Woo woo arguments that piss you off

[The_Great_Zamboni]

This thread has hardly had “woo woo” arguments. It seems too deep for a Pit thread. Has a Pit thread ever been moved to GD?

Now I have a woo woo argument I hate! People who don’t wear their seatbelt because they believe the chance of dying while wearing one is the same as not wearing one. I had an argument at work with someone about this. I tried to convince that person that the percentage of people being killed because they wore a seatbelt is really small. My coworker said “Naw, I still think it’s 50-50.” I wanted to slap the jerk! I thought ‘No, it’s a fact, not opinion!’ Another said “It’s the insurance companies getting these stats and laws out.” That was just it. If I were a less meek person, I would have gone off with a slew of words. MORONS! :mad: :mad: :mad:

I’ll provide a cite later. I’m almost out of internet time at the library.

[Ludovic]

@Roland Orzabal

BlackKnight, I think you may have been typing your last post while I posted mine. If not, it adequately addresses your second point, which is similar to Ludovic’s computer argument. Giving orders to a computer is different from giving orders to a human only in that humans believe themselves to have a choice in the matter.

That, I think, is the heart of the matter. We do not know yet what physical processes constitute belief, and choice. Whatever these processes are, I think we can agree now that we can label them “belief” and “choice” without disagreeing that, from all observations, they are still mere physical reactions.

By stating that one cannot have a “true belief” in determinism, I meant that one cannot accept without doubt or question that choice does not exist. This differs from “believe” only in that people can delude themselves into thinking they believe things which they do not. “True belief”, then, would be the total understanding and acceptance of a specific notion, whereas “belief” may simply be a misguided line of thought. If you don’t agree that people have this ability, simply ignore the difference between the two terms; the logic involved does not require the existence of potentially false “belief” to get to its point. I phrased my inital point this way to avoid confusing anybody who agrees that the difference exists, and was planning on making an argument based on that distinction.

I think this is mostly true: however, I think it is possible to truly believe that you are deterministic, it’s just very very difficult due to evolutionary constraints. However, with the proper meditation it might be achievable.

btw, my original chain of rolleyes was due to the fact that you included this argument in “Woo woo arguments that piss you off”. The fact that you disbelieve this argument does not deserve those rolleyes: however, the fact that you think(thought?) it’s a “woo woo” argument does…well maybe deserve a couple.

[Roland_Orzabal]

Ludovic

Yeah, you’re right, the argument itself isn’t “woo woo” (where the hell did that term come from, anyway?). This probably wasn’t the best place to post it. The reason I did it was that on that particular day, I’d had a very heated and frustrating argument with a couple acquaintences of mine about this issue, neither of whom understood A) what determinism was, even though they said they believed in it, or B) why you couldn’t believe in it and free will at the same time.

Those people weren’t debating that it was possible to believe in determinism (though I still believe that it isn’t), they were claiming that they did. As you said, if it is in fact possible, it would only be so via intense meditation and years of psychological self-conditioning. As usual, my fellow Dopers have a far higher understanding of the issue than the people I encounter on a day-to-day basis. I should have made it clear from the beginning that the “woo woo” part of the argument was the claim that the person actually believed in determinism, rather than the mere possibility of such a belief. Unfortunately, I got caught up in defending myself on the second topic, which is subtly but definitely unrelated.

I still don’t think it’s possible to believe in determinism, but I will concede that barring a complete understanding of what “belief” and “free will” actually are, it’s not possible to say for sure. Certainly, nobody who supports the opposite position should be classified as “woo woo” or dismissed offhand. My apologies if it seemed like that was what I was doing. I hereby direct a :rolleyes: and a :smack: at myself for allowing me to be sidetracked from the original point of my argument.

On another note, to those crying foul at the hypotheticals posed by mallocks and me, you’re not understanding what these scenarios are designed to prove. Most of the arguments against these hypotheticals are based on the fact that the person’s reaction is justifiable under a set of deterministic laws. This is true. Determinism is indeed a viable possibility; I’ve stated that many times in this thread. The scenarios in questio, however (or at least mine; I shouldn’t speak for mallocks) were designed to prove to the subject of the experiment that they personally do not truly believe in determinism. In my example, the person who refuses to kill a stranger could be deterministically prevented from doing so. However, the key lies in their immediate refusal. Assuming that the person does not have a total understanding of the current state of the universe, and thus the ability to perfectly predict all future events, they cannot know whether determinism prevents them from killing the stranger or not. Thus, the only basis they can claim for their refusal to kill a stranger is that they are unwilling to do so. This implies a belief that they have a choice in the matter, and thus, a personal belief in free will. There is nothing circular about the logic of these hypotheticals if applied in this manner. Attempting to use them to disprove determinism itself does result in circular logic, and is quite a “woo woo” argument indeed…but that wasn’t what I did. Ergo, stop yelling at me

A big thanks to all who’ve indulged me in this argument; I always appreciate a chance to broaden my horizons and to sharpen my logic. Plus, you’ve given me a new ‘note to self’ not to sidetrack my own thoughts anymore. It really helps one’s argument if one keeps in mind what that argument is; it prevents the need for all the backtracking I’ve forced myself to do here. I hope it’s clear to everyone that it’s not ‘apologetics’, but an actual attempt at clarification.

And finally, an even bigger thanks to all who didn’t indulge me in this argument. As presented, it had nothing to do with the point of the thread, and I’m glad to see that most realized that and ignored this little spat completely. I don’t like hijacks, and I really don’t like causing trainwrecks, but it seems I’ve avoided doing that here. My faith in the average Doper is affirmed yet again

–Ian

[Wolfian]

“The United States is the only nation to use an atomic weapon.”

Argh!

[Estilicon]

@Wolfian

“The United States is the only nation to use an atomic weapon.”

Argh!

Cite? Experimenting doesn’t count.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Wolfian

“The United States is the only nation to use an atomic weapon.”

Argh!

That’s true, isn’t it? Who else has used one?

[Blackclaw]

@Diogenes the Cynic

That’s true, isn’t it? Who else has used one?

I think the term “in war” or “against another nation” should be added to that phrase for clarity.

I find that those who bring up the US’s use of the atomic weapons against Japan in condemnation really do not understand the historical context of the war. Nor do they seem to realize that given the lack of knowledge about the effects of radiation, the Tokyo fire raids represented a much worse moral act than the bombing of Hiroshima.

[Wolfian]

Ack! Sorry. It is true that the US is the only nation to use them in combat. My problem lies when people cite that as evidence of the US being evil. So what Blackclaw said (thank you).