from this post, relevant section only, dealing with pseudoscience and its close cousin: anamolism:

That there is a relativity to anomalism is a fallacy. Its casting aside sound reasoning so that we can not have to take absolutist positions that may offend some folks. I wish it were the case that everyones wishes were true in this world. While everyones beliefs do have innate merit and value, some beliefs are true or well grounded, while others simply are not.

When you post a claim that there are fossil fish on mars, and your only substantiation of the claim is a photoshopped 'real color' image showing a fish shapped rock that is so un-obvious that you have to circle it in vibrant purple- then thats anomalism. Its not rational thinking. I could list a dozen well defined fallacies of argument that are consistent with that argument. (Red Herring, unfortunately, not being among them!).

When you engage the ignoramus in debate, and all they can come up with are appeals to ignorance ('Well, you can't PROVE its not a fish'), Appeals to authority ('Rammaha the channeled space spirit says its so!'), begging the question ('Because mMars was once wet and covered with fish, they would leave fossils!'), or appeals to some sort of coverup that in itself they have no real evidence of, or even reasons for (The CIA is hiding the images from the mars feed), then they are an anomalist. Period. End of discussion.

[And yes, don't even bother with hitting me with Argumentum ad logicam. There may very well be fossilized fish on mars, but that there might be and arguing that there ARE are very different]

Robert, I am sorry to use you to make this point, but we are living in an age where Reason is seen as a Tyrant not to be suffered by the enlightened believers. I'm not an asshole for calling people sloppy thinkers no more am I should be considered an asshole for insisting that 1+1 does not equal three. In fact, if we are to deny the foundations and fundamental truth of Logic, then we have to throw out math. I am not the Tyrant [*] here, perhaps truth may be, but we're acting reasonably. ALL OF US HERE WOULD CHASTISE ANYONE INSISTING THAT 1+1=3. Whys should we suffer logical errors just as grave?

Now, belief may very well be true, and its provable that some things may be true that can not be proved true with logic. HOWEVER, what is for sure true is that people who are using shit reasoning processes are spewing shit. At the very least they give us no reason to believe that what they have to say is anything other than shit.

Forget me being a tyrant... Why should we not ask instead about why the reasonable should and must suffer the tyranny of fools, just to get a lonog and not hurt their feelings or break their toys?

Everyone thinks they are the 'good guy'. The anomalists feel like repressed truth seekers on a mission. Wonderful. But frankly reason shows them not to be. I stand with reason when deciding what is true (and, yes, I have many beliefs that I know I can't yet prove true. I keep those to myself as sacred and private)

Now, Having said all of this, I am not sure where the line should be drawn- but never-the-less, it is patently false to say the line can't be drawn. It can, the question is what is the ethical and moral thing to do With Respect To this community. I don't go as far as you, but I don't go as far as RL either.

Frankly, I think a very good case can be made for banning anomalist reasoning on Space and Geek Speak, and that a rule can be made and enforced.

Davin L.

[*] A religious thinker/philosopher once said something vaguely to the effect of (and this IS a terrible butchering of the idea, I am sure, since its been a decade since I read him) 'your demons may not be demons, but angels in disguise trying to free you from what you are unwilling to let go of'. I often think of this when I see the reaction of the faithful to logical and rational analysis of the content of their beliefs.


A few other posts, but mostly fat chewing. Then: here, a question about community standards.