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 !MOD BOX WARNING!

Reply
Old 6th September 2018, 10:52 AM   #161
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 41,535
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
An anonymous source vetted by one of the biggest news organizations in the country isn't the same thing as an anonymous claim.

I can see you just itching to lay down the "One True Skeptic Card" but just put it back in the deck.
He is a die hard Trump True Beleiver. trying to masquerade..unsucessfuly...as a skeptic.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 6th September 2018, 10:56 AM   #162
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,492
This would have been priceless if Obama was President and this happened.


This too will backfire spectacularly
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped 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 6th September 2018, 10:57 AM   #163
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,162
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I don't think hardly anyone besides conservatives are mad at the NYT for running it.
Isn't that a problem? Journalistic integrity and the reliability of the media should be a nonpartisan concern. Conservatives should not object to the publication due to partisan bias. Progressives should not accept the publication unquestioningly due to partisan bias.
theprestige 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 6th September 2018, 10:58 AM   #164
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,492
Mmmmm.....fiction
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped 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 6th September 2018, 10:59 AM   #165
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,162
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I don't know. What evidence do you have pertaining to the editors of today?
They publish anonymous claims without corroboration, and without allowing us to evaluate their sources for ourselves.
theprestige 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 6th September 2018, 11:00 AM   #166
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,263
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Yes, two different aspects.

The identity of the author of the Op-Ed piece as a high level member of the Trump administration was verified by the NY Times and I am fully convinced that this identification was correct.

But of course and as with any statement by any individual, what that high level member of the administration actually claimed in the Op-Ed, considered alone, must be initially viewed as "unverified." Except in this case what was written in the Op-Ed closely parallels what has been stated by many others in positions to know, including several who have been willing to be identified by name. It is also fully consistent with what has been publicly observed. The claims are therefore supported by independent information; whether this represents "verified" depends on the level of verification on which one insists.
Well, there was one new claim, that there are a bunch of people close to Trump who are secretly part of "the resistance." (as in, "Hillary Clinton's #resistance")

That's gotta make Trump feel like oldschool cold warriers felt, seeing closet soviets everywhere, in their closet, under their bed.

__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb 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 6th September 2018, 11:02 AM   #167
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,162
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Yeah. Someone in the administration (the NYT knows who) CLAIMS they wrote the article.

They could be lying. So, therefore, we can blame the NYT for sloppy journalism.

See, they didn't actually WATCH the person write the letter, so how do they know the person is telling the truth?
The usual method is to get independent corroboration.

Another one is to find a second source who's willing to go on the record.

Quote:
It's called, "Seriously grasping at straws."
Publishing anonymous claims without corroboration is, indeed, grasping at straws. So is taking such publications at face value.
theprestige 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 6th September 2018, 11:03 AM   #168
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,263
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Well, not everyone is in agreement on the weakness of the evidence.

theprestige believes that the op-ed substantiates the "deep state" conspiracy theory:



In fairness, he might have posted that before he realized he was supposed to be parroting the "fake news" talking point rather than the "deep state" one.
Yeah, I noticed the old switcharoo there. lol
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb 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 6th September 2018, 11:03 AM   #169
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,688
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Isn't that a problem? Journalistic integrity and the reliability of the media should be a nonpartisan concern. Conservatives should not object to the publication due to partisan bias. Progressives should not accept the publication unquestioningly due to partisan bias.

You did, when it was convenient for your narrative:
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Well, at least the editorial clarifies one thing: the "deep state" of entrenched bureaucrats is real, and is really working to undermine the Executive branch.

Then, about an hour later, you changed tack and decided the best strategy was to cry "Fake news!".

Last edited by johnny karate; 6th September 2018 at 11:05 AM.
johnny karate 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 6th September 2018, 11:05 AM   #170
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,688
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Publishing anonymous claims without corroboration is, indeed, grasping at straws. So is taking such publications at face value.

Unless you think it confirms your conspiracy theory:
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Well, at least the editorial clarifies one thing: the "deep state" of entrenched bureaucrats is real, and is really working to undermine the Executive branch.
johnny karate 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 6th September 2018, 11:07 AM   #171
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,263
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Isn't that a problem? Journalistic integrity and the reliability of the media should be a nonpartisan concern. Conservatives should not object to the publication due to partisan bias. Progressives should not accept the publication unquestioningly due to partisan bias.
What do you mean by "accept the publication unquestioningly"?

I am not the boss of the NYT.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb 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 6th September 2018, 11:09 AM   #172
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,162
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
An anonymous source vetted by one of the biggest news organizations in the country isn't the same thing as an anonymous claim.
What does the size of the organization have to do with anything? Large organizations have more integrity? They're more attentive to due diligence?

Appealing to the size of the New York Times doesn't impress.
theprestige 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 6th September 2018, 11:11 AM   #173
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,162
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
What do you mean by "accept the publication unquestioningly"?
The words seem pretty clear to me. What part are you having trouble with?

Quote:
I am not the boss of the NYT.
True, but how is this banal observation relevant?
theprestige 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 6th September 2018, 11:12 AM   #174
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
 
johnny karate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 11,688
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What does the size of the organization have to do with anything? Large organizations have more integrity? They're more attentive to due diligence?

Appealing to the size of the New York Times doesn't impress.

Unless you think the New York Times confirms your conspiracy theory:
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Well, at least the editorial clarifies one thing: the "deep state" of entrenched bureaucrats is real, and is really working to undermine the Executive branch.
johnny karate 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 6th September 2018, 11:14 AM   #175
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,263
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Unless you think the New York Times confirms your conspiracy theory:
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt!
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb 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 6th September 2018, 11:15 AM   #176
Strawberry
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,746
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The usual method is to get independent corroboration.

Another one is to find a second source who's willing to go on the record.



Publishing anonymous claims without corroboration is, indeed, grasping at straws. So is taking such publications at face value.
You were quick enough to take it at face value when you thought it confirmed your Deep State conspiracy theory.
Strawberry 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 6th September 2018, 11:17 AM   #177
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,263
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The words seem pretty clear to me. What part are you having trouble with?
Should I look at the letter as confirmation that the "deep state" of entrenched bureaucrats exists, or look at the letter as a probable fake/hoax/fraud?

What do you mean when you say I "should not accept the publication"? Can you rephrase your suggestion?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb 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 6th September 2018, 11:18 AM   #178
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 19,198
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What does the size of the organization have to do with anything? Large organizations have more integrity? They're more attentive to due diligence?

Appealing to the size of the New York Times doesn't impress.
Are you suggesting that the Times failed to do their diligence? I'd agree that size in itself doesn't prove that they did. That said, contrary to Trump's absurd claims to the contrary, the Times is a very good news organization. Particularly when it comes to reporting on the White House.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla 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 6th September 2018, 11:24 AM   #179
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,481
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The usual method is to get independent corroboration.

Another one is to find a second source who's willing to go on the record.
.
Corroboration of what?

This is presented as an editorial by a contributor.

The only corroboration needed is that the person wrote it. They claim they did. Another person claims they did (the intermediary).

I've seen guest editorials in newspapers all the time. Did they get "corroboration" for it?
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Gidget, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold 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 6th September 2018, 11:31 AM   #180
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 41,535
And there is no national security issues involved. Nothing secret or classified was leaked. Someone working in the White House said his boss was an idioit, basically.
As much as I hate Donnie, if he fins out who it is he has every right to fire the guy. White House officials serve at the president's pleasure. But haul him into court for criminal porceedings for national security violatations the case will be dismissed out of hand.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 6th September 2018, 11:31 AM   #181
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,208
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
I've seen guest editorials in newspapers all the time. Did they get "corroboration" for it?
When reporters use names sources in a story, readers can use the identity of the source to evaluate its reliability. When reporters use anonymous sources, they should corroborate the information provided by the source, because readers cannot use the identity of the source to evaluate its reliability.

A normal editorial, even a normal guest one, is like a named source: readers can use the identity of the author to evaluate the reliability of the content. That cannot be done here.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 6th September 2018, 11:35 AM   #182
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 11,705
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
This would have been priceless if Obama was President and this happened.


This too will backfire spectacularly
Category error. If Obama was an imbecilic, ignorant, bigoted, lying, delusional, infantile, wannabe dictator, he wouldn't be Obama. Because he wasn't those things, his team remained generally loyal. As was the case with Bush 2, Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, Carter, etc.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.

Last edited by varwoche; 6th September 2018 at 11:38 AM.
varwoche 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 6th September 2018, 11:38 AM   #183
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,263
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
When reporters use names sources in a story, readers can use the identity of the source to evaluate its reliability. When reporters use anonymous sources, they should corroborate the information provided by the source, because readers cannot use the identity of the source to evaluate its reliability.

A normal editorial, even a normal guest one, is like a named source: readers can use the identity of the author to evaluate the reliability of the content. That cannot be done here.
If it was Nikki Haley vs John Joseph Sullivan, would it really alter your opinion on it?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
kellyb 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 6th September 2018, 11:43 AM   #184
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 19,198
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
When reporters use names sources in a story, readers can use the identity of the source to evaluate its reliability. When reporters use anonymous sources, they should corroborate the information provided by the source, because readers cannot use the identity of the source to evaluate its reliability.

A normal editorial, even a normal guest one, is like a named source: readers can use the identity of the author to evaluate the reliability of the content. That cannot be done here.
Then don't believe it. Take it with a grain of salt. Or take it with the weight of the countless other similar stories such as the books 'Fear', 'Fire and Fury' and 'Unhinged'. Or the countless number of stories and leaks out of the White House.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla 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 6th September 2018, 11:51 AM   #185
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,452
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Are you suggesting that the Times failed to do their diligence? I'd agree that size in itself doesn't prove that they did. That said, contrary to Trump's absurd claims to the contrary, the Times is a very good news organization. Particularly when it comes to reporting on the White House.
So far he's provided one data point to back his contention, with no other data points against his contention from which we can establish how probable his contention is. And he appears ready to cling to that data point as long or longer than the NYT clung to it originally.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
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 6th September 2018, 11:54 AM   #186
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 11,705
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
When reporters use names sources in a story, readers can use the identity of the source to evaluate its reliability. When reporters use anonymous sources, they should corroborate the information provided by the source, because readers cannot use the identity of the source to evaluate its reliability.

A normal editorial, even a normal guest one, is like a named source: readers can use the identity of the author to evaluate the reliability of the content. That cannot be done here.
Yes, it's certainly true that readers are better informed when sources aren't anon.

Given the realities of political whistle-blowing -- not to mention the added bizarro reality of having an anti-democratic POTUS -- journalists must frequently rely on anon sources. BFD, let's complain about death and taxes while we're at it.

Fortunately (or not?), in this instance the media outlet is highly reliable.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche 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 6th September 2018, 11:54 AM   #187
BrooklynBaby
Muse
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 816
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
So tell me: how is your behavior going to change as a result of the letter?
Has it altered your beliefs in any way?
Of course not, and I've said so above. My point was with regard to a comment about Trump's "lunatic base". BTW, NYT is fake news ( one example -- they had an article about a year ago that waited until paragraph 18, I believe, before stating they were unable to confirm anything in the above 17 paragraphs), so there is strike one. They have a single, unvetted source for the "op-ed", so that is strike two and three. I would think all skeptics would be wary of articles like this one, rather than engaging in immediate and unconditional acceptance. To be honest, this doesn't seem like a skeptics' forum at all. There are only a few people here who seem to be skeptical about anything. The sides are already drawn, just like in the non-skeptic world. I don't think Randi would approve.
BrooklynBaby 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 6th September 2018, 11:55 AM   #188
gregthehammer
Muse
 
gregthehammer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 541
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
This would have been priceless if Obama was President and this happened.


This too will backfire spectacularly
It would have been, but it didn't.

And who exactly is this going to backfire on, the op-ed writer who would be part of the republican administration?

gregthehammer 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 6th September 2018, 12:00 PM   #189
wasapi
Philosopher
 
wasapi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5,336
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater

I hope this works. It made me laugh.
__________________
Julia
wasapi 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 6th September 2018, 12:08 PM   #190
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 19,198
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
Of course not, and I've said so above. My point was with regard to a comment about Trump's "lunatic base". BTW, NYT is fake news ( one example -- they had an article about a year ago that waited until paragraph 18, I believe, before stating they were unable to confirm anything in the above 17 paragraphs), so there is strike one. They have a single, unvetted source for the "op-ed", so that is strike two and three. I would think all skeptics would be wary of articles like this one, rather than engaging in immediate and unconditional acceptance. To be honest, this doesn't seem like a skeptics' forum at all. There are only a few people here who seem to be skeptical about anything. The sides are already drawn, just like in the non-skeptic world. I don't think Randi would approve.
Oh, you found one bad article? What was it on, celebrity Gossip? That you are repeating that the NY Times is 'fake news' shows you have taken a double dose of the Jim Jones Koolaid
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla 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 6th September 2018, 12:13 PM   #191
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,208
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
If it was Nikki Haley vs John Joseph Sullivan, would it really alter your opinion on it?
It very well could, yes.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 6th September 2018, 12:15 PM   #192
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,989
Claiming that a source is "Fake News" begs the question: compared to what?
Pro-Trump news have proven themselves to be misleading or outright fabricated way more often than Trump-critical news.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza 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 6th September 2018, 12:17 PM   #193
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 41,535
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Oh, you found one bad article? What was it on, celebrity Gossip? That you are repeating that the NY Times is 'fake news' shows you have taken a double dose of the Jim Jones Koolaid
Given that Brooklyn Baby automatically rejects anything negative about Trump as "Fake News" I don't think anything would convince him that Trump is capable of error or doing something wrong.
He has not taken a double dose of the Kool Aid,he drank the whole damn pitcher.
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb 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 6th September 2018, 12:41 PM   #194
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 17,340
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If it's difficult to verify the claims of a highly secretive dictatorship, that is not an excuse to publish the claims at face value. But that's what the NYT chose to do. And the NYT further chose to stand by that publication for fifty years, even though they knew from the beginning that it was a mistake. This does not speak well of their qualifications as a proxy for our own due diligence.

And that's the point Ziggurat is making. Because the source is anonymous to us, and because there is no independent corroboration that is not anonymous, we cannot do our due diligence in evaluating the claims. We must trust that New York Times has done that for us. But trusting the NYT in that way, on the basis of the information so far provided, is just an abdication of our own responsibility in the matter.

"Trust, but verify," perhaps. But we cannot verify.
I don't think we even have to trust.

This article may be offered as a window into the Trump administration, but I don't need to trust the claims of the article for it to have that effect. The administration response to the article paints a much more clear picture of the Trump administration than the article did. The claims in the article are beside the point, frankly.

Whether any single claim is true or false doesn't matter to me at all. That a person working at the white house would claim to have authored this article is enough. It speaks volumes about the people Trump has hired. Maybe Omarosa wasn't an anomaly, maybe she was the tip of the iceberg.

The best people.


Also, there is plenty of corroboration of some of the claims if you take the time to look for it.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith 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 6th September 2018, 12:47 PM   #195
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,208
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Category error. If Obama was an imbecilic, ignorant, bigoted, lying, delusional, infantile, wannabe dictator, he wouldn't be Obama. Because he wasn't those things, his team remained generally loyal. As was the case with Bush 2, Clinton, Bush 1, Reagan, Carter, etc.
Indeed. And let's not pretend this editorial happened in isolation. If there hadn't been multiple leaks from his own administration already, plus former staffers saying more or less the same thing, I would be skeptical.
lobosrul5 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 6th September 2018, 12:49 PM   #196
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 17,340
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I don't think we even have to trust.
I would add to this that I find it useful to treat anonymous sources and authors a bit like hearsay:

Originally Posted by wikipedia article on hearsay
Typically, one can classify a statement as hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence using a three-step analysis. A statement will be considered hearsay if it is:

An assertive statement
Made by an out-of-court declarant
Is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein.
In this case I would let the testimony in so long as it is not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein.

So, as long as you don't really on the article as a source of truth I think you can rely on the article as a catalyst for producing the truth. See: Trump's reaction to the article.

Look at what the defendant president did in response to the article, not what the article says, and you can learn more than what the article even claims to show.

And frankly, I think that was the whole point of the article.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith 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 6th September 2018, 12:50 PM   #197
Sherkeu
Muse
 
Sherkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 971
I think this author is real, but when they are revealed, we'll all have to go look up who they are.

"Senior official in the Trump administration" is a pretty big category when you consider all the senior positions in all departments of the Executive Branch.
Sherkeu 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 6th September 2018, 12:50 PM   #198
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,591
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Yes, it's certainly true that readers are better informed when sources aren't anon.

Given the realities of political whistle-blowing -- not to mention the added bizarro reality of having an anti-democratic POTUS -- journalists must frequently rely on anon sources. BFD, let's complain about death and taxes while we're at it.

Fortunately (or not?), in this instance the media outlet is highly reliable.
Remember the source is not anonymous to the newspaper, they know exactly who it is, they just are not saying.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 6th September 2018, 12:50 PM   #199
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,534
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
Indeed. And let's not pretend this editorial happened in isolation. If there hadn't been multiple leaks from his own administration already, plus former staffers saying more or less the same thing, I would be skeptical.
This Op-Ed also confirms what Bob Woodward has said in his new book, and really only confirms what the rest of us (at least those of us with any brains) have known for a long time... and that is Trump is a pathological liar, an angry, immature man-child, and is utterly incapable of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Presidency.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Last edited by smartcooky; 6th September 2018 at 12:53 PM.
smartcooky 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 6th September 2018, 12:50 PM   #200
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 17,340
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
Indeed. And let's not pretend this editorial happened in isolation. If there hadn't been multiple leaks from his own administration already, plus former staffers saying more or less the same thing, I would be skeptical.
An accumulation of evidence from a variety of independent sources that all point in the same direction is generally referred to in skeptic circles as . . . confirmation bias?
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith 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 12:58 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.