Censorship and Forced hypothesis fallacy?

Good morning everyone,

Adam did in the past throw a stone at a window that broke it.

Anna presents a hypothesis in the local Facebook group that Adam is responsible for the broken window. Her hypothesis is however censored and erased by the admin who is Adams friend.

Adams friend writes that he “knows the past” 100% and that the window was broken in a way that is consistent ONLY with a strong wind picking up a small stone. He also says that it can’t have been a person throwing a stone at the window and any hypothesis claiming this as the reason for the broken window will get banned and censored.

A month goes by and another town member asks in the Facebook group: What happened to the window in house X before? What phenomena happened in the past that broke it?

Several members of the group write that they believe it was a strong wind picking up a small stone and that there are no other hypotheses being proposed that could explain it.

What kind of logical and scientific fallacies are involved in this scenario?

Forced hypothesis fallacy?

Thanks

Whatever it is, it is not scientific in the least. Bullying, plain and simple.

Much of this is happening in the scientific community.

Toe the line, the official narrative, or else.

Reminds me of an occurrence in my recent past similar in nature.

Number one problem is that nobody presented any evidence to support the assertions.

That’s not even a fallacy.

It’s called the good ol’ boy network.

It’s like a bad cop doing something wrong, and all the other cops sticking up for him because “they stick together.”

It takes courage to tell the admin to “F*** off, I will not support your BS lie.” If everyone had the courage to do the right thing, the admin would be alone in his lie, with no support.

The people in the group should have ousted the corrupt admin, whether it meant being banned or losing their job. It takes courage to do the right thing!

Typical socialist authoritarianism.

  • Science - not involved in the slightest
  • Hypothesis not supported with evidence
  • Without true investigation - lack of evidence is not the evidence of a lack
  • Proposed forced hypothesis is a strawman fallacy of false dilemma (reminds me of O’Biden)
  • Continued promotion constitutes a “bandwagon”, “echo chamber”, or argumentum ad populum propaganda fallacy

ANd I suppose you have written many scientific papers that have been banned, so you know?

PS. And the phrase is “toe the line”, ignoramous

Thank you for your correction, troll. See, even a pitiful troll has its uses.

This happens a lot in communities, pages, groups, even the mainstream scientific community. How will one ever stop such from happening? There is no stopping it because people would rather believe a pretty comfortable lie than face the hard bitter truth. Why is that? Because the mind and whatever one has built their life upon, whatever lie that becomes the foundation for ones existence or ideals, is fragile. People don’t like dealing with what they do not know, people also do not like doing self work if they can avoid it by continuing building off of a lie instead of restarting ground up with the truth. How do I know it is difficult? Because I too used to believe in and live a lie, those lies I fed into were shattered, here by some people still posting and through experiencing the contradictions or their being lies. Not all are so bold as to go and experience what others say exists or happens and much less do they accept what they experience, some of that experience was vicarious for me and not my own direct situation and or scenarios but my mere observing it happen all around. People are quick to accept because the mind loves to fill in gaps and not have to deal with the dark unknowing. The ego can only operate with, from and in being built from and of ideas. Without ideas, there is no ego and if there is no ego there is no external person that may or can operate in reality, people are afraid of losing their grounding here, in reality but in living a lie they sacrifice their true self and create repercussions they can or will never be able to fathom as they are too far down the line, so they do not fret about those unending inevitable consequences.

Agreed!

Agreed!

Excellent explanation!

Could you evaluate on the O’Biden part?

How many scientific papers one has written that has been banned does not affect if this phenomena has the ability to happen or not.

Superb explanation friend, thanks!

O’Biden - "Either we (the US) -

  • give Iran, Russia, China, and the Taliban everything they want - including $85 billion in high tech weapons, a $10 billion military grade air base, $2 billion in cash, and 100’s of hostages to extort the US with
    • OR -
  • the only other option is to dedicate another 10 years fighting in Talistan (formerly Afghanistan)."

= false dilemma = forced hypothesis = strawman fallacy.

the last step of the scientific method is peer review though.