Choose Search Type
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» Willing To Make Some Phone Calls Here in The States
Today at 4:44 pm by greg parker

» Charles Givens Arrests
Today at 4:08 pm by Hugh Jorgan

» Joe Rodiguez Molina
Today at 5:12 am by barto

» Changing of the Guard
Today at 1:45 am by Goban Saor

» More Garbage
Yesterday at 12:33 pm by steely dan

» The False Mystery of the Lonesome Death of Albert Guy Bogard
Yesterday at 11:59 am by Hugh Jorgan

» Jimmy Burt's Criminal Record
Sat 09 Dec 2017, 10:43 pm by greg parker

» does anyone have a pic of Bruce Carlin?
Sat 09 Dec 2017, 12:28 pm by Hugh Jorgan

» Conversations with Alan Dale
Sat 09 Dec 2017, 11:38 am by greg parker

Log in

I forgot my password

Social bookmarking

Social bookmarking digg  Social bookmarking delicious  Social bookmarking reddit  Social bookmarking stumbleupon  Social bookmarking slashdot  Social bookmarking yahoo  Social bookmarking google  Social bookmarking blogmarks  Social bookmarking live      

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

Bookmark and share the address of REOPENKENNEDYCASE on your social bookmarking website

RSS feeds


Yahoo! 
MSN 
AOL 
Netvibes 
Bloglines 


Affiliates
free forum
 



a lesson in logical fallacies forthe educated forum, politely

View previous topic View next topic Go down

a lesson in logical fallacies forthe educated forum, politely

Post by greg parker on Sun 01 Jan 2017, 11:10 am

James Gordon wrote:Bart,
 
I am making my way through this book. I know the book is called “Prayerman: out of the shadows and into the light.” However it could very easily have been titled “What Sean Murphy said.”
The above is an example of a red herring fallacy. The name of the book has no bearing on the value of its content.
 
James Gordon wrote:I do not know if you are involved in the slagging-off that is currently going on in ROKC and the members there.
This is a veiled appeal to force where it is implied that a particular person (Bart) may be subject to sanction unless he distances himself from fellow members. Gordon however, had previously admitted he could see no evidence of Bart's involvement in "those threads".

James Gordon wrote:It says a great deal about the character of those members but more important the extent ROKC and the membership will go to when they notice someone criticising an issue they hold to be important to them.
This is a hybrid fallacy, but we'll concentrate on the converse accident fallacy aspect. It runs like this: Bill Miller is a critic of the Prayer Man evidence and is criticized at ROKC for this position. Therefore ROKC always attacks any critics of their work.  

This has no basis in fact, We lampoon those whose criticisms are based on ignorance, dishonesty, protection of personal beliefs or agendas, or just plain stupidity. 

Here is a little known fact about the person whose work you assail only well after he is not around to defend himself (where were you with all of this 3 or 4 years ago?)  I asked Sean to lay out his work on this forum. He declined on the basis of limited time and wanting to test his evidence in hostile territory in the belief that it had to be able to hold its own against the fiercest attacks. In short, when he laid out his case at the ed Forum, MacRae's forum and McAdams' group, he did so knowing he was entering one lion's den after another. He could have taken the soft option and laid it out here. He didn't. He had more guts and honor than all of his critics combined. 

And his work has stood the test of time.

 
James Gordon wrote:I can understand the abuse that Bill Miller and I have received. But I am appalled that just because Robin Unger commented that he did not believe Prayerman was Oswald a whole page in their current web of abuse directed at EF membership has been devoted to unseemly abuse directed solely at Robin. I say shame on ROKC and shame on those members who participated in this kind of criticism.
This logical fallacy is an appeal to shame. To quote rationalwiki: An appeal to shame is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone's actions or arguments are described as "shameful" (meaning, looked down upon by others in society) and therefore wrong.The fallacy is an emotional appeal and an informal fallacy.

Robin was not "abused" for his criticism. He simply had his double standard pointed out - that being that one should disregard the witness record in regard to PM on the basis that the records are contradictory - while simultaneously using those same contradictory records to "prove" his own theory.  

James Gordon wrote:I do hope you are not a party to this behaviour for although I disagree with you on this issue I have found you to be an honourable person.  
Another appeal to threat, supplemented by an appeal to flattery. Nice. 
 
James Gordon wrote:And now to respond to the second floor encounter. It has become clear to me that this is a critical issue - and one the supporters of this theory cannot allow to stand. 


There is a very telling moment in Chapter 2. Stan quotes Sean Murphy reflecting that if the encounter with Baker took place at the second floor lunchroom then Prayerman is unlikely to be Oswald. Throughout the book it becomes very clear that the second floor lunchroom meeting becomes a crucial part of the narrative. If it can be questioned and undermined then it will support Prayerman being Oswald and - if it cannot be questioned - the second floor meeting will destroy the idea that Prayerman is Oswald.
This fallacy is known as "affirming the consequent". It is basically putting the cart before the horse.

You have managed this particular fallacy by wrongly assuming that PM came before the debunking of the 2nd Floor encounter and that the latter has no validity, but is a necessity to support the former.

A history lesson for you: I debunked the 2nd floor encounter as early as 2002-03. Part of that was showing that Lee was "out front" for a short period and that  his encounter with a cop happened at the front entrance. 

A few years later, Sean Murphy contacted me and said that he had been testing various claims and theories as he came across them on the web, and had, to his satisfaction, debunked them all. He expected to be able to do the same with this claim, but to his surprise, he was unable to do so. He became convinced it was rock solid and he went on to help defend it on various forums.

Some more years passed and Sean contacted me again. He had been looking through all of the photographic evidence for any sign of Oswald in or around the front of the building, and he believed he had found him. This time it was my turn to be skeptical. It was not until half way through Sean's presentations at the Ed Forum that I started to believe he had something. 

In any case, the 2nd floor encounter had been debunked long prior to the arrival of PM - and in fact, the discovery of PM was a direct result of that work on the 2nd floor encounter.  

James Gordon wrote:Aware of the damage if this meeting could be established as factual Sean muses that even if Oswald/Prayerman is in his position outside and sees Baker rushing into the building there was still time for him to leave his position rush upstairs to the second floor grab a Coke and be there in time for the meeting. This scenario goes nowhere because it is quickly realised just how ridiculous it is.
A follow-on from your previous fallacy, The "meeting" had long been debunked by the time of this thread. Sean was merely acknowledging the proposition put forward by one or two others that PM could be Oswald AND for Oswald to still have an encounter with Baker and Truly on the 2nd floor. While acknowledging the possibility, he rightly also pointed out how very unlikely it was.  

What you are doing here is falsely portraying Sean as the reactionary. "Oooh! The second floor encounter! I need to discredit that or have the PM as Oswald proposition consigned to the dustbin!" But the fact is, it was those who were proclaiming that Oswald could be PM and still have his 2nd floor encounter who were the reactionaries - by defending this deeply entrenched fairy tale regardless of the twisted logic needed. 

James Gordon wrote:And this has raised a thought. Throughout the book we are told this person lied, this did not happen, this testimony is false. I am now wondering whether this is all gamesmanship to protect Oswald being Prayerman rather than the fruits of research.
Another hybrid logical fallacy: But for or the sake of simplicity, we'll categorize it as an appeal to wishful thinking. You don't know "x" so it (hypothetically) proves "y" because that is what you wish it  to prove.

As the head of something called the Education Forum, it must be humiliating to have all of these logical fallacies pointed out by someone born and bred in the back-waters of the colonies and who left school at 14. I do apologize, but hope you understand, it's for the sake of all of the students who read and rely upon the information imparted on your forum. I'm sure we agree that we don't want those little darlings from St Swithuns debating against arch-rivals St Barnaby-On-Avon using such deplorable logic!


Last edited by greg parker on Sun 01 Jan 2017, 11:34 am; edited 2 times in total

_________________
Mixing Pop and Politics he asks me what the use is
I offer him embarrassment and my usual excuses
While looking down the corridor
Out to where the van is waiting
I'm looking for the Great Leap Forward

            Billy Bragg
-----------------------------
 Australians don't mind criminals: It's successful bullshit artists we despise. 
             Lachie Hulme            
-----------------------------
The Cold War ran on bullshit.
              Me

“God favors drunks, small children, and the cataclysmically stoned...” Steve King
"The worst thing about some men is that when they are not drunk they are sober." Billy Yeats
"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on." Dino Martin



https://www.thenewdisease.space
avatar
greg parker
Admin

Posts : 4586
Join date : 2009-08-21
Age : 59
Location : Orange, NSW, Australia

View user profile http:// http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00IXOA5ZK/ref=s9_simh_

Back to top Go down

Re: a lesson in logical fallacies forthe educated forum, politely

Post by steely dan on Sun 01 Jan 2017, 11:22 am

greg parker wrote:
James Gordon wrote:Bart,
 
I am making my way through this book. I know the book is called “Prayerman: out of the shadows and into the light.” However it could very easily have been titled “What Sean Murphy said.”
The above is an example of a red herring fallacy. The name of the book has no bearing on the value of its content.
 
James Gordon wrote:I do not know if you are involved in the slagging-off that is currently going on in ROKC and the members there.
This is a veiled appeal to force where it is implied that a particular person (Bart) may be subject to sanction unless he distances himself from fellow members. Gordon however, had previously admitted he could see no evidence of Bart's involvement in "those threads".

James Gordon wrote:It says a great deal about the character of those members but more important the extent ROKC and the membership will go to when they notice someone criticising an issue they hold to be important to them.
This is a hybrid fallacy, but we'll concentrate on the converse accident fallacy aspect. It runs like this: Bill Miller is a critic of the Prayer Man evidence and is criticized at ROKC for this position. Therefore ROKC always attacks any critics of their work.  

This has no basis in fact, We lampoon those whose criticisms are based on ignorance, dishonesty, protection of personal beliefs or agendas, or just plain stupidity. 

Here is a little known fact about the person whose work you assail only well after he is not around to defend himself (where were you with all of this 3 or 4 years ago?)  I asked Sean to lay out his work on this forum. He declined on the basis of limited time and wanting to test his evidence in hostile territory in the belief that it had to be able to hold its own against the fiercest attacks. In short, when he laid out his case at the ed Forum, MacRae's forum and McAdams' group, he did so knowing he was entering one lion's den after another. He could have taken the soft option and laid it out here. He didn't. He had more guts and honor than all of his critics combined. 

And his work has stood the test of time.

 
James Gordon wrote:I can understand the abuse that Bill Miller and I have received. But I am appalled that just because Robin Unger commented that he did not believe Prayerman was Oswald a whole page in their current web of abuse directed at EF membership has been devoted to unseemly abuse directed solely at Robin. I say shame on ROKC and shame on those members who participated in this kind of criticism.
This logical fallacy is an appeal to shame. To quote rationalwiki: An appeal to shame is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone's actions or arguments are described as "shameful" (meaning, looked down upon by others in society) and therefore wrong.The fallacy is an emotional appeal and an informal fallacy.

Robin was not "abused" for his criticism. He simply had his double standard pointed out - that being that one should disregard the witness record in regard to PM on the basis that the records are contradictory - while simultaneously using those same contradictory records to "prove" his own theory.  

James Gordon wrote:I do hope you are not a party to this behaviour for although I disagree with you on this issue I have found you to be an honourable person.  
Another appeal to threat, supplemented by an appeal to flattery. Nice. 
 
James Gordon wrote:And now to respond to the second floor encounter. It has become clear to me that this is a critical issue - and one the supporters of this theory cannot allow to stand. 


There is a very telling moment in Chapter 2. Stan quotes Sean Murphy reflecting that if the encounter with Baker took place at the second floor lunchroom then Prayerman is unlikely to be Oswald. Throughout the book it becomes very clear that the second floor lunchroom meeting becomes a crucial part of the narrative. If it can be questioned and undermined then it will support Prayerman being Oswald and - if it cannot be questioned - the second floor meeting will destroy the idea that Prayerman is Oswald.
This fallacy is known as "affirming the consequent". It is basically putting the cart before the horse.

You have managed this particular fallacy by wrongly assuming that PM came before the debunking of the 2nd Floor encounter and that the latter has no validity, but is a necessity to support the former.

A history lesson for you: I debunked the 2nd floor encounter as early as 2002-03. Part of that was showing that Lee was "out front" for a short period and that  his encounter with a cop happened at the front entrance. 

A few years later, Sean Murphy contacted me and said that he had been testing various claims and theories as he came across them on the web, and had, to his satisfaction, debunked them all. He expected to be able to do the same with this claim, but to his surprise, he was unable to do so. He became convinced it was rock solid and he went on to help defend it on various forums.

Some more years passed and Sean contacted me again. He had been looking through all of the photographic evidence for any sign of Oswald in or around the front of the building, and he believed he had found him. This time it was my turn to be skeptical. It was not until half way through Sean's presentations at the Ed Forum that I started to believe he had something. 

In any case, the 2nd floor encounter had been debunked long prior to the arrival of PM - and in fact, the discovery of PM was a direct result of that work on the 2nd floor encounter.  

James Gordon wrote:Aware of the damage if this meeting could be established as factual Sean muses that even if Oswald/Prayerman is in his position outside and sees Baker rushing into the building there was still time for him to leave his position rush upstairs to the second floor grab a Coke and be there in time for the meeting. This scenario goes nowhere because it is quickly realised just how ridiculous it is.
A follow-on from your previous fallacy, The "meeting" had long been debunked by the time of this thread. Sean was merely acknowledging the proposition put forward by one or two others that PM could be Oswald AND for Oswald to still have an encounter with Baker and Truly on the 2nd floor. While acknowledging the possibility, he rightly also pointed out how very unlikely it was.  

What you are doing here is falsely portraying Sean as the reactionary. "Oooh! The second floor encounter! I need to discredit that or have the PM as Oswald proposition consigned to the dustbin!" But the fact is, it was those who were proclaiming that Oswald could be PM and still have his 2nd floor encounter who were the reactionaries - by defending this deeply entrenched fairy tale regardless of the twisted logic needed. 

James Gordon wrote:And this has raised a thought. Throughout the book we are told this person lied, this did not happen, this testimony is false. I am now wondering whether this is all gamesmanship to protect Oswald being Prayerman rather than the fruits of research.
Another hybrid logical fallacy: But for or the sake of simplicity, we'll categorize it as an appeal to wishful thinking. You don't know "x" so it (hypothetically) proves "y" because that is what you wish it  to prove.

As the head of something called the Education Forum, it must be humiliating to have all of these logical fallacies pointed out by someone born and bred in the back-waters of the colonies and who left school at 14. I do apologize, but hope you understand, it's for the sake of all of the students who read and rely upon the information imparted on your forum. I'm sure we agree that we don't want those little darlings from St Swithuns debating against arch-rivals St Barnaby-On-Avon using such deplorable logic!
Dr Gordon has just spilled a G&T on his jumper and sent his subjects home. Very Happy
avatar
steely dan

Posts : 572
Join date : 2014-08-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: a lesson in logical fallacies forthe educated forum, politely

Post by steely dan on Sun 01 Jan 2017, 11:51 am

He appears to know the name of the author and seems to have made it as far as the credits.
He's an "ace researcher", said Toto
Better than what usually turns up, said Toto.
avatar
steely dan

Posts : 572
Join date : 2014-08-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: a lesson in logical fallacies forthe educated forum, politely

Post by Jake Sykes on Sun 01 Jan 2017, 12:19 pm

"Dr Gordon has just spilled a G&T on his jumper and sent his subjects home. "

Alone, swelling cries echo through the great halls of his sprawling imaginary castle. The air is filled with howling castigation, "DAAAAMN YOU GREG PARKERRRRR!!!!!!!!!!! I ban you and STILL you HAUNT me as though you were Banquo's GHOST ITSELF!" and just as suddenly does the bellicose caterwauling cease as in shocked disbelief Dr Gordon ruefully discovers he has well and truly deposited a pant load ...... and his Lordship quickly toddles off to the loo.
avatar
Jake Sykes

Posts : 210
Join date : 2016-08-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: a lesson in logical fallacies forthe educated forum, politely

Post by steely dan on Sun 01 Jan 2017, 1:25 pm

At no point did you use the word "SH=T", Jake.
We're fucked!
He'll cry foul, the bastard.
avatar
steely dan

Posts : 572
Join date : 2014-08-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: a lesson in logical fallacies forthe educated forum, politely

Post by Vinny on Sun 01 Jan 2017, 2:56 pm

PM gets bashed there,but the Harvey and Lee myth gets a lot of importance.Quite ridiculous.

Vinny

Posts : 423
Join date : 2013-08-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: a lesson in logical fallacies forthe educated forum, politely

Post by Hasan Yusuf on Sun 01 Jan 2017, 5:11 pm

Gordon, you are a complete EMBARRASSMENT to the name of the forum you run. Take my advice and FUCK OFF.
avatar
Hasan Yusuf

Posts : 1899
Join date : 2013-03-13
Age : 29
Location : Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

View user profile http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com.au/

Back to top Go down

Re: a lesson in logical fallacies forthe educated forum, politely

Post by steely dan on Sun 01 Jan 2017, 5:23 pm

Dr Mingus, stop leading my son astray. Dr Cameron made sure he will never wet the bed as long as he lives.

Mrs Doyle
avatar
steely dan

Posts : 572
Join date : 2014-08-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: a lesson in logical fallacies forthe educated forum, politely

Post by Paul Francisco Paso on Sun 01 Jan 2017, 6:30 pm

Stick what Greg said up your Mingus, Mingus. You're nothing but a fucking blowhard. You and your mulleted mate can go fuck yourselves. Either help us get a better scan or take Hasans advice and fuck off.
avatar
Paul Francisco Paso

Posts : 479
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: a lesson in logical fallacies forthe educated forum, politely

Post by Stan Dane on Mon 02 Jan 2017, 4:21 am

Hey Lordy Gordy, how 'bout this title for my book:

Prayer Man: Making all of the Right People Go Nuts

Like it, Mr. Right Person?
avatar
Stan Dane

Posts : 2813
Join date : 2013-09-03
Age : 64

View user profile https://prayermanleeharveyoswald.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: a lesson in logical fallacies forthe educated forum, politely

Post by Paul Francisco Paso on Mon 02 Jan 2017, 4:26 am

Stan Dane wrote:Hey Lordy Gordy, how 'bout this title for my book:

Prayer Man: Making all of the Right People Go Nuts

Like it, Mr. Right Person?
How about, Prayer Man: Fucking Read it Before Judging it you Pierce Of Shit Mingus.
avatar
Paul Francisco Paso

Posts : 479
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: a lesson in logical fallacies forthe educated forum, politely

Post by Terry W. Martin on Mon 02 Jan 2017, 5:23 am

Paul Francisco Paso wrote:
Stan Dane wrote:Hey Lordy Gordy, how 'bout this title for my book:

Prayer Man: Making all of the Right People Go Nuts

Like it, Mr. Right Person?
How about, Prayer Man: Fucking Read it Before Judging it you Pierce Of Shit Mingus.

Excellent suggestion, Señor Paso. As the publisher of said volume, I and the editorial staff are looking at such a title as this (or some close variant) for the volume when the Second Edition is published.

Thank you so very much for your input!
avatar
Terry W. Martin

Posts : 797
Join date : 2013-11-30
Age : 66
Location : Middleburg, VA, USA

View user profile http://martianpublishing.com

Back to top Go down

Re: a lesson in logical fallacies forthe educated forum, politely

Post by Paul Francisco Paso on Mon 02 Jan 2017, 7:01 am

Terry W. Martin wrote:
Paul Francisco Paso wrote:
Stan Dane wrote:Hey Lordy Gordy, how 'bout this title for my book:

Prayer Man: Making all of the Right People Go Nuts

Like it, Mr. Right Person?
How about, Prayer Man: Fucking Read it Before Judging it you Pierce Of Shit Mingus.

Excellent suggestion, Señor Paso. As the publisher of said volume, I and the editorial staff are looking at such a title as this (or some close variant) for the volume when the Second Edition is published.

Thank you so very much for your input!
Just a limited edition sole print for Mingus will suffice, Terry. Perhaps Stan could sign the book for him based on Sean Murphy's autograph just to fuck with him some more.
avatar
Paul Francisco Paso

Posts : 479
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: a lesson in logical fallacies forthe educated forum, politely

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum