• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Top 5 Skeptical Fallacies

Humans are neither good nor bad. On a day to day basis they are apathetic at best and self centered at worst. Given thousands of years of social and moral progress we've managed to work out efficient means of living as social species and thankfully we do have things like empathy, sympathy and compassion. Unfortunately these are easily suppressed and the average person will effectively meet out genocide given the right circumstances (see Mao's great leap forward, Stalin's Purges and Hitler's Holocaust).

If you want to understand the "Jungian Thing" (the duality of man) you need to understand where we came from. Our sociobiology. This notion of the nature of humans is perhaps the greatest presumptuous fallacy of human history. We are just machines responding to the environment around us. The notion that we are "good" or "evil" is an illusion. We can only judge actions based on our subjective goals while ignoring what it means to live in a deterministic world. We think we are autonomous creatures that make moral decisions based on reason. There is little evidence to support such a position.

This is not to say that reason and logic do not influence our decision making process. They do. Just not in the way our egos would like to think.

For source material I would recommend Hanna Arendt's Eichmann in Israel, EO Wilson's The Meaning of Human Existence and On Human Nature. I can also recommend studies and other academic source material if you are interested. There is a wealth of science as to the nature of mankind and it's not as cheery as you might imagine. Which should be obvious given thousands of years of wars, oppression, slavery, genocide and unimaginable atrocity.

I would not say we are "well intentioned", that again is an illusion. We are self interested. However, it is in our rational self interest to be kind, charitable and well intentioned. It's also in our rational self interest to be back stabbing, deceitful bastards. There is no single strategy to Maslov's self fulfilment. Donald Trump made millions and perhaps billions making people homeless. Is that a good thing or bad thing? FDR committed crimes against humanity. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. Reagan traded arms for hostages. The list goes on and on. We can be a kind and generous species and then, given a little fear (see 9/11) we are willing to give away our plain and precious freedoms because we are little more than children huddling in the dark pretending to be brave. It's a lie.

Well Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, has been largely discredited. Her reading of Eichmann's character seems to be largely wrong. Her characterization of Eichmann has a thoughtless bureaucrat who really didn't "know" what he was doing and thus an example of the banality of evil flies in the face of the mountain of evidence that Eichmann was a fanatical anti-Semite and Nazi who relished his "task" and knew exactly what he was doing and rejoiced in it. I recommend Eichmann Before Jerusalem: The Unexamined Life of a Mass Murderer. In the book you will learn about how Eichmann in Argentina repeatedly said how he regretted that he did not complete his "task" and how he further regretted that anyone had escaped him and how he longed to complete his "task".

Has for Wilson's On Human Nature, the less said the better.
 
I love that the post starts with "We are neither good nor bad", but literally every descriptor about humans paints us in the most vile, disgusting, hate-filled light possible. Nope, we're not good or bad--but we're bad, m'kay?
 
Well Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, has been largely discredited. Her reading of Eichmann's character seems to be largely wrong. Her characterization of Eichmann has a thoughtless bureaucrat who really didn't "know" what he was doing and thus an example of the banality of evil flies in the face of the mountain of evidence that Eichmann was a fanatical anti-Semite and Nazi who relished his "task" and knew exactly what he was doing and rejoiced in it. I recommend Eichmann Before Jerusalem: The Unexamined Life of a Mass Murderer. In the book you will learn about how Eichmann in Argentina repeatedly said how he regretted that he did not complete his "task" and how he further regretted that anyone had escaped him and how he longed to complete his "task".
It is without doubt Arendt was wrong about Eichman. That's not the point. She was one of the first to recognize that the average German was no different than any other average person. She notes that for such an evil as this to take place required beauracrats who coldly went about their jobs sending people to their deaths.

Has for Wilson's On Human Nature, the less said the better.
Blatant ad hominem.
 
I love that the post starts with "We are neither good nor bad", but literally every descriptor about humans paints us in the most vile, disgusting, hate-filled light possible. Nope, we're not good or bad--but we're bad, m'kay?
Demonstrably false, look at the post again.

Humans are neither good nor bad. On a day to day basis they are apathetic at best and self centered at worst. Given thousands of years of social and moral progress we've managed to work out efficient means of living as social species and thankfully we do have things like empathy, sympathy and compassion. Unfortunately these are easily suppressed and the average person will effectively meet out genocide given the right circumstances (see Mao's great leap forward, Stalin's Purges and Hitler's Holocaust).

If you want to understand the "Jungian Thing" (the duality of man) you need to understand where we came from. Our sociobiology. This notion of the nature of humans is perhaps the greatest presumptuous fallacy of human history. We are just machines responding to the environment around us. The notion that we are "good" or "evil" is an illusion. We can only judge actions based on our subjective goals while ignoring what it means to live in a deterministic world. We think we are autonomous creatures that make moral decisions based on reason. There is little evidence to support such a position.

This is not to say that reason and logic do not influence our decision making process. They do. Just not in the way our egos would like to think.

For source material I would recommend Hanna Arendt's Eichmann in Israel, EO Wilson's The Meaning of Human Existence and On Human Nature. I can also recommend studies and other academic source material if you are interested. There is a wealth of science as to the nature of mankind and it's not as cheery as you might imagine. Which should be obvious given thousands of years of wars, oppression, slavery, genocide and unimaginable atrocity.

I would not say we are "well intentioned", that again is an illusion. We are self interested. However, it is in our rational self interest to be kind, charitable and well intentioned. It's also in our rational self interest to be back stabbing, deceitful bastards. There is no single strategy to Maslov's self fulfilment. Donald Trump made millions and perhaps billions making people homeless. Is that a good thing or bad thing? FDR committed crimes against humanity. Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus. Reagan traded arms for hostages. The list goes on and on. We can be a kind and generous species and then, given a little fear (see 9/11) we are willing to give away our plain and precious freedoms because we are little more than children huddling in the dark pretending to be brave. It's a lie.
 
RandFan said:
Demonstrably false, look at the post again.
Okay, fine--the overwhelming majority. Your post clearly paints humans in a negative light, and as evil, pure and simple. Attempts to deny it are just linguistic trickery attempting to hide the obvious meaning of your statements.
 
Okay, fine--the overwhelming majority. Your post clearly paints humans in a negative light, and as evil, pure and simple. Attempts to deny it are just linguistic trickery attempting to hide the obvious meaning of your statements.
A.) It wasn't my intent. B.) While I will accept the criticism of painting a tone that seemed to put people more on the evil than good side, I reject the idea that the only conclusion to my post is that humans are "evil, pure and simple".

If you would like I will re-write it.
 
RandFan said:
B.) While I will accept the criticism of painting a tone that seemed to put people more on the evil than good side, I reject the idea that the only conclusion to my post is that humans are "evil, pure and simple".
I'm sure you do. Just like all theists reject the notion that their beliefs are irrational. Your personal acceptance or rejection of an interpretation is irrelevant, however. If you had desired to paint a more neutral position, you have failed to communicate that effectively. If you communicated what you intended, you believe humans are evil.

I don't care if you re-write it or not. Nor do I particularly care if you accept or reject my statement, or if you think humans are good or evil.
 
Wow, this topic has really gotten off track. So off track we should see the New Horizon probe passing overhead any moment now.
 
I'm sure you do. Just like all theists reject the notion that their beliefs are irrational. Your personal acceptance or rejection of an interpretation is irrelevant, however. If you had desired to paint a more neutral position, you have failed to communicate that effectively. If you communicated what you intended, you believe humans are evil.
I don't care if you re-write it or not. Nor do I particularly care if you accept or reject my statement, or if you think humans are good or evil.
I'm really not sure what you are on about. You are simply arguing by assertion which is a fallacy.

I'm sorry you don't wish to discuss it further. That's fine.

Cheers.
 
I'm really not sure what you are on about. You are simply arguing by assertion which is a fallacy.

Nonsense. Your posts stand as evidence. The fact that others agree with my interpretation pretty much negates any accusations of Argument by Assertion.

Seriously: Go back and re-read your posts, looking at it from an outsider's perspective. Either you communicated ineffectually, or believe humans are evil. Those are the only rational conclusions.

This is the reason I have no interest in you re-writing your post: you are going to find an excuse to dismiss anything you dislike anyway, so I'm not going to bother.
 
Nonsense. Your posts stand as evidence. The fact that others agree with my interpretation pretty much negates any accusations of Argument by Assertion.
That's some sample set. What protocols did you use to control for your bias and the bias of others?
 
My fault. I'll bow out and start a thread on the subject. My apologies to everyone. Feel free to report my posts.
 
It's actually quite liberating. Very similar to giving up religion. Funny since my mother told me that atheists have no purpose or meaning in life and lead a depressing existence. Do you think by chance your views of reality are simply what you want them to be? It's something I consider daily. Do I want to know the truth as much as humanly possible or am I content with simply believing what I do?

I find the truth exhilarating and hopeful. Our ability to reason gives us the one chance to escape our evolution. Knowing that we are neither good nor bad and knowing that each of us benefit from helping others then we can craft sound social policies to improve existence and guard against atrocities.

Meh. It's belief. It's what lets me go though the day without hating other people. I'm content to leave it that way, regardless of whether it's rational. I just don't wan the paranoia that comes otherwise ;).
 
And you're wrong there, too.

Arrant = complete, utter. "Complete pedantry - not so much" doesn't does work as intended.

Errant = erring. "Erring pedantry - not so much" works exactly as intended.

FTFY......
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom