Author Topic: Name that logical fallacy: Dismissing a claim because it is "alarmist"  (Read 1006 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline superdave

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6002
Re: Name that logical fallacy: Dismissing a claim because it is "alarmist"
« Reply #15 on: April 22, 2019, 06:09:58 PM »
FX was a text book example of how expertise in one field doesn't translate to expertise in anything else. 
I disavow anyone in the movement involved in any illegal,unethical, sexist, or racist behavior. However, I don't have the energy or time to investigate each person and case, and a lack of individual disavowals for each incident should not be construed as condoning such behavior.

Offline Sawyer

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1340
Re: Name that logical fallacy: Dismissing a claim because it is "alarmist"
« Reply #16 on: April 22, 2019, 09:51:42 PM »
FX was a text book example of how expertise in one field doesn't translate to expertise in anything else.

Wait, FX was an expert in something?


Offline superdave

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6002
Re: Name that logical fallacy: Dismissing a claim because it is "alarmist"
« Reply #17 on: April 23, 2019, 11:03:05 AM »
he really knew signal processing!
I disavow anyone in the movement involved in any illegal,unethical, sexist, or racist behavior. However, I don't have the energy or time to investigate each person and case, and a lack of individual disavowals for each incident should not be construed as condoning such behavior.

Offline Gigabyte

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 108
  • If you believe, they put a man on the moon
Re: Name that logical fallacy: Dismissing a claim because it is "alarmist"
« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2019, 12:40:21 PM »
So now we have people on these forums trying to argue that discussing evidence using reason and logic is a waste of time,
It is a waste of time, if it involves anything unscientific.  Even with hard science it can be a waste of time.  But anything remotely political it is a waste of time.
I don't understand some things, but at least I know I don't know

Offline John Albert

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5991
Re: Name that logical fallacy: Dismissing a claim because it is "alarmist"
« Reply #19 on: April 24, 2019, 01:57:57 PM »
So now we have people on these forums trying to argue that discussing evidence using reason and logic is a waste of time,


It is a waste of time, if it involves anything unscientific.  Even with hard science it can be a waste of time.  But anything remotely political it is a waste of time.

This kind of illiberal view is an unfortunate consequence of the Internet.

Offline Gigabyte

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 108
  • If you believe, they put a man on the moon
Re: Name that logical fallacy: Dismissing a claim because it is "alarmist"
« Reply #20 on: April 25, 2019, 03:37:23 AM »
This kind of illiberal view is an unfortunate consequence of the Internet.
Recognizing that people are not swayed by logic, reason and facts was around long before the internet.
I don't understand some things, but at least I know I don't know

Offline superdave

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6002
Re: Name that logical fallacy: Dismissing a claim because it is "alarmist"
« Reply #21 on: April 25, 2019, 08:11:42 AM »
what the heck are you people talking about?
I disavow anyone in the movement involved in any illegal,unethical, sexist, or racist behavior. However, I don't have the energy or time to investigate each person and case, and a lack of individual disavowals for each incident should not be construed as condoning such behavior.

Offline Billzbub

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4198
  • I know you know I know
Re: Name that logical fallacy: Dismissing a claim because it is "alarmist"
« Reply #22 on: April 26, 2019, 04:15:54 PM »
It's true that you're not going to win over religious idiots by calling them idiots. But you're also not going to win them over by presenting them with evidence. Science and evidence work with people who have not yet made up their minds and who have not been brainwashed by religion or powerful propagandists.

I suspect that this is true mostly because we define "religious zealots" as people who will not be swayed by evidence.  There are probably a bunch of people out there who believe one thing, but can be convinced by evidence, but we fall into the No True Scotsman trap of assuming they were not religious zealots to begin with, so it is still true that evidence does not affect religious zealots.

In conclusion, it is always worth discussing the evidence because you might be dealing with someone who could change their mind at some point, or you might have an audience with such people.
Quote from: Steven Novella
gleefully altering one’s beliefs to accommodate new information should be a badge of honor

Offline Oh Henry

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 433
Its interesting that the answer to the OP depends on what side your on.  Alarmist implies an exaggerated claim.  Climate deniers are not using the term to possibly concede the severity of the situation, they are using it to call the claimant a liar.  So, Ad hom.  But as someone who has studied climate change and understands the science, my internal monologue responds, "You're damned right I'm alarmist - we should all be alarmed." So, non-seq as well?

Anyways, my introduction to this board was reading a Will Nitschke post crowing that the National Academy of Sciences had endorsed an anti-Global Warming position. I pestered Will for a link and he berated me over several posts for drawing too fine a distinction between the official position of the NAS and a position endorsed by one of its individual members.  Good times. 

 
"My father considered a walk among the mountains as the equivalent of churchgoing." ~ Aldous Huxley

Offline Gigabyte

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 108
  • If you believe, they put a man on the moon
Its interesting that the answer to the OP depends on what side your on. 
That there are "sides" is telling. 
I don't understand some things, but at least I know I don't know

Offline Ah.hell

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13149
Its interesting that the answer to the OP depends on what side your on. 
That there are "sides" is telling. 
Is it?  There's sides on whether the Earth is flat, i'd expect you'd be hard pressed to find and issue/idea without sides.

Offline John Albert

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5991
This kind of illiberal view is an unfortunate consequence of the Internet.
Recognizing that people are not swayed by logic, reason and facts was around long before the internet.

Yes, but I'm not talking about the fact that some people are not swayed by logic, reason and facts.

I'm talking about the idea you just promoted:

         
So now we have people on these forums trying to argue that discussing evidence using reason and logic is a waste of time,


It is a waste of time, if it involves anything unscientific.  Even with hard science it can be a waste of time.  But anything remotely political it is a waste of time.

Just because some people have a tendency to be unreasonable, that doesn't prove that discourse is necessarily a waste of time.

Offline John Albert

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5991
Its interesting that the answer to the OP depends on what side your on.  Alarmist implies an exaggerated claim.  Climate deniers are not using the term to possibly concede the severity of the situation, they are using it to call the claimant a liar.  So, Ad hom.

But in some cases the climate deniers may have a point there. Some claims about climate change have no doubt been quite alarmist. "The world is going to end in 12 years," and so forth.

Just the same, some of us may consider that a justifiable exaggeration to scare people into immediate action.

At any rate, whether or not a given claim is "alarmist" is a matter of opinion, not really a logical fallacy per se. And even if a particular claim is exaggerated, that doesn't invalidate the entirety of climate science.


But as someone who has studied climate change and understands the science, my internal monologue responds, "You're damned right I'm alarmist - we should all be alarmed." So, non-seq as well?

I would start by establishing which specific claims the denier considered alarmist, and then examining the substance of the claim, comparing it to known facts about current trends, and going from there.

It may be that they're just ill-informed about the severity of the situation, or they may have a point. If the claim they're citing is indeed alarmist, then the most intellectually honest route is to acknowledge that everybody on our side is not correct 100% of the time, but that doesn't mean climate change is not a dire threat. Then make an effort to avoid hyperbole and keep the conversation rooted in facts going forward.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2019, 04:16:00 PM by John Albert »

Offline Ah.hell

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13149
Just because some people have a tendency to be unreasonable, that doesn't prove that discourse is necessarily a waste of time.
I find  that even when I start and end the conversation still disagreeing with someone it can at least get me to take a look at my own assumptions on the matter, I like to think so anyway. 

Offline John Albert

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5991
Just because some people have a tendency to be unreasonable, that doesn't prove that discourse is necessarily a waste of time.

I find  that even when I start and end the conversation still disagreeing with someone it can at least get me to take a look at my own assumptions on the matter, I like to think so anyway.

Absolutely! The discussion compels us to consider the pros and cons of our own beliefs. And if a debate bothers us enough to overcome our own intellectual inertia, it might even stimulate further research that results in learning.

Best case scenario, we'll find out we're not so right as we thought we were about some particular belief, and heavens forbid we might learn something. It happens every day!

 

personate-rain