The purpose of this post is to establish the meaning of 'liar' in science and elsewhere - it is only coincidentally related to tactical honesty.
From Wiki 'Straw Man' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
"The origins of the term [man of straw] are unclear; one common (folk) etymology given is that it originated with men who stood outside of courthouses with a straw in their shoe in order to indicate their willingness to be a false witness [for payment]."
I suggest:-
[Knowingly bearing false witness] = [Liar] and any laws or customs relating to perjury should apply.
There are (must be) witnesses who are simply mistaken, deluded, ignorant and/or otherwise bad witnesses - for present purposes assume they honestly believe what they say to be 'true'.
A fair court can't reasonably expect witnesses to do anything more than say what they believe to be true (consider the alternative).
I suggest:-
[Sincere and wrong] != [Liar]
Maybe:-
[Insincere and wrong] = [Timewaster]
Possibly:-
[Insincere and wrong] = [Liar] ?
[Insincere and wrong] = Inscerong 
Sorry after a lot of thought, I couldn't help that.
Sorry after a lot of thought, I couldn't help that.
QUOTE (Confused2+Oct 18 2009, 05:44 AM)
The purpose of this post is to establish the meaning of 'liar' in science and elsewhere - it is only coincidentally related to tactical honesty.
...
I suggest:-
[Sincere and wrong] != [Liar]
Maybe:-
[Insincere and wrong] = [Timewaster]
Possibly:-
[Insincere and wrong] = [Liar] ?
I don't think anyone (anyone intelligent, anyways...) disagrees with this... If a person believes what they're saying, they're being honest, for the most part. On this forum, accusations of dishonesty come mostly from:
a: The cranks accusing people of lying instead of responding to their points.
and more commonly,
b: Knowledgeable people accusing others of lying when they engage in fallacies rather than responding directly to the knowledgeable person's points.
I don't know why you're posting the bit about straw men here, unless it's simply because it's the fallacy most commonly used on this forum.
But here's a problem. If a crank believes what they're saying because of their willful refusal to educate themselves further or examine evidence presented to them, are they still being dishonest?
I say yes: The dishonesty comes not from their espousal of what they believe to be true, but from the willful refusal to learn why they are wrong. That is purposeful self-deception which in turn causes a person to espouse incorrect ideas. Some may disagree with me, and claim that this is something other than being a liar, but to me, a lie is a lie, even if it's told only to yourself.
...
I suggest:-
[Sincere and wrong] != [Liar]
Maybe:-
[Insincere and wrong] = [Timewaster]
Possibly:-
[Insincere and wrong] = [Liar] ?
I don't think anyone (anyone intelligent, anyways...) disagrees with this... If a person believes what they're saying, they're being honest, for the most part. On this forum, accusations of dishonesty come mostly from:
a: The cranks accusing people of lying instead of responding to their points.
and more commonly,
b: Knowledgeable people accusing others of lying when they engage in fallacies rather than responding directly to the knowledgeable person's points.
I don't know why you're posting the bit about straw men here, unless it's simply because it's the fallacy most commonly used on this forum.
But here's a problem. If a crank believes what they're saying because of their willful refusal to educate themselves further or examine evidence presented to them, are they still being dishonest?
I say yes: The dishonesty comes not from their espousal of what they believe to be true, but from the willful refusal to learn why they are wrong. That is purposeful self-deception which in turn causes a person to espouse incorrect ideas. Some may disagree with me, and claim that this is something other than being a liar, but to me, a lie is a lie, even if it's told only to yourself.
QUOTE (MP+)
I don't know why you're posting the bit about straw men here, unless it's simply because it's the fallacy most commonly used on this forum.
The term 'Man of Straw' is (fairly) well known in the UK - other countries may have different customs - which is why I gave an independent reference to 'Man of Straw' - subsequently to become my definition of 'Liar' - sorry if that was not clear.
The term 'Man of Straw' is (fairly) well known in the UK - other countries may have different customs - which is why I gave an independent reference to 'Man of Straw' - subsequently to become my definition of 'Liar' - sorry if that was not clear.
QUOTE (MP+)
[calling 'liar']
Knowledgeable people accusing others of lying when they engage in fallacies rather than responding directly to the knowledgeable person's points.
Long and deeply held beliefs are difficult to dispel. Just being stupid isn't easy - doors don't magically open - in fact they tend to stay resolutely closed because you're trying to turn the wrong damn key in the wrong damn lock.
IMHO 'Physics' is a vast array of facts, predictions, maths and theories - when properly arranged (by someone sufficiently knowledgeable) any part of the array has the texture of velvet (feel free to substitute your own metaphor). It is not (generally) sufficient to quote from a page of Wiki.
IMHO opinion there are currently only four* regular posters fitting the description 'sufficiently knowledgeable' (AlexG,Alphanumeric,prometheus,rpenner,*).
I think you should read what you have written.
-C2.
* five, and Trout - NOT because I think he's clever or a great guy -[Edited] I hope rp will will ban him - but his EP exposition was superb - so I have to be fair.
Knowledgeable people accusing others of lying when they engage in fallacies rather than responding directly to the knowledgeable person's points.
Long and deeply held beliefs are difficult to dispel. Just being stupid isn't easy - doors don't magically open - in fact they tend to stay resolutely closed because you're trying to turn the wrong damn key in the wrong damn lock.
IMHO 'Physics' is a vast array of facts, predictions, maths and theories - when properly arranged (by someone sufficiently knowledgeable) any part of the array has the texture of velvet (feel free to substitute your own metaphor). It is not (generally) sufficient to quote from a page of Wiki.
IMHO opinion there are currently only four* regular posters fitting the description 'sufficiently knowledgeable' (AlexG,Alphanumeric,prometheus,rpenner,*).
QUOTE
But here's a problem. If a crank believes what they're saying because of their willful refusal to educate themselves further or examine evidence presented to them, are they still being dishonest?
I say yes: The dishonesty comes not from their espousal of what they believe to be true, but from the willful refusal to learn why they are wrong. That is purposeful self-deception which in turn causes a person to espouse incorrect ideas. Some may disagree with me, and claim that this is something other than being a liar, but to me, a lie is a lie, even if it's told only to yourself.
I say yes: The dishonesty comes not from their espousal of what they believe to be true, but from the willful refusal to learn why they are wrong. That is purposeful self-deception which in turn causes a person to espouse incorrect ideas. Some may disagree with me, and claim that this is something other than being a liar, but to me, a lie is a lie, even if it's told only to yourself.
I think you should read what you have written.
-C2.
* five, and Trout - NOT because I think he's clever or a great guy -
QUOTE (Confused2+Oct 18 2009, 02:13 PM)
IMHO opinion there are currently only four* regular posters fitting the description 'sufficiently knowledgeable' (AlexG,Alphanumeric,prometheus,rpenner,*).
This site does not operate on a very advanced level of physics. It's not even a college freshman level, in most cases, but a 'pop-science book' level. With that in mind, there are quite a few knowledgeable people on this site. You're even one of them, although you're still immature and a liar.
On the other hand, if you have any evidence whatsoever that I've ever indicated a refusal to learn or admit my own mistakes, feel free to share. Until then, you're justtalking out of your aѕѕ being dishonest.
Which is kinda funny in a way... You've set up more than a few straw men, and implied incorrect information quite a few times, yet you think nothing of starting a thread about what dishonesty entails. It's rather hypocritical, all things considered, and ironic in that you're making yourself even more dishonest by affecting an air of honesty (something which is implicit in engaging in such a discussion).
This site does not operate on a very advanced level of physics. It's not even a college freshman level, in most cases, but a 'pop-science book' level. With that in mind, there are quite a few knowledgeable people on this site. You're even one of them, although you're still immature and a liar.
QUOTE
I think you should read what you have written.
I think you should learn to behave objectively, instead of assigning me any negative attribute you happen to think of.On the other hand, if you have any evidence whatsoever that I've ever indicated a refusal to learn or admit my own mistakes, feel free to share. Until then, you're just
Which is kinda funny in a way... You've set up more than a few straw men, and implied incorrect information quite a few times, yet you think nothing of starting a thread about what dishonesty entails. It's rather hypocritical, all things considered, and ironic in that you're making yourself even more dishonest by affecting an air of honesty (something which is implicit in engaging in such a discussion).
QUOTE (Confused2+Oct 18 2009, 10:44 AM)
The purpose of this post is to establish the meaning of 'liar' in science and elsewhere - it is only coincidentally related to tactical honesty.
From Wiki 'Straw Man' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
I think that page is flawed.
In the fallacy, a "straw man" is an easy target that the person substitutes for the real position of the person he is arguing against. It's the person raising the straw man that is being dishonest.
The bit about the straw in the show doesn't fit, because in that case the "straw man" is the one who is dishonest.
From Wiki 'Straw Man' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
I think that page is flawed.
In the fallacy, a "straw man" is an easy target that the person substitutes for the real position of the person he is arguing against. It's the person raising the straw man that is being dishonest.
The bit about the straw in the show doesn't fit, because in that case the "straw man" is the one who is dishonest.
Why this fascination with Straw man C2? .... it's eminently apparent you both lack brains - go see the wizard.
Oh dear. The use of the same words in a different order seems to be causing the very confusion I had hoped to avoid.
A "Man of straw" is literally a man who cannot be relied upon to tell the truth.
A "Straw man" is a tactic used in argument.
An example of a 'Straw Man':-
A "Man of straw" is literally a man who cannot be relied upon to tell the truth.
A "Straw man" is a tactic used in argument.
An example of a 'Straw Man':-
QUOTE (MP+)
[to me] .. liar
it builds..
it builds..
QUOTE (MP+)
It's rather hypocritical, all things considered, and ironic in that you're making yourself even more dishonest by affecting an air of honesty
Precisely what 'air of honesty' would that be?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So far MP leaves me with the impression that the local (US) usage of 'Liar' is as a playground taunt from the same stable as ".. and you've got no friends". With luck it will 'stick' .. and if it doesn't .. just try it again another day.
-C2.
Precisely what 'air of honesty' would that be?
QUOTE
..[one that is ] .. implicit in engaging in such a discussion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So far MP leaves me with the impression that the local (US) usage of 'Liar' is as a playground taunt from the same stable as ".. and you've got no friends". With luck it will 'stick' .. and if it doesn't .. just try it again another day.
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Oct 19 2009, 06:11 PM)
So far MP leaves me with the impression
As always .... the impression of his hammer on your idiotic head.
As always .... the impression of his hammer on your idiotic head.
QUOTE (Confused2+Oct 19 2009, 01:11 PM)
Oh dear. The use of the same words in a different order seems to be causing the very confusion I had hoped to avoid.
A "Man of straw" is literally a man who cannot be relied upon to tell the truth.
A "Straw man" is a tactic used in argument.
So that would make you a "man of straws" then.
Err, not me calling you a liar, that's simply true. But you holding it up as an example is, in fact a straw man, since you imply that my argument fails by offering that up as an example of a logical fallacy. It's also a non-sequitur (since me calling you a liar doesn't make me dishonest), and an outright lie (since it's not a straw man at all).
A "Man of straw" is literally a man who cannot be relied upon to tell the truth.
A "Straw man" is a tactic used in argument.
So that would make you a "man of straws" then.
QUOTE
An example of a 'Straw Man':-
A fine example, indeed. Err, not me calling you a liar, that's simply true. But you holding it up as an example is, in fact a straw man, since you imply that my argument fails by offering that up as an example of a logical fallacy. It's also a non-sequitur (since me calling you a liar doesn't make me dishonest), and an outright lie (since it's not a straw man at all).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| An example of a 'Straw Man':- |
A fine example, indeed.
Err, not me calling you a liar, that's simply true. But you holding it up as an example is, in fact a straw man, since you imply that my argument fails by offering that up as an example of a logical fallacy. It's also a non-sequitur (since me calling you a liar doesn't make me dishonest), and an outright lie (since it's not a straw man at all).
So far MP leaves me with the impression that the local (US) usage of 'Liar' is as a playground taunt from the same stable as ".. and you've got no friends". With luck it will 'stick' .. and if it doesn't .. just try it again another day.
Err, not me calling you a liar, that's simply true. But you holding it up as an example is, in fact a straw man, since you imply that my argument fails by offering that up as an example of a logical fallacy. It's also a non-sequitur (since me calling you a liar doesn't make me dishonest), and an outright lie (since it's not a straw man at all).
So far MP leaves me with the impression that the local (US) usage of 'Liar' is as a playground taunt from the same stable as ".. and you've got no friends". With luck it will 'stick' .. and if it doesn't .. just try it again another day.
Yet another straw man... I never said anything about how many friends you have. Your feedback rating is almost as high as mine, you obviously have plenty of friends. When you consider that I make it a point of demonstrating why you're a liar whenever I call you one, it's not even a particularly good example of an insult. It's just true: You're full of crap, and you spend more time whining and lying than actually discussing anything.
You're really good at being a hypocrite, C2. You should see if you can make a career out of it.
You're really good at being a hypocrite, C2. You should see if you can make a career out of it.
QUOTE (MP+)
Your feedback rating is almost as high as mine, you obviously have plenty of friends.
That will do nicely!
That will do nicely!
Ever seen the movie, "Straw Dogs" - (Sam Peckinpah)?
C2
The examples you give are of Ad hominem statements... not straw man arguments.
That depends...
Knowledgeable depends on the subject would it not?
The examples you give are of Ad hominem statements... not straw man arguments.
QUOTE
IMHO opinion there are currently only four* regular posters fitting the description 'sufficiently knowledgeable' (AlexG,Alphanumeric,prometheus,rpenner,*).
That depends...
Knowledgeable depends on the subject would it not?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Oct 19 2009, 03:33 PM)
C2
The examples you give are of Ad hominem statements... not straw man arguments.
I would disagree with that.
The example he gave is an insult at worst. Saying something is an Ad hominem implies that there's an argument based on it.
For instance an Ad hominem is "You're an idiot, so you must be wrong." whereas an insult is simply "You're an idiot."
In the case of my quote, it was neither, as it was adequately justified by the evidence. It's no insult to state the truth, however critical it may be of someone.
The examples you give are of Ad hominem statements... not straw man arguments.
I would disagree with that.
The example he gave is an insult at worst. Saying something is an Ad hominem implies that there's an argument based on it.
For instance an Ad hominem is "You're an idiot, so you must be wrong." whereas an insult is simply "You're an idiot."
In the case of my quote, it was neither, as it was adequately justified by the evidence. It's no insult to state the truth, however critical it may be of someone.
QUOTE (RDG+)
The examples you give are of Ad hominem statements... not straw man arguments.
Straw men, straw dogs - I bow to your superior knowledge.
-C2.
Straw men, straw dogs - I bow to your superior knowledge.
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Oct 19 2009, 06:11 PM)
Oh dear. The use of the same words in a different order seems to be causing the very confusion I had hoped to avoid.
A "Man of straw" is literally a man who cannot be relied upon to tell the truth.
A "Straw man" is a tactic used in argument.
So why did you bring "man of straw" into it?
And which are you talking about anyways?
A "Man of straw" is literally a man who cannot be relied upon to tell the truth.
A "Straw man" is a tactic used in argument.
So why did you bring "man of straw" into it?
And which are you talking about anyways?
Leaving the straw out..
My definition:-
A liar must know that the evidence he/she gives is false.
MP's definition clearly includes much, much more.
-C2.
My definition:-
A liar must know that the evidence he/she gives is false.
MP's definition clearly includes much, much more.
-C2.
QUOTE (Confused2+Oct 19 2009, 08:55 PM)
QUOTE (RDG+)
The examples you give are of Ad hominem statements... not straw man arguments.
Straw men, straw dogs - I bow to your superior knowledge.
-C2.
Straw men, straw dogs - I bow to your superior knowledge.
-C2.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.