Ice, again

[SSDD]

I haven't the slightest doubt they had good reason to make those changes. Data gets adjusted all the time for a variety of reasons. Why don't you pick out one dataset adjustment that you find suspicious and we'll look into it?

I would be interested in gearing a rational reason for adjusting temps prior to 1970....got one?

 

[SwimExpert]

You are hiding behind a specious shield of fallacies.

You can't blame me for your failures in logic.

They prevent you from making any contribution

To the contrary. Pointing out your fallacies is a very useful contribution. Your arguments cannot be accepted if they are fallacious.

plus you don't even correctly use them.

First of all, fallacies should never be "used." They are fallacy. Why should you use bad reasoning?

Second, assuming that what you meant to allege is that I am not properly citing them, then.....

Go learn a thing or two on the subject. Then a couple more things. Then come back and admit your error.

Ad hominem is a deductive fallacy

And you say that I have a problem with understanding how to properly identify fallacies?

Here's a pro tip for you: Argumentum ad hominem is an informal fallacy.

Here's another pro tip for you: Informal fallacies are most often non-deductive in nature.

Here's a third pro tip for you: You don't know much about this stuff. You learn. I could teach you, but I'd have to charge.

It's more than clear you aren't noting fallacies for the sake of defending your position, you are throwing fallacies left and right precisely because you can't defend your positions.

That would be a fallacy.

 

[Abraham3]

It [extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence] is NOT a rule of logic. It was an observation made by Carl Sagan and likely copied from Marcello Truzzi

You really don't know what you're talking about.

I told you exactly how much of this I've had: one semester, 32 years ago. But I can look this shit up with the best of them. I showed you the quote from Truzzi. How about YOU show us a quote from any reputable logic textbook or reference source that says that is a rule of logic, cause I say you're full of shit.

No, it [my frequent referral to the consensus among climate scientists] is not. It is an appeal to authority (Argumentum ab auctoritate)

No. Your position is constantly that X% of scientists agree, therefore it must be true. That is ad populum.

Ad populum is an appeal to the people, ie, the general public. It's most common appearance uses the phrase "everyone knows...". My appeal to a consensus among experts is an appeal to (or, more properly, an argument from) authority.

Oh, and BTW, it's ad auctoritate.

No, it is not. It is Argument FROM Authority not Argument TO Authority. I took Latin all through junior high numbnuts. Look it up yourself if you don't believe me. You're still batting 000. Let's see how long you can stretch this one.

and it is valid when the references actually are experts in the field and when there actually exists a consensus among them. Both are true and so the argument is valid.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy in deductive logic. ALWAYS.

That's absolutely correct Sherlock. But I'm not making a deductive argument, Whizzo. I've said all along that the consensus of the experts makes AGW more LIKELY. I have repeatedly rejected the use of the term "proof" in this regard. Argumentum ab auctorite is perfectly valid in inductive reasoning given a true consensus among true experts. I win, you lose.

It is also fallacy when invoked to ignore evidence that is inconsistent with your position.

You are so full of crap its coming out your ears. It is bad form to ignore any applicable evidence under any circumstance. There is most assuredly no particular rule admonishing us not to use argument from authority to ignore evidence.

You do both. So really, I could have included that in my list. But the ad populum sufficiently covered it in my opinion.

Save that it is not ad populum. If you're worried about Argumentum ad Populum, you might want to talk to the deniers here as a group. I couldn't TELL you how many times we've been put on notice about how little the general public cares about AGW or how many of them believe science doesn't support it. You could start with Skookerasnoc for one. Then there's Crusader Frank and I'm sure you can find a few more.

The denier position has become the (extreme) minority view and it is your side that now has the burden of making an extraordinary case.

Shifting the burden.

Hah! You don't actually know this stuff, do you. Shifting the burden, in logic, is another name for appeal to ignorance.

Your ignorance is showing. An ad ignorantiam is usually implied within, or follows, a fallacious shifting of the burden. But this is not always necessary.

Argument from ignorance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Shifting the burden of proof)

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[2] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism[vague], wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent.[citation needed] See also Occam's razor (prefer the explanation with the least assumptions).
*************************************************************

As you can see, this has nothing to do with the growth of AGW's acceptance. AGW garnered evidence while non-AGW failed. You are wrong again. And once again you might want to talk to your denier buds. Claims that AGW is false because climate scientists can't precisely evaluate the temperature anomaly 50 years in the future or because they are unable to conduct experiments with the entire planet's climate in a lab - THOSE are Argumentum ad Ignorantium.

This is not an appeal to ignorance. The burden has shifted because the consensus of the experts has shifted.

False. You accept the conclusions as true because many people have said they are true. It remains an ad populum. If a million experts say a false thing, it is still a false thing.

How did you get back on ad Populum? Oh... I see. You looked up "shift the burden of proof" and finally realized you'd fucked up (again). Well, a little late. And, you YOURSELF said "No. Your position is constantly that X% of scientists agree, therefore it must be true." You admit that my authority is not the people it is "SCIENTISTS". That makes it and Argumentum AB Auctorite and you, once again, wrong.

Ad Ignorantum is to claim that something is true because it has not been shown to be false. The appearance of the word "ignorant" in my statement does not qualify.

Sad little man

"Sad little man"? Wow... Has this failure of yours, to recognize that a time comes when you need to stop sticking your neck out, been going on for long? So far you have fucked up EVERY - SINGLE - POINT in this little logic debate and that after having tried your damnedest to give us all the impression that you were some sort of expert at it.

your argument is that those who disagree with you have not proven AGW does not exist, therefore it must be true. That is an ad ignorantiam.

God, what an idiot. Did you actually think that was going to fly? Skooks would tell you that was wrong. My position is that because an overwhelming majority of the world's climate experts accept AGW as valid, it is very likely to be correct and that, despite years of opportunities, AGW deniers have failed to prove their case and thus their contentions are extremely UNLIKELY to be correct.

You really need to get the **** over yourself. You don't know what you are talking about. You are wrong. It's not that you have a difference of opinion. You are wrong. Irving Copi is turning in his grave every time you try to talk about logic.

I've argued with some stupid people before but I don't think I've ever seen such an unending string of errors. Hey, at least you're a record-setter.

 

[gnarlylove]

Swim, where did you learn logic? Or are you still learning it? Is it a textbook or website?

 

[SwimExpert]

......

You've already started back peddling, admitting that you're not really up to speed on the finer points of logical reasoning. You would have been better off to admitting the fact and brushing yourself up perhaps. Or maybe it's a lost cause for you at this point. Your understanding is so rudimentary and unsophisticated I could get better results from a couple weeks of tutorship with a middle school student.

I'm not going to go through and contribute to your babbling, so I'll just hit the main points.

1. Burden of Proof

I should start off by saying that this is probably a much too complex issue for you to apparently wrap your mind around. However, this ought to suffice for your silly request.

The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities that are non-existent. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The claim that X does not exist is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition.

The Burden of Proof

A common example of correctly applying the burden of proof regarding a negative claim is the distinction between positive and negative atheism. Positive atheists fallaciously assert that the non-existence of God is possible. Meanwhile negative atheists logically assert that absent evidence to demonstrate the existence of God, they will not believe.


Ad Populum

An ad populum argument has NOTHING to do with "the general public" as opposed to a more selective class of individuals. There is no fundamental difference between "everyone agrees it so it must be true," and "most scientists agree so it must be true." In either case, you're appealing to popularity to imply truth value. The fact that you're referring to a group of scientists does not make the ad populum acceptable, nor does it cease to be an ad populum argument. Appeal to authority and ad populum arguments are not mutually exclusive.



One final note:

It is Argument FROM Authority not Argument TO Authority. I took Latin all through junior high numbnuts

Man, I even throw you a bone and you can't get it right. If you're such an intelligent Latin scholar you should have correctly corrected me for referring ot argumentum ad verecundiam. Better luck next time.

 

[flacaltenn]

Maybe I'm just not following this ramble, but it seems to have a few flaws.

o The top of the atmosphere is a gradient, not a boundary.
o If IR absorption by CO2 is a boundary effect, how does it get to boundary number two?
o If it's a boundary effect, how does it get to surface heat sinks?
o Where is IR stored in the atmosphere as latent heat?
o What are these "other routes" that radiation can take?
o Why are these other routes more efficient as temperatures increase?
o If IR is taking all these other routes, how are temperatures increasing?
o You say equilibriums change when conditions change. When has the Earth's climate EVER been in equilibrium?
o Isn't saying "Equilibriums change when conditions change" analogous to saying V=dX.
o Unless you're bringing up the Gaia Hypothesis, there is no homeostasis in the Earth's climate.
o The Earth has spent significant amounts of its history in states that would be VERY harmful to modern civilization. To constrain the near future to that range is not a comfort.
o The only times in the Earth's history in which it has experienced a CO2 dump similar to the last 150 years, it had just been struck by a 7-mile wide asteroid or was suffering the creation of the Deccan Traps.

Pee -- Yuuuu.. That's a load..

1) Doesn't "ocean engineering" require a thermo class? If it did -- why are you asking
stupid questions like "why are these other routes more efficient as things heat up?" Ever model a thermal system? Remember anything about thermal resistances and why heat takes a particular path? When you insulate one route, reduce the rate of heat loss --- oh never mind....................

2) What's this crap about storing IR? Guess there was also no Physics for "ocean engineering".. It is INDEED caused by latent heat energy in the atmos and at the surface. But EM waves are only "stored" (briefly) in lasers, Milliken experiments and theoretical exercises.

3) IR taking "other routes"? REALLY ???? No "fields and waves" in ocean engineering???

4) V = dx .. Say WHAT? No diff. eq. in "ocean engineering"??

No thermo, no physics, no diffy Q, no fields and waves.. I'm gonna have to look up the requirements. Must be SOMETHING in there that resembles the engineering school curriculums that I've seen..

Can't go on.. Re-Read what Ian wrote. THAT made sense..
The only interesting part of all that was your question --- "when has the Earth EVER been in equilibrium".. So when has the HVAC system for your house ever produced "thermal equilibrium? The process of hunting or oscillating around a stable value is still a "stable" system. And in terms of Climate time epochs -- equilibrium could be met over a millenium or more. In fact -- the Ice Ages we're in -- are close to the equilibrium performance of your home HVAC just magnified a bit.

That begs the question of when has the Earth's climate EVER been dominated by positive feedbacks?? More important that balancing the NET heat flow, is the TYPE of system we have.. Systems can be stable or unstable. Stable systems can be overdamped, underdamped, or oscillatory. AGW theory REQUIRES that the climate system be an unstable system.. By definition, it will trash itself IF NOT CONSTANTLY near equilibrium.. Now THERE is a hint more important than "is it ever in equilibrium?" When has the Earth lurched into unstable climate chaos?

 

[Politico]

I agree that we are late in the term of an ice age, given historical behavior. Why?

Because that's what the Earth does.

 

[Abraham3]

You've already started back peddling, admitting that you're not really up to speed on the finer points of logical reasoning. You would have been better off to admitting the fact and brushing yourself up perhaps. Or maybe it's a lost cause for you at this point. Your understanding is so rudimentary and unsophisticated I could get better results from a couple weeks of tutorship with a middle school student.

I'm not going to go through and contribute to your babbling, so I'll just hit the main points.

1. Burden of Proof

I should start off by saying that this is probably a much too complex issue for you to apparently wrap your mind around. However, this ought to suffice for your silly request.

The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities that are non-existent. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The claim that X does not exist is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition.

The Burden of Proof

A common example of correctly applying the burden of proof regarding a negative claim is the distinction between positive and negative atheism. Positive atheists fallaciously assert that the non-existence of God is possible. Meanwhile negative atheists logically assert that absent evidence to demonstrate the existence of God, they will not believe.

Ad Populum

An ad populum argument has NOTHING to do with "the general public" as opposed to a more selective class of individuals. There is no fundamental difference between "everyone agrees it so it must be true," and "most scientists agree so it must be true." In either case, you're appealing to popularity to imply truth value. The fact that you're referring to a group of scientists does not make the ad populum acceptable, nor does it cease to be an ad populum argument. Appeal to authority and ad populum arguments are not mutually exclusive.

One final note:

It is Argument FROM Authority not Argument TO Authority. I took Latin all through junior high numbnuts

Man, I even throw you a bone and you can't get it right. If you're such an intelligent Latin scholar you should have correctly corrected me for referring ot argumentum ad verecundiam. Better luck next time.

********************************************************************************************
If you think anyone here is stupid enough to believe you were "throwing me a bone" you need to repeat the second grade.

How about you explain for us the difference between Argumentum ad Populum and Argumentum ab Auctorite? Never mind, we could'nt trust you to get it right anyway.

ARGUMENTUM AD POPULUM
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."
This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea. [Note that they give ELEVEN synonymous terms, none of which is Argumentum ab Auctorite]

ARGUMENTUM AB AUCTORITE
Argument from authority (Argumentum ab auctoritate), also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is an argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] The appeal to authority is a common logical fallacy.[2]
Fallacious examples of using the appeal include[1][3][4] any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence.[5]
The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy[6] because authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise.[7] Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons,[citation needed] they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not an argument for establishing facts.[7] [They give two synonyms here, neither of which is Argumentum ad Populum]

I see now where you got the idea about dismissing evidence and I would admit that it seems I could have been wrong on that point save they aren't listing rules, they're listing EXAMPLES of fallacious usage. We have the same source! WIKIPEDIA!

PS: I told you and everyone else here right up front precisely how much training I'd had as a logician. There is no backpedaling going on. And if I were you and had done as poorly as you've done in these arguments, I wouldn't be pointing out how uneducated I amon the topic.

PPS: The text you gave up top, explaining why you can't prove a negative, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with "Shift the burden of proof", which is how you described my contention that since AGW was now widely accepted science, it was now the denier's responsibility to come up with extraordinary evidence.

The denier position has become the (extreme) minority view and it is your side that now has the burden of making an extraordinary case.

Shifting the burden.

If anyone here is attempting to claim a negative, it would be the deniers: "AGW is not taking place", "CO2 has no effect on the climate", etcetera. So, another fail. Your attempts to recover here are just digging you in deeper.

 

[SSDD]

Swim, where did you learn logic? Or are you still learning it? Is it a textbook or website?

Does it really matter since he clearly has a much better grasp of the subject than either of you hysteric hand waving grannies?

 

[Abraham3]

You think his repeated goofs and failures indicate a better grasp? Can we take that as indicative of your general ability to judge the evidence before you?

 

[SSDD]

You think his repeated goofs and failures indicate a better grasp? Can we take that as indicative of your general ability to judge the evidence before you?

I am afraid that it is you guys who keep goofing and failing. You would think that you would get a clue....but you don't. Hell of a lot of fun to watch. Your failures are epic with regard to science so you switch to philosophy where you don't fare any better. Maybe you should pick easier topics...maybe crystal healing, or dope smoking 101....or maybe the effects of talking to houseplants....scratch that one. Talking to you two is like talking to houseplants.

 

[SwimExpert]

Swim, where did you learn logic? Or are you still learning it? Is it a textbook or website?

Many textbooks. I got rid of most of them as time went on. But then I lost my favorite one about 5 years ago while moving. Didn't realize just how attached I had gotten to the thing until I was 2000 miles away, and realized that it was gone, presumably sitting in a cardboard box in front of a public Library's doorstep. I was really, truly upset. Felt almost silly about it. Irreplaceable.

Oh wait. This got me all nostalgic so I popped over to Amazon to see what I might be able to find. Low and behold!

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Irving-M-Copi/dp/B000UCTBVM]Introduction to Logic: Irving M. Copi: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

 

[SwimExpert]

You think his repeated goofs and failures indicate a better grasp? Can we take that as indicative of your general ability to judge the evidence before you?

I am afraid that it is you guys who keep goofing and failing. You would think that you would get a clue....but you don't. Hell of a lot of fun to watch. Your failures are epic with regard to science so you switch to philosophy where you don't fare any better. Maybe you should pick easier topics...maybe crystal healing, or dope smoking 101....or maybe the effects of talking to houseplants....scratch that one. Talking to you two is like talking to houseplants.

The ridiculous part is that he freely admits that he's not exactly up to speed on the finer points of logic. His understanding is so rudimentary we may as well be back to weighing neutrinos, or determining atomic mass by counting neutrons.

 

[gnarlylove]

Does it really matter since he clearly has a much better grasp of the subject than either of you hysteric hand waving grannies?

Jesus Christ! I can't even ask a legitimate question! GO **** yourself if I can't even try to learn from the same sources. Albeit I doubt I'd be learning anything new since my degree in philosophy was from an accredited university (Ohio Wesleyan) with a specialization in logic and analytical philosophy.

Swim has never sat in on a logic class. Swim has never passed a logic class. The first week of logic 340 involves quick review of fallacies so that you can convert regular sentences into syllogisms, p's and q's, and ., < or >, iff or if etc.. You have no idea what this means. Swim has no idea what this means. It's advanced logic and I assure you Swim is consistently mis-applying each fallacy. It's clearly another case of Dunning and Krueger.

You say "clearly he is right and you are wrong."

That's just you asserting your beliefs. Adding the word "clearly" does not make it defensible. I can say the same "Clearly you have never taken a philosophy course let alone have any grasp in logic or you'd realize your pal is consistently mis-applying fallacies." "Clearly you have never studied logic at any depth and have no clue about what you're really talking about."

Wait, those are facts. You do have no certified understanding what the hell Swim or you are talking about. Yet you strut around like you are flawless. This is textbook case of two people who appraise their own understanding much higher than they actually know.

 

[SwimExpert]

Swim has never sat in on a logic class. Swim has never passed a logic class. The first week of logic 340 involves quick review of fallacies so that you can convert regular sentences into syllogisms, p's and q's, and ., < or >, iff or if etc.. You have no idea what this means. Swim has no idea what this means. It's advanced logic and I assure you Swim is consistently mis-applying each fallacy. It's clearly another case of Dunning and Krueger.

You don't know me, nor anything about me.

 

[flacaltenn]

You think his repeated goofs and failures indicate a better grasp? Can we take that as indicative of your general ability to judge the evidence before you?

That's a real hoot -- since I was thinking -- How come a guy so fixated on the foundations of logic has such a hard time understanding that you can't claim that 97% of respondents in a class agree with a certain assertion when the VAST MAJORITY percentage of them expressed NO opinion? The logic failure there -- is all I need to know..

 

[SwimExpert]

my degree in philosophy was from an accredited university (Ohio Wesleyan) with a specialization in logic and analytical philosophy.

Ad hominem is a deductive fallacy

These may as well be contradictions.

At the very least, a very poor reflection on the quality of instruction at Ohio Wesleyan.

 

[SSDD]

Jesus Christ! I can't even ask a legitimate question! GO **** yourself if I can't even try to learn from the same sources. Albeit I doubt I'd be learning anything new since my degree in philosophy was from an accredited university (Ohio Wesleyan) with a specialization in logic and analytical philosophy.

Someone graduates at the top...some one graduates at the bottom. Sorry about that. If you have a degree in philosophy, it was wasted.

Swim has never sat in on a logic class. Swim has never passed a logic class. The first week of logic 340 involves quick review of fallacies so that you can convert regular sentences into syllogisms, p's and q's, and ., < or >, iff or if etc.. You have no idea what this means. Swim has no idea what this means. It's advanced logic and I assure you Swim is consistently mis-applying each fallacy. It's clearly another case of Dunning and Krueger.

And yet, you don't seem to be able to string half a dozen words together without constructing a fallacy.....and it seems that those suffering from dunning kruger are the first to claim that others are afflicted.

 

[SSDD]

Swim has never sat in on a logic class. Swim has never passed a logic class. The first week of logic 340 involves quick review of fallacies so that you can convert regular sentences into syllogisms, p's and q's, and ., < or >, iff or if etc.. You have no idea what this means. Swim has no idea what this means. It's advanced logic and I assure you Swim is consistently mis-applying each fallacy. It's clearly another case of Dunning and Krueger.

You don't know me, nor anything about me.

Doesn't know much about climate science either...hell, I bet he has never even stayed at the holiday inn express.

 

[SSDD]

my degree in philosophy was from an accredited university (Ohio Wesleyan) with a specialization in logic and analytical philosophy.

Ad hominem is a deductive fallacy

These may as well be contradictions.

At the very least, a very poor reflection on the quality of instruction at Ohio Wesleyan.

Never ends with these people, does it?