EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:19 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:53 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
A comparison of the science reporters for Fox and NPR .....

http://boingboing.net/2015/03/27/lets-c ... ounds.html

GhostofAlyeska says he was "simply curious who Fox News' science reporters are. I wanted to know what kind of scientific backgrounds they might have." Here's what he found:

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2015 1:58 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 764
"Boing boing?" Great source there Wayne. =D> =D> =D>

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2015 3:09 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
"Boing boing?" Great source there Wayne. =D> =D> =D>


I see you have no real comment on the substance as usual.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2015 7:01 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 764
Comment on a questionable obscure source? You’re right why should I bother to comment. :crazy:

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 28, 2015 10:56 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Comment on a questionable obscure source? You’re right why should I bother to comment. :crazy:


So, you will stop posting the crap from Watts and the other questionable and obscure sources or will you continue the hypocritical ways we have seen in the past?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 8:59 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
Education time.

Milton Banana wrote:
Comment on a questionable obscure source? You’re right why should I bother to comment. :crazy:


This is what is called an ad hominem fallacy. Milton likes to believe he knows what this actually is, but his actions indicate that he does not because he has called this fallacy many times and done so incorrectly. In turn he, himself uses it.

In this case he does not address the information presented, but merely attacks it for being from a "questionable and obscure source". This might be somewhat correct if the source was not full of links to support the claims. All one needs to do is to follow the link for evidence of the claim, which is much more than some of Milton's preferred sources do. This history of using non-scientific sources used to try to refute scientific evidence is factual. The history of those sources themselves beign refuted is also factual. Yet, Milton wishes to believe his views are beign subjected to attacks based on logical fallacy. This is presented while he ignores any information from a source by calling is "questionable and obscure" even though it does not involve anything other than gathering of common data, which is provided with the evidence to support it. That is an ad hominem fallacy by definition.

Also Milton, pointing out that you constantly use sources of shown questionable credibility is an attack on your credibiliy as well. It is not to say you will never post credibile information. You may. It may be a decade or so out of date or it may be interpreted to have an effect which is inaccurate, but it may be credible information. It is the continued interpretation of effect by those less than qualified to do so that hurts your position.

Now for my evidence:

Milton Banana wrote:
This is demeaning and an ad hominem attack.


Milton Banana wrote:
All you fence sitters please review your logical fallacies. Ad hominem to be specific.


Milton Banana wrote:
Yes, why argue the facts when you can scream every ad hominem in the book to avoid the facts.


Milton Banana wrote:
The logical fallacy ad hominem. I don't need to define it for you fence sitters. I don't need to explain what it means when its employed. I have faith and trust in your ability to know and understand what it means.

What does this suggest about those here on this board who use the logical fallacy ad hominem? I'll let you decide that for yourself fence sitters, and decide what that means for them and their argument.


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... minem.html

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Example of Ad Hominem

Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 11:15 am 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2015 9:27 pm
Posts: 16
Location: Saskatchewan Canada
Referring to your original post Wayne, I am fully aware of little value f.n. places on truth, a serious problem, but it was still the best laugh I had all day . thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:12 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 764
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Milton Banana wrote:
Comment on a questionable obscure source? You’re right why should I bother to comment. :crazy:


So, you will stop posting the crap from Watts and the other questionable and obscure sources or will you continue the hypocritical ways we have seen in the past?



Watts is obscure? Watts is questionable only in your mind.

Quote:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Watts Up With That? (WUWT for short) is a weather and climate commentary site (blog), created in 2006 by California meteorologist Anthony Watts and known for its criticism of global warming science.[1] The tagline of the blog is "News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news." The blog features a regular list of contributors, including Indur Goklany,[2] and guest authors, such as Judith Curry, Christopher Monckton and S. Fred Singer.

Watts Up With That? often features content related to Watts' climate and temperature data projects, including his Surface Stations temperature data research project, his urban heat island transect project, and his Stevenson screen paint experiment.

In November 2009, the blog was one of the first websites to publish emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit controversy. Because of its high traffic numbers, the blog played a key role in the resulting controversy; the resulting investigations found no evidence of scientific misconduct.[3]

The site receives more than two million visits per month[4] and has been described as the "world's most viewed climate website."[5] Observers and critics have noted the blog's influence and role in the debate over global warming science on the Internet.


Two million hits per month is hardly obscure. And, please my participation here is not ad hominem. This is ad hominem. Bitching about ad hominem attacks you come off looking like a whiney baby.

There see the difference?

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:44 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Milton Banana wrote:
Comment on a questionable obscure source? You’re right why should I bother to comment. :crazy:


So, you will stop posting the crap from Watts and the other questionable and obscure sources or will you continue the hypocritical ways we have seen in the past?



Watts is obscure? Watts is questionable only in your mind.


No it is questionable to everyone who understands science and very obscure in scientific citation.

Quote:
Quote:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Watts Up With That? (WUWT for short) is a weather and climate commentary site (blog), created in 2006 by California meteorologist Anthony Watts and known for its criticism of global warming science.[1] The tagline of the blog is "News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news." The blog features a regular list of contributors, including Indur Goklany,[2] and guest authors, such as Judith Curry, Christopher Monckton and S. Fred Singer.

Watts Up With That? often features content related to Watts' climate and temperature data projects, including his Surface Stations temperature data research project, his urban heat island transect project, and his Stevenson screen paint experiment.

In November 2009, the blog was one of the first websites to publish emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit controversy. Because of its high traffic numbers, the blog played a key role in the resulting controversy; the resulting investigations found no evidence of scientific misconduct.[3]

The site receives more than two million visits per month[4] and has been described as the "world's most viewed climate website."[5] Observers and critics have noted the blog's influence and role in the debate over global warming science on the Internet.


Two million hits per month is hardly obscure.


For a political blog it is popular, but as a REAL SCIENTIFIC SOURCE it is very obscure.

Quote:
And, please my participation here is not ad hominem.


Your comment about not responding to the points made WAS an ad hominem fallacy because you did not respond to the points but only to the source without showing any valid credibility concern. Thus it is the definition of an adhominem

Quote:
This is ad hominem. Bitching about ad hominem attacks you come off looking like a whiney baby.


No, it is not. it is a personal attack but that is not the same as the adhominem fallacy, which is where you are confused and thus misrepresenting the fallacy and your hypocrisy in using the fallacy after whining about it previously.

Quote:
There see the difference?


Yes, you misrepresent the fallacy as you have done most everything else. The difference being whatever you incorrectly redefine.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:54 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
Let me try this again .....

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/ad-hominem/

Ad Hominem (Personal Attack)

Explanation

It is important to note that the label “ad hominem” is ambiguous, and that not every kind of ad hominem argument is fallacious. In one sense, an ad hominem argument is an argument in which you offer premises that you the arguer don’t accept, but which you know the listener does accept, in order to show that his position is incoherent (as in, for example, the Euthyphro dilemma). There is nothing wrong with this type of argument ad hominem.

The other type of ad hominem argument is a form of genetic fallacy. Arguments of this kind focus not on the evidence for a view but on the character of the person advancing it; they seek to discredit positions by discrediting those who hold them. It is always important to attack arguments, rather than arguers, and this is where arguments that commit the ad hominem fallacy fall down.

Example
(1) William Dembski argues that modern biology supports the idea that there is an intelligent designer who created life.
(2) Dembski would say that because he’s religious.
Therefore:
(3) Modern biology doesn’t support intelligent design.

This argument rejects the view that intelligent design is supported by modern science based on a remark about the person advancing the view, not by engaging with modern biology. It ignores the argument, focusing only on the arguer; it is therefore a fallacious argument ad hominem.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 7:02 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 764
Oh yes, and boingboing.net is a source above reproach. Wake up and smell what you're shoveling.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 29, 2015 10:27 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21221
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Oh yes, and boingboing.net is a source above reproach. Wake up and smell what you're shoveling.


No, it is not, BUT, the links contained within the article DO provide supporting evidence of the claims. You see it is just like a Wiki reference, questionable, but useful if there are direct links which are not questionable. All you have to do is think a little bit about what is presented unlike the crap interpretations you present from the sites you love to use. To make a valid interpretation one needs to have a basic understanding evidenced by education or experience in the field and credibility. Those like Monckton have neither.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 16, 2015 12:47 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2601
Location: Central Colorado
"Dr. Oreskes’s approach has been to dig deeply into the history of climate change denial, documenting its links to other episodes in which critics challenged a developing scientific consensus.

Her core discovery, made with a co-author, Erik M. Conway, was twofold. They reported that dubious tactics had been used over decades to cast doubt on scientific findings relating to subjects like acid rain, the ozone shield, tobacco smoke and climate change. And most surprisingly, in each case, the tactics were employed by the same group of people.

The central players were serious scientists who had major career triumphs during the Cold War, but in subsequent years apparently came to equate environmentalism with socialism, and government regulation with tyranny.

In a 2010 book, Dr. Oreskes and Dr. Conway called these men “Merchants of Doubt,” and this spring the book became a documentary film, by Robert Kenner. At the heart of both works is a description of methods that were honed by the tobacco industry in the 1960s and have since been employed to cast doubt on just about any science being cited to support new government regulations."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/scien ... earth&_r=0

I wonder if they also cast doubt on the gross overpopulation of humans on Earth? The Julian Simon Infinite Earthers, et al -----

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group