Google says you're the only one using that meaningless phrase. Can you point to any evidence for it being "popular usage"? For that matter, can you tell us where the evidence is for your claims regarding this or other sites unrecognized by actual scientists being lost civilizations?
'Lost Civilisations'
- Thread starter SusanB-M1
- Start date
Google says you're the only one using that meaningless phrase. Can you point to any evidence for it being "popular usage"? For that matter, can you tell us where the evidence is for your claims regarding this or other sites unrecognized by actual scientists being lost civilizations?
King of the Americas
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2001
- Messages
- 6,513
Someone somewhere used LOL 'first'...Before that people would have 'laughed out loud' if someone told them that LOL would be a word someday.
The time it will take time for the "Willful Ignorance Fallacy" to become popular usage. LESS time if more people witness the behavior of skeptics, MORE.
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
And above, ladies and gentlemen, we have a perfect example of the "Wooful Ignorance Fallacy" (Correa Neto, 2011).
KotA ignored most of the scientific informations about ice ages because they are not compatible with his beliefs in lost golden age civilizations.
Okay, so what you're saying is that it IS a meaningless phrase right now and is NOT popular usage, but that you hope that some day it will catch on. Got it.
Just FYI, that's not likely to happen unless you can define it in a way that:
1. Makes it an actual fallacy
2. Does not overlap with existing recognized fallacies.
So far you haven't done that, so I'd say there's roughly a zero percent chance it will ever catch on.
Also, I note with a total lack of surprise that you failed to address the lack of evidence for your "lost civilization" claims.
King of the Americas
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2001
- Messages
- 6,513
Maybe you could offer some specifics...?
King of the Americas
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2001
- Messages
- 6,513
Meaningless...?
Really? YOU don't understand the MEANING behind my phrase? Do you read much, have you ever seen me use the phrase and the surrounding context?
Ah, wait...it sounds like you are employing the "Willful Ignorance Fallacy", again...
Ignoring people and what they say, post, or offer the debate is "wrong-headed", a failure to reason, and results in false or invalid conclusions.
So which is it, a fallacy, or overlapping of another already 'made up' fallacy? Maybe you should decide which? Then accuse me of something...
I think so long as "Willful Ignorance" is occurring, someone somewhere will describe it as "Fallacy". In a way you are helping to promote it, by your very "willful ignorance". Well done.
MANY civilizations have been 'lost', for varying reasons throughout the ages. We probably don't even know about half of them... The people 'believe' advanced man has only been around for 5-6,000 year is utterly laughable. Earth's and Man's history is much much much older.
King of the Americas
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2001
- Messages
- 6,513
Start digging...
Go to the oldest known city in the world, and dig. I PROMISE you will find another city/civilization underneath it.
And I have no idea where that is, or if it's been done already. It is an assumption based on past experience and knowledge.
Our modern society is no different. We take out stuff down, and put up new stuff, often times exactly where the old stuff was.
There ARE 'traces'...
Last edited:
MG1962
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,252
Have you any idea how silly what you just typed is? Archeologists are well aware of the layering effect in cities. Identifying them is critical in developing a time line for human inhabititation in an area
Right. It's nonsense.
You misread what I wrote, I think. My point was that it is NOT a fallacy at all. Willful ignorance is a real phrase that means something, but it's not a fallacy. Once you can define "willful ignorance fallacy" in such a way that it actually counts as a fallacy, then we can see if that definition is redundant with an existing and accepted fallacy. If it isn't, then your "willful ignorance fallacy" would have some slim chance of becoming an actual popular phrase.
That someone is only you, and it doesn't make sense.
It's funny how you refuse to actually post any evidence. It's almost like you are willfully ignorant or something.
King of the Americas
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2001
- Messages
- 6,513
I know 'archeologists' know this, but the person I addressed that to isn't an archeologist...
King of the Americas
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2001
- Messages
- 6,513
What exactly do you want evidence of?
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
Georg
Graduate Poster
It isn't popular and it never will be, doesn't matter if you dream about becoming famous through it
. And it surely makes no sense to use it in combination with classic, since you coined it just a while ago and noone else uses it.
Halfcentaur
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2010
- Messages
- 6,620
King of the Americas
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2001
- Messages
- 6,513
It isn't popular and it never will be, doesn't matter if you dream about becoming famous through it
And it surely makes no sense to use it in combination with classic, since you coined it just a while ago and noone else uses it.
What are you talking about?
If I wanted for be 'famous' for anything it would be for my blog. *COUGH*http://betterliberalarguments.blogspot.com/*SHAMLESSPLUG*COUGH*
King of the Americas
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2001
- Messages
- 6,513
If Sarah Palin can make up words, then there are NO LINES anymore.
You missed his point. Since anthropologists know that, they have already done it for the oldest city ever found and those found that are younger. In other words, what you note as if it would bring anything new has no bearing unless an even older city we are not aware of turns up somewhere. Which I think all here assume is possible - but most here, I am pretty sure,think that even if it does and we find further evidence that cities go back any further than we already know of (unlikely for a number of reasons - in general we have already found much of the evidence of pre-city/civilization and what it was like to sufficiently well establish time-lines with pretty good specificity) it will not turn out that the inhabitants had solar energy, supercars, flight, etc.
No supercivilizations, no advanced technology, nothing that would do anything but MAYBE push mildly advanced (from hut life) cities a bit further back in our history.
Georg
Graduate Poster
Well, I'm talking about what you stated:
Again: it isn't popular and it won't ever be. Except for maybe being used as an example of unbelievable idiocy.
No answer to the classic thing? How can an imaginary example of your imaginary fallacy be classic if you just made the fallacy up? Any answer?
Last edited:
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
What about the fact that the last ice age was not a snowball Earth episode, rendering impossible for the continental glaciers to have erased all the remains of these civilizations all around the world?
Or the fact that older strata are actually preserved underneath glacial deposits?
Or the fact that there are no remains of other cities underneath the oldest known cities, contrary to your promisses?
So, what now?
Will you once again take shelter behind the "Wooful Ignorance Fallacy" (Correa Neto, 2011), as you did, for example, when I showed why Atlantis can not be real?