorance is lack of knowledge.

ignorance

Pronunciation: /ˈɪgn(ə)r(ə)ns

noun

Lack of knowledge or information: he acted in ignorance of basic procedures
   
Origin

Middle English: via Old French from Latin ignorantia, from ignorant- 'not knowing' (see ignorant).

Hope this helps with your ignorance of the language :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 09:08 AM

I think arguing about this topic without having watched the video is a pretty tangible example of arguing from ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 04:04 PM

having just watched the video, somehow I lost the link between seeing a UFO, and forming a non evidenced conviction of what it was, and the telephone game [aka Chinese whispers]. seem like inaccurate parallels [ if that was the intention]

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 06:08 PM

Oh, look who's here.

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Apr 14 - 08:29 PM

Don't argue from ignorance. A thread started by Wacko (wot a novelty!) Sorry, I can't read on. I have to go to the corset shop now as I've just split mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 02:54 AM

If you weren't allowed to argue from ignorance on these threads, there would be nobody to rip the piss out of.

Pointing and laughing. You know it makes sense.





I don't need to watch the video. I have taken a leaf out of the book of many here and am comfortable with my preconception instead. Far better than learning.

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 05:44 AM

If I understood Tyson correctly, his "argumentation from ignorance" means something like "Since I know of no scientific explanation, it must be ..." (enter your favourite explanation, scientific or not) - a clear fallacy. (In contrast, "I guess ..." is perfectly permissible.)

The notion "Unidentified Flying Object" consists of three words; the first one becomingly admitting some ignorance, whereas the other two do make assumptions: a) the sighting is caused by light coming directly from an object, and b) the object is "flying", i.e. solid and propelled by a force beyond mere gravity. In other words, most "UFO" sightings are not sightings of FOs at all.

"People are so stupid; they always believe they are right, and fail to realize that in fact I am the one who is right!"

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 09:34 AM

"Since I know of no scientific explanation, it must be ..." (enter your favourite explanation, scientific or not) - a clear fallacy

Well I'm not clear whether you agree with the fellow or not (I won't fence-sit: I agree with everything he says in the clip). In "enter your favourite explanation", it would be perfectly feasible to enter "that a supernatural being who breaks all the rules, who no-one has ever seen and for whom we have no evidence created everything in the universe, in fact, the universe itself..." Interesting that the chap who started this thread, who is clearly a Tyson fan but who also espouses belief in God, didn't see the potential for that little trip-up.

So, Jack, what is the guy saying, and what do you think of what he's saying? Make a commitment here, not just a link. Even ignorant people can make links, thereby avoiding the pratfalls of arguing from ignorance.

Well said, by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 03:57 PM

"........and breaks all the rules......."
and what rules might they be, and who do you think made the rules?

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 04:13 PM

The laws of nature, dear boy, the laws of nature. And I do not, unlike you, require a God Of The Gaps to formulate them. In other words, I do not need to try to explain the difficult stuff, though it's stuff we are closing in on, with the utterly and eternally inexplicable. Basically because, unlike you, I am neither mad nor utterly deluded. Do try not to bother me. You will find far more fertile ground with other targets. You really are a very slow learner, aren't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 04:25 PM

"Make a commitment here, not just a link."

Sure thing! since you asked!

Fuck on off to the corset shop you arrogant, ignorant, rude, lying piece of shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 05:28 PM

Jack, are you sure your statement satisfies Joe's imperative? Are you talking about him or Tyson? In what way do you think Tyson has a point which coincides with your own view?

Steve,

In "enter your favourite explanation", it would be perfectly feasible to enter "that a supernatural being who breaks all the rules, who no-one has ever seen ...

Better write: whom no-one has ever seen, otherwise your statement is correct, and I have no reason to modify mine.

If we think we know a law of nature but suddenly find it broken, it proves nothing else than that the law does not hold. In my opinion, religion is something quite different, and those who confuse the two domains are called superstitious. Generally, the word "supernatural" does not make any sense in today's language, whereas "miracle narrative" (or "legend") is a specific genre of text with its specific code of meaning. We elaborated on this in other threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 05:29 PM

empiricism is only way of explaining stuff.
just like Freudian analysis is one way of explaining the human psyche.

they require an act of faith just as much as any other belief system.

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 06:25 PM

I posted the link because I thought folks here might like it. I had no intention to argue about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 07:17 PM

Better write: whom no-one has ever seen, otherwise your statement is correct, and I have no reason to modify mine.

Sigh. As I've mentioned to more than one person before, it would be a very good idea to refrain from trying to correct my use of English. In the matter to hand you are wrong. There will come a time when the ludicrous "whom" will, thankfully, disappear. The sooner the better. In the meantime, be assured that my non-use of this horror was entirely intentional.

Readers may also care to note that my response to Wacko's childish, sweary post has been removed. God knows why.

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: pdq
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 07:44 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Joe Offer - PM
Date: 10 Apr 14 - 07:59 PM

So, Jack, what is the guy saying, and what do you think of what he's saying? Make a commitment here, not just a link. Even ignorant people can make links, thereby avoiding the pratfalls of arguing from ignorance.

-Joe Offer-

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Jack the Sailor - PM
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 04:25 PM

"Make a commitment here, not just a link."

Sure thing! since you asked!

Fuck on off to the corset shop you arrogant, ignorant, rude, lying piece of shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 08:01 PM

Thank you, pdq. I think my response, now deleted, was along the lines of telling Wacko that he had been insulting Joe as well as me. Why anyone would want to have deleted that, and not Jack's horrible sweary bit, is anyone's guess. Unless Wacko is the uncle of one of the mods, of course. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 04:26 AM

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle........

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 04:44 AM

if you'll be a monkey's uncle
i'll be the dogs bollocks, my friend
and together we will walk the road
until we reach the end

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 07:16 AM

Al (12 Apr 14 - 05:29 PM), there are matters of science, and distinct matters of religious faith. It is an error, shared by adherents and critics, to think that religion was or is originally concerned with explaining the physical world.

Steve (12 Apr 14 - 07:17 PM), you have a gift of interpreting statements in the wrong context. My remark was not intended to correct your English. In fact I am aware - but not overly ashamed - of the fact that my own (non-native) English is far from perfect.

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 11:24 AM

Context? It seemed plain to me that you were telling me I should have used "whom" where I'd (correctly) used "who". Now, as I had done when I posted about it, I've reviewed the whole context and that's how it still seems to me. However, if you didn't mean it, you didn't mean it.

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 11:33 AM

Though I do acknowledge my inconsistency in resorting to "whom" in the next phrase! I suppose my conditioning over the decades has led me to view that particular usage as slightly more elegant, though I'm still waiting for the hateful thing to die away for good. In spite of the fact that I think I've done no wrong, on reflection I suppose I should have redrafted the whole bloody thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: BrendanB
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 03:05 PM

The use of 'who' as the subject of a sentence and 'whom' as the object seems entirely reasonable to me. Obviously language is dynamic and changes over time but I suspect that one man's idiosyncratic view of English will not be enough to cause the atrophication (is that a word?) of 'whom' in the forseeable future.

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 03:23 PM

I would have gone for atrophy in that context.

Grishka - we are all applying tools of analysis to our surroundings - wouldn't you agree. beliefs in the rain god, or the latest outpouring from our universities is just a happenstance of birth,

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: BrendanB
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 03:37 PM

Yes Al, but I needed a noun and 'atrophy' is a verb. ( Oh Lord, I am wading in pedantry!)

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: Lighter
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 03:50 PM

Tyson is right in principle, but he let the ad libs get a little out of hand.

*First-person* eyewitness testimony, while admittedly unreliable, is usually more worthy of investigation than is the nth-person earwitness testimony (i.e., rumor) that he suggests is almost identical.

That's why the cops take you seriously when you report seeing a burglary across the street, but not if you call to say you just heard about one from a friend of a friend.

Tyson has mixed apples and oranges, a serious reasoning no-no.

Subject: RE: BS: Don't argue from ignorance
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 04:29 PM

Steve (13 Apr 14 - 11:24 AM), that is the problem that you do not see the context. In this case, it said: "Your conclusion has no flaws beyond grammar."

Al, my point was that beliefs in rain gods etc. are often misinterpreted by people from modern societies who are used to different ways of thinking (not only believing!) and therefore of interpreting language (however exact and literal its translation).

Lighter, I think the example of wrong rumo(u)r does illustrate the effect well enough: at least one person in the chain must have got it wrong, and the more of them are involved, the higher the probability that it happens. Each is an ear witness to the previous one, processing the news by interpretation.

Interpreting news (in other words guesswork) can be a very useful skill - we just should not mistake it for certainty.