ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , internet incidents , Trump controversies , US-Russia relations , vladimir putin

Reply
Old 8th January 2017, 12:39 PM   #361
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,408
The anti-expert/anti-intellectual that has been growing over rhe last few decades has finally borne fruit. People are taking the word of a grifter game show host over the entire US intelligence community.

What I don't understand is why.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 12:45 PM   #362
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 13,720
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
The anti-expert/anti-intellectual that has been growing over rhe last few decades has finally borne fruit. People are taking the word of a grifter game show host over the entire US intelligence community.

What I don't understand is why.
Because to some he appears credible, thanks to the fact that Russia and wikileaks never spilled the dirt on him or his party, only his opposition.
__________________
"Realize deeply that the present moment is all you ever have." (Eckhart Tolle, 2004)
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 12:48 PM   #363
The_Animus
Master Poster
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,416
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
The anti-expert/anti-intellectual that has been growing over rhe last few decades has finally borne fruit. People are taking the word of a grifter game show host over the entire US intelligence community.

What I don't understand is why.
You don't even understand what you don't understand. Mostly the posters in this thread objecting aren't claiming that the word of a grifter game show host is better than the intelligence community.

Keep calling others anti-intellectual when you can't even follow this thread.

You and several others in this thread need to do themselves a favor and repeat the following: "I don't have a clue about who hacked the DNC. There is no evidence available to us proving who hacked the DNC. My trust in the conclusions of the intelligence community are entirely an appeal to authority."

More attempts to bring Trump into this will certainly follow, even though him and his opinion have no relevance whatsoever as to whether Russia hacked the DNC or whether there is evidence of such.
__________________
Straw Man, Ad Hominem, Moving the Goalposts, and a massive post count are all good indicators that a poster is intellectually dishonest and not interested in real discussion.

Feeding trolls only makes them stronger, yet it is so hard to refrain.

Last edited by The_Animus; 8th January 2017 at 12:53 PM.
The_Animus is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 12:54 PM   #364
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 13,644
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
People are taking the word of a grifter game show host over the entire US intelligence community.

I'm taking my considerable amount of knowledge of IT/"hacking", together with what has transpired before the elections with the shillaries denying that any hacks of Killary's cowboy server have taken place, together with the words of Assange, Murray, Binney, McAfee, even Kim Dotcom, over the allegations published by the office of a known liar Clapper who will finally lose his job in short time after he should have been fired years ago, assorted pre$$titute outlets like the Washington Pest quoting "government officials", and politiziced "experts" hired by the DNC, lead by a disgruntled Russian expat with an axe to grind and a seat at the Atlantic Council "think tank" (Alperovitch). Because I'm nor blinded by conditioned hatred for my president.
__________________
The World is "Fake News"
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 01:02 PM   #365
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,408
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
You don't even understand what you don't understand. Mostly the posters in this thread objecting aren't claiming that the word of a grifter game show host is better than the intelligence community.

Keep calling others anti-intellectual when you can't even follow this thread.
Whoever said I was referring merely to the people in this thread?

But I appreciate you volunteering as a data point in support of my argument.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 01:04 PM   #366
The_Animus
Master Poster
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,416
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Whoever said I was referring merely to the people in this thread?

But I appreciate you volunteering as a data point in support of my argument.
Merely would include the people in this thread. So my point still stands. And you do understand I'm far left, didn't vote for Trump, and don't believe anything Trump says?

Congratz on being your own data point.

ETA: Btw I noticed you decided to ignore part of what I said. Do you agree with the following or not?

"I don't have a clue about who hacked the DNC. There is no evidence available to us proving who hacked the DNC. My trust in the conclusions of the intelligence community are entirely an appeal to authority."
__________________
Straw Man, Ad Hominem, Moving the Goalposts, and a massive post count are all good indicators that a poster is intellectually dishonest and not interested in real discussion.

Feeding trolls only makes them stronger, yet it is so hard to refrain.

Last edited by The_Animus; 8th January 2017 at 01:07 PM.
The_Animus is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 01:06 PM   #367
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 13,644
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
But I appreciate you volunteering as a data point in support of my argument.

Your "argument" that Trump's voice is of any importance to rule what's going on here was demolished by both The Animus and me quicker than you could have hoped for.
__________________
The World is "Fake News"
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 01:19 PM   #368
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,408
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
Merely would include the people in this thread. So my point still stands. And you do understand I'm far left, didn't vote for Trump, and don't believe anything Trump says?

Congratz on being your own data point.

ETA: Btw I noticed you decided to ignore part of what I said. Do you agree with the following or not?

"I don't have a clue about who hacked the DNC. There is no evidence available to us proving who hacked the DNC. My trust in the conclusions of the intelligence community are entirely an appeal to authority."
The stuff you added after I started my post? Funny, that.

The thing about appeals to authority is that they are only fallacies when appealing to inappropriate authorities. The US intelligence community, for example, is an appropriate authority on this particular topic. A random anonymous poster on a forum board is an inappropriate authority.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 01:22 PM   #369
caveman1917
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,092
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
The thing about appeals to authority is that they are only fallacies when appealing to inappropriate authorities.
No they aren't.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 01:28 PM   #370
The_Animus
Master Poster
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,416
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
The stuff you added after I started my post? Funny, that.

The thing about appeals to authority is that they are only fallacies when appealing to inappropriate authorities. The US intelligence community, for example, is an appropriate authority on this particular topic. A random anonymous poster on a forum board is an inappropriate authority.
My apologies, I didn't realize you'd started your post before that.

I'm glad that you agree that you're relying entirely on appeal to authority. It is an appropriate authority, although it has lied in the past. That still isn't evidence and is still entirely an appeal to authority.

I haven't made claims about whether it was Russia or not, nor claimed I'm an authority. Quite the opposite in fact. But there are authorities who have claimed that Russia isn't involved. I guess that's the problem with relying entirely on appeal to authority.
__________________
Straw Man, Ad Hominem, Moving the Goalposts, and a massive post count are all good indicators that a poster is intellectually dishonest and not interested in real discussion.

Feeding trolls only makes them stronger, yet it is so hard to refrain.
The_Animus is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 01:30 PM   #371
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,408
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
No they aren't.
Ugh. I don't mind arguing topics, but when it comes to continually explaining critical thinking, logic, and fallacies, it gets really old.

Yes. Appealing to Einstein about god is a logical fallacy. Appealing to Einstein about Relativity is not necessarily a logical fallacy. Appealing to an authority is sometimes entirely appropriate and even necessarily. Read up on it sometime.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 01:36 PM   #372
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,105
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
The anti-expert/anti-intellectual that has been growing over rhe last few decades has finally borne fruit. People are taking the word of a grifter game show host over the entire US intelligence community.

What I don't understand is why.
Because the "community" is corrupt?
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 01:45 PM   #373
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,131
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Ugh. I don't mind arguing topics, but when it comes to continually explaining critical thinking, logic, and fallacies, it gets really old.

Yes. Appealing to Einstein about god is a logical fallacy. Appealing to Einstein about Relativity is not necessarily a logical fallacy. Appealing to an authority is sometimes entirely appropriate and even necessarily. Read up on it sometime.
The problem is that appealing to an authority is not definitive, especially when that authority is merely repeating an assertion over and over, but not supplying sufficient evidence or data to prove their claim. There's a whole credibility factor to deal with. Since any authority cited is inevitably going to end up with a human or several humans putting forth an assertion, conclusion, or position, we have to accept the possibility they are fallible. I don't have a particularly high level of trust in the FBI, CIA, and NSA and I have entirely valid reasons for remaining at a level of provisional acceptance of any claims they make.

I don't even need to hinge it on outright misrepresentations or knowingly spreading falsehoods. It could be Woozle effect, which is to say that a whole lot of people are publishing or stating the same assertions and citing each other as authorities even though none of them offer observable, verifiable/falsifiable evidence.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 01:51 PM   #374
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,408
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
My apologies, I didn't realize you'd started your post before that.

I'm glad that you agree that you're relying entirely on appeal to authority. It is an appropriate authority, although it has lied in the past. That still isn't evidence and is still entirely an appeal to authority.

I haven't made claims about whether it was Russia or not, nor claimed I'm an authority. Quite the opposite in fact. But there are authorities who have claimed that Russia isn't involved. I guess that's the problem with relying entirely on appeal to authority.
Primary source evidence isn't always available in life and this is one of those times. We're not likely to see the raw evidence until it is declassified and that will take a decade or more. Lacking that, we must rely on authoritative sources. In this case, that is US intelligence. The fact that there is consensus among the different agencies with high confidence leaves little wiggle room based on what we currently know.

I wasn't referring to you claiming to be an authority.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 01:52 PM   #375
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,408
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Because the "community" is corrupt?
Data point.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 02:00 PM   #376
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,737
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
ETA: Btw I noticed you decided to ignore part of what I said. Do you agree with the following or not?

"I don't have a clue about who hacked the DNC. There is no evidence available to us proving who hacked the DNC. My trust in the conclusions of the intelligence community are entirely an appeal to authority."
Yes, it's an appeal to authority, but not a fallacious appeal to authority. It is right to defer to authorities who (1) have apparent expertise in the matter under consideration and (2) we have reason to believe they are trustworthy on these matters.

I never measured the height of Everest, and could not do so easily. I never did the calculation for the 10,000th digit of pi, but I'll accept the word of those who did. I never confirmed that the misspelled Trump tweets coming at the wee hours are written by Trump, but I believe in the words of those who've said so. I take many authorities as trustworthy. There was almost certainly a shooting at a gay nightclub in Florida, though I haven't done the legwork to confirm it.

This is a little bit different, since we have no promise that the evidence will be forthcoming for seven or so decades. But it's also quite similar: the intelligence and independent, private anti-hacking community are persons who are authorities here, and I tend to accept their non-partisanship as well as the bipartisan support of Congresspersons who've seen the evidence.

So, you are mistaken to think that every appeal to authority is a fallacy. On the contrary, we appeal to authority whenever you and I discuss Hannibal or Alexander the Great or many other figures for whom the evidence is indirect (reports in contemporary histories, for instance).
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 02:06 PM   #377
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,737
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
No they aren't.
Yes, dear sir, they are.

Else, you will have to expend ridiculous efforts to determine whether Hannibal lived, while forgoing all testimony to that fact, or decide that you just don't know.

I'm happy to say that I have a large degree of belief that Hannibal existed, because testimony I regard as reliable is overwhelming.

You'll also have to do without more or less all media, which depends on first or second hand reports and interviews. Unless you are an expert in video fakery, you should dismiss video evidence as well.

This is not skepticism, but surrender.
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 02:09 PM   #378
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,737
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
The problem is that appealing to an authority is not definitive, especially when that authority is merely repeating an assertion over and over, but not supplying sufficient evidence or data to prove their claim. There's a whole credibility factor to deal with. Since any authority cited is inevitably going to end up with a human or several humans putting forth an assertion, conclusion, or position, we have to accept the possibility they are fallible. I don't have a particularly high level of trust in the FBI, CIA, and NSA and I have entirely valid reasons for remaining at a level of provisional acceptance of any claims they make.

I don't even need to hinge it on outright misrepresentations or knowingly spreading falsehoods. It could be Woozle effect, which is to say that a whole lot of people are publishing or stating the same assertions and citing each other as authorities even though none of them offer observable, verifiable/falsifiable evidence.
Even if you decide that you cannot trust any of the various intelligence agencies, you must surely admit that the Republicans on bipartisan committees would not go along with a ruse. They've seen the evidence and agreed it's persuasive.
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 03:08 PM   #379
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 13,644
While we're at "persuasive", what's (I think) new in the report is an explicit statement that "DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying."

So any serious allegations of direct "meddling" with the elections are off the table, and what is left are shady claims by partisan hacks and a really childish fallback to "RT is mean for questioning our narrative".

The slime at NYT has already used the clownish content of the "report" to embarrass themselves again by having to issue retractions still leaving their claims in a mess.

Abby Martin Responds to Exploitation by NY Times

Originally Posted by former RT host Abby Martin
The long-awaited report by the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), allegedly proving Russian “interference” in the US election, includes a section solely dedicated to bashing RT, and specifically calls out my former show Breaking the Set, which ended two years ago, as a propaganda vector marking the beginning of the Kremlin attempt to subvert American democracy.

Desperate to push this US intelligence narrative, The New York Times called the report “damning and surprisingly detailed,” while adding that it includes no actual evidence.

The very next day, on Jan. 7, the Times published another piece titled “Russia’s RT, The Network Implicated in U.S. Election Meddling.”

In the article, NYT journalist Russell Goldman used two blatantly false statements about my work at RT to support the argument that the network is simply a Putin-dictated propaganda outlet.

First, he stated “…two anchors who quit during live broadcasts say the network is a propaganda outlet.”

I did not quit during a live broadcast, nor did I say that the network is a propaganda outlet.

He goes on to say “…Abby Martin, who said before quitting, ‘What Russia did was wrong.’”

Any cursory research into the referenced quote—when I spoke out against Russia’s military entrance into Crimea and the network’s glorification of it—will find that not only did I not quit on air, but that I continued my show for an entire year afterward.

I was interviewed about my on-air statement on many major news stations, from BBC to CNN, where I defended my editorial freedom and also called-out the double standards and hypocrisies in their coverage.

RT issued an official statement in support of my freedom to state my opinion on the network. Over the course of the next year, I continued to voice my concerns and opinions about Russia, from MH-17 to the Ukraine crisis, unfiltered.

I quit the network on my own terms in February 2015 because I wanted to do more in-depth investigative reporting, not because I believed it to be a propaganda outlet. [...]
__________________
The World is "Fake News"
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 03:11 PM   #380
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,408
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
While we're at "persuasive", what's (I think) new in the report is an explicit statement that "DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying."

So any serious allegations of direct "meddling" with the elections are off the table, and what is left are shady claims by partisan hacks and a really childish fallback to "RT is mean for questioning our narrative".
Strawman is full of straw.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 03:34 PM   #381
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 13,644
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Strawman is full of straw.

You mean nobody made it appear that Russia was directly tampering with the election process? Not from what I gathered in the fog. Maybe nobody who can be held responsible for their claims said it directly. But are you seriously claiming that it wasn't included in the undertone of the propaganda campaign? Or is your rudimentary sentence just another bit of "fallacy calling" for effect?
__________________
The World is "Fake News"
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 03:52 PM   #382
caveman1917
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,092
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Ugh. I don't mind arguing topics, but when it comes to continually explaining critical thinking, logic, and fallacies, it gets really old.
You are not explaining either critical thinking, logic, or fallacies. Quite the opposite.

Quote:
Appealing to Einstein about Relativity is not necessarily a logical fallacy.
Yes it is.

Quote:
Appealing to an authority is sometimes entirely appropriate and even necessarily.
You haven't even supported your claim that the people involved are authorities in the first place.

Quote:
Read up on it sometime.
The never-ending arrogance of a specific branch of pseudo-skepticism.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 03:58 PM   #383
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,408
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
You mean nobody made it appear that Russia was directly tampering with the election process? Not from what I gathered in the fog. Maybe nobody who can be held responsible for their claims said it directly. But are you seriously claiming that it wasn't included in the undertone of the propaganda campaign? Or is your rudimentary sentence just another bit of "fallacy calling" for effect?
Well, that's an interesting shift between two consecutive posts.

No, I was referring to your refutation of tampering with vote tallying. No one is suggesting that is how Putin was tampering.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 03:59 PM   #384
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 19,395
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
You mean nobody made it appear that Russia was directly tampering with the election process? Not from what I gathered in the fog. Maybe nobody who can be held responsible for their claims said it directly. But are you seriously claiming that it wasn't included in the undertone of the propaganda campaign? Or is your rudimentary sentence just another bit of "fallacy calling" for effect?
You really don't appreciate how easy Trump makes it to pin this on your God putin, do you?
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 04:00 PM   #385
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,408
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
You are not explaining either critical thinking, logic, or fallacies. Quite the opposite.

Yes it is.

You haven't even supported your claim that the people involved are authorities in the first place.

The never-ending arrogance of a specific branch of pseudo-skepticism.
This is what I'm talking about. There isn't enough time in the day.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 04:03 PM   #386
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 13,644
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Well, that's an interesting shift between two consecutive posts.

No, I was referring to your refutation of tampering with vote tallying. No one is suggesting that is how Putin was tampering.

Shift? So why is that sentence in the report if no one suggested that kind of tampering (I can't believe you are seriously claiming that nobody suggested it, but, PTrumpSD™ can do a lot to people)?
__________________
The World is "Fake News"
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 04:06 PM   #387
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,408
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
Shift? So why is that sentence in the report if no one suggested that kind of tampering (I can't believe you are seriously claiming that nobody suggested it, but, PTrumpSD™ can do a lot to people)?
Who has suggested that Russia tampered with the vote tallying?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 04:07 PM   #388
caveman1917
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,092
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Yes, dear sir, they are.
No they are not.

Let's remember what a logical fallacy is, it is an argument such that the conclusion does not follow from its premises. Let A be some authority, let X be the claim made by said authority. Then an appeal to authority takes this form:

A says X => X is true.

This statement is valid iff it is true under every interpretation. So in order to show that this is not a fallacy, you have to show that there exists no interpretation under which "A says X" is true and "X is true" is false.

Quote:
Else, you will have to expend ridiculous efforts to determine whether Hannibal lived, while forgoing all testimony to that fact, or decide that you just don't know.

I'm happy to say that I have a large degree of belief that Hannibal existed, because testimony I regard as reliable is overwhelming.
We weren't talking about Hannibal though.

Quote:
This is not skepticism, but surrender.
What you're doing isn't skepticism but ideology. Had you attempted to establish this "authority" by objective means (testing their previous claims etc) one could say it might be skeptical. But you didn't, you argued it on purely ideological grounds (we should trust the government because it is "part of being governed", etc).
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 04:10 PM   #389
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,737
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
You are not explaining either critical thinking, logic, or fallacies. Quite the opposite.



Yes it is.
No, appealing to reliable, trustworthy authorities is not a fallacy. You are simply wrong.

I could, of course, cite a half-dozen text books confirming my view, but you would call this appealing to authority (wrongly).

How do you intend to support your view? Don't get me wrong, repeating "yes it is" is a novel form of debate, not seen since The Argument Clinic, but it doesn't actually persuade.

Did Hannibal exist? What evidence (aside from the testimony of reliable sources, both contemporaneous and recent) could you provide to establish that he did? Or do you prefer to be in the dark on this matter?
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 04:11 PM   #390
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 13,644
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Who has suggested that Russia tampered with the vote tallying?

I have no example handy. Prove a negative or at least explain why that sentence is in the report.
__________________
The World is "Fake News"
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 04:16 PM   #391
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,408
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
No they are not.

Let's remember what a logical fallacy is, it is an argument such that the conclusion does not follow from its premises.
No, that is a non sequitur, which is a logical fallacy, but not all logical fallacies. You are committing a sort of hasty generalization.

As I said, you should look it up.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 04:23 PM   #392
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,408
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
I have no example handy. Prove a negative or at least explain why that sentence is in the report.
I can't prove a negative, but I've been hearing this same strawman on conservative media quite a bit based, largely I suspect, on a misunderstanding of the word "hacking". I imagine it was added because of that.

I suspect you'll be looking for quite a while before you do find an example. Thus, a strawman.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 04:24 PM   #393
caveman1917
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,092
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
No, appealing to reliable, trustworthy authorities is not a fallacy.
We're talking about the US government and its intelligence agencies, nothing reliable or trustworthy. But even so, yes, it is still a fallacy.

Quote:
You are simply wrong.
No I am really not. When will you show that, as per the previous post, there exists no interpretation under which "authority claims X" is true and "X is true" is false? For every instance of "authority" and "X" even.

Quote:
I could, of course, cite a half-dozen text books confirming my view, but you would call this appealing to authority (wrongly).
Feel free to cite one.

Quote:
How do you intend to support your view? Don't get me wrong, repeating "yes it is" is a novel form of debate, not seen since The Argument Clinic, but it doesn't actually persuade.
A bit silly since that's all you've done, whereas I have supported my argument in my previous post.

Quote:
Did Hannibal exist? What evidence (aside from the testimony of reliable sources, both contemporaneous and recent) could you provide to establish that he did? Or do you prefer to be in the dark on this matter?
I don't particularly care whether Hannibal existed, nor is this particularly relevant. Unless you're going to claim that if someone accepts at least one claim based on authority that this someone is required to accept all claims based on all purported "authorities"?
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 04:26 PM   #394
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,737
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
No they are not.

Let's remember what a logical fallacy is, it is an argument such that the conclusion does not follow from its premises. Let A be some authority, let X be the claim made by said authority. Then an appeal to authority takes this form:

A says X => X is true.

This statement is valid iff it is true under every interpretation. So in order to show that this is not a fallacy, you have to show that there exists no interpretation under which "A says X" is true and "X is true" is false.
You are confusing invalid deductive arguments with logical fallacies.

For instance, inductive reasoning is not fallacious. If one sees many swans, all of which are white, one is correct to conclude that it is probably the case that all swans are white. Of course, it may not be the case.

Similarly, if I have good reason to believe that A is an authority on X and good reason to believe that A is trustworthy regarding X, then A's saying that X is good reason to believe that X is probably true. It is not the case that X could not be false, but we're talking about a form of inductive reasoning here.

Quote:
We weren't talking about Hannibal though.
Your claims about appeal to authority would apply to Hannibal as well.

Quote:
What you're doing isn't skepticism but ideology. Had you attempted to establish this "authority" by objective means (testing their previous claims etc) one could say it might be skeptical. But you didn't, you argued it on purely ideological grounds (we should trust the government because it is "part of being governed", etc).
No, I trust that what these different intelligence agencies say is likely to be true, partly because of their agreement with one another and because they are likely to have methods for determining the truth. Moreover, they have shared their evidence with a bipartisan group of congressmen, all of whom treat it seriously.

Of course, I must admit that it is possible my conclusion is in error, but I am nonetheless persuaded that it is probable. It would be nicer to have access to the evidence, assuming that I have the technical wherewithal to understand it, but I know that this isn't the case here.
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 04:33 PM   #395
caveman1917
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,092
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
No, that is a non sequitur, which is a logical fallacy, but not all logical fallacies. You are committing a sort of hasty generalization.

As I said, you should look it up.
As suggested I looked things up on the authoritative source you suggested, Wikipedia. In the article on "Fallacy" I found the following:
Originally Posted by wiki
According to Whately, logical fallacies are arguments where the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
To me this appears to be exactly what I said. In fact, as you may have seen, I've made this notion of "conclusion following from the premises" more precise as "there does not exist an interpretation in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false".

It would be much appreciated if your towering intellect could take some more time to explain to us, the ignorant, the illogical and the non-skeptical, this logic, critical thinking and skepticism you speak of?
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 8th January 2017 at 04:36 PM.
caveman1917 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 04:36 PM   #396
caveman1917
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,092
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
I can't prove a negative
Why not?
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 04:43 PM   #397
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,737
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
We're talking about the US government and its intelligence agencies, nothing reliable or trustworthy. But even so, yes, it is still a fallacy.



No I am really not. When will you show that, as per the previous post, there exists no interpretation under which "authority claims X" is true and "X is true" is false? For every instance of "authority" and "X" even.
Again, we are not speaking of deductive proof here. I fully admit that some appeal to authority leads to false conclusions, a trait common among all inductive arguments.

Really, first semester critical thinking here.
Quote:
Feel free to cite one.
From Copi's Introduction to Logic (Sixth Printing, 1963):
The argumentum ad verecundiam is the appeal to authority, that is, to the feeling of respect people have for the famous, to win assent to a conclusion. This method of argument is not always strictly fallacious, for the reference to an admitted authority in the special field of his competence may carry great weight and constitute relevant evidence. If laymen are disputing over the question of physical science and one appeals to the testimony of Einstein on the matter, that testimony is very relevant. Although it does not prove the point, it certainly tends to confirm it. This is a relative matter, however, for if experts rather than laymen are disputing over a question in the field in which they themselves are experts, their appeal would be only to the facts and to reason, and any appeal to the authority of another expert would be completely without value as evidence.
It goes on another two-thirds of a page from there, but I don't care to type any more. What is clear is that appeal to authority is not always fallacious, contrary to your claims.

Quote:
A bit silly since that's all you've done, whereas I have supported my argument in my previous post.



I don't particularly care whether Hannibal existed, nor is this particularly relevant. Unless you're going to claim that if someone accepts at least one claim based on authority that this someone is required to accept all claims based on all purported "authorities"?
It was your claim that appeal to authority is always fallacious. Don't you recall?

If you'd like to amend that claim and say that the issue is instead whether intelligence agencies should be treated as reliable authorities, that would be a different matter, not one easy to settle and which comes down to a difference of opinion.

Let me close with a reminder what you said: appeal to authority is always fallacious. That's nonsense, a gross misunderstanding of informal logic/critical thinking.

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post

The thing about appeals to authority is that they are only fallacies when appealing to inappropriate authorities.
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
No they aren't.

Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
No, appealing to reliable, trustworthy authorities is not a fallacy. You are simply wrong.
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
We're talking about the US government and its intelligence agencies, nothing reliable or trustworthy. But even so, yes, it is still a fallacy.
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 04:43 PM   #398
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,408
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
As suggested I looked things up on the authoritative source you suggested, Wikipedia. [snip]
As I said, it is a kind of logical fallacy. It does not represent them all.

How's the reading up on appeal to authority going?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 04:50 PM   #399
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,737
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
As suggested I looked things up on the authoritative source you suggested, Wikipedia. In the article on "Fallacy" I found the following:


To me this appears to be exactly what I said. In fact, as you may have seen, I've made this notion of "conclusion following from the premises" more precise as "there does not exist an interpretation in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false".

It would be much appreciated if your towering intellect could take some more time to explain to us, the ignorant, the illogical and the non-skeptical, this logic, critical thinking and skepticism you speak of?
Wikipedia seems a bit imprecise in their description of fallacies. The sorts of fallacies we are primarily interested in here are fallacies of inductive arguments. Such arguments are only intended to establish that their conclusions are probable. When these arguments fail, they do so because the premises do not actually establish that their conclusion is probable.

Once again, deductive logic is different than inductive logic.

ETA: Why'd you look up "fallacy" instead of "appeal to authority"?

Last edited by phiwum; 8th January 2017 at 04:52 PM.
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2017, 04:54 PM   #400
caveman1917
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 4,092
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
You are confusing invalid deductive arguments with logical fallacies.
Not quite, it's pretty much the definition of "logical fallacy".

Quote:
For instance, inductive reasoning is not fallacious. If one sees many swans, all of which are white, one is correct to conclude that it is probably the case that all swans are white. Of course, it may not be the case.
That's what we have statistics or probabilistic reasoning for. But let's remember that your argument for believing the US government/intelligence isn't based on statistics.

Quote:
Similarly, if I have good reason to believe that A is an authority on X and good reason to believe that A is trustworthy regarding X, then A's saying that X is good reason to believe that X is probably true. It is not the case that X could not be false, but we're talking about a form of inductive reasoning here.
Again, if that were the case then you have to provide us with estimates of likelihoods. Specifically, let E be "the US government & intelligence services say X is true" and H be "X is true", then you should provide us with P(E | H) and P(E | ~H).

Quote:
Your claims about appeal to authority would apply to Hannibal as well.
True but irrelevant for the reason stated earlier. Even if someone accepts certain claims based on certain authorities doesn't mean someone should accept all claims based on all purported authorities.

Quote:
No, I trust that what these different intelligence agencies say is likely to be true, partly because of their agreement with one another and because they are likely to have methods for determining the truth.
They also have methods for spreading disinformation and are known for their persistent use of such.

Quote:
Moreover, they have shared their evidence with a bipartisan group of congressmen, all of whom treat it seriously.
Well, let's take a look at the pieces of evidence we have been given. First, some IP addresses which were used, which are Tor exit nodes. The basis for connecting this with Russia is that Russia is "associated" with these IP addresses. What it fails to mention is that everyone who tries to hide their identity on the internet is associated with Tor exit node IP addresses.

Suppose I walk up to a group of senators and provide them with the following evidence:

1. List of IP addresses used in hacking/phishing events.
2. Earlier recorded use of these IP addresses by Russia.

And of course I stay silent about everyone else also using these IP addresses. You think I could convince a bunch of random senators that these 2 pieces of information constitute evidence for associating the hacking/phishing events with Russia? I bet I could.

Quote:
Of course, I must admit that it is possible my conclusion is in error, but I am nonetheless persuaded that it is probable.
Then argue your case based on a sound and empirical basis rather than an ideological one. Otherwise I don't see how you could expect other people to adopt that persuasion.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:59 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.