• 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.

Merged The razor of Hitchens and the Spirits!

MarkCorrigan said:
Why are you putting so much effort into being lazy? Just go back and read the questions.
Click to expand...
It's not so much about questions—as in things that end with question marks. Several of @Calderaro's propositions have been rebutted. It's the rebuttals we want addressed. If someone says, "I think this is the case," and someone else says, "No, it isn't, and here's why," it is expected that the proponent will either change his proposition to accommodate the new information or extend his argument to explain why the rebuttal shouldn't hold.

For example, @Calderaro constantly spews what appears to be AI-generated objections to the Sagan statement about extraordinary evidence. Very well, a grand total of one person in this thread has invoked that. It doesn't govern the debate. But I and several others went into great detail about how various objections to it—including from serious scientists and philosophers—don't lower the bar to the point where just any old claim will clear it. In an ordinary discussion or debate, you have to read and address those reasons. You can't just come back with, "Well, ours go to eleven," every time.
 
JayUtah said:
It's not so much about questions—as in things that end with question marks. Several of @Calderaro's propositions have been rebutted. It's the rebuttals we want addressed. If someone says, "I think this is the case," and someone else says, "No, it isn't, and here's why," it is expected that the proponent will either change his proposition to accommodate the new information or extend his argument to explain why the rebuttal shouldn't hold.

For example, @Calderaro constantly spews what appears to be AI-generated objections to the Sagan statement about extraordinary evidence. Very well, a grand total of one person in this thread has invoked that. It doesn't govern the debate. But I and several others went into great detail about how various objections to it—including from serious scientists and philosophers—don't lower the bar to the point where just any old claim will clear it. In an ordinary discussion or debate, you have to read and address those reasons. You can't just come back with, "Well, ours go to eleven," every time.
Click to expand...
Point taken. He needs to address all the criticisms and questions posted as replies to him.

It's just amazing to me that someone would put this much effort into being so lazy. It's not the first time I've seen it here, but it amazes me every time.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Point taken. He needs to address all the criticisms and questions posted as replies to him.

It's just amazing to me that someone would put this much effort into being so lazy. It's not the first time I've seen it here, but it amazes me every time.
Click to expand...

I think it's a feature, rather than a bug, of woo-ists.

The berk I previously mentioned, with whom I was arguing about BigFoot, would not go back and re-read (read?) points I'd made and explanations I'd already given, always demanding that I did so again and again.

Seems like a twist of a Gish Gallop.
 
It reminds me of the Bayesian immortality threads personally. The continued pretence to not see previous posts and the rude demands for them to be regurgitated ad nauseum rather than just scrolling back a page or two in a feeble attempt to avoid answering any counters to their posts. Of course in this case I'm not convinced it is solely a delaying tactic as the language barrier might account for some of the issue, but the point still remains the behaviour is exceedingly rude.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
Point taken. He needs to address all the criticisms and questions posted as replies to him.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Don't take my clarification as a criticism. It was aimed mostly at @Calderaro, who may be legitimately confused as to what is asked for.

MarkCorrigan said:
It's just amazing to me that someone would put this much effort into being so lazy.
Click to expand...
Boredom? Distraction? The same reason so many of us waste time on rebutting obvious foolishness?

Carrot Flower King said:
The berk I previously mentioned, with whom I was arguing about BigFoot, would not go back and re-read (read?) points I'd made and explanations I'd already given, always demanding that I did so again and again.
Click to expand...
In some cases the goal is simply to prolong the discussion and extend one's feeling of relevancy for as long as possible. The reference to the Bayesian proof of immortality is apt. It's partly that one is avoiding a concession. But mostly it's to see how much attention one can get.

Carrot Flower King said:
Seems like a twist of a Gish Gallop.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree. The twist here seems to be to gallop the horse in a very tight circle.
 
Carrot Flower King said:
I think it's a feature, rather than a bug, of woo-ists very poor AI.

The berk I previously mentioned, with whom I was arguing about BigFoot, would not go back and re-read (read?) points I'd made and explanations I'd already given, always demanding that I did so again and again.

Seems like a twist of a Gish Gallop.
Click to expand...

FTFY. IIRC a knock off off the 48k ZX Spectrum was very popular in Brazil, I think that's what we're 'conversing' with. Actually, scratch that, even a knock off of Uncle Clive's finest would do better than this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom