Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

okaycuckoo

An Illustrated Book Of Bad Arguments

Recommended Posts

I liked this (56 pp) - should appeal to forum gladiators.

It's free to view, not sure if you can get a bound copy:

https://bookofbadarg.../?view=allpages

For me the shorthand for induction is specific to general, deduction general to specific. Covers ad hom, appeal to authority, circular argument etc.

Good stuff.

Hardback is out in November it says at the bottom of the page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be the illustrated book of thinly-veiled sneers at climate change deniers and assorted others that don't agree with a variety of left-liberal hobby horses.

Seems like it might be from the same stable as the 'skeptic' movement and Bad Science who've conveniently appointed themselves arbiters of rational objectivity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be the illustrated book of thinly-veiled sneers at climate change deniers and assorted others that don't agree with a variety of left-liberal hobby horses.

Seems like it might be from the same stable as the 'skeptic' movement and Bad Science who've conveniently appointed themselves arbiters of rational objectivity.

I invite you to examine page 34 'Genetic Fallacy',

Although you could deduce from your statement that you think that the climate change deniers use bad arguments and defective reasoning. In which case we are in agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

I invite you to examine page 34 'Genetic Fallacy',

Although you could deduce from your statement that you think that the climate change deniers use bad arguments and defective reasoning. In which case we are in agreement.

Actually you could deduce that he was in agreement with, or dismissive of, both sides. I think perhaps he's secretly a politician.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually you could deduce that he was in agreement with, or dismissive of, both sides. I think perhaps he's secretly a politician.

and because both sides are wrong, there is no climate...obviously made up to give those two groups a gravy train to live off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be the illustrated book of thinly-veiled sneers at climate change deniers and assorted others that don't agree with a variety of left-liberal hobby horses.

Seems like it might be from the same stable as the 'skeptic' movement and Bad Science who've conveniently appointed themselves arbiters of rational objectivity.

It's just logic 'n stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my friends spend his University years doing philosophy. That is the use of philosophy, not to be taken in by daft arguments!

I'm afraid we all are sometimes. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my friends spend his University years doing philosophy. That is the use of philosophy, not to be taken in by daft arguments!

I'm afraid we all are sometimes. :blink:

The best book I've read in years is Kahnemann's Thinking, Fast and Slow - it is in our nature to be taken in by daft arguments. Beware: the conclusion is state intervention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I invite you to examine page 34 'Genetic Fallacy',

Although you could deduce from your statement that you think that the climate change deniers use bad arguments and defective reasoning. In which case we are in agreement.

:lol: Well done fluffy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And were you taken in by that?

Fact can't be wrong, but I'm still debating that conclusion in my mind, which - according to science - is a bit of a mush.

I do resist his conclusion, but most people I meet are Daily Mailers and they (and their asset values) are comically deluded, which kinda proves the point. So I don't feel guilt in siding with Kahnemann.

edit: I think this a replacement of the right/left political debate: are we rational and self-interested, or are we animals that need training? The Thatcherite answer to this question is plainly ******, but I don't like the statist answer either. Thankfully we can discuss it without ******ing censorship (LOL).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact can't be wrong, but I'm still debating that conclusion in my mind, which - according to science - is a bit of a mush.

I do resist his conclusion, but most people I meet are Daily Mailers and they (and their asset values) are comically deluded, which kinda proves the point. So I don't feel guilt in siding with Kahnemann.

edit: I think this a replacement of the right/left political debate: are we rational and self-interested, or are we animals that need training? The Thatcherite answer to this question is plainly ******, but I don't like the statist answer either. Thankfully we can discuss it without ******ing censorship (LOL).

There's statist intervention and statist intervention.

For example, one of the effects of poor reasoning as described is that people are far too willing to sign up for insane levels of debt. The government can do something about this - limit income multiples on mortgages, limit credit card interest rates, limit unsecured loan exposure - knowing that the aggregate effect is likely to be small, apart from smaller debt loads.

When I say the aggregate effect would be small, we know in the case of housing that on average, the same people would live in the same houses - but if mortgages were limited, they would all owe less. And the relative amount of 'stuff'' people has would stay the same. Since as social animals we compare our 'well-offness' with our peers, we would see no difference, apart from much, much less stress due to money worries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

When I say the aggregate effect would be small, we know in the case of housing that on average, the same people would live in the same houses - but if mortgages were limited, they would all owe less. And the relative amount of 'stuff'' people has would stay the same. Since as social animals we compare our 'well-offness' with our peers, we would see no difference, apart from much, much less stress due to money worries.

You make it sound like an arms race. And who engages in those, on our behalf and "for our own good"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make it sound like an arms race. And who engages in those, on our behalf and "for our own good"?

It is an arms race.

History shows, time and time again, that most people will overextend themselves with debt given the chance. House prices are a pretty obvious example - in that case it only takes a relatively small number of people overextending themselves to inflate prices for everyone.

Why do you think that many religions have more or less explicit warnings on debt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you've ever debated with people online the straw man, false dichotomy, cherry picking and appeal to authority are VERY common.

Love the idea of the book but the ilustrations aren't quite as quick to show the point as I would have hoped. A comic strip might have worked better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

edit: I think this a replacement of the right/left political debate: are we rational and self-interested, or are we animals that need training? The Thatcherite answer to this question is plainly ******, but I don't like the statist answer either. Thankfully we can discuss it without ******ing censorship (LOL).

I haven't read the book but the mention of animals needing training reminded me of B.F. Skinner, and his boxes

skinner%20box.jpg

No ta.

That's how many people who view themselves at the top of the pile see the rest of us. They may even be correct for the majority of people. However, that's no comfort for the self-aware minority.

One problem with statist intervention is that if the majority of people are dumb ****s, then the chances are the majority of them will support a dumb **** government.

I'd rather make as many of my own choices and associations as possible tvm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an arms race.

History shows, time and time again, that most people will overextend themselves with debt given the chance. House prices are a pretty obvious example - in that case it only takes a relatively small number of people overextending themselves to inflate prices for everyone.

Why do you think that many religions have more or less explicit warnings on debt?

This is why banks MUST and are constantly regulated...the lender can in theory lend all his money out, borrow more and lend that out..The manager takes his cut, the shareholders and depositors get shafted.

couple that with the enormous flattery a lender can give a potential borrower..."of course YOU can have 8 times salary....i KNOW YOU are good for it, a fine upstanding member of the community...id be silly NOT to lend to you"...Borrower forgets reason, puffs his chest, walks 5 inches taller and signs on the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read the book but the mention of animals needing training reminded me of B.F. Skinner, and his boxes

skinner%20box.jpg

No ta.

That's how many people who view themselves at the top of the pile see the rest of us. They may even be correct for the majority of people. However, that's no comfort for the self-aware minority.

One problem with statist intervention is that if the majority of people are dumb ****s, then the chances are the majority of them will support a dumb **** government.

I'd rather make as many of my own choices and associations as possible tvm.

sheeple.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why banks MUST and are constantly regulated...the lender can in theory lend all his money out, borrow more and lend that out..The manager takes his cut, the shareholders and depositors get shafted.

The counter to that is to ponder what kind of system would we have if the government...

- didn't support artificial scarcity in the housing market

- created its own money debt free

- didn't protect banking monopolies, especially their role in creating 'money' through debt

- didn't underwrite the banks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sheeple.png

That's the second time someone has pulled me up for apparently thinking I'm a special snowflake in as many weeks.

It's more complicated than that. People, most people, are capable of all sorts of clever, self-aware things. One of the biggest handbrakes on that is the environment and culture in which they are brought up in and immersed.

I, of course, am not the one advocating the existence of a state to coerce people into doing the right and sensible thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and btw I jacked in the commute/ rat race some time ago and made material sacrifices in the process. I'm the one not on the train day-dreaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the second time someone has pulled me up for apparently thinking I'm a special snowflake in as many weeks.

It's a known side effect of exposure to cod-postmodern philosophy.

It's more complicated than that. People, most people, are capable of all sorts of clever, self-aware things. One of the biggest handbrakes on that is the environment and culture in which they are brought up in and immersed.

I, of course, am not the one advocating the existence of a state to coerce people into doing the right and sensible thing.

Well, it's a question of semantics.

I would use the state to remove known-bad options from the table. I.e by restricting mortgage multiples.

I see it as not different to requiring that cars pass safety tests before being sold. After all, in both cases the consequences go past the individual - allowing oversize mortgages bids up the market for everyone, unsafe cars will kill bystanders. And furthermore, this is not the state coercing people, it's the state coercing organisations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   218 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.