Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

135 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

macqdor
Quote

Accounting for an audience

Strawman arguments are often used during debates that are being viewed by people who are not a part of the discussion itself. The presence of such an audience is important to take into consideration when you choose how to respond to a strawman, because it can influence the effectiveness of the different strategies that you can choose from.

https://effectiviology.com/straw-man-arguments-recognize-counter-use/

@stereologist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
stereologist
1 minute ago, macqdor said:

@moonman

@stereologist

When I use the word straw man.  What do I mean.

That happens a lot here. Skeptics love using this tool when they debate because it makes them look like they are the winner.   The thread is not about fake psychic or psychics that were later proven to be hoaxers or fakers.  Thats not what the thread is about.  Whenever one of you introduces an incident where a hoax was proven or not, that's text book straw man tactics.  That one example or instance becomes your pillar of saying all physics are hoaxes. Its all fake.  Its all rubbish. Etc, etc.  That question was never put forth.  You brought up Uri Geller.  I didn't.  Uri Geller has nothing to do with this article.

The crux of the article says Russia, individuals inside the military, etc had projects involving training of Russian soldiers.  Done. That's it.  It didn't say Uri Geller did.  You bought him up as your straw man.

Are some psychics fakes?  of course they are.  Not all of them.

But that's what this posts is about

Mr. Straw Man.

This article is about govt's in this case Russia experiencing with the paranormal.

Saying there are kooks in every argument is not an argument. Its a broad brush.  

Its dismissiveness on steroids.  

I don't know what you mean when you write straw man. I know what a straw man argument is, but you've never used the term as defined.

You simply write straw man as if that means something.

Fake psychics from Russia are germane to the thread since we have the following in the article:

Quote

Russian scientists are not letting Poroskov off the hook. The chairman of the commission to combat pseudoscience at the Presidium of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Yevgeny Alexandrov, described the military’s alleged psychic abilities as an “invention” and essentially fake science. Alexandrov told RBC, “...all this is complete nonsense. No parapsychology exists at all, it’s a fairy tale. All the talk about the transfer of thought at a distance does not have a scientific basis, there is not a single such recorded case, it is simply impossible. This is a way to squeeze funds from the state budget.”

This is just another example of pseudoscience in Russia and as was pointed out by another poster there is a long history of pseudoscience in Russia. So please read, comprehend, and keep up with the thread.

When you say "It didn't say Uri Geller did.  You bought him up as your straw man." you are once again exhibiting your personal incompetence because I have not mentioned Geller at all. Take the time to read and comprehend the thread.

The article is about a story written by a retired Russian colonel that tells a story that is disputed by Russian scientists. 

You write "Are some psychics fakes?  of course they are.  Not all of them." but the article disagrees with that statement. In fact, I cannot find any Russian psychics that were not caught cheating.

Then you hypocritically call me "Mr. Straw Man." What a two-faced comment from you.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moonman
Posted (edited)

Yay, he looked up the definition. Let's see if he starts understanding it now - or at least quits saying it in every post like it means something.

Edited by moonman
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

There are those that use terms they don't understand such as straw man. They spam the thread with definitions just to demonstrate that they can copy and paste and possibly violate copyrights.

There are those that can't read and comprehend simple articles.

There are those that can't use simple words correctly. Take the word crux. What was meant was gist or essence, certainly not crux.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moonman
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Good thing you didn't label them as a career skeptic.

DOH! I should have, BECAUSE THAT'S TOTALLY WHAT THEY ARE. All of them, all those dirty little skeptics that don't believe every bit of nonsense they read on the internet. What idiots!

 

P.S. Buy my book, it's for reals, I didn't make any of it up, or proofread and spellcheck it, or anything!

Edited by moonman
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

What I want to know is why it took 10 years to find Bin Laden if this stuff actually works.

Why has MH370 not been found if this stuff actually works?

Why are we sending probes out into space if this stuff actually works?

Where is Jimmy Hoffa is this stuff actually works?

Why are IEDs effective if this stuff actually works?

Why was a virus needed to cripple Iran's nuclear program if this stuff actually works?

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor
Quote

This is just another example of pseudoscience in Russia and as was pointed out by another poster there is a long history of pseudoscience in Russia. So please read, comprehend, and keep up with the thread.

When you say "It didn't say Uri Geller did.  You bought him up as your straw man." you are once again exhibiting your personal incompetence because I have not mentioned Geller at all. Take the time to read and comprehend the thread.

The article is about a story written by a retired Russian colonel that tells a story that is disputed by Russian scientists. 

You write "Are some psychics fakes?  of course they are.  Not all of them." but the article disagrees with that statement. In fact, I cannot find any Russian psychics that were not caught cheating.

Then you hypocritically call me "Mr. Straw Man." What a two-faced comment from you.

I think i described what a straw argument is and how uses it profusely.

Quote

When you say "It didn't say Uri Geller did.  You bought him up as your straw man." you are once again exhibiting your personal incompetence because I have not mentioned Geller at all. Take the time to read and comprehend the thread.

Didn't say you specifically. Learn to read slower.  But you do subscribe to the straw man tactic.   B- Straw Man user.

Its not personal. Don't feel ashamed. A lot of skeptics use that tool when debating. Its an effective debate method,  Outdated. But effective.

@stereologist

Skeptic Debate tactics (in the order of occurrence here)

1.) Straw Man

2.) Character Assassination

3.) Generalization and the kicker tool is 

4.) Occam's razor Razor

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor
Quote

Exhibit B.  Straw Man tactic

What I want to know is why it took 10 years to find Bin Laden if this stuff actually works.

Why has MH370 not been found if this stuff actually works?

Why are we sending probes out into space if this stuff actually works?

Where is Jimmy Hoffa is this stuff actually works?

Why are IEDs effective if this stuff actually works?

Why was a virus needed to cripple Iran's nuclear program if this stuff actually works?

There's nothing about Psi research that says it would lead the finding of Osama Bin Laden or any of your other questions.  You confuse with research with mastery.  And you're not reading the PDF's.

I can tell based on the questions your asking.   You're funny

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
marsman
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, macqdor said:

I think i described what a straw argument is and how uses it profusely.

Didn't say you specifically. Learn to read slower.  But you do subscribe to the straw man tactic.   B- Straw Man user.

Its not personal. Don't feel ashamed. A lot of skeptics use that tool when debating. Its an effective debate method,  Outdated. But effective.

@stereologist

Skeptic Debate tactics (in the order of occurrence here)

1.) Straw Man

2.) Character Assassination

3.) Generalization and the kicker tool is 

4.) Occam's razor Razor

 

 

 

a page or so back you accused ME of personal attacks on you,,,,,and i replied.... show me one personal attack.....or apologise

so?    im still waiting on your response

 

 

 

 

Edited by marsman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru

Given that this thread has degenerated in to bickering, there's little point keeping it going.

Closed.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.