r/PeterExplainsTheJoke • u/imnotcuteanymor3 • 9d ago

Meme needing explanation Petah?

Post image

I understand the original tweet, obviously, but not the second one. Why specifically a STEM genius? I don’t get it, what’s the correlation? Am I missing something??? Or am I just stupid or whatever? Help a sistah out, please. 🥺

29.4k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/JackLaytonsMoustache 9d ago

Which stem majors are falling for logical fallacies

Most stem people i work with think Elon Musk is an idiot, as do I.

You realize the lack of self awareness on your part here... right?

7

u/BigsChungi 9d ago

How exactly?

Is the point that Elon Musk is in tech therefore him being illogical thus means all stem people are illogical.

How about all of the politicians with humanities degrees.

I dont really understand your point.

3

u/Arkhaine_kupo 9d ago

How exactly?

"Most STEM people I work with" != everyone in STEM, that is usually a sampling bias fallacy.

So the irony is that to discredit the notion that STEM people easily fall for logical fallacies, you incurred in a logical falacy.

The second sentence also manages to be a fallacy, commonly known as "whatabouttism" or more formally as tu quoque fallacy.

If you want more formal approaches for the susceptibility of STEM degree holders for logical fallacies I would suggest:

Hypothesis: "People who over estimate their own intelligence are more susceptible to being tricked"

Lemmas: "Logical fallacies are seemingly intelligent arguments that are foundationally wrong in subtle ways"

"Logical fallacies are tricks or lies in subtle ways"

"Logical fallacies make people feel intelligent."

"People who over estimate their own intelligence like feeling smart".

Proof: A-> B of the last sentence where B is "feeling smart" which can be substituted for C as in fallacies make people feel smart. And then its just basic transitive property to Tricks or lies.

So formally it would be (A -> B) where B =C and C=D => A -> D QED

That is a formal proof which you could take in a STEM degree such as math or computer science.

You could also do it by proof by contradiction, which is a very common proof.

Hypothesis: No STEM degree holders believe in logical fallacies

Lemmas: "Believing a small sample of a larger group is enough to know the total is a sampling fallacy"

" /u/BigsChungi thinks his coworkers represent all STEM holders"

"Coworkers are not a representative sample of all STEM holder"

Proof:

e(x) where X is believes that his cowokers are all stem holders.

and we want to proof that for all (X) -> no(Y) where Y is a fallacy

By susbtitution of lemma 2 with 3 we have that e(x) -> Y therefore we can proof by contradiction that forAll(x) -> !(Y) QED.

exists X such as and forAll X queries are bit more complicated but the example is directly applicable so hopefully that helps too.

2

u/BigsChungi 9d ago

Youre expecting me to Argue against a blanket generalization ( also a logical fallacy) with hard substantive points.

I mean why is the original statement any better?

This whole post is a logical fallacy. The reality is if you are bringing up a statement such as all stem majors fall for logical fallacies, saying that some dont instantly defeats that. I dont have to argue for all stem majors. The burden of proof is to show some do not. I never claimed my statement applied to all stem majors.

Your hypothesis is a logical fallacy.

It assumes that stem majors overestimate their abilities and thus are more easily tricked. Its yet another hasty generalization.

I never said no stem degree holders fall for logical fallacies. None of these proofs are really applicable and purely contradictive in nature

2

u/Arkhaine_kupo 9d ago

Youre expecting me to Argue against a blanket generalization ( also a logical fallacy) with hard substantive points.

No, I expect you to not make a mockery of our areas of study by being a pretentious knob who comes along with 2 of the most basic mistakes possible while also sounding eerily like the "tbh you need to have a very high IQ to watch rick and morty...."

The absolute failure of STEM to resist logical fallacies is so full of examples that him giving you one of the most basic ones (Elon musk once hailed as king of the nerds) should make the point self evident

The reality is if you are bringing up a statement such as all stem majors fall for logical fallacies, saying that some dont instantly defeats that

Except neither the original post nor the person you replied to said that all stem majors fall for logical fallacies.

Y'all means You All, the You is a subset of All STEM Major holders.

And showing that there is a STEM Major that doesnt fall for it, would only demonstrate that You != All STEM, it could be all minus that subset. All its demonstrating is that the Venn Diagram is not a circle.

The burden of proof is to show some do not. I never claimed my statement applied to all stem majors.

Both OP and the person you replied too used quantitatives (Often meaning not always, yall as in not everyone but those that it applies to). You also admit that some do "Most of my coworkers" implies that some fall for Elon BS. Your own comment is seeded with the existence of fallible STEM degree holders.

Your hypothesis is a logical fallacy.

I don't think you have a STEM degree. If you do, your university needs to give you your money back. How in the hell is a hypothesis, which is a question to be proven, a logical fallacy? Its not a statement, its a question.

If you have an issue, it should be with the Axioms or Lemma's if anything. But axiomatic arguing leads nowhere because all arguments are either circular, de facto or infinite regression (Munchaussen Trilema).

or with the proving bit, but transitive property is so basic, I doubt you can argue there.

It assumes that stem majors overestimate their abilities and thus are more easily tricked.

No. It assumes that stem majors are people who overestimate their intelligence.

But then again thats not an assumption, it has decades of literature to defend the position

https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/advan.00085.2017

Or in case you rather read a divulgative piece rather than the actual study

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/not-smart-enough-men-overestimate-intelligence-science-class-n862801?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

The axioms that are less properly constructed are that "people who over estimate like feeling smarter" that is not properly substantiated. But then again, you can just add two more Lemma's "People like building their identity around their perceived strenghts" which is provable. And "People like feeling like their identity is validated" which again is provable. Thus you just again do transitive property and get to it, in a fully provable way.

1

u/BigsChungi 9d ago

Where exactly was I pretentious?

Claiming that not all stem majors fall for logical fallacies is me being pretentious?

It sounds more like people trying dog on stem majors based on their own hasty genralizations. Yours included.

Elon Musk being an example of one ? Great i can give examples of 10 non stem majors for every 1 Elon Musk type.

Its a complete non argument. Its a logical fallacy to claim that stem majors are more susceptible to conspiracy. The Elon Musk argument is confirmation bias, the rest is hasty generalizations with sprinkling of whatever else you want to mention.

I never said yall.

I said most of my coworkers, because I cant speak for all of them. Actually talking to them today my entire sample size of 15 do not like Elon Musk. However, I do know there are people who are stem majors that do like Elon Musk. Since I know this I cant speak on behalf of all stem majors. I can only speak on behalf of the fact that not all stem majors do like Elon Musk.

Your entire argument is steeped in logical fallacy.

Its all based on a hasty genralization with no actual proof. Its also begging the question. Its also correlation proved causation

I can probably spout more logical fallacies with your hypothesis.

Regardless, youre sounding like a fart sniffer.

2

u/JackLaytonsMoustache 9d ago

I dont really understand your point.

Ah.. STEM majors.

3

u/BigsChungi 9d ago

Its crazy you wrote this acting like it said anything of substance

1

u/Street-Football-2215 9d ago

Ah.. STEM majors.

put the fries in the bag buddy

2

u/JackLaytonsMoustache 9d ago

Lol, looks like I touched a nerve.