CFI promoting bad reasoning

I’m familiar with the fallacy. Didn’t you make the claim we are discussing?

It is inherent in the meaning of “exchange of ideas” … :thinking: :thinking:

1 Like

I just reviewed this. It’s true, there is no burden to respond to a bad post. Some people post about ghosts or something and get very little response, but if they are civil, no moderation is required. It’s not always so clear though. I might not see the bad logic or reasoning that you see. Then we get to discuss it.

ROFLMAO! I’m sorry, but using sources, such a Wikipedia, is not adopting a culture of teaching rational thought. As I said before, college professors, at least at good colleges, will not allow the use of Wikipedia in research papers. Please do not use Wikipedia as a source if you expect to be taken seriously or consider it a means of promoting and teaching rational thought or rational anything.

May I respectfully disagree ? It is not the first time i do about Wikipédia.

What was forbidden to us in university was to limit oneself to Wikipedia.

I have studied some topics around ancient history and they needed to be checked, but they have given to me useful openings as they cited other more academic sources. Some of these articles had been edited by doctors and known specialists.

I agree that it is not always the case ad Wikipedia needs to be checked as any source. anyway, in most case, it is an opening, no more, no less.

Now, during my research, i studied a very known professor in France who publishes and is admired by the public. I was worried because i was disagreeing. My director of research told me not to worry, as I was right and the man was wrong, and he gave me references.

Any source must be cross checked, Wikipédia or any other one.

1 Like

This is very true and that we can agree on. I have to admit, I have used it for things such as Chi Ro (the Greek combined Px and the X standing for Christ in Xian, Xmas, etc), but I also use other more academic geared sources to backup that Wiki definition too. However, because the professor at my college would not allow Wikipedia because they didn’t consider it a reliable source, I haven’t used it for anything more than the previous or even for a research paper. I liked getting A’s so I didn’t use it for papers due to the threat of a reduced grade or even a failing one.

I agree that Wiki should not be used in formal debate, but for quick reference, I find it an invaluable tool.

It usually gives a synopsis of the subject under discussion and the underlying theory or logic with plenty of references to peer-reviewed papers.

1 Like

My understanding of the rule against using it in college is that it can change, so it’s not a citation that is useful. But, wikis often cite “real” papers, books, quotes, etc. So it can point you in the right direction. Lots to sort out, I’m not taking sides in this, just throwing in my two cents.


I think you make an excellent point Phillybruce.

Have you learned from it?

Personally I believe it was quite rude for a newcomer to begin his membership by offering insult to hosts and regulars who have tried to maintain a reasonably high standard of discourse in this “open forum”.

IMO, it presents a highly unreasonable, prejudicial, and disrespectful attitude while receiving expressed hospitality from other members.

Not a reasonably good start.

Philly seems to have backed off the claim that is the title of this thread. So, a statement of agreement with him is ambiguous to me. It would be nice if CFI took on the education of critical thinking, but I’m not going to champion that, and frankly, there are entire websites and organizations already dedicated to it.

No one is prohibited from starting a thread on critical thinking.
I believe it is lazy thinking if someone expects someone else to start a thread on critical thinking.
That notion seems strangely uncritical to me … :thinking:

Metalhead, can you please explain, or simply state, what you think Phillybruce’s excellent point is/was?

I myself am still waiting to see what Phillybruce comes up with, I trust he’s working on rewrites and a polishing before sharing.

A real dialogue requires communication, not gotcha games.

Totally agree
I gave a different view of the Adam & Eve story - basically saying it was about a child growing up to be a man and leaving the nest & got ATTACKED! First by a guy saying he was an Atheist & then 2 moderators!
I kept saying - we live in a democracy, we should be able to have more than one opinion!
NOPE! The “experts” say that the story was about Adam falling down, becoming immoral and that’s it! There can be only one opinion! And this from an Atheist! With 2 moderators backing him!
I left the forum for a while after that - also for some reason I could not sign in until today
For all the talk of promoting different views, when it comes to religion it seems we remain stuck

Too right Van. This forum has the usual suspects attack dogs if you deviate one inch from their view of the world

Step it up, if you want to have a grown up discussion, engage in one…

I don’t understand why you folks never get tired of your victimization routine.

Here, let’s start at first base. Can you recognize the difference between the thoughts flitting through your mind, and the physical world of biology and matter?

Sure opinions are a dime a dozen, Have them, but with a touch of sober realism.
The laws of physics aren’t about opinions, they are about learning to recognize the reality we exist within.

Please link this attack. You can have any opinion of Adam and Eve you want.

Welcome back Vanamali,

What makes you think atheists are telling stories about a person who never existed?

You have a perfect right to have an opinion. But be prepared to defend the reasons for your opinion. You cannot just make things up and then say I have a right to my opinion and expect everyone to say “oh, if you say so”.

The interesting part is that you insist on recognition of your opinion while rejecting everyone else’s opinions. Get the picture ?

Allow me to give you a link to a very interesting human characteristic.
It is called Dunning-Kruger effect and it explains “cognitive bias”.

Cognitive bias

A cognitive bias is a systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment.[1] Individuals create their own “subjective reality” from their perception of the input. An individual’s construction of reality, not the objective input, may dictate their behavior in the world. Thus, cognitive biases may sometimes lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality.[2][3][4]
Cognitive bias - Wikipedia

Do check it out and think about it.

What is often misunderstood is that Atheism is not a belief,

Atheism is , when you claim that God exists, I ask you can you prove it, and you say “no”.
Then I say; “I don’t believe you then”.

Atheists do not believe the claim that god exists.

1 Like

Very well said !!!