Skepticism and The Normal

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Since I think it's relevant to the discussion

Also Known as: Golden Mean Fallacy, Fallacy of Moderation Description of Middle Ground


This fallacy is committed when it is assumed that the middle position between two extremes must be correct simply because it is the middle position. this sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Position A and B are two extreme positions.
2. C is a position that rests in the middle between A and B.
3. Therefore C is the correct position.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because it does not follow that a position is correct just because it lies in the middle of two extremes. This is shown by the following example. Suppose that a person is selling his computer. He wants to sell it for the current market value, which is $800 and someone offers him $1 for it. It would hardly follow that $400.50 is the proper price.
This fallacy draws its power from the fact that a moderate or middle position is often the correct one. For example, a moderate amount of exercise is better than too much exercise or too little exercise. However, this is not simply because it lies in the middle ground between two extremes. It is because too much exercise is harmful and too little exercise is all but useless. The basic idea behind many cases in which moderation is correct is that the extremes are typically "too much" and "not enough" and the middle position is "enough." In such cases the middle position is correct almost by definition.
It should be kept in mind that while uncritically assuming that the middle position must be correct because it is the middle position is poor reasoning it does not follow that accepting a middle position is always fallacious. As was just mentioned, many times a moderate position is correct. However, the claim that the moderate or middle position is correct must be supported by legitimate reasoning. Examples of Middle Ground

1. Some people claim that God is all powerful, all knowing, and all good. Other people claim that God does not exist at all. Now, it seems reasonable to accept a position somewhere in the middle. So, it is likely that God exists, but that he is only very powerful, very knowing, and very good. That seems right to me.
2. Congressman Jones has proposed cutting welfare payments by 50% while Congresswoman Shender has proposed increasing welfare payments by 10% to keep up with inflation and cost of living increases. I think that the best proposal is the one made by Congressman Trumple. He says that a 30% decrease in welfare payments is a good middle ground, so I think that is what we should support.
3. A month ago, a tree in Bill's yard was damaged in a storm. His neighbor, Joe, asked him to have the tree cut down so it would not fall on Joes new shed. Bill refused to do this. Two days ago another storm blew the tree onto Joe's new shed. Joe demanded that Joe pay the cost of repairs, which was $250. Bill said that he wasn't going to pay a cent. Obviously, the best solution is to reach a compromise between the two extremes, so Bill should pay Joe $125 dollars.

1. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html

SKEPTIC
November 2006 issue Wronger Than Wrong Not all wrong theories are equal By Michael Shermer
In belles lettres the witty literary slight has evolved into a genre because, as 20th-century trial lawyer Louis Nizer noted, "A graceful taunt is worth a thousand insults." To wit, from high culture, Mark Twain: "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it." Winston Churchill: "He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire." And from pop culture, Groucho Marx: "I've had a perfectly wonderful evening. But this wasn't it." Scientists are no slouches when it comes to pitching invectives at colleagues. Achieving almost canonical status as the ne plus ultra put-down is theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli's reported harsh critique of a paper: "This isn't right. It's not even wrong." I call this Pauli's proverb.
Columbia University mathematician Peter Woit recently employed Pauli's proverb in his book title, a critique of string theory called Not Even Wrong (Basic Books, 2006). String theory, Woit argues, is not only based on nontestable hypotheses, it depends far too much on the aesthetic nature of its mathematics and the eminence of its proponents. In science, if an idea is not falsifiable, it is not that it is wrong, it is that we cannot determine if it is wrong, and thus it is not even wrong.
...

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=00028C98-6F5C-152E-A9F183414B7F0000

 

[pv+]

Interesting, the badscience.net folks are STILL discussing OS 0 1 2, after three months, three threads and and numerous attempts to ban me or shut me up. They still are thinking about it. And every single one of thier opinions can be shown to have a contradiction, every one of them.

Master Meme, indeed, eh?

Master Freak Show, indeed, eh?
Don't you have some art you ought to be getting on with? Say, a bit of parsing for your next Youtube blockbuster/ballbreaker, or whatever these items of Internet dross are called?

 

[Dean Morrison]

Yes but Dean, dear, Bubblefish is an aaaartist! It was a facsimile defamation. Or maybe it was a compliment even, you understand. Again you have to undertsand how Bubblhead understands things. Not in the way of us un-critical, unthinking non-artist types, you see, but in the way he decides at any ungiven moment, according to how he might or might not feel about any given value of truth, reason and critical thinking. You're obviously not thinking critically there, Dean.

So what you're saying is he makes it up as he goes along - and in any case the talks such rubbish it's ridiculous for anyone to take him seriously in the first place????

Fair enough - but what a useless waste of space the troll is...

 

[Dean Morrison]

Talking of which - how is ST getting on - it always seemd to me she was from the same 'bonkers' mould as TM.

Are they by any chance related???

 

[Ersby]

I suspect the late RPF knew more about light than anyone here. Here's a link to the Feynman lectures for anyone who's never seen or heard them: http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

Just a quick note to say "thanks" for posting this. Feynman's a bit of a hero of mine, and I had no idea these were on the internet.

 

[Mojo]

The history of 0 is very interesting. Aristotle murdered the philosopher who tried to introduce 0 into math. 0 has been said to be a very discomforting idea historically.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_10_108/ai_58360828

Can you provide any evidence to support that assertion,[Aristotle murdering the 0 culprit] or is it just another example of your "third value"?

it is outlined in the book "Zero, the biography of a dangerous idea". I already provided the link

I just located the book from my nieghbor, in chapter 2 "Nothing comes from nothing" It wasnt aristotle who did the murdering, it was Pythagoras, and obviously not the same time period. I was flat wrong there.

Ok: you admit that you got the identity of the murderer wrong, but there is no qualification or modification of the rest of the statement. Your claim, therefore, is now that Pythagoras murdered the philosopher who tried to introduce 0 into math, and that this claim is supported by chapter two of the book Zero, the biography of a dangerous idea by Charles Seife.

I have obtained a copy of the book (UK edition, published by Souvenir Press, London, 2000). Let's see whether it provides evidence that Pythagoras murdered the philosopher who tried to introduce 0 into math.

I notice that you don't give specific page references for your evidence, but that's OK: the book has a perfectly serviceable index. From the index I find that Pythagoras and/or the Pythagoreans are mentioned on pages 25-38, 40, 79 and 172-173. The last two references are in chapters three and seven, and say nothing of relevance to our murder; the first is a mention of Pythagoras's "golden ratio" and the second is a brief account of his experiments with the musical notes produced by different lengths of string.

Looking at the references for chapter two, the one on page 40 is just a mention of Pythagoras's doctrine that the universe is governed by ratios and shapes. The murder must therefore be somewhere between pages 25 and 38.

Going back to page 26, we find the account of Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans starting in dramatic style:

Hippasus of Metapontum stood on the deck, preparing to die. Around him stood the members of a cult, a secret brotherhood that he had betrayed. Hippasus had revealed a secret that was deadly to the Greek way of thinking, a secret that threatened to undermine the entire philosophy that the brotherhood had struggled to build. For revealing that secret, the great Pythagoras himself sentenced Hippasus to death by drowning.

So it appears that Pythagoras had been responsible for a death. Presumably the secret Hippasus had revealed was the existence of zero. But wait:

Yet as deadly as the secret that Hippasus had revealed was, it was small compared to the dangers of zero.

Oh. So the idea that Hippasus tried to introduce wasn't zero, then. It was something else.

Reading on, we discover that the "secret" that Hippasus revealed was, in fact, the existence of irrational numbers.

There is no other killing mentioned, apart from that of Pythagoras himself and of some nameless Pythagoreans about whom we're told nothing, so the killing of Hippasus must be the one to which you refer. It doesn’t fit your claim that Pythagoras murdered the philosopher who tried to introduce 0 into math, but at least the book provides evidence that he had someone killed.

Or does it?

If we read as far as page 38, we find that perhaps the evidence isn't as strong as all that:

The legends are very hazy and contain contradictory stories about the betrayal and ultimate fate of Hippasus. Mathematicians to this day tell of the hapless man who revealed the secret of the irrational to the world. Some say the Pythagoreans tossed him overboard, drowning him, a just punishment for ruining a beautiful theory with harsh facts. Ancient sources talk about his perishing at sea for his impiety, or alternatively, say that the brotherhood banished him, and constructed a tomb for him, expelling him from the world of human beings.

The story at the beginning of the account is, it seems, the use of a legend for dramatic purposes, and the account in the book of Pythagoras, the Pythagoreans and Hippasus's revelation of the irrational, if you read all of it, does not provide strong evidence to support your assertion.

Interesting book though.

 

[pv+]

So what you're saying is he makes it up as he goes along - ...

Is the pope German?

 

[WWHP]

PV,

Thank you so much for providing that link with the video lectures. Very informative and enlightening. I love how Feynman can be so critical and objective in his presentations, yet also use humor, jokes. I love how he explains things so simply even an attentive child can understand.

But I must say I am a bit disappointed with your behavior these last 24 hours. You havent been as funny as you normally are. I threw you the biggest bone (something which I am sure you enjoy in your private life) you could ever ask for. I gave you some biographical information which any fool or jester would be sure to use to refute my arguments, yet you are failing me here! I set you up for some wonderful comedy, and you completly fumbled it.

Let's work on our timing, eh? I know you can do better, I know you can be funnier than that. Get back to work!


Lotsa Love
Bubblefish

 

[Dean Morrison]

Is the pope German?

yes but a least he sh*ts in the woods - unlike Bubblefish/TM who sh*ts on any forum he can 'log on to'

 

[WWHP]

Mojo,

I am very happy that this discussion has inspired you to research my refrences and arguments. That most certainly is a sign that you are thinking about my arguments. That is natural, i am thinking about yours too, that is called the 'conflict of idea'. We are driven to the conflict of idea like we are to the sex drive. It influences the majority of our behavior, often most outside of conscious awareness.

But you're incorrect about my argument, i.e. you framed my argument poorly, but that is also my fault, I too framed my argument poorly!

My 'argument' is that bivalent thinking flourished in ancient Greece into Aristolian Logic, and the Greek System would not be able to account for 0, how could it, it denied the irrational and infinity.

The author of the book does indeed use the language 'The Greeks banned the Zero', and he lays out his steps which led to his conclusion, which I refrence.

I refrenced the steps poorly previously, and I apologized to the forum for doing so. My factual errors are irrelevant to the argument, however. The Greeks could not account for irrational or infinite in thier mathematics and philosophy, and they were willing to kill, ban, maim, or censor those who provided rational evidence to the contrary. This most certainly influenced Aristolian Logic, which influenced the Argument for the existence of God much later on, and further and deeper episteminologicaly into western rational thought and philosophy.



I offered to send Dr Kitten a free copy via amazon, but he has not taken me up on my kind offer, so i am glad you are here to verify.


Bubblefish

 

[The Atheist]

lol

This thread is hilarious!

Coming from a guy whose own thread is all about constant failure to provide evidence for your statement,

There is already a huge ammount of supporting evidence for telepathy and ESP, that for some reasons which remains mostly unknown, they are all rejected, mocked or forced to be forgotten.

, I'm sure your input is appreciated.

I actually can't figure who's the funniest, this bloke, you or buzzlightyear.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

That's odd, because I could have sworn your argument was

<snip>
For one, I dont trust magicians, especially one's who have an air of 'I can fool you but you can't fool me' about them. Secondly, james randi seems to suggest that we can't trust scientists to verify claims, that only a magician can properly determine these things.

So, should we trust a magician to guide our philosophy? James Randi made his career honestly tricking people, who is to say he is not still doing so? Why should james randi be held in the highest of standards for determining what is true, false or mystery?
<snip>

 

[Mojo]

The author of the book does indeed use the language 'The Greeks banned the Zero', and he lays out his steps which led to his conclusion, which I refrence.

But does he say that Pythagoras murdered the philosopher who tried to introduce 0 to math, which is the assertion you claimed was supported by the book?

Do you have any evidence that anyone murdered the philosopher who tried to introduce 0 to math? Can you even name this philosopher?

 

[pv+]

Just a quick note to say "thanks" for posting this. Feynman's a bit of a hero of mine, and I had no idea these were on the internet.

You're welcome. It's a gem isn't it. The reason I posted it is because the lectures are about light and matter, and relevant to comments made in this thread. Also, as films on the Internet go they are properly educational, thoroughly interesting and even entertaining. When set alongside the tacky Youtube efforts of Bubblefish and his friend Doc Lo, it's like comparing the philosophical works of, say, Bertrand Russell with the unabridged quotations of Dan Quayle.
Feynman is a bit of a hero to lots of people, and rightly so. I think he'd be in his element arguing against all the quackery and pseudo-science we're wallowing in today. He certainly would have given our Bubblehead friend pretty short shrift - assuming he'd have given him the time of day at all.

 

[WWHP]

sorry, all, don't have much time for the critical arguments on this thread now, will join in later in that regard.

As a metaphor, however, between the schools of thought meeting here, ternary or 'open' thinking and bivalent or 'closed' thinking, is best summed up between the conflict over Mac and PC and those funny commercials they do.

This one really made me think of ol' PV and myself

http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac/counselor_480x376.mov

I actually look similar to the actor playing the mac, funny enough, although older.

 

[pv+]

But does he say that Pythagoras murdered the philosopher who tried to introduce 0 to math, which is the assertion you claimed was supported by the book?

Unless I'm mistaken, Bubblefish has said his errors are irrelevant. On that basis it's safe to say all his posts are irrelevant.

 

[WWHP]

But does he say that Pythagoras murdered the philosopher who tried to introduce 0 to math, which is the assertion you claimed was supported by the book?

Do you have any evidence that anyone murdered the philosopher who tried to introduce 0 to math? Can you even name this philosopher?

Mojo, if you're the law, you try to book the criminal for the act of robbery, not for him spitting on the sidewalk walking out of the bank.

My assertion I outlined in my previous post, which is really the author's assertion. The 'murder' is irrelevant, I made an error previously, I already addressed that.

 

[Mojo]

As a metaphor, however, between the schools of thought meeting here, ternary or 'open' thinking and bivalent or 'closed' thinking, is best summed up between the conflict over Mac and PC and those funny commercials they do.

This one really made me think of ol' PV and myself

http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac/counselor_480x376.mov

I actually look similar to the actor playing the mac, funny enough, although older.

I think I'm with Charlie Brooker on this one.

 

[pv+]

PV,

Thank you so much for providing that link with the video lectures. Very informative and enlightening. I love how Feynman can be so critical and objective in his presentations, yet also use humor, jokes. I love how he explains things so simply even an attentive child can understand.

Given the amount of time you spend concocting your fascinating posts and your meticulous attention to detail I'm surprised you've had the time or inclination to see them through. Still I expect you're an expert at multitasking. And as you rightly say, an attentive child can understand the subject matter! No doubt you'll be mining them for interesting sounding ideas to incorporate into your own philosophical musings.

 

[pv+]

My assertion I outlined in my previous post, which is really the author's assertion. The 'murder' is irrelevant, I made an error previously, I already addressed that.

Hey Mojo. Told ya!