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 9th January 2017, 12:34 PM   #481
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,455
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
(citation needed)
Here's what a quick Google search turned up. The source (Barbara Honegger) means nothing to me, but either she's good enough for Caveman1917 or some random internet cite is.

For that matter, of course, we must trust quora.com that Honegger said this, or else find an original citation.
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 9th January 2017, 12:36 PM   #482
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,455
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
2. The mere fact that you even require a citation for this shows that you are in absolutely no position to judge the "trustworthiness" of the intelligence agencies.
Sorry, what?
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 9th January 2017, 12:37 PM   #483
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,455
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Sure it was from you. You argued that we could appeal to authority as opposed to requiring evidence, didn't you?
No one in this thread has even come close to suggesting that every appeal to authority is a good argument.

Quote:
Ugh. I don't mind arguing topics, but when it comes to continually explaining critical thinking, logic, and fallacies, it gets really old.
I agree, but how would you know?
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 9th January 2017, 12:39 PM   #484
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,903
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I wouldn't hang my hat on that difference, if I were you.

There are various historical figures who are known to us only through the testimony of others. When a sufficient number of contemporaries agree that this or that fellow existed, and their accounts are similar enough, and if we there is reason to believe these accounts were written independently and without common prior (lost) source, then we ought to conclude it is probable the person existed (ignoring, of course, fantastical tales).

But we cannot reasonably expect any better evidence than such testimony.
This is largely true for issues of history and law. However, my point is that this is data that anyone, given the right circumstances, can obtain access to. The classification on any information has an expiration date. It it exists, or even if it doesn't, we'll learn about it eventually. Sooner, if one manages to obtain clearance. The point is that it is obtainable.

It isn't privileged in the same sense as the divine insight the Pope supposedly enjoys. It is not obtainable. That's what separates the examples I've given from caveman1917's.
__________________
"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 9th January 2017, 12:41 PM   #485
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,455
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
It was reported by someone in a staff meeting where he purportedly said this, which you can easily find by googling.
It was reported by someone claiming to have been in a staff meeting.

How do you know that the person claiming to report it is in fact someone at a staff meeting? What reliable authority do you depend on here?

Let's be clear: I'm not claiming that Casey didn't say this. But I don't know Honegger and I don't know the reliability of the site which claims to quote Honegger, and so I'll be indifferent to this claim, pending some better evidence.

Your argument is indeed an example of appeal to authority, but of a particularly weak sort, far as I can tell.
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 9th January 2017, 12:45 PM   #486
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,903
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Here's what a quick Google search turned up. The source (Barbara Honegger) means nothing to me, but either she's good enough for Caveman1917 or some random internet cite is.

For that matter, of course, we must trust quora.com that Honegger said this, or else find an original citation.
That's one I also found. That user account has exactly one entry recorded. We have no basis for verifying if she is who she says she is or if she heard what she says she heard.
__________________
"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 9th January 2017, 12:47 PM   #487
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,455
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Well by these standards I can just declare the source to be an authority and be done with it.
Sure, in exactly the same way that I can just declare "The Pope is a martian and the Queen a mutant," and conclude the Pope is a martian.

Things are not true because you declare them to be so. To be sure, in informal reasoning, the truth values of certain premises are hard to establish with certainty. You and I might disagree over whether A is an authority, at which point we must determine what would be sufficient evidence and how to acquire it or admit that we are at an impasse.

I won't speak for others here, but I will not even try to convince you the intelligence agency and bipartisan committees are reliable sources. That's not at issue. What is at issue is your blinkered view of the nature of human reasoning.
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 9th January 2017, 12:53 PM   #488
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,455
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
That's one I also found. That user account has exactly one entry recorded. We have no basis for verifying if she is who she says she is or if she heard what she says she heard.
Barbara Honegger comes up in 9/11 conspiracy theories as well, if you'll Google her. Again, no idea of the reliability of these other web pages. But it is clear that Caveman1917 thinks it's appropriate to take the (apparent) word of Honegger merely on the grounds that she is saying bad things about the intelligence community.

After all, Casey said that. He was head of the CIA, so of course he did, and you show your prejudices in asking for a cite.
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 9th January 2017, 12:57 PM   #489
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,903
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Barbara Honegger comes up in 9/11 conspiracy theories as well, if you'll Google her.
Wow. I really wish I hadn't now.
__________________
"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 9th January 2017, 01:00 PM   #490
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
 
A'isha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 15,221
Barbara Honegger is a parapsychologist who managed to become the assistant to a member of the Hoover Institute who worked for Regan's 1980 transition team, and is currently a 9/11 Truther .
__________________
When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes - Desiderius Erasmus

"Does [A'isha] want to end up in a gas chamber, I wonder? Because this is where the whole thing will end" - McHrozni
A'isha 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 9th January 2017, 01:02 PM   #491
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,455
Originally Posted by A'isha View Post
Barbara Honegger is a parapsychologist who managed to become the assistant to a member of the Hoover Institute who worked for Regan's 1980 transition team, and is currently a 9/11 Truther .
So, a perfectly trustworthy authority on what Casey said, that's what you're getting at, right?

It really is beautiful to see Caveman, who claims that every appeal to authority is fallacious, appealing to the authority of such a fine example of skepticism.
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 9th January 2017, 01:11 PM   #492
portlandatheist
Master Poster
 
portlandatheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Just do what Trump does and trust your Trump's guts. He has the best guts. Everyone says so. His guts are yuge!
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
FIFY.
This is exactly right. We are wasting our time discussing what the intelligence community thinks. Or what economists think about protectionism and tariffs...or what generals think about military strategy..or what scientists have to say about asbestos, global warming, and CFCs. What we really need right now are instincts and Trump has the best instincts, believe me. Everybody says so.

Last edited by portlandatheist; 9th January 2017 at 01:11 PM. Reason: grammer
portlandatheist 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 9th January 2017, 01:13 PM   #493
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,056
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
In deduction, we distinguish between validity (appropriate form, roughly) and soundness (valid with true premises). I apologize that I don't seem to have my old text at hand, so do not recall the appropriate terms for induction and am not sure that the distinction between the two concepts is as clearly made there. But, given that A is a trustworthy authority on X, from A's assertion that X, I can infer that X is probable. The better the evidence of trustworthiness and expert knowledge, the more probable X will be.
We don't need induction. What does "X is probable" even mean outside of probability theory? What does "trustworthiness" even mean outside of probability theory (ie a conditional probability)?

We have formal and deductive frameworks readily available for these cases:

P(X) = x_0
P(A says X | X) = x_1
P(A says X) = x_2
Therefor, P(X | A says X) = x_3

We can keep all the good stuff such as precise definitions, precise methods, etc. Why would we throw all that away to go into vague heuristic territory?

Quote:
Very similar things happen in deduction. Many times, in a mathematical proof, I use a statement which I am damn sure is a theorem in order to prove something, but I'll be darned if I'm not wrong. It happens. Individuals' abilities to determine the truth of premises is prone to error.
Everyone makes boo-boos every once in a while. All the more reason to compartmentalize the vaguer stuff into well-defined "boxes" (ie estimates of conditional probability) whilst keeping as much of the formal and deductive framework as possible.

Quote:
In this case, we are worse off, since you and I have no good way for ensuring that, through patient discussion and careful consideration, we will come to agree on whether or not these agencies and the bipartisan committees are reliable authorities.
We could use empirical methods. As a first approximation we could tally all claims by the intelligence agencies which were refuted/verified independently, and then refine further from there on.

Quote:
Goodness, who would put it in a Bayesian framework?

I would rather determine whether the analogy between the two situations is sufficiently compelling to make a probable diagnosis. I haven't the time or interest to muck about with statistical methods before testing the starter.
You may be under time pressure when your car doesn't start, however we aren't under time pressure to take a position regarding the claims in this thread.

Quote:
Sorry, I won't be teaching freshmen that they need to use Bayesian methods in order to reliably diagnose starter issues.
Since when is the subjects one teaches freshmen as shortcuts the basis for deciding what is the proper framework of something? One wouldn't teach freshmen the ins and outs of Peano arithmetic in order for them to add two numbers together, yet that doesn't mean Peano arithmetic isn't the proper framework for adding numbers together.
__________________
"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 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 9th January 2017, 01:17 PM   #494
The_Animus
Master Poster
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,578
This thread is painful. It's like people don't even read the thread or forget that an argument was already thoroughly addressed and repeat the same terrible argument again a few pages later.

Do vaccines cause autism? No and if you don't understand why comparing that to this is silly then read the thread.
__________________
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 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 9th January 2017, 01:31 PM   #495
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,214
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
We don't need induction. What does "X is probable" even mean outside of probability theory? What does "trustworthiness" even mean outside of probability theory (ie a conditional probability)?
Well, you need it anytime probability theory isn't applicable, such as when you have a set of observations that you're trying to explain. There is actually a third form of reasoning that is more appropriate than induction for such cases, called "abduction" or "reasoning to the best explanation." It's how a scientist formulates an hypothesis, for example. Stated as a logical deduction, abductive and inductive arguments are always fallacious, e.g. abduction would commit the fallacy of "affirming the consequent" if you tried to assert that the reasoning "proved" anything. But in science, it's much more useful than saying, "I can't logically conclude the explanation," because it gives you an hypothesis for further testing, more data collections, etc. to refine your "guess." Perhaps you still don't see the value of such "illogical" reasoning, but science would make little progress without it.
WilliamSeger 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 9th January 2017, 01:33 PM   #496
portlandatheist
Master Poster
 
portlandatheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,671
It isn't just government intelligence, it is also private sector security.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democr..._cyber_attacks
Quote:

CrowdStrike stands fully by its analysis and findings identifying two separate Russian intelligence-affiliated adversaries present in the DNC network in May 2016[...] We've had lots of experience with both of these actors attempting to target our customers in the past and know them well. In fact, our team considers them some of the best adversaries out of all the numerous nation-state, criminal and hacktivist/terrorist groups we encounter on a daily basis. Their tradecraft is superb, operational security second to none and the extensive usage of 'living-off-the-land' techniques enables them to easily bypass many security solutions they encounter.[4]

Other cybersecurity firms, Fidelis Cybersecurity and FireEye, independently reviewed the malware and came to the same conclusion as CrowdStrike—that expert Russian hacking groups were responsible for the breach.[27]
The malware, X Agent, is Russian made malware. This isn't completely conclusive and attribution is very difficult on the internet but come on people, it is extremely likely it was the Russians.
portlandatheist 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 9th January 2017, 01:34 PM   #497
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,455
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
We don't need induction. What does "X is probable" even mean outside of probability theory? What does "trustworthiness" even mean outside of probability theory (ie a conditional probability)?

We have formal and deductive frameworks readily available for these cases:

P(X) = x_0
P(A says X | X) = x_1
P(A says X) = x_2
Therefor, P(X | A says X) = x_3

We can keep all the good stuff such as precise definitions, precise methods, etc. Why would we throw all that away to go into vague heuristic territory?
Because you and I have to make inferences as life happens, and we haven't the time to do such calculations. In addition, of course, we literally do not have at our disposal the values of x_0, x_1 or x_2. It is a fiction to pretend that those values, and the probabilities of innumerably other statements, are at hand.

Quote:
Everyone makes boo-boos every once in a while. All the more reason to compartmentalize the vaguer stuff into well-defined "boxes" (ie estimates of conditional probability) whilst keeping as much of the formal and deductive framework as possible.
Goodness, you think the best thing for a mathematician to do is to mix probabilities into his deductive proofs? What a strange solution!

Quote:
We could use empirical methods. As a first approximation we could tally all claims by the intelligence agencies which were refuted/verified independently, and then refine further from there on.
That's a suggestion. The effect would be, of course, new disagreements over what counts as refutations and what counts as verifications, each of which are again likely sourced to mere testimonies. The other point to notice, of course, is the extraordinary tediousness of trying to list all claims by the various agencies, something you and I are honestly not about to undertake.

Quote:
You may be under time pressure when your car doesn't start, however we aren't under time pressure to take a position regarding the claims in this thread.
I'm under enough pressure that listing every claim by an intelligence agency and verifying or refuting it sounds like a rather unlikely plan.

Quote:
Since when is the subjects one teaches freshmen as shortcuts the basis for deciding what is the proper framework of something? One wouldn't teach freshmen the ins and outs of Peano arithmetic in order for them to add two numbers together, yet that doesn't mean Peano arithmetic isn't the proper framework for adding numbers together.
No, Peano arithmetic is not the proper framework for adding numbers together. There are many more suitable frameworks for doing so. PA is a brilliant axiomatization of N, and gives perfect setting for discussion provability of N. But I don't really want to use it for adding two five-digit numbers together. Formal provability is not what I care about when doing addition.
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 9th January 2017, 01:34 PM   #498
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,903
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
This thread is painful. It's like people don't even read the thread or forget that an argument was already thoroughly addressed and repeat the same terrible argument again a few pages later.

Do vaccines cause autism? No and if you don't understand why comparing that to this is silly then read the thread.
It was to make a specific point about arguments from authority. But I'm sure you know that because you read the thread?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern

Last edited by Upchurch; 9th January 2017 at 01:45 PM.
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 9th January 2017, 01:48 PM   #499
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,056
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
So, a perfectly trustworthy authority on what Casey said, that's what you're getting at, right?
So we at least agree that she was indeed at the meeting?

Any reason why the fact of someone having some odd ideas on the side would make her a less "trustworthy" authority on whether the director of an organization said something in a meeting than the "trustworthiness" of the organization in question, which is known for such luminary activities as attempting mind-control and employing disinformation campaigns?

Quote:
It really is beautiful to see Caveman, who claims that every appeal to authority is fallacious, appealing to the authority of such a fine example of skepticism.
What is really beautiful is to see self-declared "skeptics" promoting blind faith in intelligence agencies.
__________________
"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 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 9th January 2017, 01:50 PM   #500
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,056
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Well, you need it anytime probability theory isn't applicable, such as when you have a set of observations that you're trying to explain. There is actually a third form of reasoning that is more appropriate than induction for such cases, called "abduction" or "reasoning to the best explanation." It's how a scientist formulates an hypothesis, for example. Stated as a logical deduction, abductive and inductive arguments are always fallacious, e.g. abduction would commit the fallacy of "affirming the consequent" if you tried to assert that the reasoning "proved" anything. But in science, it's much more useful than saying, "I can't logically conclude the explanation," because it gives you an hypothesis for further testing, more data collections, etc. to refine your "guess." Perhaps you still don't see the value of such "illogical" reasoning, but science would make little progress without it.
What's being done here isn't science and has nothing to do with science. It's pure ideology packaged as "critical thinking".
__________________
"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 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 9th January 2017, 01:51 PM   #501
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 15,291
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
So we at least agree that she was indeed at the meeting?

Any reason why the fact of someone having some odd ideas on the side would make her a less "trustworthy" authority on whether the director of an organization said something in a meeting than the "trustworthiness" of the organization in question, which is known for such luminary activities as attempting mind-control and employing disinformation campaigns?



What is really beautiful is to see self-declared "skeptics" promoting blind faith in intelligence agencies.
So now you were caught appealing to authority, your going to retreat to examples in the ancient past?

How logical.
__________________
"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 9th January 2017, 01:56 PM   #502
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,903
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
So we at least agree that she was indeed at the meeting?

Any reason why the fact of someone having some odd ideas on the side would make her a less "trustworthy" authority on whether the director of an organization said something in a meeting than the "trustworthiness" of the organization in question, which is known for such luminary activities as attempting mind-control and employing disinformation campaigns?



What is really beautiful is to see self-declared "skeptics" promoting blind faith in intelligence agencies.
Did you feel even the tiniest bit of irony when you wrote this?
__________________
"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 9th January 2017, 01:56 PM   #503
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,056
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Goodness, you think the best thing for a mathematician to do is to mix probabilities into his deductive proofs? What a strange solution!
You should open a textbook on probability theory and be surprised to find that, yes, it is based on deductive proofs. What else do you think is being used in probability theory, your vague heuristics?

Quote:
No, Peano arithmetic is not the proper framework for adding numbers together. There are many more suitable frameworks for doing so.
Give one.
__________________
"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 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 9th January 2017, 01:57 PM   #504
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,056
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
So now you were caught appealing to authority, your going to retreat to examples in the ancient past?

How logical.
Yes it is.
__________________
"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 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 9th January 2017, 01:58 PM   #505
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,056
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Did you feel even the tiniest bit of irony when you wrote this?
No.
__________________
"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 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 9th January 2017, 02:06 PM   #506
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
 
A'isha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 15,221
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
So we at least agree that she was indeed at the meeting?
We only have her own word that she was at this meeting, which means even that claim comes from an extremely dubious source.
__________________
When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes - Desiderius Erasmus

"Does [A'isha] want to end up in a gas chamber, I wonder? Because this is where the whole thing will end" - McHrozni
A'isha 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 9th January 2017, 02:08 PM   #507
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 29,903
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
No.
Amazing, because it is just positively screaming.
__________________
"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 9th January 2017, 02:09 PM   #508
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,214
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
What's being done here isn't science and has nothing to do with science. It's pure ideology packaged as "critical thinking".
No, it isn't; it's trying to find the best explanation for the observations. You think the intelligence community got it wrong? Well, "critical thinking" suggests that we should have a full investigation to see how well the evidence and the reasoning stand up. You, on the other hand, are content with willful ignorance on the matter because it suits your ideology.
WilliamSeger 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 9th January 2017, 02:10 PM   #509
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,455
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
So we at least agree that she was indeed at the meeting?

Any reason why the fact of someone having some odd ideas on the side would make her a less "trustworthy" authority on whether the director of an organization said something in a meeting than the "trustworthiness" of the organization in question, which is known for such luminary activities as attempting mind-control and employing disinformation campaigns?
The fact that she is a proponent of conspiracy theories makes me distrust her reported quotes of CIA officials. I'm surprised you don't think similarly.


Quote:
What is really beautiful is to see self-declared "skeptics" promoting blind faith in intelligence agencies.
Yes, that would be beautiful. You tell me who is promoting blind faith in intelligence agencies. We'll laugh at him together.

I believe you'll find the strongest thing I've said is that, in this case, where all of the agencies agree and a bipartisan group of congressmen find the evidence compelling (and, as someone pointed out, an independent private firm came to the same conclusion), I find it more probable than not that the Russian connection is true.

I don't consider that conclusion to be advocacy of blind faith.
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 9th January 2017, 02:11 PM   #510
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,455
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
What's being done here isn't science and has nothing to do with science. It's pure ideology packaged as "critical thinking".
You're right that it isn't science. It's a part of logic. It is not "ideology", which is a bizarre way to characterize it.
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 9th January 2017, 02:14 PM   #511
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,455
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
You should open a textbook on probability theory and be surprised to find that, yes, it is based on deductive proofs. What else do you think is being used in probability theory, your vague heuristics?
A bizarre non-sequitur. Of course probability theory is a mathematical theory.

Your suggestion was that I somehow add probabilities to deductive proofs so that, if I understood you, I would be marking uncertain propositions. It is a silly notion.

Quote:
Give one.
The heuristics we learned as children, lining up the digit positions, carrying the one, etc., is the right framework for doing addition. Duh.
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 9th January 2017, 02:17 PM   #512
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,056
Originally Posted by A'isha View Post
We only have her own word that she was at this meeting
No, we also have independent information that she held an official position at the time which would put her in this sort of meetings. We also have independent information that the CIA at the time was engaged in disinformation campaigns (surrounding the Iran-Contra affair and operations against Libya) which makes it more likely that Casey would indeed have said something akin to that.
__________________
"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 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 9th January 2017, 02:18 PM   #513
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 15,291
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
No, we also have independent information that she held an official position at the time which would put her in this sort of meetings. We also have independent information that the CIA at the time was engaged in disinformation campaigns (surrounding the Iran-Contra affair and operations against Libya) which makes it more likely that Casey would indeed have said something akin to that.
Proof by saying stuff.
__________________
"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 9th January 2017, 02:21 PM   #514
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,056
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
No, it isn't; it's trying to find the best explanation for the observations. You think the intelligence community got it wrong? Well, "critical thinking" suggests that we should have a full investigation to see how well the evidence and the reasoning stand up. You, on the other hand, are content with willful ignorance on the matter because it suits your ideology.
Outright ********, I've been asking for the evidence from the start. As opposed to most here who have been arguing that one should accept the claims on ideological grounds.
__________________
"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 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 9th January 2017, 02:24 PM   #515
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,214
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
You should open a textbook on probability theory and be surprised to find that, yes, it is based on deductive proofs. What else do you think is being used in probability theory, your vague heuristics?

Give one.
If I should open a textbook on probability theory, I would expect to find a definition such as "the study of random phenomenon." Probability theory is worse than useless for non-random phenomenon; it's highly misleading.
WilliamSeger 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 9th January 2017, 02:24 PM   #516
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,455
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
No, we also have independent information that she held an official position at the time which would put her in this sort of meetings. We also have independent information that the CIA at the time was engaged in disinformation campaigns (surrounding the Iran-Contra affair and operations against Libya) which makes it more likely that Casey would indeed have said something akin to that.
Each of these claims (she held an official position, the CIA had disinfo campaigns) is justified fundamentally by an appeal to authority on your part, unless you have direct evidence. As such, you are relying on an argument that you have explicitly called fallacious.

To be fair, you're wrong that all such appeals are fallacious, but since you haven't actually retracted that claim, I thought I'd point it out.
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 9th January 2017, 02:27 PM   #517
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 15,291
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Outright ********, I've been asking for the evidence from the start. As opposed to most here who have been arguing that one should accept the claims on ideological grounds.
Who said that?
__________________
"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 9th January 2017, 02:28 PM   #518
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
 
A'isha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 15,221
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
No, we also have independent information that she held an official position at the time which would put her in this sort of meetings.
No, we have independent information that she was the assistant to Reagan's Domestic Policy Adviser, then an assistant at the Justice Department, neither of which are positions likely to put her in secret meetings with the head of the CIA where he lays out their secret plan to misinform all of America.

Quote:
We also have independent information that the CIA at the time was engaged in disinformation campaigns (surrounding the Iran-Contra affair and operations against Libya) which makes it more likely that Casey would indeed have said something akin to that.
Which is nothing more than "I want to believe!" speculation.
__________________
When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes - Desiderius Erasmus

"Does [A'isha] want to end up in a gas chamber, I wonder? Because this is where the whole thing will end" - McHrozni
A'isha 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 9th January 2017, 02:29 PM   #519
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,455
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
If I should open a textbook on probability theory, I would expect to find a definition such as "the study of random phenomenon." Probability theory is worse than useless for non-random phenomenon; it's highly misleading.
Nah, it depends on the interpretation of probabilities. In Bayesianism, probabilities are interpreted as degrees of belief, the so-called subjective interpretation. Probability can certainly well model reasoning with incomplete information.

What is silly is to think that all of our reasoning should come down to formal or statistical methods, as if a human being can literally have a probability distribution over every proposition that we might use to describe our world, a distribution which includes considerations like: what is the probability the E, given that person X said E -- for each and every person X.

Probability theory and Bayesianism are good models for reasoning about uncertainty, and maybe they can be used in limited settings in AI, such as expert systems. To pretend that all "meaningful" reasoning is either formal or probabilistic is just nuts.
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 9th January 2017, 02:43 PM   #520
WilliamSeger
Master Poster
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,214
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Outright ********, I've been asking for the evidence from the start. As opposed to most here who have been arguing that one should accept the claims on ideological grounds.
BS. You've been "asking for the evidence" knowing full well that you are not going to get classified information until it's declassified. The first time I asked you if your skepticism meant that you supported a full congressional investigation, you said "no" with no explanation. Every time I've mentioned it since then, you ignored it. I haven't seen this "arguing that one should accept the claims on ideological grounds" that you're claiming; that's a strawman deflection from your weak argument. All I've seen here is arguing that the claims in the report are made by intelligence professionals and they are apparently convincing to virtually everyone who has seen the evidence -- including DJT to some vague extent -- therefore they should not be dismissed on ideological grounds, which is what you want to do.
WilliamSeger 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
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 06:46 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.