Re: Union Board Elections 2006 - UPDATED 26/4
Disclaimer: Anyone reading this post will be inclined to state I don’t have a life. This is probably true. But I am sick of the ISA purporting something that may not be true and stating it as fact…
And I’m also trying to avoid an assessment task.
jogad said:
1. Are you trying to elicit an aggressive response from me? If so, you fail.
No I wasn't. Lecturers ask university students all the time to reference what they say, and also comment that we sound like we've been fed what we've written in essays. Do we all accuse them of trying to elicit aggressive responses?
jogad said:
Let's leave the dissertations for the historians.
Again, if every paper I wrote had that as a reference I'm pretty sure I'd be failing uni big time.
Call me old fashioned, but I don't see how you can state something as fact without backing it up with evidence to prove such a claim.
jogad said:
I'm not the your personal assistant: go check SRC records.
I have. And I can see no evidence of the SRC ever giving money to Falun Gong. So I'm still asking you and Andrew - where are you getting such information?
jogad said:
Please provide me with links/references/proof that your above claims are true!
For the record: my original claim was that
ujuphleg said:
because to tell the students these things (about Falun Gong) without proof is just misleading and wrong.
NOTE: the (about Falun Gong) in the last quote is my addition for clarification.
I hope all of you will forgive me as citing web links for all of the following claims, as, without the proper equipment at my disposal at the present time (ie. a library with books) I have little to go on but "the wicked contraption, called GOOGLE"
fallacy: ● n. (pl. -ies 1. a mistaken belief. 2. in Logica failure in reasoning which reasoning which renders the argument invalid.
Source: Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Tenth Edition, (Oxford, Oxford University Press 1999) pg. 511
Virtually all arguments contain a fallacy of some kind. Indeed this argument probably will too. But, in the interests of fairness and accuracy (two values which I know that both you and Andrew clearly value – after all you are always seeking fairness and accuracy for the Conservatorium in your quest for power) arguments should seek to be as un-fallacious as possible, in order to make it as difficult for the counter-argument to make a case.
burden of proof: the obligation to prove an assertion
Source: Oxford Dictionary
op. cit pg. 186.
You stated that
jogad said:
You try to prove to me that any of my statements are misleading or wrong.
That’s not my job. Its yours, as an arguer, to prove any assertion you are making. I just proved that its your job to prove, by stating the burden of proof. As far as I’m aware, this is the standard academic stance. After all, why would we have a plagiarism policy at our university of it wasn’t up to students to prove their assertions?
Using the
Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. as a guide about Fallacies one could suggest that stating something is fact without providing proof is misleading and wrong is an argument
ad ignoratium or the “Appeal to Ignorance” that is that:
The fallacy occurs in cases where absence of evidence is not good enough evidence of absence.
Source: Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, Appeal to Ignorance,
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm#Appeal to Ignorance page visited 6th May 2006.
Suffice to say, myself saying that
You haven’t proved to me that Falun Gong is a terrorist organisation, therefore, Falun Gong is a terrorist organisation
is fallacious.
However
Falun Gong is a terrorist organisation
is also fallacious.
Indeed the latter quote is only worse, because it contains a
suppressed assumption/evidence that is, an explanatory gap. This is when:
Intentionally failing to use information suspected of being relevant and significant is committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence. This fallacy usually occurs when the information counts against one's own conclusion. Perhaps the arguer is not mentioning that experts have recently objected to one of his premises.
IEP op. cit.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm#Suppressed Evidence , page visited 6th May 2006.
Apart from that fact that almost all academics and university students will agree that backing up claims with proof is fundamentally misleading, plagiarist and well, wrong the foundational basis this as being misleading is better known as
selective attention:
Improperly focusing attention on certain things and ignoring others.
Source: IEP op. cit,
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm#Selective Attention, page visited 6th May 2006.
Shall I continue? (actually I would, because I’m quite enjoying myself, but as aforementioned, assessment : ( )
You shouldn’t make claims without proof. There is heaps of stuff out there saying that Falun Gong is a bunch of happy, meditating people such as
http://www.falundafa.org/eng/index.htm
http://www.faluninfo.net/
http://www.falunau.org/index.jsp
Obviously, there is some stuff out there too which runs counter to this claim, and as such, when you state this, you should provide evidence. Had you or Andrew even provided this link:
http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zt/ppflg/t36582.htm in the beginning of all this, you may not have been met with such hostility within these forums every time you uttered the words that Falun Gong was an evil cult.
jogad said:
I can only hope to stimulate you to action.
I am, and I have researched it. But what about other people out there reading your words? It is not up to them to seek refutations for what you say, but rather, your job to prove that what you say has basis in fact. I’ve proved that by using accepted, academic, philosophical principles of arguing to prove that.
Back on topic about UNION ELECTIONS rather than SRC FUNDING:
I might vote Liberal this year, only to try and force all of them to actually do something. i.e Labor hasn’t done anything it has promised and therefore, if Liberal candidates get voted in, it may force Labor candidates to realise that promises should be kept, rather than broken.
Anyway, under a VSU model (ie, being stuck with the lot that we’ve been dished out) privatisation is a more viable “sustainability” option than protest.
EDIT: Glad to see that Jo decided to back up what she was saying