|
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. |
![]() |
#521 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,750
|
|
__________________
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. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#522 |
![]() Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 30,417
|
|
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#523 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 9,624
|
What point do you have in mind?
Far as I can tell, Caveman1917 still claims every appeal to authority is a fallacy and, indeed, that real men don't use informal reasoning, but do a full Bayesian update every time a snippet of information comes in. I don't see how pointing out to him that the exigencies of life require us all to appeal to authority on a regular basis, or else remain ignorant of well-settled scientific, historical and even mathematical claims. I believe that, for instance, FLT has been proved, Thales existed, four of Jupiter's moons were discovered by Galileo and even that Trump won the electoral vote on no basis other than multiple reliable sources told me each of these. Until Caveman1917 agrees that some appeals to authority are reasonable, I'm sure examples like the vaccination and the ones I wrote above will come up. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#524 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,051
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#525 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,499
|
If anyone's a proponent of conspiracy theories it would be the US government and intelligence agencies. For goodness' sake, the claim under consideration is a conspiracy theory.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You've mentioned this private firm (CrowdStrike) which "comes to the same conclusion". At least with its report it makes verifiable claims, as opposed to the intelligence agencies themselves. Advocating blind faith would stop there and simply use that as a basis for believing the claims. Skepticism would be skeptical of it and attempt to investigate the claims. How about we try that approach for once?
Originally Posted by CrowdStrike
Originally Posted by CrowdStrike
|
__________________
"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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#526 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 9,624
|
In the literature (which I have not read in years), they speak of frequentist, subjectivist and (I think) objectivist interpretations of probabilities.
Anyway, probably not necessary to get too involved in mere terminology. I don't think this distinction makes much of a difference in the long run. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#527 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,499
|
That is correct. Technically it is all fallacious. Personally, I go with accepting a claim by someone if that someone has a vested interest in denying the claim. For example if the Russian government says "yep we did the hacks" then I would accept that, even if it also technically an appeal to authority.
|
__________________
"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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#528 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,499
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#529 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,750
|
|
__________________
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. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#530 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 9,624
|
I've told you that I'm not interested in convincing you that these agencies, CrowdStrike, and the congressional committees are trustworthy authorities.
I am, however, interested in knowing whether you admit that your citation of the Casey quote is (by your own addled understanding) a fallacy. Clearly, it was an appeal to authority and you (mistakenly) believe that all such appeals are fallacious. So, do you agree that by your own claims, everything you've said about Casey and, indeed, any of past CIA activities you have not witnessed are the products of fallacious reasoning? This is not a tu quoque attempt. I'm not saying that this would make your understanding of appeal to authority wrong[1]. I just want to be sure that you agree that your own statements on appeal to authority entail that we reject the above statements. Similarly, it should be said, according to other statements of yours, you have not engaged in almost any "meaningful" reasoning in this thread. For instance, on the basis of past CIA activities, you infer that they are not trustworthy -- an example of informal inductive reasoning. You really should take the time to give your full probability distribution over the set of meaningful propositions, so that we can see the outcome of your Bayesian calculations. [1] Though it is, of course, wrong. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#531 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 9,624
|
Okay, so you intentionally engage in what you consider fallacious reasoning throughout this conversation. Evidently, you don't care about reaching a reasonable conclusion, so perhaps we should end our conversation.
Or perhaps I'll adopt a similar strategy, and use a Magic 8-Ball to compose my replies. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#532 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,499
|
That's not my problem. No evidence is no evidence, irrespective of how you want to rationalize it.
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#533 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,051
|
"Frequentist" is the term for the "random event" type of probability, e.g. what frequency an outcome should be expected if the phenomenon is random. But you're right that it doesn't make much difference for this discussion; Caveman wants to assign an initial "probability" based only his distrust of the intelligence community itself, and then stop right there. That kind of "probability" is meaningless even if you assign it a number.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#534 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 9,624
|
A fallacy is a bit of reasoning in which the truth of the premises neither entail the truth (deductive) nor the probable truth (inductive) of the conclusion.
To use reasoning in which the truth of the premises is not tied in this way to the truth of the premises is unreasonable on the face of it, not significantly better than a Magic 8-Ball and probably worse than a Ouija board (which has the advantage of really spelling out what we want to see). You have also said, by the way, that any informal reasoning is not "meaningful reasoning". This is a phrase which is, ironically, meaningless, but is probably intended to be similar to "unreasonable". |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#535 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 9,624
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#536 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,326
|
But we aren't getting testimony. We're getting government agency heads or journalists telling us that unnamed persons who are experts have information that cannot be disclosed which gives them a 'high degree of confidence' that their proposed conclusions are true. Remember, government agency heads and CEOs go to Congress so we can see our representatives really kick up a fuss at them and shake their fists and show us what responsible stewards of the public interest they are.
Within the state intelligence and private high-tech defense sectors (to pick Clapper as an example), these guys are to some degree interchangeable administrators and if something too scandalous bubbles up, they tender a resignation and swap seats with someone serving on a few executive boards who suddenly need to extricate themselves from the private sector for a new government agency head opening up... To go back to the Hannibal example, I can assign a high degree of confidence to his existing because I've seen numerous scholars describe detailed accounts based on similar primary sources like Polybius, Livy, Plutarch, etc. There is especially high value in the keen insight of such experts when they demonstrate conflicting details between sources and expanding the view to an entire primary source's tendency to bias their historical chronicles in predictable ways. That imparts a far higher legitimacy than if I do not get to hear the scholars myself and the primary sources are off limits to me and every effort is made to seem as if there's not even a whiff of dissent. I, like you, have no problem calling the Russian allegations probable and/or plausible. I guess the underlying tension for me is that there's a different response in geopolitical terms for 'probable' vs. 'proven'. However, given Trump's callous attitude towards the issue, there isn't likely to be a hot-headed overreaction (well, not in that direction anyways). I still think there's a slight chance this was an attempt by the intelligence community to give him a big shiny red button to push (which opens a flow of money and operational discretion) and keep his attention off of actual sensitive operations for a while. I think there's a chance he's playing it like a business man. When you get threatening legal letters (which he is also good at sending), you brush your shoulder off and say 'let them actually file their claims if they think they've got a case' (forcing them to reveal evidence so you can beat them up with it). Because it's the ones who respond at all that have made the first mistake, especially if they buy into the threats and act concerned. That's how he sees the world and that's why a lot of government institutions are going to be scratching their heads for a while trying to figure out how this country works now. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#537 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,499
|
Of course. I'm not the one with the addled understanding here.
Quote:
"The moon is made of cheese therefor 2 + 2 = 4." This is a fallacy, therefor we should reject that 2 + 2 equals 4?
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#538 |
![]() Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 30,417
|
|
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "You are the herp to my derp" -- bit_pattern |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#539 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,499
|
Yes of course. I'm not the one with the problem distinguishing between "fallacious argument" (ie there exists at least one interpretation under which the premises are true and the conclusion false) and "unreasonable argument".
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#540 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,499
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#541 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,499
|
|
__________________
"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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#542 | |||
Ewige Blumenkraft
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 15,728
|
Abby is on fire.
![]()
|
|||
__________________
The Specter of Divisiveness |
||||
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#543 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 9,624
|
I'm using the word "testimony" in quite a wide sense. If someone tells me that X, then I have received testimony that X. Of course, being told both X and evidence for X would be preferable.
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#544 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 9,624
|
Pardon my terseness, which led to a misleading expression.
What I mean is that a fallacious argument should not change our opinion about the truth (or probability) of the conclusion.
Quote:
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#545 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 9,624
|
Not the definition of "fallacious argument", of course, except when we speak of fallacies in deductive logic (and there, we usually do not refer to invalid arguments as fallacious).
But now you are defending your bizarre view on fallacies by claiming that some fallacious arguments are "reasonable". How strange!
Quote:
Note that any "empirical evidence" I could provide, just like yours, would be appeal to authority, one of those arguments you call fallacious in all cases, but reasonable sometimes. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#546 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 9,624
|
It is impossible to use Bayesianism as the means of reaching conclusions in every aspect of one's life. It is not a practical means of reasoning when we are walking down the street, driving a car or watching the news. This is because:
(1) It is impossible for humans to actually specify a probability distribution over the set of all propositions, or even the finite portion we will need in our finite lives. (2) It is impossible for humans to provide updates to this distribution every time some bit of information comes in. It is impossible for humans to reason using purely Bayesian methods in their daily lives. Of course they can reason using Bayesianism where the set of propositions is small and not constantly updated, but not in the sense in which we constantly need to make decisions. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#547 | |||
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,499
|
The burden of proof of someone's "trustworthiness" is on the one making the claim of someone's "trustworthiness"? If that is "utter nonsense with no reasoning behind it" then that makes it all the easier for me:
I declare Alex Jones to be an "appropriate" authority, thereby not incurring a burden of proof, and since I've declared him "appropriate" I can appeal to his authority without it being fallacious. This authority makes a claim about the existence of fish people, but there is no evidence because his source would prefer not to reveal himself:
Appealed to authority? Check. Declared the authority to be "appropriate"? Check. Gave a rationalization for why the evidence isn't provided? Check. Well then... Accept the fish people! ![]()
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
"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 |
||||
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#548 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 9,624
|
I am not intending to persuade you that the reasons for my conclusion are good. I don't think I can persuade you of that. Therefore, I have no burden of proof at all.
You do seem to try to persuade me that the CIA is untrustworthy. Thus, you might have a burden, but I won't hold you to it, because it is not a conversation I wish to have. Our discussion was more basic. It was about your addled notions regarding certain fallacies.
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#549 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,499
|
My notions aren't addled, on the contrary. I just prefer my notions and definitions to be precise.
Quote:
|
__________________
"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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#550 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 9,779
|
Rush just said with respect to the Russians, "he's never seen the Democrats this mad since Lincoln freed the slaves".
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#551 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
|
|
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#552 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
|
|
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#553 |
not a camel
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 64,007
|
|
__________________
"Jealousy makes you think the same thing over and over and the more you do that, the less reality-testing you do. Emotions all have an illusion of certainty, and jealousy makes you certain of your perception of the world.” |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#554 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 9,624
|
Look, I can see that you have some familiarity with formal and probabilistic methods (and your familiarity with the latter exceeds mine). But it is clear that you haven't a clue when it comes to norms about actual reasoning of actual (non-idealistic) humans. Hell, I have only half a clue, but at least I don't pretend that if it's not Bayesian (or similar) then it's not "meaningful".
I appreciate your technical background, but not your utter ignorance on how real persons living real lives must make decisions, nor on your ridiculous impression of the meaning of "fallacy" in the non-formal world. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#555 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
|
Precisely the position I take on science: I don't understand half of all those weird equations and arcane data, and I certainly don't trust the scientific "authorities" (i.e. people who can say whatever they want and no one can decode their made-up theories). Go with your guts, I say!
![]() |
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#556 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
|
How would you even know that?
Unholy mother of Hell, man, this is one of the founding principles of rational thinking. Perhaps, though some here seem to be taking this approach simply to avoid reaching conclusions they don't find convenient. |
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#557 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 9,624
|
If I may edit your post, it was a good rejoinder up until the part I struck out. The Animus was advocating agnosticism, not arbitrary judgment.
Others will try to claim there's a difference with science, but there really isn't for the great bulk of us. You and I either cannot or have very, very good reasons not to try to replicate experiments. How many years work before I gain access to an electron microscope? So, even for most scientists, the great bulk of scientific claims come down to appeal to authority, at some level. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#558 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
|
No, that isn't Upchurch's argument at all. You don't pick authorities out of a *********** hat. What you are doing now is engaging in anti-intellectualism, exactly as Upchurch mentioned.
No, that's not what "conspiracy theory" means. Why? |
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#559 |
Fiend God
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
|
|
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#560 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,499
|
I don't really see how this is relevant. The point is that the evidence is not available, whether that is for "good" or "bad" reasons has no bearing on that.
It would be available for independent review and I would be able to also review it for myself. |
__________________
"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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|