Logical fallacies are one of the major tools used by people trying to bullsh*t you. Learning how to spot them is a crucial skill of intellectual self-defence.
It's problematic dealing with ANY humans on ANY topic - and trying to keep logic at the forefront! :-D
Just the other day, a pleasant older lady told me "I feel safer in a mask" and I said something along the lines of perhaps that was the crux of the matter (ie it's psychosomatic), because the studies show that wearing a mask doesn't make any difference at all with regards to transmission etc. She also said she'd never had covid - but then again, when you've not had obvious symptoms and you're using a 'test' that's anything but, who would know, right?!
The thing is, humans are naturally NOT logical, as far as I can tell in my almost 44 years on this planet! When you try to go through things logically, people invariably take offence at some point. Their emotions are at the forefront, not logic - but funnily enough, that's actually how it goes. In our brains, to make rational decisions, we have to first use emotion.
So perhaps as a species, we are destined NOT to place logic on the pedestal...?!
I think that the reason logic was developed as a formal study is that it doesn't come naturally to the human mind - like the practice of science.
On the question of how humans make decisions, I recall Edward DeBono making the claim that the Red Hat (emotional 'thinking') always makes the final decision, but we can maximise the chances of that decision being a sensible one if we go through a formal process of thinking (like his Six Hats) first. This makes sense to me. Our 'gut feelings' are better informed if we've thought issues through carefully before making that Red Hat decision.
I can't remember where I first learned it, probably somewhere in my Chiropractic studies/seminars years ago, but I found it quite interesting learning that our brains supposedly use emotion to arrive at a logical decision. So from what I understand, it's not that DeBono's Red Hat wins out at the very end, it's that we can't actually make rational decisions at all without first going through emotions. It seems like these two concepts may result in similar outcomes, but I'm not so sure.
Does anyone on here know how we arrive at logic/rational thought in the human brain?! I'm all ears! :-)
“When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
"The thing is, humans are naturally NOT logical...". It is not logical to speak of human "nature" unless speaking about all humans. To claim that all humans are not logical is to claim that you are not logical AND to claim to be able to read minds.
Neither minutiae nor unnecessary nor pedantic. And you close with more pretentious psychobabble about my motives. You are correct in claiming that you are not logical.
Aug 24, 2023·edited Aug 24, 2023Liked by Robyn Chuter
You’re a gem!
I was going to add on to your excellent list and also add more examples to the ones you listed. But, I thought better of opening my big yap. Let your genius-ness (this is now a word) stand.
Well, just one point and one point only. All of us should apply all of your examples not just against the ‘other side’ / enemy, but our side too. You’ll see ‘our side’ is chock full of bullsheeters and/or bullsheetery.
But the vast majority will never - never ever - even think of saying anything bad against the un“experts”/un leaders they’ve chosen to fall in love with. Look around on OUR side and you’ll be surprised how many of the people the masses gush over - fall deeply in love with - are lifelong BullSheeters.
I shan’t name names. I’ve done it often (backed by fact - kinda important) and it just agitates the hell out of people. They are NOT looking for truth, they are looking for ‘things’ to justify their narrative or their falling in love with idiotic, even evil, ‘experts’ and ‘leaders’. Holy Smokes, do people fall deeply in love with these folks. As they often screech: "Never question, backed by fact, the unexpert I’ve fallen in love with!!!!! You’re a bad person if you do!!!"
Notice this? :-)
Shutting big yap.
Great stuff (as always), Robyn.
P.S. Is it bullsh*t or baloney? I prefer the former. Without the asterisk. In caps. And bold. Red color. Multiple exclamation points always following.
I definitely have noticed that many on 'our side' are major bullsh*t artists and that they attract a large and dedicated following in spite (or perhaps because) of their bullsh*tting. I fully agree that ALL arguments should be subjected to a rigorous assessment of their use of logical fallacies. Appeal to emotion is one that I spot quite often.
Now, on the bullsh*t vs baloney argument, I too come down in favour of the former. I included the asterisk for my more delicate readers :).
Though I wholeheartedly agree with Robyn's geniussness, I think the point of systematic thought processes is to level the playing field - so that lower levels of geniussness can leverage the cognitive powers of, say, Carl Sagan, to achieve insights (and bullshit detection), or to correct their errors.
Hence, let's name names and challenge 'our side' specifically:
- Ad Hominen - People often attack, say, Elon musk for being rich or greedy, when in fact the best reason to be wary of him is not his character, it is his actions - eg. striking deal after deal with the U.S. military industrial complex and the CCP (Chinese Communist Party). Maajid Nahwaz does a very good job of avoiding this fallacy when reporting on Elon, yet still attacks Elon's hair (https://maajidnawaz.substack.com/p/elon-musk-goes-to-war-against-creator).
- Argument from authority - Peter Mccullough. He often claims he will only debate those with his 'scientific pedigree', or calls Peter Hotez 'not my peer' due to Hotez' lack of volume of studies published, as opposed to the stupidity of Hotez' arguments. Rewind and repeat for pretty much every doctor on 'our' side.
Appeal to ignorance - Robert Malone claims ignorance of a lot of things - eg, "I knew nothing of the corruption" of institutions he worked with, and profited from for decades. See this substack for more detail: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/
Very good examples. All seem to me to be evidence of a primal urge in many, if not most, human beings to seek 'strong leaders' to save them, rather than developing their own survival skills and network.
Spot on. And good that you took on more than one segment of 'our side'. (Elon, Dr. Mac, Malone, Trump). Diversity, *in this case*, is good. Because .. it's true.
Aug 27, 2023·edited Aug 27, 2023Liked by Robyn Chuter
People tend to rely on narrative and emotion when formulating an argument. Logic has little to do with it.
Consider "my body, my choice." Pro-abortionists act as if this chestnut clinches the matter. As if the peculiarities of abortion don't render application of the principle excruciatingly thorny. As if the principle hasn't proven maddeningly elusive in a wide range of applications far less thorny.
No woman has a right to shoot heroin into her own veins or snort cocaine into her own nostrils. No woman has a right to work for a healthcare provider without submitting to a dodgy injection. No woman has a right to drive a car without fastening her seatbelt. (No man has any of those rights, either.)
You might think that if a woman has a right to do what she chooses to her body when it comes to abortion, then *a fortiori* she has a right to do what she chooses to her body when it comes to drug use, vaccine refusal, or driving without a seatbelt. Talk about straining at gnats while camels enjoy free passage.
You've identified what I think is the most-used logical fallacy: appeal to emotion. And your counter-examples on the 'my body, my choice' slogan are excellent. The major objection that I have to this slogan is that it's factually untrue: a foetus is IN a woman's body, but it's not 'her body'.
As in: I 'got Covid' and felt a bit off which proves that Covid is real and a real risk. The fact that you haven't ever 'had Covid' does not prove the contrary - it just shows that you must be a super-dodger (as opposed to a super-spreader) of the Covid virus. My personal anecdote trumps yours.
Can also be employed successfully for 'Long Covid'
Rosk solid stuff here. These dirty tricks are almost universally and frequently used to promote the jabbers and maskers and lockdwners. Get the fols too embrrassed to challenge their drivel and you've win. Until SOMONE pulls back the curtain to reveal to all who dare look just WHO hads been "running things". Phautchee and his minions ALWAYS put forward the greaiset slipperiest soft shoe in any situation.
An amusing thought whacked me upside me haid as I read this: take ALL these phoney bogus "arguments" and slid them over a few pages to the left, and apply them to the whole "climate change" madness. Spefically, regarding the Maui fires, those on a whinge have been moaning about "sea surface temps rising over the pkast two or three dacades. (they are not.. one guy went and got the readings for every month going back into the 1930's. Range is 78 to 85. Average 81, mean 82. At time of fires, 81. Hurridane Dora was blamed as well: another guy backtracked the data from NOAA and tracked the 'cane's progress from the Baja California coast to where it was two days after the fires, Nearest it got to Maui was 500 miles, and it was 800 miles away during the fires. Too fr away to have been a significant factor to Maui's wnds that day. When self-appointed pohbahs grands begin making any such claims I want to stop them in their tracks and demand they cite their source for the specificdata they are spewing. If he can''t do that, he's a jaw flapping quack at best, and an inverete liar.manipulator most likely. I will take NOAA data off their site for sea temp readings over the past eighty years as valid over any talking head on the TeeVee set.
I also want, every time I hear these lars, to pin them to quoting hard reliable data, AND to explain the "mechanosms" involved in "CO2 being a green =house gas", and other f=such fun things. NOT ONE of hese wonks knows the slightest thing about the water or carbon cycles.. things learned about when I was in third grade and we had "geography" class every day. Collectively my fifty five classmates know more about that then all the gummit wnks tied up together. I'd love to get any of these wonks backed into a corner and have him explain the various steps and pathways the carbon moleclue moves through its common cycles. No one of them could explain it in any coherent, let alne accurate.way. All fifty five of us were able to back in that third grade classroom.
I am convinced there is far more carbon dioxide released iinto the atmosphere in North America from the opeinging of all the soda cans/bottles, beer, seltzer water,, champagnes, sparkling wines and juices, CO2 pressurised fountain drinks, etc, than all the cars in Californi and New York State put togther over the corse f one year. Ye NOBOY moans and whinges about THAT release of CO2. Its also used, compressed, in many other items.. CO2 guns, instand bike ttyre inflators, whipped cream frothers at restaurants, smll airhorns, spray paint rattle cans, Maybe that's why the ems in LA and NYC are going up.. all tthe CO released when the taggers get busy!!
100% agree that the 'climate catastrophe' hawkers use all these logical fallacies, in spades. Especially the appeal to emotion (think Greta shrieking "You have stolen my childhood!"). The best site that I've seen for debunking the climate catastrophe narrative is https://co2coalition.org/.
An addendum would've been nice, asserting that "slippery slope" is no longer a logical fallacy when arguing with leftist totalitarians. Thanks for the article. I'm here because it was linked on Revolver!
100% agree that a return to a classical education, including the study of logic, is a prerequisite for rescuing our civilisation from the iceberg that it's heading towards at full steam. The biggest regret that I have as a parent is that I didn't find a way to make home schooling work for my kids. Don't get me wrong, they're good kids and their heads are very firmly screwed on, but I can't escape the thought that I could have done a much better job than most of the teachers they had and I definitely could have pulled together a far better curriculum.
The most egregious fallacy is #6, the one used to wave away the most basic question: the existence of a novel coronavirus called Covid19, in the first place. When we stipulate to the existence of the imaginary virus, we hand the most important point over to the fraudsters.
I ask for evidence of the "virus" having been isolated and identified and being linked to any deaths whatsoever. That evidence has never been presented anywhere. Short of proving its existence, there is and was no pandemic and there is and was no killer plague virus named Covid19.
When you are paid millions+ to count every death, regardless of reason, as 'covid' if a pos PCR test & DENY safe, effective early intervention/prophylactic treatments, what is that called? Doing your job?
actually.....like statistics, these techniques are only as good as the person wielding them...statistics and these techniques in the hands of a good person will strengthen truth....in the hands of a fool or evil person, they will promote lies....JESUS is the way, the truth, and the life....the reason these techniques work so well for evil these days is people don't use Jesus as their lens for seeing the world
It's true that the use of logical fallacies does not automatically invalidate the entire argument. But it's definitely a red flag - an indicator that you need to pay very close attention to the rest of the argument.
Studies are a whole different kettle of fish, in that logical fallacies aren't used nearly as much as flat-out manipulation of data. Interpreting studies intelligently requires a different skill-set than I've discussed in this article.
There is a common false argument which is often stated as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What this means, by implication, is that no one can validly say that unicorns do not exist. In fact no one can validly say that there is anything which does not exist.
This false argument insists that everything imaginable may exist. But "may" is not a fact. And we need, rhetorically, a way to distinguish fact from non-fact. And we have a way. We say that some things “do not exist”.
The mistake here is to treat "...does not exist" as if it means "...there is evidence that it does not exist" and then demand such evidence be presented as proof of non-existence.
However things which do not exist do not have evidence and, in fact that is the correct meaning of "...does not exist; it means "...does not have evidence".
Therefore "evidence of absence" is an oxymoron. Given common usage of language, "absence" simply means no evidence. "Little Billy was absent from class today" means "there was no evidence of little Billy in class today." It does not mean, "little Billy may be in class today because we have no evidence of absence".
I can see a limitation to the applicability of this heuristic, and that is that psychopaths are more than capable of projecting the image of being calm and authoritative, while spouting nonsense arguments. Psychopaths make up around 2% of the general population, so just about everyone has encountered at least one. I personally wouldn't abandon the use of logical tools in favour of judging advice by the (apparent) character of the advice-giver.
The world's leading authority on psychopathy, Robert Hare, has stated that he has been repeatedly fooled by psychopaths, so I doubt it's as easy to spot them as you make out.
In what way is studying psychopathy a form of prejudice? Psychopaths exist - just ask any prison psychologist - and no form of rehabilitation has ever been found to work, because their brains are wired differently. They are literally incapable of empathy. Your continued blurring of definitional issues, and your invocation of culture as the cause of psychopathy when, as I have already pointed out, psychopaths exist in all cultures (for example, see https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/the-kunlangeta-part-i) is getting very tiresome.
I'm talking about the psychological diagnosis of psychopathy, not some vague notion of it that could be applied to anyone and everyone. Precision in the use of terms is important.
There's compelling evidence that psychopaths have existed in all cultures, because psychopathy confers some evolutionary advantages (particularly in males).
By the way, if I were employing your version of the ad hominem fallacy, I would completely dismiss anything that Tyson Yunkaporta has to say, as he fell hook, line and sinker for the scamdemic. Such an appalling lack of discernment doesn't reflect well on him.
After listening to a couple of interviews with him, my impression was that he was just a sloppy thinker. Horses for courses, I guess.
Psychopaths, as distinct from sociopaths, are born, not made. The 'wiring' for empathy in their brains just isn't there. Blaming their mothers for 'turning them into psychopaths' is just a continuation of the mother-blaming that was launched when autism was first identified.
Thanks for another great read!
It's problematic dealing with ANY humans on ANY topic - and trying to keep logic at the forefront! :-D
Just the other day, a pleasant older lady told me "I feel safer in a mask" and I said something along the lines of perhaps that was the crux of the matter (ie it's psychosomatic), because the studies show that wearing a mask doesn't make any difference at all with regards to transmission etc. She also said she'd never had covid - but then again, when you've not had obvious symptoms and you're using a 'test' that's anything but, who would know, right?!
The thing is, humans are naturally NOT logical, as far as I can tell in my almost 44 years on this planet! When you try to go through things logically, people invariably take offence at some point. Their emotions are at the forefront, not logic - but funnily enough, that's actually how it goes. In our brains, to make rational decisions, we have to first use emotion.
So perhaps as a species, we are destined NOT to place logic on the pedestal...?!
I think that the reason logic was developed as a formal study is that it doesn't come naturally to the human mind - like the practice of science.
On the question of how humans make decisions, I recall Edward DeBono making the claim that the Red Hat (emotional 'thinking') always makes the final decision, but we can maximise the chances of that decision being a sensible one if we go through a formal process of thinking (like his Six Hats) first. This makes sense to me. Our 'gut feelings' are better informed if we've thought issues through carefully before making that Red Hat decision.
I can't remember where I first learned it, probably somewhere in my Chiropractic studies/seminars years ago, but I found it quite interesting learning that our brains supposedly use emotion to arrive at a logical decision. So from what I understand, it's not that DeBono's Red Hat wins out at the very end, it's that we can't actually make rational decisions at all without first going through emotions. It seems like these two concepts may result in similar outcomes, but I'm not so sure.
Does anyone on here know how we arrive at logic/rational thought in the human brain?! I'm all ears! :-)
That's a bloody good question. I would like to know too.
“When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
― H.L. Mencken
Prophetic, and depressing.
Well geez, aren't we already there?! :-D
Well and truly.
"The thing is, humans are naturally NOT logical...". It is not logical to speak of human "nature" unless speaking about all humans. To claim that all humans are not logical is to claim that you are not logical AND to claim to be able to read minds.
PEDANTIC:
Pointing out unnecessary minutiae as a means to calling attention to one's own
pretentiousness.
Neither minutiae nor unnecessary nor pedantic. And you close with more pretentious psychobabble about my motives. You are correct in claiming that you are not logical.
You’re a gem!
I was going to add on to your excellent list and also add more examples to the ones you listed. But, I thought better of opening my big yap. Let your genius-ness (this is now a word) stand.
Well, just one point and one point only. All of us should apply all of your examples not just against the ‘other side’ / enemy, but our side too. You’ll see ‘our side’ is chock full of bullsheeters and/or bullsheetery.
But the vast majority will never - never ever - even think of saying anything bad against the un“experts”/un leaders they’ve chosen to fall in love with. Look around on OUR side and you’ll be surprised how many of the people the masses gush over - fall deeply in love with - are lifelong BullSheeters.
I shan’t name names. I’ve done it often (backed by fact - kinda important) and it just agitates the hell out of people. They are NOT looking for truth, they are looking for ‘things’ to justify their narrative or their falling in love with idiotic, even evil, ‘experts’ and ‘leaders’. Holy Smokes, do people fall deeply in love with these folks. As they often screech: "Never question, backed by fact, the unexpert I’ve fallen in love with!!!!! You’re a bad person if you do!!!"
Notice this? :-)
Shutting big yap.
Great stuff (as always), Robyn.
P.S. Is it bullsh*t or baloney? I prefer the former. Without the asterisk. In caps. And bold. Red color. Multiple exclamation points always following.
I definitely have noticed that many on 'our side' are major bullsh*t artists and that they attract a large and dedicated following in spite (or perhaps because) of their bullsh*tting. I fully agree that ALL arguments should be subjected to a rigorous assessment of their use of logical fallacies. Appeal to emotion is one that I spot quite often.
Now, on the bullsh*t vs baloney argument, I too come down in favour of the former. I included the asterisk for my more delicate readers :).
Though I wholeheartedly agree with Robyn's geniussness, I think the point of systematic thought processes is to level the playing field - so that lower levels of geniussness can leverage the cognitive powers of, say, Carl Sagan, to achieve insights (and bullshit detection), or to correct their errors.
Hence, let's name names and challenge 'our side' specifically:
- Ad Hominen - People often attack, say, Elon musk for being rich or greedy, when in fact the best reason to be wary of him is not his character, it is his actions - eg. striking deal after deal with the U.S. military industrial complex and the CCP (Chinese Communist Party). Maajid Nahwaz does a very good job of avoiding this fallacy when reporting on Elon, yet still attacks Elon's hair (https://maajidnawaz.substack.com/p/elon-musk-goes-to-war-against-creator).
- Argument from authority - Peter Mccullough. He often claims he will only debate those with his 'scientific pedigree', or calls Peter Hotez 'not my peer' due to Hotez' lack of volume of studies published, as opposed to the stupidity of Hotez' arguments. Rewind and repeat for pretty much every doctor on 'our' side.
Appeal to ignorance - Robert Malone claims ignorance of a lot of things - eg, "I knew nothing of the corruption" of institutions he worked with, and profited from for decades. See this substack for more detail: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/
Special Pleading - Donald Trump. Trump is a war criminal, yet his fans claim he deserves special consideration because he was less of a war criminal than his predecessors. (https://savageminds.substack.com/p/why-hasnt-the-us-been-kicked-off)
Very good examples. All seem to me to be evidence of a primal urge in many, if not most, human beings to seek 'strong leaders' to save them, rather than developing their own survival skills and network.
Spot on. And good that you took on more than one segment of 'our side'. (Elon, Dr. Mac, Malone, Trump). Diversity, *in this case*, is good. Because .. it's true.
More to say tomorrow. I hope.
People tend to rely on narrative and emotion when formulating an argument. Logic has little to do with it.
Consider "my body, my choice." Pro-abortionists act as if this chestnut clinches the matter. As if the peculiarities of abortion don't render application of the principle excruciatingly thorny. As if the principle hasn't proven maddeningly elusive in a wide range of applications far less thorny.
No woman has a right to shoot heroin into her own veins or snort cocaine into her own nostrils. No woman has a right to work for a healthcare provider without submitting to a dodgy injection. No woman has a right to drive a car without fastening her seatbelt. (No man has any of those rights, either.)
You might think that if a woman has a right to do what she chooses to her body when it comes to abortion, then *a fortiori* she has a right to do what she chooses to her body when it comes to drug use, vaccine refusal, or driving without a seatbelt. Talk about straining at gnats while camels enjoy free passage.
You've identified what I think is the most-used logical fallacy: appeal to emotion. And your counter-examples on the 'my body, my choice' slogan are excellent. The major objection that I have to this slogan is that it's factually untrue: a foetus is IN a woman's body, but it's not 'her body'.
Argument/proof by (selective) anecdote.
As in: I 'got Covid' and felt a bit off which proves that Covid is real and a real risk. The fact that you haven't ever 'had Covid' does not prove the contrary - it just shows that you must be a super-dodger (as opposed to a super-spreader) of the Covid virus. My personal anecdote trumps yours.
Can also be employed successfully for 'Long Covid'
Hell, yes. Statistics of small numbers, here we come!
Rosk solid stuff here. These dirty tricks are almost universally and frequently used to promote the jabbers and maskers and lockdwners. Get the fols too embrrassed to challenge their drivel and you've win. Until SOMONE pulls back the curtain to reveal to all who dare look just WHO hads been "running things". Phautchee and his minions ALWAYS put forward the greaiset slipperiest soft shoe in any situation.
An amusing thought whacked me upside me haid as I read this: take ALL these phoney bogus "arguments" and slid them over a few pages to the left, and apply them to the whole "climate change" madness. Spefically, regarding the Maui fires, those on a whinge have been moaning about "sea surface temps rising over the pkast two or three dacades. (they are not.. one guy went and got the readings for every month going back into the 1930's. Range is 78 to 85. Average 81, mean 82. At time of fires, 81. Hurridane Dora was blamed as well: another guy backtracked the data from NOAA and tracked the 'cane's progress from the Baja California coast to where it was two days after the fires, Nearest it got to Maui was 500 miles, and it was 800 miles away during the fires. Too fr away to have been a significant factor to Maui's wnds that day. When self-appointed pohbahs grands begin making any such claims I want to stop them in their tracks and demand they cite their source for the specificdata they are spewing. If he can''t do that, he's a jaw flapping quack at best, and an inverete liar.manipulator most likely. I will take NOAA data off their site for sea temp readings over the past eighty years as valid over any talking head on the TeeVee set.
I also want, every time I hear these lars, to pin them to quoting hard reliable data, AND to explain the "mechanosms" involved in "CO2 being a green =house gas", and other f=such fun things. NOT ONE of hese wonks knows the slightest thing about the water or carbon cycles.. things learned about when I was in third grade and we had "geography" class every day. Collectively my fifty five classmates know more about that then all the gummit wnks tied up together. I'd love to get any of these wonks backed into a corner and have him explain the various steps and pathways the carbon moleclue moves through its common cycles. No one of them could explain it in any coherent, let alne accurate.way. All fifty five of us were able to back in that third grade classroom.
I am convinced there is far more carbon dioxide released iinto the atmosphere in North America from the opeinging of all the soda cans/bottles, beer, seltzer water,, champagnes, sparkling wines and juices, CO2 pressurised fountain drinks, etc, than all the cars in Californi and New York State put togther over the corse f one year. Ye NOBOY moans and whinges about THAT release of CO2. Its also used, compressed, in many other items.. CO2 guns, instand bike ttyre inflators, whipped cream frothers at restaurants, smll airhorns, spray paint rattle cans, Maybe that's why the ems in LA and NYC are going up.. all tthe CO released when the taggers get busy!!
100% agree that the 'climate catastrophe' hawkers use all these logical fallacies, in spades. Especially the appeal to emotion (think Greta shrieking "You have stolen my childhood!"). The best site that I've seen for debunking the climate catastrophe narrative is https://co2coalition.org/.
No bullshit.
https://rumble.com/v2ohtte-physicist-dr-denis-rancourt-presents-his-findings-on-all-cause-mortality-ot.html
Denis Rancourt has been doing fantastic work all through the scamdemic.
Excellent
Thank you!
An addendum would've been nice, asserting that "slippery slope" is no longer a logical fallacy when arguing with leftist totalitarians. Thanks for the article. I'm here because it was linked on Revolver!
Oh yes, that slippery slope is being skiied all the way to the bottom!
I'm very chuffed that Revolver picked this up. Lew Rockwell also republished it on his site.
Make sure you subscribe for part 2 :).
Aren't you wonderful!
This should be a curriculum PreK-12+
We need generational change.
100% agree that a return to a classical education, including the study of logic, is a prerequisite for rescuing our civilisation from the iceberg that it's heading towards at full steam. The biggest regret that I have as a parent is that I didn't find a way to make home schooling work for my kids. Don't get me wrong, they're good kids and their heads are very firmly screwed on, but I can't escape the thought that I could have done a much better job than most of the teachers they had and I definitely could have pulled together a far better curriculum.
The most egregious fallacy is #6, the one used to wave away the most basic question: the existence of a novel coronavirus called Covid19, in the first place. When we stipulate to the existence of the imaginary virus, we hand the most important point over to the fraudsters.
I ask for evidence of the "virus" having been isolated and identified and being linked to any deaths whatsoever. That evidence has never been presented anywhere. Short of proving its existence, there is and was no pandemic and there is and was no killer plague virus named Covid19.
Missed the clot shot as the real mass murderer.
It wasn't really relevant to this article, but I've covered the topic in other posts, especially https://robynchuter.substack.com/p/the-great-australian-die-off.
When you are paid millions+ to count every death, regardless of reason, as 'covid' if a pos PCR test & DENY safe, effective early intervention/prophylactic treatments, what is that called? Doing your job?
'Just following orders'.
actually.....like statistics, these techniques are only as good as the person wielding them...statistics and these techniques in the hands of a good person will strengthen truth....in the hands of a fool or evil person, they will promote lies....JESUS is the way, the truth, and the life....the reason these techniques work so well for evil these days is people don't use Jesus as their lens for seeing the world
It's true that the use of logical fallacies does not automatically invalidate the entire argument. But it's definitely a red flag - an indicator that you need to pay very close attention to the rest of the argument.
agree....but trusting your eyes (small sample) over their so called studies with large samples (but full of lies of course) is invaluable
Studies are a whole different kettle of fish, in that logical fallacies aren't used nearly as much as flat-out manipulation of data. Interpreting studies intelligently requires a different skill-set than I've discussed in this article.
There is a common false argument which is often stated as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What this means, by implication, is that no one can validly say that unicorns do not exist. In fact no one can validly say that there is anything which does not exist.
This false argument insists that everything imaginable may exist. But "may" is not a fact. And we need, rhetorically, a way to distinguish fact from non-fact. And we have a way. We say that some things “do not exist”.
The mistake here is to treat "...does not exist" as if it means "...there is evidence that it does not exist" and then demand such evidence be presented as proof of non-existence.
However things which do not exist do not have evidence and, in fact that is the correct meaning of "...does not exist; it means "...does not have evidence".
Therefore "evidence of absence" is an oxymoron. Given common usage of language, "absence" simply means no evidence. "Little Billy was absent from class today" means "there was no evidence of little Billy in class today." It does not mean, "little Billy may be in class today because we have no evidence of absence".
I can see a limitation to the applicability of this heuristic, and that is that psychopaths are more than capable of projecting the image of being calm and authoritative, while spouting nonsense arguments. Psychopaths make up around 2% of the general population, so just about everyone has encountered at least one. I personally wouldn't abandon the use of logical tools in favour of judging advice by the (apparent) character of the advice-giver.
The world's leading authority on psychopathy, Robert Hare, has stated that he has been repeatedly fooled by psychopaths, so I doubt it's as easy to spot them as you make out.
In what way is studying psychopathy a form of prejudice? Psychopaths exist - just ask any prison psychologist - and no form of rehabilitation has ever been found to work, because their brains are wired differently. They are literally incapable of empathy. Your continued blurring of definitional issues, and your invocation of culture as the cause of psychopathy when, as I have already pointed out, psychopaths exist in all cultures (for example, see https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/the-kunlangeta-part-i) is getting very tiresome.
I'm talking about the psychological diagnosis of psychopathy, not some vague notion of it that could be applied to anyone and everyone. Precision in the use of terms is important.
There's compelling evidence that psychopaths have existed in all cultures, because psychopathy confers some evolutionary advantages (particularly in males).
You write a lot of words, but without saying anything that is actually comprehensible.
By the way, if I were employing your version of the ad hominem fallacy, I would completely dismiss anything that Tyson Yunkaporta has to say, as he fell hook, line and sinker for the scamdemic. Such an appalling lack of discernment doesn't reflect well on him.
After listening to a couple of interviews with him, my impression was that he was just a sloppy thinker. Horses for courses, I guess.
Psychopaths, as distinct from sociopaths, are born, not made. The 'wiring' for empathy in their brains just isn't there. Blaming their mothers for 'turning them into psychopaths' is just a continuation of the mother-blaming that was launched when autism was first identified.