/sci/ - Science & Math

>valid rational and objective opinion

so clearly not, if that really IS the case...

It's a bit more complicated than that. I'm assuming B is an expert in the subject, right? That usually means they have a better understanding of the types of mistakes in reasoning laymen usually commit when they try to thread on the subjects of B's expertise.

It gets tiring having to deal with yet-another layman claiming to have found a loophole in the theory of relativity even though he has little understanding of the mathematics behind it. If A is so smart, couldn't he just do a refresher's course on B's subject to be able to talk to B as equals?

B should consider A's statements and examine the evidence supporting and opposing A's statments, just as B should with the statements of someone who actually does know about field X.

B is basing their assessment on markers of authority. In debate, this would be the fallacy of argument from authority. It is irrational.

>>3364989
In all cases I've observed B was not an expert.

>>3365021
>anecdotal evidence

Fuck off

Consider this:

Posting Emma makes your thread worthy of a free bump.

I didn't even read the OP.

There's no such thing as correct behaviour. Just socially acceptable or not, which itself changes over time.
Personally, B is a faggot because everyone who does what person B does is a faggot.
Anyway, more Emma.

>>3365021
If they're both idiots, they can flap their jaws as much as they want. I think in that case it becomes a matter of not hurting A's feeling. B doesn't have the knowledge to either accept or reject A's theories.

Consider such a B's position:

"It's damn hard to excel in something whether it is catching butterflies or theoretical physics and as long as you are not the best or you very good at what you do I do not think that you have the competence and moral authority to dispute the activity and to emit valuable thoughts regarding someone else's line of work - in this case blogging."

>>3365075
cont:
"Of course if you're Perelman you can bitch-slap about everyone when math is the subject but you can't start teaching Barcelona's team soccer lessons. And if you're an art critic you don't go talking about the forming of galaxies; and the list of examples could go on forever. Everybody on his field. These are logical things, common sense, but things that people often tend to forget."

OP, what you have presented is a classic ad hominem situation.

Person B is wrong, he has committed a logical fallacy.

>>3364963
>>3364976
presents a valid rational
god fucking dammit, you hipsters are fucking up my language with every breath.

It's not A and B, it's /a/ and /b/.
Newfag.

>>3365183
valid != rational

>>3365186
>Summer detected

>>3365177
I know, but I refuse using Latin terms because certain amerifags are unable to pronounce them correctly.

>>3365183
take a fucking logic course, this shit is straight out of the books.

>>3365240
It seems that >>3365183's iPad ran out of battery.

Is the argument valid and rational to all parties? Then yes, it is a fallacy.

Is the argument only valid and "rational" to the person arguing without knowledge? Then no. Logical objection.

>>3364963
called ad hominem
lrn2fallacy
an argument is soundly rejected based on the nature of its content, not it's source

>>3365250

Even more simply: If B is using this to counter an argument he CANNOT refute, then it is a logical fallacy.

If B is using this to refute an argument he can refute, but does not want to take the time refuting for the Nth time, it is a valid objection/

>>3365262
>but does not want to take the time refuting for the Nth time, it is a valid objection
no, only arguments are valid.
he may have a valid reason, but chooses not to state it. silence is not valid.

>>3365282

"No you are ignorant of the facts, and I'm not here to teach you" is a valid, logical argument, against wasting the time of experts.

If the argument has already been refuted, then there is no need for him to reiterate the refutation just because A is too lazy to go look it up.

>>3365260
>>3365260
>>3365260
this

>>3365297
does that prove it's conclusion validly? no.
go back to intro to logic. you clearly forgot what an argument is.

>>3365309

If a is making a claim that is contrary to the basic principles of the discipline because of ignorance, he is making an argument from ignorance. Which is a logical fallacy.

In which case, there was no debate in the first place.


As I said, if the question is valid, you cannot use this argument. If it is an argument from ignorance, there is no argument and there is no need to respond.

>>3365297
It's a valid personal reason for not engaging, it's not a valid argument. Two totally different things.

I invite you all to study physics and then try to fight a mob on /sci/ saying that mass increases with velocity.
Really, a polite "fuck you I'm out" is a really convenient argument sometimes.

>>3365325
>inb4 but it does

>>3365318
valid only applies to arguments
a choice to simply not engage is simply a choice
it requires no qualifier and you're mixing up concepts that don't fit
back to your original claim:
>If B is using this to refute an argument he can refute, but does not want to take the time refuting for the Nth time, it is a valid objection/
logic doesn't enter here
told

>>3365325
I invite you to study philosophy, theology and religion and then die of exasperation in the midst of the vast ignorance that is /sci/ having a religion thread.

>>3365338 the vast ignorance that is /sci/ having a religion thread
Religion? On my /sci/? I'm really glad I've got those bullshit autohide reflexes so I don't even notice those anymore.

>>3365325
no, it's not
it's really just not an argument
it's a personal action to not engage
again, not a subject of logic in regards to debating the issue at hand

>>3365330
>valid only applies to arguments
>a choice to simply not engage is simply a choice
>it requires no qualifier and you're mixing up concepts that don't fit

Dude, I'm an aspie and even I think your language formality is overdone

>>3365344
if consistency and relevance is too much to ask from you (since you were answering the OP's question 'is this correct?') then call up everyone aspie as much as you want.
you're still wrong
deal with it

>>3365363
No.
You're wrong.
Deal with it.

>>3365363
Actually the term "valid" is quite common when talking about personal behavior reasoning. You have a severely limited view of the world.

>>3364989
Read the OP more carefully.
"Person B simply discards A's opinion claiming A does not know what he/she is talking about due to A's lack of credentials/expertise/actual experience in field X."

Professionals and "experts" do this all the time. It's about personal emotions and ego; educated but emotionally immature people.
Happens here on /sci/ all the time.

I knew and english lit. prof. who was fond of reminding us "The written word was invented by an illeterate."

>>3365378
>>3365369
Nope. OP was asking, 'Is person B correct?'. The correct answer is 'no, not necessarily'. He presents no valid argument refuting person A's point. Calling any evasion (defensible for entirely separate reasons) 'valid' suggests this is correct and A should just accept his point is wrong. Not so.
Hence, you're wrong.
Hence, you really should deal with it.
Told twice.

>>3365421
>illeterate
did he spell it that way, too?

>>3365422
>still posting as if logic and social interaction had their own entirely separate languages with no overlap

dude, seriously. as an autistic person i am trying to help you out. you are being a tard.

"The best way to make money in science is to ask the experts what can't be done and then do it."
Thomas Edison

>>3365429
No, that's just me.
I didn't claim he was a great teacher.

>>3365433
Dude, seriously. The tard is you. OP's question concerns logic. If you were addressing logic, then you're wrong. If you weren't, then you failed to address the question with a misleading answer and are still wrong. Either way, you're wrong.
QED

>>3365452
Dude, seriously, avoiding the argument without engaging it was brought up halfway through the thread, making it a topic of this thread.

You seriously need some alone time.

>>3365249
>>3365240
First off, I'm not a grammar nazi and I don't care if either of you are OP or not but put a comma in there so I know you aren't some speak and spell faggot mindlessly copying what you feel are smart sounding phrases. Second, I don't care if you're mother-fucking Aristotle, using "valid opinion" as a superlative to "opinion" is just some self-entitled, over-valued, horse-shit poetics being passed off as legitimate distinction and if you think I'm wrong then fuck you, fuck your values and most of all fuck your sense of validity. Third, and finally, arguments are the only thing subject to (logical) validation not opinions; if you need me to spell that out any clearer then I can only prescribe that you stop listening-to/involving-yourself-in all that bullshit atheist vs. theist material because it's already fucked up your head.

>>3365459
>you are also this wrong

>>3365437
somehow, the quote is more effective that way
think about it

>>3365262
you are the cancer killing /sci/ and you need to die.

>>3365465
that's a cowards macro

>>3365459
Why resort to this expletive-laden discourse?
And YES! There is a comma missing there.

>>3365456
Feel free to think that. I feel my points stand well enough on their own to anyone with half-sense.

>>3365518
COOL, GLAD TO HEAR IT BUT WHY ARE YOU STILL ASSUMING THAT OPINIONS NEED TO BE VALID?

>>3365524
>half-sense
THAT'S JUST AS WORSE

>>3365535
Because _invalid_ opinions usually trigger unpleasant situations.

>>3365548
but you can't have an invalid opinion.

>>3365554
That's like your opinion, man.

>>3365565
nice one but that is a factually accurate actual fact in all actuality in fact. It is metaphysically impossible to have an invalid opinion.

>>3365580
Okay. Let's substitute "valid" with the null string:
"presents a rational and objective opinion"

>>3365608
I get the impression that I am helping you fulfill some kind of weird self-destructive role-play, given that along with the likely-hood English isn't your first language (you should have said "a null string" instead of "the null string") I would recommending weaning off the usage of "objective". In the OP's case and your modified case it overstates the point which makes a person suspect to (emotional) bias especially where "opinions" in the strict sense are concerned.

Are you familiar with the saying "Opinions are like assholes? Everybody has one." Yeah, so, basically the more you add beyond the word "rational" to your elevated evaluation of an opinion is the more superiority you're directly implying of it. The mark of well-reason (rational) is the only necessary verification one needs to share because reason can-be and should-be argued whereas arguments about objectivity will most likely lead to metatangent arguments.