Thinking Fallacy

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Draverd
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:32 am UTC

Thinking Fallacy

Postby Draverd » Thu Sep 29, 2011 8:11 pm UTC

I have encountered people, time after time again, who claim to be open minded, yet in reality are not. The number of people who are like this is astounding to me. In Fact I dare say a fare number of people here on this forum are this way as well; potentially. Some scientist claim that this is just a defensive mechanism that is built into Human beings, although I am not necessarily sure if I believe this since I have not seen any sound evidence that backs up the claim.

Here are some ways, that I have seen these people, try to justify there positions.

1. They State, " Since you do not believe in A you are closed minded. Therefore everything you say has been nullified/refuted. So I am not going to discuss it." I take it they say this basically because they think you are automatically wrong since you disagree. Even if you have evidence that shows they are incorrect.

2. They say, "Well I read this book called A and it proves my position to be correct." Well that's good for them that this book helped them to believe this claim is true, but why? Give me some examples from the book, the claims they use etc... that made them come to this conclusion. Since they have no other evidence to justify their stance at that moment.

In fact I go and read these books, that people ask me to read (when this does occur), after the talk; and most of the time my stance stays the same since there was no valid evidence in the material. Only on one occasion I came to the same conclusion as the person after reading the book. I guess Speech probably wasn't there Forte, or they were nervous which affected the discussion.

3. I have heard some people say, " Well I am not going to do the Homework for you and read the book." Which I think is another fallacy, since I consider myself a Scientist I believe things should be questioned, over and over, if they stand up to the tests of time they are most likely Valid. Even though I may disagree I will study the information they gave. Which in turn will either validate there point or it will dig them into a deeper hole. At the same time, if the material does not have substantial evidence, it does not necessarily invalidate the subject matter. The Author could just be bringing things forth incorrectly, which evidently is why we follow the Scientific Standard.

4. They use an unrelated thing to try and invalidate a persons claim. For example, " The fact that you have some grammatical errors shows you are incorrect." Uhm excuse me? Are they claiming to be perfect and that they make no errors what so ever, and that if someone makes a mistake in one area that it some how correlates to another unrelated area? Everyone makes mistakes in life, that is how we learn. Just because a person makes a mistake does not some how mean that this person has faulty thinking process,ergo it invalidates all the other areas. This is as blatant as a person can be to show they are closed minded.

Well I will stop for now and open it up to a discussion on this matter. If you have experiences that you want to share feel free.
"Men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look back."

"Progress is a comparative of which we have not settled the superlative." G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
philsov
Not a fan of Diane Kruger
Posts: 1350
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:58 pm UTC
Location: Texas

Re: Thinking Fallacy

Postby philsov » Thu Sep 29, 2011 8:45 pm UTC

Are they claiming to be perfect and that they make no errors what so ever, and that if someone makes a mistake in one area that it some how correlates to another unrelated area?


It's more an argument against their credibility. If someone is woefully unable to communicate, spell, or use the most rudimentary grammatical functions, it's a sign of lesser intelligence which increases the likelihood of them being incorrect. If it were a criminal trial and someone was a witness, and the witness is shown to have falsified information, then it casts heavy shadows of doubt on the testimony that is absolutely true.

It's more a matter of snap judgement and time saving. Having an abundance of free time, much less free time willing to be spent in such manners as to read books that the person you're talking to is relating to is quite a luxury. I am not that patient.

There's certainly matters of degrees (that said, please tell me English is not your primary language) -- someone missing a single punctuation mark is nothing. SoMeOnE wHo TyPeS lIKe ThIs is not someone I wish to have any manner of conversation with, regardless of subject matter.

~

I think the proper fallacy is more in the initial definition. I am open minded about many things, but not about all things, and even then there's a LOT of grey area inbetween "open minded" and "closed minded." Still, the sky is blue (rather, it reflects light at the wavelength commonly known as "blue"), the sun will rise tomorrow, and Elvis is dead. Spare me your existential angst of "But how do you knoooooow."
The time and seasons go on, but all the rhymes and reasons are wrong
I know I'll discover after its all said and done I should've been a nun.

User avatar
Draverd
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:32 am UTC

Re: Thinking Fallacy

Postby Draverd » Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:49 am UTC

If someone is woefully unable to communicate, spell, or use the most rudimentary grammatical functions, it's a sign of lesser intelligence which increases the likelihood of them being incorrect.


Yes it is a sign of lesser intelligence, but only to the extent of their language abilities. That in turn does not necessarily prove them to be unsophisticated, hence their sub par performance in one area.

If it were a criminal trial and someone was a witness, and the witness is shown to have falsified information, then it casts heavy shadows of doubt on the testimony that is absolutely true.


That is completely uncorrelated. What does falsifying evidence have to do with it? I disagree on the credibility notion because whether or not someone is credible, it does not change the factor. If person A mentions a specific thing that the evidence shows to be true, but person B in turn use an Ad Hominem towards subject A, without disproving their claim, or trying to then it is just fallacy.

Having an abundance of free time, much less free time willing to be spent in such manners as to read books that the person you're talking to is relating to is quite a luxury.


I rarely have free time, I am taking eight classes-working-and practicing for two recitals, but that does not mean I stop questioning things. If I only read Ten pages a day (while taking notes of course) then so be it. Knowledge can be a great strength for anyone.

I am not that patient.
It is no one else fault except your own if you choose to not to read, time is a variable, which can be constructed productively if the time is taken to do so. I do agree with you to an extent. Honestly sometimes I don't feel like reading what one of these other people suggests (when that event does occur), but if it is a different venue, then I try to be less biased by reading it ( It of course being a new venue and not just something that is paraphrased).


SoMeOnE wHo TyPeS lIKe ThIs is not someone I wish to have any manner of conversation with, regardless of subject matter.


I agree to an extent. If someone types like this online, " No u r wrung cas u said." I wont waste my time with them. Although, if they are not just being immature, and they actually want to learn by having discourse over a subject matter, then I will have a discussion with them since it can help them out. So what if they have a lower Intellectual Quotient. Why shouldn't they be helped out? Also I was talking about actual conversations with people but I digress.

existential angst of "But how do you knoooooow."


Uhm that is not what I was going on about. If what I wrote lead to this then I apologize (though I doubt it did).

I am writing this to help spread this topic so that it can help lower ignorance and hopefully open some peoples minds who are closed, through the Butterfly Effect.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
"Men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look back."

"Progress is a comparative of which we have not settled the superlative." G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
Oflick
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 2:27 am UTC
Location: Sydney, California, France

Re: Thinking Fallacy

Postby Oflick » Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:39 am UTC

4. They use an unrelated thing to try and invalidate a persons claim. For example, " The fact that you have some grammatical errors shows you are incorrect." Uhm excuse me? Are they claiming to be perfect and that they make no errors what so ever, and that if someone makes a mistake in one area that it some how correlates to another unrelated area? Everyone makes mistakes in life, that is how we learn. Just because a person makes a mistake does not some how mean that this person has faulty thinking process,ergo it invalidates all the other areas. This is as blatant as a person can be to show they are closed minded.


That's essentially ad hominem, isn't it? Regardless, what do you know? You didn't put a space after the comma and before "ergo"!

Draverd wrote:
If it were a criminal trial and someone was a witness, and the witness is shown to have falsified information, then it casts heavy shadows of doubt on the testimony that is absolutely true.


That is completely uncorrelated. What does falsifying evidence have to do with it? I disagree on the credibility notion because whether or not someone is credible, it does not change the factor. If person A mentions a specific thing that the evidence shows to be true, but person B in turn use an Ad Hominem towards subject A, without disproving their claim, or trying to then it is just fallacy.


I'm sorry, I don't particularly understand your point (I think I've said that about three times in the past few days on this forum). Are you saying that someone lying is not evidence that other things they say may not be truthful?

I don't actually have all that much else to contribute, these are just my two short thoughts.

User avatar
Draverd
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:32 am UTC

Re: Thinking Fallacy

Postby Draverd » Fri Sep 30, 2011 6:56 am UTC

That's essentially ad hominem, isn't it?


Yes it is, but it can also be supplying Evidence from something else to justify an answer. For example someone could say, "During the crusades some of the Christians (fake Christians - not really christians - people just using the name as a face or rather a front for their own means) did terrible things! Murdered, Stealing etc... therefore all Christians today are Murderers, Thieves etc...." Which is completely wrong and an invalid argument.

I'm sorry, I don't particularly understand your point (I think I've said that about three times in the past few days on this forum). Are you saying that someone lying is not evidence that other things they say may not be truthful?


No that is not what I said. I think you got that idea alone from philsov. I simply Stated along the lines that if person A has said something to be true through valid evidence, but they do not have decent Grammar; and because of this person B tries to discredit their claim through their bad grammar instead of the actual subject. Then basically they are resorting to this because they can't refute what the other person has said and shown. Therefore they are Either Close Minded or just immature.

So basically to answer your question I am saying that someones improper grammar does not equate to lying. It is just bad grammar.
"Men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look back."

"Progress is a comparative of which we have not settled the superlative." G.K. Chesterton

userxp
Posts: 436
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 12:40 pm UTC

Re: Thinking Fallacy

Postby userxp » Fri Sep 30, 2011 12:53 pm UTC

Hello, and welcome to the wonderful world of cognitive biases and logical fallacies. Before we get started, let me share a secret with you: humans are not rational. I mean, some part of our brain IS rational, but most of it just acts on patterns evolved by natural selection. We are simply not designed to think, we are "designed" to survive, just like any other animal.

Draverd wrote:I have encountered people, time after time again, who claim to be open minded, yet in reality are not. The number of people who are like this is astounding to me. In Fact I dare say a fare number of people here on this forum are this way as well; potentially. Some scientist claim that this is just a defensive mechanism that is built into Human beings, although I am not necessarily sure if I believe this since I have not seen any sound evidence that backs up the claim.

That's because being open-minded is much more difficult than it seems. People automatically discard thoughts that doesn't fit with their ideas and give more support to the ones that do. It's called confirmation bias and it's probably the worst bias of them all (and yes, you can find scientifical evidence if you look it up). Thinking about things that you genuinely dislike hurts. Sadly I don't have much time now, but if you want more info, you can read about How to actually change your mind.


In short, it's easy to notice when other people do things like these, but it's much harder to notice when you do them yourself.

Turtlewing
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:22 pm UTC

Re: Thinking Fallacy

Postby Turtlewing » Fri Sep 30, 2011 8:50 pm UTC

userxp wrote:Hello, and welcome to the wonderful world of cognitive biases and logical fallacies. Before we get started, let me share a secret with you: humans are not rational. I mean, some part of our brain IS rational, but most of it just acts on patterns evolved by natural selection. We are simply not designed to think, we are "designed" to survive, just like any other animal.

Draverd wrote:I have encountered people, time after time again, who claim to be open minded, yet in reality are not. The number of people who are like this is astounding to me. In Fact I dare say a fare number of people here on this forum are this way as well; potentially. Some scientist claim that this is just a defensive mechanism that is built into Human beings, although I am not necessarily sure if I believe this since I have not seen any sound evidence that backs up the claim.

That's because being open-minded is much more difficult than it seems. People automatically discard thoughts that doesn't fit with their ideas and give more support to the ones that do. It's called confirmation bias and it's probably the worst bias of them all (and yes, you can find scientifical evidence if you look it up). Thinking about things that you genuinely dislike hurts. Sadly I don't have much time now, but if you want more info, you can read about How to actually change your mind.


In short, it's easy to notice when other people do things like these, but it's much harder to notice when you do them yourself.


I don't know. It seems to me people are generally pretty rational but we work with horribly limited information. This includes a limited memory, and limited capacity to craft hypothetical situations. Not to mention the feedback loop from people with limited information passing on a subset of that information to others who then have less information to evaluate.

The end result is that different people come to contradictory conclusions a lot, but it's usually because they had different information to work with.

User avatar
Whammy
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 8:34 pm UTC
Location: Southern United States

Re: Thinking Fallacy

Postby Whammy » Fri Sep 30, 2011 10:52 pm UTC

Turtlewing wrote:
userxp wrote:Hello, and welcome to the wonderful world of cognitive biases and logical fallacies. Before we get started, let me share a secret with you: humans are not rational. I mean, some part of our brain IS rational, but most of it just acts on patterns evolved by natural selection. We are simply not designed to think, we are "designed" to survive, just like any other animal.

Draverd wrote:I have encountered people, time after time again, who claim to be open minded, yet in reality are not. The number of people who are like this is astounding to me. In Fact I dare say a fare number of people here on this forum are this way as well; potentially. Some scientist claim that this is just a defensive mechanism that is built into Human beings, although I am not necessarily sure if I believe this since I have not seen any sound evidence that backs up the claim.

That's because being open-minded is much more difficult than it seems. People automatically discard thoughts that doesn't fit with their ideas and give more support to the ones that do. It's called confirmation bias and it's probably the worst bias of them all (and yes, you can find scientifical evidence if you look it up). Thinking about things that you genuinely dislike hurts. Sadly I don't have much time now, but if you want more info, you can read about How to actually change your mind.


In short, it's easy to notice when other people do things like these, but it's much harder to notice when you do them yourself.


I don't know. It seems to me people are generally pretty rational but we work with horribly limited information. This includes a limited memory, and limited capacity to craft hypothetical situations. Not to mention the feedback loop from people with limited information passing on a subset of that information to others who then have less information to evaluate.

The end result is that different people come to contradictory conclusions a lot, but it's usually because they had different information to work with.


Nope, humans really aren't that rational :mrgreen: . I'm having to read up on this very topic actually, about biases and what not, for some background information for some undergraduate research (obviously how people think and behave is very important in political science ^_^). There is a lot of work gone into showing that as much as we pride ourselves on being rational and enlightened, we end up using a lot of shortcuts in thinking that leads to bias and error. And it's not just 'oh we have limited information'. If I can dig it up, it's actually safe to say that we fully REJECT information that contradicts what we believe. The famous meme/saying/whatever "I reject reality and substitute my own"...in many ways that is how we think.

As for the comment on ignorance, look into the concept of rational ignorance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance . If you're willing to read, I might suggest you pick up Bryan Caplan's "The Myth of the Rational Voter". Warning, he's rather libertarian so some of his policy suggestions are to be taken with a grain of salt, but some of the book is good. I also liked "The Political Brain" by Drew Westen. Again, fair warning he's a US Democrat and a large part of the book is basically explaining to US Democrats why they fail at emotional appeals, but in between it all is discussion about the role of emotion and biases associated with it in politics (and how well Republicans have taken advantage of it).

And if you're willing I got a nice smorgasbord of articles from scholarly journals if you don't want to pick up a book XD (one of the studies is by Drew Westen actually and mentioned in his book). All nice and ripe in PDF format to send, or I can just give you the titles and wish you luck *glares at that one he had to go into the depths of his library to find in the furthest depths of that archives*. It really is interesting stuff once you get into it.

User avatar
Draverd
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:32 am UTC

Re: Thinking Fallacy

Postby Draverd » Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:48 am UTC

(and yes, you can find scientifical evidence if you look it up)


Yes of course you can = ) I am glad that you understand this basic concept, and that you must reiterate to everyone else who already knows this. I simply stated that the evidence that I have looked at so far had no real validity. Also just because there is scientific evidence that does not mean a certain position, or area is automatically correct because as you know, "people have biases." Therefore we have to encompass all the information, and not just look at one, two, or just a few aspects of the equation. If people look at only a few small key areas then their claims can appear to be true, but then again what about all the information, which correlates, that they left out (even if its only one thing) that can potentially refute the evidence.

Before we get started, let me share a secret with you: humans are not rational. I mean, some part of our brain IS rational, but most of it just acts on patterns evolved by natural selection. We are simply not designed to think, we are "designed" to survive, just like any other animal.


I take it you have not actually studied Chemistry or Biology because of that statement. I am a seeker of the truth just as you are along with everyone else. Darwin himself wrote in the Origin of Species, " If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down" (Charles Darwin - Origin of Species)

Well it has been demonstrated that these complex organs (as Darwin put it) exist. Numerous times, over and over again, in several different areas.

For example the typical Eukaryotic Cell contains roughly 3,000,000,000 units of DNA which are necessary for the cell to exist, and if one of these codes is off, out of the 3 billion, the cell could not be sustained.

DNA itself has precise coding with Adenine, Cytosine, Thymine, and guanine incorporated into the Double Helix structure.

The repair mechanism that is within DNA

Irreducible Complexity

Aside from all the other aspects that I am not covering. Although as a light touch for an example the Fibonacci sequence within the Universe. If a person is going to believe the Universe was created by random chance then they should look at all aspects. Not just a few areas alone.

There is evidence out there for all our questions. We just have to find the answers to them. I am a scientist because I am a seeker of the truth of Reality. So therefore I go where Valid evidence takes me by looking at all sides of the argument.
"Men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look back."

"Progress is a comparative of which we have not settled the superlative." G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5932
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Thinking Fallacy

Postby Angua » Sat Oct 01, 2011 7:46 am UTC

Draverd wrote:
(and yes, you can find scientifical evidence if you look it up)


Yes of course you can = ) I am glad that you understand this basic concept, and that you must reiterate to everyone else who already knows this. I simply stated that the evidence that I have looked at so far had no real validity. Also just because there is scientific evidence that does not mean a certain position, or area is automatically correct because as you know, "people have biases." Therefore we have to encompass all the information, and not just look at one, two, or just a few aspects of the equation. If people look at only a few small key areas then their claims can appear to be true, but then again what about all the information, which correlates, that they left out (even if its only one thing) that can potentially refute the evidence.

Before we get started, let me share a secret with you: humans are not rational. I mean, some part of our brain IS rational, but most of it just acts on patterns evolved by natural selection. We are simply not designed to think, we are "designed" to survive, just like any other animal.


I take it you have not actually studied Chemistry or Biology because of that statement. I am a seeker of the truth just as you are along with everyone else. Darwin himself wrote in the Origin of Species, " If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down" (Charles Darwin - Origin of Species)

Well it has been demonstrated that these complex organs (as Darwin put it) exist. Numerous times, over and over again, in several different areas.

For example the typical Eukaryotic Cell contains roughly 3,000,000,000 units of DNA which are necessary for the cell to exist, and if one of these codes is off, out of the 3 billion, the cell could not be sustained.

.
No- much of the DNA is non-coding, and also, many cells get away with different bits of it off, all the time. Otherwise, anyone with a recessive condition would be immediately dead by your theory (actually, your theory seems to indicate that you need both copies to work properly, but I"m giving you the benefit of the doubt).

I have to go now - so more later.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Draverd
Posts: 41
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 9:32 am UTC

Re: Thinking Fallacy

Postby Draverd » Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:24 pm UTC

No- much of the DNA is non-coding, and also, many cells get away with different bits of it off, all the time. Otherwise, anyone with a recessive condition would be immediately dead by your theory


That is not true that the person would be Dead; you are incorrect in thinking that. Yes people have recessive conditions or you can call them Genetic Disorders. It happens from time to time because the coding was off. Then again your point validates my position. When the coding is off it can have a potentially detrimental effect on a person. We can of course be alive still when the coding is off.

You also seem to have left out some information to try and validate your point. Don't just focus on one area, look at all.

Back to one area for case in point

If a Eukaryotic Cell coding was off slightly that would be really bad news. All the coding within these cells are harmoniously unified in a coherent fashion and only function in a certain particular order. You are not going to take a wrench and try to use it as a screw driver. Or a butter knife to chop down a Red Wood.

Honestly I find myself being like Darwin searching for truth from where the evidence takes me. Are you telling me you believe only some things that Darwin has said, and are just completely ignoring other things he conveyed? If you are going to look at something look at the whole picture. We have to try to be open minded if we want to be called a scientist. Yeah in these such and such areas it appears plausible, oh wait now that I see this other evidence it is not plausible. We have to look at all the evidence and ascertain what the most logical, feasible, answer could be. While refraining from including our beliefs, emotions, and possible carnal nature.
"Men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look back."

"Progress is a comparative of which we have not settled the superlative." G.K. Chesterton

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5932
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Thinking Fallacy

Postby Angua » Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:52 pm UTC

Right - it's been a busy day.

You said that any eukaryote cell would be dead with any mutations in its genes - I've shown that to be wrong (and you can have many differences and deletions within the genome that don't do much to affect your health, such as the ones we use to do genetic identification in forensics and paternity testing).

Also, they are sort of harmonious, but one bit being off or altered doesn't necessarily bring the whole thing crashing down - we have lots of redundancies put in as well. Mutations are what allow us to adapt (and yes, eventually evolve), and so you implying that off coding will cause problems (and that this is somehow proof that it has been designed) is misleading at best. We can trace how closely species are related (and when they split apart) by looking at the mutations that have occurred in their DNA sequences, and using statistical evidence based on the known rate of mutations, so the fact that the DNA code can and does change is pretty well scientifically established.

Back to Darwin - I'd like you to point out what exactly you think it is that is so complex that it can't have occurred on its own. You have failed to make your point with DNA.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

Soralin
Posts: 1347
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:06 am UTC

Re: Thinking Fallacy

Postby Soralin » Sun Oct 02, 2011 12:13 am UTC

Draverd wrote:That is not true that the person would be Dead; you are incorrect in thinking that. Yes people have recessive conditions or you can call them Genetic Disorders. It happens from time to time because the coding was off. Then again your point validates my position. When the coding is off it can have a potentially detrimental effect on a person. We can of course be alive still when the coding is off.

Note that recessive disorders are ones where you need both copies of the gene to have the error for it to have any effect. You get one set of chromosomes from each parent, and so there's a lot of redundancy, and so there's typically at least 2 copies of every gene, and often more. Lots of people have recessive errors, but since they're recessive, they may not know about them. This is actually the reason why incest causes problems. Two random people might have a number of recessive errors in their genetics, but the recessive errors are usually of various different genes, so any of their offspring is sure to get at least 1 good copy of everything. Whereas for people closely related, there is more likely to exist the same recessive errors, and so there's more of a chance of them matching up and causing a problem. Although it still has to be a problem small enough for their offspring to be born, if it's something major that would prevent them from ever living, then the pregnancy would likely end up naturally aborted, often before the pregnancy was even known.

On top of that, there are known obvious errors in our genetic code. For example, humans, and other primates, have a gene to make vitamin C.. except it's broken. The gene would produce vitamin C if it were working right, but a few errors (which we can trace down the family tree of primates, since it's the same broken gene, with the same error getting passed on), prevent it from working.
If a Eukaryotic Cell coding was off slightly that would be really bad news. All the coding within these cells are harmoniously unified in a coherent fashion and only function in a certain particular order. You are not going to take a wrench and try to use it as a screw driver. Or a butter knife to chop down a Red Wood.

Actually, that's exactly the sort of thing that we find does happen. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum is often used as a common example, the eubacteria version evolved from the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_three ... ion_system or one of it's precursors. In other words, a whiplike paddle used for propulsion evolved from a needle-like structure used for probing and infection.

This isn't an uncommon occurrence. Often, the way something like this can happen is when you get a duplication mutation, often during crossing over in meiosis. Essentially it results in a section of the genome getting copied, and you end up with redundant copies of some genes. Since they're redundant, and there's usually regulation over when they're expressed, based on various other conditions, having more of them around typically doesn't change things too much, most of the time, and losing one of them doesn't change much either, so mutations that end up changing one can happen, without having much of an effect. From there, something that builds off of another gene are possible, even if the result does something very different from how the original system was used. There's a lot of genes like this around that we've found, that are differing modifications of ancient copied genes, and quite a few duplicate genes that are broken as well, and don't do anything anymore.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Thinking Fallacy

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Oct 02, 2011 2:32 am UTC

Draverd wrote:Irreducible Complexity
Does not mean what you think it means, or if it does, does not actually exist as a characteristic of any living systems.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
podbaydoor
Posts: 7548
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 4:16 am UTC
Location: spaceship somewhere out there

Re: Thinking Fallacy

Postby podbaydoor » Thu Oct 06, 2011 3:37 pm UTC

For someone who's so open-minded, the OP seems to be very keen on correcting everyone to his right way of thinking.
tenet |ˈtenit|
noun
a principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy : the tenets of classical liberalism.
tenant |ˈtenənt|
noun
a person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26765
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Thinking Fallacy

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Oct 06, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Draverd wrote:Are you telling me you believe only some things that Darwin has said, and are just completely ignoring other things he conveyed?
We believe only some of the things he said, but it isn't because we're ignoring the rest.

Rather, it's because some of what he said has been borne out by subsequent scientific evidence, and other parts of what he said hasn't been.

That's how science works.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5932
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Thinking Fallacy

Postby Angua » Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Interestingly, what the op was saying that was from Darwin and we were ignoring was the fact that something of irreducible complexity would prove god, and that DNA was one of these things.

I could be wrong though - there could be something else that they think Darwin advocated and the rest of us closed-minded folks are ignoring.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26518
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Thinking Fallacy

Postby SecondTalon » Fri Oct 07, 2011 3:53 am UTC

I'm still not sure what the relevance of Darwin's opinions would be, exactly. I mean, sure, he wrote a lovely book and has a nice process attached to his name, but.... hasn't most or all of what he wrote about been supplanted by more detailed knowledge?

Nevermind that lots of scientists who say lots of intelligent things about some fields say the most horrifyingly stupid things about other fields, so...
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Thinking Fallacy

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Oct 07, 2011 3:44 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:Nevermind that lots of scientists who say lots of intelligent things about some fields say the most horrifyingly stupid things about other fields, so...

My dad keeps quoting various quotes Einstein had about divinity at me. Because hey, if a well known Scientist (!) says it, it means all Scientists (!) must also believe it!

OP: You are making some very vague and factually, demonstrably, incorrect statements about the nature of how cells and DNA work, and Angua, who knows more about it then you do, is correcting you. Pay attention to what Podbaydoor said; you are being close minded by trying to persist in an incorrect outlook.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Thinking Fallacy

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Fri Oct 07, 2011 3:53 pm UTC

Draverd wrote:(fake Christians - not really christians - people just using the name as a face or rather a front for their own means)

Speaking of fallacies
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Thinking Fallacy

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Oct 07, 2011 3:54 pm UTC

Draverd wrote:Well it has been demonstrated that these complex organs (as Darwin put it) exist. Numerous times, over and over again, in several different areas.

For example the typical Eukaryotic Cell contains roughly 3,000,000,000 units of DNA which are necessary for the cell to exist, and if one of these codes is off, out of the 3 billion, the cell could not be sustained.
If a Eukaryotic Cell coding was off slightly that would be really bad news. All the coding within these cells are harmoniously unified in a coherent fashion and only function in a certain particular order. You are not going to take a wrench and try to use it as a screw driver. Or a butter knife to chop down a Red Wood.
Have you actually studied biology in any academic capacity? I don't mean that as an insult; I'm honestly asking, because I certainly haven't, but I have enough of a laymen's grasp to rebut your points.

A certain amount of DNA in a given organism is actually 'junk DNA'; artifacts from previous evolutionary branches, etc--it serves no immediately obvious purpose and can sometimes be modified with impunity. In addition, simple copying errors happen when one cell divides into another--under your hypothesis, where every bit of DNA is integral and necessary, these errors would inevitably be fatal. But they're not. Here's an article that goes deeper into the process of genetic errors and how they occur during replication. I don't understand a word of it, but it might be helpful to you in your search.

Another fantastic video that I highly recommend you watch--especially if you're not going to read anything else I'm showing you--is Dr. Ken Miller's wonderful presentation on chromosomal links between humans and apes. If you grasp the basic concepts being discussed, it's hard not to see how this is an indisputable, ironclad, and incredibly elegant proof of evolution's viability as an all-encompassing biological theory.

If this sort of thing interests you, I highly recommend Dawkin's 'The Selfish Gene'. It's an easy read, delightfully snarkish, and boils down a lot of these concepts into a digestible format.

EDIT: Also, I know that some people above who are far better equipped to speak about this have already refuted your points; I just wanted to offer a response from the perspective of (I assume) a fellow layman on the subject.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Thinking Fallacy

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Oct 07, 2011 4:01 pm UTC

Molecular Cell Biology demonstrates how amazingly complex the system is, and how everything must work correctly. That's not the same as saying 'this house can only be built with oak from a 40 year old tree cut with a silver axe under a full moon'. Teak from a 60 year old tree cut with a chainsaw will do just fine.

Errors happen all the time. All the time. And the system doesn't fall apart into utter chaos. Which isn't to say it's remarkable that it works at all (it's very complex) but OP, you are thinking about it wrong.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Thinking Fallacy

Postby netcrusher88 » Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:55 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:A certain amount of DNA in a given organism is actually 'junk DNA'; artifacts from previous evolutionary branches, etc

What I read is "evolution is full of memory leaks".

Does that make cancer a segfault?
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
Shivahn
Posts: 2200
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Re: Thinking Fallacy

Postby Shivahn » Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:45 pm UTC

Nah, it's more like progressive bit rot. In system files.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Thinking Fallacy

Postby Diadem » Sat Oct 08, 2011 6:58 am UTC

SecondTalon wrote:I'm still not sure what the relevance of Darwin's opinions would be, exactly. I mean, sure, he wrote a lovely book and has a nice process attached to his name, but.... hasn't most or all of what he wrote about been supplanted by more detailed knowledge?

Surprisingly little of what he said, actually. Darwin was a very meticulous observer, and a very careful writer. He didn't rush to publish, in fact he was positively dragging his feet.

Of course we know a lot more now than Darwin did. Darwin knew nothing at all about genetics, for example, DNA hadn't been discovered yet. So his theories have certainly been refined, and clarified. But very little of what he said was outright wrong. From memory I couldn't name a single example, though I'm certain there will be a few. Noone is right about everything. But compare him to Newton for example. Newton of course made huge contributions to physics and mathematics, that still stand today. But he also goes on at length about alchemy, and has whole books that if we read them now just make us wonder what he was smoking. Darwin was not like that.

As for the specific quote in this thread. Darwin is right about that one too. The existence of true irreducible complexity would definitely disprove evolution. To be precise, it wouldn't disprove the concept of evolution, but it would disprove The origin of species by means of natural selection, which is precisely what Darwin was writing about.

Of course, no truly irreducibly complex structure has so far been found (well, none that we didn't make ourselves). And not for lack of trying.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5531
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: Thinking Fallacy

Postby doogly » Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:41 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
SexyTalon wrote:Nevermind that lots of scientists who say lots of intelligent things about some fields say the most horrifyingly stupid things about other fields, so...

My dad keeps quoting various quotes Einstein had about divinity at me. Because hey, if a well known Scientist (!) says it, it means all Scientists (!) must also believe it!

I love this one.
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/wo ... kness.html
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Thinking Fallacy

Postby Izawwlgood » Sat Oct 08, 2011 4:45 pm UTC

Holy shit, that is incredible. Thanks for posting that.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5531
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: Thinking Fallacy

Postby doogly » Sat Oct 08, 2011 5:29 pm UTC

His statements in books and speeches were what you may call "diplomatic," perhaps. Thank goodness for letters.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26518
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Thinking Fallacy

Postby SecondTalon » Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:20 am UTC

Wot? You mean, a person in the public view put two and two together and figured out that saying things publicly (like "Boy, isn't religion just silly?") that royally piss off a fuckload of people is a really bad idea?

Inconceivable!
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Marbas
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:01 am UTC
Location: Down down down at the bottom of the sea
Contact:

Re: Thinking Fallacy

Postby Marbas » Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:16 am UTC

1. They State, " Since you do not believe in A you are closed minded. Therefore everything you say has been nullified/refuted. So I am not going to discuss it." I take it they say this basically because they think you are automatically wrong since you disagree. Even if you have evidence that shows they are incorrect.


I actually have a special relationship with this little fallacy. As someone who has been in and out of various spiritual/wooby communities over the course of his life, I've seen this used to justify all manner of things. And using this is probably the fastest way to piss me off. For example, "I'm the reincarnation of a pair of fallen angel twins that are stuck inside one body, also I am spirit-married to Lucifer" is one of the more...interesting ones I've seen people try to justify using that.
Jahoclave wrote:Do you have any idea how much more fun the holocaust is with "Git er Done" as the catch phrase?


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests