Nutritiopedia.com

Lõpuks tuli ära. ” srcset=”/uploads/emoticons/wink@2x.png 2x” width=”20″ height=”20″>

Kaifid mõnuga? ” srcset=”/uploads/emoticons/biggrin@2x.png 2x” width=”20″ height=”20″>

Loll või mitte, enamik targutajaid kehitavad ainult õlgu ja pobisevad midagi mürgist, kui ma oma “lollust” teaduslike uuringutega toetan. Veidi naljakas lausa.

Selles suhtes, et ei pea olema just geenius, et mõista selliste arutelude psühholoogilist probleemi. Järele mõeldes pean tunnistama, et peaksin soovitama paljudel hoopis psühholoogi juurde minna, mitte uuringuid lugeda.

Midagi peab ikka peas veidi viltu olema, kui pakutav teaduslik tõendusmaterjal omab vähem mõju, kui vastava valdkonna “autoriteedi” poolt öeldu.

Hmmm. Paneks paar asja kirja, mis minu meelest on probleemid ning mida siinsed postitajad mõnuga minu vastu kasutavad, olles teadmatuses oma väidete tobedusest. (Kindlasti olen ka ise nende lõksu langenud, kuid üritan mitte)

Fallacies

A fallacy is a technical flaw which makes an argument unsound or invalid.

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

• Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
• Person A makes claim C about subject S.
• Therefore, C is true.

When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so.

The Illusion of Complexity

If there are so many theories, articles and opinions on a topic, we perceive it as something complex, something hard to understand. An illusion of complexity is created.

“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage — to move in the opposite direction.”

Argumentum ad Populum (popular appeal or appeal to the majority): The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude. There are several variations of this fallacy, but we will emphasize two forms.

• “Snob Appeal“: the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion by appealing to what an elite or a select few (but not necessarily an authority) in a society thinks or believes.
  (There are many non-fallacious appeals in style, fashion, and politics–since in these areas the appeal is not irrelevant.)
  Person L says statement p or argument A.
  Person L is in the elite.
  Statement p is true or argument A is good.

“Bandwagon“: the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true.

Most, many, or all persons believe statement p is true.

Statement p is true

Anecdotal Evidence.

One of the simplest fallacies is to rely on anecdotal evidence. For example:

“There’s abundant proof that God exists and is still performing miracles today. Just last week I read about a girl who was dying of cancer. Her whole family went to church and prayed for her, and she was cured.”

It’s quite valid to use personal experience to illustrate a point; but such anecdotes don’t actually prove anything to anyone. Your friend may say he met Elvis in the supermarket, but those who haven’t had the same experience will require more than your friend’s anecdotal evidence to convince them.

Anecdotal evidence can seem very compelling, especially if the audience wants to believe it. This is part of the explanation for urban legends; stories which are verifiably false have been known to circulate as anecdotes for years.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem

This is the fallacy of asserting that something is right or good simply because it’s old, or because “that’s the way it’s always been.” The opposite of Argumentum ad Novitatem.

“For thousands of years Christians have believed in Jesus Christ. Christianity must be true, to have persisted so long even in the face of persecution.”

Argumentum ad hominem (Abusive: attacking the person)

Argumentum ad hominem literally means “argument directed at the man”; there are two varieties.

The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem.

“You are not physically fit, thus you know nothing about nutrition or training”

Argumentum ad ignorantiam (Argument from ignorance)

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means “argument from ignorance.” The fallacy occurs when it’s argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn’t been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn’t been proved true.

“IIFYM doesn’t work, because I have not seen anyone get into contest shape using it. Thus it must be false and impossible”

Bifurcation

Also referred to as the “black and white” fallacy and “false dichotomy,” bifurcation occurs if someone presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist. For example:

“Either man was created, as the Bible tells us, or he evolved from inanimate chemicals by pure random chance, as scientists tell us. The latter is incredibly unlikely, so …”

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

This fallacy is similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fallacy is to assert that because two events occur together, they must be causally related. It’s a fallacy because it ignores other factors that may be the cause(s) of the events.

“Literacy rates have steadily declined since the advent of television. Clearly television viewing impedes learning.”

Ignoratio elenchi / Irrelevant conclusion

The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an argument supports a particular conclusion when it is actually logically nothing to do with that conclusion.

For example, a Christian may begin by saying that he will argue that the teachings of Christianity are undoubtedly true. If he then argues at length that Christianity is of great help to many people, no matter how well he argues he will not have shown that Christian teachings are true.

Sadly, these kinds of irrelevant arguments are often successful, because they make people to view the supposed conclusion in a more favorable light.

Plurium interrogationum / Many questions

This fallacy occurs when someone demands a simple (or simplistic) answer to a complex question.

“Are higher taxes an impediment to business or not? Yes or no?”

Red herring

This fallacy is committed when someone introduces irrelevant material to the issue being discussed, so that everyone’s attention is diverted away from the points made, towards a different conclusion.

“You may claim that the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent against crime–but what about the victims of crime? How do you think surviving family members feel when they see the man who murdered their son kept in prison at their expense? Is it right that they should pay for their son’s murderer to be fed and housed?”

Straw man

The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else’s position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It’s a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.

“To be an atheist, you have to believe with absolute certainty that there is no God. In order to convince yourself with absolute certainty, you must examine all the Universe and all the places where God could possibly be. Since you obviously haven’t, your position is indefensible.”

The above straw man argument appears at about once a week on the net.

Need “väär-vaidlus-võtted” onju, palju oleneb siinkohal ka kontekstist ” srcset=”/uploads/emoticons/smile@2x.png 2x” width=”20″ height=”20″> näiteks teinekord on autoriteetsel inimesel tõestus iseenda tulemuslikkuse näol, samuti omab ka rohkem kogemust kui me ise – ja võttes eelduseks et me kõik vahel eksime, siis miks ei võiks teinekord pigem autoriteeti usaldada kui seda, kes on vähem autoriteetsem? Selles suhtes, et inimesed ei sünni autoriteetsusega – see on kellelgi ikkagi mingil põhjusel (ja ei hakka siin kuninglike perekondade võsukestele viitama! ” srcset=”/uploads/emoticons/biggrin@2x.png 2x” width=”20″ height=”20″>)

Probleem ongi selles, et N=1, ehk isiklik kogemus ei ole automaatselt tõestus.

Ilmselgelt peamegi enamuses autoriteete usaldama, kuna ei saa ju igas elu valdkonnas ekspert olla. Kuid see ei tähenda samas seda, et kõik need “autoriteedid”, ka tõtt räägiksid. Eelistada võiks ikka neid, kes suudavad oma väidete tõestuseks ka midagi välja tuua, mis ei piirdu Anekdotaalsete tõenditega, mis on juba teine väär-vaidlus-võte. ” srcset=”/uploads/emoticons/wink@2x.png 2x” width=”20″ height=”20″>

Näiteks läks mul hiljuti auto katki. Mehaanik ütles, et see jupp on katki ning vajab vahetamist. Ma uurisin, kas jupi lagunemise põhjus oli teada? Äkki probleem mujal. See ütles, et lihtsalt eluiga läbi, odav jupp.

Ma ei olnud nõus.

Uurisin omal jõul ning jõudsin arvamusele, et jupp läks katki, kuna üks teise mehaaniline osa kippus lekkima, mille tõttu sattus vesi elektroonikale, mis omakorda rikkus selle jupi, mida vahetama peaksin. Mehaanik kaalus veidi mu arvamust ja lõpuks nõustus, et vbl tõesti – otsustas uurida. Hiljem leidiski vea ning kuigi nüüd pean välja vahetama kaks juppi, olen siiski palju paremas tujus kuna tean, et jõudsin probleemi põhjuseni.

Teinekord ei tee midagi halba “autoriteetide” arvamustes kahelda. Seni kuni seda tehakse põhjusega ning ei tõsteta kära ei millestki.