Re: "Four questions for atheists" blog post [#2578]

[Omen]

To be honest, part of my unspoken disagreement with screwtape and velkyn was because of my distaste with their attitudes on this subject.  No offense to them, but they are quite hostile towards religion (not without cause, but still); it's a lot easier to take what someone says with a grain of salt when their feelings about the subject are so strong.

this reads as “I can disregard them as long as I don’t agree with their “attitudes”, no matter what the facts are.”

Jaime responded with a chicken shit private message, with basically the same arguments from personal incredulity.

[Omen]

Jaimehlers refuses to have the discussion in the thread in which I responded to his original post and continues to harass me via private messages.  I am not allowed to post the contents of that message due to the forum rules and refuse to engage in discussion until Jaimehlers posts publicly in order to be accountable to the community itself.

Here's the original post:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19520.msg434125.html#msg434125

[jaimehlers]

Jaimehlers refuses to have the discussion in the thread in which I responded to his original post and continues to harass me via private messages.  I am not allowed to post the contents of that message due to the forum rules and refuse to engage in discussion until Jaimehlers posts publicly in order to be accountable to the community itself.

Here's the original post:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19520.msg434125.html#msg434125

Somehow, I am not surprised at this post, considering the nature of your responses to me.  Never mind the fact that I've found it easier to get to the bottom of things with a private discussion instead of a public one.  Seems you want a public judgment instead of a private discussion.

By all means, feel free to post our private message exchange, provided that you post every message in its entirety (even though we were both being a bit immature at the end; it's important to see the whole thing).  That satisfies the rules of the forum, does it not?  If you don't want to go to the trouble, then I'll be more than happy to, provided you're okay with those messages being posted.

[Omen]

Seems you want a public judgment instead of a private discussion.

Actually, forcing you to engage openly helps hold you accountable to a community of your peers.  Not doing so places no social burden upon you to behave at least marginally within the bounds of reason, which your first post wasn't worth consideration and was you regurgitating the same idiotic pleading dismissals you offered to everyone else here.  I'd rather have you treat me like shit openly, rather then insulting me privately with such irrational bullshit.

By all means, feel free to post our private message exchange, provided that you post every message in its entirety

Jaime, you don't possess the moral high ground because I called you a coward for not addressing me publicly.  That is also not an ad hominem, I'm not tying your behavior as a coward to your ability to argue for a point.  I'm just insulting you because you deserve it, for being a chicken shit mealy mouthed coward.  See, not a single fuck was given.  I will post the PMs as soon as I am able to access them.

[pianodwarf]

Jaime, you don't possess the moral high ground because I called you a coward for not addressing me publicly.  That is also not an ad hominem, I'm not tying your behavior as a coward to your ability to argue for a point.  I'm just insulting you because you deserve it, for being a chicken shit mealy mouthed coward.  See, not a single fuck was given.  I will post the PMs as soon as I am able to access them.

Omen, this is out of line.  You've been here long enough to know better.  Tone it down.

[Omen]

Jamies PM to me: ( posted with permission )  This was supposed to be a response to me at: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19520.msg434125.html#msg434125

---------------------------------------------

So random expertise is only of any consequence when you need to dismiss someone else out of hand?

How does that answer my question?

You're the one pulling out psychological terminology in order to justify your subjective opinion.  I'm not really interested in helping you to validate that opinion by taking your misuse of said terminology seriously.  Furthermore, your 'question' comes across as little more than a thinly-veiled attempt to either get me to agree with you, thus proving you right, or disagree with you, thus 'demonstrating' that my opinion is invalid.  I don't play "heads you win, tails I lose".

Try presenting your argument in such a way that you aren't relying on your preconceptions in this matter to support your conclusion.

No, you don't like their description of her behavior, your rejection was done out of incredulity and nothing else.  I went back and passed over the various discussion points and the manner in which you describe responses from screwtape and velkyn don't match up with what they actually stated.

Oh?  So why didn't you pull out the discrepancies in order to prove me wrong, then?  They would have made your argument much stronger and more effective.  If you want to prove that I'm rejecting out of incredulity, then you have to prove it, not just make statements and claims that require other people to do the work you should have done.

So let me see, how does it go:

You're welcome to your opinion, but its just your opinion.

Wow, what an argument.  I love how it allows me to take no responsibility for what I'm saying the instant I deem it worthy or unworthy of my own intellectual honesty/dishonesty.

Unless you can demonstrate that your opinion is worth listening to, then I am under no obligation to take it seriously.

If you want to continue making claims without backing them up, and using subjective opinions in the place of verifiable facts, then by all means, do so.  But don't sit here and try to lecture me about how wrong I am about something if you aren't even willing to go to a minimal amount of effort to support your own argument.

Yes, you're the one who takes responsibility for what you're saying.  You're the one who decides how you're going to make your points.  And you're the one who decides how unimpeachable your argument is.

That's really all there is to it.  Please come back with something other than sarcastic comments and axiomatic claims that you don't even bother to support, if you come back at all.

[Omen]

My response:

I'm answering here rather than in the thread, because it's moved on.

Because you're a coward.

So random expertise is only of any consequence when you need to dismiss someone else out of hand?

How does that answer my question?

You're the one pulling out psychological terminology in order to justify your subjective opinion.

Nope.

Mental disorders have well defined parameters involving the study of behavior, the ability for those models to make predictions correctly, and are no more nebulous or subject than talking about any other field of science.  I am not using anything to justify subjective opinions, I'm describing actions in comparison to a type of behavior associated with a mental disorder.  You refuse to engage in any discussion where we would do this, dismissing it out of hand and making pleading excuses as to why you can't handle it.

Try presenting your argument in such a way that you aren't relying on your preconceptions in this matter to support your conclusion.

Strawman, I've never done this.

Try presenting a rebuttal that actually addresses the statements made.

No, you don't like their description of her behavior, your rejection was done out of incredulity and nothing else.  I went back and passed over the various discussion points and the manner in which you describe responses from screwtape and velkyn don't match up with what they actually stated.

Oh?  So why didn't you pull out the discrepancies in order to prove me wrong, then?

You first, you're the one making dismissive assertions about someone elses post.  Suddenly.. I bear responsibiliy for what you couldn't even be bothered to do?

At this point I have absolutely no respect for you because of this PM, of all the chicken shit mealy mouth responses someone can give.

[Omen]

Jamie's response:

Because you're a coward.

You do know that personal attacks are a logical fallacy, right?  You're answering my comment about wanting to respond privately with a derogatory insult (and a rather silly one, to boot; come on, trying to provoke me with an accusation of cowardice?  This isn't Back to the Future).

Yes, that is a marvelous way to demonstrate that you are a mature adult who is worth having a conversation with, private or public.[/sarcasm]

Nope.

Mental disorders have well defined parameters involving the study of behavior, the ability for those models to make predictions correctly, and are no more nebulous or subject than talking about any other field of science.  I am not using anything to justify subjective opinions, I'm describing actions in comparison to a type of behavior associated with a mental disorder.  You refuse to engage in any discussion where we would do this, dismissing it out of hand and making pleading excuses as to why you can't handle it.

Your argument here sounds exactly like one made by someone who's read a bit on the subject but has no actual experience with it trying to justify their opinion about someone else using it.  I don't have any particular experience with mental disorders either, but I'm not willing to trust an armchair diagnosis from someone on an internet forum on it, especially when that person is trying to use that so-called diagnosis to prove that someone else is a 'monster'.

Strawman, I've never done this.

You're doing it right now.    I find it unlikely that you hadn't already made your decision about Mother Teresa before you ever started looking up medical terminology.

Try presenting a rebuttal that actually addresses the statements made.

I am.  You're making statements that suggest you've made a reasoned and objective conclusion here, but it is clear that you were anything but objective and that your lack of objectivity skewed your judgment, so I'm calling you on your lack of objectivity.

You first, you're the one making dismissive assertions about someone elses post.  Suddenly.. I bear responsibiliy for what you couldn't even be bothered to do?

You're the one who made the claim that I was reacting out of incredulity.  You're the one who said that the way I described responses from other people didn't match up with what they actually said.  And when I asked you to provide examples to back up your assertion, you said ", you first".  Even though I did actually cite examples from your post to back up my assertions (you may not have accepted them, but don't try to claim that I didn't do it).

At this point I have absolutely no respect for you because of this PM, of all the chicken shit mealy mouth responses someone can give.

The only thing I have to ask is, if you have absolutely no respect for me, why did you waste your time responding at all?  If my responses were really that far off-base, the way you describe, then why not simply delete my PM and move on?

[Omen]

Because you're a coward.

You do know that personal attacks are a logical fallacy, right?

No Jaime, personal attacks are not a logical fallacy in themselves, an ad hominem certainly is but this is not an ad hominem.

Yes, that is a marvelous way to demonstrate that you are a mature adult who is worth having a conversation with, private or public.[/sarcasm]

As marvelous as your lack of ability to recognize your own behavior:

you'll have to excuse me for not considering yours to be an expert opinion on this matter.

I find your incredulous perception of value in the conversation incredulous.

You're welcome to your opinion, but you're going to have to do much better than that if you want to actually try to convince me.

Yes, everything anyone else says is just an opinion, it doesn't matter if its leading on to a question about whether or not we can ask questions or even discuss a subject matter at hand, as long as you devalue any statement out of hand with little more than your incredulity at odds.. well .. by all means.

Lets see, how did it go:

Yes, that is a marvelous way to demonstrate that you are a mature adult who is worth having a conversation with, private or public!

Do you not know what an argument from personal incredulity is?

Nope.

Mental disorders have well defined parameters involving the study of behavior, the ability for those models to make predictions correctly, and are no more nebulous or subject than talking about any other field of science.  I am not using anything to justify subjective opinions, I'm describing actions in comparison to a type of behavior associated with a mental disorder.  You refuse to engage in any discussion where we would do this, dismissing it out of hand and making pleading excuses as to why you can't handle it.

Your argument here sounds

Let's get prepared for the pleading dismissal!

exactly like one made by someone who's read a bit on the subject but has no actual experience with it trying to justify their opinion about someone else using it.

Perfect! Make up some pleaded characterization, with no explanation or substantial criticism of anything stated and dismiss it out of hand.  Congratulations!

You're doing it right now.    I find it unlikely..

I am incredulous to your incredulity.

Try presenting a rebuttal that actually addresses the statements made.

I am.  You're making statements that suggest you've made a reasoned and objective conclusion here, but it is clear that you were anything but objective and that your lack of objectivity skewed your judgment, so I'm calling you on your lack of objectivity.

No you're not, you're making statements from your own personal incredulity as if they were logically sustainable arguments even omitting or dodging questions that ask for nothing more than the ability to discuss the implications.  You then devalue and dismiss any statement you don't like as not worthy of your consideration, as just an opinion without explanation.  This is a lack of objectivity, I'm calling you out on your lack of objectivity.

You're emotionally connected to the subject in a such a way that you're not even paying attention to what I'm saying or asking.

You first, you're the one making dismissive assertions about someone elses post.  Suddenly.. I bear responsibiliy for what you couldn't even be bothered to do?

You're the one who made the claim that I was reacting out of incredulity.

No need to make it up, most of your responses to me have been just like that.

At this point I have absolutely no respect for you because of this PM, of all the chicken shit mealy mouth responses someone can give.

The only thing I have to ask is, if you have absolutely no respect for me, why did you waste your time responding at all?  If my responses were really that far off-base, the way you describe, then why not simply delete my PM and move on?

If you're just going to reject everything everyone says as subjective or just an opinion without explanation, why even bother responding?

[jaimehlers]

You missed several messages.  I said the entire exchange, and I meant it, no matter how it makes either of us look.

You do know that are a logical fallacy, right?

I care about it as much as you care about the idiotic fallacies you've made already.

Either take it to the forum where everyone can read your bullshit or stop harassing me.

I care about it as much as you care about the idiotic fallacies you've made already.

Either take it to the forum where everyone can read your bullshit or stop harassing me.

I hope you realize the irony in continuing to make personal attacks in private while you criticize me for fallacies that you can't be bothered to point out because it's in private rather than in public.

Also, even more so in the way you're terming my messages 'harassment' when you're responding by becoming more and more insulting (in other words, trying to harass me with insults so that I'll go away).  I'm sorry if you're annoyed by what I'm saying, but you aren't going to accomplish anything by being so insulting in return, certainly not what you say you want.

If you don't want to talk about this in private, then don't respond in private - certainly not by trying to insult me until I go away, because that doesn't work with me.

Either take it to the forum where everyone can read your bullshit or stop harassing me.

Either take it to the forum where everyone can read your bullshit or stop harassing me.

Either stop responding, or stop complaining because I respond back.

Either take it to the forum where everyone can read your bullshit or stop harassing me.

Either take it to the forum where everyone can read your bullshit or stop harassing me.

Either stop responding or stop complaining because I respond.

I can keep this up all day.

Either take it to the forum where everyone can read your bullshit or stop harassing me.

Either take it to the forum where everyone can read your bullshit or stop harassing me.

Either stop responding or stop complaining because I respond.

At which you did, finally, stop making demands via PM.  Now, I'll respond to your latest post.

No Jaime, personal attacks are not a logical fallacy in themselves, an ad hominem certainly is but this is not an ad hominem.

Actually, personal attacks are a logical fallacy; the Nikzor Project lists "personal attack" in its list of fallacies.  You used the comment "because you're a coward" in place of an actual argument why discussing this in private was inappropriate, so you committed a fallacy here.

As marvelous as your lack of ability to recognize your own behavior:

I will answer each separately.

you'll have to excuse me for not considering yours to be an expert opinion on this matter.

I find your incredulous perception of value in the conversation incredulous.

Here is the full sentence:  "Unless you happen to be a trained psychologist, you'll have to excuse me for not considering yours to be an expert opinion on this matter."  The term 'sociopath' refers to a psychological disorder.  Unless you have education, training and experience in diagnosing psychological disorders, then you do not have an expert opinion regarding psychological disorders, only a personal, subjective one.

You're welcome to your opinion, but you're going to have to do much better than that if you want to actually try to convince me.

Yes, everything anyone else says is just an opinion, it doesn't matter if its leading on to a question about whether or not we can ask questions or even discuss a subject matter at hand, as long as you devalue any statement out of hand with little more than your incredulity at odds.. well .. by all means.

The point is that you gave your personal, subjective opinion (cloaking it with a term used for a psychological disorder), and supported it with several more opinions, all of which were purely subjective in nature.  Arguments based purely on subjective opinions, which yours was, are not at all convincing.

Lets see, how did it go:

Yes, that is a marvelous way to demonstrate that you are a mature adult who is worth having a conversation with, private or public!

Which was a sarcastic response to your personal attack, calling me a coward.  My point was that you calling me a coward is no way to demonstrate that you are worth conversing with.  By the way, that was a period at the end of the sentence, not an exclamation point.  I also only italicized 'marvelous', to illustrate that it was intended as sarcastic.

Do you not know what an argument from personal incredulity is?

I know quite well what an argument from ignorance is.  What I don't understand is what this has to do with my use of sarcasm above.

Nope.

Mental disorders have well defined parameters involving the study of behavior, the ability for those models to make predictions correctly, and are no more nebulous or subject than talking about any other field of science.  I am not using anything to justify subjective opinions, I'm describing actions in comparison to a type of behavior associated with a mental disorder.  You refuse to engage in any discussion where we would do this, dismissing it out of hand and making pleading excuses as to why you can't handle it.

Your argument here sounds

Let's get prepared for the pleading dismissal!

Hardly a "pleading dismissal", as you put it (explained below).

exactly like one made by someone who's read a bit on the subject but has no actual experience with it trying to justify their opinion about someone else using it.

Perfect! Make up some pleaded characterization, with no explanation or substantial criticism of anything stated and dismiss it out of hand.  Congratulations!

You apparently have no actual experience making psychological diagnoses, so you're making an armchair diagnosis here.  Furthermore, you are making it not from a desire to help the person you're 'diagnosing' (which is the whole point of psychology), but instead to characterize her as a monster who worships suffering.  This is a subjective statement, based on your personal definition:  "I define people who devalue human life to the point where its trivial in comparison to superstition as monsters."  In other words, I most certainly did not dismiss it out of hand.  You are trying to justify your opinion here with an armchair diagnosis in a field where you apparently have no formal education, training, or experience, so my statement is accurate despite your attempt to characterize it as a "pleading dismissal".

You're doing it right now.    I find it unlikely..

I am incredulous to your incredulity.

You seem fond of that turn of phrase.  And you also seem to like taking quotes out of context in order to try to justify using it.  Doesn't work that way.  You have to prove that I am making an argument from ignorance first.

Try presenting a rebuttal that actually addresses the statements made.

I am.  You're making statements that suggest you've made a reasoned and objective conclusion here, but it is clear that you were anything but objective and that your lack of objectivity skewed your judgment, so I'm calling you on your lack of objectivity.

No you're not, you're making statements from your own personal incredulity as if they were logically sustainable arguments even omitting or dodging questions that ask for nothing more than the ability to discuss the implications.  You then devalue and dismiss any statement you don't like as not worthy of your consideration, as just an opinion without explanation.  This is a lack of objectivity, I'm calling you out on your lack of objectivity.

You still haven't proven that I am making statements from incredulity.  Your entire argument falls apart if I am not, yet you've failed to actually provide real evidence in support of your assertion.  I believe the following quote will demonstrate this:

No, you don't like their description of her behavior, your rejection was done out of incredulity and nothing else.  I went back and passed over the various discussion points and the manner in which you describe responses from screwtape and velkyn don't match up with what they actually stated.

Oh?  So why didn't you pull out the discrepancies in order to prove me wrong, then?

You first, you're the one making dismissive assertions about someone elses post.

You said you went back and passed over various discussion points, and claimed that my description of responses from others didn't match up with what they actually said.  When I asked you why you didn't pull out these discrepancies, you told me that I was the one making dismissive assertions about others' posts, stating, "You first", which I can only assume to mean "go look for them yourself".  It doesn't work that way; if you make an assertion, you have to back it up in order for it to be meaningful, not tell the person who you're making the assertion about to go look for themselves.

You're emotionally connected to the subject in a such a way that you're not even paying attention to what I'm saying or asking.

Again, this is a statement based on nothing but a subjective opinion.  Kindly show where I am "emotionally connected" to the subject.  I am not a Catholic, and I have no vested interest in proving that Mother Teresa deserved to be called a saint or that what she did was not wrong.

You first, you're the one making dismissive assertions about someone elses post.  Suddenly.. I bear responsibiliy for what you couldn't even be bothered to do?

You're the one who made the claim that I was reacting out of incredulity.

No need to make it up, most of your responses to me have been just like that.

I'm not making anything up.  You haven't proved that I was reacting from incredulity yet, either.

At this point I have absolutely no respect for you because of this PM, of all the chicken shit mealy mouth responses someone can give.

The only thing I have to ask is, if you have absolutely no respect for me, why did you waste your time responding at all?  If my responses were really that far off-base, the way you describe, then why not simply delete my PM and move on?

If you're just going to reject everything everyone says as subjective or just an opinion without explanation, why even bother responding?

Kindly answer the questions I posed here, rather than responding with another question.

[Omen]

You missed several messages.  I said the entire exchange, and I meant it, no matter how it makes either of us look.

There are no other messages other than asking you to stop harassing me via PM.

Kindly answer the questions I posed here, rather than responding with another question.

You first, I asked you several questions that were omitted and ignored, before you began this nonsense.

[Omen]

Actually, personal attacks are a logical fallacy.

Nope.

  You used the comment "because you're a coward" in place of an actual argument why discussing this in private was inappropriate

There was no argument as to whether or not it should be discussed in private, nor was coward used as justification for that argument.  I called you a coward, just to insult you.  Now I'm going to call you a liar for making shit up.

You ignored this:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19707.msg435865.html#msg435865

More correctly, you omitted it from your responses so you can concentrate on a larger obfuscating strawman.  You can't just admit that an insult is just an insult, having nothing to do with engaging in an argument for anything.

[Omen]

you'll have to excuse me for not considering yours to be an expert opinion on this matter.

I find your incredulous perception of value in the conversation incredulous.

Here is the full sentence:  "Unless you happen to be a trained psychologist, you'll have to excuse me for not considering yours to be an expert opinion on this matter."

That doesn't change the fallacy; the qualification of 'trained psychologist' is being inserted without explanation, its just part of the larger argument from your own personal incredulity.  Plus, you grossly obfuscate and misrepresent my own statements, so blinded by your own ridiculous biases in this discussion.  i originally just asked you a simple fucking question, which your response was,"well you're not a trained psychiatrist.." which you don't actually know if I am a trained psychologist or not.

By the way, I work in the mental health industry, not that that gives me anymore authority in this argument.  I do actually have training in psychology, understanding CPT codes for procedures/diagnosis are part of my job for determining medical necessity in paying a mental health claim.  I have to know explicitly, that that diagnosis corresponds with that procedure, as well as the medical reports of individual cases which have to be reviewed.

However, I don't need to bring that up just to ask you one simple question as to whether or not we can even discuss the issue of MT's behavior, which in your blind stupidity.. you've created an entire series of delusional strawmen.  Almost every one of your responses begins with making an excuse as to why or how your going to dismiss everything anyone else says!

[jaimehlers]

I am going to respond to one part of what you said, because it actually has bearing on how this whole mess started.  The rest is just more of the same that's been going on since this morning, and I've already said my piece on it.

By the way, I work in the mental health industry, not that that gives me anymore authority in this argument.  I do actually have training in psychology, understanding CPT codes for procedures/diagnosis are part of my job for determining medical necessity in paying a mental health claim.  I have to know explicitly, that that diagnosis corresponds with that procedure, as well as the medical reports of individual cases which have to be reviewed.

This begs the question of why you didn't simply point out that you had training in psychology from the very start.  Don't you think that saying that might have made a difference?  It would have worked a whole lot better than trying to castigate me because I didn't consider your opinion to be expert when you had given me no reason to consider it as such.  I don't have experience or training in psychology - how am I supposed to be able to evaluate whether something relating to it is valid?

You could have pointed the fact that you do have experience out.  I wouldn't have challenged it, because I can't possibly evaluate someone's experience in a field I know little about.  At that point, the only thing I could have effectively argued was your statement that I "don't like that others describe her behavior correctly", which I did and do dispute.  I was not convinced that their descriptions were correct, and that was in large part what the discussion was about.  Whether I like it or not is beside the point.

[Omen]

By the way, I work in the mental health industry, not that that gives me anymore authority in this argument.  I do actually have training in psychology, understanding CPT codes for procedures/diagnosis are part of my job for determining medical necessity in paying a mental health claim.  I have to know explicitly, that that diagnosis corresponds with that procedure, as well as the medical reports of individual cases which have to be reviewed.

This begs the question of why you didn't simply point out that you had training in psychology from the very start.

No it doesn't, because it doesn't take professional training to just have a discussion about the behaviors, actions, and motivations of individuals.  This was an excuse you made up, that has no reasonable impact on the ability to discuss the subject.  It was part of your larger argument from your own personal incredulity.  You exhibited an irrational and dishonest bias through your refusal even to engage in the discussion, so much so that you have to imagine elements about what other people say or do in order to dismiss them out of hand.

Nothing about the status of my identity lends credence to the weight of my argument, if you actually believe this then you need to look up argument from authority.

[Avatar Of Belial]

This begs the question of why you didn't simply point out that you had training in psychology from the very start.

Because the attributes of the person making the statement should never reflect on the statement itself.

It should not matter whether you speak to a Scientologist or a trained Psycologist with a PhD. If the statement can hold its own, then it should be given equal treatment regardless of who the statement-maker is. "More or less likely" to have an informed opinion should not matter.

I forget the actual fallacy name... I think it's related to Argument from authority^Wiki... in reverse.

EDIT: Probably should have read all of Omen's post before including that last line, but yeah, close enough...

[rickymooston]

jaimers please sum up your arguments and omens

omen do the same

I'm just reading a lot of testoterone here. Haven't seen any facts in the discussion.

Omen, I'm curious why this stuff makes you so angry? Anyway, looking over the discussion, I'd say your opponent sounds like a much more reasonable individual than you do.

[rickymooston]

Because the attributes of the person making the statement should never reflect on the statement itself.

Lol. That's not totally true. What's true is, giving your authority isn't a logical argument per se; i.e., just because I'm the queen of sheba doesn't mean, I'm right. However, you may have a better background.

It should not matter whether you speak to a Scientologist or a trained Psycologist with a PhD. If the statement can hold its own, then it should be given equal treatment regardless of who the statement-maker is. "More or less likely" to have an informed opinion should not matter.

It does matter. Typically, the trained phd will use better research aamd have more reliable experience than the scientologist. Of course, the scientolgist might have a phd.

But Google Jason Lisle for an example of an idiot with a phd.  (Hint: answers in genesis and the phd was in physics from a real univeristy)

I forget the actual fallacy name... I think it's related to Argument from authority^Wiki... in reverse.

Stating your expertise isn't a logical fallacy. The logical fallacy is people taken said info as a logical argument. On the internet, people lie about their backgrounds. 

EDIT: Probably should have read all of Omen's post before including that last line, but yeah, close enough...

I read 2 posts worth and lost patience.

[Omen]

Typical Ricky.. dismissive appeal without explanation or citation to an obtuse middle ground that doesn't exist. Can you find someone else to practice passive aggressive hostility upon?

I particularly like the part about appealing for a middle ground and clarification,  while actively smiting at the same time.

[Omen]

And just like Jaime.. he's harassing me via PM.  Again, with little or no argument and a poorly
made character assassination.

Like I told Jaime..keep it public where YOU are accountable to your peers.

[rickymooston]

dismissive appeal without explanation or citation to an obtuse middle ground that doesn't exist.

I didn't say the middle ground was the right one. I said, in order to make a judgment, one requires a clear presentation of the facts on both sides. I was having a very hard time getting to the meat of the discussion.

EDIT: Finally, I found the thread and after about an hour went over it painfully.

Screwtape seems to have included claims by former members of mother terressa's order that pain killers were not used on the dying in her hospices. (It should be noted that hospices are for the dying and not for those who are just "sick"). Some of them do, as screwtape admits come from Hitchens who certainly is a biased source ...

I'm certainly shocked if said claims are true. Newsweek is a reliable source as far as i know.

Assuming that screwtapes sources are correct, i might agree with Omen that a lack of empathy was being shown by Mo T and that might make me, a computer scientist who has skimmed through the DSM IV, also suspect sociopathy or sadism.

As for her "enjoying suffering", i'd need more info. Its easy for that sort of thing to be lost in translation

I knew a lady working in a hospice. She enjoyed her work which involved making the dying more comfortable. My dad stayed at her hospice.

His treatment included pain management. I'm grateful for her help.

Jaime's posts in the thread were not unreasonable. He or she seemed to be questioning the facts and giving M ot T the the benefit of the doubt.

[jaimehlers]

Nothing about the status of my identity lends credence to the weight of my argument, if you actually believe this then you need to look up argument from authority.

Because the attributes of the person making the statement should never reflect on the statement itself.

So why do we have expert opinions, say in court?  And for that matter, why do we pay experts more for their opinions on things, especially things we want them to fix?

The opinion that a person's expertise on something shouldn't reflect on a statement or opinion notwithstanding, it most certainly does.  If a computer is broken, a statement or opinion from a computer repair professional carries much more weight than one from a layman who's got little experience with fixing computers.  Similarly, regarding psychological disorders, a statement or opinion from a mental health professional carries much more weight than one from a layman.  To pretend that it doesn't matter goes counter to the way things really work.

I'm aware of argument from authority, but it isn't a fallacy if the person making the argument is an authority on the subject and if there's a consensus among authorities on the subject in question.  I will not make any assumptions regarding your decision not to refer to your authority on the subject previously discussed and will leave it at that.  I'm not really interested in reopening this discussion after a month and a half has passed, especially seeing as this was put into the trash bin around that time.

[Avatar Of Belial]

That's not totally true. What's true is, giving your authority isn't a logical argument per se; i.e., just because I'm the queen of sheba doesn't mean, I'm right. However, you may have a better background.

   Not directly, no - but relying on an expert's opinion just because they are an expert is a fallacy (the fallacy of "Argument from Authority), even if it isn't an argument. Also, someone's background should not matter. If the queen of Sheba makes a better point than a physicist on the topic of physics, the point will hold its own, and should not be dismissed simply because the queen of Sheba isn't an authority in the field of physics.

It does matter. Typically, the trained phd will use better research aamd have more reliable experience than the scientologist. Of course, the scientolgist might have a phd.

So why do we have expert opinions, say in court?  And for that matter, why do we pay experts more for their opinions on things, especially things we want them to fix?

   A more full explanation in response to both of you:

   There's a difference between real-life and arguing on the internet, obviously. In real life we need things done now now now so we go to "experts" because they have the higher probability of knowing what they are doing or talking about off-hand, but it is entirely in the name of convenience and time (and laziness). On the internet, we all have access to Google, and all the time in the world to look things up. Remember, I made that statement because Jaimehlers dismissed Omen's information for "not being an expert". There's a problem with this, because both of them have access to all the information on the topic at their fingertips. Saying "You're not an expert" is a juvenile response compared to actually spending the time to look up the issue and discuss with counter-points on why the other person is wrong, in what way, or actually demonstrating a better alternative.

   Again, it is not the person making the argument you need to defeat, it is the argument itself. Just because someone is a Scientologist[1], does not mean that they cannot actually do the research and put together a factual, researched statement about the field. Also, just because someone has a PhD is Psychology doesn't mean they are completely up-to-date on all the issues, or that they necessarily understand all relevant topics within their field. They may even have a simple misconception about something.

   So yes, we use experts on a regular basis. Experts also screw up on occasion, and for a variety of reasons. The laymen, however, have access to much of the same information, and may have a side-interest in the field as a hobby. Combine these and anyone may have an actual, well-informed basis for saying what they do. Dismissing someone off-hand just because they aren't an expert is the wrong response. Relying on an expert's opinion without question is also the wrong response. Ideally, anything they say on the topic should be treated equally to anything someone else says on the topic[2].

1.	I used this group on purpose when comparing with a psychologist keeping in mind Scientology's beliefs on the issue...
2.	Of course, time can make such a thing impractical in many of our real-life every-day concerns, but I did, after-all, say "ideally".

[rickymooston]

   Not directly, no - but relying on an expert's opinion just because they are an expert is a fallacy (the fallacy of "Argument from Authority), even if it isn't an argument. Also, someone's background should not matter. If the queen of Sheba makes a better point than a physicist on the topic of physics, the point will hold its own, and should not be dismissed simply because the queen of Sheba isn't an authority in the field of physics.

Yes, its a logical fallacy. Logical arguments tend to deal in absolutes. An expert can lie or be mistaken. Non-experts can have access to better data.

As you eventually get around to saying in your post, relying on experts is a heuristic; that is, it is a probabilsitic approach.

Most of the time, in absence of laziness and corruption, experts will give better answers to some questions than non-experts. They are also, if they are reliable, less likely to make up stuff.

Now, there exist legitamate areas where the experts disagree because there isn't enough data to make a positive judgment on something or because the analysis is complex.

On the internet, we all have access to Google, and all the time in the world to look things up.

In theory yes. In reality, the internet contains a huge amount of miss information and one of the first thing you learn in terms of getting your facts is to consult reliable sources of information; i.e., you can't do google without finding an 'expert' (reliable site with a reputation for authority).

On the internet, you encounter a huge number of "facts" from unreliable sources.

In addition, a lot of information takes quite a lot of education to completely understand it. I can give you all my math books but you are unlikely to be able to use them effectively.

Remember, I made that statement because Jaimehlers dismissed Omen's information for "not being an expert".

Fair enough. For the record, I have access to the DSM IV somewhere too. But all the same, an expert's perspective can provide other nuances of understanding

For the record, in terms of Omen's expertise; he said he "worked with such people". He never said he had a ph.d and I believe he doesn't even have a bachelor's degree. (I'm going from memory tho).

I still doubt for the record, all the data I've seen on mother terressa is unbiased and objective. She may indeed have been a psychopath but that would really make her a rather curious person. To sacrifice one's life to make people suffer instead of for example, having great sex during that time. They could have lived a life of sexual estassy and had many kids, been loved, etc, etc. Instead, she lived in one of the most miserable places you can imagine.

Saying "You're not an expert" is a juvenile response
[/quoter]

It depends on how superficial the issue is.

Being an expert is more than just "using google". THink about this.

[Avatar Of Belial]

In theory yes. In reality, the internet contains a huge amount of miss information and one of the first thing you learn in terms of getting your facts is to consult reliable sources of information; i.e., you can't do google without finding an 'expert' (reliable site with a reputation for authority).

   It's not like I'm saying "trust everything you find", but even if you do, the point of allowing you to present it is so all of us involved in the discussion can take what you've said and point out how its wrong, why its wrong, etc. - so if you rely on unchecked sources you're going to end up being beaten pretty badly by those who do check their sources. And yes, you will undoubtedly end up using sources written by the "experts", but that doesn't mean they're right. Again; the goal is to dissect this information to come to a conclusion. That said; I never told anyone to rely on internet searches - just that you always have a way to double check yourself before saying something dumb.

For the record, in terms of Omen's expertise; he said he "worked with such people". He never said he had a ph.d and I believe he doesn't even have a bachelor's degree. (I'm going from memory tho).

   I certainly never accused him of being an expert. That would, after-all, defeat the point I'm trying to make. The person saying it doesn't affect the statement made - thus the statement itself is what needs to be addressed. The statement "2 plus 2 equals 4" is no less wrong simply because a brainless chimp says it, nor does an expert chemist make the statement "A single Hydrogen molecule is always larger than the planet Earth" true just by saying it.

Being an expert is more than just "using google". THink about this.

   That is a misrepresentation of what I said. You really blew that one part well out of proportion and missed what I was trying to get at.

   The person saying it DOES NOT MATTER. The sources you're using DO NOT MATTER. The internet search engine used to find it DOES NOT MATTER. What MATTERS is the statement itself. Do not blow someone off by saying they aren't an expert, because it doesn't matter if they are or not. It's the same as blowing someone off for saying "You're not a wombat" or "You use 12pt font"[1]. These things should not matter in a conversation of this nature. The statement itself - and only the statement itself matters. If you wish to engage someone in a conversation on a topic, then address what the other person says. Ignoring what they say without actually addressing it is multiple kinds of wrong.

   It's a logical fallacy.
   It makes the conversation pointless.
   It's just plain rude.

Really, think about it.

1.

These two are included because I think you're being hung up by the whole "expert" thing. ignore that, we don't care about the experts unless the experts are in the conversation with us. Even then we don't care that they're experts; the info they provide with be as equally scrutinized as everything everybody else brings.

[Omen]

I didn't say ..

Sorry Ricky, we can't even speak about the subject without a professionally trained individual.

[jaimehlers]

Note that this post is solely for explanation.  I am not at all interested in reopening this argument, but I do want to set the record straight as to what I meant.

Okay, first off, I wasn't dismissing Omen's argument.  What I said was: "Unless you happen to be a trained psychologist, you'll have to excuse me for not considering yours to be an expert opinion on this matter."  I was trying to say that he'd given no reason for me to think of him as an expert on the subject and that I thus wasn't willing to just take his word for it; what he said that prompted my comment was that he considered her to be a sociopath, that she had an incessant desire to worship suffering, and that it invited serious questions as to her ability to empathize with other human beings.  And in fairness to Omen, I apparently didn't do a good job saying what I actually wanted to say.

To me (bearing in mind that I'm definitely a layman when it comes to psychology), that sounded more like the kind of justifications another layman, not experienced in the area being discussed, would use to put a label on someone in order to give that label a veneer of appropriateness.  Based on my very limited experience with psychology, I was under the impression that a psychologist or psychiatrist had to actually work with the person they were diagnosing, and that diagnosing someone after the fact based on things they put in writing was neither particularly effective nor accurate.

I can see where Omen might have thought I was just trying to throw his opinion out because he didn't declare himself to be an expert, but that wasn't my intention.  I was trying to point out that I didn't trust the validity of a remote diagnosis like this (I work with computers, which are fundamentally much simpler than the human psyche, and I know how difficult it can be to properly diagnose a complicated computer problem remotely), and I expected he would provide more information to back up his statement.  What actually happened went completely against my expectations, though there's no point in going into that now, because it's over and done with.

Anyway, neither Google, nor Wikipedia, nor any other site of that nature, are good substitutes for actual professional expertise on a subject.  Maybe you have a point that someone shouldn't claim to be an expert online, since there's not a good way to verify it, but there are other ways an expert can make it clear that they are an expert.  A computer professional can make it clear that they are one without having to say it, while an amateur or layman might be able to have some understanding of a subject but won't have the experience to be able to translate that experience effectively.

[Omen]

Okay, first off, I wasn't dismissing Omen's argument.

I didn't make an argument, I asked a question.  Specifically, I asked if we could even DISCUSS the subject.  You were constantly shooting down ANY discussion, no matter the extent.  Hell, we couldn't even ask what "GOOD" is claimed that she did.  You weren't willing to hear it.

  What I said was: "Unless you happen to be a trained psychologist, you'll have to excuse me for not considering yours to be an expert opinion on this matter."

Welcome to your argument from authority and personal incredulity.

what he said that prompted my comment was that he considered her to be a sociopath

This isn't relevant.  What I may or may not think as a conclusion has no bearing on our ability to just discuss the issue.  More importantly, your characterization of my own statements doesn't follow exactly what I stated or how I stated it.  All I wanted from you is the admission that we can TALK about it, without you incredulously dismissing every single response.  From that point on you begin to include additional characterizations into my position that I neither share or hold, while not really paying attention at all to what I'm asking for.

To me ..

Argument from authority, not relevant.  All I'm trying to establish is that can we talk about the subject without your incredulous dismissals.

I can see where Omen might have thought I was just trying to throw his opinion out because he didn't declare himself to be an expert, but that wasn't my intention.

You still don't get it do you?

IT IS AN ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY, A FALLACY. 

[Avatar Of Belial]

Anyway, neither Google, nor Wikipedia, nor any other site of that nature, are good substitutes for actual professional expertise on a subject.

   No one said they were, no one said they weren't. Can the statement the expert gave you be backed up? Can the statement you got off Wikipedia be backed up? Can the statement you got off Charles the Bum be backed up? If yes, then the source didn't really matter. An expert's opinion is good only as long as it can be backed up or proven[1]. Charles the Bum's opinion is only bad if it cannot.

1.	And saying "This is what the expert said" is neither backing it up, nor proving it.