Post by Radrook Admin on Jul 31, 2022 23:14:40 GMT -5
Ad Hominem lichess parrots
There is a very serious misconception among nonscientists that seriously warps their reasoning. That is that anyone who is not a scientist cannot criticize a scientist, or effectively prove a scientist wrong. But is that truly the case? Well, let's consider cogent reasoning which comes under the category of philosophy which is part of the humanities. . Is a person versed in cogent unqualified to evaluated whether or not a certain scientist is being true to the scientific method?
Well, if the scientific method were totally unrelated to cogent reasoning, perhaps that might be the case. However, since scientists must remain true to cogent reasoning in order to guarantee that their conclusions are valid, it is not. You see, if indeed a scientist violates cogent reasoning, then he ceases to be a scientist and becomes a charlatan or a quack.
For example, if a scientist ignores relevant evidence, and permits his prejudices and preferences to interfere with his evaluations, then he is not thinking cogently, and some non scientists will notice the chicanery. These might even include such scientifically unsophisticated persons, such as bricklayers, carpenters and even janitor. Who they are is totally irrelevant to the validity of their criticism.
Now, refusal to accept that valid criticism merely because a janitor is the one who is identifying their flawed thinking as being flawed, is called ad hominem, or attacking the man. In short, criticism demands that the scientist address the criticism directly, and not evade it by irrelevantly shifting the focus on the person.
In fact, shifting away from the issue and focusing it on the person instead, will probably indicate that the atheist scientist is hiding something. After all, if he were not, then why would he need to attack the person and not focus on the relevant issues? Now, a scientist using fallacious or flawed thinking is fully aware of the absurdity of ad hominem, since cogent reasoning is needed in order to be a scientist. However, in the case of those who are not scientist, but who are merely using the words scientist and science as prestige symbol in their blind support whatever any scientist might chance to utter, no matter how utterly absurd it might chance to be, awareness of the logical flaw might be missing. In their case, it is probably an expression of blind faith in whatever a scientist proposes, and an assumption that a scientist would never resort to chicanery, or be capable of being illogical.
In fact, they need not even understand the essence of what is at stake. To these parrot like persons, what is of fanatical paramount importance is being on the side of what they have assumed is science. So instead of any refutation, what we get in response to our valid detailed criticism is name-calling and ad hominems. Both of which prove absolutely nothing at all except the need to parrot mindlessly and squawk the words science and scientist ad infinitum, in a vain attempt to awe the logical thinker silence. That is the type of situation I encountered on the discussion forum at lichess. Which conclusively proves that to play chess, one need not be particularly bright.
Well, if the scientific method were totally unrelated to cogent reasoning, perhaps that might be the case. However, since scientists must remain true to cogent reasoning in order to guarantee that their conclusions are valid, it is not. You see, if indeed a scientist violates cogent reasoning, then he ceases to be a scientist and becomes a charlatan or a quack.
For example, if a scientist ignores relevant evidence, and permits his prejudices and preferences to interfere with his evaluations, then he is not thinking cogently, and some non scientists will notice the chicanery. These might even include such scientifically unsophisticated persons, such as bricklayers, carpenters and even janitor. Who they are is totally irrelevant to the validity of their criticism.
Now, refusal to accept that valid criticism merely because a janitor is the one who is identifying their flawed thinking as being flawed, is called ad hominem, or attacking the man. In short, criticism demands that the scientist address the criticism directly, and not evade it by irrelevantly shifting the focus on the person.
In fact, shifting away from the issue and focusing it on the person instead, will probably indicate that the atheist scientist is hiding something. After all, if he were not, then why would he need to attack the person and not focus on the relevant issues? Now, a scientist using fallacious or flawed thinking is fully aware of the absurdity of ad hominem, since cogent reasoning is needed in order to be a scientist. However, in the case of those who are not scientist, but who are merely using the words scientist and science as prestige symbol in their blind support whatever any scientist might chance to utter, no matter how utterly absurd it might chance to be, awareness of the logical flaw might be missing. In their case, it is probably an expression of blind faith in whatever a scientist proposes, and an assumption that a scientist would never resort to chicanery, or be capable of being illogical.
In fact, they need not even understand the essence of what is at stake. To these parrot like persons, what is of fanatical paramount importance is being on the side of what they have assumed is science. So instead of any refutation, what we get in response to our valid detailed criticism is name-calling and ad hominems. Both of which prove absolutely nothing at all except the need to parrot mindlessly and squawk the words science and scientist ad infinitum, in a vain attempt to awe the logical thinker silence. That is the type of situation I encountered on the discussion forum at lichess. Which conclusively proves that to play chess, one need not be particularly bright.