Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (614002)	5/31/2011 5:30:14 PM
From: jlallen	5 Recommendations Respond to of 1578187

Again you either don't know what the term defining a type of argument means, or your being careless in its use, or your using it dishonestly. I vote that CJ is a dumbass....

To: TimF who wrote (614002)	6/2/2011 8:06:33 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578187

"Again you either don't know what the term defining a type of argument means, or your being careless in its use, or your using it dishonestly. " No, it isn't. Although admittedly what you did was more of a specialized case of a straw man. What you did was falsely frame the argument I was making. The fact of the matter is that my statement only applies to chaotic systems. It isn't applicable universally and it certainly isn't a pseudo-argument. At least you didn't attempt to make any case that was what I did. You just made up your assertion without anything to back it up. Granted, your particular argument can be classed as several other fallacies that may have fit the situation a bit better, but that doesn't change the fact it is a straw man. "The only argument I presented for you was a direct quote from you." Tim, that is one of the major findings of chaos theory. One with predictive value and important implications. It is sort of like me asserting that "light is bent by gravity" when discussing Special Theory and you asserting "Can be used as an argument, or really a pseudo-argument, for just about anything". The fact of the matter is that there just aren't any other theories that give that sort of prediction. Tim, arguing against theories you don't understand just makes you look foolish. Even if you don't buy into it, you should have at least some understanding of it so you can make a coherent argument. "Exactly. Which shows that a year of bad tornadoes, or even a decade of changes, doesn't show much. " Now that is a clear cut, straw man, since you seem to be pretty touchy on the subject. I never said it was. However, it is consistent with predictions of chaos theory. The fact of the matter is that weather has been getting more and more extreme as time goes on. True, it could settle out at any moment, but the odds of that decreases as time goes on. Given the fact that chaos theory exists, and has been proven to be very predictive, counter-balancing that with only hope seems to be, well, sticking you head in the sand and hoping it goes away. Which is a strategy, I suppose. "The sea level rise averages millimeters per year (going by the IPCC, some estimates have it in tenths of a mm per year, part of the larger figure is an adjustment for land rising as ice that was on it melts, but then part of the measured increase would also represent land being at a lower level after erosion or other shifts in the land," Nonsense Tim. This is just a stupid argument. Those things have been adjusted for. This observation wasn't just something that some undergrad came up with, but the result of a lot of people working with the best tools of the time and far greater knowledge of the processes involved than you have demonstrated. "its not an extreme weather event, which was the subject of the conversation." There you go again, Tim. The original topic was GW, of which extreme weather was presented as one prediction by chaos theory if such an event was happening. This was just another supporting point. I considered starting listing the logical fallacies in your posts, but it is pretty obvious I might as well post the entire list...