|
Stultus Maximus posted:Zyklon Ben fav "Not An Argument" guy wrote a book, He's such a moron. Also, his "Not an argument" catchphrase is usually deployed against things that are actually arguments by definition, while just saying "Not an argument" is, in fact, not an argument. He's an ignorant, self-owning buffoon.
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:55 |
|
|
Distilled Politoon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Zyklon Ben fav "Not An Argument" guy wrote a book, this is really annoying because the first example is a pretty good example of sets. all plumbers can swim, bob can swim, is it required that bob is a plumber? no. however, under these rules, if all plumbers can swim, and bob is a plumber, then bob can swim! set diagrams help a lot here. the second one is overly contrived but actually perfectly logically consistent, it only falls apart if you start requiring the specific example to make sense. if you reverse the order on the first statement then the third is not necessarily true under the presented conditions, but as stated it has to be. like, for formal logic, your example can be contrived as hell but you can't just say "haha, the conclusion is false because the premise is false!!" if you presented the premise Shugojin fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Sep 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
1 Witch hunt in progress "The state attorney is on our six!" 2  Product prices? No, 3  4  Party x is so corrupt... (how corrupt is it?) 5  6  Don't get too excited, it's an export product. 7 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
The Not an Argument guy even sucks at creating strawmen to knock over.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Shugojin posted:this is really annoying because the first example is a pretty good example of sets. all plumbers can swim, bob can swim, is it required that bob is a plumber? no. however, under these rules, if all plumbers can swim, and bob is a plumber, then bob can swim! set diagrams help a lot here. Is 'know how to swim' the same thing as 'can swim'?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
Plus given the size of some plumber I've seen I'd be surprised if they all can float let alone swim.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
toanoradian posted:Is 'know how to swim' the same thing as 'can swim'? Depends on your number of limbs. :V
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
I see this poo poo brought up basically nonstop by conservatives. How often are you guys getting called racist in day to day life?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
The most telling thing is that Mr Not An Argument doesn't seem to understand that there's a difference between "valid" and "true" in logic. Any individual premise in an argument can be as crazy as you want, like "all seagulls have commercial fishing licenses", it doesn't matter at all for validity. The important thing is that all the premises and statements fit together in a consistent way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
 1 2 3Bonus long-form comic: Luke Humphris on toxic masculinity Preview: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
You'd think with all that sweet speeding ticket income, Florida's HP could upgrade their fleet from '56 Chevys.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
Priggee is usually good, but this is a real contender for Worst Label.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:Priggee is usually good, but this is a real contender for Worst Label. I think he's a bit too sane and emotional fo all this business and we're kind of seeing his last gasps
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
Zemyla posted:Distilled Politoon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
Zemyla posted:Distilled Politoon. "JUST AN ALLIGATOR FOR SOME REASON" got a good laugh out of me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
Zemyla posted:Distilled Politoon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
Begemot posted:The most telling thing is that Mr Not An Argument doesn't seem to understand that there's a difference between "valid" and "true" in logic. Any individual premise in an argument can be as crazy as you want, like "all seagulls have commercial fishing licenses", it doesn't matter at all for validity. The important thing is that all the premises and statements fit together in a consistent way. So you can say All dogs are mammals. Some mammals are cats. ∴ No dogs are cats. This is sound, because dogs aren’t cats, but not valid because the arguments don’t lead to the conclusion even if it’s true. Meanwhile, you got his sample argument, which may be valid but not sound. People forget this and assume a valid = correct, and I can say that it isn’t. It’s literal logic 101.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
Pants Donkey posted:I only have taken a 101 course in school, years ago, but our book defined them as validity and soundness.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
1. all youtube intellectuals are morons 2. stefan molyneux is a youtube intellectual 3. therefore stefan molyenux is a a moron
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I'm pretty ignorant about all of this, so what do you mean by "don't lead to the conclusion"? What is the conclusion? The ∴ symbol stands for "therefore" in a logical expression, so it indicates the conclusion. It's true that all dogs are mammals, and it's true that some mammals are cats. But the conclusion that no dogs are cats doesn't follow from those two premises. It's true, so it's sound, but the argument isn't valid, because the premises don't support the conclusion. It's an example of how your logic can be "valid" but your conclusion can still be wrong, and vice versa, which is something a lot of "rational" people on the internet don't get.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:I'm pretty ignorant about all of this, so what do you mean by "don't lead to the conclusion"? What is the conclusion? The conclusion is the final statement, "(therefore) no dogs are cats" - it's not a logical conclusion of the previous two statements. There's no relation between cats and dogs made, nor is there anything to rule out the possibility of dogs being cats. Something more fitting might be "therefore mammals can be cats or dogs" Or including a statement like "a mammal can only be one thing."
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
Harrow posted:The ∴ symbol stands for "therefore" in a logical expression, so it indicates the conclusion. A logical argument doesn't make it true, in short?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
Oh, I thought it was something like, that string of arguments does nothing to explain why we should care whether dogs are cats or not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
toanoradian posted:A logical argument doesn't make it true, in short? Other way around. Being true doesn't make the argument valid if the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. But what you said is also true, a valid argument doesn't necessarily make it true either. Molyneux's first example is both untrue and invalid. He fucks up by implying that the second example is also untrue and invalid, but it's actually valid because the conclusion follows from the premises. If he had just reversed the first statement ("socialists are kind people") it would have been invalid, but he's so far up his own rear end that he can't even see that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:1. all youtube intellectuals are morons *made inside my car for some reason*
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
toanoradian posted:A logical argument doesn't make it true, in short? Yes, and the other way around, too. You can have a correct conclusion but an argument that isn't logical. You can have a perfectly logical argument that arrives at an incorrect conclusion because you're starting from flawed premises. Logic is a tool, not a source of truth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Other way around. Being true doesn't make the argument valid if the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. But what you said is also true, a valid argument doesn't necessarily make it true either. Yeah well if he were any good at presenting examples of arguments he'd be a professor instead of bitterly claiming they indoctrinate people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
Oh no! Racists have figured out that they can use arguments to convince themselves they aren't racist! How will we respond to this new ability that racists now have, for the first time in history?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
So having seen that Not An Arguement poo poo forever and not really knowing the guy, I'm understanding that this dude really just mis-applies logic to stupid ends?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 04:50
|
|
|
Molyneux is also the one who heads a cult, right?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
This is probably the best article about Molyneux, if you can stomach mises.org. tl;dr: his arguments are so bad even libertarians think he's full of poo poo.quote:Despite the impression I have so far given, Molyneux is by no means stupid: quite the contrary. Therein, I suggest, lies the source of the problems of his book. Because of his facile intelligence, he thinks that he has a talent for philosophical argument and need not undertake the hard labor of learning how such arguments are constructed. Unfortunately for him and his book, he is mistaken.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
Is this in print form? The large font, a sentence per paragraph, "of course" ... are these sorts of books usually written like that? I would love to knock down this whole book formally, but I'd have to figure out a way to do that without buying it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
 1 2 3
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:This is probably the best article about Molyneux, if you can stomach mises.org. tl;dr: his arguments are so bad even libertarians think he's full of poo poo. So basically a guy so far up his own rear end that he speaks through his own teeth like one of the Aliens. Not sure how he became some sort of right wing hero but libertarianism is something of a brain defect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
Regalingualius posted:Molyneux is also the one who heads a cult, right? He also over-promises on video games he's making.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 06:03
|
|
|
DreamShipWrecked posted:So basically a guy so far up his own rear end that he speaks through his own teeth like one of the Aliens. Not sure how he became some sort of right wing hero but libertarianism is something of a brain defect. The authoritarian right, and especially the alt-right, generally lack self-confidence, courage, and the ability to express themselves, so they gravitate toward people who project such qualities, even if it's a sham. Plus, the right wing has spent decades constructing a parallel, isolated discourse encompassing their own schools, universities, and media, where their premises are all accepted by default without serious challenge. The end result is something that has all the surface appearance of academic rigor, or at least enough of it to satisfy an audience desperate for validation. Molyneux fits right in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 06:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:55 |
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Zyklon Ben fav "Not An Argument" guy wrote a book, I legit face-palmed reading this. There is a red mark on my face from how hard I smacked it. This is so unbelievably stupid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2017 06:58
|
|
