Einstein called chess a waste of time, what do you think?

[Conspiracy theory consists of accusations that others are conspiring in some way, often simply because they agree on something between themselves.]

Just because two people agree on a subject matter does not mean they are conspiring, so the fact that such conspiracy theories exist is ridiculous and unreasonable.

[Sometimes those who are being accused of conspiring are called "conspiracy theorists" but that's just out of ignorance, because the term applies solely to those making the accusations and, obviously, it's ad hominem.]

It is not an ad hominem because it is not a claim presented in an attempt to invalidate an argument, but rather, it is a factual description of those presenting the conspiracy theory.

[Arguments from authority can be indicated whenever conspiracy theory is used to try to discredit observations by others, simply because there are assumptions, correct or incorrect, that the conspiracy theorist should carry the day due to his accusation that others are conspirators (because such accusations are wrongly assumed to carry weight).]

All assumptions inherently carry weight. This is a property of what an assumption is. Besides, all assertions are subject to the burden of proof, and if they cannot satisfy such burden, then they are not true, and the argument is invalid.

[Random metaphors such as  "poisoning the well" don't help to clarify discussions or ideas. They tend to add more layers of obfuscation.]

Says who? This is subjective, anyway.

@MindControl116

>"Random metaphors such as "poisoning the well" don't help to clarify discussions or ideas. They tend to add more layers of obfuscation."
Err, it's not just a random metaphor. I get the impression you think I just made up that phrase. I didn't. It's an established rhetorical / logical term and refers to attempts to discredit a person, or group of people, by presenting unfavourable information about them (false or otherwise, I'd assume), such as when conspiracy theorists say that their detractors are really just corporate shills , or "saying what they want you to think" or something like that.

"Arguments from authority can be indicated whenever conspiracy theory is used to try to discredit observations by others, simply because there are assumptions, correct or incorrect, that the conspiracy theorist should carry the day due to his accusation that others are conspirators (because such accusations are wrongly assumed to carry weight)."

So, if I understand you correctly, what you're saying here is that there's implicit appeals to authority behind conspiracy accusations because any such accusation implies that the accuser is an authority on who is or isn't conspiring, is that correct?

Because if that's the case, can't we frame any claim where the claim maker expects to be believed as an appeal to authority? After all, when someone makes a claim they generally assume they have some competence in the topic at hand.

Anyways, going back to detail with which I originally took issue, won't you at least concede that conspiracy accusations attack the accused's credibility more overtly than the way in which they might be bolstering the accuser's authority?
Calling someone a corporate shill, for instance, says in rather clear terms that the person is being disingenuous, that's what a shill, is, after all. It's part of the denotation, the direct meaning, of what's being said. In order to make that same statement out to be an ad verecundiam, though, we have to assume things about how the accuser assumes others will perceive them. It seems kind of far fetched to me... And as I said already, it seems that if that's an ad verecundiam, pretty much everything is an ad verecundiam.

There isn't a single human endeavor which isn't a waste of time. 

Only about 48 are real members. The rest are all sockpuppets.

Hi , what is obfuscation, ad verencundiam and ad hominem  ? Its all relative in my opionion, perhaps, i mean super brainz like Einstein got bored easily .

Well, to obfuscate is most generally to make something unclear. In this case I think the idea was that I was deliberately using words most people would not know so that it would be harder to understand (and thus respond to) what I said.

The other two things you mentioned are terms from logic / rhetoric that describe so-called logical fallacies, errors in reasoning. Both phrases are shortened down; the full phrases are "argumentum ad verecundiam" and "argumentum ad hominem", and they translate, roughly, to "argument to authority" and "argument to the person", respectively.

Generally, when someone does an argumentum ad ___, they try to argue for something, but in stead of actually making a logically valid point, they appeal to something that seems reasonable, but doesn't actually logically support what they're arguing for. So to do an ad verecundiam is to use some authority as an argument for or against something. And an ad hominem is when you dismiss ideas because of the person(s) who hold(s) them.

I simplified a bit, but those are the basic ideas.

Now, these aren't always errors. They're only fallacies if you say, for instance, that Einstein said something about physics, therefore it MUST be true. It's OK to say that Einstein probably knew what he was on about, but sometimes even he got things wrong.

"It's all relative in my opinion(...)"

Well, I think they point of logic is that it isn't relative. If we know exactly what kind of argument someone is making then it should be clear whether it's valid or not.

If I argue, for instance that

1. All men are mortal.

2. Socrates is a man.

Conclusion: Therefore Socrates is mortal

then we know this reasoning is correct, if the premises (1. and 2.) are true, the conclusion is also true. Conversely, if I say that some politician was evil, therefore their ideology is evil, the conclusion would not follow from the premise.

The problem is that most people don't talk just like that, so it's normally not clear exactly how someone is thinking and what they're actually trying to argue. So before it can be said whether someone is right or not, we first need to figure exactly what they meant.

@ghost_of_pushwood

"I don't think that's quite the problem..."

Do you mean in general, or in this case specifically? I'll concede right away that more generally there's bigger a problem with people not really being all that big on logic....

Errr..... Now you've lost me. How do you figure? Is it perhaps that all these terms being flung about get in the way of understanding?

Could you please clarify, then? I'm all ears.

A win in chess could be called 'time well spent' and a loss is a 'waste of time'. Losing a chess game can be a waste of time or a learning experience. Einstein came up with his 4 theories in one year, after that he didn't do much but teach and accept awards. They say on Ancient Aliens that Einstein had a connection to another planet or that he somehow came up with a new way of thinking like those other great inventors. 

<<It is not an ad hominem because it is not a claim presented in an attempt to invalidate an argument, but rather, it is a factual description of those presenting the conspiracy theory.>>

So, for instance, if I made the claim that your rather long comment consists of confused gibberish and that you are most probably bonkers, then since that would be a factual description of your presentation of conspiracy theory rather than an attempt to discredit your arguments, it wouldn't be ad hominem.

Thanks, I see it so much more clearly now, since you explained it perfectly.

Einstein would have dug this variation:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/quantum-chess

 Einstein did NOT like quantum physics. He was the last of the old .... not the first of the new.

He would have dug quantum chess though.  As long as he did not have to play it in Copenhagen.

As long as he did not have to play it in Copenhagen.>>

Personally, I think that Copenhagen is a description and not an interpretation so he may have been relatively ok.

Virtually all sports or forms of competition are intrinsically useless. Take tennis - hitting a ball over a net repeatedly until one of you fails. Boxing - thumping the other guy in the face until he falls. Motor racing - driving around in circles. 

It is intrinsically useless but it is great fun and THAT is the reason people do it.