http://boingboing.net/2012/07/10/crackpots-geniuses-and-how-t.html
1) If it makes a really nice story, ask for the details. (Good science usually makes a bigger deal out of the evidence than it makes out of the story. In fact, that’s actually a problem many legit scientists have—they’re better at talking about the details and data then they are at telling stories. But most of us respond to stories better than we respond to details and data.)
2) If the proof seems self-evident (i.e., it’s just good common sense), ask more questions.
3) If believing the idea will make you smarter than the official experts, be suspicious. Experts aren’t always right. But they do know their fields and experience does matter. Chances are, you’re an expert in something. Say you knew how to bake pies really well. You’d be pretty suspicious if somebody who didn’t bake (or didn’t even really cook much) told you that you were making pies all wrong — and that they had a secret pie recipe that was better than yours. They might be right. It’s worth taking a look at their evidence. But it also worth being skeptical.
4) If the studies used to prove it are really old, or if there’s only a few of them, dig deeper. What looks like truth when you look at five research papers can very quickly become completely untrue when you look at 500. What sounds like a good idea when presented by it’s originator can turn out to be terrible when you talk to a few other people. Try to get a sense of what the bulk of evidence is saying.
5) If you’re told you can’t trust any other sources of information (especially because of Big Conspiracy), be cautious. Replication is a powerful tool. It helps us get past accidental and intentional biases to see something closer to the truth. Suppressing replication is also powerful, because it leaves you with no way to check against bias.
You guys try to hard.
>>16955467
Try to hard what? And how do you "hard" something?
>>16955467
> anon mad his crackpot theory got BTFO
>>16955469
Nothing paranormal about this thread
>>16955448
>2) If the proof seems self-evident (i.e., it’s just good common sense)
Fedora skeptics claim everything they argue is common sense then resort to personal attacks when it's pointed out that common sense is subjective.
>3) If believing the idea will make you smarter than the official experts, be suspicious.
Appealing to authority is equally suspect. Besides that, it's common practice in court rooms to challenge experts. Would you say that legal systems are for crackpots?
>What looks like truth when you look at five research papers can very quickly become completely untrue when you look at 500.
Again, going with the courtroom analogy. It's quite common for "experts" to disagree on clear facts. You're simply saying that because some people disagree with one supposition -- it must be false. This is another appeal to the authority of those authorities which you subjectively favor.
>5) If you’re told you can’t trust any other sources of information (especially because of Big Conspiracy), be cautious.
Oh, the bottom of this loser argument. Someone thinks conspiracies are unthinkable and everyone just tells the truth always. If that were so -- why are there RICO laws?
Speculations are of low quality
Many crackpots hold great wisdom, but the world will not see them.
Many geniuses are just sitting on their high horse.
As if science beats wisdom, forgot this was the internet where opinions are "right"
>>16955481
Those aren't very accurate descriptions of commonplace behaviors in court rooms, but then, I don't think you really understand the point of either the link or the cartoon, either. You seem to think they're condemning things they're not.
>>16955488
"I am right you are wrong because I made the thread"
>>16955481
>>16955448
I would add, OP pic is totally biased towards fedora world views.
>>16955493
Damn, I have brought out the derp in SOMEBODY. I never realized critical thinking was this offensive to anyone!
>>16955494
They're afraid of "autism" for some reason
>>16955497
Not exactly derp, you just sound like an asshole
>>16955488
>Those aren't very accurate descriptions of commonplace behaviors in court rooms
Oh, what, am I supposed to just take your word on it? Is that common sense?
>I don't think you really understand the point of either the link or the cartoon, either.
The point of the cartoon is to stroke fedora e-peen. There's nothing logical or objective about it.
>>16955504
No, he just sounds right. It's not typical to challenge accepted court experts in a court room nor, actually, is it common for multiple experts on a subject to disagree about particular facts.
I don't find anything offensive about the message, "keep an open mind but here's some tricks to not being an overly credulous dimwit." #5 is one /x/-tacles should definitely take to heart.
>>16955514
Keep saying "fedora over and over shitburger. Makes you look fucking BRILLIANT.
>>16955497
Define critical thinking.
>>16955499
Droppin the A-bomb like a champ.
>>16955517
Who cares what is common and what is expected
>>16955514
>There's nothing logical or objective about it.
If you don't grasp the logic of using bulk data to build a clearer picture of what the data may be saying (no. 4) then you and reason have no relationship and you should be concerned. One whole branch of reasoning, inductive reasoning, is exclusively that and even deductive reasoning relies on it as much as is possible the minute you step outside the most abstract of formal reasoning to apply facts to the real world.
There's hardly a more logical statement on Earth than, "collate more data!"
>>16955532
Bunch of words
Be simple
You tried OP and it was admirable, it's not about actually learning anything with some people, just about winning the argument and they will always be right.
>>16955517
>It's not typical to challenge accepted court experts in a court room
It absolutely is. The point is for one of two sides to prove their version of events to a jury. If the district attorney doesn't argue that the defenses experts are wrong, then they're more likely to lose the case. The same applies in the reverse, the defense wants to disprove the DA's experts.
>nor, actually, is it common for multiple experts on a subject to disagree about particular facts.
It absolutely is. In most cases, either side will produce experts in order to validate their version of events.
>"keep an open mind but here's some tricks to not being an overly credulous dimwit."
Nice personal attack.
>anyone who disagrees with my suppositions is an overly credulous dimwit.
>>16955522
Ladies, we have a euphoric on our hands.
>>16955545
That's not true u wanna go nigga
>>16955546
Is that michael jackson? lmao
>>16955532
>you and reason have no relationship and you should be concerned.
Sweet personal attack. The audience was swayed.
>If you don't grasp the logic of using bulk data to build a clearer picture of what the data may be saying.
I don't grasp the logic of appealing to the masses. You say instead of 5, look at 500. Why not 5,000? Why not 5,000,000,000? Let's just ask everyone what they think. Then, when we have all of everyone's opinions cataloged, we'll run statistics on it, and take the mean as the truth.
There is a more logical statement. "Question everything."
>>16955553
I'm gonna tooty your frooty.
>>16955546
>It absolutely is. The point is for one of two sides to prove their version of events to a jury. If the district attorney doesn't argue that the defenses experts are wrong, then they're more likely to lose the case. The same applies in the reverse, the defense wants to disprove the DA's experts.
No, typically court experts, which are most often types of forensic experts, are called to support more basic factual concepts like why a given time of death is held to be accurate. Once such an expert has testified, their testimony is rarely challenged in and of itself. If this information is damaging to anyone's legal argument, they will either try to circumvent it with other arguments or throw in data which, without contesting the expert directly, offers alternatives. They very rarely say, either directly or through other court recognized experts, "that expert is WRONG." that is an unusual event.
>>16955563
Whoever he is, he's hungry for moar.
>>16955569
>Sweet personal attack. The audience was swayed.
Sorry, hahahaha, I keep forgetting that just because the rules say you're supposed to be over 18 doesn't actually mean I should expect to be talking to adults who won't bawl over everything said about them.
Whine all you want, I stand by that point, sir. If you don't get the relationship between data and reason as stated then you don't understand reason. That's not a personal attack, that's an objective fact. It's like saying that if you don't have any legs you're not going to be winning any foot races. It's just how things are.
>>16955574
>court experts
"Court experts" isn't a term that's ever used by anyone. Attorney's just hit up experts in the relevant fields, and pay them to testify. They would be referred to as, "an expert in X field.."
>Once such an expert has testified, their testimony is rarely challenged in and of itself.
This is a flagrant lie. The expert doesn't just get up on the stand and speak his bit. The attorney's ask the expert questions about his findings. A good attorney is able to ask questions which call that experts findings into question, without personally attacking the expert. For example, how I'm arguing with you without using personal attacks.
>They very rarely say, either directly or through other court recognized experts, "that expert is WRONG."
You're assuming an incredibly stupid scenario as a basis for your argument. If you're using tactics like this, you must be flustered.
Crackpots, Court judges, internet browsers, geniuses... These are terms... Generalizations... Nothing more, nothing less.
We all close our eyes and fall alseep at night. Unconscious, and it won't matter how much speculation you guys make on here because real life is outside, off if the internet
>>16955609
No, none of this is accurate. First off, if you're trying to be a stickler for accurate terminology, the term you want is expert witness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness
And the ability to cross examine a witness doesn't mean that a lawyer tries to find every route to undermine said witnesses. In the real world, when you leave behind your poorly written television dramas, many witnesses aren't cross examined, it's not a relevant tactic to the strategy a given legal entity is employing. This is especially true when it comes to expert witnesses; it is a poor position for a lawyer to find themselves in when their strategy relies on undermining the testimony of someone who's been recognized as an expert witness. But it's always fun to discuss the law with avid fans of the CSI series of television programs.
>>16955596
>the rules say you're supposed to be over 18
>Whine all you want
Your personal attacks are so skillful and full of tact. The audience is raving. Good thing you're namefagging, they'll remember you for this.
>If you don't get the relationship between data and reason as stated then you don't understand reason.
Error 404: argument not found. Simply restating your earlier point doesn't make it any more true or objectively factual.
See: >>16955493
>It's like saying that if you don't have any legs you're not going to be winning any foot races.
Irrelevant analogies don't prove anything either.
>>16955630
>Your personal attacks are so skillful and full of tact.
Weren't they just?! And fun to craft and type. You're right, people will more easily associate this conversation with my nickname but of the small handful of viewers who care, I think all they'll remember is, "Remember that time Lintwhistle was making fun of that retard who thought that gathering more data was the same as an appeal to the masses fallacy? That was hilarious!"
>>16955629
>doesn't mean that a lawyer tries to find every route to undermine said witnesses.
This wasn't my argument. You're exaggerating in order to create something that's easier for you to argue against.
>In the real world, when you leave behind your poorly written television dramas
Still with the personal attacks... We've been over this...
>>16955638
Nice ego lol...
>>16955638
Oh, and you forgot to restate your argument word for word a 10th time.
>>16955646
People who don't have healthy egos don't become senators!
>>16955662
No more personal attacks? No more restatements of your flawed logic?
Is that game?
>>16955448
This board lacks wisdom
>>16955700
whoops!
>>16955737
Before /x/ I was a productive /c/itizen now the gates of /b/ wont accept me...
>>16955746
Then get off 4chan and be useful in life
>>16955760
You must love scifi because thats just out of this world.
>>16955746
That'd make a good t-shirt!
>>16955734
>>16955737
>>16955746
>>16955763
>>16955771
samefagging a dead thread...
>>16955771
It's like that scene in Titanic...
...Bob Dylan is singing...
And there's CGI...
...and the haughty-taughty party...
...and then Capn' Leonardo goes to the downstairs party...
It's a blockbuster hit :/
>>16955771
>>16955912
We could reboot Titanic and call it "Bob Cruise"
Then we could have 3 great films...
"Top Gun", "Jurassic Park" AND "Bob Cruise".
>>16955771
The name of my adopted son was "Bob Cruise"
...he renamed to "Russell Brand" tho :/
...Maybe we could put a bunch of plants in the middle of the NEW big ship (BoB Cruise)
And dinosaurs...
...
:/
>>16955923
Lets just say its a really big ship!
:/
When I tell people I'm a Crip I open my eyes REAL wide!
>>16955448
Wise tulpa once said,
>You can't dictate of the action of others because that's wrong on it's face!
>>16955448
this pic is fucken great holy shit best chuckle I've had all day
>>16955912
>>16955919
>>16955923
>>16955930
>>16956999
Samefag is same fag..
>>16955737
Nice ruse.
The graph's comments kinda gives it away though.
