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.
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.
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.
Surely observation, ideally, acts independently from any information. To constrain observation that way might lead to a selective blindness.