Jump to content
Science Forums

People who understand little of the subject tend to:


Kriminal99

Recommended Posts

List them. Here is mine.

 

Be judgmental of arguments (that they don't understand) and respond to them with enumeration of the most basic (and yet totally unrelated) facts of the discipline or by appeal to authority fallacy by claiming something is true without supporting it (because they read it on wikipedia or whatever else)

 

Cling to social aspects of the discipline

 

Master the details of information given to them instead of considering opposing arguments and deriving new arguments from it.

 

Imply they have an argument against something (using sarcasm) when in fact they don't but rather are disagreeing for some unrelated reason like the bandwagon effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

try to inform

althought i may be seen as this side of the argument

although sometimes if you always feel you are right, sometimes you a wrong

 

this is a dynamic conversation

 

I choose to do 2 things. Try to explain my ideas. Try to prove myself wrong.

There is a duality here. In fact having a conversation about a "completely wrong " idea, is better then outright denying the idea. History has proven that new ideas get alot of argument, and are only accepted and given thought by intelectuals. Weather the idea is right or wrong, is not neccisarily the important point, but the proof of concept. Does it ignight thought, does it cause you to use your mind, does it add to itself.

 

Now on the other side, if someone tells you that 2+2 =3, then explanation in pictures is a good way to explain.

Or if someone says in a rude fashon that your concept is wrong, take their perception into consideration to understand where they are coming from. Then you can at least begin a map on how to make your point to them. If this individual is persistant enough to cause you grief, then a good idea is to ignore and or try to allevieate the situation.

The thing is if you are aggrivated, then mabe whatever is said hits one of your chords, and the all famous ego is brused. In this case it is wise to take what they say into consideration long enought to understand. Then go back to the other step.

 

Some people respond well to a sarcastic remark, some don't. Some take it as a challenge. (journeyman/apprentace). Some leave, some it makes them want to stay. It all depends on the personality type.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good approach to a thread! :D

 

Some people who understand little about a subject may exhibit one or more of the following

  • Claim that little is understood about the subject by anyone
  • Claim that all existing understanding is wrong
  • Invent new terms for old ideas within the subject
  • Claim that there are widespread conspiracies to suppress new ideas about the subject
  • React defensively when accused of knowing little about the subject
  • Resist studying existing literature about the subject
  • Believe that studying the subjects exiting literature reduces the ability to have new ideas about it

Some people who understand little about a subject

  • Are motivated to understand more about the subject
  • Study the subject
  • Come to understand more about the subject
  • Seek the approval of acknowledged experts in the subject

What the subject in question is is significant. For example, people who understand little about a subject that few people believe is legitimate, such as the politics of Atlantis, rarely claim that widespread conspiracies to suppress new ideas about it exist. Other subjects, such as metastudy of the Silmarillion, are trivial, and tend not to elicit strong negative reactions. Fanatical dedication to some trivial subjects, such as the fictional history and technology of Star Trek is often accepted by non fans with affectionate tolerance and even admiration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

attempt to misuse power to force people to accept their backwards arguments and then after doing so claim they proved themselves correct

 

get angry and walk away in order to avoid further humiliation

 

How would you differentiate this from someone whose account was banned by the mods after winning an argument (as opposed to walking away?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[*]Claim that all existing understanding is wrong

 

I have never heard this done before - in fact I am not sure what this would even look like since they would have to doubt the language they might use to communicate it. More frequently I see people doubt subsets of (all existing understanding) - and one of them is proved right (implicitly) every time an advancement is made in understanding.

 

 

Isn't this equating correctness to majority opinion? (ie bandwagon fallacy?) More importantly, isn't it always implicitly true that when a new idea

 

[*]Invent new terms for old ideas within the subject

 

How is this connected? It seems like the only way for someone to do this, is to have reinvented the whole subject themselves. Otherwise, they would have known the conventional labels. But if they were capable of reinventing the whole discipline, then they would have logical faculties above and beyond the vast majority of people - including people in academia who can only understand things told to them. Thus while it may be true that they CAN make mistakes that have already been identified (probably by people just like them that came earlier and first made the same mistakes) it would seem to be irrational to assume a correlation between this and ignorance.

 

[*]Claim that there are widespread conspiracies to suppress new ideas about the subject

 

I rarely see this occur also. The bandwagon effect is very prevalent, but is not a conscious thing. You often get people who just don't want their teachers and mentors to be wrong, and so reject logical arguments out of hand for reasons that have nothing to do with their validity. I see people complain all the time about know nothings trying to influence an argument based on what they think everyone agrees with - but rarely see people complain about worldwide conspiracies.

 

 

 

[*]React defensively when accused of knowing little about the subject

 

So... ONLY people who know little get angry when ad hominem fallacy is used against them?

 

 

 

[*]Resist studying existing literature about the subject

 

How would you differentiate this from a person calling out an instance "Appeal to authority fallacy"? IE

 

Person with extreme knowledge who is familiar with ideas in book Y: X is true

 

Emotionally immature person with little knowledge: Nuh uh Book Y says you are wrong! Go read it and youll understand!

 

Person with extreme knowledge: If you understood the ideas in book Y you would just as easily be able to present the counter argument as tell me to go read it.

 

 

[*]Believe that studying the subjects exiting literature reduces the ability to have new ideas about it

 

Never seen this occur before, could you give an example?

 

[*]Seek the approval of acknowledged experts in the subject

 

Appeal to authority fallacy. It would make sense if it was restated as seeking the criticism of such people (and then checking said criticisms for valid arguments and removing any fallacious ones)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

posted by Kriminal

How would you differentiate this from someone whose account was banned by the mods after winning an argument (as opposed to walking away?)

Are you referring to another forum?

You do not get banned here for "winning" an argument.You get banned for not supporting your claim or rude and offensive behaviour while attempting your argument after being warned or infracted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you referring to another forum?

You do not get banned here for "winning" an argument.You get banned for not supporting your claim or rude and offensive behaviour while attempting your argument after being warned or infracted

 

So here you have created an alternative to the english language in which what we would normally call "winning an argument such that the other side has run out of legitimate counter arguments" is renamed as "not supporting your claim", and what we would normally call "continuing to disagree after moderators have made personal attacks, threats and given infractions for disagreeing" is renamed as "rude or offensive behavior after being warned or infracted".

 

But we wouldn't use this alternative label to reason logically about what happened, we would have to use the actual events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So here you have created an alternative to the english language in which what we would normally call "winning an argument such that the other side has run out of legitimate counter arguments" is renamed as "not supporting your claim",

 

It is not when you run out of arguments but what you do after you run out of arguments. If you constantly use circular logic and reasoning because you dont have anything else to say then that can be called "not supporting your claim". But if you simply run out of arguments and stop posting until you think of new arguments, or say that you ran out of arguments, that is okay.

 

and what we would normally call "continuing to disagree after moderators have made personal attacks, threats and given infractions for disagreeing" is renamed as "rude or offensive behavior after being warned or infracted".

 

But we wouldn't use this alternative label to reason logically about what happened, we would have to use the actual events.

Once again, it depends on how you disagree. If I started insulting you, calling you an idiot and other such insults, or even if I insulted or demeaned what you are arguing about, that can be considered rude or offensive and the mods take action.

And whats this about personal attacks and threats from mods?:evil: Have you delt much with the hypography mods? They are always nice and deal with problems in a precise manner, giving multiple warnings before they take serious action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

posted by Kriminal

So here you have created an alternative to the english language in which what we would normally call "winning an argument such that the other side has run out of legitimate counter arguments" is renamed as "not supporting your claim", and what we would normally call "continuing to disagree after moderators have made personal attacks, threats and given infractions for disagreeing" is renamed as "rude or offensive behavior after being warned or infracted".

 

But we wouldn't use this alternative label to reason logically about what happened, we would have to use the actual events.

 

here is one i forgot to list but your post called it immediately to memory

 

from wiki

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Twisting my statement into what you want it to mean and what I actually typed, are very different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...