Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bronzeage · 05-31-2013, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bronzeage

The counter side to Appeal to Authority is the Demand for Authority, as in, "Do you have a link which supports that statement."

Are you saying that that, too, is a fallacy? If so, why?

Jeffrey

Not especially a fallacy, but more a rhetorical dodge, along the lines of, "Oh yeah? Says who?"

steve_bnk · 05-31-2013, 09:43 PM

This thread typifies how threads get derailed in the BCH forum..

Someone claims 2 + 2 = 5.

Incense response ensues showing 2+2 = 4.

Claimant remains unconvinced, personal commentary follows.

Options

1. Ignore list addition
2. Stop responding
3. Mod button for TOU violations
4. Negative rep to assuage anger an inflict emotional pain
5. Attack spelling :Cheeky:
6. Keep responding wit the same retort thinking on the next post the claimant will finally see the errors of his or her ways.
7.Fa site that is more your intellectual peers.

I spent some time on much more formal science forum. Idle chit chat , derails, and personal commentary were actively prohibited. Arguments had to be fairlynformal and unsupported hypothesis were problematic.

Point being there are rigorous demanding forums out there.

Do you all really want that here or do you want a more relaxed conversational forum where you can be as formal as you like with like minded participants.

FRDB is right at my comfort level, at times I have to make an effort on a topic, but there n o real min level.

I have found the BCH forum educational. Most anyone can participate at some level. It should stay that way.

mountainman · 05-31-2013, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

But besides on a few occasion's Richard Carrier, which PhD says "I have a PhD and therefore you must assume that I am right"?.

Perhaps a better example may be found in one of Carrier's recent podcasts in which he states:

Quote:

Originally Posted by RC

Forget all about the other mythicist theories.

There are tons of others theories - conspiracy theories, Da Vinci code stuff, all kinds of things like that,
You will see alot of literature and claims about this. that argue "Jesus did not exist because ...."
and then fill in the blank with something, and alot of that is very unreliable, or very fallacious or its factually wrong.

So you have to be very skeptical when dealing with mythicist theories. And so I say if you want a simple rule:

"If you dont hear it from me be skeptical of it."

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Chili · 05-31-2013, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

And all hyperbole aside, the PHD who says I have a PHD therefore you must assume I am right....

. . . which in the end is exactly what places Oxford opposite to Stradford as anti-christ opposite to Christ.

I am unaware of any place named Stradford. If you meant Strattford, it's neither a university nor a place opposite Oxford. It's north west of (and above) Oxford. And I fail to see how an appeal to authority places Oxford anywhere, let alone exactly as Christ.

Once again, Twilight Zone stuff.

Jeffrey

Yes sry, Stratford, just an argument reminiscent of the Shakespeare-Oxford controversy that were opposites in this. What that boils down to is that Shakespeare must have been from Oxford because critics even there could not understand him

EarlDoherty · 06-01-2013, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

But besides on a few occasion's Richard Carrier, which PhD says "I have a PhD and therefore you must assume that I am right"?.

Perhaps a better example may be found in one of Carrier's recent podcasts in which he states:

Quote:

Originally Posted by RC

Forget all about the other mythicist theories.

There are tons of others theories - conspiracy theories, Da Vinci code stuff, all kinds of things like that,
You will see alot of literature and claims about this. that argue "Jesus did not exist because ...."
and then fill in the blank with something, and alot of that is very unreliable, or very fallacious or its factually wrong.

So you have to be very skeptical when dealing with mythicist theories. And so I say if you want a simple rule:

"If you dont hear it from me be skeptical of it."

I recently made the comment, in response to Carrier's "review" of a collective response book to Bart Ehrman (which he took part in and made a similar comment that his was the only worthwhile contribution to), that Carrier had an ego the size of a bus, but I guess that will have to be revised to "the size of a Carnival Cruise ship." No wonder mythicism as a group theory is in such dire straits.

Actually, Jeffrey's opening post is quite valid, and it is hardly surprising that threads on this forum often get derailed, to everyone's frustration. It is not really a case of personal animus. As long as I have been here, but certainly recently, there have always been a handful of posters who simply can't be reasoned with, whose statements are outrageously difficult to deal with and prompt repeated attempts to do so, with mounting frustration. Of course, that is the mistake, as I've come to learn myself. You point out their flaws, hopefully only once (though that takes a lot of will power), then you ignore them.

What we need is a new icon. How about a slamming door?

Earl Doherty

Jeffrey Gibson · 06-01-2013, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

But besides on a few occasion's Richard Carrier, which PhD says "I have a PhD and therefore you must assume that I am right"?.

Perhaps a better example may be found in one of Carrier's recent podcasts in which he states:

Quote:

Originally Posted by RC

Forget all about the other mythicist theories.

There are tons of others theories - conspiracy theories, Da Vinci code stuff, all kinds of things like that,
You will see alot of literature and claims about this. that argue "Jesus did not exist because ...."
and then fill in the blank with something, and alot of that is very unreliable, or very fallacious or its factually wrong.

So you have to be very skeptical when dealing with mythicist theories. And so I say if you want a simple rule:

"If you dont hear it from me be skeptical of it."

I recently made the comment, in response to Carrier's "review" of a collective response book to Bart Ehrman (which he took part in and made a similar comment that his was the only worthwhile contribution to), that Carrier had an ego the size of a bus, but I guess that will have to be revised to "the size of a Carnival Cruise ship." No wonder mythicism as a group theory is in such dire straits.

Actually, Jeffrey's opening post is quite valid, and it is hardly surprising that threads on this forum often get derailed, to everyone's frustration. It is not really a case of personal animus. As long as I have been here, but certainly recently, there have always been a handful of posters who simply can't be reasoned with, whose statements are outrageously difficult to deal with and prompt repeated attempts to do so.

What's the temperature in hell? Earl and I agree with one another!

Jeffrey

EarlDoherty · 06-01-2013, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Actually, Jeffrey's opening post is quite valid, and it is hardly surprising that threads on this forum often get derailed, to everyone's frustration. It is not really a case of personal animus. As long as I have been here, but certainly recently, there have always been a handful of posters who simply can't be reasoned with, whose statements are outrageously difficult to deal with and prompt repeated attempts to do so, with mounting frustration....

What's the temperature in hell? Earl and I agree with one another!

Jeffrey

I've just heard from Satan. He's holding a party, and we're invited as guests of honor! (Wear red.)

Earl Doherty

outhouse · 06-01-2013, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

I recently made the comment, in response to Carrier's "review" of a collective response book to Bart Ehrman (which he took part in and made a similar comment that his was the only worthwhile contribution to), that Carrier had an ego the size of a bus, but I guess that will have to be revised to "the size of a Carnival Cruise ship." No wonder mythicism as a group theory is in such dire straits.

Actually, Jeffrey's opening post is quite valid, and it is hardly surprising that threads on this forum often get derailed, to everyone's frustration. It is not really a case of personal animus. As long as I have been here, but certainly recently, there have always been a handful of posters who simply can't be reasoned with, whose statements are outrageously difficult to deal with and prompt repeated attempts to do so.

What's the temperature in hell? Earl and I agree with one another!

Jeffrey

Ill jump into that same agreement

steve_bnk · 06-02-2013, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thief of fire

I don't profess to understand why, but this forum has for years been a place where much of the content has been people peddling their theories which often challenge traditional understandings.
But often there is no consensus on which :non orthodox: theory is better. If anyone is going to be banned (or whatever) , then we should clearly.
What standard are we using to say what is ok?

The standard is assumption of an academic authority by some.

The header on the forum is Freethought and Rationalism.

Freethought or freethinker in the forum context does not mean freedom of thought or lack of censorship, it means not tied to any specific pro-forma dogma religious or otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought

'...Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds opinions should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism and not authority, tradition, or other dogmas.[1][2][3] The cognitive application of freethought is known as "freethinking", and practitioners of freethought are known as "freethinkers"..

Freethought holds that individuals should not accept ideas proposed as truth without recourse to knowledge and reason. Thus, freethinkers strive to build their opinions on the basis of facts, scientific inquiry, and logical principles, independent of any logical fallacies or the intellectually limiting effects of authority, confirmation bias, cognitive bias, conventional wisdom, popular culture, prejudice, sectarianism, tradition, urban legend, and all other dogmas. Regarding religion, freethinkers hold that there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of supernatural phenomena.[5]..'

Limiting debate to that which solely conforms to someone's view of academic authority and form would appear antithetical to the forum itself.

The defense rests....

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-31-2013, 09:43 PM	#22
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	This thread typifies how threads get derailed in the BCH forum.. Someone claims 2 + 2 = 5. Incense response ensues showing 2+2 = 4. Claimant remains unconvinced, personal commentary follows. Options 1. Ignore list addition 2. Stop responding 3. Mod button for TOU violations 4. Negative rep to assuage anger an inflict emotional pain 5. Attack spelling :Cheeky: 6. Keep responding wit the same retort thinking on the next post the claimant will finally see the errors of his or her ways. 7.Fa site that is more your intellectual peers. I spent some time on much more formal science forum. Idle chit chat , derails, and personal commentary were actively prohibited. Arguments had to be fairlynformal and unsupported hypothesis were problematic. Point being there are rigorous demanding forums out there. Do you all really want that here or do you want a more relaxed conversational forum where you can be as formal as you like with like minded participants. FRDB is right at my comfort level, at times I have to make an effort on a topic, but there n o real min level. I have found the BCH forum educational. Most anyone can participate at some level. It should stay that way.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.