The logical fallacies thread

[Gav]

sometimes, it's beneficial to weed out the people who aren't smart enough to use wikipedia.

You mean people who use the wiki' are smart?

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Gav

You mean people who use the wiki' are smart?

Fallacy of Amphiboly.

People who use the wiki are smart enough to use the wiki only. No inference is implied or warrented as to whether people who use the wiki qualify for the label "smart" and no definition for the label "smart" has been put forward.

James.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by Gav

You mean people who use the wiki' are smart?

people who understand enough to look something up in wiki are smarter than the people who say "i don't understand what you're talking about. clearly there's nothing i can do about that. oh well. clearly i can't be part of the discussion."


there are a great deal of things that wiki really is a better source for than most other places. like "Internet phenomenon". and it's a good place to start for a lot of other things.

If you search "Logical fallacy", you'll get a list of "common examples", which then might be useful for searching for elsewhere (books, other websites, etc). and the knowledge found there, even ignoring other sources is still often/usually better than no knowledge at all.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jBirch

You are right. So then, how can something be more likely to be true?

You're kidding, right?

Say I lose my keys. They are somewhere. They still exist.

If the last place I had them was in the kitchen, and I haven't left the house yet, is it more likely that they are in the house somewhere, or that they are on Mars?

The fact that everyone else on Earth has somehow been persuaded that they are on Mars does not mean they are now more likely to be on Mars. Despite the numbers, they are still in my house. I assure you.

[TrainingDummy]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Say I lose my keys. They are somewhere. They still exist.

You're getting up there in years, right? Check your pockets.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

people who understand enough to look something up in wiki are smarter than the people who say "i don't understand what you're talking about. clearly there's nothing i can do about that. oh well. clearly i can't be part of the discussion."


there are a great deal of things that wiki really is a better source for than most other places. like "Internet phenomenon". and it's a good place to start for a lot of other things.

If you search "Logical fallacy", you'll get a list of "common examples", which then might be useful for searching for elsewhere (books, other websites, etc). and the knowledge found there, even ignoring other sources is still often/usually better than no knowledge at all.

This is what we call a "humour failure" - unless you actually believe that the Wiki is the great achievement in "collective intelligence", or "emergence" or whatever the current crop of MMORPGers think it is this week.

Call me old fashioned but I like to have a higher signal to noise ratio when looking for information.

And if you can't be bothered to capitalise your sentences consistently, why should I bother entering into further debate?

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

Originally Posted by Gav

This is what we call a "humour failure" - unless you actually believe that the Wiki is the great achievement in "collective intelligence", or "emergence" or whatever the current crop of MMORPGers think it is this week.

When I look up subjects about which I have a great deal of knowlege, I have found Wiki to generally be very accurate and full of detailed information - at least as accurate or even more so than, say, Brittanica, Encarta, Groliers and many other "pedias". I can't say categorically that the information about subjects outside my purview is accurate, but I'm inclined to believe that for the most part it is. That's about as good as any popular source of information can be expected to be.

As to the reliability of open source products in general, while I was initially distrustful of them, my anecdotal experience has been that they are by and large pretty darn good. I think that open source information may conflict with people's ideas about truth being absolute, but then we don't know the absolute truth, we only know what it is reasonable to believe is true. How often have authoritative pronouncements been made about the nature of a given thing, only to be proven false as more knowlege comes to light?

I see a lot of references in this forum to articles supposedly written by experts, but even the experts have agendas and often disagree with other experts. So who do you trust? I seems the information sources that people turn to most often end up being the ones which reinforce their worldview and they tend to dismiss those that don't.

The long and short of it is, I'm basically okay with people using Wikipedia as a source.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

You're kidding, right?

Say I lose my keys. They are somewhere. They still exist.

If the last place I had them was in the kitchen, and I haven't left the house yet, is it more likely that they are in the house somewhere, or that they are on Mars?

Neither. The keys either are, or are not in your house. It makes no matter where last you had them. Their location is a binary.

They are no more likely to be in your car, at work, on the bus or in your parent's house then they are to be on Mars.

James.

Edit: And no matter how many people report that you put them in a flower pot after smoking too much weed the night before, doesn't make your keys any more likely to be there then on Mars.

[Gav]

Originally Posted by Dr. Pfleschbach

As to the reliability of open source products in general, while I was initially distrustful of them, my anecdotal experience has been that they are by and large pretty darn good. I think that open source information may conflict with people's ideas about truth being absolute, but then we don't know the absolute truth, we only know what it is reasonable to believe is true. How often have authoritative pronouncements been made about the nature of a given thing, only to be proven false as more knowlege comes to light?

Oh dear. I was saying nothing about open source products per se. Linux is an example of an excellent open source product as is MySQL - there are others.

Don't confuse my general disdain for the wiki (which I believe some people refer to as a bunch of monkeys typing on a keyboard - slightly harsh I think) with a general disdain for the Open Source model - one I support for software. One of the problems with the wiki IS it's open nature. You get all kinds of errors creeping in. The equivalent of wiki' grafiti artists, people writing as though they are experts when they know exactly as much as the next guy, dubious use of sources (see previous points), fake entries, irrelevent entries, deliberately misleading entries, malicious entries and so and so on and so on.

The long and short of it is, I'm basically okay with people using Wikipedia as a source.

90% of the time my tongue is in my cheek over these things, or I am just being generally cheeky, but I do draw the line at people using absolutist terms about the veracity of an object such as the wiki. I also draw the line at people thinking that an ability to look something up in the wiki says anything about how smart someone is; which was my original point.

Even 'I' have quoted wiki - look up previous posts.

Anyway I am wandering away from this subject.

Here's an interesting link (not completely off-topic) that people may find interesting.

The Dictionary of the History of Ideas

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by Gav

I do draw the line at people using absolutist terms

Me too. Absolutist statements are always wrong.

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Neither. The keys either are, or are not in your house. It makes no matter where last you had them. Their location is a binary.

They are no more likely to be in your car, at work, on the bus or in your parent's house then they are to be on Mars.

James.

Edit: And no matter how many people report that you put them in a flower pot after smoking too much weed the night before, doesn't make your keys any more likely to be there then on Mars.

I will now apply your logic:

My keys exist.

By definition, my keys are either on Earth, or they are in Outer Space. This is a binary choice, therefore the odds are 50% that my keys are on Earth.

The Earth is covered in water and land masses. This is a binary choice, therefore the odds are 50% that my keys are on a land mass, times the 50% chance of them being on Earth in the first place, giving us 25%.

The Earth has major land masses and islands. This is a binary choice, therefore the odds are 50% that my keys are on a major land mass, times the 25% chance of them being on land at all, giving us 12.5%.

The major land masses are the Americas, Eurasia, Africa, Australia, and Antarctica. This is a quintary choice, therefore the odds are 20% that my keys are in the Americas, times the 12.5% chance of them being on a major land mass in the first place, giving us 2.5%.

There are two Americas: North and South. This is a binary choice, therefore the odds are 50% that my keys are in North America, times the 2.5% above, giving us 1.25%.

Therefore, despite the fact that my keys were made in New York City, are used in New York City, and were last seen in New York City, by your logic there is a statistically insignificant 1.25% chance that my keys are even in North America.

So how the heck am I supposed to get into my apartment tonight? Thanks a lot.

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

Originally Posted by Gav

Oh dear. I was saying nothing about open source products per se. Linux is an example of an excellent open source product as is MySQL - there are others.

Don't confuse my general disdain for the wiki (which I believe some people refer to as a bunch of monkeys typing on a keyboard - slightly harsh I think) with a general disdain for the Open Source model - one I support for software. One of the problems with the wiki IS it's open nature. You get all kinds of errors creeping in. The equivalent of wiki' grafiti artists, people writing as though they are experts when they know exactly as much as the next guy, dubious use of sources (see previous points), fake entries, irrelevent entries, deliberately misleading entries, malicious entries and so and so on and so on.

90% of the time my tongue is in my cheek over these things, or I am just being generally cheeky, but I do draw the line at people using absolutist terms about the veracity of an object such as the wiki. I also draw the line at people thinking that an ability to look something up in the wiki says anything about how smart someone is; which was my original point.

I agree that a concept or process may work excellently in one context and poorly in another. I think the notion that there is some sort of Universal Field Theory for Philosophy is farfetched. Consistency is highly over-rated.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

I will now apply your logic:

Actually, this was Inq's logic. I'm trying to convince him that he's smoking weed but I haven't been sucessful to-date.

Curmudegeon's are stubborn blighters.

James.

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Originally Posted by Gav

And if you can't be bothered to capitalise your sentences consistently, why should I bother entering into further debate?

You'll actually notice that I will make an effort to capitalize any time I'm trying to appear helpful or knowledgable. Sometimes I'll even check my spelling. It's when I don't take whatever I'm discussing very seriously that I don't capitalize. Usually, it's not conscious.

This post is actually capitalized just for you. Because I love you just that much.

[TrainingDummy]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

You'll actually notice that I will make an effort to capitalize any time I'm trying to appear helpful or knowledgable. Sometimes I'll even check my spelling. It's when I don't take whatever I'm discussing very seriously that I don't capitalize. Usually, it's not conscious.

This post is actually capitalized just for you. Because I love you just that much.

No, no, no... you just misunderstood him. He was just saying that in the spirit of the thread title, I'm sure. (we need a Vader head).