Res Ipsa wrote:I should add to my glossary of Tobinisms: "Yawn" or "boring" means: "I've lost the argument but I'll pretend I haven't and quickly change the subject in the hope that no one notices.
I'm sure you've noticed, as I have, that ldsfaqs uses the very same tactic when confronted with evidence and arguments he knows he can't refute.
Tobin is worse because he is more capable of having a real discussion but refuses to do so. Brad has been very patient in trying to get him to really discuss the issue. All one needs to do is see who gives more in depth posts and how often they reference scientific literature to back up what they claim. I cannot think of any that tobin has done in this whole thread.
Gunnar wrote:I'm sure you've noticed, as I have, that ldsfaqs uses the very same tactic when confronted with evidence and arguments he knows he can't refute.
I've yet to see you respond to one of my questions or present a valid argument Gunnar. Again, put up or shut up.
I have yet to see you recognize a or honestly acknowledge a valid argument when confronted with one.
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
Gunnar wrote:I have yet to see you recognize a or honestly acknowledge a valid argument when confronted with one.
You think a valid argument is Argumentum ad populum. Since that is all I've confronted from you, there is no reason to take what you've said so far seriously.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Gunnar wrote:I have yet to see you recognize a or honestly acknowledge a valid argument when confronted with one.
You think a valid argument is Argumentum ad populum. Since that is all I've confronted from you, there is no reason to take what you've said so far seriously.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Gunnar wrote:I have yet to see you recognize a or honestly acknowledge a valid argument when confronted with one.
You think a valid argument is Argumentum ad populum. Since that is all I've confronted from you, there is no reason to take what you've said so far seriously.
You keep saying that and you are wrong. You've yet to explain why or how what he's saying isn't exactly that.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
Again, would you like me to quote what Gunnar said? His argument is classic Ad Populum Argument. He claims we must believe a majority of climatologists because they are the majority and for NO OTHER REASON. Read that link you just read. What does it say about that?
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
You keep saying that and you are wrong. You've yet to explain why or how what he's saying isn't exactly that.
Here, Tobin commits a fallacious attempt to shift the burden of proof. He made the claim that Gunnar is committing the Ad Populum fallacy. It is his burden to explain why the fallacy applies.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Again, would you like me to quote what Gunnar said? His argument is classic Ad Populum Argument. He claims we must believe a majority of climatologists because they are the majority and for NO OTHER REASON. Read that link you just read. What does it say about that?
Is Tobin appealing to wikipedia as an "authority"?
Could someone please quote for me where Tobin's authority says the fallacy applies to a scientific consensus?
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
