# Straight Dope Syndrome **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 21, 2000, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565 "2000-02-21T12:29:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/41 "2000-03-01T06:32:00Z")
Father, forgive me, but I have not “keyed in” on _anything_. It is you who have keyed in on some side comment about another side comment about Einstein. I never implied that Einstein “cheated”, nor did I ever impugn his work, in any way. You _infered_ these things, Father. You are like Doctor Frasier Crane, eavesdropping on the muffled whispers of a South Carolina redneck, thinking he might have heard the word “negro” but isn’t sure. Like Frasier would do, you walk up to the man to find out, assuming for yourself some moral imperative to learn what he is _thinking_ so you can judge whether it is a right thought. And like Frasier, you run it into the ground so deep it could anchor a building. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/42 "2000-03-01T06:41:00Z")
Hey – as long as we’re off OP and quibbling: > [@](#): > > quoting Poe that no one ever had an original thought (trivially true, as I said) Actually, this is trivially untrue unless you believe our thougts are telepathically looping though time. Every thought originated with someone. Lib: My list isn’t growing, but it isn’t shrinking either. * * * - The best lack all conviction The worst are full of passionate intensity. \* ---
**Author:** ![RM\_Mentock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@RM\_Mentock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RM_Mentock)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2000, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/43 "2000-02-29T19:25:00Z")
Hard to tell exactly what would fit in under OP, or rather, what wouldn’t. Maybe I could try to restate it, to see if my understanding is off base. I thought that Lib was upset that other posters requested too much “fax ‘n’ figgers” in support of arguments that Lib thought should stand on their own as syllogistic reasoning. When I made _my_ crack about Einstein, it was an aside also, as a non-serious parting shot–Lib had raised the possibility that Einstein didn’t deserve credit (that BlakJak gave him) for bucking the scientific establishment of his time, but I think Einstein does. That’s all I’ve ever said. My point, in regards to what I think is the OP? Lib can be hypocritical. He requires burden of proof of others, but bristles when it’s asked of him. Loveable, though. * * * rocks ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2000, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/44 "2000-02-29T19:39:00Z")
Hey, I’m not arguing with you about einstein. I personally consider him to be one of the great original thinkers **and** one of the great scientific synthesizers of all time. My quiblle was with the Poe quote. * * * - The best lack all conviction The worst are full of passionate intensity. \* ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2000, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/45 "2000-02-29T19:49:00Z")
**Father** This forum is not really designed to present formal deductions, unless you develop them offline. I really don’t mean to demand any unreasonably complex proof from anybody, and that was basically what the OP was asking for: accepting as axiomatic, without proof, arguments that “make sense”, that ring true to one’s common sense. **Spiritus** **List of eagerly awaited responses:** Huh? > [@](#): > > 1. apolitical advocacy/opposition to a legislative initiative. Oh, Spiritus. What does that _mean_? > [@](#): > > 1. difference between dislike and opposition. What? Well, I guess dislike is not liking it for yourself and opposition is not liking it on behalf of others. **Damn thing keeps growing.** What? ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2000, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/46 "2000-02-29T20:05:00Z")
> [@](#): > > accepting as axiomatic, without proof, arguments that “make sense”, that ring true to one’s common sense. The problem, Lib, is when the argument does not “make sense” to others. In that case, it is reasonable for others to ask for some sort of backing or proof. I realize you think all your putatively axiomatic statments are so self-evidently true that no one should question them, but if that were so, people \*wouldn’t" question them–and they do. They’re not harrassing you; it’s just not as obvious to them as it is to you. I daresay that people have made statements that _they_ considered to be self-evidently true that _you_ have questioned. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2000, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/47 "2000-02-29T20:09:00Z")
Well, you’re probably right. Maybe from the get-go, I should have said, “If I were a gang leader, or a leader of organized crime, I would oppose the legalization of drugs because I would fear a substantial loss of income.” ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2000, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/48 "2000-02-29T20:34:00Z")
Ooh, qualified personal statements instead of edicts. I _like_ it. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2000, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/49 "2000-02-29T21:06:00Z")
Lib: > [@](#): > > Oh, Spiritus. What does that mean? See what happens when you ignore a line of reasoning for too long? You apparently forget what you have said in teh past. You do remember when you accused me of injecting politics into your argument about whether drug leaders support the War on America I Mean drugs, don’t you? The words went something like: > [@](#): > > Do you understand the difference between “politics” and “economics”? > > What’s with the constant political references? I see it as a simply matter of economics. _(Note: this post seems to have been lost in the Great Hacker Incident of 2000, but my quote of it remains_ Whereupon I asked you to parse your thesis apolitically. You have not done so, nor have you explained that you now understand that your statements defined a political position. > [@](#): > > What? Well, I guess dislike is not liking it for yourself and opposition is not liking it on behalf of others. Oh good, you realize that they are not the same. Then I am sure you will agree that: > [@](#): > > leaders of organized crime would oppose the creation of new and ubiquitous competition, subsidized and supported by government. is a wholly unsupported conclusion in the chain of reasoning you were putting forth as airtight logical deduction. > [@](#): > > Damn thing keeps growing. > > What? The reference, of course, was to the list of issues to which you had not responded despite numerous intervening posts. It has now shrunk to zero, but the ball’s in your court again. * * * - The best lack all conviction The worst are full of passionate intensity. \* ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2000, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/50 "2000-02-29T21:09:00Z")
> [@](#): > > If I were a gang leader, or a leader of organized crime, I would oppose the legalization of drugs because I would fear a substantial loss of income. Now _that_ seems tight to me. 😉 * * * - The best lack all conviction The worst are full of passionate intensity. \* ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2000, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/51 "2000-02-29T21:40:00Z")
> [@](#): > > If I were a gang leader, or a leader of organized crime, I would oppose the legalization of drugs because I would fear a substantial loss of income. I like it too, guys. The statement itself is unassailable. (One of those logical paradoxes - a ‘weaker’ assertion is usually stronger in the sense of being more defensible.) It’s also a lot less in-your-face: it’s saying, ‘I’m pretty sure I know what I’m talking about here,’ rather than ‘this is unequivocally so,’ and that’s a big difference in tone. Keep it up, Lib - I think we’re getting somewhere. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 29, 2000, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/52 "2000-02-29T22:13:00Z")
Well, I told y’all I would keep trying. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![RM\_Mentock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@RM\_Mentock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RM_Mentock)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/53 "2000-03-01T14:31:00Z")
Whoa. Entirely too many smiley faces on this page. 🙂 Congrats, Lib. * * * rocks ---
**Author:** ![PeeQueue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@PeeQueue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PeeQueue)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/54 "2000-03-01T14:38:00Z")
Well, despite all the debating back and forth, I think you got your answer Lib. If someone took issue with a statement such as the one you made, what they could (should?) have done is exactly what Spiritus did - i.e. instead of asking for “fax ‘n’ figgers”, question the underlying logic behind the statement. It makes for a lot more interesting and enlightening debate than… “Please prove that to me with a link/cite/statistic.” PeeQueue ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/55 "2000-03-01T15:28:00Z")
I disagree, PQ - my belief from the beginning was that Lib’s original assertion wasn’t provable by logic. So of course I asked for a cite. His _revised_ statement, at the top of the page, is unassailable. He’s the absolute authority concerning what he would do if he were a gang leader. From there, of course, we can debate how representative he’d be of the general population of gang leaders. (Lib, I doubt you’re average in _any_ which way, so I wouldn’t expect you to suddenly be typical of gang leaders. :)) Or, more likely, I would have just let it pass by; by itself, it’s a legitimate statement that I wouldn’t have felt the need to contest. * * * “Living in this complex world of the future is not unlike having bees live inside your head.” - F. Scott Firesign ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/56 "2000-03-01T16:11:00Z")
Thank you, Father. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/57 "2000-03-01T16:31:00Z")
From my work with disturbed teenagers (which I think I’ve mentioned), I can report that the gang leaders of my acquaintance were **in favor** of legalizing drugs. However, they were generally in favor of minimal government interference with private lives anyway. ---
**Author:** ![PeeQueue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@PeeQueue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PeeQueue)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/58 "2000-03-01T17:03:00Z")
OK, fair enough RTFirefly. Although I still think it bears mentioning that requesting a cite was not necessary to get him to revise his statement. Maybe requesting a cite is easier, but I’m not sure who the burden of proof lies with. If it is a clearly off-the-wall statement, then surely the person who made the statement needs to supply the proof of it. If the statement is generally accepted, than I think maybe the requirement to disprove lies with the unbeliever. In this case, I think it was in a gray area, so I’m not sure who should be required to go and get proof. Maybe in that case, it should have been debated as was done here, instead of requiring a cite right off the bat. Or maybe I’m wrong. In any case, I think Lib has a point, although perhaps this particular instance was not the best example. If I state, “Most people do not like to live in houses painted with polka-dots,” should a cite be required for that? In that case, the disbeliever should be the one that needs to get a cite to disprove. PeeQueue ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/59 "2000-03-01T17:26:00Z")
I think you arer all missing the point. It is just much more fun to delve into minute points of logic than it is to ask for a citation. _Uh-oh – I may have just jeapordized my position as a representative of the “average”, too._ :eek: * * * - The best lack all conviction The worst are full of passionate intensity. \* ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2000, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565/60 "2000-03-01T17:48:00Z")
PeeQueue…that brings us right back to the “extraordinary claims call for extraordinary proof” thesis, for which I have never been able to get a truly satisfactory delimitation of “extraordinary.” Other than the Potter Stewart concept. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/straight-dope-syndrome/17565.md?page=4)