Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Critical Thinking FAIL (Score 1) 137 137

I understand English just fine. I'm also familiar with logical fallacies, and it's clear that you are not - at least when it comes to the ad hominem/strawman types.

So let's take a look at a definition of strawman attack:

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition."

For me to have created a strawman, YOU have to first advance a position.

So I ask you again, which one of your arguments/propositions/positions have I used as the basis to create a strawman?

Take all the time you need to respond. I have plenty of patience when it comes to you embarrassing yourself. Again.

Comment: Re:Critical Thinking FAIL (Score 2) 137 137

LOL! Which position of yours do you think I've misrepresented?

Since you don't know what constitutes an ad hominen attack, it comes as no surprise that you don't know what forms a strawman argument. So let's add "false accusations of logical fallacies" to the list of your testy behaviors.

Keep posting. I look forward to another public demonstration of your ignorance.

Comment: Re:Critical Thinking FAIL (Score 2) 137 137

quote where I said I was trying to win over AC trolls?

Doesn't matter whether you said it or not. The amount of time and effort you've spent on ACs in this thread speaks for itself.

Kill yourself. Slowly and painfully.

My my, aren't we testy today. Oh wait, judging by the frequency of insults, profanity and homoerotic imagery in your posts, you're testy *every* day. Maybe you should consider working with a therapist.

Comment: Re:Critical Thinking FAIL (Score 2) 137 137

So... more ad hominem?

Ugh. I'm not in an argument with "Andrew" of Popular Technology. I'm in an argument with YOU, and I'm claiming that your citation of such an untrustworthy source demonstrates a lack of critical thinking on your part. I've bolstered my contention that Popular Technology is untrustworthy by stating FACTS about the nature of the site, and FACTS about the weaknesses of "Andrew's" supposed debunking of the Cook et al paper. You are deluding yourself if you think I've made any ad hominem attacks in this discussion.

Anyone who spends ten minutes looking at populartechnology.com with any degree of skepticism will see what it is - a crank site run by ONE guy who won't identify himself. Anyone who cites populartechnology.com in support of their positions needs to take a hard look at the quality of their critical thinking skills.

Respond to the peer reviewed paper...

I have responded to the peer reviewed paper:

"Other than your little "fallacious logic" falsehood, you may actually have something here."
"Be that as it may, you did (finally) manage to provide a cite with some legitimacy"
"I've recognized your final source's potential legitimacy multiple times."

How many more responses do you need?

I have no patience or respect for this notion that a valid point can be dismissed on the grounds that you don't respect the person making it. It is a textbook logical fallacy.

You're still stuck with the notion that I'm making an argument I'm not. The only thing I'm arguing is that your citation of populartechnology.com represents a lack of critical thinking on your part. Christ, I even put my position in the title of my post. Apparently you didn't notice that.

If you can't... then you have nothing constructive to offer this discussion and I'll kindly ask you to stop wasting my time.

LOL, since I'm not forcing you to respond to my posts, no one's wasting your time but you. Given the number of your responses to ACs, I can only surmise that you *enjoy* wasting time.

Comment: Re:Critical Thinking FAIL (Score 2) 137 137

I didn't just cite one source, half wit.

I cited a lot of things. And mostly recently I cited a peer reviewed paper.

Choke on it.

Did you say check on it? OK! Here's a complete list (as of this writing) of your citations in this thread in chronological order:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvfAtIJbatg (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.populartechnology.n... (Site is a one man operation that doesn't identify the operator or his alleged "staff". Attempts to debunk Cook paper by cherry-picking results from a nebulous survey.)
http://www.nature.com/news/pub... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://articles.mercola.com/si... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://arstechnica.com/science... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.the-scientist.com/?... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04... (no mention of the Cook paper)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja... (opinion piece written by a lawyer (who doesn't appear to have ever practiced law) who claims to be a "trained scientist". The article relies exclusively on research done by unnamed "investigative journalists" at populartechnology.com - a blog that by all appearances is operated by a single unidentified individual.)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201... (first mention of a legitimate source rebutting the Cook paper)
http://link.springer.com/artic... (legitimate source debunking Cook)

So what have we got here...looks like a bunch of citations that have nothing to do with the Cook paper, one citation from a clearly bogus website, One citation written by a hack lawyer relying exclusively on the aforementioned bogus website, one citation from a pop-sci website alluding to an authoritative source, and (finally) a citation pointing to a legitimate source. And guess what? I've recognized your final source's potential legitimacy multiple times. You should probably take that as a win and call it a day.

In any event, don't you think you could've saved yourself a lot of time, effort, aggravation and ridicule if you'd have just kept your mouth shut until you actually come across a legitimate source? Instead, your process (if you can call it that) of supporting your arguments is to link to sources that you haven't subjected to any scrutiny whatsoever. It's a textbook example of a lack of critical thinking skills.

As to your claim that there is only one peer reviewed paper refuting your peer reviewed paper...

You're making things up again. I made no such claim. And for the last time, Cook's paper isn't MY paper. The only time I addressed it's validity I expressed skepticism of it's conclusions. Since you're having trouble remembering, here, let me help you:

"To be honest, I've always been highly skeptical that there could be anything close to a 100% consensus on the subject.

My opinion on the validity of the Cook paper is right there in black and white. That you keep saying I support the paper indicates that a lack critical thinking skills may be the least of your problems.

...how many peer reviewed papers does it take to refute one peer reviewed paper?

I believe one is quite sufficent.

I quite agree. Glad you finally referenced one instead of relying on the crap you initially did.

Science isn't a popularity contest and it...
[blah blah...]
[long rant claiming that: I hold opinions that I don't, made predictions I haven't, called someone a bigot, I'm out to destroy the world, etc., etc.]
[...blah blah blah]

Thanks for spewing that load of mental diarrhea sprinkled with a touch of paranoia on everyone. It says a lot about how you think.

Comment: Re:Critical Thinking FAIL (Score 2) 137 137

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9

There you go, peer reviewed paper refuting cook's paper.

Yeah, I was able to find the abstract on my own. What I asked you for was a link to the full paper.

What you didn't understand because you were so biased against the source was that there was actually a valid argument being made.

Hardly. Like I said, my problem is with you citing opinion pieces in financial magazines as having some kind of scientific authority.

The argument has been made by multiple sources in and out of academia.

...yet it's taken you so very very long to find ONE legitimate rebuttal of the Cook paper. Christ, the thing was published in 2013. Yet you, a self-proclaimed authority on the subject, only became aware of the rebuttal within the last few hours.

You cannot simply dismiss all criticism this way.

I don't dismiss all criticism. I do however dismiss poorly supported claims by cranks with obvious agendas. Critical thinking demands being skeptical of "sources" in popular media, and when your source is an opinion piece penned by a non scientist citing dubious websites, well... you're just not doing a convincing job of supporting your arguments.

It is a prerequisite that you have to have some intellectual curiosity and integrity in matters such as these. Simply being mulish and tribalistically political is not acceptable.

WOW! Your complete lack of self awareness is truly impressive.

If you want to be scientific then you need to put all that baggage down for a moment and just address the issue tabula rasa.

The only baggage I'm carrying is a requirement for critical thinking when it comes to accepting claims - especially ones that aren't supported by legitimate scientific authority. The little turd of a Forbes article you cited doesn't even come close to be convincing anyone with a critical mind. The fact that you kept trying to feed that turd to people in this discussion isn't a sign of strong critical thinking skills.

Be that as it may, you did (finally) manage to provide a cite with some legitimacy, so congratulations - perhaps you are beginning to be competent enough to have a discussion of this nature.

Comment: Re:Critical Thinking FAIL (Score 2) 137 137

You keep attacking the source as if there was only one source that verified the problem.

If there was another source challenging the validity of the Cook et al paper, you didn't provide one. If you did provide one, I would've taken a hard look at the source and made a judgement as to it's trustworthiness. But since the only source you provided was populartechnology.com, I took a hard look at the quality of the information there and found it lacking.

BTW, I've made no claims about the validity of the Cook et al paper. To be honest, I've always been highly skeptical that there could be anything close to a 100% consensus on the subject. Be that as it may, the only thing I'm attacking here is your contention that citing a sketchy site like populartechnology.com provides authoritative support for ANY argument.

Since you're addicted to ad hominem...

Popular Technology puts itself up as a publication with editors and writers. Pointing out that there is but a single author for all their articles, pointing out the complete lack of methodology/data regarding "Andrew's" survey (which on the face of it is blatant cherry-picking) certainly speaks to their credibility or lack thereof. Sorry, providing facts about Popular Technology in order to support my contention that the site isn't trustworthy doesn't qualify as an ad hominem attack.

I'll shift sources and we'll see if you're able to form a coherent thought without resorting to fallacious logic again: http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

That cites a peer reviewed audit of the study that showed Cook's methodology and conclusions to be in error.

Other than your little "fallacious logic" falsehood, you may actually have something here. It would've been a helluva lot better for you to cite the paper directly, instead of wrapping it in the rampant hyperbole of wattsupwiththat.com. Do you have a link to the full papery?

*gets out lube*

Bend over. I'm jamming your pretensions right back up the slimy hole they came out of... :-)

You're not helping yourself. Juvenile comments like that don't speak very well about your level of maturity.

Comment: Critical Thinking FAIL (Score 2) 137 137

You're linking to a site that doesn't list the names of it's publisher, editors, writers, or contributors. The listed editor of the site, one "Andrew K" is a "Computer Analyst" sporting a Gmail address - and he appears to have written ALL of the content on the site. I could not find one single article written by anyone other than "Andrew" on populartechnology.com. But I suppose these things don't represent red flags for you.

Many of the scientists cited as being in support of AGW by such papers have openly objected.

The objections range from saying they are opposed to it, to saying their support is over stated because they think there needs to be additional qualifications, to saying that their paper actually made no relevant reference to AGW and they don't understand how the paper was used to arrive at that conclusion.

Popular Technology lists seven scientists who have objected to the classification of their papers. Seven authors, seven papers. Out of almost 12,000 papers and hundreds of authors in the scope of the study. "Andrew" claims to have "emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper." "Andrew" gives no indication of how many researchers he contacted, or of the nature of their responses. "Andrew" provides no methodology or supporting data of his supposed survey. "Andrew" simply lists SEVEN of the scientists, and surprise, ALL of them objected. Surprise 2 electric boogaloo: ALL of the scientists mentioned in "Andrew's" analysis are climate skeptics, one of whom is a crackpot who claims to have paranormal abilities and can find water by dowsing.

But, apparently, you see nothing problematic here either.

Further analysis of the methodology of the statistical studies show that they had a graduate student review roughly 800 papers a day.

LOL, did you just pull that out of thin air? Making things up and stating them as fact doesn't help your credibility.

So many of your "sources" are easily debunked when subjected to the slightest bit of scrutiny. Maybe you should challenge yourself and your sources just a tiny little bit harder before offer up these supposed "sources" in support of your claims.

Comment: Re:First major retailer to accept Bitcoin (Score 1) 182 182

Even if they did, I'd wonder what point that is supposed to prove.

It's supposed to prove that (off the thinly traded BTC exchanges), few BTC transactions are for the purchase of everyday goods and services. Of course, it doesn't actually prove that, but it raises an important question.

Conversly, "ZOMG, O.CO accepts BTC!!!" doesn't prove that people are actually using BTC to purchase anything from O.CO.

If Byrne wants to promote BTC, let him disclose O.CO's BTC sales every quarter.

Comment: Re:LOVE THESE POSTS! (Score 1) 182 182

What's that sound over your head? Hint: re-read 3rd paragraph of GP.

Maybe the readers here are just too old and conservative and it will never happen, like most old people will never use internet or smartphones or online-banking. I guess when you are of some age you are too old to learn and endorse new technologies.

I'm tempted to blather on about how some of a certain age are foolish idiots who wouldn't make it past 30 if things got real - but that would be stoopid. Besides, your post "makes me giggle".

Comment: Re:First major retailer to accept Bitcoin (Score 0) 182 182

They got over $10,000 worth of BTC in the first hour and they convert 100% to dollars immediately with Coinbase.com taking the risk.

I hope you don't mind that I'm not going to take your word on that, unless you can prove you're working in the overstock.com treasury department. Otherwise, citation needed.

Comment: Re:First major retailer to accept Bitcoin (Score 1) 182 182

How can it be a zero sum game?

It's a zero sum game if virtually all BTC transactions occur on the BTC to fiat exchanges, where no wealth is created.

The bitcoin network has obviously created wealth in the world.

That remains to be seen, but if you have some numbers to back up that assertion, let's see them.

What does it matter that Overstock is immediately converting bitcoins to USD? That still means that bitcoins are being used as a... wait for it... medium of exchange.

Huh? Who said anything about overstock converting BTC to USD? What they do with their BTC receipts (if any) was not addressed in my post. Back on topic, just because overstock.com has announced their acceptance of BTC doesn't mean anyone has actually paid them in BTC.

You do realize that people speculate in other currencies, too, right?

Loud-mouthed fool.

And what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You do know that speculation is, by definition, a zero sum game...right?

Small minded fool.

"Any excuse will serve a tyrant." -- Aesop

Working...