• 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.

Woo Argument Flowcharts

Phrost

The Fighting Skeptic
Phrost
Joined
Sep 11, 2003
Messages
1,653
Having done an extensive bit of arguing with believers, woos, and the like, over the internet, it's really easy to see the same patterns in their arguments crop up.

What I was wondering is if there would be some benefit to creating a sort of "flowchart" of the typical arguing tactics used by these people who show great skill in deftly avoiding logic and reason.

I imagine this would be very useful in helping to "nail them down" when they're being evasive, and extremely convenient to point out "yes, you're at step 7a right here on our handy chart" instead of playing the same game over and over.

What do you guys think? Would it be a fun exercise at least, or would it be too much work?
 
Robert L. Park's 7 Signs Of Pseudoscience is a good place to start.

1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation
 
Every step in the explanatory portion needs to have either "Energy" or "Quantum _______" mentioned.
 
The anti-global warming losers follow the exact same patterns... and they get really offended when you point it out. :)
 
I seriously do not understand how people think global warming is a scam. But then again I don't understand how people think about many things.
 
The_Animus said:
I seriously do not understand how people think global warming is a scam. But then again I don't understand how people think about many things.
Click to expand...
Why are people creationists, or think that HIV/AIDS is some sort of hoax? It is the same sort of thinking, only pointed in a slightly different direction.

The really weird think, the question I want answered, is how someone can be strongly against a couple of different woo beliefs, and at the exact same time hold a couple of those beliefs themselves? You see it here all the time: someone will post about how ridiculous it is to be a creationist, with its assumption that the worldwide scientific community is part of a giant conspiracy... and their very next post is to claim that there is a giant scientific community conspiracy to push global warming.

That's weirder than my brain can handle without a Tylenol and a couple of beers.
 
It shows a flowchart of the scientific process, which is multi-branched depending on results and new evidence and what not, and next to it is a flowchart of Faith, which goes in a straight line:

Start ---> Get an Idea ---> Ignore Contradicting Evidence ---> Keep Idea Forever ---> End
 
In Philip Ball's book H20: A Biography of Water (1999), he recounts Irving Langmuir's six criteria of pathological science:

i. The phenomena responsible for the claims made are barely detectable.
ii. The phenomena are provoked by a cause of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is independent of the intensity of the cause.
iii. The observation of the phenomenon is claimed to great accuracy.
iv. The explanation offered is extraordinary and conflicts with previous experience.
v. Criticisms are met with ad hoc excuses, often thought up on the spur of the moment.
vi. The ratio of supporters to critics rises to about 50:50, and then declines to virtually zero.

Unfortunately this was not published, but "preserved for posterity in a poor-quality recording of a lecture that he delivered in 1953 at a laboratory of the General Electric corporation". And now in Ball's book.
 
Here is a list from skeptoid #37, by Brian Dunning: How to spot pseudoscience:

1. Does the claim meet the qualifications of a theory?

2. Is the claim said to be based on ancient knowledge?

3. Was the claim first announced through mass media, or through scientific channels?

4. Is the claim based on the existence of an unknown form of "energy" or other paranormal phenomenon?

5. Do the claimants state that their claim is being suppressed by authorities?

6. Does the claim sound far fetched, or too good to be true?

7. Is the claim supported by hokey marketing?

8. Does the claim pass the Occam's Razor test?

9. Does the claim come from a source dedicated to supporting it?

10. Are the claimants up front about their testing?

11. How good is the quality of data supporting the claim?

12. Do the claimants have legitimate credentials?

13. Do the claimants state that there's something wrong with the norm?

14. Is the claim said to be "all natural"?

15. Does the claim have support that is political, ideological, or cultural?


How extensive of a flowchart should we do? Will it be very generalized or specific to each woo flavor?
 
On Saturday evening Chillzero, Brodski and I went to a "psychic medium comedy" show at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe. One gem of logic went like this:

These sceptics, they call all this sort of thing "mumbo-jumbo". Well that sounds very clever, but mostly that's because it rhymes. When you really think about it, things don't have to rhyme to be true. Because, what about oranges then? There's no rhyme for "orange". But we all know oranges exist. Therefore I can talk to dead people!
Click to expand...


It's about as sensible as much of what I've heard from woos.

Rolfe.
 
SusanB-M1, in case you're still curious, here's a fuller description of the "Science" flowchart:

It starts with "Start", but has no "End". The first step after "Start" is "Get an idea". Next is "Perform Experiment".

After that, "Does the evidence support the idea?" Yes or no? If "No", then "Bad Idea", and cycle back to the "Get an Idea" step.

However, if the answer to "Does the evidence support the idea?" is "Yes", the next point is "Theory created", and after that is "Use theory to better understand the universe". (This is the box with a bright-yellow border and stars around it.)

Next step, "Discover new evidence".

"Can the theory be modified to explain the evidence?" Y/N

If "No", then -- "Revolution!" and cycle allllll the way back to "Get an idea".

But if "Yes", then "Improve theory" and cycle back to "Use theory to better understand the universe".
 
Normal Dude said:
How extensive of a flowchart should we do? Will it be very generalized or specific to each woo flavor?
Click to expand...

I think we should probably limit it to forum discussions.

The reason I created this thread was due to TaiChi and his "oblongular" (not even circular) logic and attempts to evade having to provide evidence supporting his views.

It's really easy to have a discussion when both parties are willing to admit when they're wrong based on evidence. But when you've got people for whom "evidence" is an is a nebulous sort of thing combined with a desperate desire to cling to their beliefs in spite of facts, you get endless arguments that generally accomplish little more than providing entertainment for the people involved.

I'm a big fan of getting to the point and cutting through the "BS". We have a list of logical fallacies. We have Godwin's Law. I think it's time for something a little more sophisticated than the "arguing on the Internet" image macro (which I won't repost here).
 
Rolfe said:
On Saturday evening Chillzero, Brodski and I went to a "psychic medium comedy" show at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe. One gem of logic went like this:

These sceptics, they call all this sort of thing "mumbo-jumbo". Well that sounds very clever, but mostly that's because it rhymes. When you really think about it, things don't have to rhyme to be true. Because, what about oranges then? There's no rhyme for "orange". But we all know oranges exist. Therefore I can talk to dead people!
Click to expand...


It's about as sensible as much of what I've heard from woos.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Door hinge?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom