Uhm... what?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-07-2014, 09:06 PM
Uhm... what?
So I'm debating things elsewhere <whistles innocently> and came across a phrase in a counter to me.

"The phrase, 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof/evidence,' suggests the contiguity of metaphysical essentialism."

Up until this point I understood every word the other person was saying. Then my brain melted. I tried to look up the individual terms, the phrase as a whole, but I can't make heads nor tails of what the heck this is supposed to mean, or why it is "fallacious reasoning because no human organism or even a super computer can truly decipher this or even describe it".

Sadcryface

I admit I'm a philosophy noob.

Incidentally, I half suspect the person who used it (who repeated it twice without explanation both times) is copy/pasting the phrase he read/heard somewhere else without understanding it himself. Still, if it's right... I'd like to know.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 09:42 PM
RE: Uhm... what?
(02-07-2014 09:06 PM)OddGamer Wrote:  So I'm debating things elsewhere <whistles innocently> and came across a phrase in a counter to me.

"The phrase, 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof/evidence,' suggests the contiguity of metaphysical essentialism."

Up until this point I understood every word the other person was saying. Then my brain melted. I tried to look up the individual terms, the phrase as a whole, but I can't make heads nor tails of what the heck this is supposed to mean, or why it is "fallacious reasoning because no human organism or even a super computer can truly decipher this or even describe it".

Sadcryface

I admit I'm a philosophy noob.

Incidentally, I half suspect the person who used it (who repeated it twice without explanation both times) is copy/pasting the phrase he read/heard somewhere else without understanding it himself. Still, if it's right... I'd like to know.

I could be wrong, but I think its another form of the Sye bBuggencate retort "how do you know what you know"? In a normal debate you make the assumption that, within reason, you are all experiencing the same reality. He is trying to attack that assumption. "Metaphysics" is the study of the nature of existence, which would have been sufficient, I think. Contiguity is a fancy word for things that are very close to each other, and essentialism is the study or belief in things that "exist before existence" or have some property that must be of someone, something, or some idea before you can even talk about it. I think you are right, they don't know what the phrase means. Nearest I can tell it doesn't actually make sense.

If he was trying to say the "continuity of metaphysical essentialism" that would perhaps make some sense, or the "contingency". Again, nearest I can tell, I think he is trying to say that you can't know what reality really is, or even that things exist. This is not a coherent response to the assertion "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence". Its as if you are arguing that the building you are in is burning down around you and his responses is "what building"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Michael_Tadlock's post
02-07-2014, 10:26 PM
RE: Uhm... what?
(02-07-2014 09:06 PM)OddGamer Wrote:  ...
"The phrase, 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof/evidence,' suggests the contiguity of metaphysical essentialism."
...

Yup, I'm with MT on this one: 'Contingency' is what I think they're looking for.

Reply with... "No, it doesn't. It suggests... reductionistic, empirical, existential realism".

Then sit back and wait for them to pretend to know what that means.

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
02-07-2014, 10:29 PM
RE: Uhm... what?
"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit"


What this clown it basically saying is "I don't need no steenking evidence!", and trying to cover his dodge with a burning straw man.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 10:55 PM
RE: Uhm... what?
Taq,

Strawman Fallacy
Quote:To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

Fair enough.

But also...
Quote:creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

^^^ That's the bit you seem to miss.

Ignoratio elenchi (e.g. red herring)

FFS!

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
02-07-2014, 11:10 PM (This post was last modified: 02-07-2014 11:52 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: Uhm... what?
(02-07-2014 10:55 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Taq,

Strawman Fallacy
Quote:
Quote:To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

Fair enough.

But also...
[quote]
creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.

^^^ That's the bit you seem to miss.


Ignoratio elenchi (e.g. red herring)

FFS!

Drinking Beverage

For FUCKS sake, I haven't missed a fucking thing, idiot. It's the misrepresentation itself of the opponent's argument that makes it a strawman, not the presence of any supporting arguments/attacks against the misrepresentation, or whether or any claim that the opponent's argument has been refuted. Characterizing the demand for extraordinary evidence to support extraordinary claims as "suggest[ing] the contiguity of metaphysical essentialism" IS a misrepresentation the request in an attempt to undermine its weight and to dodge the burden of proof.


Tell me, why did you leave out the sentence BEFORE what you quoted, which states:

"A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument."


You are quibbling over what the article claims makes a strawman argument SUCCESSFUL, moron, and a single description of what some yahoo-on-the-internet WIKI contributor sees as an illustrative "typical" strawman argument, not what makes a fucking strawman a fucking strawman, which is the misrepresentation of the opponent's position:


"To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[4][5]"

This bullshit you are trying to pull is the fallacy of QUOTING OUT OF CONTEXT.


And you REALLY see WIKIpeda as a definitive source? Hobo


FUCK, but you are an idiot.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 11:20 PM
RE: Uhm... what?
Quote:contiguity

[MASS NOUN]
The state of bordering or being in contact with something

of
Quote:metaphysical


[ADJECTIVE]
Of, or Pertaining to Metaphysics.

Quote:essentialism

[MASS NOUN]
A belief that things have a set of characteristics which make them what they are, and that the task of science and philosophy is their discovery and expression; the doctrine that essence is prior to existence.


So, "The phrase, 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof/evidence,' suggests the contiguity of metaphysical essentialism."

Blink

Is it just me, or does it still make no sense?

I have to wonder why philosophers can't just speak normally. Isn't it the role of language to make ideas and meanings clear? Who was this person you were debating? They may be using big words to make themselves seem smarter than they really are. Argumentum ad Dictionarium, I call it.

I should know, I do it all the time.


Confused


Ignore that last sentence.

More Min Gee Ziss
[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TSG's post
02-07-2014, 11:42 PM
RE: Uhm... what?
(02-07-2014 09:06 PM)OddGamer Wrote:  "...the contiguity of metaphysical essentialism."

Bottom line: It's word salad. Might as well be talking about "the Pompatus of Love".

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2014, 11:54 PM
RE: Uhm... what?
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
by Matt Slick

"The phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" was popularized by Carl Sagan (1934-1996), a well-known astronomer and author who hosted a TV series called "Cosmos," published hundreds of scientific articles and was professor of astronomy at Cornell University in New York. The statement is self-explanatory; if someone makes an extraordinary claim, there better be extraordinary evidence to back it up. If, for example, someone made the claim that an alien race has made contact with earth, we would need sufficient evidence to verify the claim, such as an alien spacecraft or an actual alien. The extraordinary claim would need extraordinary evidence.

At the heart of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a healthy and normal skepticism. There are far too many charlatans and con-men in the world who make extraordinary claims without evidence to back them up. Unfortunately, too many people lack the necessary skepticism and critical thinking skills to help them avoid being duped by con artists and wild theories. Personally, except for a few qualifications, I agree with the sentiment of the statement "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Those qualifications follow.

The claim itself requires extraordinary validation

To say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is to make an extraordinary assertion. How does the person know that the statement is true? Think about it. It is a universal statement! Isn't that extraordinary? Is it a universal principle? If so, that is amazingly important. So, please show us the extraordinary evidence that the statement is true."

The rest, "suggests the contiguity of metaphysical essentialism," is narcissistic bullshit.

"If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story." Orson Welles
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dee's post
02-07-2014, 11:54 PM
RE: Uhm... what?
What s/he really means is that s/he is all hopped up that one day there might be some extraordinary evidence of some kind to prove that their particular, singular view of how all the entire universe and every morsel within, and then without, can be possible- so they feel they are bordering on if you think it, it is. So it is. Duh.


:putallthatsweetshitinmyCUP,sugar-nowdrinkitup.yum.:
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes LadyJane's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: