What are some telltale signs of pseudo-intellectual brainlets who want to sound way smarter than they are?
>strawman
>slippery slope
>ad hominem
>tu quogue
>red herring
>non sequitur
>occam's razor
>false equivalency
>appeal to nature
>whataboutism
Other urls found in this thread:
leit motif
They try to portray others as pseuds, without having a clear definition of what is an actual intellectual.
Illogical arguments and failure of articulation.
>failure of articulation
Psued spotted. This is the one thing psued's succeed in.
I guess it depends on if you're a silver-tongued pseud or not.
No, one would never be classified intellectual without this. Nobody is calling Alex Jones a pseudo intellectual. It has nothing to do with being silver tongued, articulation is literally the only requirement.
Sounds like you make shit arguments and get butthurt when people explain why your argument is shit.
>get called out on using logical fallacies and shit arguments
>t-t-hey're pseud brainlets
t. coping pseud brainlet
I've met plenty of pseuds who aren't articulate. They're the type who use big words or words they've heard more intelligent people say because they think it makes them seem more intelligent, but then they can't elaborate past jargon-spitting. Or they cloak their ideas in vague statements purposely so they can't be critiqued and in the hopes that they'll seem more intelligent than they actually are.
dropping quotes and 'aesthetic' pictures without being able to match it in their own words, paraphrasing like a shitty copycat.
Articulation is the only requirement to intellectualism. The success and validity of individual intelelctuals is defined by their peer's judgement. They do not need to be logical or factual in their thinking to do this. Literally the only requirement to success is articulation that stands to convince their peers of their brilliance. There is no objective standards by which intellectuals operate, despite how you seem to be using fallacy and illogic as an objective standard. Should I illogically articulate that you are illogical, I am the successful intellectual, and you are the pseud. The actual merit of the logic is never tested, nor will the intellectual be held responsible for his ideas. The only thing that matters is that I have convinced my peers in this moment that they are logical through articulation. This is the only standard.
Everyone is a pseud, and the mark of the true intellectual is coming to terms with this reality.
Posting on lit
What is the difference between a pseud and a midwit?
Psued = OP
Midwit = (you)
bip bup bap
Posting on Yea Forums
Occam's Razor is a funny one to me, as it's often mentionned by reddit-tier non-intellectual atheists who don't know William of Ockham was a Christian theologian, and that it is not an absolute.
t. sophist
>it is not an absolute
I can literally prove its correctness mathematically. Its only wrong if it is misused
>was a Christian theologian
Who cares who invented the principle? Great scientists are known for being totally wrong in certain aspect (e.g. Einstein and randomness). The only thing that is important is the quality and importance of theory, not the background of the person who invented it.
So you're saying...
That Adolf Hitler was the greatest intellectual who ever lived? He did convince a lot of people you know...
socrates go home
pseud = Yea Forums
midwit = reddit
so there’s no difference
Hitler was a politician in addition to an intellectual, but he had a massive intellectual following during his rise even outside of Germany. We didn't know about all that happened in the camps until after the war. The same occurred with Stalin and the Soviet Union in general, both of which had adamant defenders among the western intelligentsia. Even the genocide following the United State's withdrawal from Vietnam was downplayed and outright denied by intellectuals. So yes, people like Hitler are genuinely successful intellectuals. Failing to articulate does not make you a psued, it means you aren't an intellectual to begin with.
It was never meant to prove anything absolutely and shouldn't be. It's often used to "prove" God doesn't exist, as it would take "more assumptions". The point about Ockham being Christian wasn't to say he was right, but simply to point out that it isn't an argument that supports atheism.
It also doesn't state the nature of reality is dependent on whether we think one option is more plausible than the other, and it is often misused that way. For example, if we see a lone boat sinking, we can say it either sunk on its own or something external sunk it. It would take fewer assumptions to say it sunk on its own if we don't see anything around. This doesn't make it true by default though, as both are still possible.
Posting on Yea Forums
You forgot Dunning Kruger effect
Ockhams razor is not used to prove anything. It's a statistic tool in its essence.
If someone is arguing A ^ B is more likely than A you can call on ockhams razor.
Also if A, B and C all contain 2 bits of information and their prior probabilities are unknown and A is incompatible with B ^ C then A is more likely than B ^ C.
kek
Fuck off sophist and go read Plato.
>Ockhams razor is not used to prove anything. It's a statistic tool in its essence.
Literally what I said
>go read Plato
What specifically?
>STOP CALLING ME OUT ON MY BAD ARGUMENTS!
Gorgias,Sophist and The Apology
Thanks.
Well, it seems I read your post too quickly.
They try to point out fallacies in arguments that aren't actually fallacious, and if it's possible to use a latin term they'll find a way to throw it in. For example:
>me on twitter
>cretin makes argument with infinite regress
>mockingly show the problem
>cretin responds with "thats a reductio ad absurdum!"
>mfw when retard thought that was a type of fallacy