Are we at CFC Intellectuals?

[Perfection]

And again it's bs anyway it assumes that if jesus says he's the son of God and no one ever believes him and he is the Son of God that therefore makes Jesus not the son of God in other words it's just the same nonsense as Downtowns worded differently?

I can't determine what logical fallacy you made here, because it's an incoherant run on sentance.

 

[Gogf]

What your missing is though, he says he's willing to bet and based on that Stephen Hawking remains an intellectual however because I got that wrong about OJ's wife, I am not: it's what is known in the trade as a logical fallacy based on another one, but then I guess you joined the conversation late..

Sidhe, can you clearly and concisely explain to me what a logical fallacy is?

 

[MobBoss]

You don't have to keep 'humbly submitting'. Your rationale will either stand up on it's own or not, regardless of how humble you claim to be. How does reading a novel show an interest in abstract thought? Would this apply to anyone reading a Mills & Boon? A tabloid newspaper? Or is this, as I suspect, a weak attempt to set standards unjustifiably low?

Perhaps if you had read some of Kings work, like the Dark Tower series, you would understand. Some of it is quite....strange...and it would probably take a modicum of abstract thought to work your way through it.

 

[Mise]

And again it's bs anyway it assumes that if jesus says he's the son of God and no one ever believes him and he is the Son of God that therefore makes Jesus not the son of God in other words it's just the same nonsense as Downtowns worded differently?

No it doesn't -- you either are or are not the son of God, whereas "intellectual" is a very subjective thing.

EDIT: Ooh! That's a false analogy! Obligatory condescending wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy

 

[Mise]

Perhaps if you had read some of Kings work, like the Dark Tower series, you would understand. Some of it is quite....strange...and it would probably take a modicum of abstract thought to work your way through it.

It would take me a hell of a lot of thought to get through that book I'm sure, whereas my friend who reads books all the time would wizz through it in a week and write several essays on a single paragraph in the book. That doesn't mean he is any more intellectual than I am, so I don't think this discussion is going to go anywhere...

 

[MobBoss]

It would take me a hell of a lot of thought to get through that book I'm sure, whereas my friend who reads books all the time would wizz through it in a week and write several essays on a single paragraph in the book. That doesn't mean he is any more intellectual than I am, so I don't think this discussion is going to go anywhere...

Well, the point was you only had to show an 'interest' in the work, not write a doctorate paper on it. Thats the problem with such broad definitions to describe a subset....if its too broad it just doesnt work effectively.

It reminds me of a line from "The Incredibles" where the villian is going to make everyone special.....so in turn no one would be special any longer i.e. everyone would be the same.

If you are going to use a definition of intellectual under which a vast majority would qualify...then whats the point? How are you anymore intellectual than anyone else? Or are you just average?

 

[Sidhe]

No it doesn't -- you either are or are not the son of God, whereas "intellectual" is a very subjective thing.

EDIT: Ooh! That's a false analogy! Obligatory condescending wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy

Actually no, if you fit most of the dictionary criteria then you are an intelectual regardless of what people think?

It doesn't say anything about subjectivity, you either are an intelectual or you aren't, if everyone thought Einstein was a dumb ass would you agree he was a dumb ass? No he was an intellectual and the belief in him or not is nothing to do with it.

Just as I being part of the literati and by extension an intellectual has very little to do with opinion, if you've past some sort of university course that makes you part of the literati, if your furthering your studies at University in a complex field and you have a keen interest in philosophy and you enjoy debate and you circulate in academic circles, and you have a high intellignece and you can apply reason to situations free of emotion in an area of study or whatever, and you value the rational above the emotional, unlike say an artist, need I really go on?

Guess what Mise that makes you an intelectual too, assuming you meet up to the minimum of the criteria.

It doesn't say anywhere that you have to be recieved as one, although I am by my real life peers.

 

[Sidhe]

Sidhe, can you clearly and concisely explain to me what a logical fallacy is?

Yes it's a statement that is usually totally wrong.

I can't determine what logical fallacy you made here, because it's an incoherant run on sentance.

Mise got it are you more stupid than Mise or are you trying to make some point about something? Are you lying by any chance falsely claiming you can't understand it, is this the way you usually make a point by denying you can understand a sentence when you patently could?

 

[sanabas]

Appeal to authority: it is isn't it, your saying just because you haven't learnt x you can't claim something is illogical, just because you happen to have a PhD in logic does not mean you can not be wrong and you are, nor that I can point out the flaw in Downtown's statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

The reason why I don't wish to learn logic is a) it sounds boring b) Mise aptly demonstrates you don't need it to learn physics, since he hasn't and it sounds like a waste of time and it wouldn't benefit me, it's probably not even in the English curriculum cause it's only usefull to a particular type of degree/degrees. In other words it's useless except in philosophy and maybe computer studies?

An appeal to authority would be 'My logic is more valid than your logic because I have done a class in formal logic.' To say 'If you have never learnt logic, have no desire to learn logic, have no understanding of logic and see logic as pointless, then you are unable to effectively critique anybody's logic' contains no appeals to authority at all.

Basic logic is useful in most fields, including both Physics and English. A course in formal logic is also useful in most fields. It is helpful in constructing arguments. It is very helpful in learning to be concise and coherent when presenting arguments. As part of a uni curriculum, the main fields that will require you to know formal logic to some extent are philosophy, maths & programming. In depth knowledge of formal logic isn't required for most physics courses. Basic knowledge of underlying concepts in logic is.

 

[brennan]

Well, all you proved there is that it is much easier for one to be 'clear' than it is for one to be an intellectual, no?

I fail to see how this addresses the issue. Perhaps you could make yourself clearer...

And just like I suggest, under the definition for clear, if you do not meet certain aspects of that definition then you would indeed be 'unclear' correct? Therefore it is not in error to say person X meets this aspect of being an intellect (under the broad term about all of us do) but they do not under another aspect of the definition.

No, I would say that one particular use of the word may not be appropriate eg: No argument can be made clear because it cannot be shown to allow the passage of light. To suggest that arguments must be made to possess an optical property is nonsensical, but that is the standard you are suggesting we use.

So which is it? If person A meets one definition, but doesnt meet another, who is to say which definition is correct? Whos to say a true intellectual meets them all, just like someone who is truly clear meets all the pertaining definitions of 'clear'?

Then he is intellectual by one definition but not by another, just as an argument cannot be clear in the same way (by the same dictionary definition) that a piece of glass is.

 

[Sidhe]

An appeal to authority would be 'My logic is more valid than your logic because I have done a class in formal logic.' To say 'If you have never learnt logic, have no desire to learn logic, have no understanding of logic and see logic as pointless, then you are unable to effectively critique anybody's logic' contains no appeals to authority at all.

Basic logic is useful in most fields, including both Physics and English. A course in formal logic is also useful in most fields. It is helpful in constructing arguments. It is very helpful in learning to be concise and coherent when presenting arguments. As part of a uni curriculum, the main fields that will require you to know formal logic to some extent are philosophy, maths & programming. In depth knowledge of formal logic isn't required for most physics courses. Basic knowledge of underlying concepts in logic is.

Since I've correctly pointed out that saying that if people don't believe you then it must mean you aren't an intelectual, would indicate that I at least have the rudementary ability to determine BS when I read it.

And then when you state that there is some sort of subjectivity to being and intelectual, I find it an untennable statement given that essential even the most brilliant scientist in the world under those criteria would have to have popular opinion on his side?

Yours is equally guilty of being asshattery, because it's assumptions are nonsense, it assumes there is some subjective definition outside of the dictionary definition that in fact means you become less of an academic the more people disbelieve you, which is obviously nonsense, I don't need a course in logic to know BS when I smell it.

 

[MobBoss]

Mise got it are you more stupid than Mise or are you trying to make some point about something? Are you lying by any chance falsely claiming you can't understand it, is this the way you usually make a point by denying you can understand a sentence when you patently could?

I think this is the crux of the entire arguement.

If you agree with Sidhe you are an intellectual (or might be if you meet the minmums).

If you disagree with Sidhe you are stupid, or lying, and you make false claims and cant understand a thing.

And Brennan has made sure we all know what 'clear' means so we are 'clear' on it.

I think that sums this thread up pretty well.

 

[sanabas]

Just as I being part of the literati and by extension an intellectual has very little to do with opinion, if you've past some sort of university course that makes you part of the literati, if your furthering your studies at University in a complex field and you have a keen interest in philosophy and you enjoy debate and you circulate in academic circles, and you have a high intellignece and you can apply reason to situations free of emotion in an area of study or whatever, and you value the rational above the emotional, unlike say an artist, need I really go on?

Which of these do you qualify under?

Yes it's a statement that is usually totally wrong.

"If it's wrong, it must be fallacious"?

 

[brennan]

No it doesn't -- you either are or are not the son of God, whereas "intellectual" is a very subjective thing.

I disagree, you have clearly made a false premise.

Can we have a halt to this fallacy nonsense please?

 

[Atlas14]

This debate has really gone downhill...

1. Just because you say Sidhe is not an intellectual does not mean he isn't one.
2. Just because you perceive him to not be an intellectual does not mean he isn't one.

He meets dictionary criteria for one and plenty of people perceive him to an intellectual (though this by itself would be irrelevant). Just because I think some Asian dude is not a karate master because he isn't as skilled as Jackie Chan, does not mean he does not meet the criteria for being a karate master.

 

[azzaman333]

The thread is...

Are we at CFC Intellectuals?

not

Is Sidhe an Intellectual?

 

[Atlas14]

The thread is...



not

In order to determine if we (CFC) as a whole are intellectuals we must first determine if there are individual intellectuals that compose this whole.

 

[brennan]

Perhaps if you had read some of Kings work, like the Dark Tower series, you would understand. Some of it is quite....strange...and it would probably take a modicum of abstract thought to work your way through it.

It didn't strike me as so. I prefer James Herbert anyway.

 

[Sidhe]

I agree, I said that ages ago but Sanabas is just labouring the point here, he was wrong when he claimed Downtowns statement wasn't a logical fallacy, his follow up statement was more nonsense, and now apparently MobBoss has decided to jump in with a new load of false accusations, ie he just made four false conclusions in a row, all while perfection claims to be ignorant despite it being patently obvious with what I said, obviously people aren't prepared to be intelectually honest, or even to acknowledge when they are wrong, so to be honest I suggest we just go back to discussing the OP as I've been suggesting for the past 4 pages or so.

Because this is really quite tiresome, and I am starting to nod off.

 

[Sidhe]

"If it's wrong, it must be fallacious"?

What are you talking about, Make a point?

Just as I being part of the literati and by extension an intellectual has very little to do with opinion, if you've past some sort of university course that makes you part of the literati, if your furthering your studies at University in a complex field and you have a keen interest in philosophy and you enjoy debate and you circulate in academic circles, and you have a high intellignece and you can apply reason to situations free of emotion in an area of study or whatever, and you value the rational above the emotional, unlike say an artist, need I really go on?

Which of these do you qualify under?

Oh and bloody read the thread? I explain everything if your too lazy to actually read it then this is just a stupid question and which of these are you

All of them, that's the point, oh good God, you people are tiresome.