I came across a wonderful poster image by a talented artist, Michele Rosenthal , which depicts a robot debate: Granted, these aren't all the logical fallacies that exist, but it covers the most obvious, and most abused ones. But why are they important? We currently live in an age where we have access to more information that at any other point in history, and yet somehow we still think that arguing from emotion, or with our cognitive dissonance blinders on, is both right and acceptable: it isn't, not by any stretch of the imagination. Postmodernism may have a place, but not here. Yes, you absolutely are allowed to feel they way you want to, but debates are places for facts and ideas that need to be scrutinised rigorously, not with playground threats and character assassinations. "I feel" is not an argument that belongs in a debate - your feelings are valid for you, yes, but you can not simply refute the evidence-based assertion of vaccinations work with the st...
Why Bastard Academic, you ask? You put the word Gentleman before both terms: the Gentleman Academic and the Gentleman Bastard (at least according to Scott Lynch). The intention here will be to collect some of my Cyber Security blogs for CoderSource.io, as well as supplementary information and resources on and around the field. I will also throw in the odd instructional post on things I'm learning or working on, as well as the occasional political theorising/ranting and philosophical musing.