Please explain exactly what facts they were ignoring.

Well, until (and if it will happen) Hubski gets the other kind of filter system I'll be using the mute feature.

Who knows, maybe I'll see the advantages of this system and start to like it better.

In the examples you gave, and correct me if I'm wrong here, I'll use the following formal forms:

Sorry, I meant:

In foundational reasoning: (A -> B) AND (B -> C)

In circular reasoning: (A -> B) AND (B -> C) AND (C -> A)

(for example)

[As] [a] side note, excuse me to paraphrase Yahtzee's Zero Punctuation (at least I think that he said it) "Picking one fallacy over another as 'a better one' is like asking 'what type of brain cancer do you like the most'" ;D. Seriously though, if I got your post incorrectly please tell me. And, if in doubt, I'm not making fun of you.

Thou and Yahtzee appear to be thinking too much in binary. Surely there are degrees to which brain cancer and fallacies can affect one badly?

- Beginning from a thing we want to prove and use it to prove its correctness (also known as "circular reasoning" and shown by GB_Cobber in the discussion that I have linked above)

Think about it. This is actually better than foundational reasoning ('->' = 'backs up'):

In foundational reasoning: A -> B -> C

In circular reasoning: A -> B -> C AND C -> A

Then hopefully you'll enjoy the forum you're describing. I've posted too long on forums that started out with that description and found that it doesn't ever work out that way in the long run. At some point, it becomes about mods telling the people they don't like that they're using fallacies and people that they do like that they're not. That's just my experience.

Couldst thou* tell me those forums please?

* I like to distinguish singular and plural and it's also probably good practice for learning foreign languages.

I can't put all my reasons into words right now but when I can I'll respond.

Some reasons I have already stated.

I see forums as debating clubs more than social gatherings.

If I exclude that person because of their political beliefs, then most others will perceive me negatively and exclude me from their social gatherings. I would become socially isolated. If I exclude that person because they're rude to everyone, then others won't care that I exclude that person from my social circle because they're excluding that person as well. This is basic human interaction.

What makes you so sure that will happen?

Mute isn't evil, it just makes Hubski similar to real life.

A person whom you know that you don't want to hear from can't bother you? Isn't that enough?

Good point, I didn't know that filter only crosses peoples' names out (I thought it made their posts invisible to the user like other sites).

mk, can we please have that feature?

I'm super sorry you feel this way. I think the muting/hushing/filtering system is genius. It allows for a nuanced shaping of my hubski experience. Each of us should be able to dial it in as we like. This is a, opt-in environment. We choose to be here.

No, the filter and hush systems create an opt-in environment because they only affect the filterer and husher respectively.

The mute function creates an environment where anyone can be silenced (from all views) from criticising another's posts just on their whim.

You can't just say "this is true" and "this is false" because you deem it thus. (Well... I guess you can, but then you would have to be the only person in your universe.)

What do you mean by 'my universe'?

I suspect we are actually agreeing but using different words. You are talking about sentences whereas I am talking about propositions.

Using your language:

There are no absolute truths (i.e true sentences) because the proposition that each sentence maps to has to be defined from context.

However, I meant:

There are absolute truths (i.e true propositions) because the truth value of at least some propositions are unchanging (at least from a certain point on) and not dependant on context.

.

The context is usually known by the people participating in or watching the conversation so there's no need to worry there.

You should have responded to his point as well as his tone.

How was I playing semantic games?

By 'a search for truth' I meant a search for the truth values of propositions.

What did you think I meant?

But you where the statements logic operates on come from isn't a problem logic helps you with. In science you can get them through observation and statistics, but even an individual scientist doesn't do every experiment themselves. For the most part we all (provisionally) accept or reject things others have told us for arbitrary reasons, and in order to share our knowledge and beliefs we need to convince others to (provisionally) accept the things we tell them. That is what rhetoric is for. Plato rightly distrusted it because you can use the tools of rhetoric to mislead people, but as we can't directly share our experiences it's the only tool there is.

Good point.

That is a good point.

I trust myself more than I trust others to moderate my experience.

Then why do you use Hubski with it's filter (which I don't disagree with BTW) and mute (which I do) systems?

I still think the benefits of having fallacies outlawed outweigh the risks though.

Treat /logic/ like an experiment (when I am given the board and start moderating it). /logicpol/ is ready though. EDIT: I forgot the password.

Maybe I should simply not delete all posts that contain fallacies but just ban people who simply don't care about logic.

But not necessarily a good one.

No, fallacies make arguments invalid but not premises or conclusions false.

They do however mean that conclusion has not been backed up by the argument and thus needs a different argument.

That has nothing to do with truth, but rather the interpretation of words.

To define words fully, you must define the context within which the words exist.

He's not really dubunking Sutton though. He's criticising his behavior not his beliefs.

How did you interpret the word?

As a layperson in both history and science, perhaps Sutton should leave science to the scientists and history to the historians? "Started his career of doubting when he was very young" tells me he probably was one of those insufferable people who sit in the back of a college class and try to correct the professor, who care more about correcting others and "being right" than "not being an insufferable ass." This is typical of the online "skeptic" community. "Skeptics" generally have little background in the fields they criticize, and they see opinions and observations as things that need "debunking" rather than engaging in conversation with researchers or questioning the importance of debunking a myth. It's no wonder that they're often wrong themselves, since they lack any understanding of nuance.

Are you saying that correcting people is not important and they should just be left to be wrong?

Here's two sites where you can start your own forum:

https://8ch.net/

https://proboards.com/ aka https://boards.net/ aka https://freeforums.net/

I already posted about https://8ch.net/logic/ :

What is your reason for rebelling?

Is it it's own sake?

What is your reason for not using the platforms and social media everyone uses?

Just for the sake of 'going against the mainstream'?

your counterargument to me is my argument to you

I don't see how.

You said that conclusions from objective facts are not objective.

I pointed out an example of an objective conclusion from an objective fact, thus refuting your point.

I don't even know what points you're talking about.

They are in the 2nd paragraph of

Hie thee back to 8chan. (KB)

I note that you have only replied to 1 of my 3 points. (me)

See, you're not even thinking this all the way through. (KB)

Can we change to a polite, calm discussion rather one filled with belligerence please (I'll stop if you stop)?

Look, in almost all cases the reason I have discussions is not to 'win' and convince the other of my viewpoint or belief for the sake of it or to make him look silly but rather to help the search for truth if the matter is objective or just to express my point of view if not.