Posts: 3,212
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
There is nothing wrong about asking, but hanging the truth of the idea on the source is clearly fallacious. Relying on the "reputation" of the source is exactly the argument from authority fallacy. The fact that you won't acknowledge this, and try to accuse others of employing logical fallacies, is what is "unbelievable" to me.
Go evaluate the data yourself if you actually care. Here's yet another source to use, or ask an authority you trust implicitly to provide you with the unquestionable truth (of an currently impossible to prove prediction based on the evidence given in these various links).
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sim3387
Posts: 10,307
Threads: 345
Joined: Apr 2009
"There is nothing wrong about asking, but hanging the truth of the idea on the source is clearly fallacious."
Jeez, I'm not "hanging the truth of the idea on the source". I asked where the information came from so that I could follow up by researching papers by the "volcanologist".
What is wrong with that? That's what research scientists do.
You and "hokuili" are blowing this out of all proportion. And I still don't know which volcanologist provided the info other than there's a hot tub involved. Why? Is it secret?
Posts: 3,212
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
Can you admit that it doesn't matter whose idea this is and that it can only be verified by its own merits?
Posts: 10,307
Threads: 345
Joined: Apr 2009
"Can you admit that it doesn't matter whose idea this is and that it can only be verified by its own merits?"
Yes, I can admit that, and the first step is to find out where the information comes from. Think I've already said that.
Posts: 3,212
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
TomK - Yes, I can admit that, and the first step is to find out where the information comes from.
Right, it doesn't matter whose idea it is but you must know where it comes from? Cognitive dissonance much?
All you've shown is how to be an ass which can't admit their own mistakes while accusing others. Well done - you clearly don't GAF about the topic so carry on with your juvnille insistance about discovering authoritative sources for info you cant be bothered to read about.
Posts: 10,307
Threads: 345
Joined: Apr 2009
quote:
Originally posted by ironyak
TomK - Yes, I can admit that, and the first step is to find out where the information comes from.
Right, it doesn't matter whose idea it is but you must know where it comes from? Cognitive dissonance much?
All you've shown is how to be an ass which can't admit their own mistakes while accusing others. Well done - you clearly don't GAF about the topic so carry on with your juvnille insistance about discovering authoritative sources for info you cant be bothered to read about.
I asked for the information so I could read "authoritative sources". It could come from a person or an instrument. Without that information it's hard to replicate observations or experiments which is a rather important part of the scientific method.
But this gives everything away:
"
Well done - you clearly don't GAF about the topic so carry on with your juvnille insistance about discovering authoritative sources for info you cant be bothered to read about."
I was asking for the volcanologist's name so I could read some of their papers and get an understanding of their research. In no way is that a disinterest in reading, it's actually trying to find out what I should read. But you and "hokuili" don't seem to understand that concept.
Posts: 1,621
Threads: 106
Joined: Sep 2017
It seems clear that hokuili and ironyak are discussing theory while Tom is asking for information. Information can and should be backed up with facts, research, sources, etc., while theory, explicitly stated as unproven in this discussion, can only be verified by an event that hasn't occurred yet. The basis for this theory was explained by hokuili and ironyak based on the trends in past eruptions and the map. Only time will tell, but I think we can all agree that we'd rather have this happen later rather than sooner. I personally don't care who the guy in the hot tub was.
Certainty will be the death of us.
Posts: 3,212
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
Still not willing to admit to committing logical fallacies you accuse others of yet TomK? There are multiple publications linked that allow anyone interested to review the historical data and evaluate the prediction regardless of where it came from.
Have you read this info provided to assess the merits of the idea? Is there a clear historic trend to the vent locations? Are there any counter-points to this prediction in the data? If so where and when?
Because of course you care about the topic enough to actually review the ample evidence provided rather than obsess over acusing people of claiming fraudulent credentials?
I agree kalianna, I don't care who guy in the hot tub was as it makes no difference.
Posts: 10,307
Threads: 345
Joined: Apr 2009
I just want to read the papers written by the guy in the hot tub. Why are people holding back this information?
Posts: 3,212
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2009
TomK -I just want to read the papers written by the guy in the hot tub. Why are people holding back this information?
Why does it matter to you? Just can't stop believing in that appeal to authority fallacy? Or is there another reason you insist on being such a twat about it?
