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

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


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 Seth abramson

Reply
Old 11th March 2018, 12:49 PM   #41
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 10,344
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
What is your limit? If I say it's true because it's song lyrics?How about it's true because the little aliens that come in my room at night say so? Surely you have a line on a continuum you draw.
If song lyrics contain an argument, or if the aliens produced an argument for you that you share with me, it is a fallacy for me to dismiss the argument on the grounds of its origins. Duh.

Quote:
Your principle is sound, the application needs reconsidering.
In order to refute an argument, one must address the argument itself and not its source. This really isn't a difficult or controversial notion.

Now, often I am uninterested in spending the time to evaluate Infowars nonsense. When I refuse to do so, I can't claim that the argument is a bad argument. Rather, I just choose to spend my time on other matters. In doing so, I have refuted nothing at all.


ETA: I think that this foray into the nature of ad hominem has probably gone on long enough in this thread. I'd hate to be accused of a derail, so I'll stop responding here. Anyone interested in carrying on can start another thread and PM me and I'll join.

Last edited by phiwum; 11th March 2018 at 12:51 PM.
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2018, 12:49 PM   #42
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,211
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Again, a textbook case of ad hominem (more specifically, poisoning the well, in this case).

Even Infowars can (in theory) produce sound arguments. As long as a reference to Seth's writing is something more than an appeal to authority -- as long as Seth is actually producing an argument to be evaluated -- there is no reason not to cite his tweets. The reader can evaluate the argument rather than dismissing it based on the source.

Where credibility matters is when the source is making factual claims that are controversial. But the arguments themselves can be evaluated on their own merits by anyone of reasonable intelligence.

NOTE: I am not defending Seth's record. I don't know or care about his record.
Yes, that is precisely how he has been cited, as some sort of an authority.
By whom? Where?
Evidence? Link and quote, please.


(I do agree that Abramson himself inflates his authority at times to lend undue weight to his opinions; he sometimes cites a number 2000 or so cases that he has been on. If you do the math, you will find that this would mean 1 case per day for the entire duration of his legal career, which seems to me a little too much - a person cannot learn anything meaningful from 2000 cases. 200 cases would impress me much more. I assume that some followers of Abramson have in the past, and perhaps continue to, fallen for his inflated credentials.)
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 11th March 2018, 12:51 PM   #43
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Your tantrums notwithstanding, it appears you dislike him for the same reason others like him: the inferences he makes based on his experience as an attorney and law professor typically turn out to be correct.

Here's a link to his twitter feed: https://twitter.com/SethAbramson

[ETA] I'm also going to call it now: anytime someone links to Seth Abramson in another thread, TBD is going to report it as offtopic and whine about how it "belongs in the Seth Abramson thread."
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
By whom? Where?
Evidence? Link and quote, please.


(I do agree that Abramson himself inflates his authority at times to lend undue weight to his opinions; he sometimes cites a number 2000 or so cases that he has been on. If you do the math, you will find that this would mean 1 case per day for the entire duration of his legal career, which seems to me a little too much - a person cannot learn anything meaningful from 2000 cases. 200 cases would impress me much more. I assume that some followers of Abramson have in the past, and perhaps continue to, fallen for his inflated credentials.)
That was easy
__________________
A proud member of a dissident religious group.
The Big Dog 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 11th March 2018, 12:51 PM   #44
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,893
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post

But we can't dismiss Jones's arguments on the grounds that they come from Jones.
Am I the only person who shamelessly steals good arguments?

I'm basically incapable of hearing an excellent, "better than I had before" argument without adopting it as my own.
__________________
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 11th March 2018, 12:54 PM   #45
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,182
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
If song lyrics contain an argument, or if the aliens produced an argument for you that you share with me, it is a fallacy for me to dismiss the argument on the grounds of its origins. Duh.

In order to refute an argument, one must address the argument itself and not its source. This really isn't a difficult or controversial notion.

Now, often I am uninterested in spending the time to evaluate Infowars nonsense. When I refuse to do so, I can't claim that the argument is a bad argument. Rather, I just choose to spend my time on other matters. In doing so, I have refuted nothing at all.
Then why bring up the source of the argument at all if the source doesn't provide evidence?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger 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 11th March 2018, 12:55 PM   #46
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,211
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
... the inferences he makes based on his experience as an attorney and law professor typically turn out to be correct. ...
You have already been called on your mistake of calling Abramson a "law professor" - at best, you fell for the way he inflates his credentials.

More importantly: The claim that he typically turns out to be correct is essentially his own. Have you checked this? Of course you have not.
Abramson produces inferences at a breath-taking speed. Many many many inferences every day. No one has the time to check them all out after enough time has passed.

Essentially, you are displaying relatively blind faith in his self-proclaimed greatness.



Havin said all that, to compare Abramson with Alex Jones is pretty dishonest.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 11th March 2018, 01:00 PM   #47
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,211
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
That was easy
Presumably, you had seen this prior to opening this thread.
Presumably, you think this is pervasive enough among the left to merit a thread of its own.
I am probably following the same threads you follow, but I have not seen many appealing to Abramson's authority. When someone does, it's easy to point out, is it not? I just did so myself with Beelz' post.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 11th March 2018, 01:11 PM   #48
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,600
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I have a better idea, why don’t you support you completely made up claim that Abramson read it on Breitbart? Because I laughed.

Seth lied.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/im...nerwarrant.pdf
That version of the story originated with Erik Prince and was first published on Breitbart, but of course Abramson could have read it on TruePundit or any of the other right-wing propaganda sites that picked up on it.

As for your search warrant, it was submitted October 30th, two days after Comey wrote his infamous letter to Congress about the discovered emails, so it certainly doesn't tell us who discovered them. Whoever it was, it was someone working on the Weiner sexting case, so they had to bring it to the attention of the FBI agents working on the email investigation. And whoever that was, they were also likely Prince's source, and maybe they are correct -- for all the difference it makes.

I'm still amused that this is the best example you can come up with for comparing Abramson to Alex Jones.

Last edited by WilliamSeger; 11th March 2018 at 02:20 PM. Reason: sp
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 11th March 2018, 01:52 PM   #49
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,753
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
I'm still amused that this is the best example you can come up with for comparing Abramson to Alex Jones.

Well, when you're floating in an ocean amid the wreckage of your argument, you're going to desperately cling to even the smallest plank of wood in an attempt to keep from drowning.
Cl1mh4224rd 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 11th March 2018, 02:20 PM   #50
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
That version of the story originated with Erik Prince and was first published on Breitbard, but of course Abramson could have read it on TruePundit or any of the other right-wing propaganda sites that picked up on it.

As for your search warrant, it was submitted October 30th, two days after Comey wrote his infamous letter to Congress about the discovered emails, so it certainly doesn't tell us who discovered them. Whoever it was, it was someone working on the Weiner sexting case, so they had to bring it to the attention of the FBI agents working on the email investigation. And whoever that was, they were also likely Prince's source, and maybe they are correct -- for all the difference it makes.

I'm still amused that this is the best example you can come up with for comparing Abramson to Alex Jones.
Didn’t bother reading the part where the lap top was in the FBI’s possession as part of the sexting case? Of course you didn’t. I did like the fact you have no evidence that Seth was lying in 2018 because he might have read something on Breitbart. He was still lying.

And no, that example was how I proved he was lying about something. Don’t bother trying to move the goalposts, tbd is on the case.
__________________
A proud member of a dissident religious group.
The Big Dog 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 11th March 2018, 02:22 PM   #51
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd View Post
Well, when you're floating in an ocean amid the wreckage of your argument, you're going to desperately cling to even the smallest plank of wood in an attempt to keep from drowning.
Yeah, do you believe he tried the “Seth was lying because he read it on Brietbart.” Oh man.
__________________
A proud member of a dissident religious group.
The Big Dog 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 11th March 2018, 02:23 PM   #52
mgidm86
Illuminator
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,801
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Thanks for checking in! You will note the post to which I was replying claimed (well actually hand waved away) the several links regarding Clinton/Sanders as “too vague.”

As such what I did was post to Seth’s actual explanation! A direct quote if you will. Why would I substitute my own opinion when I could answer his spectacularly specious objection with Seth’s own words?

Maybe next time? Read the link, ‘k?
TBD is correct, this is relevant to the questions asked.

This is my first real reading of Seth. The article and some of his theories are interesting I suppose, yet at other times he comes across as a total loon. My overall impression is that he's probably intelligent, and possibly on LSD.

I guess what he's saying is that he tries to dig deeper into stories and discover the underlying forces that make certain events seem simpler than they actually are? Other than his odd use of language (is he into the healing powers of crystals too?) and his dips into 5th and 6th dimensions(!), I don't see anything Earth shattering about what he's trying to do. Then again, considering the sad state of journalism...

The only thing I do find unusual or unique about him is that he seems to use some pretty whacked-out theories (pretty weird stuff) to describe his work, which is really pretty mundane at its core, at least as I understand it. I am somewhat interested in reading a little more from him just to see how it compares to this single article.

I don't think Squeegie deserved his own thread for his recent linkings to Seth, which is what this thread is. I think we all got the gist of how you both feel about it in the original thread, which is where this belongs.

As a side note, I really really don't like the name Seth (largely because of that gawdawful "actor". Rogan?), but I'm still trying to be objective
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.

Last edited by mgidm86; 11th March 2018 at 02:24 PM.
mgidm86 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 11th March 2018, 02:26 PM   #53
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 11,372
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Ok, let clear that right up for you!

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-..._10077684.html
Naked link. Clear as mud.

That's a long, meandering article. And yet you refuse to point out with specificity the bits supporting your claim that Abramson is a CTist. People with strong evidence are usually eager to share that evidence. Whereas these whack-a-mole games are a pretty good indicator that your evidence is lacking.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.

Last edited by varwoche; 11th March 2018 at 02:29 PM.
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 11th March 2018, 02:34 PM   #54
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 10,344
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Then why bring up the source of the argument at all if the source doesn't provide evidence?
I'd be happy to answer in an appropriate thread.
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 11th March 2018, 02:39 PM   #55
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,920
Given the fact that Abramson generally posts well though through and reasonable Twitter threads and is nothing at all like Alex Jones (the Infowars of the right), I'd say "thread premise fail".

It's amusing that he pisses TBD off so much tho. One more reason to like the guy.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se 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 11th March 2018, 02:42 PM   #56
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Naked link. Clear as mud.

That's a long, meandering article. And yet you refuse to point out with specificity the bits supporting your claim that Abramson is a CTist. People with strong evidence are usually eager to share that evidence. Whereas these whack-a-mole games are a pretty good indicator that your evidence is lacking.
Are you kidding? Seth Abramson WROTE that! The whole thing is nuts from soup to.... well nuts.
__________________
A proud member of a dissident religious group.
The Big Dog 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 11th March 2018, 02:44 PM   #57
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,211
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Are you kidding? Seth Abramson WROTE that! The whole thing is nuts from soup to.... well nuts.
Then it ought to be exceptionally easy to quote some juicy CT from the piece
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 11th March 2018, 02:46 PM   #58
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Then it ought to be exceptionally easy to quote some juicy CT from the piece
I did. In the op.
__________________
A proud member of a dissident religious group.
The Big Dog 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 11th March 2018, 02:55 PM   #59
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,893
Sounds like he might not be the greatest journalist, and might even be an aspiring propagandist, but yo. Alex Jones is a really tough act to follow in terms of conspiratorial outlandish kookiness.
__________________
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 11th March 2018, 02:57 PM   #60
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,920
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Sounds like he might not be the greatest journalist, and might even be an aspiring propagandist, but yo. Alex Jones is a really tough act to follow in terms of conspiratorial outlandish kookiness.
That was the problem with this thread from the beginning. TBD reached much too far. Now it doesn't really matter what's wrong with Abramson's reporting, as the claim of the thread is that he's as bad as Alex Jones, which he most definitely isn't.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se 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 11th March 2018, 03:05 PM   #61
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,211
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I did. In the op.
No. The OP does not quote any CT that Abramson has written.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 11th March 2018 at 03:07 PM.
Oystein 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 11th March 2018, 03:13 PM   #62
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,600
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Didn’t bother reading the part where the lap top was in the FBI’s possession as part of the sexting case? Of course you didn’t. I did like the fact you have no evidence that Seth was lying in 2018 because he might have read something on Breitbart. He was still lying.

And no, that example was how I proved he was lying about something. Don’t bother trying to move the goalposts, tbd is on the case.
Well, first, you haven't "proved" that he was wrong, much less lying. And second, if the thread is about comparing Abramson to Jones, you're the one moving the goalposts.
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 11th March 2018, 03:17 PM   #63
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
No. The OP does not quote any CT that Abramson has written.
Yes it does, and more importantly quotes from the idiotic article he wrote.
__________________
A proud member of a dissident religious group.
The Big Dog 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 11th March 2018, 03:22 PM   #64
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Well, first, you haven't "proved" that he was wrong, much less lying. And second, if the thread is about comparing Abramson to Jones, you're the one moving the goalposts.
Yes actually I have, because the affidavit explicitly states that the FBI was in possession of the lap top when the emails were discovered.

Next this thread is about That and much more, including his incompetence.
__________________
A proud member of a dissident religious group.
The Big Dog 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 11th March 2018, 03:24 PM   #65
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,893
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Yes it does, and more importantly quotes from the idiotic article he wrote.
I don't have an issue with you pointing out that someone's an unreliable source, but you're really doing your "cause" a disservice by so greatly overstating your case.

Just for fun, I just pulled up today's infowars front page, and we have UFOs , Satanists, and a secret "globalist" eugenics plot.

C'mon, now.
__________________
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.

Last edited by kellyb; 11th March 2018 at 03:27 PM.
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 11th March 2018, 03:43 PM   #66
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I don't have an issue with you pointing out that someone's an unreliable source, but you're really doing your "cause" a disservice by so greatly overstating your case.

Just for fun, I just pulled up today's infowars front page, and we have UFOs , Satanists, and a secret "globalist" eugenics plot.

C'mon, now.
Thanks for contributing! I thought it was pretty clear that it was the left that originally made that claim.

Did you have a chance to browse those articles? You should have done so.
__________________
A proud member of a dissident religious group.
The Big Dog 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 11th March 2018, 03:43 PM   #67
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,211
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Yes it does, and more importantly quotes from the idiotic article he wrote.
You must be talking about a different OP. I mean this one.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 11th March 2018, 03:47 PM   #68
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
You must be talking about a different OP. I mean this one.
Yeah that one.

I get that you might disagree with me and the numerous links in the article in the op, but please don’t waste everyone’s time by feigning ignorance.
__________________
A proud member of a dissident religious group.
The Big Dog 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 11th March 2018, 03:47 PM   #69
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,467
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
If song lyrics contain an argument, or if the aliens produced an argument for you that you share with me, it is a fallacy for me to dismiss the argument on the grounds of its origins. Duh.



In order to refute an argument, one must address the argument itself and not its source. This really isn't a difficult or controversial notion.

Now, often I am uninterested in spending the time to evaluate Infowars nonsense. When I refuse to do so, I can't claim that the argument is a bad argument. Rather, I just choose to spend my time on other matters. In doing so, I have refuted nothing at all.


ETA: I think that this foray into the nature of ad hominem has probably gone on long enough in this thread. I'd hate to be accused of a derail, so I'll stop responding here. Anyone interested in carrying on can start another thread and PM me and I'll join.
I have a question about your point here.

When establishing the truth of a situation, after defining what it is you are trying to establish, it's good practice to determine the accuracy of your ability to measure the particulars of the situation. For example, if trying to determine air pressure in an industrial operation, you would use a gage that has been calibrated and shown to be repeatable and reproducible.

So why should you trust a particular reading from an unreliable gage? Wouldn't you instead seek out a reliable gage and also note your reasoning?
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

Last edited by LSSBB; 11th March 2018 at 04:20 PM.
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 11th March 2018, 03:48 PM   #70
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,197
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
More importantly: The claim that he typically turns out to be correct is essentially his own. Have you checked this? Of course you have not.
The claim is mine. He's been right about some big things, and not wrong about anything that comes to mind. Off the top of my head, just before Gates accepted a plea deal, he was reported to have fired his lawyer and refused a deal, which was repeated on all the major media sites. Abramson was the only one I read who said "nah, this is just what you do when you're trying to negotiate a better plea deal," and a day or two later - plea deal.

More important than absolute accuracy, Abramson's willing to speculate far more than other informed sources, and I think I'd tolerate him being wrong much more than he is. Having someone who starts with what the news is and goes on to talk about what it might mean is invaluable. What frustrates me the most about today's media is that no one seems willing to connect any dots explicitly, but only hint at conclusions because they're terrified of saying something wrong.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I have not seen many appealing to Abramson's authority. When someone does, it's easy to point out, is it not? I just did so myself with Beelz' post.
That wasn't an appeal to authority. I don't care why he's typically correct, only that he is.
Beelzebuddy 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 11th March 2018, 03:50 PM   #71
Scootch
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Perhaps Seth Abramson can tell us who Eric Hoteham is.
Maybe Eric can buy Seth a blog.
Scootch 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 11th March 2018, 03:51 PM   #72
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 10,344
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
I have a question about your point here.

When establishing the truth of a situation, after defining what it is you are trying to establish, it's good practice to determine the accuracy of your ability to measure the particulars of the situation. For example, if trying to determine air pressure in an industrial operation, you would use a gage that has been calibrated and shown to be repeatable and reproducible.

So why should you trust a particular reading from an unreliable gage? Wouldn't you instead seek out a repiable gage and also note your reasoning?
If I'm relying on a source for the truth of a claim, then I'm appealing to authority of the source, and it's appropriate to judge the source's expertise, honesty, etc.

If I'm judging an argument as valid/invalid or strong/weak, then generally speaking, the source is irrelevant. An exception would be a case in which evaluating an argument requires sufficient technical background (I have no faith in my ability to read and understand, much less evaluate, arguments in quantum physics, at least not without months of study). In that case, I would actually be asserting the conclusion by appealing to authority, without any real reference to the argument itself.

Now, again, I'd prefer not to get dinged for an off-topic derail.
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 11th March 2018, 03:53 PM   #73
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,920
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
The claim is mine. He's been right about some big things, and not wrong about anything that comes to mind. Off the top of my head, just before Gates accepted a plea deal, he was reported to have fired his lawyer and refused a deal, which was repeated on all the major media sites. Abramson was the only one I read who said "nah, this is just what you do when you're trying to negotiate a better plea deal," and a day or two later - plea deal.

More important than absolute accuracy, Abramson's willing to speculate far more than other informed sources, and I think I'd tolerate him being wrong much more than he is. Having someone who starts with what the news is and goes on to talk about what it might mean is invaluable. What frustrates me the most about today's media is that no one seems willing to connect any dots explicitly, but only hint at conclusions because they're terrified of saying something wrong.


That wasn't an appeal to authority. I don't care why he's typically correct, only that he is.
Oh, I don't agree with this at all. At least if we're talking about news media. I don't think journalists should aspire to punditry. Abramson is useful as someone who can explain what events could mean, but one should always be aware that he's not reporting news, but speculating based on experience.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se 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 11th March 2018, 03:56 PM   #74
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,211
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Yeah that one.

I get that you might disagree with me and the numerous links in the article in the op, but please don’t waste everyone’s time by feigning ignorance.
Once again:
You have claimed to have linked to a piece that Seth Abramson wrote.
And you have claimed that you quoted from that piece in the OP words that are evidence that Abramson was telling a CT.

There is no such quote by Abramson in the OP.

Please re-read the OP, to ascertain that you do NOT quote Abramson with any bit of any CT.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 11th March 2018, 03:58 PM   #75
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Once again:
You have claimed to have linked to a piece that Seth Abramson wrote.
And you have claimed that you quoted from that piece in the OP words that are evidence that Abramson was telling a CT.

There is no such quote by Abramson in the OP.

Please re-read the OP, to ascertain that you do NOT quote Abramson with any bit of any CT.
False.
__________________
A proud member of a dissident religious group.
The Big Dog 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 11th March 2018, 04:02 PM   #76
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,211
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
The claim is mine. He's been right about some big things, and not wrong about anything that comes to mind. Off the top of my head, just before Gates accepted a plea deal, he was reported to have fired his lawyer and refused a deal, which was repeated on all the major media sites. Abramson was the only one I read who said "nah, this is just what you do when you're trying to negotiate a better plea deal," and a day or two later - plea deal.

More important than absolute accuracy, Abramson's willing to speculate far more than other informed sources, and I think I'd tolerate him being wrong much more than he is. Having someone who starts with what the news is and goes on to talk about what it might mean is invaluable. What frustrates me the most about today's media is that no one seems willing to connect any dots explicitly, but only hint at conclusions because they're terrified of saying something wrong.


That wasn't an appeal to authority. I don't care why he's typically correct, only that he is.
The problem with all this is this: When someone makes many many inferences every day, some are going to turn out to be correct, some are going to turn out to be false.
You have anecdotal memory of him having been right a few times - but how do you discern this from random luck and confirmation bias?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 11th March 2018, 04:06 PM   #77
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,211
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
False.
*sigh*

Here are the complete quotes in the OP:
Quote:
When confronted, Abramson called his writing “experimental journalism” aimed at creating a “metanarrative” that would be “every bit as powerful and present and perceivable as any other.
Quote:
All of that, though, was forgotten as Trump entered office — and as Abramson began crafting his excruciatingly long Twitter threads, all while picking up media appearances on CNN, CBS, BBC, and elsewhere. It didn’t seem to matter that Abramson had negligible expertise on any of the topics at hand — there are any thousands of other lawyers, still active members of the bar, who could comment on Mueller’s investigation — or that his history of conspiratorial fallacies nearly match the others. (Abramson has denied that he’s a conspiracy theorist.)
Quote:
Over the past few months, other outlets have begun picking up the ball and voicing their criticism of Abramson. For Fast Company, Abramson “operates… [by] making grand generalizations about news already reported, but misconstruing even the easiest-to-understand parts in the name of an ideological goal.” For Slate, “[Abramson’s] schtick is less credulous fabulism than hyperbolic sleight of hand.” And for the Washington Post, “Abramson’s tweets link copiously to sources, but they range in quality from investigative news articles to off-the-wall Facebook posts and tweets from Tom Arnold. The New Republic and Atlantic have both dismissed the professor as a conspiracy theorist.” GQ, Deadspin. The Outline, and Vice have also publicly called out Abramson’s conspiracy-mongering.
I highlighted the quotes attributed to Abramson. All other quotes are attributed to people who are not Abramson.

I count a total of 14 words attributed to Abramson.
None of them touch upon any CT.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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 11th March 2018, 04:14 PM   #78
kellyb
Philosopher
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,893
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
*sigh*

Here are the complete quotes in the OP:




I highlighted the quotes attributed to Abramson. All other quotes are attributed to people who are not Abramson.

I count a total of 14 words attributed to Abramson.
None of them touch upon any CT.
I've been feeling like I'm missing something, too.
__________________
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 11th March 2018, 04:18 PM   #79
fuelair
Suspended
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57,679
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Your tantrums notwithstanding, it appears you dislike him for the same reason others like him: the inferences he makes based on his experience as an attorney and law professor typically turn out to be correct.

Here's a link to his twitter feed: https://twitter.com/SethAbramson

[ETA] I'm also going to call it now: anytime someone links to Seth Abramson in another thread, TBD is going to report it as offtopic and whine about how it "belongs in the Seth Abramson thread."
Don't know for sure, but it does sound likely!!!
fuelair 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 11th March 2018, 04:26 PM   #80
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 18,467
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
If I'm relying on a source for the truth of a claim, then I'm appealing to authority of the source, and it's appropriate to judge the source's expertise, honesty, etc.

If I'm judging an argument as valid/invalid or strong/weak, then generally speaking, the source is irrelevant. An exception would be a case in which evaluating an argument requires sufficient technical background (I have no faith in my ability to read and understand, much less evaluate, arguments in quantum physics, at least not without months of study). In that case, I would actually be asserting the conclusion by appealing to authority, without any real reference to the argument itself.

Now, again, I'd prefer not to get dinged for an off-topic derail.
This is not off-topic, because we are discussing whether a source, in this case Seth Abramson, is reliable.

Of course, in the case of Seth Abramson, for aspects of the content that he uses a source, the original source needs to be assessed.

As far as the strength of an argument goes, at what point do you differentiate the facts being presented, from the argument being presented? Why should politics be any different than quantum mechanics in that regard? Shouldn't governance be evidence-based?
__________________
"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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

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 10:22 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.