ep81-Reviewing fakeologist.com

Be the 1st to vote.

audio_mp3_buttonep81-Reviewing-Fakeologist

Showtime: Saturday, Dec. 21, 2013, 9:11pm EST

Guests: Atlanta Bill, Jeremy

How the moon lit:

www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic….

Topic: the latest Fetzer show.

No tags for this post.

7 thoughts on “ep81-Reviewing fakeologist.com

  1. wolfman9wolfman9

    There was one time on the stream, it sounded like a voice modulator was breaking up and ‘Atlanta Bill’ bled through to sound just like Jim Fetzer. A lot of his arguments sounded just like Fetzer as well, stuttered like Fetzer only more contained.

    If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, SOUNDS like a duck, is it Fetzer? 😛

    1. ab Post author

      If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, SOUNDS like a duck, is it Fetzer

      Not a chance. Why is there a recent wave of thinking people are posing as others? UserIDs is one thing that is unprovable but voices are totally different. I’ve listened to too much Fetzer to think Atlanta Bill sounds anything like him.

  2. knagjakknagjak

    Very interesting especially all the examples of how to cohere an argument by diverting the main topic. The moon argument was quite mind boggling especially when you take into account of how awful how education system is in all aspects like math, science and history. It’s like extremely forced ideals being proposed as truth by fraud science. Crazy because corruption of the mind of this magnitude would take years of curing. Like that propaganda book noted that we had discussed on a recent radio broadcast it takes years if dedication and relearning to cleanse our minds of such fraud. Yikes.

  3. Jan ErikJan Erik

    Argument From False Authority:
    a strange variation on Argument From Authority. For example, the TV commercial which starts “I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV.” Just what are we supposed to conclude ?
    Appeal To Anonymous Authority:

    an Appeal To Authority is made, but the authority is not named. For example, “Experts agree that ..”, “scientists say ..” or even “they say ..”. This makes the information impossible to verify, and brings up the very real possibility that the arguer himself doesn’t know who the experts are. In that case, he may just be spreading a rumor.

    The situation is even worse if the arguer admits it’s a rumor.
    Appeal To Authority:
    “Albert Einstein was extremely impressed with this theory.” (But a statement made by someone long-dead could be out of date. Or perhaps Einstein was just being polite. Or perhaps he made his statement in some specific context. And so on.)

    To justify an appeal, the arguer should at least present an exact quote. It’s more convincing if the quote contains context, and if the arguer can say where the quote comes from.

    A variation is to appeal to unnamed authorities .

    There was a New Yorker cartoon, showing a doctor and patient. The doctor was saying: “Conventional medicine has no treatment for your condition. Luckily for you, I’m a quack.” So the joke was that the doctor boasted of his lack of authority.
    Appeal To False Authority:
    a variation on Appeal To Authority, but the Authority is outside his area of expertise.

    For example, “Famous physicist John Taylor studied Uri Geller extensively and found no evidence of trickery or fraud in his feats.” Taylor was not qualified to detect trickery or fraud of the kind used by stage magicians. Taylor later admitted Geller had tricked him, but he apparently had not figured out how.

    A variation is to appeal to a non-existent authority. For example, someone reading an article by Creationist Dmitri Kuznetsov tried to look up the referenced articles. Some of the articles turned out to be in non-existent journals.

    Another variation is to misquote a real authority. There are several kinds of misquotation. A quote can be inexact or have been edited. It can be taken out of context. (Chevy Chase: “Yes, I said that, but I was singing a song written by someone else at the time.”) The quote can be separate quotes which the arguer glued together. Or, bits might have gone missing. For example, it’s easy to prove that Mick Jagger is an assassin. In “Sympathy For The Devil” he sang: “I shouted out, who killed the Kennedys, When after all, it was … me.”

    www.don-lindsay-archive.org/sk…

  4. Jan ErikJan Erik

    Red herring fallacies[edit]

    A red herring fallacy is an error in logic where a proposition is, or is intended to be, misleading in order to make irrelevant or false inferences. In the general case any logical inference based on fake arguments, intended to replace the lack of real arguments or to replace implicitly the subject of the discussion.

    Red herring – argument given in response to another argument, which is irrelevant and draws attention away from the subject of argument. See also irrelevant conclusion.
    Ad hominem – attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
    Poisoning the well – a type of ad hominem where adverse information about a target is presented with the intention of discrediting everything that the target person says.[49]
    Abusive fallacy – a subtype of “ad hominem” when it turns into verbal abuse of the opponent rather than arguing about the originally proposed argument.
    Argumentum ad baculum (appeal to the stick, appeal to force, appeal to threat) – an argument made through coercion or threats of force to support position.[50]
    Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so.[51]
    Appeal to equality – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on an assumed pretense of equality.
    Association fallacy (guilt by association) – arguing that because two things share a property they are the same.
    Appeal to authority (argumentum ab auctoritate) – where an assertion is deemed true because of the position or authority of the person asserting it.[52][53]
    Appeal to accomplishment – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer.
    Appeal to consequences (argumentum ad consequentiam) – the conclusion is supported by a premise that asserts positive or negative consequences from some course of action in an attempt to distract from the initial discussion.[54]
    Appeal to emotion – where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning. [55]
    Appeal to fear – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side
    Appeal to flattery – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made due to the use of flattery to gather support.[56]
    Appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam) – an argument attempts to induce pity to sway opponents.[57]
    Appeal to ridicule – an argument is made by presenting the opponent’s argument in a way that makes it appear ridiculous.
    Appeal to spite – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people’s bitterness or spite towards an opposing party.
    Wishful thinking – a specific type of appeal to emotion where a decision is made according to what might be pleasing to imagine, rather than according to evidence or reason.[58]
    Appeal to motive – where a premise is dismissed by calling into question the motives of its proposer.
    Appeal to novelty (argumentum ad novitam/antiquitam) – where a proposal is claimed to be superior or better solely because it is new or modern.[59]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.