The majority of people seem incapable of engaging in (informal) logical reasoning, including notable scientists like physicist Michio Kaku.
In this interview he repeatedly refuses to address the questions of the host, which are presented in a neutral tone, and then uses rhetoric in an attempt to discredit her.
The comments are almost unanimously supportive of Kaku, indicating that the majority of viewers are unable to differentiate between logical reasoning and rhetoric.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdGOrWmVMv8
Here’s a shortened and paraphrased transcription, with the host in greentext and a simplistic logical analysis:
>Do you think modern democratic states provide an illusion of control and agency, in place of actual democratic power?
Kaku: Name a better system than democracy! (missing the point)
>I’m not arguing against democracy, I’m arguing against the appearance of democracy.
Kaku: There’s no such thing as a perfect democracy… the Greeks had slaves for god’s sake! (reframing the question)
>That’s a very American argument. (It’s also an irrelevant argument)
Kaku: It’s THE argument!
>I don’t want to argue with you…
Kaku: That’s what democracy is about! (Rhetorical and logically fallacious arguments?)
>When George Bush took America to war, Congress wasn’t consulted; the democratic process was subverted…
Kaku: The fact that you can sit there and even say something like that is testament to how far we’ve come… (missing the point/completely irrelevant)
Kaku may be a proficient theoretical physicist, however he seems completely unable to engage in logical debate.
>>8175971
it may be surprising to you that autistic people will panic in social situations
You should exclude Kaku in any scientific context after he came out and said quantum physics proves God.
>>8175971
You people fail to see his points. He is thinking 3 steps ahead of interviewer, and attacking the points that naturally follow if one would ask the questions he was asked. Its normal to do this if you are very smart and deep thinking person.
But they could argue over ''appearance'' of democracy I guess hahahahaha which serves no purpose.
That's the difference between being smart and trying to appear smart, than falling back on semantics when confronted.
Michio Kaku IS God.
Also thanks for greentexting.
>>8175973
He wasn’t panicking; he was fully assured of himself while spewing rhetoric and fallacy.
>>8175975
Well yes, I saw that somewhere else on YouTube and couldn’t quite believe what he was saying.
Here’s another ridiculous excerpt from the interview:
Kaku: If we equate barbarism with the principles of democracy, if we agree with a viewpoint like yours, then we’ve lost
The host had essentially just said that the leaders of democratic governments push their agenda on their citizens, who have very little democratic power to challenge them, which could be seen as similar as dictatorial regimes that force their beliefs on their citizens.
She was comparing the illusion of agency and control in certain democratic states (not democratic principles), to the lack of agency and control in more transparently authoritarian regimes.
Kaku resorted to a strawman argument.
>>8175978
good post friend i like it
Why even ask those questions a physicists??
>>8175978
He did no such thing, he simply sensed the potential for negative association with the notion of democracy and resorted to logical fallacy and rhetoric in order to discredit the host.
He danced around her questions like a prima ballerina, then interrogated her about being a conspiracy theorist while refusing to let her reply until her third attempt.
He displayed the intellectual integrity of a politician, not a scientist.
>>8175982
politics ruin everything
>>8175978
Anon, what the host was clearly getting at is the question of whether a true democracy can exist in the absence of informed consent and whether or not systems that subvert the democratic process, in relation to foreign policy, military action, employment and economics, can really be considered to be democratic.
Kaku didn’t see that at all, nor did he address anything she said.
He simply made largely irrelevant, rhetorical arguments and attempted to personally discredit her.
>>8175971
/sci/ is even worse
Person 1:
>"I believe this UFO case was an alien spacecraft because reasons"
Person 2:
>"Are demons real too?"
Doing a Kaku right there. The correct way to argue is to address the points of the person with logical reasoning as you say. If UFOs really are bullshit then this should be easy yet time and time again /sci/ fails to do this.
>>8176007
No the correct way to argue is to strawman everything. It ridicules the argument and demoralizes the enemy.
now fuck off UFOfag
>>8175971
>It could be said that citizens of western democratic states take their democratic freedoms for granted and therefore no longer subject their government to the kind of tests (democratic process) described by the founding fathers
Kaku: Everything you have just said can be summed up as, you think American democracy isn’t perfect. I agree… I disagree with the principle. People were debating whether or not we should go to war in the press, in churches, in Congress and that’s a testament to democracy.
The point was: if people are able to voice an opinion on a matter such as going to war, however they are not consulted, is that considered democratic?
Kaku once again reframes the question and replies with a faulty conclusion.
>>8176015
It's funny that you gave a retarded argument in a thread about retarded arguments.
>>8176015
>the correct way to argue is to strawman everything. It ridicules the argument and demoralizes the enemy.
Well that's what Kaku did, so looks like he's doing it right.
![1310672082321[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/3EEKTes.jpg "1310672082321[1].jpg")
>>8176017
> michio kaku is retarded arguments
wowowow everyone. mr "no PhD in particle physics" is here to englighten all of us lmao
>>8175971
>Kaku
>scientist
heh
>theoretical physicist
>science
smhtbh
logical reasoning requires intelligence. many academics are not intelligent. that's why they are wellfare leeches instead of making the world a better place in industry
My final thoughs are:
1) I hate debates like this one because they serve no purpose, perfect democracy is abomination and would hinder those who know how to obtain power in life. It will not happen and it cannot exist unless people become standardized units with equal abilities.
2) russian girl is :v
3) The appearance of democracy is just what the world needs.
The whole interview, seems to me is like two people arguing weather the king is naked or not, all the while remaining ignorant of the way life operates in the figurative wild we live in.
I suspect Kaku had to lower the ''appearance'' of his IQ just to be a little bit understood by the woman.
>>8176019
> Well that's what Kaku did
where did he do it ?
>>8175971
>Why do people only have a chance to practice democracy every four years? Why can’t they use the internet to vote on important issues like the arming of rebels in Syria?
Kaku: There have to be rules around who’s elected and how that happens… If you had an election every 6 months there would be chaos!
The host had literally just stated before this segment that:
>I am not questioning the electoral process here
Yet another strawman.
Kaku is such a wank puffin.
>>8175971
Appreciate the greentext for not making us watch the video.
Most people here acknowledge Michio Kaku as a meme, and all this discussion does is validate that notion even more. My point is that your last sentence doesn't really say anything /sci/ doesn't know... all you say is pretty much true.
I remember some people here making an analogy between the priests of a religion with popsci scientists, which I find quite apt. People will follow their sayings without critically examining them because "science". This has come to become quite accurate, even if science is not a religion. Oh well.
>>8176007
>/sci/ fails to do this.
no it doesn't. It's the first thing /sci/ does. When /x/ tards ignore what /sci/ says and build strawmen that they then proceed to tear down (which is the whole point of their threads, a false sense of achievement), then /sci/ proceeds with shitposting like you described.
>>8176024
I have been continually posting examples of this in plaintext and greentext for the duration of this short lived thread.
Just look at the thread.
>>8176023
>I suspect Kaku had to lower the ''appearance'' of his IQ just to be a little bit understood by the woman.
He failed to actually reply to a single question and relied on rhetoric, as well as fallacy.
I doubt he did that intentionally.
>>8176020
Ethos: appeal to authority/the credibility of the speaker.
This is rhetoric and is logically fallicious.
>>8175971
Kaku is essentially arguing in favour of a cyclical dictatorship; a new dictator every four years.
This is made most obvious in his last statements:
>Often the most popular decision is the wrong decision
>>8175971
he is either a brainwashed idiot or plain evil.
>WHO was behind 9/11? WHO WAS BEHIND 9/11? WHO WAS BEHIND 9/11?
for FUCKS sake, what a creep.
he also talks about "forces of darkness" vs "forces of democracy"..
>>8176055
I know, it's such a binary mindset, it's ridiculous.
![562[3].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/uez8cqz.jpg "562[3].jpg")
>>8176039
> misinterpreting logical fallacies
PhD is not an authority dumdum. It's a verification that you understand a branch of science on a higher and more sophisticated level, which he does. And in this case it happens to be particle physics.
ure just mad coz u got nothing to show for these people that will make them take you seriously and ure just mad at him.
>>8176033
In that NASA UFO thread the other day the OP was pointing out that papers have been published under the NASA name that not only entertain aliens as a serious possibility but even goes as far as to speculate on how they may work. /sci/'s only response was to point out that the CIA, a totally separate organization did research on psychics, a totally separate phenomenon. An actual argument would be to explain why the NASA study itself was bunk, not "it must be bunk because this other completely unrelated study turned out to be bunk". It's an even worse argument considering that you are using the work of a spying agency to gauge the work of a scientific agency just because they are both run by the same government.
I've seen a few of these threads and I have to say the "/x/ tards" are the better arguers despite their claims having less substance. /sci/ just storms in with the instant arrogant assumption that they are right and therefore never bothers to put together a proper argument.
>>8176055
He also said:
>forces of darkness, ignorance, torture and persecution
What, like Al Ghraib? Guantanamo? Rendition? Blackwater? JSOC? Afghan civilian man hunting?
>>8176063
Anon, you argued with ethos (appeal to the credibility/prestige of the speaker) and then attempted to refute my criticism by arguing with ethos yet again.
>u got nothing to show for these people that will make them take you seriously
An argument is to be judged on its logical viability alone, regardless of who makes it.
If you judge the validity of an argument based on the speaker then logic goes out the window and you’re in the land of rhetoric.
>>8176071
First you have a theory. Then you search for proof.
:^)
>>8176072
> PhDs are meaningless and doesn't add anything to an individuals credibility at all.
So what exactly are you arguing against his claims ?
>>8176071
You're just proving his point.
>>8176077
>PhDs are meaningless and doesn't add anything to an individuals credibility at all.
His PhD in physics combined with his papers, mean that he is a proficient physicist.
>So what exactly are you arguing against his claims ?
Look at the thread anon, I've posted numerous examples of his use of logical fallacy and rhetoric.
>>8175971
>>8175979
>>8176016
>>8176027
>>8176073
First you have a hypothesis, faggot.
I believe Michio may have sold out to the cabal.
Either way, he has an IQ of about 155, so he isn't a lightweight either.
>>8175971
How autistic are you exactly? There is no obligation for people to always engage in "logical reasoning". Sometimes people just use rhetoric, yes
>>8176089
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_hypothesis
>>8176084
He doesn't have a point. he's just being a contrarian and attack science because he can't into science. Evident by the fact that he's an /x/tard
>>8176089
however you look at it, you definitely dont have evidence first, as YOU've said, my dear friend, whom I love very much.
>>8176094
>Sometimes people mislead and misinform using appeals to authority, emotion and surface reasoning and that's just fine.
Oh, ok then.
>>8176097
Aliens doesn't attack known science it merely adds to it.
>>8176102
yes sometimes they do. not everything is always a logical fallacy btw.
Sometimes people just talk, anon. Sometimes people dont take the point of someone serious enough to engage in a formal debate. If a snarky interviewer would ask me such a stupid question I would also take the piss.
ITT: Idiots.
I feel your pain OP.
>>8176102
That is not at all what happened.
LMAO!!!
autism confirmed
>>8176108
> that obvious samefag
*cringe*
>>8176055
That point is when I realized that all this time I've been calling him senile I was right. Someone needs to put him in an old folks home.
>>8176113
> im one of the rare free-thinking individuals whose above the sheep who can't comprehend my deep thoughts about universe and reality
Fedora not big enough.
>>8176119
>above sheep
>above
'Above' as in a higher degree of positive association, as governed by the positive and negative association circuitry in the brain.
'Above' as in a higher degree of prestige, which is considered important solely due to the fact that we are social primates who live in social hierarchies.
Above! Better than! Positive instead of negative! 0 instead of 1!
Your advanced binary thought processes are astounding anon.
>>8175971
I agree with most of what you've said in this thread. However, I interpret some of the video content differently.
E.g.:
>Kaku: Name a better system than democracy! (missing the point)
It appears to me that this is a concession on Kaku's part of what the interviewer calls 'false agency' with respect to democracy, and that the point he is trying to make is that while democracy has this (and other) severe flaws, he cannot think of a better system.
In the end I guess it just boils down to what the two want to talk about, or what they think the other wants to talk about. Whereas the interviewer wants to talk about the drawbacks of democracy, Kaku wants to talk about the most beneficial political system, and since none of them clearly state this, they're really only talking past each other.
>>8176137
He is interpreting negative association and attempting to counter it, instead of actually replying to her questions.
>>8176137
I agree with your view of his intent, but he handled himself poorly. The only time he reminded me that he has any sanity was towards the end when he suggested a poll on a major issue like going to war will mostly draw out a short-sighted reactionary opinion, and I say this as someone very much against our recent wars.
Most of the rest was hard to watch, peaking at repeating "who did 9/11?" The frequent referral to barbaric extremes makes him sound very uneducated, as if this is universal outside of America. It does exist, and yet there are plenty of countries in which it does not. He would have done better to stick to arguments like censorship than coming back to "having your head chopped off."
>>8176113
It is OK. People have fun and dont just talk to exchange sterile informations. I hope you learned something today
>>8176068
Yes, there's also been countless other UFO case threads where OP points out how a respected scientist wrote this, or examined that /x/ theory, so it's worthy of investigation. The first thing that is dispelled in these threads is the appeal to authority. It doesn't matter if it's NASA that said it or Einstein, as long as there is no evidence and the possibility of such an event having occurred is close to zero, then there is no good reason to examine it. Just because the same argument wasn't included in one /x/ thread doesn't mean it hasn't been posted in every other thread, possibly to the same /x/ tards. If you want to bring evidence, good with me. If you think /x/ appeals to authority is a good argument, then I have nothing more to say. Pay attention to the other /x/ threads, not just the one.
>>8175971
>That’s a very American argument
So you expect him to take her serious after that bullshit?
>>8176153
>Post UFO case from Wikipedia
>"Hurr come back with an actual proper source!"
>Post UFO case from NASA
>"Hurr appeal to authority!"
>>8176149
Nothing I didn't already know.
>humans are idiots
Brb, returning to Vulcan.
>>8176154
She said nothing wrong. It's not news that burgers always point out there is no perfect whatever to justify their decadent shitty systems.
>>8176153
Do you also believe the recent pictures of Pluto are fake because trusting NASA would be "appeal to authority"?
>>8176167
>>"Hurr come back with an actual proper source!"
lol
You're strawmanning at this point. Trying to frame /sci/ as presenting only this argument instead of multiple ones. I never said /sci/ didn't say this. I said that /sci/ also presents actual arguments against UFO cases regardless of their source. Congratulations, you stumped people who weren't invested in the discussion in the first place and were there for a laugh/shitposting, while ignoring the substantial and universal arguments against UFO cases. This is the kind of false sense of achievement I referred to at my previous post.
>>8175983
Yes and no. Did he directly answer her questions? No. Did he skip her bullshit attempt to use his answers to these opening questions as proof later in their discussion that her stance is correct? Yes, he did. She was trying to use a propositional fallacy on him and he shut it down.
>>8176172
I'm not a burger and I can asure you that this is not exclusively an american narrative.
There is also really no such thing as a perfect democracy
>>8176174
The difference being having actual evidence of a space project and its photos and the project itself not being outside the realms of extreme possibility?
Laughable argument right there.
>>8176178
You act like it is impossible for people to witness a flying object that they cant identify.
>>8176178
I posted this case once and /sci/ kept parroting that it was a hoax despite all the evidence that it could not have been. The best part is they never gave any evidence as to why it was a hoax, it was just a blind assumption.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelland_UFO_Case
>>8176183
I was memeing for fun, but if you want to talk seriously, so be it. Of course there's no such thing as perfect democracy. Just like there's no such thing of perfect anything. The fact remains that the US and its citizens frequently use this argument to justify and often validate their wrongdoings, whether it is the atomic bombings or the invasion of the Middle East. I mean, we can't be perfect anyway, so there's no point in striving to be more peaceful or less lenient to our people, right? This rationale is deeply flawed, and that is what the woman pointed out to Michio, a critique which is spot on.
>>8176185
The point was, sometimes it indeed does matter who is saying something
>>8176185
>not being outside the realms of extreme possibility
This is meaningless, trips to Pluto were outside the realms of extreme possibility in the past. The whole refusal to believe in UFOs is based on the believe that nowhere in the galaxy is there technology more advanced than ours.
If the Russians had produced a picture of Pluto in 1950 the Americans would never have believed it because they had yet to even launch a space probe.
>>8176192
No I don't. I do act like it is impossible for people to witness a UFO and then proceed to form a plausible hypothesis that the UFO is ayy property.
>>8176193
I don't remember that case too well and I don't have the time to go through it right now. I do remember that it was a small town and all the "witnesses" could be plausibly assumed to have not witnessed anything, but word of mouth and mass hysteria caused them to say they witnessed something. Don't quote me on that though, I could be wrong.
The problem with these cases though, is that no matter how many people SAID they saw it, unless you have actual evidence of such an event having occurred, there is no way to prove it. Which is why I keep telling /x/ that you CANNOT prove ayys through UFO cases. They are fundamentally flawed evidence. /sci/, along with me, will never accept it as evidence because of a few pixels and written testimonies. The hypothesis is way too implausible for the weak evidence to prove.
>>8176193
I think people see "UFO", but read "flying saucer full of ayy lmaos".
With all the legit cases all over the world, only an ignorant waves this phenomenon away as /x/ shit
>>8176201
>The whole refusal to believe in UFOs is based on the believe that nowhere in the galaxy is there technology more advanced than ours.
This is incorrect. The refusal to believe in UFOs stems from the implausibility of ayys having visited us or being here right now and we have absolutely no evidence of their very existence. At this point, you might as well replace ayys with God and you won't notice a difference. It's unfalsifiable, therefore not scientific.
>trips to Pluto were outside the realms of extreme possibility in the past
This is the meaningless argument. As technology progresses, some hypotheses and technological propositions become more and more plausible to our eyes. Ayys however, remain just as implausible as time passes because no strides have been made to prove their existence, anywhere.
>>8176208
Ignoring (in some cases) hundreds of eye witnesses who independly described something very similar sounds like wilful ignorance to me.
>>8176182
>Did he skip her bullshit attempt to use his answers to these opening questions as proof later in their discussion that her stance is correct? Yes, he did. She was trying to use a propositional fallacy on him and he shut it down.
Highlight that in greentext.
Display the basis for that commentary, as I have done for Kaku's.
>>8176216
How are ayys "implausible" again?
>>8176217
>eye witnesses
This is /sci/ not /hearsay/.
Eye witness testimony not a reliable source of evidence.
>>8176194
> the atomic bombings or the invasion of the Middle East
I thought the excuse for that was "we must fight for our freedomz". The US is constantly running out of freedomz
>>8176182
She didn't use propositional fallacy once.
>>8176221
Thats why you can just dismiss all those cases, right?
There was a time when there was no hard evidence for giant squids. Only observations and testimony.
You know, science can also be the search for evidence and explanations
>>8176227
Well, they had to justifiy it somehow to their population I guess. In reality, it was just unnecessary muscle flexing towards the Soviet Union as a prelude to the Cold War. I say unnecessary because at the next diplomatic summit when that subhuman Truman met Stalin, Stalin remained completely unfazed by the "accomplishment" of the US. A few years later, the Soviet Union would come to have more nukes than the US. What a waste.
>>8176220
You know what I mean. Ayys as in aliens having visited Earth or floating above the deserts. I really hope you're being intentionally dense if you're asking about what I mentioned in this post.
>>8176217
As I said, it doesn't matter whether they were telling the truth or not. There is no evidence. Unless you have a clear video of the UFO with an alien head peaking out of the window, there's nothing more to say.
>>8176242
>You know what I mean
No. How the fuck are aliens implausible? "lol u dense" is not an answer
>>8176238
>>8176238
Yes, and science has found that human beings are fucking terrible and reporting what they saw.
The misinformation effect, cognitive transfer and in-attentional blindness leave us susceptible to a very high degree of cognitive error.
We also retrospectively infer what we saw, in relation to the testimony of others.
Therefore, eye witness testimony is not a reliable source of evidence.
>>8176208
>could be plausibly assumed to have not witnessed anything
They all reported that the thing shut down their car. This takes it a step above merely seeing lights which as you say could just be an illusion.
>word of mouth and mass hysteria
All the reports were made independently in the same few hours long before the media got wind of it.
>unless you have actual evidence of such an event having occurred, there is no way to prove it
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonnie_Zamora_incident
Fused sand from a jet blast
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_flight_1628_incident
Tracked on radar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash-Landrum_incident
Irradiated people
> because of a few pixels and written testimonies
/sci/ being lazy and disissive as usual. I posted a UFO movie from 1950 (so not photoshopped) and you can tell from just moving lights whether it's reflections and even how fast the thing is traveling. Obviously hypersonic speeds are going to rule out aircraft of the time. This demand to see the alien's face before you believe is ridiculous. Take a picture of any fast moving plane in the sky and it will just be a fuzzy light.
>>8176216
>As technology progresses, some hypotheses and technological propositions become more and more plausible to our eyes
Yeah like warp drive.
>>8176261
>hundreds of cases
>all over the world
>independend descriptions that are very similar
>even testimonies from military, Nasa and pilots
>
>Hurr durr, they all must have misremembered it
I will agree that a single eye witness isnt reliable, but at some point you are just becoming ignorant when you wave it away. And I'm not saying it is aliens
>>8176259
Good God. Aliens floating above deserts are implausible because the trips from any nearby star systems to Earth is very difficult to make, not to mention it's something which we should have been able to detect. The assumption now is that ayys are hiding in the Earth... somewhere? In the atmosphere? I don't even know anymore. With our technology, we would have been able to spot them instantly. I honestly don't know how ufologists make the argument work.
If we assume that ayys are gods of technology then there's no reason to assume they wouldn't have the technology to hide from urban dwellers claiming to have seen aliens in UFOs. Unfalsifiable.
>>8176265
A plausible argument for giant organisms can be made now, even if it couldn't be back then (it was implausible back then/ we didn't have the knowledge to form a hypothesis, the claims of giant squids were just as meaningless as ayy claims). Aliens on the other hand...
>>8176272
>warp drive
Don't make me post the /x/ bingo picture.
>>8175971
Mickey Cuckoo needs to fucking off himself. He's a meme, and the meme needs to die.
>>8176298
>"Hey chief Crazy Foot your claims of white men in giant boats from across the ocean are implausible because the trip across the ocean is impossible to make in our canoes"
>>8176298
>(it was implausible back then/ we didn't have the knowledge to form a hypothesis, the claims of giant squids were just as meaningless as ayy claims)
I see. It seems you only think it is reasonable to research things that are already researched. I'm glad that most people are more curious and open minded than you
>>8176298
>implausible because the trips from any nearby star systems to Earth is very difficult to make
What? So it basically is implausible because you assume the aliens are lazy? I dont even believe Aliens were ever here. But the idea that aliens are implausible sound absolutely silly to me.
>>8176264
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonnie_Zamora_incident
>Fused sand from a jet blast
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Air_Lines_flight_1628_incident
>Tracked on radar
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash-Landrum_incident
>Irradiated people
You've missed the point completely. Some of these cases claim the evidence was turned in and disappeared, which is not encouraging towards their plausibility. Anyway, let's assume these cases actually happened. What then? Does that mean it's aliens? Didn't think so. That's the point. UFOs cannot prove aliens, at least UFO cases as we know them. /sci/ doesn't deny UFOs exist, we just assign earthly explanations to them. You're the one making the claim it's aliens (assuming you didn't misunderstand my argument), do you have proof?
>you can tell
I don't know specifically what you are referring to, but this is not an argument. Do you really think your "movie" assuming it's real, would just be ignored if it was in fact evidence of impossibly fast aircraft (my point here is that explanations have been proposed, I just don't know what they are because I don't know what you are referring to)? EVEN THEN, it would be more plausible to assign an explanation of a black project than aliens. NOT. CONCRETE. PROOF.
>This demand to see the alien's face before you believe is ridiculous.
This is the standard of proof science demands. You either claim to be scientific and accept it, or you don't.
>Take a picture of any fast moving plane in the sky and it will just be a fuzzy light.
That's the ufologists problem, not mine.
>>8176308
I'm obviously missing the reference. Care to explain?
>>8176033
>People will follow their sayings without critically examining them because "science".
I see this everywhere. The worst of course has to be the crap coming out of NIH and their non-traditional medicine institute.
People are so terrified to question anyone with a degree in something other than womynz studies, and too lazy to really learn and look deeply into the matter.
I think one problem is that there's no continual practice in logic and rhetoric. Knowing some basic rules is easy, but learning them deeply and using them regularly is something else. It doesn't help when you have the one place where you're still allowed to make a mistake -- right here folks -- and you have people arguing with each other over what a strawman is. It quickly gets confusing and overwhelming, so for a crowd already needy for instant gratification, they forget about it and continue with their lazy ways.
Maybe we need a /logicgen/.
>>8176322
>and you have people arguing with each other over what a strawman is
To me it looks like most people who use these terms a lot, use them incorrectly. It's like they dont really care about logic but wether saw it once in the /pol/ sticky or something and just want to use it as a convenient way to dismiss argument.
The most common crime in this aspect has to be confusing a simple insult with the ad hominem fallacy
>>8176312
>I see. It seems you only think it is reasonable to research things that are already researched.
I pity you if that's what you got from my post. What I want before researching things is evidence that there is in fact something there, something to look for, even something miniscule. If we lived in the perfect world with all the money to research something no matter how fantastic, then we could search for UFOs or aliens. As it stands out, we need something to point us to a direction, something to tell us that a phenomenon is worth researching. Do you think marine biologists set out to find Cthulhu before sending robots in the oceans? No, they are attempting to find organisms that are explainable by science/plausible.
>>8176317
>So it basically is implausible because you assume the aliens are lazy?
Okay. So, we have a problem, a missing gap in explanation in UFOs, right? We don't know what they are. There are several explanations that fit our limited observations. Aliens are pretty far down the list. You know what's at the top of the list? Meteorological phenomena and black projects. You could also propose that God made us and evolution is just a "theory". Thing is, evolution fits our observations the best way possible, while we have no proof for God. One explanation is supported by evidence, the other isn't. One is plausible, the other isn't. That is how science accepts mainstream "theories".
>>8176337
>something to look for, even something miniscule
Well to me all the testimonies from all those cases lead me to think that there might be a legit phenomenon. We cant always have the luxury to start with the evidence. Sometimes it is more like detective work. It might be something completely different from case to case. It might be russian spy technology or a weather phenomenon or fucking nothing. I just think a scientist shouldnt dismiss something from the get go.
>>8176337
>We don't know what they are.....
Well thanks for explaining all the stuff I already know. Just because other things are more plausible (no shit!), doesnt mean alien lifeforms are completely implausible (what you claimed).
>>8176352
>lead me to think that there might be a legit phenomenon
That's your personal view. Thing is, hard science can't really admit those testimonies as evidence. And the reason ufology explanations are dismissed is because there are already more plausible models to explain our observations. The ayy hypothesis is still there, it's just extremely weak. Noone is stopping you from looking, just don't expect the mainstream scientific community to use the same standards of proof you do. This is all there is to this debate.
>>8176363
>Well thanks for explaining all the stuff I already know.
I phrased the problem from beginning to end so you could follow the whole scientific rationale. Glad to know you don't appreciate it.
>(no shit!)
No, it's not "no shit". When /x/ fags come here and say it's definitely ayys, that's not no shit. That's acknowledging that you believe ayys are more plausible than other explanations. So don't "no shit" me.
>doesnt mean alien lifeforms are completely implausible (what you claimed).
Completely implausible is a manner of saying something is very weakly supported. You could make a hypothesis for anything you want, the hypothesis will exist as an idea, it just won't be supported by any hard evidence. That's the point here.
>>8176376
>Glad to know you don't appreciate it.
Sorry, but it was just completely unrelated and sounded a little bit condescending since I never claimed ayy lmaos were the most likely scenario with UFO sightings and we basically just talked about the plausibility of ayys.
>That's acknowledging that you believe ayys are more plausible than other explanations
What the fuck?! Thats exactly why I gave you a "no shit". Because I dont believe they are the most likely explanation. I never said that anywhere. Thats just strawmanning, mate
see
>>8176317
> I dont even believe Aliens were ever here.
>Completely implausible is a manner of saying something is very weakly supported
I will admit you have a point here. We dont have evidence for aliens, no. However, I think aliens are not implausible just because the universe doesnt seem to have strictly localized unique features. Therefor it is a fair assumption that aliens exist.
>>8175971
Yeah he's a shrilling cunt in that interview.
the Female interviewer was genuine, incredibly calm, polite and logical. Cuckoo turned into a shrilling defensive illogical cunt and refuse to have an intellectual conversation.
he is a tool and shill. an ego maniac. and self centered prima-dona after all these years of appearing on discovery channel science programs that fawn all over him and let him spew his nonsense about the latest "theory"
>>8176376
>there are already more plausible models to explain our observations
But thats what I'm saying. The observations are UFO and the explanations are open to explore.
>just don't expect the mainstream scientific community to use the same standards of proof you do
Kek. For the 50000th time, I dont think testimonies are the same as evidence. I explained to you already that I see them as clues or stepping stones. If you ever get into the scientific community you will see, that a lot of people are indeed very curious and start their research with simple observations. Nobody is denying the value of hard scientific evidence and we dont have different standards here. We just have different attitudes towards research itself
>>8176421
Can I have this post with 80% less buzzwords please
>>8176426
>buzzwords
contextual words and phrases which appropriately describe a person, thing, or event.
>buzzwords
yeah, sure kid
>>8176405
>Sorry, but it was just completely unrelated and sounded a little bit condescending since I never claimed ayy lmaos were the most likely scenario with UFO sightings and we basically just talked about the plausibility of ayys.
Fair enough, I concede.
>What the fuck?! Thats exactly why I gave you a "no shit". Because I dont believe they are the most likely explanation. I never said that anywhere. Thats just strawmanning, mate
ehh... did you miss that whole part?
>>8176376
>When /x/ fags come here and say it's definitely ayys, that's not no shit.
I was referring to /x/ fags that come here and make threads about UFO cases, starting their threads with "This is it, aliens confirmed" etc. Not you.
I did mistype the "you" in that second sentence because I was bundling you with /x/ in my mind, and that was a mistake that might have misled you which I apologize for.
>Therefor it is a fair assumption that aliens exist.
We are still talking about aliens on Earth being the cause of UFO sightings, right? Not aliens in general? Because I never said alien life or intelligent alien life in other star systems is implausible. Quite the opposite in fact.
All of my posts refer to aliens as in floating above America with round-shaped spaceships, abducting people and shoving things up their ass.
>>8176320
>Some of these cases claim the evidence was turned in and disappeared
Some. And what do you expect? I don't want to go conspiritard but the military does tend to seize UFO evidence because "national security"
>let's assume these cases actually happened. What then? Does that mean it's aliens?
Of fucking course. In the Zammora case actual little green men got out of the ship and the Teruchi case the thing was the size of an aircraft carrier. Clearly a starship.
>Do you really think your "movie" assuming it's real, would just be ignored if it was in fact evidence of impossibly fast aircraft
bahahaha are you seriously using the fact that the military swept it under the carpet despite the analysis saying it was hypersonic as proof that the analysis was wrong. Their own analysis team said it was moving impossibly fast and not a reflection of a jet or birds yet they just listed it as "unknown" and forgot about it. And this you say invalidates their analysis?
>EVEN THEN, it would be more plausible to assign an explanation of a black project than aliens
Hypersonic, silently hovering stealth aircraft in 1950, uh-huh.
>This is the standard of proof science demands
No it's retarded, we knew everything about Pluto long before we got a clear photograph of it.
>I'm obviously missing the reference. Care to explain?
The point being you can't say an alien can't do something just because we can't. Scientifically impossible, yes but simply "we don't have the technology" is not good enough.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergalactic_travel
>"scientifically speaking, there is nothing to indicate that intergalactic travel is impossible. There are in fact several conceivable methods of doing it; to date there have been a few people who have studied intergalactic travel in a serious manner"
>>8176436
>that might have misled you
exactly what happened. hope thats understandable with the "you" and all
>We are still talking about aliens on Earth being the cause of UFO sightings, right?
Well, kind of. More about the plausibility of them being a possible explanation. I was originally nitpicking your statement here >>8176216
I think it now basically comes down to:
Could an intelligent alien lifeform be cabable and willing to do interstellar travel?
>above America with round-shaped spaceships, abducting people and shoving things up their ass
KEK
Imagine the day they might be coming for real. We already have so many weird prejudices and memes about them, that they might turn around and leave insulted. "Do I look like someone who would probe your ass? - ...Y-yes."
How the fuck did my logic vs rhetoric thread derail so quickly into a UFO thread?
>>8176585
Good point.
I shall remember this, King Chem.
>>8176587
>>8176587
Yep. KingChem confirmed for underaged tinfoiler :^)
>>8176600
tripfag, derailer AND frogposter
You really want us to fall in love with you, dont you
If you don't use "anonymize" and then go on to mention them when it's utterly irrelevant thus ruining it for people who do use it you are as bad as the tripfags themselves.
>>8175971
The man is human
>>8176619
No
I'm not an attention whore on an anonymous imageboard. Why have a name here? I dont get it
>>8176609
>>8176635
>>8176604
I am your God.
>>8175971
First of all, RT (Russia Today) is a bunch of Russian propaganda. Russia's media is either owned by the government, or censored by the government. There's no reason to trust anything that the propaganda think tank RT comes out with.
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2015/russia
>>8176111
Why do you admit to cringing? Wouldn't't that be the same as admitting to weakness?
>>8176666
Only a strong man admits to weakness you extra 6 satan
>>8176154
IKR
>>8176033
Good job being a real scientist and using the greentext to form your argument instead of the original video... Bravo, son.
>>8176658
As if all Western media isn't also propaganda. RT gets unfair blame for being propaganda simply for being anti-Western. Sure it's got the government pulling the strings but so does FOX over in America and the BBC in England.
>>8176072
Actually, he argued by saying the person with the credentials to speak on the subject is speaking on the subject. If Kaku was an Olympic swimmer or a philosophy professor, then things would be different.
>>8176658
> It's russian so it's russian propaganda
Thats racist and stupid you bigot. How do you only listen to one side and reject anything else, then you call things propaganda.
>>8176670
I came from hell to tell your your weakness, you know. ;)
>>8176691
Actually isn't not racist at all. It's simply true. Lol.
I even provided a link for you DUMB ASS...
>>8176689
>Actually, he argued by saying the person with the credentials to speak on the subject is speaking on the subject
A physicist speaking on political philosphy...
>>8176699
> muh propaganda
go away dum dum. watch more fox news or cnn to fill your brain with crap
>>8176691
>russian is a race
>>8176699
>>8176727
Well it's xenophobic at any rate
It's so obvious, Americans bomb ISIS ineffectively and ends up blowing up schools instead despite million-dollar targeting systems, Western media lauds them as heroes and ignores the dead children. Russia bombs ISIS all the Western media outlets totally ignore the fact that they are helping the war effort and make a massive deal out of some stray bombs. Now ISIS is on the verge of defeat thanks to that Russian assistance it's nowhere to be seen in the Western media
Kaku should stick to his important work on quantum skeletons or whatever it is; he clearly lacks the patience for philosophical argument.
>>8176108
kinda reminds me of pic related
>Name a better system than democracy!
Absolute Monarchy
>There’s no such thing as a perfect democracy… the Greeks had slaves for god’s sake!
He treats his own morals as universal, and morals as more important than the actual success/survival of the civilization.
Seems to me he's just another liberal man who views getting his way as synonymous with democracy.
Imagine if tomorrow we elected a "white supremacist" who vowed to deport blacks, how fast would he be throwing democracy under the bus.
>>8177184
Some people just enjoy straddling that fence, and the feel of the fence post in the ass
They think it gives them a moral high ground
>>8176985
>Well it's xenophobic at any rate
you are either russian or a total cuck
at least we can agree that the media is a cunt
>>8177350
Russian media is freer than the US media, and unlike the west, russians are not stupid enough to believe they get truth out of the media.
>>8177352
being a cuck has nothing to do with nationality. it is about things like getting offended by """xenophobia""" on 4chan
>>8177354
well maybe
i just assumed he might be russian because he was upset by a statement that criticised russia
>>8177354
>russians
>not stupid
K E K
E
K
>>8175971
kaku is a pop memescientist
real scientists don't ever show up on tv to talk about fucking democracy
>>8175982
thread
>>8177644
I thought it had to do with getting off on watching your girl fuck other guys.
>>8176520
>my logic vs rhetoric thread
>sadly my magnum opus
>>8180122
In modern times, it has become a generic four-letter word because LOL MEMES FUNNY.
>>8175971
If you are attacking democracy you are saying that you want something different. Either old or new. Everything old is way more shittier than democracy, everything new is way more riskier.
That is what he saying, and he is cutting through the whole retarded chatting that has no purpose if not as a build-up to discredit democracy
>>8180202
>If you are attacking democracy you are saying that you want something different.
Are you that fucking stupid? She was questioning how democratic our democracy is, and she tried quite hard to make this clear when Kaku had the same idiotic line of thought you did. How is questioning how democratic our democracy is discrediting democracy in general?
>>8180205
I remember that video, she was a sjw arguing about something retarded irrc.
Which means that she was a fascist in disguise. And the answer to fascists is shut the fuck up.
Maybe it's not highlighted is that particular clip, but it was something like that
>>8180214
>Yes I am that fucking stupid, she's one of the evil spooks of The Opposition united against us all.
Does "SJW" have meaning anymore?
>>8180216
Yes, I can be used to identify young left people that have no idea what they are talking about and that with good intentions end up doing the same things extreme right does.
If a retard comes to you and starts ranting about their empty ideas, you have the right to not listen to them.
She may have had the most revolutionary idea on the world, but I wouldn't have listened her either, because the chance of her being a genius are so small that is not worth the time
>RT
Every day I am thankful to have been born into a wealthy Western family, which was able to inculcate me with critical thinking faculties through both formal and informal education, such that I am immune to the propagandized tripe peddled by such rags.
>>8175982
This
>>8177354
>Russian media is freer than the US media
I assume the Russian media told you that.
>>8180221
>it is used to lump all left people into one category and presume their intentions while ignoring their words, because i know what all left people think and i don't like it
>>8176684
>government pulling the strings
>FOX
Holy shit, are you fucking serious? Fox is owned by a geriatric Australian and has spent the last 7.5 years fomenting suspicion that the president of the United States is not a US citizen.
BBC is so stridently neutral they had to give equal air time to the spiteful drivel of Brexit campaigners, contrary to every interest of the UK political establishment.
>>8180253
Yes. If someone starts ranting about this and that problem with democracy while not showing any particular knowledge about the 2000 years of literature regarding it, you can safely assume they are useless at best, damaging at worst
>>8180265
>this and that problem with democracy
Woosh, you hear what you want to hear so that you can quickly categorize people into "the allies" and "the enemies". Have you considered discussing flaws can be productive? Of course not.
>>8180267
On national television with a physicists? It seems to me you are trying to gather consensus, not discussing it
>>8180269
He's an outspoken fuckass who likes to pretend he knows politics as well as everything else, so he was brought on to discuss the mindless views he spreads.
If she was trying to gather consensus, it probably would have been with someone who shares her views, don't you think?
>>8175971
I think we need to teach proper rhetoric in school.
You need to not only have ideas but defend them in science
>>8180273
>proper rhetoric is rhetoric that is not rhetoric
Do you know what that word means?
>>8180270
Except when you are dumb enough that you can't tell your opinions are so shallow that Greeks had argued against them 2000 years ago.
It is endeed a sad interview of it's that what your are trying to say, but it was the girl fault.
>>8180270
>If she was trying to gather consensus, it probably would have been with someone who shares her views, don't you think?
Your question fails to grasp the larger reality of the Russian media landscape, and its utility to the Russian government.
It's easy enough to gather (or rather, encourage) consensus through the exclusion of contradictory ideas, for instance by ridiculing them in a public forum. See exhibit Michio Kaku.
>>8180278
*ignore obvious autocompletation failure
>>8180274
I was being rhetorical.
>>8180278
Her opinions were entirely about the current state of a nation that did not exist even 200 years ago. Please stop hearing only what you want to hear, for your sake. It makes you sound like you have no ability to think for yourself and are offended hearing anything contrary to the views instilled upon you. There were many issues on both sides and I was incredibly frustrated by the end segment with her narrow-minded suggestion of e-elections about entering a war, but Kaku was consistently hard to watch for 70% of the video.
>>8180283
Slightly amused, collect your internet points at the front desk.
>>8180221
>with good intentions
SJW's or other leftists don't have good intentions
They are first and foremost self-interested narcissists doing things because it makes them feel good
>>8180290
I just rewatched to be sure. She is arguing against democracy. She really does not have a clue of what she is saying
>>8180296
noone sane could ever support democracy
>>8180297
>>8180299
If 51% of people voted that everyone should commit suicide
Would it become a good idea because it was "democratically" done?
>>8180296
>She is arguing against democracy
A sensible knee-jerk reaction is that she is arguing against representative democracy in favor of direct democracy. Which I would not go so far as to say, but that's hardly "against democracy". Please stop being this stupid.
>>8180301
I never said direct democracy did I?
democracy with multiple layers is the way to go
>>8180299
He's a fedora but plz don't use muh badly-named based linux distro to meme thx. Stick to hat tipping.
>>8180302
>supporting direct democracy
>after seeing twitch plays pokemon
>after England splitting in half over a referendum
>>8180307
>A sensible knee-jerk reaction
>Which I would not go so far as to say
I don't support direct democracy. I'm saying his assessment is not just knee-jerk but unsensible.
>>8180303
Voting for some leader who can then do whatever he wishes is really not democratic at all.
Why compromise the system with democracy in the first place? Democracy is terrible, concensus will always be wrong.
why people admit some things are outside their scope of expertise?
if I become a world class fiction writer I'll admit I can only give a proper answer to creative writing questions.
or if I become a painter I can only answer painting related questions.
this is retarded as fuck.
>>8180122
thats the literal meaning
>>8175971
Kaku is batshit and everyone has accepted this fact a long time ago.
>>8181906
>american argumentation
>>8181917
>ad hominem
american "education" in full effect
>>8181923
Sorry bud. Ad hominems only apply in the context of an argument whereas I'm just insulting you.
Are all yuropoors this big of uneducated fucks? Or don't you have much time to study in between constructing suicide vests?
>>8181932
embarrassing
>>8175971
He had no clue what the interviewer was actually asking and did a knee jerk response then became ignorantly defensive as he started to realize his mistake. The way he used to defend his mistake was to turn the tables on the interviewer and make the focus about the interviewer.
He made himself look like a fool, using comebacks you'd hear in a middle school debate class.
>>8181945
Ah thanks. I knew that I forgot a word.
*embarrassing uneducated fucks
Maybe you're not so bad after all Muhammed.
>>8181948
No. He recognized the question as blantant anti-American propaganda and gave an appropriate response. It's too bad that you yuros are too uneducated to read between the lines.
>butthurt yuro: AMERICA IS BADD WAHH *something something* democracy
>logical michio: go fuck yourself
>>>>8175971
He responded expediently and expeditiously, as he should have.
Debates, true debates, require preparation as to be labeled ' legitimate' debates: ones in which cases can truly be argued for in depth. There's too much depth in democracy to answer those sort of questions in a truly constructive sort of way under the time impingements which had to be followed.
>>8175971
The comment section under that video just strengthens my belief that "enlightened" democratic freedom loving humanist atheists are not one single bit smarter than religious people.
I lost my fucking shit at the end. He spends so much time rambling about how democracy is the best and muhh votes and muhh this and that, and then in the end he ends up mentioning the single biggest flaw of democracy "sometimes the most popular opinion is not the correct one".
What a fucking retard.
>>8181995
>a good system can be bad ... uh ... like sometimes ...
Unless you can suggest a superior form of governance (after defining what you mean by superior), his comment is not at all logically inconsistent.
>>8181957
yep pretty much this. Kaku isnt stupid enough to get trapped into some retarded anti American question.
Yeah, that's a lame response. I have no bias here. Not everyone is that unprepared on certain subjects like politics, but most people are. Go to any intellectual community and you will find that people are pretty one dimensional and actually quite boring when it comes to informal logic.
>>8182023
Here's a question for you:
Why does one put the modifier "political" on correct in the term "politically correct". If something is correct, then does it matter if it's political or not?
The question was not anti-american. It was a valid question if you know anything about politics. That's coming from a science person who grew up in a leftist household.
>>8182011
>(after defining what you mean by superior)
The economic, fiscal, military, and moral health it provides to the country
The longevity & stability
All of which are provided optimally by an absolute monarchy.
>>8182058
>politcally correct means correct
Not him, but are you retarded? The modifier strictly implies that it it INcorrect, but it is the diplomatic thing to say given the polical circumstances.
Also:
>RT
>not openly anti-American
You should stick with science, since politics doesn't seem to be in your realm of experience.
>>8182086
*that it is
>>8175971
what do you mean by actual democratic power?
>>8175971
He probably has far left socialist beliefs like any scientist, so he just fluffs over political questions so he doesn't outright say "everyone should do whatever they want for free"
The guy believe thermometers have souls because they are able to respond to stimulus. He probably feels bad when he steps on bugs
>>8182011
And the point just flew over your head, Burgerclap. Do you think it's a good thing that a leader should have the ability to do what is best for his country even if it would be not be popular among the populace? Then what's the point of democracy?
Your blind knee-jerk reaction is preventing you from seeing the cognitive dissonance in Cuckoo's statement.
>>8175978
This post. Michio is playing it smart.
>>8175971
Rhetoric is more persuasive than logic. If your goal is to persuade others, then you should use the more effective tool.
>>8182415
This is what disgusts me about humans.
Filth.
>>8181957
How is that anti-american when the USA isn't a real democracy? Everyone already knows this.
he was asked a loaded question
you guys are reading too much into this
>>8175971
I never realized this guy was such an ass.
>>8175978
>But they could argue over ''appearance'' of democracy I guess hahahahaha which serves no purpose.
Yeah man, it totally serves no purpose to distinguish between situations where there is real democratic power and only the superficial appearance of democratic power.
The USSR was officially democratic. It's right in the name: "soviet" describes a hierarchy of representative bodies. The people would vote directly for representatives on their local "soviet" (governing council), then the local soviet would send its representative to the regional soviet, and the regional soviets would send their representatives to the Congress of Soviets. (this system evolved somewhat, but the basic idea of a government in the superficial form of a hierarchical representative democracy was preserved)
However, it was from the beginning a farce where there was always only one "credible candidate" selected by the Communist Party, who the people were told to vote for and who always won the election. The country was ruled, in fact, by the party bosses.
Likewise, the Roman Empire was always officially a Republic. It's just that sometimes the Senate had very little actual power, when the "emergency powers" of the Imperator (literally "commander", like "Commander in Chief") were retained for decades and passed on to heirs.
If there are only two "credible candidates" which the people are told they must choose between, and voting for either will result in the same policy, then there is no democratic control over that policy.
If elected executives consistently lie about the policy they will carry out to get elected, and the people can't recall them when they do, then there's no democratic control over executive policy.
Democracy often falls apart in substance while appearing to continue in form. Glib evasions of this concern are not sound reasoning.
>>8182998
Congratulations, you got yourself caught. What's the next step of your master plan?
>>8183011
What the fuck are you talking about?
I'm sure you felt like you had a clever idea in your head, but only gibberish has come out.
>>8175971
>proficient theoretical physicist
kek
>>8182227
There is no cognitive dissonance.
>Do you think it's a good thing that a leader should have the ability to do what is best for his country even if it would be not be popular among the populace?
>best for his country
"Best" is subjective and depends on ones point of view. Obviously if most of the population disagreed with something, then they would not believe that something to be "the best".
What you're really asking is if I agree with the president on an unpopular issue, should he then be able to subvert democracy? The answer is NO, because such a system could just as easily be used to subvert democracy in a way that I disagree with. It allows a ruler to have absolute power and become completely corrupt. That's why they did away with monarchies.
It makes sense that you'd think this way though. Yuropoors always are stuck in a slave mentality.
>>8183020
You're a big thinker.
>>8175971
Because most scientist never studied formal logic in arguments and never visited a philosophy lecture.
>>8175982
That's an stupid argument. Every human on the world should know how to debate properly and form logical arguments. Without philosophy and formal logic most of the modern sciences would be shit. Mathematics is just a form of formal logic compressed in symbols.
- Physics grad student here which also studied 2 semester philosophy.
>>8183471
>which also studied 2 semester philosophy
Which homeless shelter did you visit?
>>8183475
Basel University
>>8182998
thanks for this, i actually learned something on sci for once
>>8183447
For you
>>8182998
Thank you, anon.
I gave up on this thread, but you have given me hope.
>>8183471
>formal logic in arguments
>formal logic
>formal
Informal*
Don't let that math aspie catch you making that mistake, as he will not let it go.
He chased me 'round /sci/ once.
>>8176048
Can there be a more subjective opinion than this:
>Often the most popular decision is the wrong decision
Unless you are trusted somehow by the discussion partner - and he just doesn't have the will or energy to argue with you - or if he's clueless - I don't see why you would ever use that argument...
>>8176072
In the scenario where angels of God come trough windows - going trough matter - flying and manifesting odd phenomena - how would you judge that logically?
>>8176077
he thinks with logic alone - he could figure out the puzzle of every science in the world, and yet again he thinks logic is the absolute key in everything - just put stuff into arguments - and he'll tell you if it's logical or not.
As an American I can say I don't honestly care what her fat ass thinks because she completely ignores the action component of social cooperation. You need people actually following orders whether the command comes from a democratic or nondemocratic decision. We've managed to establish ourselves as the superpower par excellence because people of the people who risked their lives for OUR side.
>>8175971
I love Michio Kaku because that's how I got into theorical physics, it's all thanks to him and he's awesome, and nothing you say is going to change that, fuck you.
>>8186192
Ethos.
>pleb
>>8175971
This is why I stopped getting financial advice from my plumber.
Michio Kaku isn't a politician. Politics have no basis in logic. You've found Michio's autistic side.
>>8175971
>Complains about logical reasoning
>Posts image of theoretical physicist
>>8186195
> Politics have no basis in logic.
I agree, it's largely based in rhetoric and fallacy.
Does that not seriously concern you?
>>8186199
>math
>illogical
>>8186200
It's terribly troubling to see the masses blindly scream for leadership at all costs, as if original thoughts are only granted to the chosen ones.
>>8186276
>Name a better system than democracy!
Fascism.
>>8186283
LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION
DO YOU THINK THAT THE HOLOCAUST DID NOT HAPPEN?
I GIVE YOU THE COURTESY OF BEING IN YOUR THREAD, YOU SHOULD GIVE ME THE COURTESY OF ANSWERING ONE SIMPLE QUESTION
DID THE HOLOCAUST HAPPEN?
>>8186299
>>8175971
>The majority of people seem incapable of engaging in (informal) logical reasoning
>tfw you realise that most people don’t actually know what formal and informal logic are
>tfw you realise that people don’t understand what the terms ‘logical’ and ‘illogical’ actually mean
>tfw you realise people have no idea what the terms induction, deduction and abduction mean
>tfw you realise that people have no idea what rhetoric actually means
>tfw you realise people have never heard of ethos, pathos and logos
>tfw this was discerned over two millennia ago yet people are still largely ignorant
>tfw you realise people assume they are in a position to understand anything and everything despite this ignorance
>tfw people don’t apply science and logical reasoning to all aspects of their life and society in general
>tfw Dunning-Kruger effect
>tfw confirmation bias
>tfw disconfirmation bias
>tfw in-group/out-group mentality
>tfw cognitive biases and heuristic shortcuts honed over millions of years of evolutionary history intellectually stunt the majority
>tfw ‘tips fedora ‘is the most likely response to this post
>tfw
>>8186299
Hitler did nothing wrong.
>>8186344
Caedus did nothing wrong
>>8186339
yes, you are so smart and a special snowflake for reading aristotle sparknotes
>>8186426
What the fuck is a sparknote?
>>8186339
This is a feeling I've had on many days, for many years. I've ceased seriously reverse engineering people how people generate their state and outputs, and what they're likely experiencing.
Just avoid meaningful interaction of any kind. Passively harvest the fruits of people who are worthwhile. Good luck living with the consequences of other people not existing in a vacuum like they're apt to want to think I haven't figured a way to truly deal with this misery yet.
The US election has an unfortunate par for the course, and thensome.
>>8183020
That angry Burgerclap has been responding angrily to all posts criticizing democracy (or what passes for democracy) with inane bullshit.
I think it might be Cuckoo himself.
>>8186299
We must never forget Alfred Hitler and his murder of six thousand innocent Israelis.
>>8186426
I don't understand this kind of argument or commentary.
It's centred on prestige, as the comment appears to be an attempt to detract prestige/status from the other anon, after assuming they were themselves attempting to project an image of prestige/status.
This sort of thing seems to be expected considering we are social primates and live in social hierarchies; however people don’t ever seem to talk about it.
This type of commentary has nothing to do with logic and is only partially related to ethos, in that it relates to the credibility of the speaker, however it is so prevalent.
I find it very interesting.
Anyone else have any ideas?
>>8186980
you're on an anime imageboard pontificating about "le social hierarchies of common primates" like you are some sort of spock-like super-intelligence impervious to biases and above all human emotion, so yes, people are going to make fun of you for being a pretentious pseudo-intellectual faggot.
get over yourself m8
>>8186985
You just did it again.
What is going on?
>>8186980
>>8186985
oh and take your two-bit armchair psychoanalysis and shove it up your fucking ass, this is a science board.
>>8186980
Multifaceted, and relative to a number of factors.
Mainly I think it's insecurity and a feeling of lacking power and control in one's everyday life. Therefore a pseudo-collectivist attitude is adopted, and anyone speaking in a vein that is not comfortable can be readily framed as falsely elevating or detaching oneself from the whole. This somewhat counterbalances a sensation of entrapment and inferiority. It also has the benefit of being directly reliant on a notion of consensus and authority, while still having a sense of herd connectedness for the poster.
I don't really think on a low level it as much to do with personal prestige or social status. It's just an easy culturally established go-to, like "conspiracy theorist", "pretentious", or "special snowflake". It's all clutter drawn in around a lack of personal substance.
Any utility of these phrases has long been stripped by rampant misuse.
>>8186988
How is human behaviour not an area of scientific interest?
It’s essentially a branch of ethology.
>two-bit armchair psychoanalysis
What does that even mean?
>>8186991
>What does that even mean?
It means stop trying to haphazardly ascribe deep-seated psychological motivations to random posts from strangers on the internet, faggot.
