Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Fake repuation system


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#18 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2826 posts

Posted 25 April 2009 - 04:55 PM

In short:

The system attributes weight of rep contributions based on post count, which is fallacious and wrong.

So you keep saying, but I have yet to to see you present a complete and better alternative. :hihi:

The more a user posts, the more they have contributed to the site as a whole, thus the more 'they are' the site, ya know?

The system allows mods and admins to affect rep, which is fallacious and wrong.

Why? "Because I say so" isn't very convincing.

A lot of interesting people left this forum for these and similar reasons, leaving mostly people who aren't very creative thinkers and suck up alot...

I wouldn't say a LOT, although there have been a few I can think of who have left(and a few returned) because of reputation.

Additionally you're making very broad generalizations here; "a lot", "similar reasons". It's far more productive if you can be a little more specific. :cup:

Thanks again for taking the time to talk it out rationally.

Edit: "Kriminal99 is infamous around these parts" now I feel all nostalgic, that used to be MY reputation catchphrase too! Seems pretty bad ass, eh?

#19 CraigD

CraigD

    Creating

  • Administrators
  • 8034 posts

Posted 25 April 2009 - 09:43 PM

The system attributes weight of rep contributions based on post count

Post count contributes only slightly to rep power, the number of points added to a members rep points when giving positive rep. Rep power = (rep points + post count)/50. For most members, post count contributes less than 3% or their rep power.

Were this not the case, you would have a much higher rep than, say, jab2, who has less than 1/6 your post count.

Recall that when giving negative rep (disapproving), rep power is halved.

The system allows mods and admins to affect rep, which is fallacious and wrong.

At hypography, and most boards using the vBulletin forum engine with rep enabled, members are not required to give up their membership privileges upon becoming moderators. Were this the case, it would be difficult to recruit enough moderators to maintain a site without paying them, as most people qualified to be moderators want to continue being members. Hypography runs on a modest budget, so cannot afford to hire professional, non-member moderators.

Krim, if you wish to have a higher reputation, you should write posts to which other members – including members who are moderators and administrators – give positive rep. Rep giving is voluntary, and neither you nor any moderator or administrator can compel any member to give it to you. Only you can convince members to show their approval of you and your posts by giving you positive rep.

A lot of interesting people left this forum for these and similar reasons, leaving mostly people who aren't very creative thinkers and suck up alot...

Krim, you are of course free to find a forum some or all of these people have joined after voluntarily or involuntarily leaving hypography, or to create your own for them. If you believe what you have said here, you should, I think, seriously consider doing this.
  • freeztar likes this

#20 Thunderbird

Thunderbird

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1814 posts

Posted 25 April 2009 - 09:58 PM

In short:

The system attributes weight of rep contributions based on post count, which is fallacious and wrong.

The system allows mods and admins to affect rep, which is fallacious and wrong.

A lot of interesting people left this forum for these and similar reasons, leaving mostly people who aren't very creative thinkers and suck up alot...



I think you are very happy playing the part of the misunderstood intellectual. It’s the niche you yourself have carved out. I have received a ton of infractions and been suspended many times,, then I realized I was getting a lot perspective from people on here , it began quite naturally that I would then start contributing to the site so that it might reflect some of my perspective which by then had been broadened. Positive rep could reflect many things curiosity for one.

I am sure you read the right books and have a high IQ but you’re post have mostly been very narrow in scope, and you are usually correct but ‘anti’ all the time gets to be about you being overly offend and not very interesting. When I see the name, I know it will be a view about how narrow and unfair the establishment is.
  • Turtle likes this

#21 theblackalchemist

theblackalchemist

    Transmuting

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 972 posts

Posted 28 April 2009 - 08:50 AM

Greetings,
Forgive my participation in this, ( to all mods and admins that is -> if i have erred)



The system attributes weight of rep contributions based on post count, which is fallacious and wrong.

The system allows mods and admins to affect rep, which is fallacious and wrong.

A lot of interesting people left this forum for these and similar reasons, leaving mostly people who aren't very creative thinkers and suck up alot...





Your accusations seem to come from a set mindset, and hence, they cant be easily altered.

Hypography is based on a "Give and Take" System, the more you give (useful posts), the more you become a respected member of the site., as GAHD mentioned.
The more respected member you are, the more influence you have.

However, those people, who are very high up in post counts, but have not done a thing to Hypography, are very very low in REP points, and hence hold very little influence over your rep.


As general, for encouraging members to contribute to the site [FONT="]quantitatively[/FONT], 1 rep point is given for every 50 posts.
(see CraigD's explaination for the breakup)

However, the technology is not yet far as developed that the forum software can judge the content written, and allot rep points for that.

Hence we have the users able to give rep points to each other, for qualitative reasons,
and for encouraging people to give more quality, rather than hit and runs etc.

if a user agrees with you,b he'll positive rep you.


Reps given by various users is solely based on that user's view, and no one can change it.

Generally, if the point is technical, the user jumps into the discussion, rather than giving the REP points (that is in the case of disagreement), as Hypography exsists for that reason (debating and what not) rather than see which user draws more reputation or how high or low is he in the reputation ladder.

People prefer to see the content of the post (which they find interesting), and usually not the reputation of the user who is posting it.


In case of a REP, which need not be given, administrators have the full authority to remove that rep.
that is in case, i neg rep you now, saying "Just for Fun" as the coment, you just have to write a private message to the nearest admin, stating the above, and ask him to remove it.

if the reason is good enough (which in this example it is), he'll surely remove it, and take action on the user who posted that rep.

Hence because of this, you do not have to wear the scars of a prank or a joke, if you do not seem fit.

Usually Neg-Reps are not handed out like water, it is planned and a series of actions ( refusal to see general logic, violating the site rules, failure to listen etc..) which draws Neg Reps.

However some users also tend to give neg reps for any reason, which if you see unfit, you can forward it to an admin.

We are always willing for feedback which is constructive, and in case if you propose an alternate system, it may be considerd for including it as long as it is feasible and logical.


i hope my point ( which bears uncanny resembelence to most of the points in this thread :wha: ) is clear.

Regards
TBA



EDUT: note the underlined statement was added later on :evil:
  • jab2 likes this

#22 sanctus

sanctus

    Resident Diabolist

  • Administrators
  • 4254 posts

Posted 28 April 2009 - 09:15 AM

TBA, you are welcome to discuss this here, user feed-back is open to any user to discuss things. This is the reason it is here, hence no excuses needed.

#23 Kriminal99

Kriminal99

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 815 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 05:50 AM

So you keep saying, but I have yet to to see you present a complete and better alternative. :)

The more a user posts, the more they have contributed to the site as a whole, thus the more 'they are' the site, ya know?
Why? "Because I say so" isn't very convincing.
I wouldn't say a LOT, although there have been a few I can think of who have left(and a few returned) because of reputation.

Additionally you're making very broad generalizations here; "a lot", "similar reasons". It's far more productive if you can be a little more specific. :(

Thanks again for taking the time to talk it out rationally.

Edit: "Kriminal99 is infamous around these parts" now I feel all nostalgic, that used to be MY reputation catchphrase too! Seems pretty bad ***, eh?


An alternative for a rep system? Rep systems are all about appeal to authority fallacy to begin with. In real life reputation is an unspoken thing that has little or no impact on how people interpret what someone has to say.

If someone tried to attribute a "bad" reputation to another person, it is almost as likely to make someone listen to that person more than they normally would. Badmouthing someone else is basically admitting you are afraid of what that person has to say, which is a good sign that they are actually right.

People attribute a good reputation to someone when that person see's with their own eyes that said person reasons objectively and fairly. The very fact that you are trying to convince a new person to accept someone as "having a good rep" before they can gauge for themselves is suspicious! Why would you need to if that person was going to come to that conclusion anyways?

So if a rep system must be used, it should have a clear and specific purpose that is valid and be designed for that purpose. Like you could have a ref meter showing how many references someone has provided or something, in case someone wanted to know who to go for to get more references.

Moderators with rep power

I did explain the moderator thing. You guys are around each other more, and have more in common than everyone else does with each other, hence tribal morality. Your rep actions are going to be signifigantly different from normal user's rep actions, and are not representitive of anything signifigant that should be gauged by a reputation system.

Your right, I don't have statistics on people who left or anything like that. I have seen other analytical minded people attacked by mods and leave.

#24 Kriminal99

Kriminal99

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 815 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 05:58 AM

Post count contributes only slightly to rep power, the number of points added to a members rep points when giving positive rep. Rep power = (rep points + post count)/50. For most members, post count contributes less than 3% or their rep power.

Were this not the case, you would have a much higher rep than, say, jab2, who has less than 1/6 your post count.

Recall that when giving negative rep (disapproving), rep power is halved.At hypography, and most boards using the vBulletin forum engine with rep enabled, members are not required to give up their membership privileges upon becoming moderators. Were this the case, it would be difficult to recruit enough moderators to maintain a site without paying them, as most people qualified to be moderators want to continue being members. Hypography runs on a modest budget, so cannot afford to hire professional, non-member moderators.

Krim, if you wish to have a higher reputation, you should write posts to which other members – including members who are moderators and administrators – give positive rep. Rep giving is voluntary, and neither you nor any moderator or administrator can compel any member to give it to you. Only you can convince members to show their approval of you and your posts by giving you positive rep. Krim, you are of course free to find a forum some or all of these people have joined after voluntarily or involuntarily leaving hypography, or to create your own for them. If you believe what you have said here, you should, I think, seriously consider doing this.


Assuming you had two equal sized groups trying to manipulate the rep system, post count would be the deciding factor. A person who made quick metaphor based responses in greater number would have a higher rep power than someone who explained their claims in detail. That is silly - a person from the first group is an agent of chaos who tries to leverage a small amount of understanding with vagueness and abstractness.

Why would I have a higher rep due to more posts? post count affects rep power, and I don't rep my own posts even if I could...

All you are doing by bringing up the board design is passing the buck. I suppose I could see the argument that if a forum gets "infected" with a group of regulars naturally who were opposed to dissent from newcomers, it would be a similar situation with the tribal morality driven reputation contributions. However mods are around each other even more than just plain regulars would, so it is worse.

Who said anything about wanting a higher rep? I was pointing out that the rep system is fallactious. Theres a big difference.

#25 Kriminal99

Kriminal99

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 815 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 06:23 AM

I am sure you read the right books and have a high IQ but you’re post have mostly been very narrow in scope, and you are usually correct but ‘anti’ all the time gets to be about you being overly offend and not very interesting. When I see the name, I know it will be a view about how narrow and unfair the establishment is.


What you are describing has nothing to do with me whatsoever and is not a perception that someone could possibly have of me in real life, which is partly what this thread is about.

In real life, I present an interesting and perhaps original idea and the result is much different. Some people who are more socially oriented try to disagree but are unable to provide as convincing arguments and/are reduced to using debate fallacies which a person can easily be called on. (Like asking "are you afraid of what I have to say?" when a person tries to talk over you) The more capable people either debate in a clearly objective fashion or agree that I have a point. These people know their own self worth, and so are not emotionally "reactive" to what I have to say.

In real life, those socially oriented intellectuals are just small, easily overcome hurdles to overcome to pursue the idea with more competent and objective people.

On this forum, those same people have been empowered in such a way as to prevent any truly meaningful discussion to take place. The empowerment in question is totally arbitrary and dependent on manipulation of the medium of communication, and results in an inability to get past the stage of calling the more socially oriented participants on their use of debate fallacies.

Discussions progress like this:

User: I claim X

SOI: OMG no reference for 2+2=4 neg rep neg rep infraction omg BAND!!
User: ^authority/ad hominem fallacy ^circular reasoning
XX - this user is annoying be wary

SOI 2: OMG sezing he use fallacy is uncivil!! neg rep neg rep infraction omg BAND!!
++++++ - this user knowz it all, always listen

User: Hmm what is that one straw man for misinterpreting a fallacy claim as an attack?
xxxxx - this user sux OMG don't listen to hims!!!!

SOI 3: Thats wrong cause noone agrees!

User: That is band wagon falla...
- This user has been banned and can no longer post here.

So yeah real discussion can't really take place as long as fallacy users are empowered in this arbitrary manner, but that has nothing to do with me it is an attribute of the forum.

#26 InfiniteNow

InfiniteNow

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9148 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 06:37 AM

Assuming you had two equal sized groups trying to manipulate the rep system, post count would be the deciding factor. A person who made quick metaphor based responses in greater number would have a higher rep power than someone who explained their claims in detail. That is silly - a person from the first group is an agent of chaos who tries to leverage a small amount of understanding with vagueness and abstractness.


And yet, CraigD, who spends significant amount of time on his replies... who articulates his arguments clearly... who teaches at nearly every turn and offers references and citations consistently... who does much more than "metaphor based responses" has one of the highest reputation scores of any member here.

Fancy that. Someone who spends time and offers useful posts... being recognized for it. How awful!!! :omg:


You continue to work with false premises, shoddy logic, and (if I may) a 5-year old tantrum approach. I struggle to see what you hope to achieve with your continued bumps to this thread, as the only change occurring is the perception readers here have of you (your "reputation" :shrug: ).

#27 theblackalchemist

theblackalchemist

    Transmuting

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 972 posts

Posted 07 May 2009 - 07:10 AM

What you are describing has nothing to do with me whatsoever and is not a perception that someone could possibly have of me in real life, which is partly what this thread is about.

In real life, I present an interesting and perhaps original idea and the result is much different. Some people who are more socially oriented try to disagree but are unable to provide as convincing arguments and/are reduced to using debate fallacies which a person can easily be called on. (Like asking "are you afraid of what I have to say?" when a person tries to talk over you) The more capable people either debate in a clearly objective fashion or agree that I have a point. These people know their own self worth, and so are not emotionally "reactive" to what I have to say.

In real life, those socially oriented intellectuals are just small, easily overcome hurdles to overcome to pursue the idea with more competent and objective people.

On this forum, those same people have been empowered in such a way as to prevent any truly meaningful discussion to take place. The empowerment in question is totally arbitrary and dependent on manipulation of the medium of communication, and results in an inability to get past the stage of calling the more socially oriented participants on their use of debate fallacies.

Discussions progress like this:

User: I claim X

SOI: OMG no reference for 2+2=4 neg rep neg rep infraction omg BAND!!
User: ^authority/ad hominem fallacy ^circular reasoning
XX - this user is annoying be wary

SOI 2: OMG sezing he use fallacy is uncivil!! neg rep neg rep infraction omg BAND!!
++++++ - this user knowz it all, always listen

User: Hmm what is that one straw man for misinterpreting a fallacy claim as an attack?
xxxxx - this user sux OMG don't listen to hims!!!!

SOI 3: Thats wrong cause noone agrees!

User: That is band wagon falla...
- This user has been banned and can no longer post here.

So yeah real discussion can't really take place as long as fallacy users are empowered in this arbitrary manner, but that has nothing to do with me it is an attribute of the forum.




Greetings,

What you said is true, if a time dilation takes place.

In general, proof is asked for those things which seem, (excuse the expression) out of place, and ambiguous in general logic of the average board user.

The average board user, is usually open to ideas, and are willing to modify them when faced with a strong view point, or a convincing proof, and has some basic science back ground, for simple proofs, and mostly they have scientific temperment.
Hence they may use google (or similar) first, and then post here if they did not find any satisfactory explaination.


Usually, when people feel the need to have more proof in their hands before making a well thought out reply, which will usually contain either an question, approval/dis approval (usually) with reasons, they ask the post author to provide with some links (which are mostly external) or the post author has the ability to use accepted logic, to provide reasoning.

for example, say a proof in math is there, which the community is not aware of, then you are free to post a link where you found the proof, or you can use [math] LA_E^TX[/math] to do it in your thread, and show us how you arrived at your conclusion.

similar methods can be approached for proof in various other topics, dealt here in Hypography.

If you dont want criticisms of all kinds Hypography is probably not the place for you.
You can add aline saying " only productive discussions please" at the end of your thread, if you want.

But my opinion is, all discussions are simulating, marked by the chinese proverb,
"He who asks is a fool for 5 minutes, he who doesnt ask, is a fool for ever ".

As i said in my post before, the post count merely adds to your reputation power.
50 points give you one rep power point, and for every 50 posts or so.

hence you have to have approximately 2500 posts, before you inflict 1 rep point difference, to some one.

here with apologies, my full understanding of the reputation system is not achieved, and in case of any false statement, any admin or mod , please edit this post and inform me of the statement, via pm if permissible, as the discussion of the rep system statistics would deviate from th e purpose of the thread.


Now, surely a person would not post 2500 posts just for neg repping another person, even if he does so, he would be much more wiser on how hypography functions and his knowledge would have been incremented.
indirectly, he is converted to a productive member of Hypography.

As i have mentioned in my post before, a person who explains his post in more detail and that too correctly, will have people repping him more for his small no of posts, and this accelerates him further up the rep ladder then a person who claws his way up via post counts.


as i have mentioned before, reputation is nothing but a superficial mark on a person, and people tend to read the post of the person more than to look at his reputation and walk away.

In the end, you are looked upon by your thought processes, then your rep boxes to see what kind of person you are.

I ask apologies to the lack of continuity of the thought flows in this post, as i have written this thread in a hurry.

EDIT: The groups you refer to if they are those of the moderators and administrators, then you may want to acknowledge the fact that not every person who uses this board for a long time may not become that member of the group.

the admission procedures are very stringent, and only the users with the right temperment and other requirements is chosen to represent hypography.

This if needs better explaination, may be carried forward by another member, of the aforementioned groups, as they surely have first hand knowledge of that which is being discussed here, perhaps in another means of communication,(if that seems fit) as this again deviates from the current topic of discussion of the threads




Regards
TBA

#28 Kriminal99

Kriminal99

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 815 posts

Posted 17 May 2009 - 06:20 AM

And yet, CraigD, who spends significant amount of time on his replies... who articulates his arguments clearly... who teaches at nearly every turn and offers references and citations consistently... who does much more than "metaphor based responses" has one of the highest reputation scores of any member here.

Fancy that. Someone who spends time and offers useful posts... being recognized for it. How awful!!! :hyper:


You continue to work with false premises, shoddy logic, and (if I may) a 5-year old tantrum approach. I struggle to see what you hope to achieve with your continued bumps to this thread, as the only change occurring is the perception readers here have of you (your "reputation" ;) ).


Actually, most of CraigD's responses are fallacious in nature. All he does is pass the buck to someone else with equally poorly reasoned arguments by posting links. His behavior (and the idea that a "science site is supposed to be based on this) is just an empowerment of bandwagon fallacy with appeal to authority fallacy flavoring. It's just a little less obvious method of BS'ing.

shoddy logic is a metaphor that implies the construction is shoddy like a building, and yet gives absolutely no indication of HOW it is like that.

In other words, it is a vague metaphor based argument.

#29 Kriminal99

Kriminal99

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 815 posts

Posted 17 May 2009 - 07:01 AM

Greetings,

What you said is true, if a time dilation takes place.

In general, proof is asked for those things which seem, (excuse the expression) out of place, and ambiguous in general logic of the average board user.

The average board user, is usually open to ideas, and are willing to modify them when faced with a strong view point, or a convincing proof, and has some basic science back ground, for simple proofs, and mostly they have scientific temperment.
Hence they may use google (or similar) first, and then post here if they did not find any satisfactory explaination.


Usually, when people feel the need to have more proof in their hands before making a well thought out reply, which will usually contain either an question, approval/dis approval (usually) with reasons, they ask the post author to provide with some links (which are mostly external) or the post author has the ability to use accepted logic, to provide reasoning.

for example, say a proof in math is there, which the community is not aware of, then you are free to post a link where you found the proof, or you can use [math] LA_E^TX[/math] to do it in your thread, and show us how you arrived at your conclusion.

similar methods can be approached for proof in various other topics, dealt here in Hypography.

If you dont want criticisms of all kinds Hypography is probably not the place for you.
You can add aline saying " only productive discussions please" at the end of your thread, if you want.

But my opinion is, all discussions are simulating, marked by the chinese proverb,
"He who asks is a fool for 5 minutes, he who doesnt ask, is a fool for ever ".

As i said in my post before, the post count merely adds to your reputation power.
50 points give you one rep power point, and for every 50 posts or so.

hence you have to have approximately 2500 posts, before you inflict 1 rep point difference, to some one.


Now, surely a person would not post 2500 posts just for neg repping another person, even if he does so, he would be much more wiser on how hypography functions and his knowledge would have been incremented.
indirectly, he is converted to a productive member of Hypography.

As i have mentioned in my post before, a person who explains his post in more detail and that too correctly, will have people repping him more for his small no of posts, and this accelerates him further up the rep ladder then a person who claws his way up via post counts.


as i have mentioned before, reputation is nothing but a superficial mark on a person, and people tend to read the post of the person more than to look at his reputation and walk away.

In the end, you are looked upon by your thought processes, then your rep boxes to see what kind of person you are.

I ask apologies to the lack of continuity of the thought flows in this post, as i have written this thread in a hurry.

EDIT: The groups you refer to if they are those of the moderators and administrators, then you may want to acknowledge the fact that not every person who uses this board for a long time may not become that member of the group.

the admission procedures are very stringent, and only the users with the right temperment and other requirements is chosen to represent hypography.

This if needs better explaination, may be carried forward by another member, of the aforementioned groups, as they surely have first hand knowledge of that which is being discussed here, perhaps in another means of communication,(if that seems fit) as this again deviates from the current topic of discussion of the threads




Regards
TBA


I fail to see how the mod admission requirements alter the "tribal morality" aspect of moderator function on the board. Tribal morality means that when you have people who are around each other for a long time, and understand one another, they begin to modify the ideas of right and wrong (and everything remotely related such as even post usefulness) to fit whatever their "tribe" does.

"proofs"

As far as proofs go, not only did you really not contradict anything I said but you also seem to demonstrate more understanding of the situation than many of your moderators. You recognize that any "proof" can simply be recreated in the thread, so links are really only necessary for purely factual information like experimental data. Most of your moderators think that a pure "proof" thread is automatically wrong because it has no links.

Simply put many people (including many of your mods) think this way because they are not capable of creating "proofs" on their own, and do not want/understand/respect the idea that someone else could be the source of a "proof"- unless they justify it some how by having spent a large amount of time specializing in this (which is an unrealistic view). Furthermore they often lack the ability to tell the difference between a logical proof and a specious argument - and in practice differentiate the two by the credentials of the source. This is revealed by asking them related questions to ascertain how deeply they understand "accepted proofs". Of course, you can only know the difference enough to do this if YOU understand the proofs well enough to tell the difference.

Among people who can create and understand proofs, constantly deferring to references for "proofs" that are easily recreated, thoroughly understood, and that can be modified for ease of understanding etc. is an unnecessary obstacle to communication.

"accepted logic"

You bring up the issue of "accepted logic" which I don't get at all. The whole point of logic is that it can make authoritative determinations without regard to whether or not those determinations are "accepted".

In bold above I outlined a reason why most people have trouble "accepting" logic that is not agreed upon by the majority or those with credentials - they don't understand logic well enough to tell it from a specious argument.

IMO the very fact that the label "proof" is tossed around so callously is an indication that academia has been infected by such people.

Actual proofs are never applied by anyone, because in order for something to be "proof" you have to make assumptions that you can never make in the real world. That is, you have to limit the entire universe to just the premises in the proof. If you actually try to apply the reasoning from a proof, or argue something parallel, you are no longer talking about "proof". You are then left with no more than a lowly argument, which hinges on the absence of external factors.

#30 InfiniteNow

InfiniteNow

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9148 posts

Posted 17 May 2009 - 08:33 AM

Actually, most of CraigD's responses are fallacious in nature. All he does is pass the buck to someone else with equally poorly reasoned arguments by posting links. His behavior (and the idea that a "science site is supposed to be based on this) is just an empowerment of bandwagon fallacy with appeal to authority fallacy flavoring. It's just a little less obvious method of BS'ing.

shoddy logic is a metaphor that implies the construction is shoddy like a building, and yet gives absolutely no indication of HOW it is like that.

In other words, it is a vague metaphor based argument.


Okay... Since you seem to find yourself so highly qualified, I challenge you to present an alternative method of supporting ones claims and assertions about the nature of nature itself if using citations and references to existing empirical evidence is being dismissed as nothing more than "bandwagon fallacy and appeal to authority. "


Further, it might behoove you to review the definition of bandwagon and appeal to authority fallacy. Not once in my recollection (and please, do prove me wrong with a specific quote if you can) has CraigD EVER made a comment "because all of these people believe this, it IS true," nor has he made a comment "because this person says so it IS true." You should probably go look up what those fallacies are, and also perhaps the strawman since you're falsely representing Craig's position, arguing against that misrepresentation, and claiming some faux victory.

On another note, you're a real idiot.
  • sanctus likes this

#31 Kriminal99

Kriminal99

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 815 posts

Posted 18 May 2009 - 02:18 PM

Okay... Since you seem to find yourself so highly qualified, I challenge you to present an alternative method of supporting ones claims and assertions about the nature of nature itself if using citations and references to existing empirical evidence is being dismissed as nothing more than "bandwagon fallacy and appeal to authority. "


Further, it might behoove you to review the definition of bandwagon and appeal to authority fallacy. Not once in my recollection (and please, do prove me wrong with a specific quote if you can) has CraigD EVER made a comment "because all of these people believe this, it IS true," nor has he made a comment "because this person says so it IS true." You should probably go look up what those fallacies are, and also perhaps the strawman since you're falsely representing Craig's position, arguing against that misrepresentation, and claiming some faux victory.

On another note, you're a real idiot.


I have created and described such a system. In order to facilitate discussion of the kind that is most productive, you must find a way to enforce the implied rules of debate.

By this I mean (and have argued) that doing certain things defeats the purpose of discussing a topic in the first place and wastes everyones time the same way that knocking chess pieces off a board would waste the time spent on the game if you started to lose. The difference is everyone wins when a discussion is resolved and the truth is found by all.

The implied rules are just against things like talking over the other person or trying to prevent them from responding by any means, purposely misinterpreting what someone says or just not really trying to understand what they are saying before responding, repeating the same thing over and over even after it has been addressed, Alluding to vague relationships between ideas (saying something like honor is like sportsmanship in sports) and not giving any formalization to back it up, avoiding the reasoning in an argument in favor of making a judgement on LESS relevant information like who the person is. If someone is an authority, then why don't they have an actual argument? Etc etc

Basically doing anything other than providing a precise argument directly agains the other person's reasoning. If they are doing anything else it is unproductive and can be identified as such. What's left is just very short discussions where people's understanding changes very quickly.

Identifying fallacy use

Fallacies are concepts - formal ideas in which some "parts" are variable and which some "parts" are always the same in every instance. The example statement you referred to in which someone outright claims "I agree with X because everyone does" is part of the variable side of the concept, not the static side. That is not bandwagon fallacy. The parts mentioned can be concepts themselves.

The static side of "bandwagon fallacy", the thing that makes it what it is, is any action or behavior that demonstrates a deferrence of truth to popular opinion. Not just outright statements of that form. Quoting Wikipedia on anything but purely data related matters is a bandwagon style argument. If you really understand something, you have no need to make arguments of this form - instead you just present the valid reasoning that defeats the opposing argument.

But just pointing to the same argument somewhere else instead of presenting it yourself isn't really a big deal and not something I would complain about if it was all that was done. It's still kind of going out of your way to say "Oh look at all these people that agree with it". But this isn't the limit of what CraigD has done in my experience with him. When he provides a link, it usually is to an argument that is pretty much irrelevant to the specific claims I have made.

Meaning, it doesn't counter my argument, it just says that a bunch of people disagree without regard for the specific argument made. (or at least CraigD THINKS they disagree, sometimes they are not mutually exclusive views even if he thinks they are)

This is clearly a fallacy, in fact it was the whole reason the fallacies were identified to begin with.

The simplest way to explain this is to say it assumes that the people who last edited Wikipedia had already been exposed to the argument that I was making, when there is no way to justify that assumption. If they had been exposed to that argument, they might not feel the same way.

If CraigD really wants to claim that it is absurd to think these people haven't been exposed to such arguments all he has to do is defeat the argument himself. If he isn't knowledgable enough to do this, he isn't knowledgable enough to decide that I could never have thought of something that whoever edited wikipedia last did not.

#32 lemit

lemit

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1115 posts

Posted 18 May 2009 - 05:58 PM

I have created and described such a system. In order to facilitate discussion of the kind that is most productive, you must find a way to enforce the implied rules of debate.

By this I mean (and have argued) that doing certain things defeats the purpose of discussing a topic in the first place and wastes everyones time the same way that knocking chess pieces off a board would waste the time spent on the game if you started to lose. The difference is everyone wins when a discussion is resolved and the truth is found by all.

The implied rules are just against things like talking over the other person or trying to prevent them from responding by any means, purposely misinterpreting what someone says or just not really trying to understand what they are saying before responding, repeating the same thing over and over even after it has been addressed, Alluding to vague relationships between ideas (saying something like honor is like sportsmanship in sports) and not giving any formalization to back it up, avoiding the reasoning in an argument in favor of making a judgement on LESS relevant information like who the person is. If someone is an authority, then why don't they have an actual argument? Etc etc

Basically doing anything other than providing a precise argument directly agains the other person's reasoning. If they are doing anything else it is unproductive and can be identified as such. What's left is just very short discussions where people's understanding changes very quickly.

Identifying fallacy use

Fallacies are concepts - formal ideas in which some "parts" are variable and which some "parts" are always the same in every instance. The example statement you referred to in which someone outright claims "I agree with X because everyone does" is part of the variable side of the concept, not the static side. That is not bandwagon fallacy. The parts mentioned can be concepts themselves.

The static side of "bandwagon fallacy", the thing that makes it what it is, is any action or behavior that demonstrates a deferrence of truth to popular opinion. Not just outright statements of that form. Quoting Wikipedia on anything but purely data related matters is a bandwagon style argument. If you really understand something, you have no need to make arguments of this form - instead you just present the valid reasoning that defeats the opposing argument.

But just pointing to the same argument somewhere else instead of presenting it yourself isn't really a big deal and not something I would complain about if it was all that was done. It's still kind of going out of your way to say "Oh look at all these people that agree with it". But this isn't the limit of what CraigD has done in my experience with him. When he provides a link, it usually is to an argument that is pretty much irrelevant to the specific claims I have made.

Meaning, it doesn't counter my argument, it just says that a bunch of people disagree without regard for the specific argument made. (or at least CraigD THINKS they disagree, sometimes they are not mutually exclusive views even if he thinks they are)

This is clearly a fallacy, in fact it was the whole reason the fallacies were identified to begin with.

The simplest way to explain this is to say it assumes that the people who last edited Wikipedia had already been exposed to the argument that I was making, when there is no way to justify that assumption. If they had been exposed to that argument, they might not feel the same way.

If CraigD really wants to claim that it is absurd to think these people haven't been exposed to such arguments all he has to do is defeat the argument himself. If he isn't knowledgable enough to do this, he isn't knowledgable enough to decide that I could never have thought of something that whoever edited wikipedia last did not.


This is very interesting.

A few suggestions about your system: It probably shouldn't have quite so many comments about CraigD. It might be helpful to take out some of the repetition. Rules generally take more time to describe what is expected. In reading your system, I have trouble telling just what your system is intended for.

So, tighten it up a little, take out the comments about CraigD, and be a little more descriptive.

Good luck.

--lemit

p.s. Moderators, don't you admire the effort? I suspect that's quite a bit more than you have in writing, isn't it?

#33 freeztar

freeztar

    Pondering

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8445 posts

Posted 18 May 2009 - 06:25 PM

p.s. Moderators, don't you admire the effort? I suspect that's quite a bit more than you have in writing, isn't it?


I suppose the answer would depend on whether you are talking about quality or quantity.

I'm all for a serious discussion of the rep system. It could use a few tweaks imho.
But this denouncement that puts people in bad light for no reason is just silly.

We are all human. We have several links to fallacies in our rules page (bottom). The staff here strives to follow the rules, enforce the rules, and not commit any fallacies. But, we are all human.

Rather than reprimand Craig for a fallacy he may or may not have comitted, it would be much more constructive to point out general systemic failures.

If this can be accomplished, something good may come from it. As it stands, this mod is not impressed. :hyper:

#34 InfiniteNow

InfiniteNow

    Suspended

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9148 posts

Posted 18 May 2009 - 07:17 PM

I have created and described such a system. In order to facilitate discussion of the kind that is most productive, you must find a way to enforce the implied rules of debate.


I was talking about how to do science without using references and citations to empirical data and internally consistent equations, not how to do better with the reputation system or general approach to discussion at Hypography.

Would you like to take a mulligan on that one and give it another try?




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is very interesting.

A few suggestions about your system: It probably shouldn't have quite so many comments about CraigD. It might be helpful to take out some of the repetition. Rules generally take more time to describe what is expected. In reading your system, I have trouble telling just what your system is intended for.

So, tighten it up a little, take out the comments about CraigD, and be a little more descriptive.

Good luck.

--lemit

p.s. Moderators, don't you admire the effort? I suspect that's quite a bit more than you have in writing, isn't it?


You're so bad. I love subtle tricksters... Very well done, sir... Very well done, indeed! :)