Belief vs Knowledge - The Force

ZealotX wrote: The chemicals in your body do not have any outside input. So a chemical reaction without external or internal stimuli would be like a computer typing words on the screen by itself. This simply does not happen. What happens is that you press a key. An electrical signal fires from the keyboard, through the computer's "nervous system", gets processed, and the reaction is to display the corresponding character. Not to be crass, but a good example is sexual arousal. You see something sexual. A thought is generated (consciously or subconsciously) and then you have a "physical reaction" to the stimuli.

Of course they have outside input. Take fear for example. Your walking in the woods and you see a bear. Many physiological changes in the body occure first, accelerating breathing rate (hyperventilation), heart rate, vasoconstriction of the peripheral blood vessels leading to blushing and sanskadania of the central vessels (pooling), increasing muscle tension including the muscles attached to each hair follicle to contract and causing "goose bumps", (piloerection) (making a cold person warmer or a frightened animal look more impressive), sweating, increased blood glucose (hyperglycemia), increased serum calcium, increase in white blood cells called neutrophilic leukocytes, alertness leading to sleep disturbance and "butterflies in the stomach" (dyspepsia). These primitive mechanisms help an organism survive by either running away or fighting the danger. With the series of physiological changes, the consciousness realizes an emotion of fear. So the process is, external danger presents itself, the body reacts, the mind becomes aware of the reaction and realizes thoughts and emotions of fear.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: The chemicals in your body do not have any outside input. So a chemical reaction without external or internal stimuli would be like a computer typing words on the screen by itself. This simply does not happen. What happens is that you press a key. An electrical signal fires from the keyboard, through the computer's "nervous system", gets processed, and the reaction is to display the corresponding character. Not to be crass, but a good example is sexual arousal. You see something sexual. A thought is generated (consciously or subconsciously) and then you have a "physical reaction" to the stimuli.

Of course they have outside in put. Take fear for example. Your walking in the woods and you see a bear. Many physiological changes in the body occure first, accelerating breathing rate (hyperventilation), heart rate, vasoconstriction of the peripheral blood vessels leading to blushing and sanskadania of the central vessels (pooling), increasing muscle tension including the muscles attached to each hair follicle to contract and causing "goose bumps", (piloerection) (making a cold person warmer or a frightened animal look more impressive), sweating, increased blood glucose (hyperglycemia), increased serum calcium, increase in white blood cells called neutrophilic leukocytes, alertness leading to sleep disturbance and "butterflies in the stomach" (dyspepsia). These primitive mechanisms help an organism survive by either running away or fighting the danger. With the series of physiological changes, the consciousness realizes an emotion of fear. So the process is, external danger presents itself, the body reacts, the mind becomes aware of the reaction and realizes thoughts and emotions of fear.

but... you just said "you see a bear". Therefore, you are thinking something as a result of having seen a bear. You don't have physiological changes just by being near the bear. You have to know it's there or have a reason to believe its there. Matter of fact, I'm willing to bet that if someone tells you there is a bear you'll have the same physiological reactions because the trigger is an idea caused by what you either see or simply "believe" to be true.

ZealotX wrote:
The placebo effect would not exist if you were correct.

Actually why cant both of them exist? The placebo effect, much like homeopathy, are ways to fool the brain into thinking something is happening that is really not happening. You will never cure disease with a placebo but you can relieve symptoms. When the mind is conditioned to this response, then upon taking a fake pill, the patient will relax their body, relieve anxiety and stress, stop worrying, things like this also cause a physical response in the body. Another form of external input that allows someone to help themselves to an extent. relieving tension in the muscles will reduce pain. Also the mind is powerful in convincing ourselves of effects that are not in evidence. Take faith healers for example, They have never fixed a single thing in anyone, never cured cancer or fixed a crooked back or raised the dead. However many people believe they have. Same thing as the placebo. Pavlov's dog is another example of this phenomenon. Ring a bell, (external stimuli) the dog salivates because it has been conditioned to expect food. However this does not work in everyone and so the effect can be relegated to just those susceptible to such events and not a truly valid evolutionary factor in how the body processes responses.

ZealotX wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: The chemicals in your body do not have any outside input. So a chemical reaction without external or internal stimuli would be like a computer typing words on the screen by itself. This simply does not happen. What happens is that you press a key. An electrical signal fires from the keyboard, through the computer's "nervous system", gets processed, and the reaction is to display the corresponding character. Not to be crass, but a good example is sexual arousal. You see something sexual. A thought is generated (consciously or subconsciously) and then you have a "physical reaction" to the stimuli.

Of course they have outside in put. Take fear for example. Your walking in the woods and you see a bear. Many physiological changes in the body occure first, accelerating breathing rate (hyperventilation), heart rate, vasoconstriction of the peripheral blood vessels leading to blushing and sanskadania of the central vessels (pooling), increasing muscle tension including the muscles attached to each hair follicle to contract and causing "goose bumps", (piloerection) (making a cold person warmer or a frightened animal look more impressive), sweating, increased blood glucose (hyperglycemia), increased serum calcium, increase in white blood cells called neutrophilic leukocytes, alertness leading to sleep disturbance and "butterflies in the stomach" (dyspepsia). These primitive mechanisms help an organism survive by either running away or fighting the danger. With the series of physiological changes, the consciousness realizes an emotion of fear. So the process is, external danger presents itself, the body reacts, the mind becomes aware of the reaction and realizes thoughts and emotions of fear.

but... you just said "you see a bear". Therefore, you are thinking something as a result of having seen a bear. You don't have physiological changes just by being near the bear. You have to know it's there or have a reason to believe its there. Matter of fact, I'm willing to bet that if someone tells you there is a bear you'll have the same physiological reactions because the trigger is an idea caused by what you either see or simply "believe" to be true.

Yes, you see a bear, your body reacts, the emotion of fear is generated in the mind, and then the thoughts occure of "I gotta get outa here"! Then you run. Its event, body reaction, emotional response, thought, action.

You can cure or aid recovery with placebos. They ran medical tests on the effectiveness of prayer. They found the only thing prayer affects is the mind -- and the mind has great untapped power over our physiology.

ren wrote: ... the mind has great untapped power over our physiology.

No. The picture of fundamental principles that govern our world on resolutions remotely interesting to us is complete. All of the power that "the mind" (what ever that is supposed to be) can possibly have over our physiology (again, assuming that expression can actually mean something coherent in one way or another) is either well tapped and mapped or nowhere near "great".

Gisteron wrote:

ren wrote: ... the mind has great untapped power over our physiology.

No. The picture of fundamental principles that govern our world on resolutions remotely interesting to us is complete. All of the power that "the mind" (what ever that is supposed to be) can possibly have over our physiology (again, assuming that expression can actually mean something coherent in one way or another) is either well tapped and mapped or nowhere near "great".

This sounds like 3rd person omniscient to me. What scientific basis are you standing on to make this claim?

“We know very little about the brain. We know about connections, but we don’t know how information is processed," she said. Learning, for example, doesn’t just require good memory, but also depends on speed, creativity, attention, focus, and, most importantly, flexibility. Understanding exactly how the neural pathways function could lead to improved treatments for depression, genetic disease, and many other conditions, she explained.

Neuroscientist and Nobel Laureate Tom Südhof, MD, PhD, echoed those sentiments, telling the audience: “Medicine is a craft… It’s empirical, but we don’t know how to treat [problems] if we don’t understand the disease and the underlying biology."

Mapping the components of the brain is far more complex than mapping the human genome, Südhof said. He encouraged researchers tackling big challenges to "stick with it," and he reminded the audience of the incremental nature of scientific discovery: "There is never a single discovery that changes science… Science works as a process that extends over decades.”

https://scopeblog.stanford.edu/2016/11/08/challenges-in-neuroscience-in-the-21st-century/

I agree with Ren. We really don't know what we don't know. I can say I know computers but that doesn't mean I know how CPU's actually work and everything they can do. There is a mass of potential that we're still writing new apps for every day.

It seems to me that belief is very powerful in what it can enable the brain to do. But this is hard to prove. It's like trying to prove a subconscious reflex. I've seen a lot of weird and crazy stuff on the internet that I didn't think humans could do. And sure, a lot of these examples are likely hoaxes. I'm not trying to make a case for levitation and the like. However, considering different things like the effect of stress on the body, placebos, hypnosis, etc. one should be open minded about the potential.

The biochemistry of our body stems from our awareness.[5] Belief-reinforced awareness becomes our biochemistry. Each and every tiny cell in our body is perfectly and absolutely aware of our thoughts, feelings and of course, our beliefs. There is a beautiful saying ‘Nobody grows old. When people stop growing, they become old’. If you believe you are fragile, the biochemistry of your body unquestionably obeys and manifests it. If you believe you are tough (irrespective of your weight and bone density!), your body undeniably mirrors it. When you believe you are depressed (more precisely, when you become consciously aware of your ‘Being depressed’), you stamp the raw data received through your sense organs, with a judgment – that is your personal view – and physically become the ‘interpretation’ as you internalize it. A classic example is ‘Psychosocial dwarfism’, wherein children who feel and believe that they are unloved, translate the perceived lack of love into depleted levels of growth hormone, in contrast to the strongly held view that growth hormone is released according to a preprogrammed schedule coded into the individual's genes!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802367/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/jacobs-staff/201504/what-we-choose-believe-the-power-belief

So the first link deals more with the biochemistry and the second the psychological impact. There are tons of self help books about positive thinking and habits of successful people. At this point I don't know what else could prove this point.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote:
The placebo effect would not exist if you were correct.

Actually why cant both of them exist? The placebo effect, much like homeopathy, are ways to fool the brain into thinking something is happening that is really not happening. You will never cure disease with a placebo but you can relieve symptoms. When the mind is conditioned to this response, then upon taking a fake pill, the patient will relax their body, relieve anxiety and stress, stop worrying, things like this also cause a physical response in the body. Another form of external input that allows someone to help themselves to an extent. relieving tension in the muscles will reduce pain. Also the mind is powerful in convincing ourselves of effects that are not in evidence. Take faith healers for example, They have never fixed a single thing in anyone, never cured cancer or fixed a crooked back or raised the dead. However many people believe they have. Same thing as the placebo. Pavlov's dog is another example of this phenomenon. Ring a bell, (external stimuli) the dog salivates because it has been conditioned to expect food. However this does not work in everyone and so the effect can be relegated to just those susceptible to such events and not a truly valid evolutionary factor in how the body processes responses.

So then you agree with me. Or at least you're willing to concede half way, that we are both correct and that there is a 2 way street between the endocrine system and the nervous system. That's good enough for me as far as the point I was actually trying to make.

ZealotX wrote:

Gisteron wrote: The picture of fundamental principles that govern our world on resolutions remotely interesting to us is complete. All of the power that "the mind" (what ever that is supposed to be) can possibly have over our physiology (again, assuming that expression can actually mean something coherent in one way or another) is either well tapped and mapped or nowhere near "great".

This sounds like 3rd person omniscient to me. What scientific basis are you standing on to make this claim?

The existence and unparalleled success of QFT and QCD in general and the standard model in particular. There are still margins of error but they are so far on the opposite of "great" as to warrant saying something very much like that on the scales relevant in our daily lives the fundamentals are indeed fully understood.
Every bit of my expression there is chosen with care, I should stress. I specified that I'm talking about fundamental principles, because I mean only those and not each and every ever so subtle consequence. I specified relevant resolutions, because there exist open mysteries we already know about that only matter on, say, intergalactic scales, and the riches of which will remain beyond our reach at least until the upcoming heat death of the universe. I'm not saying we know everything, far from it. A lot of work is still ahead of us, by all means, but the basics that matter in practice are something we have covered beyond any reasonable need for worry.
There is no ghost pulling levers, or idling until we let it. The mind (depending on how we define it) is either not actually separable from the body that produces it in which case it makes little sense to speak of it as having power over physiology, or it is and its untapped power resides entirely within the margins of error that are so slim that for all intents and purposes there might as well not be any at all.

Yes, we don't know what we don't know, but we do know what we do know and that puts upper bounds on the maximal magnitude effects we don't yet know about can have on us. We may not know what lies outside of the walls, but we do know that inside the room we are locked in we cannot hear it, so what ever is out there can only be so loud. We would know that something is out there otherwise.

I've experienced some crazy stuff. Went on six month benders. My mom is very controlling. My brothers are career criminals. All my experiences have shaped the person I am today. If I hadn't went through what I did, I would not know the world and some of the people in it. I'm always trying to experience new things. Meet new people and make friends.

Gisteron wrote:

ren wrote: ... the mind has great untapped power over our physiology.

No. The picture of fundamental principles that govern our world on resolutions remotely interesting to us is complete. All of the power that "the mind" (what ever that is supposed to be) can possibly have over our physiology (again, assuming that expression can actually mean something coherent in one way or another) is either well tapped and mapped or nowhere near "great".

In your opinion perhaps. Greatness is relative.

ren wrote:

Gisteron wrote:

ren wrote: ... the mind has great untapped power over our physiology.

No. The picture of fundamental principles that govern our world on resolutions remotely interesting to us is complete. All of the power that "the mind" (what ever that is supposed to be) can possibly have over our physiology (again, assuming that expression can actually mean something coherent in one way or another) is either well tapped and mapped or nowhere near "great".

In your opinion perhaps. Greatness is relative.

My body's gravity has a stronger influence on your physiology than the untapped power of your mind does. Now I'm not sure whether there is any untapped mind power or whether there are forces at play weaker yet than it, and neither do you, so I'm positive neither of us can say that it is objectively the least great, but then neither of us did. I just wouldn't think "great" an apt description for something so weak as to be negligible if existent at all, but that is indeed only my opinion. Mayhaps in circles like these it is a controversial one to hold. So be it.

Apologies for taking so long to get back. I actually wanted to see how this conversation would develope without my input. To see if a real discussion would take place.. while I didn't predict it to take the form it did. I'm pleased yet unsurprised by this kind of "first phase" of the discussion..

My subject may have been misleading, but I tried to be more clear in the post. Though it probably should have been obvious that it would develope into a discussion about belief vs knowledge. That wasn't my intent. That's not to say that I'm disappointed..

My main point was for that debate to be internal. Then for it's expression to be put into the discussion. That we would take account of our experiences and our interpretation of them and openly discuss what we may know or have theorized from our knowledge.. Knowledge being the main point. However, what is knowledge other than the correct interpretation of our experiences? In going through our daily lives. We constantly deduce people, hazards, situations, etc. Our minds are always analyzing the world around us. Filtering the steady automated input from our bodies. Studying our world so that we can know it in order to navigate through life. We know something when we can correctly identify and understand the pattern of it. Even more so when we can deconstruct, reconstruct, or predict it. When we can filter our beliefs from what is or what may be, due to the knowledge of our experiences. We can be truly open about what exactly this "Force" may be..

There are a few points I would add to the discussion to address some of what I read, however. Based on my experience. Since this is already long, I'll try to be brief..

First, from where I left off. Knowledge comes from studying our experiences or that of others. That is the basis of theory. The purest method of which is exemplified by the scientific method. To study a phenomena based on what you know about the elements involved. An apple falls. You know it has weight. What is the weight and is that making it fall or something else? You find a cannonball dud and drop it with the apple. Only to see them fall at the same rate. You had no real reason to believe that nothing other than weight affected their falling. You didn't have to prove it, who would argue. In fact, you could've set out to prove just that. Certain that that was the case. Only to have your beliefs change due to new information. Belief is very much a part of theorizing, and scientific theory by consequence. We cannot deny that there are few certainties in complex sciences. Just many theories based on measured, repeatable and demonstrative models. The theories themselves are taken as hard fact though they're not known to be such. Not to take any merit from them. They're the best models we have.. however, they don't really know whether the big bang was a ball of energy or God's fart, objectively speaking (you underestimate the power of God's fart) lol..

This is where belief and faith come in. Belief and Faith in and of themselves aren't exclusionary to evidence or knowledge. As has been demonstrated, belief is very much based on knowing of some sort. Whether that knowledge, or its interpretation, is correct is a separate issue. The evidence must be reviewed.. Even faith, as given in religious texts (mainly being a Christian theme) is said to be based on the "knowledge of the Truth" demonstrated by Yeshua "who was called Messiah" or some other Holy Man. Even by religious standards, faith is to be guided by knowledge. If a pastor speaks blind faith. He speaks it of his own accord. Most likely, for their own benefit.. Belief starts with our ability to conceptualize something in our minds. Knowledge is our ability to measure and quantify it..
The belief in flight was thought to be delusional at one time. Knowing that man couldn't fly. Now it's common knowledge and the old knowledge is worthless
..to simplify-
without knowledge, belief becomes "delusional".
without belief, knowledge will be "worthless"...
Ironically, those are "shadows" of certain kabbalistic concepts..

The subtlety of things like this, and other things, cannot be underestimated. Subtlety in politics, nature, or story telling. Whatever.. Increase in subtlety is not a decrease in power. It might actually be the contrary. As some Quantum Physicists would argue. This is also observed in Law. Legislation has no power, other than people's willingness to obey and enforce it. This is the basis of social order and civilization as a whole. The subject of "coup"s and revolutions. Without that idea of agreement, legislation is null and void and its order ceases to have affect. From such a quiet thing, whole civilizations have risen and collapsed.. The love of Rome faded in the people's minds long before the city fell.. the love of Power grew to eclipse all. Including the welfare of the Empire. That is when she fell, from within. Ideas are powerful, we cannot forget that. Especially, my fellow Americans..

The mind is powerful. Definitely moreso than we once thought. Our body responds to our minds. Even though it somewhat has a mind of its own. Our thoughts determine our habits. Not arbitrarily, but because they determine our actions. If you always think you'll be late. You will be. Mainly because you will not think in ways to overcome your tardiness. Your body then begins to follow suit. You feel more lethargic, lacking energy. Always having to rush at the last minute. Mastering our thoughts goes a long way to mastering our bodies. There's physiological evidence that your body responds to the way you think. It has evolved a series of complex systems to correctly respond to every thought of you consciousness..
See a bear? "Does it see me? Am I far enough? Are there cubs?" These and other thoughts flood the conscious mind from the subconscious reservoir. Whether or not you let fear or worry overcome your mind. Your body will respond in kind. If you're mind is seized by fear your body may lock up, or become uncoordinated. If you can focus your mind. The body will respond differently to your urgency, if there is any at all.. works the same with love..

Our thoughts are shaped by what we observe and our understanding of that observation. Just as our body's reactive chemistry is shaped by how we think. However, our ability to observe is relative to the objects ability to be observed by the methods we use. If it weren't for other methods of detection. We would assume only visible light existed as only our eyes detect. As we know now, space is far from empty. These things are observable by things of like nature. We use material methods to study material phenomena. Consciousness is immaterial, therefore we have psychology. Which is even less concrete than material theories and subject to wide spectrums. However, consciousness itself cannot be measured by material instruments. Only its material affect on our bodies. When we love, our bodies produce the proper hormonal response. However, what one man loves may be another's scourge. What is it behind these thoughts? Beyond the material synapses in our brain. That subtle power that commands the whole body of a person and their thoughts.. some say it's a real power that can be studied and harnessed. Though you couldn't do so with a material method. No matter how scientific. In my experience, the study of so called "supernatural" phenomena requires out of the box methodology. Yet still has the same requirements of repeatable results and predictability.. I have experience in manipulating digital waves using my thoughts as energy itself. Not by thinking hard, but intuitively. Feeling the world around me. Using my understanding of my environment to guide my senses. The results were affirmations for what I had already believed to be possible. Based on past experience with the subject material..

Our experience of this world is objectively subjective. So is our view of reality. We may be certain of things until we look from a different "point of view" lol. We should always look to challenge our beliefs and knowledge before we seek to remove the fallacy from another's. The "beam from your own eye" thing. We may be wrong in our own assessments or wrong understanding the assessments of others. Even if we thought we had good reason to those assessments. We cannot honestly discuss them and resolve the conflicts of different perspectives unless we understand that our own reality is subjective of our experience as well and look to understand our own reasoning and that of others..
If you had never seen nor heard of an elephant. How would you react to an armored one trumpeting and charging at you?..

I hope I was able to get my points across. Since we've seemed to haved hash out belief, knowledge, and theory. Uniting them through evidence. Share what experiences have lead you to believe that there's a fundamental rule or "Force" that governs reality? That would be phase 2.. I'm open to rebuttals to my points though lol

I concur with the Kalama Sutta :

"“Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.”"

Scientific knowledge can only be held when there is some means of verification of the facts, whether empirical or logical. However, scientific knowledge is unrelated to value-statements, issues of interpersonal/normative ethics, etc., in which case the standard outlined above in this post may serve as an alternative means of verification. It is important to note that knowledge is a subset of belief and whatever it is we "know" may also be described as a justified belief. The actual absolute truth-value of any given statement, arguably, cannot be known -- so I favor justified belief as the preferable terminology.

Thank you Sir Duderino...

TheDude wrote: It is important to note that knowledge is a subset of belief and whatever it is we "know" may also be described as a justified belief.

No this is wrong. Knowledge is not a subset of belief. Knowledge is a subset of truth. You can still have a belief and have it justified and yet still be wrong about that belief.

Gisteron wrote:

ren wrote:

Gisteron wrote:

ren wrote: ... the mind has great untapped power over our physiology.

No. The picture of fundamental principles that govern our world on resolutions remotely interesting to us is complete. All of the power that "the mind" (what ever that is supposed to be) can possibly have over our physiology (again, assuming that expression can actually mean something coherent in one way or another) is either well tapped and mapped or nowhere near "great".

In your opinion perhaps. Greatness is relative.

My body's gravity has a stronger influence on your physiology than the untapped power of your mind does. Now I'm not sure whether there is any untapped mind power or whether there are forces at play weaker yet than it, and neither do you, so I'm positive neither of us can say that it is objectively the least great, but then neither of us did. I just wouldn't think "great" an apt description for something so weak as to be negligible if existent at all, but that is indeed only my opinion. Mayhaps in circles like these it is a controversial one to hold. So be it.

The once untapped power of my mind has proven to have far greater influence on my physiology than your body's gravity ever could. As for the currently untapped power of my mind, it is still not known so ranges from absolutely nothing to all the power in the universe.

I thought logical fallacies weren't your thing.

Uzima Moto wrote: Tell me what you know, not what you believe

I know that the Force is real. I feel it, coursing through my body at will. I feel the things around me through it.

I know that questions are more useful than answers.

I know that there is no dark side of the Force, only the darkness in our own hearts.

I know that pain or its avoidance is the universal motivation behind everything we do.

I know that all answers fall short of the truth.

_Vergere_ wrote:

Uzima Moto wrote: Tell me what you know, not what you believe

I know that the Force is real. I feel it, coursing through my body at will. I feel the things around me through it.

I know that questions are more useful than answers.

I know that there is no dark side of the Force, only the darkness in our own hearts.

I know that pain or its avoidance is the universal motivation behind everything we do.

I know that all answers fall short of the truth.

What experiences in your life taught you these things and how?

ren wrote: The once untapped power of my mind has proven to have far greater influence on my physiology than your body's gravity ever could. As for the currently untapped power of my mind, it is still not known so ranges from absolutely nothing to all the power in the universe.

Okay, so... If we assume my weights to be on the order of some 10¹ to 10²kg, the distance between us no greater than the earth's diameter at about 10⁷m, then the gravitational energy of your body in my field should be something like -10^-14 or -10^-15J or thereabouts. That sounds like a lot of zeros after the decimal point before there is anything of note. Ludicrous one might say, too weak to detect. Well, actually, no. The strong nuclear force is on the order of 10^-19 to 10^-18J and we have tapped it for good and for ill. And that force is called strong for a reason, mind you, we are well aware of ones weaker much than it. In fact, gravity is substantially weaker, all things considered. And it's not like we can just barely detect things like that either. No, we can measure them with several orders of precision, and the deviation between measurement and simulation are below measurement uncertainty.
Now, point taken, I do not know just what untapped power of the mind you are speaking of. I was assuming some kind of power that we actually didn't have knowledge or mastery of yet. Maybe my assumption was flawed. If that's not what you meant, then by all means, I stand corrected. However, if you are going to argue that there are "great" forces at play outside of our view, then I'll beg to differ. The room left to forces entirely yet unseen is so narrow as to render them effectively irrelevant. While generally "irrelevant" may sound like a value judgement, I can entirely omit the label and stick to the numbers alone, and quantify their relevancy objectively instead, if you prefer. I figured this is not how most people speak and wanted to avoid that awkwardness, but since you insist, here we are.

I thought logical fallacies weren't your thing.

What fallacy have I committed in your opinion?