Satire, effective but a fallacy

T'ai Chi

Penultimate Amazing
T
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
11,219
Martin Gardner referenced H. L. Mencken's as saying "one horse-laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms." In Randi's 11/23/07 commetary Randi says

"In the great tradition of satire – as so well shown by Jonathan Swift – its humor was in fact a clever and effective – though indirect – argument."

Some examples of this thinking put into practice in the organized skeptical community are the FSM, IPU, Randi's weekly poking fun in the commentaries, cute nicknames for Sylvia Browne, etc.

Despite the effectiveness of humor, the phrase itself a fallacy and the practice should be avoided to be an honest critical thinker.

Some people with extraordinary claims rationalize their claims by something like 'well, they laughed at the Wright Brothers' (implying that the laughter hints they are correct), which is of course a fallacy. However, some skeptics seem to be doing the opposite, saying 'well, let's laugh at them' (implying the laughter hints they are wrong).

In each case let's call it for what it is; the laughter is an excuse for thinking.
 
A laugh is the observable reaction when the brain is tickled by an unusual thought.

Whether or not the thought is ultimately realistic, progressive, necessary, or just absurd, does not matter.

However, using humor for arguments usually makes them a lot more bearable to sit through.
 
T'ai Chi said:
In each case let's call it for what it is; the laughter is an excuse for thinking.
Click to expand...

So now we have something else the ID community is missing, a sense of humour. I would have thought a lack of testable claims and no scientific hypothesis would have been enough, but no.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Martin Gardner referenced H. L. Mencken's as saying "one horse-laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms." In Randi's 11/23/07 commetary Randi says

"In the great tradition of satire – as so well shown by Jonathan Swift – its humor was in fact a clever and effective – though indirect – argument."

Some examples of this thinking put into practice in the organized skeptical community are the FSM, IPU, Randi's weekly poking fun in the commentaries, cute nicknames for Sylvia Browne, etc.

Despite the effectiveness of humor, the phrase itself a fallacy and the practice should be avoided to be an honest critical thinker.

Some people with extraordinary claims rationalize their claims by something like 'well, they laughed at the Wright Brothers' (implying that the laughter hints they are correct), which is of course a fallacy. However, some skeptics seem to be doing the opposite, saying 'well, let's laugh at them' (implying the laughter hints they are wrong).

In each case let's call it for what it is; the laughter is an excuse for thinking.
Click to expand...

Quite a long opinion piece for a post - have you evidence to support your opinion and will you share that evidence publicly with other Members of this forum?
 
Last edited:
btw is anyone keeping count of how many times T'ai Chi leads off with a reference to the "the organized skeptical community"?

Claus?* :whistling




*I know, I'm a trouble maker, but you all knew where this thread was headed.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Martin Gardner referenced H. L. Mencken's as saying "one horse-laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms." In Randi's 11/23/07 commetary Randi says

"In the great tradition of satire – as so well shown by Jonathan Swift – its humor was in fact a clever and effective – though indirect – argument."

Some examples of this thinking put into practice in the organized skeptical community are the FSM, IPU, Randi's weekly poking fun in the commentaries, cute nicknames for Sylvia Browne, etc.
Click to expand...

Hypocrite. You have a long history of making fun of skeptics.

T'ai Chi said:
Despite the effectiveness of humor, the phrase itself a fallacy and the practice should be avoided to be an honest critical thinker.

Some people with extraordinary claims rationalize their claims by something like 'well, they laughed at the Wright Brothers' (implying that the laughter hints they are correct), which is of course a fallacy. However, some skeptics seem to be doing the opposite, saying 'well, let's laugh at them' (implying the laughter hints they are wrong).
Click to expand...

Not just implying. The laughter is because they are wrong.

T'ai Chi said:
In each case let's call it for what it is; the laughter is an excuse for thinking.
Click to expand...

On the contrary. You can't laugh at the joke, unless you understand the point. And to understand the point, you have to have done the thinking.
 
Yeah - the only real question now is why he stills bothers when everybody has him thoroughly pegged. Can he really be surprised when he attracts sarcasm and scorn? Or does he welcome those responses because they confirm his views about "organised skepticism"?

T'ai, me old fruit, your OP seems to include a sly little logical fallacy itself - to whit our old friend the False Dilemma.
It is possible to think and laugh at the same time. Indeed, as Claus pointed out, thinking is often necessary to get the joke.
 
T'ai Chi said:
In each case let's call it for what it is; the laughter is an excuse for thinking.
Click to expand...
Not quite. It's what you do when you hear something so silly that it no longer requires thinking. Here's what Mark Twain had to say (channeling Satan):

For your race, in its poverty, has unquestionably one really effective weapon--laughter. Power, Money, Persuasion, Supplication, Persecution--these can lift at a colossal humbug,--push it a little-- crowd it a little--weaken it a little, century by century: but only Laughter can blow it to rags and atoms at a blast. Against the assault of Laughter nothing can stand.
Click to expand...
Notice Twain is talking about laughing at "a colossal humbug." He's not talking about laughing at ideas worthy of serious discussion, but rather at ideas that have proven ludicrous, but to which people still subscribe.

Imagine how quickly $ylvia Browne would become a nonentity if every time she appeared on Montel Williams's show, a half-dozen people in the audience broke up in hysterical laughter every time she opened her mouth.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Martin Gardner referenced H. L. Mencken's as saying "one horse-laugh is worth a thousand syllogisms." In Randi's 11/23/07 commetary Randi says

"In the great tradition of satire – as so well shown by Jonathan Swift – its humor was in fact a clever and effective – though indirect – argument."

Some examples of this thinking put into practice in the organized skeptical community are the FSM, IPU, Randi's weekly poking fun in the commentaries, cute nicknames for Sylvia Browne, etc.

Despite the effectiveness of humor, the phrase itself a fallacy and the practice should be avoided to be an honest critical thinker.

Some people with extraordinary claims rationalize their claims by something like 'well, they laughed at the Wright Brothers' (implying that the laughter hints they are correct), which is of course a fallacy. However, some skeptics seem to be doing the opposite, saying 'well, let's laugh at them' (implying the laughter hints they are wrong).

In each case let's call it for what it is; the laughter is an excuse for thinking.
Click to expand...

How is that "interesting" ?
 
Dragon said:
T'ai, me old fruit, your OP seems to include a sly little logical fallacy itself - to whit our old friend the False Dilemma.
It is possible to think and laugh at the same time. Indeed, as Claus pointed out, thinking is often necessary to get the joke.
Click to expand...

When it isn't necessary, the joke becomes something else entirely.

During the Muhammed Cartoon brouhaha, there were comparisons to what some Muslim media have run of cartoons, usually about Jews. There was one major difference, though. While the Danish cartoons were multi-leveled (e.g., one of them depicts a cartoonist drawing Muhammed while sitting behind drawn curtains, sweating and cowering from fear - thereby also mocking the apprehension of drawing Muhammed at all), the Muslim media cartoons were mainly of the same kind we saw in the Nazi rags in the 1930s: Crude "fun", not meant to encourage thinking, but the exact opposite - blind acceptance of dogma.

There is intelligent fun and there is mean-spirited fun. T'ai Chi thinks the former has to be the latter.
 
That's as thorough of a smackdown debunking as I've seen in some time.

Remind me not to get on your bad side, Claus.
 
BPSCG said:
...

Imagine how quickly $ylvia Browne would become a nonentity if every time she appeared on Montel Williams's show, a half-dozen people in the audience broke up in hysterical laughter every time she opened her mouth.
Click to expand...

[delurk]

I would like to volunteer for this mission.


[/delurk]
 
[delurk]

I would like to volunteer for this mission.


[/delurk]

Me too, also, as well - as long as she appears here in South Wales, I don't have the readies to travel very far. :(
 
BPSCG said:
Imagine how quickly $ylvia Browne would become a nonentity if every time she appeared on Montel Williams's show, a half-dozen people in the audience broke up in hysterical laughter every time she opened her mouth.
Click to expand...

I still can't understand why this doesn't actually happen.
 
Jokes and satire may be an indirect way of addressing a subject or making an argument, but that doesn't mean that they're ineffective. There are subjects about which many people are too close-minded to listen to any serious opposing opinion. But if you put your arguments in joke form, you may be able to lull those close-minded people into considering your side of things by making them laugh. Clearly, they're not going to instantly change their minds, but it's good to plant the seeds of dissent in a way that they'll actually listen to.
 
Bethany said:
There are subjects about which many people are too close-minded to listen to any serious opposing opinion. But if you put your arguments in joke form, you may be able to lull those close-minded people into considering your side of things by making them laugh.
Click to expand...



This is my thinking as well. There are plenty of excellent arguments being made here on the JREF, and elsewhere, but far too often the woos just turn up their noses at such discussions, or somehow fail to understand them. Sometimes, though, a well-placed joke may bring them around to a point where they may finally start to really think.

The jokes by themselves are not sufficient - they're just a starting point. But you need a starting point, or you go no where.
 
This gets me thinking about George Carlin--looking at things like his "Brain Droppings" one-liners probably does more for my various entrenchments and sacred cows than many a serious academic or policy discussion can do. Love that guy!
 
Websites such as Landover Baptist Church, for example, effectively demonstrate that when the joke is almost indistinguishable from the real thing, what does that say about the real thing?
 
Last edited:
Mojo said:
Satire is a rhetorical device, a way of presenting an argument. Whether an argument is using a fallacy depends on the argument itself, not on how it is presented.
Click to expand...

You are missing T'ai Chi's point.

He isn't saying that satire is a logical fallacy.

He is saying that satire is a fallacy itself: He admits that satire is effective in ridiculing Creationism (obviously because doing so strikes a chord). So he wants to stop people from ridiculing Creationism.

T'ai Chi' is arguing the exact same as those fanatic Muslims who want to ban satire about Muhammed. T'ai Chi wants it to be off-limits to ridicule Creationism.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Despite the effectiveness of humor, the phrase itself a fallacy and the practice should be avoided to be an honest critical thinker.
Click to expand...
What phrase is a fallacy? A phrase is a phrase. Randi's phrase? If that is what you meant, it was an observation of the effectiveness of satire as a counter.
Some people with extraordinary claims rationalize their claims by something like 'well, they laughed at the Wright Brothers' (implying that the laughter hints they are correct), which is of course a fallacy. However, some skeptics seem to be doing the opposite, saying 'well, let's laugh at them' (implying the laughter hints they are wrong).
Click to expand...
Some people like waffles for breakfast, some like monkey brains. Some people prefer fried eggs, kippers, mushrooms, bangers, and hot tea.

Do you have a point?
In each case let's call it for what it is; the laughter is an excuse for thinking.
Click to expand...
The laughter is at you, not with you, Tai Chi. If your utterances weren't so risible, you'd hear less laughter.

(risible, def 2: arousing or provoking laughter; especially syn = laughable)

DR
 
Last edited:
T'ai Chi said:
It provides entertainment, but no logical argument.

As already mentioned.
Click to expand...


For some people, it will prompt them to do their own logical thinking. The logical argument does not have to be presented explicitly.
 
T'ai Chi said:
In each case let's call it for what it is; the laughter is an excuse for thinking.
Click to expand...

Nah. An ignore list is an excuse for thinking. Quite literally--one has a machine do something which they could put their own brainpower toward.

Making a joke can be many things. We have several serious threads on humor on this forum; here, for one worth reading. One thing laughter is not, is simple enough to be summed in a T'ai Chi post.
 
T'ai Chi said:
It provides entertainment, but no logical argument.

As already mentioned.
Click to expand...

And as I mentioned earlier, some people simply will not sit and listen to a logical argument. Jokes can often penetrate the veil of narrow-mindedness. Jokes won't cause people to smack their foreheads and realize they're wrong about something, but they can open the door to discussion and thinking when a more direct approach might fail altogether. What good is a logical argument when someone won't listen? I think you're arguing against ridicule more than satire or jokes. Ridiculing an idea won't cause people to sit up and notice that they're wrong, but subtle and well-written satire can be a powerful tool.
 
Last edited:
T'ai Chi said:
snip

Some examples of this thinking put into practice in the organized skeptical community are the FSM, IPU, Randi's weekly poking fun in the commentaries, cute nicknames for Sylvia Browne, etc.

snip

In each case let's call it for what it is; the laughter is an excuse for thinking.
Click to expand...


Itnerestsssting.

I'm no joke, T'ai.

FSM isn't just a satirical bit o' fun. FSM was a carefully thought out and clearly stated opposition to teaching Intelligent Design in public schools. It is a silly idea that there could be a god with noodly appendages and meatballs for eyes, but no more silly than a god that sends down locusts and produces fish and loaves for fun and hijinks... or a god that gives believers 72 virgins after death... or a god with an elephant head... or a god that lives on a big mountain and impregnates swans...or a god that sends secret coded messages to people in words and in corn fields...

And if we have a bit of the SHOUT OUT time in public schools for this vague idea of someTHING with intelligence designing everything, we better make some time to shout out to the ol' FSM and his big meatbally eyeballs as well.

Funny, huh? It is the most unfunny joke I have ever enjoyed, I can tell you that. The point of the FSM isn't to get a nice chortle over on the ol' Creationists, it's to make a very serious point about the non-scientific, unfair presentation of ID in schools.

Worry less about the jokes and satire and worry more about the underlying causes for both, I say.

And also, T'ai, I'm a god. Don't try to put me on your ignore list. I'll find ways of getting my message to you anyway.
 
Last edited:
Sounds to me like an effort to cut down on the competition by crippling the tools. Perhaps it's also the reason that religious arguments are so seldom amusing except in a sardonic way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom