Warp wrote:
> Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>
http://www.cracked.com/article_16656_6-brainwashing-techniques-theyre-using-on-you-right-now.html
> 
>   Those explain pretty well why some logical fallacies work.
> 
>   When you read about logical fallacies in an article discussing about them
> (eg. at wikipedia), you usually think that they are so ridiculous and so
> easy to spot that you would never fall from them. However, if you think
> that, you are greatly underestimating how your brain works. When you are
> reading the article, the context is completely different than when experts
> manipulate you into thinking how they want.
> 
>   It wouldn't be the first time that intelligent, rational, highly educated,
> critically-thinking, unbiased, non-radical people have been convinced of
> bullshit by simply laying out the bullshit properly to them. If you analyze
> how the bullshit has been laid out, you will notice many of the fallacies
> described above, and others. They have simply been very cleverly masked.
> 
Reminds me of three things, this recently article:

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/05/how_do_we_break_this_cycle.php

and its follow up:

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/05/nhs_has_broken_the_cycle.php

and, more to the point, the bloggers entire line of "Denialist Deck of 
Cards":

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/deck.php

Its undeniable that people get "stuck" in tribalism, but, sometimes the 
tribe can be more right anyway. A good example being the place I post 
at. There was a recent article on the whole nonsense of Liberty 
University, being **very** unliberal college(see, this is a perfect 
example of the same thing, hardline, generally anti-any other opinions, 
using terms like "liberty", to appear to be the "good guys", when 
presenting their vision of who is right an wrong), by banning the very 
existence of Democrats (or at least any official recognition of the 
party are either being Christian, or playing by the same moral rules as 
Liberty does). Some where in the process of discussing this, someone 
showed up to whine about those on the blog being "unfair" to ID 
proponents, LU being pretty much the only college in the universe that 
actually thinks it qualifies as either science, or a course of study. 
Rather than deal with the implication that neither the other posters, 
nor the blogger have ever "read" any ID literature, never mind just 
pointing at even a few of the posts the blogger himself actually wrote 
that described what such books said, and how they got things horrible 
wrong (or not even wrong, as in, not even in the same universe, never 
mind ball park as the thing being supposedly written about), most of the 
posters fell into a pattern of name calling, and telling the guy to shut up.

Frankly, its counter productive. Mind, its also a lot fracking easier 
than pointing out to the 43rd twit in a month that, yes, we do read the 
books, no, they don't correctly describe the science, no, irreducibility 
isn't impossible without someone "intentionally" designing it, and no, 
taking other people's work, getting most of everything they said in the 
original published paper wrong, reinterpreting your misinterpretation to 
imply what you want, then publishing an article in a Home and Garden 
magazine, or some silly place, warbling about how it "really" proves 
your view, or writing some long winded whine about how unfair scientists 
are, and how some wildly insane nonsense, which doesn't even get basic 
math right, proves ID, as a book, doesn't constitute **research**. But, 
it still ends up being nothing but a crowd, mostly all shouting, "You 
are an idiot, go away, or shut up!"

Its possible to be right, and still fall pray to this kind of stupidity. 
It doesn't make you less of a fool for failing to recognize it.

That said, one example used is the "MAC vs. PC" thing. And, its a poor 
example. Most of the people I have seen comment on it, from either side, 
have said, "It makes some good points, but gets others wrong." Just how 
much it gets wrong, and which points, may differ between camps, but even 
the MAC camp are honest enough to admit that some of it is pure, and 
total BS. Now.. What I have seen from the PC side... I am not sure what 
the ratio is, but I tend to suspect that, based on observation, as 
someone that uses PCs all the time, but hates them, but hasn't owned 
anything like a MAC since the MAC II, in general, the PC camp has a much 
higher dose of people that fall for nearly "every" bad argument that MS 
or one of their advocates make, fail to check the facts at all, and 
wouldn't be convinced is the show indicated that PCs tended to catch 
fire, and they where using a fire extinguisher to put their's out, while 
"watching" the commercial. But, that is just an outside opinion on what 
I see being argued by some of the self claimed "experts", MS paid or 
not, that advocate for PCs...

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message