But when a thousand people say they see a thing. And one person says he doesn’t see that thing. The logical conclusion is that there’s something wrong with that one person.
No, you’re reasoning by association rather than by evidence. This is how we ended up with the four elements of air, fire, water, and stone, and why people used to believe that something contained would just because it could burn or contained stone because it was hard.
Reasoning by association often leads to spurious and fallacious conclusions. This is why, today, we with evidence instead. 
I think we’d just jump right to the medication actually.
But assuming that they saw little people and we don’t. (And there are methods for performing that experiment (meditation, hallucinogens, fasting…)). What do you suppose is going on there?
The logical conclusion is that there’s something wrong with that one person.
No. That’s a fallacy (lack of logic) called “argumentum ad populum” (appeal to the masses). Truth value of a statement does not depend on who or how many utter it; you need to analyse the statement itself to know which side there’s something wrong with.
Note that claiming that “the smartest people did it, so there’s something wrong with us” is a related fallacy called “argumentum ad verecundiam” (appeal to authority). And another too, called petitio principii (begging the question) - did they do it?
Based on Roman history I don’t think that they did; the smart people were always a bit more cautious about this sort of superstition, but still “played along” when convenient for them. Octavian seizing Mark Anthony’s will, Constantine using Christianity as a political move, the general tendency to interpret gods as abstract aspects instead of actual “big humans in the sky”, so goes on.
Appeal to popularity and/or authority carry a good deal of weight, actually.
Fourth fallacy / irrationality: argumentum ad nauseam. Repeating it won’t “magically” make it truer.
If a smart guy sees it, and you don’t, it’s fair to conclude that the error is yours.
In this situation, you wouldn’t be concluding, only assuming.
But this is obvious.
Nope.
You are merely straining to refute me.
Here’s a great example of why assumptions are not reliable - you’re assuming why I’m uttering something, even if you have no way to know it. And it happens to be false. [I don’t care enough about you to “refute you”. I simply enjoy this topic.]
The sensible conclusion is that we really do see things differently these days. That we have gained and lost.
We see things differently, but “we gained and lost” is yet another fallacy: moving the goalposts.
Also, it’s rather “curious” how you skipped what I said about the Romans, even if it throws a bucket of cold water over your easy-to-contest “smart people in the past believed it!”.
You do realise that this reads a lot like an implicit acknowledgement that you’re a failure to counter any argument contradicting your claim… right? “Run to the hills!”
It’s true but keep in mind that the other user is ignorant on the difference between “ignorance” and “dumbness”, as this comment shows. So he’ll likely distort what you said into “you think that people in the past were dumb?” like he did there.
@cameron_vale@lemm.ee people tried to explain the natural phenomena the best way they could. Now we know better (i.e., the rain or lack of it isn’t due to an anger man in the sky).
We grow in understanding, we need fewer made up explanations from our asses.
That is not a straw man. The other user is simply not cooperating on the arbitrary restrictions that you’re imposing on his argument. A straw man would require him to misrepresent your position.
@cameron_vale@lemm.ee Well, then, good luck appeasing the angry god for the excess or lack of rain (which one? there are too many!). I think I’ll stop here.
@cameron_vale@lemm.ee I have no idea what 4 things you are talking about. Clearly you don’t are not asking a question as stated in this community. Goodbye
But when a thousand people say they see a thing. And one person says he doesn’t see that thing. The logical conclusion is that there’s something wrong with that one person.
No, you’re reasoning by association rather than by evidence. This is how we ended up with the four elements of air, fire, water, and stone, and why people used to believe that something contained would just because it could burn or contained stone because it was hard.
Reasoning by association often leads to spurious and fallacious conclusions. This is why, today, we with evidence instead. 
@cameron_vale@lemm.ee LOL nope.
No actually, that really is the logical conclusion.
If I told people that I couldn’t see the sun in the sky, they’d tell me to see a doctor.
@cameron_vale@lemm.ee no, you ask for proof, that is what we do.
I think we’d just jump right to the medication actually.
But assuming that they saw little people and we don’t. (And there are methods for performing that experiment (meditation, hallucinogens, fasting…)). What do you suppose is going on there?
A culture-wide shift in research methods?
No. That’s a fallacy (lack of logic) called “argumentum ad populum” (appeal to the masses). Truth value of a statement does not depend on who or how many utter it; you need to analyse the statement itself to know which side there’s something wrong with.
Note that claiming that “the smartest people did it, so there’s something wrong with us” is a related fallacy called “argumentum ad verecundiam” (appeal to authority). And another too, called petitio principii (begging the question) - did they do it?
Based on Roman history I don’t think that they did; the smart people were always a bit more cautious about this sort of superstition, but still “played along” when convenient for them. Octavian seizing Mark Anthony’s will, Constantine using Christianity as a political move, the general tendency to interpret gods as abstract aspects instead of actual “big humans in the sky”, so goes on.
Appeal to popularity and/or authority carry a good deal of weight, actually.
If a smart guy sees it, and you don’t, it’s fair to conclude that the error is yours.
But this is obvious. You are merely straining to refute me.
The sensible conclusion is that we really do see things differently these days. That we have gained and lost.
Fourth fallacy / irrationality: argumentum ad nauseam. Repeating it won’t “magically” make it truer.
In this situation, you wouldn’t be concluding, only assuming.
Nope.
Here’s a great example of why assumptions are not reliable - you’re assuming why I’m uttering something, even if you have no way to know it. And it happens to be false. [I don’t care enough about you to “refute you”. I simply enjoy this topic.]
We see things differently, but “we gained and lost” is yet another fallacy: moving the goalposts.
Also, it’s rather “curious” how you skipped what I said about the Romans, even if it throws a bucket of cold water over your easy-to-contest “smart people in the past believed it!”.
Now you’re really straining.
You do realise that this reads a lot like an implicit acknowledgement that you’re a failure to counter any argument contradicting your claim… right? “Run to the hills!”
That’s a rather self-serving analysis. Superficial and transparant at that. You should couch your bile more subtly.
No the sensible conclusion is that we have more information these days and can make different observations from that information.
Surely observation, ideally, acts independently from any information. To constrain observation that way might lead to a selective blindness.
It’s true but keep in mind that the other user is ignorant on the difference between “ignorance” and “dumbness”, as this comment shows. So he’ll likely distort what you said into “you think that people in the past were dumb?” like he did there.
You made a link. I’m touched.
@cameron_vale@lemm.ee people tried to explain the natural phenomena the best way they could. Now we know better (i.e., the rain or lack of it isn’t due to an anger man in the sky).
We grow in understanding, we need fewer made up explanations from our asses.
That’s just a longwinded way of saying “they were dumb”.
Thousands of years of dumb people. Then suddenly us smart guys appear?
That seems unlikely.
Those same people eventually thought the sun revolved around us and labeled scientists who theorized and eventually proved otherwise as heretics.
And now some still believe the world is flat.
Stick to the examples I offered.
They see it. We don’t. Why?
No. You can accept my response as an example of groupthink being completely wrong.
Then you are strawmanning.
Arguing the more easily defeated interpretation.
Rather than steelmanning.
Which means arguing the actual point.
And to do that. Hmm. Why would anybody do that?
Based on the contents of this thread, you aren’t aware enough of fallacy to speak like an authority on it.
Wave your hands around a bit more. You might fly like a bird.
That is not a straw man. The other user is simply not cooperating on the arbitrary restrictions that you’re imposing on his argument. A straw man would require him to misrepresent your position.
You are however cherry picking.
Arbitrary? It’s literally the examples I offered in the title.
Which also implies the class of “stuff they saw but we don’t see”. And he could have gone there too.
But no. He went for the caricature.
You people.
@cameron_vale@lemm.ee where did I say they were dumb? don’t put words in my mouth. Also, ignorance != dumb
I said they tried to explain natural phenomeana the best way they could. I mean that. Most likely every modern person would have done the same.
You offered that they “pulled it from their ass”. Let’s not quibble.
As for what explanations they’d contrive. They’d contrive useful ones. Just like us. Because time is money etc.
@cameron_vale@lemm.ee Well, then, good luck appeasing the angry god for the excess or lack of rain (which one? there are too many!). I think I’ll stop here.
I offered 4 examples of “known things”. You ignore that in preference for these caricatures.
@cameron_vale@lemm.ee I have no idea what 4 things you are talking about. Clearly you don’t are not asking a question as stated in this community. Goodbye
The 4 things I listed in the title, you raving dogmatist.