Double-A wrote:
Raving Loonie wrote:
[posting trimmed to alt.astronomy]

[snip]

I used to read and post to the physics groups. A real three ring
circus over there all the time! What I hated to see was when they
would tee off of some innocent student looking for help. "Uncle Al"
seemed to especially relish that kind of sadistic thing! When Spaceman
was there, he kept the pot well stirred. He showed absolutely no
respect for their PhDs, and it taught me that the argument is not
always won by the wise, but using good old fashioned dishonest debating
tactics can befuddle your opponent and win the crowd to your side!


Got news for you Double-A ...

' good old fashioned dishonest debating
tactics can befuddle your opponent and win the crowd to your side! '

... works in science too !!!!

Logical reasoning is mostly really, really convincing "wishfull
thinking".

It is far from being bullet proof, notwithstanding it's reputation to
be that way! ... a kooky thing to say, eh?

Actually, there are a lot of examples wherein rational discourse starts
to waver and go soft ...

For example, the 'Monty Hall' problem ...

It's "Let's make a Deal" ... and you have to choose the grand prize
behind one of 3 curtains.

After you makes 'yer choice, Monty offers to show you a rubber chicken
behind one of the curtains that you didn't choose. For $50, you can
change your mind as to which curtain you selected.

Most people stick with the choice that they made at the outset. They
save the $50 ...

RL