Artosis joins eMG! - Page 4

On August 05 2012 17:58 DecisionTheory wrote:


Where did I state once that I was more intelligent than you, or anything of that nature?

I will attempt to organize this in a more coherent fashion.

"The "everybody's doing it" argument actually makes a lot of sense when you don't have an argument to go against it. " It may make sense to you, but it is sure invalid to thy. "ad populum only proves that a belief is popular, not that it is true. In some domains, however, it is popularity rather than other strengths that makes a choice the preferred one."

"It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely-held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong. The argument that because 75% of people polled think the answer is A implies that the answer is A, this argument fails, because if opinion did determine truth, then there be no way to deal with the discrepancy between the 75% of the sample population that believe the answer is A and 25% who are of the opinion that the answer is not A. However small the percentage of those polled is distributed among any remaining answers, this discrepancy by definition disproves any guarantee of the correctness of the majority. In addition, this would be true even if the answer given by those polled were unanimous, as the sample size may be insufficient, or some fact may be unknown to those polled that, if known, would result in a different distribution of answers."

"it. In every sport you have casting personalities, whether it's American football, baseball, hockey, basketball, or whatever else. Casters are incredibly important to sports; think back to when sports were broadcasted over the radio and all there was was the caster's voice. Casters deserve attention, they get attention, getting mad that they get attention is stupid. Plus having a thread about arguably the most famous caster joining eMG deserves attention as much as if not more than some of the stuff that gets attention on this site" Awesome. I never stated that I had an opinion whether they should be given attention or they shouldn't, all I was stating was that argument was invalid.

"When you're talking about smoking cigarettes, the argument "Well everybody smokes cigarettes" is a pretty bad argument, but there are reasons why that argument does not work in that scenario. For starters, not everybody smokes cigarettes." Agreed, it's a terrible argument.

"Is there a negative effect to giving casters like Artosis attention? Some people might say that there is a negative side effect, but as long as the players are getting as much attention (@LiquidRet), I think it's fair to say that there is no negative side effect to giving Artosis attention" You think it's fair? That's not the best evidence for an argument.

"...so I really see no negative side effect" Just because you don't see it doesn't mean that there are not negative side effects. (Once again don't assume anything. I have not stated that there are negative, positive, side effects, or even a mixture of both)

" Also please stop using a thesaurus when you're posting, it makes the words you look up stand out really badly lol" Alright, don't know how you came to that conclusion.

"What you fail to realize is that while the belief of a group can be wrong, it can also be right" Never failed to realize that. Can you stop putting words in my mouth?

"What I am saying is that there are exceptions to the rule and therefore the argument works in certain cases" You can make exceptions to the rule if you want, but that doesn't make it a valid argument or less falliiou

"What that quote is basically saying is that you have to examine each scenario and see how the argument applies to it. You have yet to actually prove how that argument is wrong other than pointing to highly generic statements that mean literally nothing." My goal was never to prove the argument right or wrong for the premise of "should casters be given attention." My goal was simply to state that argument way back, was bad. Oh and you're still wrong. Simply put, you can use that argument so long as you analyze the situation in which you are using it.

""That's cool and all" finishes that same thought with the words fallacy and invalid." Sorry, didn't feel like typing all that much, and nor did I feel like making a properly form response.

"Anybody who reads that sentence aloud would realize that it just sounds weird to say." That's simply not true.

"(also you probably took more time finding that quote than I spent writing this post haha)." Nice assumption.

I think we may have had some miscommunication. You definitely had some decent argument of why casters should receive some fame, but I was not arguing that. I was simply stating that argument was invalid in proving why casters should receive attention. I believe, if I am mistaken, you were using that argument in an inductive way, while I was interpreting it in a deductive manner.

"The argumentum ad populum can be a valid argument in inductive logic; for example, a poll of a sizeable population may find that 90% prefer a certain brand of product over another. A cogent (strong) argument can then be made that the next person to be considered will also prefer that brand, and the poll is valid evidence of that claim. However, it is unsuitable as an argument for deductive reasoning as proof, for instance to say that the poll proves that the preferred brand is superior to the competition in its composition or that everyone prefers that brand to the other."