*Blows Whistle* Reversing the Burden of Proof, Negative Proof Fallacy, penalty shot for batman.OmniBack wrote:No it doesn't.
Constructive and non-constructive commentary
-
- Padawan
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:09 pm
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
- Contact:
WolfRitter, if you don't have any positive contribution to make to the discussion (and pretending to be a referee at some kind of game is not a positive contribution), it is better to simply listen. This forum is intended for discussion - not showmanship.WolfRitter wrote:*Blows Whistle* Reversing the Burden of Proof, Negative Proof Fallacy, penalty shot for batman.OmniBack wrote:No it doesn't.
-
- Padawan
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:09 pm
So, I suppose calling someone on dishonest debating is wrong? I'll be sure to employ strawmans, appeals to authority, emotion, ignorance, pity, tradition, popularity, fear, popularity, and force, negative proof fallacies, red herrings, and numerous other fallacies from now on. If you want discussion, then I would suggest you remain vigilant for innapropriate debate form.
-
- Padawan
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:10 pm
Put up or shut up.WolfRitter wrote:So, I suppose calling someone on dishonest debating is wrong? I'll be sure to employ strawmans, appeals to authority, emotion, ignorance, pity, tradition, popularity, fear, popularity, and force, negative proof fallacies, red herrings, and numerous other fallacies from now on. If you want discussion, then I would suggest you remain vigilant for innapropriate debate form.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
- Contact:
If you can't understand the difference between critiquing an argument and engaging in pointless showmanship, I'll be happy to split off these last few posts between us into a new thread and explain it to you at length.WolfRitter wrote:So, I suppose calling someone on dishonest debating is wrong?
However, I think that you can figure out the difference without my help.
And Omniback? Stop antagonizing other people, please.
-
- Padawan
- Posts: 41
- Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 11:09 pm
You do realize this is a Style Over Substance Fallacy, do you not?Jedi Master Spock wrote: If you can't understand the difference between critiquing an argument and engaging in pointless showmanship, I'll be happy to split off these last few posts between us into a new thread and explain it to you at length.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
- Contact:
Per your implicit request, split to a new thread and explanation.
Now, examine your original post in detail:
Second, there is little to no content present. You have exactly one thing to say, which could have been said by you simply as: "I think the burden of proof is on you!" Which, classically speaking, places you in the wrong, incidentally.
You're responding to this sequence of events (quotes excerpted with ellipses for brevity):
Batman says it's Omniback's job to provide a proof that the argument he recycled was, in fact, correct in order to use it to support his conclusion.
Omniback, however, points out that he is using an argument, recycled or not, which supports his intended conclusion, and that it's Batman's job to point out any way in which that argument fails.
Now, at the point where you throw your two cents in... it's already been said. Several times, actually, and more effectively, seeing as Omniback may not even know what all of the catch-phrases you used mean. The only thing you could hope to accomplish with your statement was to try to either rile up or shout down Omniback... and neither of those goals are laudable.
You are, incidentally, wrong in the normal pattern of discourse, if I've represented the situation correctly (possibly right if I have not), but that's incidental.
If Omniback provides a bad argument that he doesn't understand very well (e.g., someone else's calculations copied verbatim), the ball would be in his opponents' court to demonstrate what is wrong with that argument rather than demanding that he prove the argument correct.
If we reduce the presumed argument, which I have not seen but only seen described, to an abstract dialogue, we arrive at the following six elements:
1,O: Assertion.
2,B: Negation of assertion in 1.
3,O: Recycled argument in support of assertion in 1.
4,B: Claim that recycled argument in 3 is fallacious.
5,O: Request for argument in favor of claim in 4.
6,B: Request for proof of argument in 3.
In general, it is traditional to at least offer an alternative argument, if not a counter, before requesting additional proof of the original argument offered in favor of the original conclusion.
If you didn't follow, read through this post several times. Make sure you understand the bold section. The italicized section deals with burden of proof and the traditional progression of argument, which you may find educational, but is ultimately optional.
Incorrect. Nor is good manners a fallacy - it is, quite simply, the rule of discourse here, as in most places. I'm not saying that approaching argument as a showman makes you wrong - I'm saying that approaching argument as a showman is the wrong thing to do.WolfRitter wrote:You do realize this is a Style Over Substance Fallacy, do you not?Jedi Master Spock wrote: If you can't understand the difference between critiquing an argument and engaging in pointless showmanship, I'll be happy to split off these last few posts between us into a new thread and explain it to you at length.
Now, examine your original post in detail:
First, the manner in which it is posted is pure showmanship. We can see this from the faux-referee call. It is not even a showy judgement, as you are not in a position to be passing judgement or handing out penalties here.Wolfritter wrote:*Blows Whistle* Reversing the Burden of Proof, Negative Proof Fallacy, penalty shot for batman.
Second, there is little to no content present. You have exactly one thing to say, which could have been said by you simply as: "I think the burden of proof is on you!" Which, classically speaking, places you in the wrong, incidentally.
You're responding to this sequence of events (quotes excerpted with ellipses for brevity):
Batman wrote:And while there's nothing wrong with using somebody else's calculations ... you're supposed to show that they actually WORK and that they DO support your position.
Omniback wrote:What's the point of using someone else's calc, if I'm 'supposed' to do my own calc?
And how exactly am I supposed to 'back up' someone else's calc?
Batman wrote:It would show that you actually UNDERSTOOD those calcs.
The same way they are supposed to, by showing they actually match what's shown onscreen?
Omniback wrote:Whether I understand the calc or not doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is if its correct.
Than the calc is wrong, it's not my job to prove a calc, its the other persons job to disprove it.
Batman wrote:When you use a calc in support of your point yes it IS your job to prove it's right.
Omniback wrote:No if I make statement A than I have to provide support for statement A *IE* a calc, it doesn't mean I have to prove the calc.
The calc is what it is whether its right or wrong, its up to the other side to counter it and show fault in the calc and/or disprove it.
Batman wrote:Yes it does.
...
No it isn't.
Here we have a discussion between Batman and Omniback in which much is covered.Omniback wrote:No it doesn't.
...
Yes it is.
Batman says it's Omniback's job to provide a proof that the argument he recycled was, in fact, correct in order to use it to support his conclusion.
Omniback, however, points out that he is using an argument, recycled or not, which supports his intended conclusion, and that it's Batman's job to point out any way in which that argument fails.
Now, at the point where you throw your two cents in... it's already been said. Several times, actually, and more effectively, seeing as Omniback may not even know what all of the catch-phrases you used mean. The only thing you could hope to accomplish with your statement was to try to either rile up or shout down Omniback... and neither of those goals are laudable.
You are, incidentally, wrong in the normal pattern of discourse, if I've represented the situation correctly (possibly right if I have not), but that's incidental.
If Omniback provides a bad argument that he doesn't understand very well (e.g., someone else's calculations copied verbatim), the ball would be in his opponents' court to demonstrate what is wrong with that argument rather than demanding that he prove the argument correct.
If we reduce the presumed argument, which I have not seen but only seen described, to an abstract dialogue, we arrive at the following six elements:
1,O: Assertion.
2,B: Negation of assertion in 1.
3,O: Recycled argument in support of assertion in 1.
4,B: Claim that recycled argument in 3 is fallacious.
5,O: Request for argument in favor of claim in 4.
6,B: Request for proof of argument in 3.
In general, it is traditional to at least offer an alternative argument, if not a counter, before requesting additional proof of the original argument offered in favor of the original conclusion.
If you didn't follow, read through this post several times. Make sure you understand the bold section. The italicized section deals with burden of proof and the traditional progression of argument, which you may find educational, but is ultimately optional.