Actually I've had a paper published in which I write in response to Hume.
In what way am I not intellectually cooperative?
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Logical Fallacies
- Thread starter Saz Chan >^-^<
- Start date
In what way am I not intellectually cooperative?
Then I don't understand why you keep talking about logic like it's what makes humans hungrier than pizza.
I don't get it.
I misread. For some reason, I didn't read "response".
In any case, I hope your response says "thanks for showing me the world, shining shimmering splendours."
I like you. I think this thread was interesting, but your love for the traditional analytics (kindly, who the hell responds to Hume these days... he's pretty set in stone) concerns me.
If you'd like a solid reading list to discuss topics that go beyond traditional epistemic philosophy (you seem well versed in the analytics... but that's just the first step), then I'd be happy to share it with you.
I've written a couple papers myself on the ethics of care and how feminist epistemology contains knowledges previously unexplored by analytic philosophy. If you want those as well, I can share them.
Best of luck in your endeavours.
PS: Cambridge is very prestigious, which is why my presupposition would be to question every piece of wording that comes out of my professor's mouth. There's a degree of intellectual arrogance that streams from Analytical Philosophy, and for good reasons. I can't/don't want to talk about this more over forums. If you feel like chatting further, find me on PS or join discord and we'll chat up a storm.
Seems to me to be an ad hominem - basically he's trying to throw out Obama's criticism by saying that Obama is a bad source, rather than addressing the actual point Obama is making.
By way of update, in recent days I have encountered numerous times a particularly annoying kind of fallacy. If I had to categorise it, I would describe it as a kind of appeal to authority. But, unlike most appeals to authority, it does not appeal to scholarship, so much as the experiences of a particular people group. This is particularly common when it comes to issues that concern the hot topics of social justice: feminism and gender equality, race, sexuality etc. In each of these cases, there are some within these people groups who seek to represent themselves as an oppressed minority (I've even heard feminists describe women as a "minority", oddly), or else they make some allegation of social injustice (racially motivated police brutality, campus rape culture, gender pay gap, and so on).
Whatever one may make of these individual issues, very often what I see is a tendency on the part of such minorities, as well as the defenders of their cause, to claim a certain unchallengeable authority, merely on the basis of their personal experiences. For example, when feminists claim gender discrimination, or a given ethnic minority claims racial discrimination, the minority in question will often seek to silence any dissenters on the grounds that they have no right to talk about the issue, not being part of the minority in question. This is especially common when allegations of systemic or institutionalised discrimination are made: the line is "if you are not black/a woman/gay/transgender, then your opinion matters less than those of the minority itself", or perhaps even "only the opinions of the minority in question should be heard".
This seems to me to be a particularly dangerous kind of appeal to authority, politically speaking, as it seeks specifically to silence dissenting voices. While individual experiences are of course valuable, they are not the be-all and end-all, especially when claims of widespread, systematic oppression are made.
Whatever one may make of these individual issues, very often what I see is a tendency on the part of such minorities, as well as the defenders of their cause, to claim a certain unchallengeable authority, merely on the basis of their personal experiences. For example, when feminists claim gender discrimination, or a given ethnic minority claims racial discrimination, the minority in question will often seek to silence any dissenters on the grounds that they have no right to talk about the issue, not being part of the minority in question. This is especially common when allegations of systemic or institutionalised discrimination are made: the line is "if you are not black/a woman/gay/transgender, then your opinion matters less than those of the minority itself", or perhaps even "only the opinions of the minority in question should be heard".
This seems to me to be a particularly dangerous kind of appeal to authority, politically speaking, as it seeks specifically to silence dissenting voices. While individual experiences are of course valuable, they are not the be-all and end-all, especially when claims of widespread, systematic oppression are made.
Cresselia~~
Junichi Masuda likes this!!
I agree that Feminist groups often use this fallacy. There are even cases that their whole campaign is based on a fallacy.
I've seen a Feminist group basing their campaign on google searches.
The group said that lots of people searched "women shouldn't speak in churches", and said that men only googled it these because they actually want these to happen.
There's also other stuff I've seen that's similar to your comment.
"You know they are racist, you just know it. You just have to be black to know it. All these other races have no idea what we've gone through."
They somehow feel that if you aren't black, you won't understand a thing.
I've seen a Feminist group basing their campaign on google searches.
The group said that lots of people searched "women shouldn't speak in churches", and said that men only googled it these because they actually want these to happen.
There's also other stuff I've seen that's similar to your comment.
"You know they are racist, you just know it. You just have to be black to know it. All these other races have no idea what we've gone through."
They somehow feel that if you aren't black, you won't understand a thing.
Cresselia~~
Junichi Masuda likes this!!
There's a certain group of people in Hong Kong who believes that the JLPT Japanese Proficiency exam (an exam for foreigners) is rubbish.
And their reason is "Japanese people don't take this exam." "Most Japanese people don't care about this exam".
I'm sure something is wrong here. Most Japanese companies do require foreigners to present this exam to them.
Which fallacy is this?
And their reason is "Japanese people don't take this exam." "Most Japanese people don't care about this exam".
I'm sure something is wrong here. Most Japanese companies do require foreigners to present this exam to them.
Which fallacy is this?
Ash Borer
I've heard they're short of room in hell
You have to clearly define your goals if you want to actually make an argument for the utility of the JLPT. It's actually not wrong to say that the test is somewhat pointless if your goal is simply to speak the language for non-professional purposes. What the JLPT really is, is credible proof that you can speak the language. Extremely useful if you're trying to be employed in Japan as a foreigner. Here's how I would word my argument. "The JLPT is a very important and useful test, because proficiency in the Japanese language is a necessary skill if you wish to be hired in any sort of professional position in Japan, and passing it is the only sufficient proof that might grant you an interview."
One I encounter regularly is what I like to call the conspiracy nut fallacy. How it works is simple.
Step 1: Make wild claims.
Step 2: When someone calls you out, or asks for evidence, tell them to google it themselves.
Step 3: Call them a blind sheep a few times just for good measure.
I hate this because the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. No it is not my research - you're the one claiming 9/11 was an inside job, you're the one who has to prove it. If a cop pulls you over, it's on him/her to prove you have committed a crime (or at least connected to one.)
Step 1: Make wild claims.
Step 2: When someone calls you out, or asks for evidence, tell them to google it themselves.
Step 3: Call them a blind sheep a few times just for good measure.
I hate this because the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. No it is not my research - you're the one claiming 9/11 was an inside job, you're the one who has to prove it. If a cop pulls you over, it's on him/her to prove you have committed a crime (or at least connected to one.)
The JLPT really is just an exam mainly for foreigners to be employed in Japan. Most places require at least an N2 IIRC, but it always helps to go further and get that N1. It's like TOEFL or whatever other English proficiency tests you need to get into certain universities if English isn't your first language. My speculation for that attitude towards the JLPT is that some Hong Kong people like to think they're proficient at the language because they're into Japanese culture, maybe they watch a lot of anime or dramas, but they're unable to get anything beyond N4 since N3 (maybe) onwards cannot be passed simply by knowing the fundamentals (i.e. Hiragana, Katakana, some basic kanji which Hong Kong people have an advantage over others, and simple vocabulary). The JLPT isn't simply "If I can speak and understand basic conversations, I can pass the test", which I'm guessing how Hong Kong people feel it is.