An entertaining look at some typical logical fallacies and mistakes in reasoning:
https://bookofbadarguments.com/?view=flipbook
Example:

https://bookofbadarguments.com/?view=flipbook

Example:

Last edited:
You're saying that logic only applies when it's Ct related?It is not the wondering whether it is so that is "the problem" - it is the firm unassailable conclusions that you see every day that it is aliens, chemtrails, illuminati, NWO, reptiles, whatever....
You're saying that logic only applies when it's Ct related?
What about conclusions that are presented in official stories?
The point I'm making is,if you are using the logic 'what seems more reasonable' then you obviously can't come to a conclusion that isn't just speculation.
You're saying that logic only applies when it's Ct related?
What about conclusions that are presented in official stories?
The point I'm making is,if you are using the logic 'what seems more reasonable' then you obviously can't come to a conclusion that isn't just speculation.
Is this a real book or virtual only?
I'm not limiting using logic to anything - however "official stories" do tend to have a great deal more in the way of supporting evidence than CT's, therefore it is far more common for CT's to base a
solid proven" conclusion on nothing at all.
And no, you are not making that point.
the point you are making is that you do not want CT's to be evaluated against any sort of sane logic, because when they are they invariably fail - what you are arguing for is special pleading on the part of CT's - that they should not be held to the same standard as everything else. It is a common complaint by believers.
No,no,no. The point I am making is that if there isn't evidence that's 100% conclusive, then what's the point? It's speculation. Not necessarily on the story as a hole, but on minor details that help paint the bigger picture. Granted, most conspiracy theories subscribe to stories that lack any credible evidence whatsoever, and i personally don't buy them, but what I'm trying to say is if you're going for FACT, you can't speculate in any way.
What's more reasonable isn't always what actually happened. If you think that's true, you're kidding yourself. That means you will NEVER get a royal flush, because it just is not likely to happen.
I understand that you're simply using that thought process to eliminate things that have no supporting evidence, but again I say think about it. If you don't have the supporting evidence on either side, then it doesn't matter which is more likely, the answer is speculation.
You can't prove something without proof.
All science is probabilistic. We can only give degrees of certainty to things.
So you have to weigh the evidence. What is the evidence for the theory, and what is the evidence against it. What are the other theories, and what is the evidence for and against those theories.
Take the WTC7 controlled demolition theory. You can't prove it was not a controlled demolition. But you can demonstrate that controlled demolition does not have very strong evidence to support it, whereas fire induced progressive collapse has stronger evidence.
Then you stop.
You don't say "so it must have been fire induces progressive collapse". You just say what the evidence is, and what seems most likely based on the evidence.
That's science. Not absolute certainty, but degrees of certainty.
Again, nobody said it was.Again, what's most likely isn't always what actually happened.
No,no,no. The point I am making is that if there isn't evidence that's 100% conclusive, then what's the point? It's speculation.
Also...
"I'm not limiting using logic to anything - however "official stories" do tend to have a great deal more in the way of supporting evidence than CT's, therefore it is far more common for CT's to base a
solid proven" conclusion on nothing at all."
Think about what you're saying. You're basically telling me that your opinion is biased towards the official story because more times than not it has supporting evidence.
OK - taking this just for a moment - no it is not speculation.
Speculation is to make a conclusion without firm evidence - eg:
"Firm" requires a preponderance of evidence - not absolute proof.
Yes indeed I am biased in favour of good supporting evidence.
Perhaps you should ask yourself why you think that is a bad thing.
You are making the claim that the official story on any case is considered 'good supporting evidence'.
My observation here is that people who believe in conspiracy theories tend to automatically believe the opposite of the official story, without really examining the evidence.
Just look at the evidence, not who is presenting it.
It goes both ways. The official story, whatever the issue, always morphs along the way. Some folks see it as ironing out the details as they arise, others see it as obvious deception.
Nobody claimed that. Mike said he was in favor of "good supporting evidence". It does not matter where it came from. He also said "however "official stories" do tend to have a great deal more in the way of supporting evidence than CT's" - that's just an observation. It is not saying the evidence was better because it was official.
My observation here is that people who believe in conspiracy theories tend to automatically believe the opposite of the official story, without really examining the evidence.
Just look at the evidence, not who is presenting it.
We were talking about official stories. He went on to use his argument that, in his words,
""I'm not limiting using logic to anything - however "official stories" do tend to have a great deal more in the way of supporting evidence than CT's, therefore it is far more common for CT's to base a
solid proven" conclusion on nothing at all.
So he's arguing that official stories tend to have more supporting evidence. When I replied I said he was biased towards the official story to which he replied, again quoted in his own words,
"Yes indeed I am biased in favour of good supporting evidence.
Perhaps you should ask yourself why you think that is a bad thing."
So he basically took the term official story and declared it was that which has good supporting evidence, which again is just simply biased.
It's like the opposite of conspiracy theory; you just accept everything that's some sort of official story by a 'trusted source' I guess you would call it.
That's precisely where you're biased...
You are making the claim that the official story on any case is considered 'good supporting evidence'.
He clearly said no such thing.That's precisely where you're biased...
You are making the claim that the official story on any case is considered 'good supporting evidence'.
...
Doesn't everything, when looked at a second, third, fourth, a fifth time, reveal new intricacies and details? Would it be better if they didn't revise things?It goes both ways. The official story, whatever the issue, always morphs along the way. Some folks see it as ironing out the details as they arise, others see it as obvious deception.
Doesn't everything, when looked at a second, third, fourth, a fifth time, reveal new intricacies and details? Would it be better if they didn't revise things?
"There is no dark side of the moon really. Matter of fact it's all dark."No, not really. Should I be?
I'd like to know more about that PAN patch, though. Or why NASA chose the dark side of the moon as the place to honor Parsons by naming a crater after him. I thought that was a great touch, given his part in the play.
"There is no dark side of the moon really. Matter of fact it's all dark."
Well you know - the official story is that y'all fought a war for independence....but you consider that it is going to be revised sometime and is " [a] place marker(s) on the way to whatever truth eventually emerges".
So I figure you are still waiting for "whatever truth eventually emerges".
Indeed.But that's just brain damage on my part, I'm sure.
Plenty of truth has emerged and I'm not surprised by it in the way I used to be.
Indeed.![]()
so now you are saying that "the official story" about he war of independence is actually true??
does this mean you were wrong in post #25 above when you said official stories are only place holders, or have you changed your mind in the last 50 or so minutes??![]()
Well you know - the official story is that y'all fought a war for independence....but you consider that it is going to be revised sometime and is " [a] place marker(s) on the way to whatever truth eventually emerges".
So I figure you are still waiting for "whatever truth eventually emerges".
Heh. And unless I got a copy different from yours, the quote is "no dark side in the moon." That always bothered me.
Still doesn't make the statement any less true. If he doesn't say of he probably says on.
There is no "official" official story that I am aware of.
Or there are many. That's probably why they keep churning out all those books about it.
Does your version have anything about New Atlantis in it?
Mike Mike Mike. Obviously you are not a fan of THE History Channel. Their cutting edge research has shown aliens and the Illuminati shrugged off the yoke of British dominion.
Seriously though "official" stories are damned if they do and damned if they don't.