I have never been proven incorrect (only an idiot says this)

Forums:
Email this Topic • Print this Page

There are a number of people who keep declaring that they "have never been proven incorrect" or that "no one can show me where I am wrong".

These are ridiculous things to say for two reasons.

1) It is idiotic. Only someone who is logical can be proven to be incorrect. An idiot can be always right. It takes intelligence to know you when you are wrong.

2) It is irrelevant. Just because you have never admitted to being wrong in the past doesn't make you infallible. It is meaningless... an empty boast that says nothing.

I am starting this thread because I am tired of pages and pages of silly arguments from people who can't accept the possibility that they are wrong long enough to see reality.

If you are saying this... just stop it. If you are in an argument with someone who refuses to be wrong... just stop it.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 1,560 • Replies: 71

@maxdancona,

If you are claiming your position is based on "facts and logic" two things need to be true.

1) Your facts need to be objectively testable. This means that you explain what evidence and data would disprove your "fact". For any factual statement, a logical person will say "if you can show me this evidence, I will admit that I am wrong".

2) Your logic needs to be consistently applied. Logic has no political or ideological bias. If breaking windows makes liberal protesters violent, then breaking windows also makes conservative protesters violent.

If your facts aren't testable and your logic changed based on ideological bias, then you aren't be factual or logical.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Starting a new thread to specially call out one person is not warranted.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

Starting a new thread to specially call out one person is not warranted.

I am actually calling out a set of people. You can be included if you want.

My issue is the pages and pages of the same argument happening in thread after thread. So, yeah, having one thread for the argument... and then a bunch of references to it is a software engineers solution to the problem.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Well then.

Have at it.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

I am curious Neptune.

My point about facts and logic is important. This is a point that applies to both the left and the right.

Do you agree with me on this?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Facts and logic are only as important to the writer, not the recipient.

That's what we have here.

"What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach...
So, you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it!
Well, he gets it!
N' I don't like it any more than you men." *

-Axel Rose

Poetic Justice

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

I disagree. Communication involves both parties.

In engineering and science we have formal rules of facts and logic that are quite useful. You can't work on an engineering team without them.

Obviously political discussions don't confirm to mathematical logic. But I think the principles of testable facts and consistent logic haveerit even there. The alternative is the two extremes just throwing mud at each other.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Which is the way both sides want it.

1 Reply

Futile.

0 Replies

@neptuneblue,

I am a fact-based liberal looking for fact-based conservatives, for the purpose of fact-based discussions. By fact-based I mean being able to discuss facts even when they don't support your political ideology. This would make real discussion possible.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

That's nice, dear.

However, you must be prepared for the truth from the other side.

Since your truth is someone else's falsehoods, compromise can only go so far. You, yourself have proven that's true.

Have I ever convinced you to see my side?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I totally agree with this.

0 Replies

@neptuneblue,

Neptune. sweetheart! I am not talking about "truth". I am talking about

1) Testable facts. I give an objective standard about what "testable" means.

2) Consistent logic. Logic is unbiased. Logic used to support a conservative argument in one case is equally valid supporting a liberal argument in another.

These are objective standards that should apply to any logical discussion. What I am suggesting is that maybe we could have intelligent discussion rather than the constant, repetitive partisan mud throwing that has taken over here.

1 Reply

maxdancona wrote:

There are a number of people who keep declaring that . . . "no one can show me where I am wrong".

I assume that this is a reading comprehension failure on your part and you are referring to where I state that no one can point out any errors in my post.

I am not merely saying that they can't show me where I am wrong. I am stating that they cannot point out any errors in my post period.

maxdancona wrote:

These are ridiculous things to say for two reasons.
1) It is idiotic.

Not at all. When people imply that my post is full of errors (when in fact it is not) and they don't even attempt to point out any of these errors, it is perfectly reasonable for me to point out that they are full of it and there are no such errors in my post.

maxdancona wrote:

Only someone who is logical can be proven to be incorrect.

That is incorrect. I prove illogical people incorrect all the time.

maxdancona wrote:

An idiot can be always right.

Maybe hypothetically, but the odds are low.

maxdancona wrote:

It takes intelligence to know you when you are wrong.

Probably so.

maxdancona wrote:

2) It is irrelevant.

maxdancona wrote:

Just because you have never admitted to being wrong in the past doesn't make you infallible.

I'm always quick to admit it when I am wrong about something.

I have never claimed to be infallible. I have repeatedly stated that I am not infallible. I have repeatedly complained about very stupid people who falsely accuse me of claiming infallibility. So I presume that your infallibility nonsense refers to posters other than me.

maxdancona wrote:

It is meaningless... an empty boast that says nothing.

Not meaningless at all. It is a direct challenge to dishonorable insinuations of errors that don't actually exist.

maxdancona wrote:

I am starting this thread because I am tired of pages and pages of silly arguments from people who can't accept the possibility that they are wrong long enough to see reality.

I see reality just fine. That's why you cannot point out any errors in my posts.

maxdancona wrote:

If you are saying this... just stop it.

I don't plan to stop countering dishonorable insinuations that I am wrong when I am not actually wrong.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

If you are claiming your position is based on "facts and logic" two things need to be true.
1) Your facts need to be objectively testable.

Check. I meet the requirements.

maxdancona wrote:

This means that you explain what evidence and data would disprove your "fact".

That is incorrect. It is not up to me to help you refute my argument.

maxdancona wrote:

For any factual statement, a logical person will say "if you can show me this evidence, I will admit that I am wrong".

If you can produce evidence that I am wrong, I will be happy to change my position. However, I am not bound to say what that evidence is ahead of time.

If I am correct (as is likely) then there will be no evidence that can prove me wrong. The fact that I cannot describe nonexistent evidence does not mean that I am incorrect.

maxdancona wrote:

2) Your logic needs to be consistently applied. Logic has no political or ideological bias. If breaking windows makes liberal protesters violent, then breaking windows also makes conservative protesters violent.

Check. I meet the requirements.

And for the record, breaking windows does not make anyone qualify as violent.

maxdancona wrote:

If your facts aren't testable and your logic changed based on ideological bias, then you aren't be factual or logical.

Well good. My facts and my logic are both perfectly sound.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I am a fact-based liberal looking for fact-based conservatives, for the purpose of fact-based discussions. By fact-based I mean being able to discuss facts even when they don't support your political ideology. This would make real discussion possible.

No you aren't. You run screaming in terror whenever a fact-based discussion breaks out.

That is much preferable to the childish name-calling that is most progressives' reaction to facts. But you certainly aren't interested in factual discussions.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

6. you cannot point out a single untrue statement
9. you engage in childish name-calling because you lack intelligence

0 Replies

@oralloy,

If you (or anyone else) ever makes a factual argument I will be happy to respond to it. By factual argument I mean based on testable facts.

You simply stating that your arguments are factual (as if that makes them factual) is silly. I live by these principles. I am happy to back up any of my facts with the way to test them.

An idiot is always right because it is impossible to prove him wrong.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

1. In policy, in politics, and in court rooms, circumstantial evidence is often used to determine verdicts and conclusions.

2. The actual verdict or actual conclusion are not always going to be testable.

3. Sometimes, based on the circumstantial evidence, we make reasonable conclusions.

4. Just because a conclusion is not testable, doesn't necessarily mean that we cannot make reasonable conclusions based on the circumstantial evidence.

1 Reply

Forums
» I have never been proven incorrect (only an idiot says this)

Read Question
Reply to All

I have never been proven incorrect (only an idiot says this)

Quick Links

My Account

able2know