Not "mislead." More like "incomplete information." I don't consider "nonsense" or "incoherent" as misleading, rather they are incomplete in that I am not learning a more specific terminology to explain why the argument is nonsense.



Fair enough.

Okay--where is my information incomplete? I'll try to help any way I can.

This is the claim of pseudo-scientists and scam artists. Unfortunately many people accept it uncritically.

Just because you or I cannot explain a certain thing doesn't mean it cannot be explained. Lots of alleged "mysteries" are nothing more than incomplete understandings of the natural world.

I was learning about "energy bands" yesterday and it was fascinating--so much snake oil presented so convincingly. I tried out one of the demonstrations on my son and he couldn't figure it out (he was ignorant of the facts). Once I explained what I was doing he very quickly translated it into the language of physics.

My point? The bands don't do anything. There is no plausible physiological mechanism by which they could do anything. But the demonstrations are convincing and the placebo effects are huge. If you don't know how to think and investigate properly you'll be spending money to purchase a placebo.

Those who defend the product (cognitive dissonance) declare that it works for reasons that cannot be understood in logical terms such as 1 + 1 = 2--which is pure and utter crap. The effect is easily understood as a combination of physical trickery and placebo effects. They are just unwilling to put in the effort to learn the facts.



This argument is flawed. Sorry, don't know the technical language, but it exhibits ignorance of science and the confusion of facts with beliefs.

The shape of the earth is what it is. It is a fact just as much as 1 + 1 = 2 is a fact. (Unless you believe that the earth's shape is ever changing or is subject to the whims of human belief.)

Whether we know that fact, or not, is a separate question.

The fact of the earth's shape is not merely an item of faith among scientists or any other group--it is an observable fact. Anyone who cares to get enough training and equipment is able to measure the earth themselves and determine its shape for themselves in the same manner that a young child can verify that 1 + 1 = 2 using sticks, rocks, or pieces of candy.

Those of us who lack the training, for whatever reason, do need to depend on those who have proper training to provide us with the measurement observations. To the extent that we can trust those making the observations we can, again with proper training, use their observations to determine the shape of the earth because that shape is an observable fact.

If we are not interested in verifying the shape of the earth for our self that does not indicate that it has no shape or that the shape is indeterminate, it merely indicates that we don't care to verify the fact(s) personally. We are instead willing to trust the claims of someone else as being factual.

In order for human society to function we cannot all be trained in all things--that would simply take to long--we need to trust experts to communicate factual information to us. This is not faith in the religious sense, but trust in the words and actions of others. This is why we need to exercise caution about sources of information.

If we choose to think through ideas ourselves we need to take care to use proper thinking/reasoning techniques. We need to learn to avoid the cognitive and logical errors that all humans make, because our brains were never designed to be especially logical--they were designed to make decisions quickly. Rational thinking is NOT a normal human trait, it is something that must be trained.

Yeah, I'm with you on the intellectual fascism thing. In my view, 'here is what I believe' is so much more respectful than 'you must believe this', which, in my view, is simply rude. And Christians should bear in mind that love is not rude. But that goes for statements like 'this is incoherent' too. I know it's tedious to put IMO in front of everything but, I don't know... maybe I too readily interpret statements like 'this is incoherent' as people trying to tell me what to think.


Yes, I think you're right. Sorry PA and CF!

It's okay to say 'I firmly believe this' but 'This is true' is, for me, going too far. It feels to me like trying to circumvent people's decision-making processes. And it's rude, like I said. Or am I being massively over-sensitive?

spock, there are two technical fallacies here. The first is the fallacy of mathematical precision, the idea that everything can be quantified. The other is the fallacy of ambiguity, that nothing can be defined. It seems to me that PA is falling into the latter here, but his formulation is so..formless that it is hard to define the fault.

"The earth round/pear shaped. Is this true or false?

If you say true, then it becomes a truth."

This is a definite fallacy of ambiguity, though it is more likely that PA is simply ignorant of philosophical discipline. The question of the earth's shape is a question of fact, not truth. The statement "the earth is shaped like a pear" is a true statement, but not a truth.

All around it is hard to tell if he is ignorant, undisciplined, or simply so awkward at English expression that I cannot understand him.

Kevin, if you, PA, or CF say "Christianity is true because I know it is true" you make a fallacious claim, that of the fallacy of false or questionable authority. If I say "your argument is incoherent" I am making an authoritative statement because, as a philosophy professor, I am an authority, albeit a minor one. No professor of philosophy, looking at these 'arguments', would disagree with me. If you are offended by my statement the root is your own false belief that your opinion is of the same value as my learned judgement. Spend thirty years studying philosophy and you will understand.

You are not being over-sensitive. When PA and CF make these claims they are claiming to have power and authority that we cannot examine or test. When people claim to have authority they do not have they are engaged in intellectual bullying.

(We may now expect CF to attack me personally for not accepting his view of Christianity, and to deny my authority as a philosopher. When he does this he will reveal that he does not understand that this is a discussion about philosophy, not religion or Christianity.)

I'm not offended by statements like this, it's more that I resent the appeal to authority, even thoroughly valid authority (which I believe yours is). I feel it robs me of my right to make my own mind up.


But when people claim to have authority they do in fact have...? Isn't that still intellectual bullying?

Regarding authority: I came across this distinction a week or so ago:

Literal Authority--a person who is empowered to make decisions. This would include parents, police officers, political officials who have, or are delegated authority to do what is needed. Their reasoning can simply be "because I said so!"

Metaphorical Authority--a person who is an expert or well trained in a discipline and so is likely to have correct information. The content area expert's authority comes from mastery of the content area.

As I understand it the false metaphorical authority will often present themselves as if they were a literal authority. Such folks declare that they know because they know (a variation on "I said so) to establish their authority. But they cannot be literal authorities nor are they metaphorical authorities.

Question: Is the false or questionable authority an example of post-modernism in action?

Yes, it is a true statement. But what is truth? Or what is truth according to you? Can you give examples of truth? You are not answering me, are you?

Intriguing. Facts are true, but they are not truths.

Am I understanding this correctly?