• 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.

What Logical Fallacy Is This?

I mainly use the Internet on my phone, and I am unable to get past this forum's idiotic declaration that the JREF does not own YouTube, so no I haven't watched it.
 
Ah, thanks, Carl!

Here is a direct link:

Has anyone told the mods/admin that the forum's YouTube interface does not work with some phone browsers?

By the way, Carl:

Thanks to my less-than great eyesight and the Arial font, I usually read your user name as ConspicuousCad!
 
Maurice Ledifficile said:
Note that the first yt link posted works, but this one doesn't. ☻
Click to expand...

Odd... the links are the same in both, although the one that does NOT work is immediately followed by a close-quote tag, so maybe that's it.

If so, I call "bug!"

ETA: One more time, here is the video:

 
Last edited:
Nope.

I think perhaps you're only allowed once on a page. I tried uploading it myself, same thing.
 
Last edited:
I did listen to the video, so here is my useless feedback.

I think he did a great job playing along and showing the guy in action. Such unedited footage of the guesses involved is not as common as it should be. We should be grateful for the video.

You are right to point out that “debunking” Van Pragh does nothing toward discrediting any other psychic. The believer will always have the right to say “but what about this other guy? He’s for real”.

Still, going after the most well known of those buttmunches has got to be a good thing. That is after all what you are doing yourself and you are making the skeptics proud. All we can do is try and reach as many believers as we can and turn them on to the facts. Once you know about cold reading, it’s hard not to notice it at work. Many believers will never change their mind about their favourite psychics. But many will listen to reason.

So I say encourage MIklos to get as well informed as possible so that he can spread the proper information next time, but I strongly recommend being positive and friendly with him. I’d try to use a more casual, less confrontational mode.


Bonus opinion: I find that, generally, skeptics on the right side of an issue rarely point out logical fallacies by name. The tactic seems to be a favourite of those who are versed in the art of debate, but who don’t have facts on their side. ☻
 
Maurice Ledifficile said:
I did listen to the video, so here is my useless feedback.

I think he did a great job playing along and showing the guy in action. Such unedited footage of the guesses involved is not as common as it should be. We should be grateful for the video.
Click to expand...

I definitely agree with your last point. The YouTube video is 15 minutes out of an hour-long video available at Miklos' web site, which I believe is at www.confrontingbelievers.com.

You are right to point out that “debunking” Van Pragh does nothing toward discrediting any other psychic. The believer will always have the right to say “but what about this other guy? He’s for real”.
Click to expand...

Yup. I just think that his using that fallacy would just play into the hands of any believer sharp enough to spot it, and so, damages Miklos' credibility.

In his reply to my above email, he basically said that I was right, technically and scientifically, but that, since we were not trying to reach scientists, but laypeople, he thought that his approach was perfectly acceptable, and would convince most people who watched the video.

Whether or not he is right about that last point, I don't think it gives us the right to play fast and loose with the facts. That is what the "psychics" do, and I think that we want to be better than them.

Still, going after the most well known of those buttmunches has got to be a good thing. That is after all what you are doing yourself and you are making the skeptics proud.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I chose Browne as the focus of the site, in part, because I hoped that, were I to show that there is ample reason to doubt HER "abilities", arguably the best-known psychic in America at the time, that people might be inclined to take the lessons of the site and apply them to OTHER psychics as well.

So I say encourage MIklos to get as well informed as possible so that he can spread the proper information next time, but I strongly recommend being positive and friendly with him. I’d try to use a more casual, less confrontational mode.
Click to expand...

That's what I have tried to do.

By the way, YouTube has informed him that someone has asked that the video be taken down "for privacy reasons". Three guesses who that might be...

Bonus opinion: I find that, generally, skeptics on the right side of an issue rarely point out logical fallacies by name. The tactic seems to be a favourite of those who are versed in the art of debate, but who don’t have facts on their side. ☻
Click to expand...

Interesting thought. I rarely name the fallacy outside of this forum, other than "shifting the burden of proof", and I always go into a long-winded explanation of what that means. And I almost NEVER use the Latin names for the fallacies, finding it a tad pretentious.

You know who DOES do the equivalent of naming fallacies a lot? Attorneys. Only they name Objections.

One of my sisters is a highly-placed attorney, and her husband is an attorney as well. Discussions around their dinner table was often peppered with "leading the witness", "assuming facts not in evidence" and the like, from both them AND their teenaged kids (who had been hearing this their whole lives).
 
Last edited:
Maurice Ledifficile said:
Nope.

I think perhaps you're only allowed once on a page. I tried uploading it myself, same thing.
Click to expand...

This is correct. I just changed my options to 5 posts per page. Then I could play the link in the quote above your post. I displayed only RSL'S post and it played OK.

I remember a thread that mentioned this issue. Doubt if I could find it again.
 
rjh01 said:
This is correct. I just changed my options to 5 posts per page. Then I could play the link in the quote above your post. I displayed only RSL'S post and it played OK.

I remember a thread that mentioned this issue. Doubt if I could find it again.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

Which option is this?
 
Yes thanks, Maurice.

I knew how to do that, but did not understand that changing the number of posts the forum software uses to divide a thread into pages also somehow dictates how many yt links a person can post. Odd.

But again, thanks.
 
RSLancastr said:
Yes thanks, Maurice.

I knew how to do that, but did not understand that changing the number of posts the forum software uses to divide a thread into pages also somehow dictates how many yt links a person can post. Odd.

But again, thanks.
Click to expand...

No problem. I realize my post may be suggesting incompetence on your part. It was not my intention.

I notice that when a yt link is present, the page takes longer to load. It might have something to do with that. Odd indeed. ☻☺☻
 
Just thinking out loud here:

Perhaps when displaying a thread page, the forum software first allocates some guesstimated "average memory used per post" times the PostsPerPage variable.

If a yt post requires more memory than the guesstimated "average memory used per post", having too many posts with yt links within a page could result in the page needing more memory than was allocated for it, causing the bug we've seen.

It's a theory, anyway.
 
I don't think that's it. It has to do with having the SAME embedded YouTube video linked on the same page.

Probably has something to do with the way the software parses the page.
 
Drs_Res said:
I don't think that's it. It has to do with having the SAME embedded YouTube video linked on the same page.

Probably has something to do with the way the software parses the page.
Click to expand...

Yes, rj just pm'd me and confirms that it is when the SAME yt link is used within one page.

Damn, and mine was such a nice theory!
 
RSLancastr said:
Ah, thanks, Carl!

Here is a direct link:

Has anyone told the mods/admin that the forum's YouTube interface does not work with some phone browsers?

By the way, Carl:

Thanks to my less-than great eyesight and the Arial font, I usually read your user name as ConspicuousCad!
Click to expand...

The intro was at least as bad as I thought. It's like saying "Walmart is the top retailer, so if I can't find a good bicycle there then nobody will have one. But, vampire fallacy aside, it was a pretty good demonstration of how lame "psychics" are. He starts by allowing freestyle failures, then moves on to a little sting operation to prove which direction the information really flows, and ends with a direct interrogation. Pretty good ramp-up.

Cad is probably a better name for me anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom