Hello people! Nice to meet us again XD
I know I'm posting art less and less, but my final exam is coming more and more closer and the agitation is giving me a magnificent artblock

Anyway, I know you all came here and give a click to this journal just because you have read the bad word with the asterisk in the title, even if fallacies are more useful in real life than that odd theory. But I like you, seriously, and I will start from the end first, just to quench your thirst of mud.


The Theory of the Mountain of Sh*t
Introduction: what you are going to read is a revisitation/translation of an italian blog post.

Once all the human knowledge was submit to the authority control. These few people who had the chance to be more civilised than the others decided what was reasonnable to let the next generation know and what wasn't. In history they were astrologies, religious, sorceries, politicians: a bunch of people who decided what was black and what was white, thanks to the fact they were the Authority. Finally a new group of people arises: the scientists, the experts in the field, who said: "Think what you want, but at least give us an iota of proof".

We are in the 21th century now, it's the technological era, many people have got an internet access, every man can think whatever he wants, whoever has got an idea can switch on his pc, open a blog and type the first things he thinks without control. There's not a Holy Inquisition anymore, nobody is afraid to say what he thinks, there's no control anymore.
It sounds pretty cool. Freedom is awesome if someone can use it.

But now imagine the complotist/quack of the next corner writing an essay about computer science. He doesn't know anything about PCs, he can barely cut and paste textes with shortcuts, but he wrote on his blog that computers are the link to the afterworld because he thinks so. In that case an actual computer techincian would explain that nothing in the PC processor can talk with the afterworld. The answer of the quack will be something related to the silicon physics. At that point the techincan can't reply anymore because his knowledge about PC processors ends there; he needs the help of another people who studied physics and chemistry. And after them, an entire team of expert people to correct the bullshit of the quack.
We can summarize with this axiom:

One hundred million of monkies which type randomly over one hundred million keyboards for one hundred million years will probably write the most magificent piece of literature ever created. the problem is that they will also produce a cataclysmic, terrible, galattic mountain of sh*t

That's it. The Theory practically says that competence costs more than incompetence. Nice to hear, uh?


But now, let's talk about the serious thing:

Fallacies
I quote the introduction of the fallacies main site:

A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true

Summarizing, the more you can recognize them, the more you are protected from wrong arguments. Don't feed the quacks, go and take a look!


That's all folks. I hope you have learnt something new today!
Goodbye!