Ec wrote:
There are probably ways in which this whole class of articles can be approached more civilly. A short opening paragraph can define the subject. There is no need to say that anything is "alleged" there unless you are disputing the definition itself. A definition is not a falsifiable statements.
This is incorrect. Sometimes a definition *is* a falsifiable statement. For example, someone could write "ESP is the method by which a human can do such-and-such." The very definition presumes that ESP exists, which itself is controversial. No one has ever shown that any such phenomenon exists. The same is true for telepathy, telekinesis, pyrokinesis, and dozens of other alleged phenomenon.
One is obligated by our NPOV policy to say something like "ESP is alleged to be the method by which..." because no one can even show that ESP (or any of these other phenomenon.)
We can of course say that "Believers in ESP believe that ESP has been proven to exist."
One well known contributor with a reputation for a confrontational style
Ec, stop with the ad homenin remarks. It is unprofessional to belittle my argument by attacking my reputation. It is also unprofessional to refuse to use my name. No one mistreats you in this fashion; do not do this to others.
Ec then claims:
sought to confound ESP with alien abduction, by suggesting that an abductee might claim that the aliens would use ESP to communicate with him. One thing to remember is that it is quite normal for people to believe in one but not the other. In that case a believer in one would find it insulting to be associated with a belief in the other.
Ex, you are making a strawhorse argument. You are trying to deligitimize my basic argument by focusing on one example sentence that doesn't even exist in any article!
In any case, many studies have proven that believers in UFO abductions also generally believe in ESP. This is not an "insult". Perhaps it makes you uncomfortable to ackowledge the relationship between these beliefs, but the relationship is firmly established, even if you find it embarassing.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Dress up your holiday email, Hollywood style. Learn more. http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
Robert wrote:
Ec wrote:
There are probably ways in which this whole class of articles can be approached more civilly. A short opening paragraph can define the subject. There is no need to say that anything is "alleged" there unless you are disputing the definition itself. A definition is not a falsifiable statements.
This is incorrect. Sometimes a definition *is* a falsifiable statement. For example, someone could write "ESP is the method by which a human can do such-and-such." The very definition presumes that ESP exists, which itself is controversial. No one has ever shown that any such phenomenon exists. The same is true for telepathy, telekinesis, pyrokinesis, and dozens of other alleged phenomenon.
Definitions are tautologies; they are always true, even the reidiculous ones or the ones contrary to the way that the term is defined by others. Of course if I choos to define something in an unusual manner it will make conversation very difficult. A definition makes no prsumption whatsoever about the existence of the object defined.
One is obligated by our NPOV policy to say something like "ESP is alleged to be the method by which..." because no one can even show that ESP (or any of these other phenomenon.)
We can of course say that "Believers in ESP believe that ESP has been proven to exist."
The obligation is to follow NPOV policy, not your perverted misinterpretation of the policy. One could as easily say "Some scientists believe that ESP has not been proven to exist", or "Some scientists allege that ESP does not exist."
One well known contributor with a reputation for a confrontational style
Ec, stop with the ad homenin remarks. It is unprofessional to belittle my argument by attacking my reputation. It is also unprofessional to refuse to use my name. No one mistreats you in this fashion; do not do this to others.
Not using the name was a matter of politeness. I apologize for being so polite.
By avoiding the use of the name I was not making an ad hominem statement; I was merely adding emphasis to the illogicality of the statement in question. Now that you acknowledge your reputation, there is not much that I can say to soften the blow.
Ec then claims:
sought to confound ESP with alien abduction, by suggesting that an abductee might claim that the aliens would use ESP to communicate with him. One thing to remember is that it is quite normal for people to believe in one but not the other. In that case a believer in one would find it insulting to be associated with a belief in the other.
Ex, you are making a strawhorse argument. You are trying to deligitimize my basic argument by focusing on one example sentence that doesn't even exist in any article!
I was not the one to introduce the concept of alien abduction. For my part I might go so far as to allege that there is no such thing as alien abduction. I must nevertheless accept that the subject may be more important to you. Since I do not believe in alien abduction it seemed clear that they were introduced as strawaliens for the sole purpose of making another practice (i.e. ESP) appear less credible.than it really is. That being said, I guess that a "strawhorse" argument is one that that seeks to give the strawmen a ride away from the scene.
In any case, many studies have proven that believers in UFO abductions also generally believe in ESP. This is not an "insult". Perhaps it makes you uncomfortable to ackowledge the relationship between these beliefs, but the relationship is firmly established, even if you find it embarassing.
Sometimes it's difficult to distinguish between an insult and ignorance. Now that you are introducing UFOs into the discussion it's hard to know where they will take you. The ad hominem concepts of my discomfort or embarassment have no relevance to the existence of ESP, aliens or UFOs. It is simply illogical to generalize by saying that because some people hold two specified beliefs, therefore all people holding one of those beliefs must believe in the other.
Ec
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:54:51 -0800 (PST), Robert rkscience100@yahoo.com wrote:
This is incorrect. Sometimes a definition *is* a falsifiable statement. For example, someone could write "ESP is the method by which a human can do such-and-such." The very definition presumes that ESP exists, which itself is controversial. No one has ever shown that any such phenomenon exists. The same is true for telepathy, telekinesis, pyrokinesis, and dozens of other alleged phenomenon.
No its not. ESP (Extra-sensual perception) is the perseption of extra-sensual stuff (or what ever the frig ESP is). That, ESP (in my, and your, and Tony Blair's POV) is a load of baloney is irrelevent, because whether ESP exists or not, does not change the fact that any Extra-sensual perception ''''''IS'''''' ESP. Me and you and Tony Blair don't believe that Extra-sensual perception exists, but we cant argue with what it is, (even though what it is, is impossible.). We should however note in the first paragragh that by far the majority of ppl think that it is a load of baloney. (that was more rambling that i was planning, but i hope you got my point.)
Ex, you are making a strawhorse argument. You are trying to deligitimize my basic argument by focusing on one example sentence that doesn't even exist in any article!
Is the word strawman/strawhorse argument a purely wikimedia thing, because i had never heard the phrase before i subscribed to these lists?
In any case, many studies have proven that believers in UFO abductions also generally believe in ESP. This is not an "insult". Perhaps it makes you uncomfortable to ackowledge the relationship between these beliefs, but the relationship is firmly established, even if you find it embarassing.
What studies? While i shall concede that there are certainly large number of people who believe in both, i would also say that often, fringe/crank groups will be just as disparaging of other fringe/cranck groups to try and emphisis that thier idea is not a crank view.
peace, love and butterflies paz, amor, y mariposas [[User:The bellman]]
Robin Shannon wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:54:51 -0800 (PST), Robert rkscience100@yahoo.com wrote:
This is incorrect. Sometimes a definition *is* a falsifiable statement. For example, someone could write "ESP is the method by which a human can do such-and-such." The very definition presumes that ESP exists, which itself is controversial. No one has ever shown that any such phenomenon exists. The same is true for telepathy, telekinesis, pyrokinesis, and dozens of other alleged phenomenon.
No its not. ESP (Extra-sensual perception) is the perseption of extra-sensual stuff (or what ever the frig ESP is). That, ESP (in my, and your, and Tony Blair's POV) is a load of baloney is irrelevent, because whether ESP exists or not, does not change the fact that any Extra-sensual perception ''''''IS'''''' ESP. Me and you and Tony Blair don't believe that Extra-sensual perception exists, but we cant argue with what it is, (even though what it is, is impossible.). We should however note in the first paragragh that by far the majority of ppl think that it is a load of baloney. (that was more rambling that i was planning, but i hope you got my point.)
Yes. The point is that we need to be able to come to an understanding about the meaning of the language we use without necessarily agreeing about the phenomena that it describes.
Incidentally, the abbreviation, ESP normally stands for "Extra-Sensory Perception" instead of "Extre-Sensual Perception" Extra-sensual perception seems to have overtones of an improved sex life. :-)
Ex, you are making a strawhorse argument. You are trying to deligitimize my basic argument by focusing on one example sentence that doesn't even exist in any article!
Is the word strawman/strawhorse argument a purely wikimedia thing, because i had never heard the phrase before i subscribed to these lists?
"Straw man" is a commonly used term in logic and critical thinking. It may be written as one or two words. We have a whole article on it at [[Straw man]]
Ec
Ex, you are making a strawhorse argument. You are trying to deligitimize my basic argument by focusing on one example sentence that doesn't even exist in any article!
Is the word strawman/strawhorse argument a purely wikimedia thing, because i had never heard the phrase before i subscribed to these lists?
Strawman argument is commonly used outside of Wikipedia. I've never heard of a strawhorse argument before.
I think there may be confusion between strawmen and stalking horses. Mark
--- JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
Ex, you are making a strawhorse argument. You
are trying
to deligitimize my basic argument by focusing on
one
example sentence that doesn't even exist in any
article!
Is the word strawman/strawhorse argument a purely
wikimedia thing,
because i had never heard the phrase before i
subscribed to these
lists?
Strawman argument is commonly used outside of Wikipedia. I've never heard of a strawhorse argument before.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Robin Shannon wrote
Is the word strawman/strawhorse argument a purely wikimedia thing, because i had never heard the phrase before i subscribed to these lists?
I was unfamiliar before my UseNet years, and assumed it (strawman) was an artefact of North American college education (I presume you're in Australia; I'm in the UK). A little googling on this reinforces the impression that this is standard in Composition 101 or suchlike, which hasn't crossed the Atlantic. Of course we Brits are second to none at actually doing this; but we tend to call it "putting words into people's mouths".
Charles