Logical fallacies

[brimstoneSalad]

Based on what I've seen, I'd say that a common logical fallacy here is basing oneself too much on empricism and too little on reasoning.

Science derives from the philosophy: it's all about epistemology. If you would read the flat Earth thread, you would see extensive discussion into the root of human knowledge and what makes something a credible belief, including lengthy discussion on principles of reason, not just the cold hard science.

Thinking that the Earth is flat is a perfect example of that. Do you agree?

LogicExplorer, do you believe the Earth is flat? Do you think this is a conclusion you can reach with "reasoning"? And are you against science? If so, why?

It's unclear what you're claiming to be a fallacy, but you either have read very little here or you don't know anything about philosophy or logic.

[LogicExplorer]

LogicExplorer, do you believe the Earth is flat?

No. Why?

Do you think this is a conclusion you can reach with "reasoning"?

Using some inductive reasoning to establish the premisses, yes.
Aristotle did it. He established that ships, when disappearing over the horizon, appear to sink. He also established that things are visible if there is a straight line from them to our eye not crossing any non-transparent medium. He also established that on a flat Earth, unless there are waves taller than the ship itself, there will always be such a straight line. From those premisses, there is a fairly obvious conclusion that the surface of the Earth is convex.
He has written some 1000 pages about natural philosophy (I haven't read it all), so I am pretty sure he analyzed his arguments deeper. Nevertheless, it logically follows from a number of obvious premisses.
Besides, it's a basis of modern science, which obviously mostly produces correct results (satellites obviously work).
If someone bases himself too much on empiricism, he will just make an observation (curvature of the Earth is not obvious when you look out through the window), make a wild guess (the Earth is flat) and not think about it any more.

And are you against science? If so, why?

I suppose you ask me this because there is a perception today that rationalism was somehow against modern science. What caused it is probably the Berkeley's skepticism of the existence of the physical world. I see no contradiction between being skeptical of the existence of the physical world and accepting science. Furthermore, many interpretations of quantum mechanics explicitly deny realism.

[brimstoneSalad]

LogicExplorer, do you believe the Earth is flat?

No. Why?

Do you think this is a conclusion you can reach with "reasoning"?

I thought you meant that we can reach the conclusion that the Earth IS flat.

Aristotle did it. He established that ships, when disappearing over the horizon, appear to sink. He also established that things are visible if there is a straight line from them to our eye not crossing any non-transparent medium. He also established that on a flat Earth, unless there are waves taller than the ship itself, there will always be such a straight line. From those premisses, there is a fairly obvious conclusion that the surface of the Earth is convex.

Teo already knew and rejected those arguments with ad hoc rationalizations about atmospheric lensing creating the illusion of curvature.
I had to explain how that doesn't make any sense by examining his hypothetical model of lensing, and how there was no model that explained it. I had to bring in actual science to show the correct model of atmospheric lensing which doesn't allow for the Earth being flat.

If someone bases himself too much on empiricism, he will just make an observation (curvature of the Earth is not obvious when you look out through the window), make a wild guess (the Earth is flat) and not think about it any more.

Oh, you mean a blind empiricism where we just look at something and assume what it looks like to us based on our first guess is what it is.

That kind of thinking is not common on this forum.

And are you against science? If so, why?

I suppose you ask me this because there is a perception today that rationalism was somehow against modern science.

Usually critiques of empiricism are critiques of use of science. Most people don't know that science is a form of empirical knowledge with special methodology realized through logical reasoning to reduce bias and incorrect assumptions.

Furthermore, many interpretations of quantum mechanics explicitly deny realism.

Well, it depends on what you mean by realism. There are really only two competing theories, though. Our understanding could deny an objective standpoint outside the universe from which we would exist, but arguably only because such a standpoint doesn't exist (no privileged reference frame).

[LogicExplorer]

Teo already knew and rejected those arguments with ad hoc rationalizations about atmospheric lensing creating the illusion of curvature.

Then that's is ignoring the Occam's razor at best, and in itself unreasonable.

Oh, you mean a blind empiricism where we just look at something and assume what it looks like to us based on our first guess is what it is.

How else could you come to believe that the Earth is flat?

Most people don't know that science is a form of empirical knowledge with special methodology realized through logical reasoning to reduce bias and incorrect assumptions.

This is a major oversimplification at best. Even dividing sciences into strictly logical and strictly empirical ones, as is often done in schools, is. Most of things we know currently, even in the so-called empirical sciences, derive from theoretical explorations, and not from experiments.
You think that the concept of supply and demand in economics derives from some experiments? You think that the things we know about the grammar in linguistics derive from experiments? You think that the things we know about the algorithmic complexities in informatics derive from some experiments in which the algorithms were run on actual devices and the time was carefully measured?
You are doing science every time you are doing an honest attempt to self-falsify your hypotheses.

Well, it depends on what you mean by realism. There are really only two competing theories, though. Our understanding could deny an objective standpoint outside the universe from which we would exist, but arguably only because such a standpoint doesn't exist (no privileged reference frame).

I don't know exactly what you mean. What I meant is that naive materialism appears to fail every time. It fails to explain things in physics, quantum mechanics is anything but "naive materialism". It also fails again and again in social sciences. The Marxist view of history is completely wrong. The explanation that the wealth of a society is caused by the natural resources it has is false, the economical ideology a country has seems to have a much greater impact. And so on.

[LogicExplorer]

Look, Brimstonesalad, if I correctly understand you, your epistemological philosophy is "Find out what's the scientific consensus, and disregard all the apparent evidence against it."
I don't think that's a good idea. Yes, it will help you choose the right position about the shape of the Earth. But it's very easy to incorrectly choose who are the scientists to be trusted and what they actually believe. Just imagine you lived in the Nazi Germany. The government propaganda and the media made it appear like all scientists agreed that eugenics was a good thing. See, quite often, listening to your common sense is better than trying to honestly follow the scientific consensus.

[brimstoneSalad]

if I correctly understand you, your epistemological philosophy is "Find out what's the scientific consensus, and disregard all the apparent evidence against it."

No, I'm saying not to assume that you're qualified to understand or correctly evaluate the evidence against consensus. The probability is higher that YOU, a novice, are mistaken than that hundreds or thousands of experts who ARE highly educated in the topic are either mistaken or engaged in a conspiracy to lie to the public.

This is most strongly true of hard sciences where biases are strongly controlled for, and less of soft sciences (like sociology) which are more affected by political bias, some basic facts can still shine through in the latter case with extreme examples of consensus.

But it's very easy to incorrectly choose who are the scientists to be trusted and what they actually believe. Just imagine you lived in the Nazi Germany. The government propaganda and the media made it appear like all scientists agreed that eugenics was a good thing.

Are you a historian, and do you have evidence of this?

Propaganda is usually pretty easy to tell apart from legitimate science.
There is an issue in countries without free press in that conspiracies are actually possible. If you live in such a country, it becomes more reasonable to distrust your press if it's controlled by a single political interest. Single governments are not always trustworthy, which is why we should look at multiple sources for consensus.

When we look at scientific consensus, we do so within the context of free speech where there isn't substantial political bias forcing conformity.

See, quite often, listening to your common sense is better than trying to honestly follow the scientific consensus.

Often? Seriously? Show me some examples not in Nazi Germany (which you didn't prove), and in a modern developed country with free press.
How often? You seriously think your intuition is more often correct than scientific consensus? Like scientific consensus is wrong more than 50% of the time, and intuition right more than 50% of the time?

[LogicExplorer]

Well, one of the arguments the Nazis used were starving people around the world. They said that the Earth was overpopulated and that it couldn't sustain so many people. So, they reasoned, it was better to keep the suited races of humans, and make the other races go extinct, so that the people of higher races could flourish, rather than to make everyone starve to death.

How would you tell that's not real science? It makes as much sense to a layman as science usually does.

[brimstoneSalad]

Well, one of the arguments the Nazis used were starving people around the world. They said that the Earth was overpopulated and that it couldn't sustain so many people. So, they reasoned, it was better to keep the suited races of humans, and make the other races go extinct, so that the people of higher races could flourish, rather than to make everyone starve to death.

How would you tell that's not real science? It makes as much sense to a layman as science usually does.

The important part is scientific consensus, which that never has been.

One sided science-sounding arguments are not useful. If only a cherry picked sampling of scientists from your own country are saying something, and you have no way to find out what other scientists believe because of state controlled media, that's not an indication of consensus.
You need a significant survey of professionals across borders and outside the influence of your government, particularly if it suppresses free speech.

[LogicExplorer]

If you are very good at researching what the scientific consensus is, then yes, you would have realized that the arguments used by the Nazis were nonsense. But people aren't good at it at all. If you were in the Nazi Germany, what would be that, that will suggest you that not all scientists agree with eugenics and that the government is suppressing them? The simple truth is: in Nazi Germany, if you opposed eugenics, you sounded at least as bad as global warming deniers sound today, if not worse.
It's safe to say that, had you tried to honestly follow the scientific consensus in Nazi Germany, you would have less than 50% chance of picking the right side.
Yet, if you had done a blind guess about whether eugenics is good or not, and disregarded all the evidence, you would have had 50% chance of picking the right side.
Had you trusted your intuition, you would have had slightly more than 50% chance of picking the right side.
The probability of picking the right side is only loosely correlated with the amount of effort you put.

[AKiry]

The most common one seems to revolve around the concept of evolution by natural selection. Since the process has processed remarkably intricate biological machines (over long periods of time), many people don't accept it on the basis that it seems to complicated to have been produced by a natural process (along with religious objections that are usually come with such a view).