Jump to content

Reasons why we'll be Top 4 in 2016


Recommended Posts

F

25 minutes ago, Intellectually Honest said:

I am not upset that the guy has an opinion. I simply pointed out that his reasoning is flawed. 2nd, I didn't make an assertion the guy was wrong. I already said this. HE MIGHT BE RIGHT. HE COULD GUESS AND BE CORRECT. What I pointed out was he didn't consider a bunch of variables and why his conclusion doesn't follow his premise or that his conclusion and 1 of his premises are a rewording of each other. The Falcons could be worse, the same, or better than what they were last season; someone could just pick out of a hat one of these outcomes and be correct, they just would have no way of knowing they were, and obviously it even if they picked the right one, it wouldn't be logical just by guessing. The poster claimed he had good reason. I am just saying he does not. So even if his conclusion is correct, his inferences are poor.

You are the one making this personal. You seem more upset than he is. You seem to be pissed at me and projecting that I am pissed at him. The fact that you claim I made assertions is silly other than the skeptics have been correct to not assume the Falcons will be great. It was a general statement which is true most of the time so far. I made no claim that skeptics are always correct or that this trend will continue to be true in the future. So my point on skeptics being generally correct only applies to what already has occurred.

Having a wait an see approach is not an appeal to ignorance fallacy. I even gave you the freaking definition from wikipedia and you are making the same mistake. Clearly you don't know and want to remain willfully ignorant of what that fallacy is,  and as I stated before, you are reading INTO what I said rather than actually reading what I said.

He never advanced a formal logical argument. Because such an argument is ill-suited to this particular topic. This isn't a proof. We aren't using existential quantifiers or the rules of formal deductive logic. And FTR - I'd encourage you to read that particular Wikipedia entry from start to finish. If you're being "intellectually honest" it will be very clear how you are utilizing that particular fallacy.

So as much as you'd love to hop the line between being a strict logician and playing the "skeptics have been right in the past so..." (again, a highly questionable premise in its own right) game, take it elsewhere. The effort is transparent and weak. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 707
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

10 minutes ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

F

He never advanced a formal logical argument. Because such an argument is ill-suited to this particular topic. This isn't a proof. We aren't using existential quantifiers or the rules of formal deductive logic. And FTR - I'd encourage you to read that particular Wikipedia entry from start to finish. If you're being "intellectually honest" it will be very clear how you are utilizing that particular fallacy.

So as much as you'd love to hop the line between being a strict logician and playing the "skeptics have been right in the past so..." (again, a highly questionable premise in its own right) game, take it elsewhere. The effort is transparent and weak. 

I didn't use formal logic. Anytime words are used it is informal. These topics on this forum are debated all the time. Why is it a problem then that I debate my point? I didn't insult any one and yet people are feeling insulted or acting like I trolled.

As for the appeal to ignorance fallacy, i need to state that something is true or false and saying that my assertion is correct because the other guy is ignorant or has not sufficiently showed I am wrong. Since I never claimed the guy was wrong in his conclusion, or make my own conclusion in say that Falcons would be worse for instance, the fallacy does not apply. I said he could be right but his ideas for his conclusion aren't. I am avoiding the fallacy fallacy which is to say that someone's conclusion is wrong because their reasoning is wrong.

So I can say that the next person who responds to this post will be male, and my reason for it is because the sky is blue. Now obviously my reasoning for that conclusion is silly, however, lets see if my conclusion is correct.

Edited by Intellectually Honest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Intellectually Honest said:

I didn't use formal logic. Anytime words are used it is informal. These topics on this forum are debated all the time. Why is it a problem then that I debate my point? I didn't insult any one and yet people are feeling insulted or acting like I trolled.

Yes, you attempted to use formal logic. Or, more accurately, have demanded an "argument" in accordance with the rules of formal logic. 

You can certainly debate your point. No one is feeling insulted nor is anyone acting like you trolled.

I edited your post because it contained an unnecessary pejorative that could only lead us toward bad things. Other than that, you're fine, even I disagree with you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

Yes, you attempted to use formal logic. Or, more accurately, have demanded an "argument" in accordance with the rules of formal logic. 

You can certainly debate your point. No one is feeling insulted nor is anyone acting like you trolled.

I edited your post because it contained an unnecessary pejorative that could only lead us toward bad things. Other than that, you're fine, even I disagree with you. 

Anytime someone makes an assertion and claims that they have reason on their side, they are open to debate. That is what I did. The OP might not have intended it that way, but that is the nature of the beast. I didn't demand he make an argument. I simply said the reasons he gave so far do not follow or are circular

As for people getting offended in this thread about what I said:

"Perhaps it's time for you to use all that intellectual superiority for something other than sermons.

I think it would be more productive if you would share with us your claims on how the falcons will do this year.  This way we feebleminded amoeba's might learn the science behind skepticism & save ourselves the burden of circular reasoning." - HASHBROWN3

I went to go double check on what distinguished formal and informal logic. Even per the wiki article there is a dispute in the definition. So for argument's sake I'll concede your point. But just in case:

Informal logic, intuitively, refers to the principles of logic and logical thought outside of a formal setting. However, perhaps because of the "informal" in the title, the precise definition of "informal logic" is a matter of some dispute.[1]Ralph H. Johnson and J. Anthony Blair define informal logic as "a branch of logic whose task is to develop non-formal standards, criteria, procedures for the analysis, interpretation, evaluation, criticism and construction of argumentation."[2] This definition reflects what had been implicit in their practice and what others[3][4][5] were doing in their informal logic texts.

Informal logic is associated with (informal) fallacies, critical thinking, the Thinking Skills Movement[6] and the interdisciplinary inquiry known as argumentation theory. Frans H. van Eemeren writes that the label "informal logic" covers a "collection of normative approaches to the study of reasoning in ordinary language that remain closer to the practice of argumentation than formal logic."[7]

So we don't need to to make a formal argument in the form of premise 1, premise 2 and conclusion. We just type out our conclusion and state the reasons why we reached it. That is why I said it is informal. There is no moderator for the debate, no time limit, or mathematical equations for instance. We are just speaking to each other in a common language in an informal setting to get our point across.

 

Edited by Intellectually Honest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Intellectually Honest said:

You are projecting. I never claimed or implied to be superior. I disagreed with his reasoning and showed why.  Are you offended I used logic?

Where is your 2016 projection?  You must have ignored the request. I'm not offended.  I just think you can put some skin in the game by giving your projections.  

Since you prefer a skeptic's approach so that your percentages of being right are higher, then why not throw in a projection which reflects that skepticism?  This will allow you to move away from neutral, middle ground where you skeptically wait & see what the results are at the end of the year.  

Maybe by submitting your projection you wouldn't feel the need to use your "logic" to manipulate other people's reasoning & thus remove the possibility of being mischaracterized as having a superiority complex. Only you would know if you do or not. 

I mean none of us have to be right really.  Would it take more intestinal fortitude to make a more positive or more negative prognostication of our 2016 season?  A skeptical view should have a higher percentage based outcome for sure.

With so much logic flying around here, geesh, it sure seems so complicated sometimes :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HASHBROWN3 said:

Where is your 2016 projection?  You must have ignored the request. I'm not offended.  I just think you can put some skin in the game by giving your projections.  

Since you prefer a skeptic's approach so that your percentages of being right are higher, then why not throw in a projection which reflects that skepticism?  This will allow you to move away from neutral, middle ground where you skeptically wait & see what the results are at the end of the year.  

Maybe by submitting your projection you wouldn't feel the need to use your "logic" to manipulate other people's reasoning & thus remove the possibility of being mischaracterized as having a superiority complex. Only you would know if you do or not. 

I mean none of us have to be right really.  Would it take more intestinal fortitude to make a more positive or more negative prognostication of our 2016 season?  A skeptical view should have a higher percentage based outcome for sure.

With so much logic flying around here, geesh, it sure seems so complicated sometimes :D

 

I didn't give a projection for 2016. That is the point. I take a wait and see approach. I don't say they will be good or bad. Why make assumptions when there are so many variables to consider? Having an opinion takes no intestinal fortitude. Why are you making this out to be a game of tit-for-tat? People give opinions and others say why they agree or disagree, even you. Why would it be any different when I do it?

Edited by Intellectually Honest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Intellectually Honest said:

I didn't give a projection for 2016. That is the point. I take a wait and see approach. I don't say they will be good or bad. Why make assumptions when there are so many variables to consider? Having an opinion takes no intestinal fortitude. Why are you making this out to be a game of tit-for-tat? People give opinions and others say why they agree or disagree, even you. Why would it be any different when I do it?

Well, in that case skeptics can never be wrong, because they never have anything to say.

That's not really skepticism, but as you've defined it, it certainly ensures your claim that skeptics are right more than not.  If anything, it renders it a drastic understatement.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JDaveG said:

Well, in that case skeptics can never be wrong, because they never have anything to say.

That's not really skepticism, but as you've defined it, it certainly ensures your claim that skeptics are right more than not.  If anything, it renders it a drastic understatement.  

LOL, you took the words from my mouth.  But I'm sure he'll continue to blind us with logic..err umm science...or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Intellectually Honest said:

I didn't give a projection for 2016. That is the point. I take a wait and see approach. I don't say they will be good or bad. Why make assumptions when there are so many variables to consider? Having an opinion takes no intestinal fortitude. Why are you making this out to be a game of tit-for-tat? People give opinions and others say why they agree or disagree, even you. Why would it be any different when I do it?

Ok, but we're disappointed here.  I guess we'll only have cut n pasted wiki's and online dictionary definitions to look forward to.  But these, coupled with all that tiring logic, are so much more difficult to follow than a good old prognostication.  :rolleyes:

Oh well.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JDaveG said:

Well, in that case skeptics can never be wrong, because they never have anything to say.

That's not really skepticism, but as you've defined it, it certainly ensures your claim that skeptics are right more than not.  If anything, it renders it a drastic understatement.  

No. Just because I am skeptical of somethings, doesn't mean I am skeptical of everything. That is a hasty generalization. Also since you concede that skeptics tend to be right, at least as it applies to the Falcons, more often than not, why not take the skeptical position rather than make baseless assumptions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HASHBROWN3 said:

Ok, but we're disappointed here.  I guess we'll only have cut n pasted wiki's and online dictionary definitions to look forward to.  But these, coupled with all that tiring logic, are so much more difficult to follow than a good old prognostication.  :rolleyes:

Oh well.

 

"We're"? Who are you speaking for?

Edited by Intellectually Honest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Intellectually Honest said:

I didn't give a projection for 2016. That is the point. I take a wait and see approach. I don't say they will be good or bad. Why make assumptions when there are so many variables to consider? Having an opinion takes no intestinal fortitude. Why are you making this out to be a game of tit-for-tat? People give opinions and others say why they agree or disagree, even you. Why would it be any different when I do it?

 

7 hours ago, Intellectually Honest said:

I sure hope Hardy pans out. I don't have confidence in Sanu.

Not having confidence in Sanu sounds like an assumption to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Intellectually Honest said:

Because to not make an assumption is true doesn't mean that you assume it is false. You are making a false dichotomy fallacy. People can be neutral on an idea.

"Because to not make an assumption is true doesn't mean that you assume it is false." makes no sense.

It's not a false dichotomy fallacy, because you are indeed expressing an opinion. 

Not having confidence in Sanu is not being neutral. Saying you hope Hardy does well because you have no confidence in Sanu is not a neutral statement, it's a definite opinion, which is fine, just own it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, falconidae said:

"Because to not make an assumption is true doesn't mean that you assume it is false." makes no sense.

It's not a false dichotomy fallacy, because you are indeed expressing an opinion. 

Not having confidence in Sanu is not being neutral. Saying you hope Hardy does well because you have no confidence in Sanu is not a neutral statement, it's a definite opinion, which is fine, just own it.

 

Having no confidence in something is a lack of trust. I lack trust for Sanu because I have no evidence he will do well, based on what he has done so far. Simply asserting that is an opinion, doesn't mean it is, because they you will have to say what the opinion is. I already gave you my position. I am nuetral on Sanu. He hasn't done much in Cincinnati and since this is a new system for him and a new QB, there is no reason to think he will do well, at least this year. He may flourish. Who knows.

You are making a false dichotomy because you are assuming that a position on Sanu is that either someone thinks he will do well or not. I already gave a third option. That is I am neutral on the guy. He might be mediocre which by definition is not bad or good. Even if we are just talking about opinions, opinions are not limited to true or false, positive or negative.

Most people on these boards make it a black or white issue in the sense that if you don't love a guy, football wise, then you are a hater. The fact is someone might not have an opinion on someone or just think that person will be mediocre. Plus considering the fact that many critique someone for a lack of knowledge of a player or team, and say their position is unreasonable to make a claim, why would you insist someone to give an opinion on a player they know little about.

I watched some footage of Sanu and I wasn't impressed. I looked at his stats and feel the same. I haven't looked at a lot to say he will be good or not. So if you want my opinion of Sanu, I feel he is meh.

Edited by Intellectually Honest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Intellectually Honest said:

Having no confidence in something is a lack of trust. I lack trust for Sanu because I have no evidence he will do well, based on what he has done so far. Simply asserting that is an opinion, doesn't mean it is, because they you will have to say what the opinion is. I already gave you my position. I am nuetral on Sanu. He hasn't done much in Cincinnati and since this is a new system for him and a new QB, there is no reason to think he will do well, at least this year. He may flourish. Who knows.

You are making a false dichotomy because you are assuming that a position on Sanu is that either someone thinks he will do well or not. I already gave a third option. That is I am neutral on the guy. He might be mediocre which by definition is not bad or good. Even if we are just talking about opinions, opinions are not limited to true or false, positive or negative.

Most people on these boards make it a black or white issue in the sense that if you don't love a guy, football wise, then you are a hater. The fact is someone might not have an opinion on someone or just think that person will be mediocre. Plus considering the fact that many critique someone for a lack of knowledge of a player or team, and say their position is unreasonable to make a claim, why would you insist someone to give an opinion on a player they know little about.

I watched some footage of Sanu and I wasn't impressed. I looked at his stats and feel the same. I haven't looked at a lot to say he will be good or not. So if you want my opinion of Sanu, I feel he is meh.

Oh look, he does has an opinion, amazing. Which is, of course, exactly what I said.

 

You can misuse all the wikipedia logic you want.  Common sense  says it's impossible to not have an opinion on something if you have no confidence in that thing. Because having no confidence IS an opinion.

 

Now, having admitted you have opinions, what do you think the Falcons are going to do this year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, falconidae said:

Oh look, he does has an opinion, amazing. Which is, of course, exactly what I said.

 

You can misuse all the wikipedia logic you want.  Common sense  says it's impossible to not have an opinion on something if you have no confidence in that thing. Because having no confidence IS an opinion.

 

Now, having admitted you have opinions, what do you think the Falcons are going to do this year?

I never claimed I don't have an opinion. What I said was I didn't give one when I made my initial post on this thread. The post that I made is I said I don't assume Sanu will do good or bad. Which I still don't. Sanu's success or failure doesn't rest on what I feel about him, and there is no reason for me to make an assumption on how he will do with what little I know of him. You made the point that if I didn't assume one way I must assume an another. That is still a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy is not contingent if someone has an opinion or not. It is irrelevant.

I said my opinion on Sanu is meh. Does that mean meh means he will do well or not do well?

Edited by Intellectually Honest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, falconidae said:

"Because to not make an assumption is true doesn't mean that you assume it is false." makes no sense.

It's not a false dichotomy fallacy, because you are indeed expressing an opinion. 

Not having confidence in Sanu is not being neutral. Saying you hope Hardy does well because you have no confidence in Sanu is not a neutral statement, it's a definite opinion, which is fine, just own it.

 

I never claimed I don't have an opinion. What I said was I didn't give one when I made my initial post on this thread.

You have no idea what a false dichotomy fallacy is. You keep on insisting that if someone has an opinion therefore can't be a false dichotomy.

First off, I am not saying that an opinion is a false dichotomy, but the assumption that an opinion needs to be expressed in either 2 options. It is by limiting the option in which someone can have an opinion is what makes it a false dichotomy. My opinion can be that of neither option. So if someone says Joe Blow will be great, and I said I don't agree, and they assume, oh you assume he will be bad, and I tell them, I don't assume that either, that is a false dichotomy, because I might not have assumptions about him, or my assumption might not be either option. In either case there are more than the 2 options though only 2 are being presented.

False dichotomies may be presented in a form of a question, or implied in statements or made explicit.

I know you'll love this (I am being sarcastic :D):

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, false binary, black-and-white thinking, bifurcation, denying a conjunct, the either–or fallacy, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of the false alternative) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The opposite of this fallacy is argument to moderation.[citation needed]

The options may be a position that is between two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be completely different alternatives. Phrasing that implies two options (dilemma, dichotomy, black-and-white) may be replaced with other number-based nouns, such as a "false trilemma" ("false trichotomy," etc.) if something is reduced to only three options.

False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice or outcome.

The false dilemma fallacy also can arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception. Additionally, it can be the result of habitual, patterned, black-and-white and/or intensely political/politicized thinking whereby a model of binary (or polar) opposites is assigned or imposed to whatever regarded object/context, almost automatically—a process that may ignore both complexity and alternatives to more extreme juxtaposed archetypes; binary opposition is explored extensively in critical theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

 
Edited by Intellectually Honest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Intellectually Honest said:

Having no confidence in something is a lack of trust. I lack trust for Sanu because I have no evidence he will do well, based on what he has done so far. Simply asserting that is an opinion, doesn't mean it is, because they you will have to say what the opinion is. I already gave you my position. I am nuetral on Sanu. He hasn't done much in Cincinnati and since this is a new system for him and a new QB, there is no reason to think he will do well, at least this year. He may flourish. Who knows.

You are making a false dichotomy because you are assuming that a position on Sanu is that either someone thinks he will do well or not. I already gave a third option. That is I am neutral on the guy. He might be mediocre which by definition is not bad or good. Even if we are just talking about opinions, opinions are not limited to true or false, positive or negative.

Most people on these boards make it a black or white issue in the sense that if you don't love a guy, football wise, then you are a hater. The fact is someone might not have an opinion on someone or just think that person will be mediocre. Plus considering the fact that many critique someone for a lack of knowledge of a player or team, and say their position is unreasonable to make a claim, why would you insist someone to give an opinion on a player they know little about.

I watched some footage of Sanu and I wasn't impressed. I looked at his stats and feel the same. I haven't looked at a lot to say he will be good or not. So if you want my opinion of Sanu, I feel he is meh.

But here is the million dollar question: what is considered GOOD? What is considered mediocre? Are you not impressed with Sanu because he's never put up star numbers? Point is, no matter what Sanu does this season, several people will be impressed, disappointed, or in your case, "neutral"

Edited by JD dirtybird21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...