/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15875760
No, coffee is not good for you.

>>15875760
If knowledge and execution are one and the same, then why do you post retarded logic despite knowing better?

>>15875760
A fat and ugly person can still speak the truth even if he's less likely to do so.

>>15875775
>>15875778
my argument is not that execution and knowledge are separate, thats the point. if someone tells me that a certain thing is healthy by using logic or the scientific method, at least formally, but i everybody who is succesful or healthy does do that certain thing, and everybody who is fat does that certain thing, then i don't care if their methods were actually valid or that the logic is valid. then what they are saying is simply not true, but maybe for weird other reasons that we don't know.

>>15875760
“you dont know what youre talking about” and “what youre saying is factually inaccurate” are two different statements. they may be correlated, and you can make personal decisions while taking that into account, but arguments for one do not count as arguments for the other.

>>15875823
thats not really an ad hom at that point, although in that particular case your evidence is fairly anecdotal which is a separate issue.

>>15875823
Then truth can only be determined by your own judgement and experience. That's a problem because the water looked clear, tasted fine and didn't make you sick until you learned about microplastics.

>>15875837
oh youre right good point

>>15875831
>unironically thinks some people are chinese rooms

>>15875823
most logical fallacies are somewhat valid, depending on circumstance.

>, but i everybody who is succesful or healthy does do that certain thing, and everybody who is fat does that certain thing, then i don't care if their methods were actually valid or that the logic is valid. then what they are saying is simply not true, but maybe for weird other reasons that we don't know.

It's possible that they may be fat for other reasons. And also ad hom doesn't really apply when the argument debated is about a person/group of people and their behaviors. That's just data collection

>>15875760
It is not always an ad hominem to bring up characteristics of your opponent in a debate if they are relevant to the topic at hand. For example if a fatty is trying to give diet advice their weight is very relevant to the topic and bringing it up is a valid counter argument. Bringing up that their mother is a whore or something on the other hand, is not.

>>15875760
youre making this weird implication that anyone who knows how not to be fat would try to not be fat. There could be a ton of reasons why this is false.

>>15875760
ok, but you collect pictures of anime girls, why would anyone trust someone who wastes their time like that?

>>15876092
depends. for example some fat dude might have more insight into the issue than some fit dude. fit dude never been fat, doesn't know "inside shit" about the condition. some fat dude might be able to relate more. even if he cannot follow his own advice does not automatically mean he doesn't know what he's talking about. there's this angle as well. in which case it's kinda shitty to go there

>>15875760
>smart person voices a statement
>overconfident stupid person voices a contradictory statement
>masses of stupid people now must decide who to agree with
>about half of them choose to agree with the smart one through pure luck
>one of those lucky stupid people tries to tell you that the statement is true, and is correct
>you claim he must be wrong because he is stupid

>>15875760
cuz u gai

>>15875760
Because the statement doesn't change if someone else who isn't fat were to say it instead.

>>15876092
>Bringing up that their mother is a whore or something on the other hand, is not.
Lol. I guess it would be relevant when talking about the intelligence or health of babies born to whores.

>>15875848
>he doesn't know that 20% of the population is literally p-zombies

What if we apply probabilistic analysis to whether a certain person making a certain statement is true?

If the person is a known liar and has taken money to publish biased results in the past.
Is the probable validity of his statement about a piece of research not lower than someone with known strong principles about the truth?

>>15877981
No. That's a dangerous way to think. Consider how often football clubs buy players with amazing past performance who perform poorly in a new environment. You need to understand the actual context in which a person and his/her words are embedded. A trustworthy person may be the best liar because he/she has never been caught.

>>15877981
>If the person is a known liar and has taken money to publish biased results in the past.
>Is the probable validity of his statement about a piece of research not lower than someone with known strong principles about the truth?
If you went by this criteria it would disqualify almost all university-produced science. Is that really a good thing?

>>15878086
Good past performance is no guarantee of future performance but if a guy had a shit record you wouldn't hire him ever

>>15875760
Nice argument but you post tranime

>>15875760
ad hominem isthe belief that by swapping the author of a given sentence by another one who says exactly the same thing, you can magically alter the truth value of that sentence.

>>15875760
>The greatest thinkers of history basically all agree that actions are virtuous, not words.
Why does it matter of something is “virtuous” or not in this context? Something is either true or it isn’t. Concepts like “virtue” are social constructs.

>>15875760
so if a murderer told you "killing is wrong" would you argue that killing is right?
retard