Philosophy Now Forum

Henrik Schoeneberg gets smart about fallacious reasoning.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/115/Ba ... ou_Smarter

“How good bad music and bad reasons sound when we march against an enemy”. Friedrich Nietzsche

A great deal of the feeling of purpose in life takes place when marching against the enemy. Why would anyone want to question the value of self esteem acquired through marching against the enemy by speaking against the value of bad music and bad reasons?

Philosophy Now wrote:Henrik Schoeneberg gets smart about fallacious reasoning.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/115/Ba ... ou_Smarter

henrik schoeneberg wrote:Another handy attribute of fallacies is that in talking about them we can use terminology that has the authority of logic! It may carry more weight if I tell you that you’re using an ad hominem argument against me, than if I simply say that I think it’s a bad way of arguing to attack my character instead of my argument. So when we call someone out for using an ad hominem argument, they might think, “If what she is pointing out to me has a technical name – ad hominem – perhaps she really is onto something?”

To Me, henrik does not appear very smart at all with these type of statements. henrik only appears as an elitist who thinks that having some sort of intellect puts one person above another.

If henrik thinks that using any type of terminology has some sort of authority of logic, to Me, then that is a fallacy in of itself. If henrik thinks that if a person uses any terminology like, e.g., "You're using an ad hominem argument against me", rather than just saying something for what it really is may carry more weight, then, to My, that is an assumption, which is totally wrong.

If henrik thinks that I might think anything like what is assumed above, then that is also a totally wrong view to have. Hoping that another will somehow see one's self as being superior just because they are pointing out something by using technical names is a very extremely elitist point of view to have. Assuming that just because what a person is pointing out to me has a technical name that that then perhaps means that they are really onto something, is a real fallacy that henrick and/or others could be more aware of in one's self.

What I actually do is, instead of assuming, I just see the truth in what is being said.

Philosophy Now wrote:Henrik Schoeneberg gets smart about fallacious reasoning.

Fuck, just read this forum. I wouldn't be surprised if it was his inspiration.

Ken, Henrik is an educated man so you cannot expect much understanding. Have sympathy for those young unfortunates trapped in these institutions of child abuse who are prevented from learning by this process of education

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." ~ Albert Einstein

Einstein was one of the lucky ones

Nick_A wrote:Ken, Henrik is an educated man so you cannot expect much understanding. Have sympathy for those young unfortunates trapped in these institutions of child abuse who are prevented from learning by this process of education

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." ~ Albert Einstein

Einstein was one of the lucky ones

And you? Not so lucky.

Oh well.

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." ~ Albert Einstein

True.

The definition and meaning behind 'education' has done a complete turn around. "Nowadays", to most people, 'education' means the exact opposite of what it once, maybe originally, meant.

Dalek Prime wrote:

Philosophy Now wrote:Henrik Schoeneberg gets smart about fallacious reasoning.

Fuck, just read this forum. I wouldn't be surprised if it was his inspiration.

If this is in anyway in reference to what I have written, then why not show everyone here WHERE exactly there is supposed fallacious reasoning, AND, WHY it appears to you as fallacious reasoning?

Only then we are able to see if what you say has any worth to it.

ken wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:

Philosophy Now wrote:Henrik Schoeneberg gets smart about fallacious reasoning.

Fuck, just read this forum. I wouldn't be surprised if it was his inspiration.

If this is in anyway in reference to what I have written, then why not show everyone here WHERE exactly there is supposed fallacious reasoning, AND, WHY it appears to you as fallacious reasoning?

Only then we are able to see if what you say has any worth to it.

It's not about you, ken, so shut up. Did I even mention you?

Dalek Prime wrote:

ken wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: Fuck, just read this forum. I wouldn't be surprised if it was his inspiration.

If this is in anyway in reference to what I have written, then why not show everyone here WHERE exactly there is supposed fallacious reasoning, AND, WHY it appears to you as fallacious reasoning?

Only then we are able to see if what you say has any worth to it.

It's not about you, ken, so shut up. Did I even mention you?

Speaking like that does not help your case. But, I am the who will have to apologize here to you. I just re-read what you wrote. You said, "..., just read this forum". I read this WRONGLY. I read it as, "..., I just read this post", and thus the reason I thought you were directing this directly towards me, or nick, or both of us. So, my mistake, and again I am sorry I wrongly read it and jumped to the wrong conclusion.

ken wrote:

Philosophy Now wrote:Henrik Schoeneberg gets smart about fallacious reasoning.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/115/Ba ... ou_Smarter

henrik schoeneberg wrote:Another handy attribute of fallacies is that in talking about them we can use terminology that has the authority of logic! It may carry more weight if I tell you that you’re using an ad hominem argument against me, than if I simply say that I think it’s a bad way of arguing to attack my character instead of my argument. So when we call someone out for using an ad hominem argument, they might think, “If what she is pointing out to me has a technical name – ad hominem – perhaps she really is onto something?”

To Me, henrik does not appear very smart at all with these type of statements. henrik only appears as an elitist who thinks that having some sort of intellect puts one person above another.

If henrik thinks that using any type of terminology has some sort of authority of logic, to Me, then that is a fallacy in of itself. If henrik thinks that if a person uses any terminology like, e.g., "You're using an ad hominem argument against me", rather than just saying something for what it really is may carry more weight, then, to My, that is an assumption, which is totally wrong.

If henrik thinks that I might think anything like what is assumed above, then that is also a totally wrong view to have. Hoping that another will somehow see one's self as being superior just because they are pointing out something by using technical names is a very extremely elitist point of view to have. Assuming that just because what a person is pointing out to me has a technical name that that then perhaps means that they are really onto something, is a real fallacy that henrick and/or others could be more aware of in one's self.

What I actually do is, instead of assuming, I just see the truth in what is being said.

My oh my... the irony. A certain type of counterargument really is an ad hominem... What else could it really be?

creativesoul wrote:

ken wrote:

Philosophy Now wrote:Henrik Schoeneberg gets smart about fallacious reasoning.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/115/Ba ... ou_Smarter

henrik schoeneberg wrote:Another handy attribute of fallacies is that in talking about them we can use terminology that has the authority of logic! It may carry more weight if I tell you that you’re using an ad hominem argument against me, than if I simply say that I think it’s a bad way of arguing to attack my character instead of my argument. So when we call someone out for using an ad hominem argument, they might think, “If what she is pointing out to me has a technical name – ad hominem – perhaps she really is onto something?”

To Me, henrik does not appear very smart at all with these type of statements. henrik only appears as an elitist who thinks that having some sort of intellect puts one person above another.

If henrik thinks that using any type of terminology has some sort of authority of logic, to Me, then that is a fallacy in of itself. If henrik thinks that if a person uses any terminology like, e.g., "You're using an ad hominem argument against me", rather than just saying something for what it really is may carry more weight, then, to My, that is an assumption, which is totally wrong.

If henrik thinks that I might think anything like what is assumed above, then that is also a totally wrong view to have. Hoping that another will somehow see one's self as being superior just because they are pointing out something by using technical names is a very extremely elitist point of view to have. Assuming that just because what a person is pointing out to me has a technical name that that then perhaps means that they are really onto something, is a real fallacy that henrick and/or others could be more aware of in one's self.

What I actually do is, instead of assuming, I just see the truth in what is being said.

My oh my... the irony. A certain type of counterargument really is an ad hominem... What else could it really be?

What else could 'it' be would all depend on what that 'certain type' of counterargument is, which you are referring to?

Nick_A wrote:Ken, Henrik is an educated man so you cannot expect much understanding. Have sympathy for those young unfortunates trapped in these institutions of child abuse who are prevented from learning by this process of education.

Where on earth did you go to school?

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." ~ Albert Einstein

Einstein was one of the lucky ones

Yeah! That's why he went to a Polytechnic and later became a university lecturer and professor.

ken wrote:What else could 'it' be would all depend on what that 'certain type' of counterargument is, which you are referring to?

Your's basically ken, as you are saying his point is not worth it because he is an 'elitist', i.e. a disguised ad hominem.

Henrik wasn't saying that you tell your interlocutor what they are doing but to just notice that what they are doing is an informal fallacy when arguing, how you deal with it is then up to you.

Arising wrote:

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." ~ Albert Einstein


Einstein was one of the lucky ones
Yeah! That's why he went to a Polytechnic and later became a university lecturer and professor.

Yes, in spite of all the adverse effects of these educational influences he became able to learn about reality. This is very unusual and is indicative of real talent.