|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp wrote:
> Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmail com> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |