Invisible Pink Unicorn

[CFLarsen]

Claus, the one-liners I provided are, in my opinion, examples of auto responses. Which I define as a brief reply that doesn't require much thought and has become widespread in its use to the point of predictability. None of them qualify as analogies.

I didn't say that merely throwing out "Evidence?" qualifies as an analogy. It is a very reasonable and pivotal demand.

The IPU is a valid analogy, but it has also become somewhat annoying in its overusage in my opinion.

But you won't use analogies at all?

Of course they're part of the argument. It does not follow automatically that they are effective parts however.

They are effective, if they explain the point being made.

I did not say or imply they were invalid. I did not say or imply that they were useless. What I said in fact was,

"Not that these aren't legitimate responses for the most part, but they're frequently employed incorrectly in my opinion" "Legitimate", but adding misuse to overuse. Get it? Even if your point had any bearing on what I said, it wouldn't be relevant, because woowoos can't counter anything. That's why they're woowoos.

You are mistaken. They can counter everything, however not with sound, solid arguments. That's why skeptics need to be able to provide easily understood arguments, so people understand what bollocks it is.

People often don't know the difference between a sound argument and a bogus one. They are not as "trained" as we are in critical thinking.

One of the reasons why people believe in woowoos is because they very often sound so reasonable: Far from all woos are blabbering idiots. People just don't have the tools or knowledge to see it for what it is.

(silly, contrived, and thoroughly misrepresentative non-example of what I was saying snipped)

Really? Did you not say that you would first try argument, then, when that failed, with silence, and then, when you couldn't keep quiet, try mockery?

That was pretty lame Claus. But to be fair, I'm not sure I even understand what your position is. So...

What exactly is your position?

Explained above. We need to counter supernatural claims with easily understood arguments: Point to lack of evidence. Lack of logic. Lack of willingness to be tested properly. And one way is to present easily understood analogies.

It may seem tedious to you, but that's because you have heard the arguments a zillion times. Others have never heard them at all.

 

[Dogwood]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dogwood
Claus, the one-liners I provided are, in my opinion, examples of auto responses. Which I define as a brief reply that doesn't require much thought and has become widespread in its use to the point of predictability. None of them qualify as analogies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I didn't say that merely throwing out "Evidence?" qualifies as an analogy. It is a very reasonable and pivotal demand.

I didn't say you did. I listed four examples of what I consider to be frequently overused one-liners in discussions with believers; in other words auto-responses. You replied by saying:

"They are not auto-responses. They are part of the argument. E.g. analogies can be very helpful explaining often very complex problems. "

None of those four examples I cited, including "Evidence?" can possibly be considered an anology by any stretch of the imagination. Why are you hanging on non-issues?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IPU is a valid analogy, but it has also become somewhat annoying in its overusage in my opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



But you won't use analogies at all?

Of course I would. That should be fairly evident from the fact that I described the IPU as a valid analogy. You especially, as someone familiar with my style of argument should know that I'm more often guilty of over-extended analogies than not using them at all. What is it with this obsession of yours of defending the use of analogies, when no one has criticized their use?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course they're part of the argument. It does not follow automatically that they are effective parts however.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



They are effective, if they explain the point being made.

Well, obviously. And if my grandmother had balls, she'd be my grandfather. The question is not if they might be hypothetically effective but are they, in fact, effective?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if your point had any bearing on what I said, it wouldn't be relevant, because woowoos can't counter anything. That's why they're woowoos.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are mistaken. They can counter everything, however not with sound, solid arguments.

Well that's not countering an argument is it?

That's why skeptics need to be able to provide easily understood arguments, so people understand what bollocks it is.

People often don't know the difference between a sound argument and a bogus one. They are not as "trained" as we are in critical thinking.

One of the reasons why people believe in woowoos is because they very often sound so reasonable: Far from all woos are blabbering idiots. People just don't have the tools or knowledge to see it for what it is.

I couldn't agree more. But one need not reduce an argument to the level of a sound bite in order to provide an easily understood argument.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dogwood
(silly, contrived, and thoroughly misrepresentative non-example of what I was saying snipped)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? Did you not say that you would first try argument, then, when that failed, with silence, and then, when you couldn't keep quiet, try mockery?

Not as part of the same discussion Claus. They options I suggested were meant to be case by case choices to be made, not an outline for a single exchange. I apologize if that wasn't clear. But even allowing for misunderstanding, your little mock conversation was a pathetic strawman, as you merely contrived a worst-case scenario for what you thought I meant and then criticized it. Make an effort, okay?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That was pretty lame Claus. But to be fair, I'm not sure I even understand what your position is. So...

What exactly is your position?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Explained above. We need to counter supernatural claims with easily understood arguments: Point to lack of evidence. Lack of logic. Lack of willingness to be tested properly. And one way is to present easily understood analogies.

Again, I agree. My main objection is to when these easily understood analogies, plus some a few other choice rejoinders are misused and/or overused, reducing the effectiveness of skeptical argument.

It may seem tedious to you, but that's because you have heard the arguments a zillion times. Others have never heard them at all.

I know that Claus. I did not say I found them tedious. It's been my observation though, that some believers do. That's my whole point. Try rereading my posts in this thread from the beginning if you still don't understand.

 

[CFLarsen]

None of those four examples I cited, including "Evidence?" can possibly be considered an anology by any stretch of the imagination. Why are you hanging on non-issues?

I am not. But I find it very difficult to discern what it is you mean.

Take the above. I point to analogies as an example of how to explain a point. You take that to mean that I claim that "Evidence?" can be considered an analogy. I didn't. It isn't.

Of course I would. That should be fairly evident from the fact that I described the IPU as a valid analogy. You especially, as someone familiar with my style of argument should know that I'm more often guilty of over-extended analogies than not using them at all. What is it with this obsession of yours of defending the use of analogies, when no one has criticized their use?

I don't see what analogies you will put in its place.

Well, obviously. And if my grandmother had balls, she'd be my grandfather. The question is not if they might be hypothetically effective but are they, in fact, effective?

I find them very effective. They are easily understood and they cut through the crap.

Well that's not countering an argument is it?

It isn't to you and me. We know the difference. To those who are not aware of the difference, it appears as if the argument is countered. They can't tell a sound argument from a bogus one.

We don't argue to convince ourselves, but those who are on the fence. Those, that can still be reached.

I couldn't agree more. But one need not reduce an argument to the level of a sound bite in order to provide an easily understood argument.

It can be extremely effective, e.g. the "Evidence?" one. Ask Lucianarchy if you don't believe me.

Not as part of the same discussion Claus. They options I suggested were meant to be case by case choices to be made, not an outline for a single exchange. I apologize if that wasn't clear. But even allowing for misunderstanding, your little mock conversation was a pathetic strawman, as you merely contrived a worst-case scenario for what you thought I meant and then criticized it. Make an effort, okay?

I will make an effort of trying to determine just how many discussions you are having. And I am sorry if I took your repeated use of the word "When" to mean a progressive exchange.