Please Educate Yourselves (v2)

In this thread you will find the tools to give yourselves at least a semblance of intelligence.

So the original thread died, and I decided to remake it, with a few additions.
Note that this is the second post of the thread, so that if Tegumi decides to sticky it, (pretty please?) it can still be expanded and edited according to the suggestions of the forum.

NEW ADDITION: A website I think everyone should peruse at least to a small extent is http://www.ted.com/. T.E.D. Stands for Technology, Education, and Design, and the TED talks on the website encompass everything from art and music, to history and particle physics. It is, if nothing else, a great deal of food for thought.

Here are some contributions by Mr.Shaggnificent




Once more I would like to implore the denizens of SD to perhaps think a little before posting. I don't believe that this is too much to ask, but some posts in this forum give evidence to the contrary, and so I would really enjoy you people not being idiots.

Here is, as before, the link to wikis article on common misconceptions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions)

A new addition I would like to include is this link to 50 reasons against the existence of God. (Specifically the Christian one, though much of it applies to other Gods) I post this not to be inflammatory, but to avoid pointless discussions on religion. Many threads fall to the same problem: The thread becomes a battleground for two people repeating the same arguments for and against god that don't accomplish anything. So if you are planning on posting a thread about god, or religion, please give this page a read, and see if your question has been answered or already covered. (http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm)

Here is also, as before, a link to a few wikis on somewhat misunderstood topics, so that people are a bit educated about some things.
Evolution
Big Bang
Pseudoscience

And, most importantly, this is a list of logical fallacies which should be avoided in Serious Discussion topics.
PLEASE NOTE: It is also fallacious to claim someone's point is completely false just because it contains one fallacy. Fallacies just indicate that the claim is not entirely logically sound, and should be refined or perhaps reconsidered.
Ad Hominem
Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Belief
Appeal to Common Practice
Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
Appeal to Emotion
Appeal to Fear
Appeal to Flattery
Appeal to Novelty
Appeal to Pity
Appeal to Popularity
Appeal to Ridicule
Appeal to Spite
Appeal to Tradition
Bandwagon Fallacy
Begging the Question
Biased Sample
Burden of Proof (ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT)
Circumstantial Ad Hominem
Composition Fallacy
Confusing Cause and Effect
Division Fallacy
False Dilemma
Gambler's Fallacy
Genetic Fallacy
Guilt by Association
Hasty Generalization
Ignoring a Common Cause
Middle Ground Fallacy
Misleading Vividness
Personal Attack
Poisoning the Well
Post Hoc
Questionable Cause
Red Herring
Relativist Fallacy
Slippery Slope Fallacy
Special Pleading
Spotlight Fallacy
Straw Man Fallacy
Two Wrongs Make a Right
No True Scotsman

Another site with a good list and explanation of fallacies and logic is This One, which you should use if any of the above explanations are confusing to you.

Thanks a ton for posting this again.

I don't see the Chewbacca Defense on there.

Where's the No True Scotsman one? Or is it under another name?

Nice to have, but I don't think people usually make "bad" arguments because they don't understand how logic works(though sometimes they do.) Often it results because of a fundamental disconnect concerning the assumptions or authorities that the debating parties use.

Legitimate authorities and sources of truth are necessary as foundations for logic. However, if the parties don't agree on what these should be at a fundamental level, they will perceive each other's arguments as illogical or uneducated. For example, if one accepts biblical fundamentalism, then arguing that something is true because it is stated in the bible is a very logical and compelling argument. If one does not accept biblical fundamentalism, this argument is probably worthless.

Many of the fallacies rest on similar foundations. For example "Appeal to Authority" can only be evaluated similarly by both sides if there is agreement as to the validity of the authority involved.

You can't create something from nothing, and people often begin with different somethings and thus create different arguments.

Agreement has no impact on what is and is not logical. Logic and reason exist separate from opinion, and whether or not someone agrees on the validity of an authority does not make that authority more or less valid.

Arguing something as true with your basis being the bible could never be a "very logical and compelling argument" since the foundation of the argument is based on belief in the bible rather than fact. Since the bible is not a valid source for a factual argument, the argument would be illogical, it doesn't matter whether or not one believes in the fundamentalism, since belief has no impact on logic.

Something else worth looking at, if you are interested in the topic of intelligent discussion, is Rhetoric. i only link the wikipedia article as a starting point, you will have to do your own in depth research.

Enlighten us: from where should we draw the basic assumptions that we can use to build truthful arguments using logic? How do we determine what is fact so they we can use only fact? What determines the validity of an authority?

Looking at something like math, sure, once one picks some axioms it might be possible to build a largely logical system in which what is fact usually determinate. But from the standpoint of logic, what justifies the choice of axioms?

Furthermore, your comments on biblical fundamentalism just serve to further illustrate my point. You claim a logical argument could never result from this premise because the premise is flawed. It is not based on "fact"(which you fail to explain or define in any meaningful way) but rather on belief. You seem to just assume that is it an obvious and universal truth to everyone that "Fact"(whatever this is) is the valid source from which we construct logical arguments. As fundamentalists do exist, this is not the case. You will need to explain "fact" and furthermore explain to us why this, and not something else, should be the basis for constructing logical arguments. If you fail to do this, there is no particular reason to give fact a privileged position over belief in the bible.

Though I am not Christian, I could see the Holy Bible being used a reference point in an argument contesting morality, as morales and the like are almost a direct contradiction to concrete fact in the simple reason that they are metaphysical.

An argument grounded in politics would rely on a logical argument constructed on facts gathered and verified from various sources before running off one's mouth. An argument of a hypothetical construct, however, could use the bible as a citation and still be valid.

In the end just about anything can be used to construct and argument that is logically sound, it is simply a matter of the context of which this argument is introduced into.

I think I see your point, but the only issue I have with it is that since morality is completely relative in that it is based solely on opinion and human feeling, that I am unsure as to whether or not you can have any final factual conclusion, and so any argument about morals may not be the best example of a logical and reasoned argument, with a real conclusion.

Also, I feel that it would be using the teachings from the bible for consideration in a discussion on morals or philosophy rather than to push forward a factual debate, which is what I am saying it can't be used for.

Debates uses three forms of rhetoric to construct arguments. Ethos, Logos, and Pathos.

Philosophical debates in particular do use evidence to construct logic, but it's not concrete evidence and more along the lines of things such as thought experiments and such.

And the thing about facts, is that they require proof to substantiate them, and often proof can be faulty, and there is no such thing as something being 100% proven.

sin2ø + cos2ø = 1----------------------100% proven.

You are entering the philosophical dead-end quagmire of total relativism. Relativism only applies in discussions and topics related to human thought and opinion, such as morals, but is complete bullshit when dealing with factual discussions.

Um no. Sciences are based on the principle that something has to be falsifiable on principle because otherwise it is not testable.

Something that is 100% proven is not falsifiable.

Here's the Chewbacca Defense if you want to post it -_-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense

Um, I think you need a lesson again on science if you think that something is called a law in Science because it is 100% proven. Scientific laws are still theories. They are still falsifiable, they just have never been proven wrong to date.

And the first part, about how something needs to be falsifiable in science. That is very true. If something is not falsifiable, it cannot be tested. If it cannot be tested then you cannot use the Scientific Method.

So yeah, that is true. Sorry about that.

citation please. i never heard of this need to be falsified of which you speak.

Any science professor I've ever had?

If you want to know more about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

It gives a decent presentation of it.

And it's falsifiable, not falsified. Very different concepts.

You should have 'Daily Grover Teaching' or something. Taking all that in once is too taxing for my brain.

So basically your argument is "I'm right because I'm right." You've repeatedly made broad sweeping statements in this thread that you expect others to accept as correct/truth without justifying why. You failed to answer the questions I posed in a way that means anything. And, of course, you're being an arrogant dick about this whole thread to everyone who disagrees with you.

I'll explain it one more time: logic can only be used to discover something that is true if you already know other things that are true as starting points. It's the nature of the system. And of course logic contains in it certain ideas that must be accepted. For example, the idea that contradictory statements cannot both be true. But you can't create those starting points using purely logic, so one must use something else. What we accept as truths, or facts if you prefer to call them that, have to come from somewhere. Do we observe them in the world? Are they imparted through mystic rituals? Something else?

It's easy to define the word "fact" from a dictionary, but it is difficult to discern in a philosophical sense what is truth. This is why philosophy is such a challenging subject and why philosophical views are both diverse and intricate.

You state quite firmly that moral relativism is truth but that philosophical relativism is a quagmire(and presumably not truth, or else quagmire or not, we would be compelled to follow it). If fact and logic are king, would you like to explain why we should listen to your arguments on these matters using fact and logic? Well, assuming you get past the first part of establishing how one should determine fact and why logic is a good choice for a system of determining truth.

Science and philosophy are different and words like "truth" and "fact" have different meanings in those spheres. Science is willing to make a large number of assumptions that philosophy usually is not.

And finally, mathematics might not be the best choice for examples to prove that something can be 100% true. Mathematical truths arise because we created and a defined a system in which these things are true. The universal truth of things that are mathematically true depends on the validity of the system and the axioms chosen as the bases of the system. And, as we know, our mathematical systems are plagued by logical inconsistencies and incompleteness. They are of course still incredibly useful, but far from perfect.