Philosophy Now Forum

bobevenson wrote:Williams first gives you a look at the mindset of environmentalists, then he gives you a look at some of their ridiculous predictions. What's your problem???

Fallacious arguments

Ginkgo wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Williams first gives you a look at the mindset of environmentalists, then he gives you a look at some of their ridiculous predictions.

Fallacious arguments

If my above statement is incorrect, please tell me why.

bobevenson wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Williams first gives you a look at the mindset of environmentalists, then he gives you a look at some of their ridiculous predictions.

Fallacious arguments

If my above statement is incorrect, please tell me why.

When you say that Williams gives us a look at the mindset of environmentalists, he is really only giving us a look at the values held by particular groups of environmentalists. This groups consists of people such as Alexander King, Charles Wuster, David Graber and the Duke of Edinburgh etc. That is to say, the first group.With this particular group we know their values, but Williams tells us nothing of their predictions.

The second group of individuals Williams tells us are the prediction group. This group is made up of different individuals Notably, George Wald, Dillon Ripley, Patrick Ehrlich etc.In other words, Williams is looking at the specific predictions of individuals pertaining to the second group. Even though the first group has made no predictions about the future. The false assumption is that the value group and the prediction group can be lumped together as belonging to the same category. Another way of saying this is that Williams has made a category error

Williams is talking about the mindset of liberals in general. One of their traits is that they think we're running out of everything, and that we have to conserve our resources. Can you seriously say he's wrong?

bobevenson wrote:Williams is talking about the mindset of liberals in general. One of their traits is that they think we're running out of everything, and that we have to conserve our resources.

Yes, I know he is saying this and this is precisely the problem. If Williams wants to show that the 'values' group of individuals are of the same category as the 'prediction' group then he needs to provide evidence for that. In other words, he needs to show in what way is this 'values' group predictive as well.

I understand there is an assumption that both groups share a general mindset in terms of values and predictions. But assumptions are no good when it comes a thesis. He needs to provide evidence that the 'values' group is predictive as well.

bobevenson wrote: Can you seriously say he's wrong?

Which brings to the main point in answering your question.

I am not saying his conclusions are wrong. In fact I have never said his conclusion is wrong.

My complaint is with the tardy and sloppy way he puts together his argument.

What you're saying is that anytime somebody says something, he has to back it up with studies to prove he's correct. That's utter nonsense. Williams says that 1 + 1 = 2, and you want him to go into a long proof of his equation.

bobevenson wrote:What you're saying is that anytime somebody says something, he has to back it up with studies to prove he's correct. That's utter nonsense. Williams says that 1 + 1 = 2, and you want him to go into a long proof of his equation.

No, I'm not saying that if anybody says something they should back it up with studies. I am saying that if anybody provides a thesis they should back it up with evidence obtain from studies. This is standard academic practice.

Ginkgo wrote:

bobevenson wrote:What you're saying is that anytime somebody says something, he has to back it up with studies to prove he's correct. That's utter nonsense. Williams says that 1 + 1 = 2, and you want him to go into a long proof of his equation.

No, I'm not saying that if anybody says something they should back it up with studies. I am saying that if anybody provides a thesis they should back it up with evidence obtain from studies. This is standard academic practice.

The guy tries to make a point and you want to turn it into an academic debate.

The Ludicrous.

US fights war ['65-75'] to stop communist overthrow of se asia. [so they say in DuPont board room]

In 90's Vietnam has massive deficit of rice for population.
So it throws food production to the free market.
Within a year it has surplus of rice.
And thus shows china what a ''Capitalist Dictatorship can be"

Its American open/free market without the BS political garbage at top end.
A militarily imposed plutocracy.

So say all of us

bobevenson wrote:

skakos wrote:@Bill Wiltrack:

I see what you mean. However you have to recognize that China is not THE perfect example of Communism today. It is more of a communist-capitalism hybrid, with capitalism being the main part of it...

OK, what is the perfect example of Communism today, out of the small number of any examples?

I do not see any pure communist state anywhere. Do you?

Like Theocracies. Communist states are failures inherent in design..
self fulfilling disasters.

California has greater gnp than all Communist and and theocratic nations on earth.
combined.

prill

This essay just goes to show you how the world develops. It develops on the great achievements of others, even though those others may have been at one time the monsters of the world.

The Nazis also helped us understand betters our proclivities and to build on the good and banish the bad.

spike wrote:This essay just goes to show you how the world develops. It develops on the great achievements of others, even though those others may have been at one time the monsters of the world.
The Nazis also helped us understand betters our proclivities and to build on the good and banish the bad.

A brave soul thou is to expound such ideas. Many would say a species of insanity.
I say the black clad nazis spoke to us as many liked. the lords of earth and race.

The NSDAP would do very well in modern US.

interesting stuff

hitler identified himself as an existance with the event location he was born into and so loved only what he considered to be his own kind.when in fact the truth is theres only one kind and thats human kind.love your neighbour and dont let event identity make you do otherwise.

jackles wrote:hitler identified himself as an existance with the event location he was born into and so loved only what he considered to be his own kind.when in fact the truth is theres only one kind and thats human kind.love your neighbour and dont let event identity make you do otherwise.

Do the math and follow the logic.

To Love your neighbour

you must hate . . . . . . . What?

Fill in the missing words.