/sci/ - Science & Math

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

I completely agree. I was thinking about this today.

Crap like 'fallacies' and 'burden of proof' are referenced by people who rely on science as a culture to validate their bullshit.

>>5866857
>science as a culture to validate their bullshit
Source?

You probably made this thread because you're butthurt that you made a stupid argument.

Most of the time, it's socially awkward to directly refer to a "logical fallacy." However, a skillful arguer can be aware of them and use this knowledge to their advantage just the same.

>>5866854
u think ur smar tkid

why dont u com on over and show me how smart u r bitch

prepare for the smackdown

>>5866862
yeah fuck truth
just gotta prove muh point
muh ego

so smart
yeah le hitchens face
le dawkins

le lesswrong.com
so smart
fuck dem creationists fuckin tards
muh computers

oh wow i cried when reading the origin of species
so powerful

>>5866860

I am the source. What kind of dumb question is that?

>>5866857
>implying anything but science isn't invalid

>>5866862
>>5866853

I think the fundamental problem with claiming 'fallacy', is that it gives an illusion that the listener is logically wrong. Like naturallistic fallacy is when someone assumes that what is natural is good.

Well, maybe it is good, or maybe thats how we use the word 'natural' and 'good'. Its more like a naturalistic mistake, and being a mistake exogenous to any reasoning. Its like an empirical mistake, which might not actually be a mistake in some circumstances.

If your conversation partner has made some error of judgement, then nothing fallacious, or unreasonable is actually happening. You have to deal with them and the content of their speech. However, with a notion of a set of fallacies, you can just brush people off, in a very arrogant manner at that.

>>5866877
I'll give ya intuition.

>>5866869

On what criterion do we judge validity? Science is a method, that can tell us whether certain things are valid, but being a method it relies on something else for validity. The scientific method works because there is a reason, its not the final judge of validity.

Shalom!

>>5866875

I'll give you this: most fallacies don't imply that the speaker is wrong, but simply that they're not necessarily true. However, most of the time when we think fallacious we think incorrect, mistakenly.

>>5866881

I dont know.

Both conclusions and reasoning can be incorrect. Claiming fallacy is like claiming that the form of the reasoning, by virtue of the form, not the content, is wrong. But there is no general form of validity, so there can be no general fallacy. Only fallacies in certain application, and therefore you really havent done any of the necessary work in demonstrating a fallacy by merely pointing to some popularly understood mistakes. Thats not logic, its appeal to authority.

>>5866853
Logical fallacies are a necessary check against issues that can't be empirically debated

>>5866903
How about we question the importance of empiricism.

Logical Fallacies Are Usually Irrelevant or Cited Incorrectly

http://plover.net/~bonds/bdksucks.html

Its true. Most nonautists can be persuaded entirely by emotional appeals.

>>5866903
>>5866909
I love how some scientists love to say
>I don't waste my time with philosophy or metaphysics, I only care about what's empirical and measurable.
but don't realise that they're doing <span class="math">exactly~that[/spoiler] when they say/commit to it.

>>5866853
>Logical fallacies are arbitrary bullshit
Strawman
>referenced by people who cant argue
Ad Hominem

>>5866909
What else is there that's better than empiricism? Rigorous proofs? Lol pls.

>>5867005
>that pic

10/10

>>5867028
>using empiricism to justify why empiricism is the best method
I do hope you realise the problem with this.

>>5867035
Strawman argument.

>>5867042
Non sequitur.

>>5867044
ad hominem

Argumentum ad auctoritatem

Citing experts or authorities to bring credibility to one's argument:

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." -- Richard Feynman

>>5867042
>>5867044
>>5867046
what is this nerd shit

>>5867028
Empiricism is overrated.

yeah i said it, deal with it kid

/post mortem

Nice ad hominem, OP.

>>5867068
Holy shit, the number of times people accuse me of arguing from authority is so fucking annoying. Like fucking creationists

>why do you believe evolution? it's just a theory with no evidence
>well actually I've have looked at a bit of the evidence, but you're right I haven't considered all of it. Just like you haven't considered the evidence for atomic theory or the germ theory or disease. As I wish to live my life as a functional individual, I don't thoroughly examine the evidence for every single proposition I hear in school. Instead, I consider the fact that almost every qualified person who HAS considered the evidence has come to the conclusion that the proposition is true, and so it is likely to be true.
>lol argument from authority, goddamned atheists are so stupid with their evolution religion, I used to be a monkey really???

>>5867083

For post motem entertainment purposes only...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHB5P4Eq7q4

>>5867106
Goddamn, you are such a loser.

>>5866875
>I think the fundamental problem with claiming 'fallacy', is that it gives an illusion that the listener is logically wrong.
The fallacy fallacy

Doesnt argument from authority really mean from someone in a authorative (spelling?) position like a company ceo or a army general rather than a person who is concidered an authority on the subject matter? If its the latter its really a weak fallacy

A major issue of fallacy is that a statement may seem fallacious, but if it's not derived from faulty reasoning it is not.

>>5866853

>Logical fallacies are arbitrary bullshit and referenced by people who cant argue.

this is what people who cannot into logic actually believe.

>>5867211
ad hom

>>5867248

Mind reading.

>>5867224

Did you understand Feynman's remark?
It has a corollary (sort of):
Religion is the belief in the infallibility of experts.

>>5867293
I think you replied to the wrong person lol
is this>>5867068
what you meant lol

>>5867300
>you replied to the wrong person
I don't think so.

>>5867293
Are you comparing science to religion? Why?

>>5866853

What about informal fallacies?

>>5866853

>>5866853
Yeah, well you're a faggot and therefore nothing you say matters.

OP's mad because someone shat on his retarded argument.

>>5867941
She rejects facts and logic.

>>5869123
Why does she do that?

>>5870623
She subscribes to /x/-tier conspiracy theories.

>>5867005
have fun making 15k a year and doing absolutely nothing

>>5866853
>lose argument because of shitty, fallacious reasoning
>complain on 4chan

>>5871422
how do you know anon is a she? sorry but what?

>>5872060
Its a psycho analytic study of persons on the internet and their dissociative standards of preference of identifying; to sum up; a female would have been perturbed by the environment to such a degree of questioning the poster & the other conclitive identity being that she is a former and gives not 2 fucks, which is fairly standard as they are usually inundated with borjious amounts of fuck and generally succumb to a recitiplitic standard; that being said when given an opportunity to give 2 fucks then the standard of environmental endearment is coupled with an intolerant standard by the means of the state of giving only a single fuck, basically animalistic survival patterns with verbage.

>>5867224
Holyshit whathefuq is with your head: Translate : "It's not what you're arguing it's who you're arguing" how the shit do you get to that set without transisting along the form cummunilative and veering into personal/bodily dissociative sets!


In conclusion of identicate responses and the correlatory standard of inbounds: Deffintleh a sshhiieeettt head

>>5872311

>>5867211
Goddamn, you are such a faggot.

>>5872311
so basically you ere just assuming? ok.

>>5866866

A jocular one.

>>5873149
I do not get the point of it. Can you please explain?

>>5873092
so basically you're A: Illterate & B: A degenerate of human potential

Is "your argument has a fallacy so it's 100% untrue" a fallacy already?

>>5873823

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

>>5867076
Explain further

>ITT

>>5873818
>psycho analysis
that's your problem. go home Freud. Also
"recitiplitic" is not a word

>>5866875
But the problem is that they ARE logically wrong. Logic actually doesn't care about the truth claims of an argument, only that if you accept these premises, can you logically follow to the conclusion. You can provide a fallacious argument and still get a right answer, but logic doesn't care about that, just that you are logically wrong. You can also have a logically sound argument, but still be wrong such as

Aliens are from mars.
Mel Gibson is from mars
Mel Gibson is an alien.

While logically sound, its still obviously untrue.

>>5866853

The logical fallacy that I don't think should be counted as a fallacy is "slippery slope" fallacy.

The reason that it's a special case is that, here in America at least, the legal system is based on the concept of precedent. If the law is interpreted in a new way it has to hold up to a certain amount of scrutiny. If it does, then it becomes much easier for the law to be interpreted in a similar fashion in the future. So in the world of law at least, slippery slope is valid. "Moving" the law in a certain direction makes it easier to continue to change it that way.

>>5874414

Meant to respond to >>5873993

>>5874414

You just ran a slippery slope argument.

"I'm not crazy because I don't feel crazy!""

>>5874429

Did you read the second part of the post? It doesn't say slippery slope shouldn't be a fallacy just because I don't want it to be. It says that it shouldn't be a fallacy because the concept of precedent in law makes it a reality in the American legal system. I'll give an example.

>A group of people in the US don't have any rights.
>A person that wants to marry a member of the oppressed group goes to court to argue that they should be able to marry members of the oppressed group and vice-versa.
>The judge rules in their favor.
>Because there's no precedent for this, the decision will be carefully reviewed and probably strongly argued against.
>If the decision is upheld, then as a result, it will be much easier for members of the oppressed group to get other rights such as suffrage because there's now a previous decision on record granting them a right.
>This is significant because the previous decision creates precedent which means interpreting the law in a manner that gives the oppressed group rights, so future decisions interpreting the law that way will generally not be exposed to the same level of scrutiny because it's been done before.

The problem with fallacies is that they only apply when you are dealing with absolute truths. In real life, we don't have much of that.

Like the ever popular argument from authority - yes, just because the person is an expert on nuclear physics and radiation doesn't necessarily mean what they say about Fukushima is 100% correct, but who cares? We will never know 100% for sure if the radiation has caused a particular species of fish to decline significantly or not. The best you can do is pick between the expert who has 90% chance of being right, and the random idiot on the street who has 10% chance of being right.

If I'm going with the expert, and say, "look, the expert says this, and it makes sense to me as well", that's not argument from authority. That's accepting that the authority does indeed appear to be correct in this case.

Or the no true Scotsman. People love saying this when you complain that a board was invaded by newfags and culturally unintegrated people. Well, no. No true Scotsman is only a problem if you intend to move the goalposts forever between subjective points. It's not "moving the goal posts" if it is clear that there are two distinct groups one of which is preferred, and I am trying to continuously revise and improve my best attempt at identifying that group as we speak.

>>5874447

And you have just demonstrated why we don't let lawyers decide our logic rules.

University debater here (WUDC, EUDC for a top institution). No-one will ever actually use these in a debate because they are mostly retarded. If I had a penny for every time someone just blithely said "OMG AD HOMINEM" and then discounted everything the other person said in an internet argument I would be a rich man indeed.

>>5874447
>that's not a slippery slope
Slippery slopes say things like legalising marijuana leads to legalising HEROIN FOR BABIES. Sure, if we draw a spectrum from current drug legislation to heroin4babies then legal marijuana is between the two. But it doesn't mean that moving the status quo closer to the extreme necessitates moving it closer. It is better to conceive of it as a series of steps. Taking one step down a staircase doesn't mean you are obliged to take the rest. You are perfectly able to stay on that step, or go back up.

This is not to say that a slippery-slope type argument can't be right, but the point is that you need to provide reasons. Saying something is a slippery slope and is not valid can be just as stupid and reductive as making an unexplained slippery slope argument in the first place.

Some further reading: http://lesswrong.com/lw/ase/schelling_fences_on_slippery_slopes/

>>5874477
Ad hominem is also a very useful in practical discussion. Often, there are multiple arguments from different experts, that appear to support either side of the issue.

When I'm discussing with Anon which side is correct, neither I nor Anon are equipped to make a better argument. We are forced to defer to the wisdom of one of the experts.

Since it is doubtful we can critically evaluate both arguments reliably, not being experts, an ad hominem is a very useful rule of thumb to figure out which one is probably more reliable.

Also, often discounting a known incompetent with an ad hominem can save you much time and effort of actually bothering to debunk his argument.

I mean, nobody argues that the boy who cried wolf got his just deserts. It's a cautionary tale, not a shaggy dog story. But technically, the villagers are guilty of ad hominem.

Logical fallacies are just heuristics, and thank god evolution equipped us with them because otherwise we'd spend ages pontificating every single imbecile who "technically may not be wrong".

>>5874447
That's not a slippery slope argument...

There is a time and place. The guy who just points out trifling logical fallacies all the time is a clown. But the guy who agrees or disagrees via an appeal to emotion is also a clown. I like to argue with the meat of a discussion but that sometimes involves pointing out that once I have shown one or more of the premise is false you have lost.

>>5874491
>nobody argues that the boy who cried wolf got his just deserts.
Should read: everyone agrees that the boy who cried wolf got his just desserts

Arguments from authority can form a valid inductive argument.

A personal insult is not an ad hominem as long as it stands alone and is not being used to support an argument.

Citing logical fallacies is one of the easiest ways to divert a conversation you can't continue onto other topics.

>>5874499
>A personal insult is not an ad hominem as long as it stands alone and is not being used to support an argument.
Oh god this.

>type long detailed argument
>logically address his points
>"And that's why you're wrong, faggot! Now fuck off."
>hurr ad hominem

>>5874499
>Arguments from authority can form a valid inductive argument.
NO

>>5874499

So what you're saying is it's an argument from fallacy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

>>5874507

Sure they can. You're honestly going to claim you don't take a physicist's opinion on physics more seriously than a random dude on the street?

>>5874487

I see where I went wrong with that. It's true that precedent in the courts can make it easier to shift the law in a certain direction, but there's no reason that a legal decision necessitates a continual march in that direction. So the statement that since decision A was made it follows that more extreme decisions B and C must also eventually be made isn't true.

Some decisions can be pretty disturbing considering how they are sometimes expanded and exploited. Lots of the recent spying and anti-terrorism stuff.

>>5874507
Yes, they can. Notice that I said "inductive" there. Feel free to look this up yourself, it's pretty trivial to verify.

>>5874517
Citing a physicist specializing in the relevant area of physics is not an argument from authority as the physicist is actually an authority on the topic. Citing an observational astronomer on, say, the quantum Hall effect would be an argument from authority as the astronomer being an astronomer lends no weight to their opinions on the quantum Hall effect beyond them probably having encountered a rigorous QM course at some point. The argument from authority fallacy require that the supposed authority only appears to have authority on the topic [or just has general authority, i.e. kids going "Well, my mom said..."] at hand while not actually having any.

>>5874512
I wasn't thinking precisely that, but that could be included.

>>5874559
"Arguments from authority" covers ALL arguments that cite an authority for support, not just the ones that are fallacious.

>>5874562
Yeah, I noticed the mistake after I posted it.

>>5874517
>>5874558

Nope. "Stephen Hawking said X therefore X is true" is bullshit, even if X pertains to physics. You have to explain why X is true. Else, you are just taking it on trust that Stephen Hawking is right. Sure he might be more likely to be right than a random dude on the street, but it is still fallacious to assume that because he said it it is true.

Wow. A lot of you fail to understand these fallacies. Not really surprising that /sci/ is filled with bumbling idiots.

>>5867042
>>5867044
>>5867046

Only half true.
Some of them, such as claiming "strawman" are just about insta-lose in an argument because they're never claimed correctly.

Pointing out fallacies is a fallacy

>>5874559
>Citing a physicist specializing in the relevant area of physics is not an argument from authority as the physicist is actually an authority on the topic.

That's precisely what an argument from authority is - taking his word for it because he's "actually" an authority.

>>5874588
>Sure he might be more likely to be right than a random dude on the street

That's the point, retard.

>>5874764

Didn't you just point out one?

D'oh!

>>5874101
Psy(-)Cho? As in with a english and Latin integrate? and you call yourself a mathlete?!

Reciplitic: Reciprical; Mutiplitic; Recitant.

>>5874778

Yep, which goes to show you that fallacy was invented by people who couldn't win arguments and needed rules.

>>5874802
>rules arnt something to be argued for to degree of (***x^*)potential-suppositional-integrates

>>5874772
The whole substance of "argument from authority" is basically

>i don't believe this thing einstein said about relativity, cuz even smart people can be wrong lel

>>5872311
>>psycho analytic (profiling)
>>dissociative standards ("different views")
>>to such a degree ("that much")
>>borjious (?? "In relation to some guy named Borji"?)
>>that being said ("then again")
>>reciticliptic (made me laugh)
>>basically animalistic survival patterns with verbage (???)
>>all this interjected with a healthy dose of "fucks" for cool points

>>transisting along the form cummunilative and veering into personal/bodily dissociative sets

please post again, I am amused with how you express yourself
Also, you are probably the only one who understands what you're typing

>>5874776
Then you don't understand what a fallacy is. Stephen hawking might be more likely to be correct, but that is still a) probabilistic and b) only relative.

Seems like half of /sci/ skipped babby logic 101.

>>5874882
It's fun stuff, I'll reinterpret.

It's the identicate standard of mediums of textual/expressal extension of non-denomonerial value are conveyed in each equilibrium of accent of so to speak 'properterial' bounds of endearment interms of allocational naturals(numeral reference; composed of x/*y/*z irrationals); instilling a mainfram of so to speak subtext identicate response.

Hope that clears it up?

>>5874882
>borjious
Clearly meant to be "bourgeois".

Also to such a degree instead of that much is acceptable.

Granted, I didn't read his post, I could only make it 1.5 lines in before my brain assumed fetal position and started sobbing.

>>5874904
Are you just feeding a bunch of postmodernist essays into a markov chain text generator?

>>5872311

>>5874888

Listen, faggot. Yes, it's logical a fallacy. The point is, it's also a reasonable argument. It is not "proof" of anything, but it is very strong evidence. All of science is built on inductive reasoning, deal with it.

>>5874911
Its much muchchhhhchchch much funner than that; but yeah fucking effectively, their all of basically my own personal supposition though; which makes the dissociative element make verbage or linguistic identicate a simplitist reinteration, not to say one thats not capable, langauge & translatory oritational constructs are kinda koolioly in terms of base frame work

>>5874904
>unecessary use of jargon
>making up words ("identicate", "non-denomonerial")

If you are >>5872311, please kill yourself. If you aren't, this is either top notch satire or you should also kill yourself.

>>5874922
>very strong evidence
Abstracted from the context in which Hawking derived his argument, no it isn't. You are just taking it on trust that he isn't pulling it out his ass.

The problem is not with inductive reasoning, but with the truths you assert to begin your reasoning. I find assorted mathematical axioms to be a much better starting point than "stephen hawking said x therefore x is true".

>Logical fallacies are arbitrary bullshit and referenced by people who cant argue.

Translation: I am butthurt because someone pointed out my clever arguments are pure sophistry.

>>5874932
Identicate not being a word... fukinffsrofl; Non-Denomonerial as in conditional of being only an operationational(in terms of potential scaling applicables) ; and lol yeah >>5872311 wadafuq yah think movement is dipshit lmfao

>>5874951
>your ignorance of the speed of distance
golfclap.jpg

>>5874940
>Abstracted from the context in which Hawking derived his argument, no it isn't.

You already admitted he is much more likely to be right. That's what evidence is - information showing that something is more likely.

>The problem is not with inductive reasoning

That's exactly what you have a problem with. You are arguing that all of science is invalid. Or for that matter, all of causality.

>>5874940
>The problem is not with inductive reasoning, but with the truths you assert to begin your reasoning.
If you insist on only absolutely true premises, then there isn't very much about the real world you can meaningfully discuss.

>>5874965
Obviously there is little outside formal mathematics that we can claim to be true, but we can show lots of evidence for other phenomena. This evidence is only seen as meaningful in the event that it can be measured and repeatable. The trustworthiness of Stephen Hawking is considerably less reliable than a century of refinement of microscopic technique to determine the structure of a cell, for example.

>>5874964
I am arguing that for inductive reasoning to hold, we need to start from a "true" point, then use logic to deduce what we can infer from that. The problem is that you are assuming a truth which is unverifiable and erroneous.

I am clearly not arguing science is invalid. If I were doing so then we would see scientific papers saying "Stephen Hawking said X, so we can assume X is true". Rather, they say "Stephen Hawking showed X to be true" then cite the paper. This isn't an argument from authority. An argument from authority states that Hawking is right because he is Hawking, not that Hawking is right because he has performed some experimental or theoretical procedure which determined this result to be correct.

>>5874982
>I am arguing that for inductive reasoning to hold, we need to start from a "true" point, then use logic to deduce what we can infer from that. The problem is that you are assuming a truth which is unverifiable and erroneous.

Give me an example of a "true" point in the real world.

Again, you already admitted that Stephen Hawking is much more likely to be right than random guy on the street. Do you retract that admission or not?

Step 1. Go to /pol/.
Step 2. Note that everything they espouse/hypothesize with respect to Jews, Chimps, Chimp-Jews, and human nature can not be falsified.
Step 3. Note that they're not even wrong.
Step 4. ????
Step 5. Ad hominem shit storm.

>>5874994

You may be interested in reading Karl Popper.

He's changed my way of thinking about inductive reasoning from "truth" to a set of theories that despite our best attempts to falsify, have yet to be falsified. This does not mean they are true.

>>5874954
>your ignorance of the speed of distance

oh, it happened!
It wasn't pretty.

>>5874994
No I don't, but if you think that matters then you don't understand fallacies or inductive reasoning.

The reason I put "true" in speech marks is because there aren't any. But we assume things. So we might assert the Peano axioms to be true, and then go on from there.

>>5875012
Technically is was, and technically you liked it, so is it still rape? If so... by whom ._. ...

>>5866853
I agree.
I think people use it as a last resort when they have no substantial counter-agrument, but are too much of an insecure faggot to admit defeat.

>>5875017

Ewan McGregor.

>>5875022

hmmm.... Ad Hominem...I think.

>>5875033
>uses Latin
>doesnt integrate English function
>tfw

>>5875035
not the guy you're talking to, but it's the name given to a faulty pattern of thinking. He isn't using Latin to be pretentious.

>>5875013
>No I don't,

Ok, so we agree: Stephen Hawking is much more likely to be right about physics than random guy on the street.

So in a dispute between the two on the subject of physics, the fact that one position A is espoused by Stephen Hawking and position B is espoused by random dude is in fact evidence that position A is correct and position B is wrong.

To say that it proves A right would be a logical fallacy. To say that it is strong evidence that A is right is simply inductive reasoning.


but if you think that matters then you don't understand fallacies or inductive reasoning.
>The reason I put "true" in speech marks is because there aren't any. But we assume things. So we might assert the Peano axioms to be true, and then go on from there.

>>5875081
>Faulty pattern of thinking
>Latins absurd abuse of hyphens not being the funnest mathlete shit ever
>*shwing*

>>5875084
There is no reason to doubt Stephen Hawking. That would just be foolish.

>>5874104
It's not logically sounds because Mel Gibson nor Aliens are from Mars.

>>5876155

acutally, it's not sound at all

Incas are from Peru
Alberto Fujimori is from Peru
Therefore Fujimori is an Incan

>>5875163
>>Latins absurd abuse of hyphens

What are you talking about? Where does Latin use hyphens? Do you even know Latin?

>>5866853
I agree OP
>Also
Logical fallacies?...this isn't science
>>>/phil/

>>5867042
Is empiricism a valid idea or fallacy?
>since we are on /phil/ or lit and

>>5879744
Logic is math and thus belongs here.

>>5878807
k there's Latin, and then theres how Latin maintains its vocab, do you even into background?

>>5879912
You must be hallucinating. We are on /sci/.

>>5880246
You didn't answer my question. Where are hyphens used in Latin?

>>5882093

they didn't.
they (sometimes) used a dot to separate words

>>5882114

are you just making that up?

>>5882114
You do not know anything about Latin.

>>5882116
>>5882730
What she said is true. Are you sure you know Latin?

>>5882730

My college transcript says otherwise.

>>5884165
>implying that means anything

Yes, fuck logic and people who point out logical fallacies.

>>5884163
That poster was implying interpuncts are used interchangeably with spaces. This is wrong. You either use them or you do not.

>>5884303
>implying it matters
you know damn well the paper means more than anything else, or else no one would drive themselves into debt for something they could learn off the internet.

>>5884816

Nope. You inferred that. Wrongly.

The most common one I see on this board is appeal to authority. It's getting really annoying.

>>5885366
The worst I see on /sci/ is appeal to possibility. While appeal to authority is just an informal fallacy, appeal to possibility is a real logical error nobody with an IQ higher than 90 should be able to commit.

>It is possible because it happened once and therefore it must have happened infinite times because quantum mechanics or because the universe is huge.

Why do people say "logical fallacies" when they mean "informal fallacies"?

>>5885306
Perhaps that poster understands Latin, but she surely does not understand English sufficiently to incorrectly and ambiguously use the word "sometimes".

>>5887308
what the fuck does this have to do with mexicans

>>5887308
>she surely does not understand English sufficiently to incorrectly and ambiguously use the word "sometimes".

Some Latin inscriptions, writings, etc displayed the use of dots or other word delimiters other than spaces.
Some did not.
They sometimes used dots for word delimiters.
They did not at ALL TIMES use them.
You seem to have a problem with the word 'some'.
I recommend you take two aspirin and three semesters of symbolic logic..

>>5887308
How is the word "sometimes" ambiguous?

>>5884816
> >>5887308
Wow okay: 1, Latin may now look like a dead language but the only reason its left in the dirt is because todays 'SpeciaLIsts' hurdur are fucking stumped dead by their fucking poetrys & 2: That the only reason their stumped is because Latin poetry was the lesion of their scientific method of the kin of architectures they were familiar with... with in compunction with their fucking beast steroid of a notational standard made their premise series of an ever capable re-delemic of potential sequence holding applicable; there's a reason they hardlined it as the scientific language hundreds of years ago when the variable was understood; not to mention the constcript of progress that hinges on well... plenty other non-symbiotic parallel 'gravitations' so to speak in such available 'progresses'; or as I like to say acceleratories

Someone has been keeping at least 35 threads alive
by bumping them twice a day. Compare the post times of
>>5867941 >>5869052 >>5870623 >>5871422 >>5873092 >>5873756
>>5876149 >>5878807 >>5880687 >>5882093 >>5882730 >>5884163
>>5886247 >>5887308 >>5888805
to the post times in other threads.
It's clear most of these are the same person.
The threads being bumped:
>>5858447 >>5861383 >>5862983 >>5863249 >>5865823 >>5866853
>>5867452 >>5867640 >>5868097 >>5868460 >>5868538 >>5869504
>>5869595 >>5869759 >>5869946 >>5872951 >>5873166 >>5873829
>>5874378 >>5874727 >>5875025 >>5876410 >>5876819 >>5878449
>>5878607 >>5878684 >>5878722 >>5880041 >>5880453 >>5880775
>>5881738 >>5883998 >>5884116 >>5884625 >>5885545
Write to moot@4chan.org if you want it to stop.

>>5889284
Paranoia?

>>5889284
what difference does it make? This board is slow, full of itself, and autistic

>>5889375
It's a lot more slow and autistic if one person decides that twice a day the first few pages should be filled with the threads he thinks are the best trolls.

It ought to still be usable with the catalog at those times, but I think you'll find that not enough other people use the catalog.

>>5889286
The post times don't line up in that many threads by accident. If you've been here for enough time and been paying attention, you'll have noticed. It started with the Daniela Titan threads about a year ago.

polite sage because meta != science

>>5887325
This thread is about logical fallacies.

>>5889632
Fuck you and you're useless bumping.

Sage goes in all fields.

>>5889636
Of which his post is not in concurrence of justity with!
>>5889632 It has to do with your own cortexi syncing with global recognitions of behavior patterns patterns that being that mexicans are very keen and well versed at hoping boarders, much like cross referencing of latin translation with the, effectively afterburn, medium of oriental contexts; making mexicans the appropriate answer

>>5889636

so much butthurt

>>5876958
he forgot to say "all."
give him a break guys, he just took his first phi class. He'll get it someday.

I believe in you champ!

>>5866853
Logical fallacies aren't arbitrary bullshit. In fact, you're committing a fallacy right now with that statement.
Your problem with them is that they seem to allow your opponent to "win" the argument without saying much of anything pertaining to the subject matter, and you're kind of right. People that rely on logical fallacies to win an argument are shitty debaters.
The thing is, you should be angry at those people, not at the tactics they employ. A solid understanding of logic and logical fallacies paves the way for a much deeper understanding of almost everything people argue about. They let you look at a problem from new angles and allow you to come up with better, more concrete solutions. Don't get butthurt because some neckbeard kept yelling "STRAWMAN" instead of continuing to have intelligent discourse with you. Beat him at his own game.

>>5890373
also, arguments really shouldn't be about winning or losing, but rather spreading information and ideas around. If you ever feel like you've "won" an argument, it's more likely that everyone involved ended up losing.

>>5890373
>Don't get butthurt because some neckbeard kept yelling "STRAWMAN" instead of continuing to have intelligent discourse with you. Beat him at his own game.

Are you saying I should shout "STRAWMAN" too?

>>5890676

you should yell "Ad Hominem"

>>5890680
that would be more appropriate, yes.

>>5890373
>STRAWMAN
>Post String Thoery
>mfg seriously still doing this?

>>5890680
or "Argumentum ad faggotium"

>>5890870

Appeal to Ignorance?

>>5887749
>Some Latin inscriptions, writings, etc displayed the use of dots or other word delimiters other than spaces. Some did not. They sometimes used dots for word delimiters. They did not at ALL TIMES use them.
Great job - you are capable of forming your thoughts into coherent statements. For your intellectual capabilities I suppose it is impressive to see normal use of language.
>You seem to have a problem with the word 'some'.
Unlike you I do have a problem with any word in the English vocabulary.
>take two aspirin
This is not a drug board. Go back to >>>/b/.
>three semesters of symbolic logic..
Why? Because your degenerate mind is not capable of finishing such basic education?

>>5890872
No, that would be called "argument from ignorance".

>>5893036

Argument from Ignorance
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

Forms There is no evidence against p.
Therefore, p. There is no evidence for p.
Therefore, not-p.

>>5888805
Please learn basic grammar.

>>5893775

Your dialect is silly.

>>5893046
The second conclusion is logically valid.

>>5894998

It is not.

>>5895064
Dismissing things without evidence is just rational. Hitchens' razor.

>>5894084
What dialect?

>>5889276
What are you on about?

>>5897771
I guess she is just butthurt because Latin poetry was too hard for her.

>>5889284
>>/x/

>>5899333
motherfucker

Point to one logical fallacy that is not sound.

You can't.

>>5899333
bumpspammer detected