Calling all conspiracy theorists - do you believe in this one?

[TheDemonLord]

What caveat was deliberately missed out to make it incorrect? Can you clarify that.


One of which omitted the 'in some fields' caveat

Perhaps that should make it clear as to why I think you are being disingenuous...

You're asking for a clarification on something that you later accept as true.


The Don Brash thing relies on you understanding how the Argument From Authority Fallacy works; no need to put the cart before the horse here.

Not at all, and given how you've flipped flopped multiple times, you're in no position to make that imposition.

The point was - you don't actually have any objection to his credentials other than the fact to admit them would be to disprove your point. And it's not like there aren't a number of entirely subjective arguments that you could put up as to why you object to his position as an authority.


I have not reworded or re-fit the exception at all. Perhaps you should provide clarification.


Succinctness and validation, if you agree with the way I phrase it

It would help if you stopped contradicting yourself. It is clear you did re-word it, and you have admitted as such previously. To claim not to have done so is again, disingenuous.


As a case in point to show you are still willing to discuss fallacies ;) so let's finish the first one.

So you withdraw the accusation of Ad Hominem then and concede I never tried to rebut your argument based on the content of your Character - good, we are making progress.


"Whether you consider that Proof or not" is precisely the point, if you seek to prove you are correct in something. That is why I got to the two premises:

1) The fallacy's exception is when a recognized expert's opinion counts as proof
2) That an inductive argument can be a valid form of proof

I disagree, since the level of proof for any given field is expressed in it's methodology. As an example - a Mathematical proof is entirely inductive. Going back to Law - We have such a thing as legal precedent, whereby a ruling by one judge on a matter of interpretation of Law (which has a very clear inductive component as part of the argument) is then considered as a "proof" for subsequent judgements.

Whether or not you yourself consider that as a Proof is beside the point, the point is that self-contained within some fields an inductive argument is valid.


One of which omitted the 'in some fields' caveat as it doesn't change the meaning at all, as saying it 'can' form a valid proof in some fields, is the same (or less burdensome actually) as saying it 'can' form a valid proof; that's basic english dude.

The caveat is there for a specific reason, namely to rule out the possibility of a bait-and-switch later, furthermore that you omitted it when I had specifically pointed out it's need for inclusion is the problem, again - this is not an honest debating strategy.

Because for the first half, you were sticking to a purely scientific definition of what constituted proof.


I disagree, all I am asking for is honest clarifications.

See above - where your 'honest' clarifications have been contradicted by earlier or later statements. Which is why I think they are dishonest.

[Laava]

You are!


No, you are!


No you are!


No you are!


No you are!

Can a mod please bang their silly heads together? Thanks!

[Graystone]

Perhaps that should make it clear as to why I think you are being disingenuous...

You're asking for a clarification on something that you later accept as true.



Not at all, and given how you've flipped flopped multiple times, you're in no position to make that imposition.

The point was - you don't actually have any objection to his credentials other than the fact to admit them would be to disprove your point. And it's not like there aren't a number of entirely subjective arguments that you could put up as to why you object to his position as an authority.





It would help if you stopped contradicting yourself. It is clear you did re-word it, and you have admitted as such previously. To claim not to have done so is again, disingenuous.



So you withdraw the accusation of Ad Hominem then and concede I never tried to rebut your argument based on the content of your Character - good, we are making progress.



I disagree, since the level of proof for any given field is expressed in it's methodology. As an example - a Mathematical proof is entirely inductive. Going back to Law - We have such a thing as legal precedent, whereby a ruling by one judge on a matter of interpretation of Law (which has a very clear inductive component as part of the argument) is then considered as a "proof" for subsequent judgements.

Whether or not you yourself consider that as a Proof is beside the point, the point is that self-contained within some fields an inductive argument is valid.



The caveat is there for a specific reason, namely to rule out the possibility of a bait-and-switch later, furthermore that you omitted it when I had specifically pointed out it's need for inclusion is the problem, again - this is not an honest debating strategy.

Because for the first half, you were sticking to a purely scientific definition of what constituted proof.



See above - where your 'honest' clarifications have been contradicted by earlier or later statements. Which is why I think they are dishonest.

The removal of that caveat does not make it incorrect though.

His credentials are irrelevant as you are invoking the argument from authority fallacy, now if you were to put the cart after the horse, we would finish discussing the fallacy as that is the only way you can convince me his credentials are relevant.

The exception is from the websites, which I have not reworded. The validation I seek is from you. So there is no contradiction or disenginuity.

Not at all, I'm pointing out it is another fallacy for another day.

You state you disagree then go on to validate the two premises, so I'm not sure what your disagreement with them is? Or is it with my statement that "Whether you consider that Proof or not" is precisely the point, if you seek to prove you are correct in something? The consideration of what is proof, is what the two premises really boil down to, what your contentions about the fallacy's exceptions boil down to as well, so how is that not precisely the point?

There was no bait and switch, such a qualification was simply unnecessary so I removed it. There was no need to fly off the handle.

There is no dishonesty, just a difference of perspective, again, there is no need to fly off the handle and start ascribing me negative character traits and attributes to justify ignoring my rational points.

[Graystone]

Can a mod please bang their silly heads together? Thanks!

How about you go fuck your hat. Nobody is forcing you to read this thread.

[husaberg]

How about you go fuck your hat. Nobody is forcing you to read this thread.
What are you Canadian?

[Graystone]

What are you Canadian?

No, I just really don't like that other keener's Hat.

[Laava]

What are you Canadian?

With no sense of humour and very strange ideas on sexual practices!

[Laava]

How about you go fuck your hat. Nobody is forcing you to read this thread.

Nobody is reading this thread! Just you two boring on at each other. What is your address, I'll send you a hat to fuck instead?

[husaberg]

With no sense of humour and very strange ideas on sexual practices!
Nah its a real Canadian saying, that I have never heard used over here.

[TheDemonLord]

The removal of that caveat does not make it incorrect though.

I've already addressed this. It is clear from the written record that you did exactly what I said you did and a post hoc justification doesn't wash.


His credentials are irrelevant as you are invoking the argument from authority fallacy, now if you were to put the cart after the horse, we would finish discussing the fallacy as that is the only way you can convince me his credentials are relevant.

You were perfectly happy to declare you don't consider his credentials valid when disputing the Exception, yet when asked for a reason as to why you don't consider them valid - you've gone all shy...

It's almost like you know that you have no leg to stand on.


The exception is from the websites, which I have not reworded. The validation I seek is from you. So there is no contradiction or disenginuity.

You re-worded the clarification you sought from me into something I did not say. That's Disingenuous.


Not at all, I'm pointing out it is another fallacy for another day.

Ah I see, so we are back to make accusations of Fallacies without actually understanding the fallacy then. Good Job, Well done, Keep it up!


You state you disagree then go on to validate the two premises, so I'm not sure what your disagreement with them is? Or is it with my statement that "Whether you consider that Proof or not" is precisely the point, if you seek to prove you are correct in something? The consideration of what is proof, is what the two premises really boil down to, what your contentions about the fallacy's exceptions boil down to as well, so how is that not precisely the point?

A valid argument does not necessarily equate to proof. Furthermore, there are some fields where such a proof doesn't really exist, only a series of valid arguments.


There was no bait and switch, such a qualification was simply unnecessary so I removed it. There was no need to fly off the handle.

There's a reason why I specifically included the qualification.

That you removed it, in of itself (without the underlying motive that I suspect to be the case) is dishonest argumentation.


There is no dishonesty, just a difference of perspective, again, there is no need to fly off the handle and start ascribing me negative character traits and attributes to justify ignoring my rational points.

Nice try - Except the form of the argument is not:

You are wrong because you are dishonest (which is the Ad Hominem you are trying to accuse me of)

So go back, try again and learn your fallacies.

[Graystone]

I've already addressed this. It is clear from the written record that you did exactly what I said you did and a post hoc justification doesn't wash.



You were perfectly happy to declare you don't consider his credentials valid when disputing the Exception, yet when asked for a reason as to why you don't consider them valid - you've gone all shy...

It's almost like you know that you have no leg to stand on.



You re-worded the clarification you sought from me into something I did not say. That's Disingenuous.



Ah I see, so we are back to make accusations of Fallacies without actually understanding the fallacy then. Good Job, Well done, Keep it up!



A valid argument does not necessarily equate to proof. Furthermore, there are some fields where such a proof doesn't really exist, only a series of valid arguments.



There's a reason why I specifically included the qualification.

That you removed it, in of itself (without the underlying motive that I suspect to be the case) is dishonest argumentation.



Nice try - Except the form of the argument is not:

You are wrong because you are dishonest (which is the Ad Hominem you are trying to accuse me of)

So go back, try again and learn your fallacies.

1) That is not clear at all. Removing the 'in selected fields' does not make it incorrect, this is basic English.

His credentials are irrelevant.

See #1 So it is not the exceptions I reworded, just your interpretation of it, which again, was done for clarity, not disenginuity.

A series of valid arguments is fine if you do not seek to prove, or to claim that you are correct and others are wrong. In case which you do assert your correctness, then proof is required to back yourself up.

See #1 It's a simplification, how exactly does it make the statement incorrect?

I'm not dishonest. To portray me as such is the fallacy. I'm seeing a trend in which you come up with some 'exception' to all the fallacies you commit; it's quite hilarious because that is precisely the delusion and illogic the fallacies are there to prevent but you just can't see it.

[husaberg]

http://24.media.tumblr.com/8b23fc5d10622ee96fc45f2c232cedef/tumblr_mp7t4l3KGR1rv7il8o1_400.gif

[Graystone]

Orphan Black, fantastic series. Tatiana Maslany deserved all the awards she got (and then some) for her performances.

[husaberg]

<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/9uImsUBZASgCHgJsxK" width="480" height="360" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="https://giphy.com/gifs/mila-kunus-9uImsUBZASgCHgJsxK"></a></p>

[Viking01]

I see that clinical trials have progressed from lab monkeys up to field trials
on US diplomats around the globe. Wonder how long before the production
version becomes available.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2018/07/16/us-super-spy-program-may-explain-mysterious-diplomat-brain-injuries.html

No, Donald. The ringing in your ears is simply the western press "showing
their appreciation of a job well done" following your week of diplomacy
around the globe.

[TheDemonLord]

1) That is not clear at all. Removing the 'in selected fields' does not make it incorrect, this is basic English.

See #1 So it is not the exceptions I reworded, just your interpretation of it, which again, was done for clarity, not disenginuity.

See #1 It's a simplification, how exactly does it make the statement incorrect?

Which is a rather fancy way of admitting that you are re-wording what I said (and what I meant) into what you wanted it to mean.


His credentials are irrelevant.

Except you repeatedly stated you didn't accept his status - If it is because of a genuine disagreement - you'd be able to post that up. If, however, it was purely to avoid conceeding the point all along, you wouldn't have any reason to dispute this and would avoid answering the challenge.

Oh Look!


A series of valid arguments is fine if you do not seek to prove, or to claim that you are correct and others are wrong. In case which you do assert your correctness, then proof is required to back yourself up.

In such realms as Economics (and various other fields) all there is are series of valid arguments. This is due to their subjective nature and the lack of objective measuring data - especially in economics because a large section of Economic theory is devoted to the Ethics and morality of various systems. For example Laissez-faire type systems tend to produce the most amount of entrepreneurial activity and large amounts of technological advancement - but it comes at the cost of consumer protections - can you prove that this system is the right system? Of course not -all you can do is make a series of valid arguments.


I'm not dishonest. To portray me as such is the fallacy.

In this debate, I think you are being dishonest, but at no point have I used that as the basis to rebut what you have said.

I'll (again) refer you to the form of the Fallacy:

"Person 1 is claiming Y.
Person 1 is a moron.
Therefore, Y is not true."

Which is not what has happened:

Me: I think X
You: So what you are saying is Y
Me: No, I meant X
You: Which is Y
Me: X is not Y therefore you are being dishonest.

I've not used the accusation of dishonesty as the basis for what you have said to be wrong.


I'm seeing a trend in which you come up with some 'exception' to all the fallacies you commit;

You mean - I actually understand what the Fallacies are and how to correctly use them? Well, I'll take the compliment...


it's quite hilarious because that is precisely the delusion and illogic the fallacies are there to prevent but you just can't see it.

Sargon's Law (again)

[Graystone]

Which is a rather fancy way of admitting that you are re-wording what I said (and what I meant) into what you wanted it to mean.



Except you repeatedly stated you didn't accept his status - If it is because of a genuine disagreement - you'd be able to post that up. If, however, it was purely to avoid conceeding the point all along, you wouldn't have any reason to dispute this and would avoid answering the challenge.

Oh Look!



In such realms as Economics (and various other fields) all there is are series of valid arguments. This is due to their subjective nature and the lack of objective measuring data - especially in economics because a large section of Economic theory is devoted to the Ethics and morality of various systems. For example Laissez-faire type systems tend to produce the most amount of entrepreneurial activity and large amounts of technological advancement - but it comes at the cost of consumer protections - can you prove that this system is the right system? Of course not -all you can do is make a series of valid arguments.



In this debate, I think you are being dishonest, but at no point have I used that as the basis to rebut what you have said.

I'll (again) refer you to the form of the Fallacy:

"Person 1 is claiming Y.
Person 1 is a moron.
Therefore, Y is not true."

Which is not what has happened:

Me: I think X
You: So what you are saying is Y
Me: No, I meant X
You: Which is Y
Me: X is not Y therefore you are being dishonest.

I've not used the accusation of dishonesty as the basis for what you have said to be wrong.



You mean - I actually understand what the Fallacies are and how to correctly use them? Well, I'll take the compliment...



Sargon's Law (again)

1) You're yet to explain how the rewording makes it incorrect...

Yet, they remain irrelevant, that's how the argument from authority fallacy works.

So there is no proof in those fields? or is a series of valid arguments constitutes proof in those fields?

See #1, I'm still waiting for you to explain how X and Y mean different things... the 'therefore' in that sentence needs to be a known fact or shared opinion. Since it is neither of those things, and you cannot even show how the meaning is made different after I have repeatedly asked you to, your supposition that X and Y mean different things is invalid, and the conclusion that I am dishonest is also invalid. It should also be noted, the "You: Which is Y" would be more accurately interpreted as "You: Which covers Y"

I'd move Sargon's law to #2 on the list of shit you should understand before using, it's getting embarrassing dude.

[husaberg]

https://78.media.tumblr.com/5d2440565e4c4c4fc428ad84d737a9e7/tumblr_oqxipe3fNQ1wqj5hgo1_500.gif (https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiW3Y3n2qrcAhUEqJQKHe7CAkIQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gramunion.com%2Fespritragique .tumblr.com&psig=AOvVaw3AyqIf7QF6YkpCNR8qlcXJ&ust=1532073949461153)

[Banditbandit]

'Bout time this thread had a silly hat ...

https://mojly.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/funny-hat-cap-pictures-59e8eb02fa864d341a434d689c6b9aa3-silly-hats-funny-hats.jpg

[Banditbandit]

Or two ..

https://i0.wp.com/farm4.static.flickr.com/3014/3035518467_a72721f342.jpg

[TheDemonLord]

1) You're yet to explain how the rewording makes it incorrect...

The rewording doesn't take into account a degree of nuance and differentiation between two unique concepts, one which later on is rather key.

If you were being honest in the debate, regardless of how you felt about the succinctness, you'd accept the addendum and carry on.

but you didn't

You've given a post-hoc justification for doing so, but my issue is you omitted the clarification that I provided, after asking for said clarification - that is a disingenuous method of debate.


Yet, they remain irrelevant, that's how the argument from authority fallacy works.

Do you need to read the "Exceptions" area from your own sources again? Although to be honest if you don't understand it by now, there's not much hope.

You were more than happy to dispute his status as an Expert (so as to avoid conceding my point all along) yet, when asked for a reason why, you've refused.

What you are demonstrating, is the very reason why there is an exception and why it takes the form it does.


So there is no proof in those fields? or is a series of valid arguments constitutes proof in those fields?

And now, you have come to the problem with your position all along - try answering that question from your point of view, in relation to what is being discussed...

Furthermore - it's the reason why I added the clarification that I did - to draw a distinct line between areas with varying levels of Proof.


See #1, I'm still waiting for you to explain how X and Y mean different things... the 'therefore' in that sentence needs to be a known fact or shared opinion. Since it is neither of those things, and you cannot even show how the meaning is made different after I have repeatedly asked you to, your supposition that X and Y mean different things is invalid, and the conclusion that I am dishonest is also invalid. It should also be noted, the "You: Which is Y" would be more accurately interpreted as "You: Which covers Y"

I've outlined the difference as above - which would render you claims of Ad Hominem (just like all your other attempts to claim a fallacy) as false.


I'd move Sargon's law to #2 on the list of shit you should understand before using, it's getting embarrassing dude.

Sargons Law for a third time...

[Graystone]

The rewording doesn't take into account a degree of nuance and differentiation between two unique concepts, one which later on is rather key.

If you were being honest in the debate, regardless of how you felt about the succinctness, you'd accept the addendum and carry on.

but you didn't

You've given a post-hoc justification for doing so, but my issue is you omitted the clarification that I provided, after asking for said clarification - that is a disingenuous method of debate.



Do you need to read the "Exceptions" area from your own sources again? Although to be honest if you don't understand it by now, there's not much hope.

You were more than happy to dispute his status as an Expert (so as to avoid conceding my point all along) yet, when asked for a reason why, you've refused.

What you are demonstrating, is the very reason why there is an exception and why it takes the form it does.



And now, you have come to the problem with your position all along - try answering that question from your point of view, in relation to what is being discussed...

Furthermore - it's the reason why I added the clarification that I did - to draw a distinct line between areas with varying levels of Proof.



I've outlined the difference as above - which would render you claims of Ad Hominem (just like all your other attempts to claim a fallacy) as false.



Sargons Law for a third time...

How does the re-wording make it incorrect? By explaining that you would ensure we both understand the degree of nuance and differentiation between the two concepts. There's no third party here, just explain what it is you mean, to me. I really don't see why this is such a difficult task or concept for you?

Cart, horse, irrelevant.

There were two questions there, can you answer even one of them! "So there is no proof in those fields? or is a series of valid arguments constitutes proof in those fields?" For me, it is a No to both for your example, but I wouldn't characterise a whole field as unprovable or provable and instead evaluate it on a case by case basis.

Now we are getting somewhere, so the difference in meaning is "to draw a distinct line between areas with varying levels of Proof" which would be a third premise.

1) The fallacy's exception is when a recognized expert's opinion counts as proof
2) That an inductive argument can be a valid form of proof
3) That the level/standard of proof varies between different fields of study, but remains consistent within each feild

Now please just go through the three premises and let me know which ones you disagree with and why.

[Katman]

This will go down in KB folklore as the most pointless argument ever.

[Graystone]

This will go down in KB folklore as the most pointless argument ever.

No you. :tugger: (https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/170344-Who-still-believes-9-11-was-carried-out-by-terrorists-with-box-cutters?p=1131103967#post1131103967)

[husaberg]

http://kitschmix.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/lesbian-kissing-08.gif

[TheDemonLord]

How does the re-wording make it incorrect? By explaining that you would ensure we both understand the degree of nuance and differentiation between the two concepts. There's no third party here, just explain what it is you mean, to me. I really don't see why this is such a difficult task or concept for you?

The rewording removes a clear distinction, so as to stop a bait-and-switch later on.

Again, if you were arguing in Good Faith, you'd accept the clarification as I stated it.

You didn't accept the clarification, therefore - I don't think you're arguing in Good Faith.


Cart, horse, irrelevant.

Except it was relevant when you wanted to dispute his being a credible expert...

It's simple - either you don't accept his credibility and therefore there is an onus of proof for why or you have no issues with his credibility (and so will need to retract several statements to the contrary)

To stick with the line that you don't accept it, but declining to cite a reason leaves us with only one scenario: That you don't actually have a reason for disputing it, but needed to dispute it to avoid conceding the point.


There were two questions there, can you answer even one of them! "So there is no proof in those fields? or is a series of valid arguments constitutes proof in those fields?" For me, it is a No to both for your example, but I wouldn't characterise a whole field as unprovable or provable and instead evaluate it on a case by case basis.

Your questions show that you've setup a dichotomy (one which I don't hold to) - and as you've said - your answer is no to both of those statements, however, that creates a mutually exclusive situation - as you've asserted a standard of proof for which some fields cannot achieve (due to a subjective substrate within the field) but you've also asserted that those fields must have proof.

Your case-by-case cop-out shows that this dichotomy isn't workable - which is why I said it demonstrates the flaw in your reasoning.


1) The fallacy's exception is when a recognized expert's opinion counts as proof
2) That an inductive argument can be a valid form of proof
3) That the level/standard of proof varies between different fields of study, but remains consistent within each feild

My problem with the first statement, is that it's not the definition of the exception (as I originally stated)

My issue with the second statement is that it doesn't draw distinctions between fields (as I originally stated)

The last statement is fine - it happens to have been one of the points I've been making all this time.

[husaberg]

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0d/82/cf/0d82cf0e8971a50159616ed3575b819b.gif

[Banditbandit]

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9e/be/0c/9ebe0c689fc46bce95f5c11a7164462e.gif

[Banditbandit]

Yeah - I know ... that's why I fuck'n' posted it .. now maybe y'all will stop with the chicks kissing gifs ... just as irrelevant ..

[Graystone]

The rewording removes a clear distinction, so as to stop a bait-and-switch later on.

Again, if you were arguing in Good Faith, you'd accept the clarification as I stated it.

You didn't accept the clarification, therefore - I don't think you're arguing in Good Faith.



Except it was relevant when you wanted to dispute his being a credible expert...

It's simple - either you don't accept his credibility and therefore there is an onus of proof for why or you have no issues with his credibility (and so will need to retract several statements to the contrary)

To stick with the line that you don't accept it, but declining to cite a reason leaves us with only one scenario: That you don't actually have a reason for disputing it, but needed to dispute it to avoid conceding the point.



Your questions show that you've setup a dichotomy (one which I don't hold to) - and as you've said - your answer is no to both of those statements, however, that creates a mutually exclusive situation - as you've asserted a standard of proof for which some fields cannot achieve (due to a subjective substrate within the field) but you've also asserted that those fields must have proof.

Your case-by-case cop-out shows that this dichotomy isn't workable - which is why I said it demonstrates the flaw in your reasoning.



My problem with the first statement, is that it's not the definition of the exception (as I originally stated)

My issue with the second statement is that it doesn't draw distinctions between fields (as I originally stated)

The last statement is fine - it happens to have been one of the points I've been making all this time.

The 'clarification' failed to explain its relevance, hence why I asked for more clarification on that. There's no bad faith, I am simply trying to understand your position.

I was sucked into an irrelevant argument, he opinion is irrelevant due to the argument from authority fallacy, that we disagree on his suitability as an authority on that subject is not relevant as all it changes is whether it is an argument from authority, or one from false authority, both are logical fallacies.

Thus leads to one of my premises:
1) Some things cannot currently be proven.
I do not see the dichotomy in this, as we learn more, more things are proven. I am not sure what you mean by saying this is unworkable? Do you disagree with that premise?

But why do you disagree with how it is written? The things you write are often ambiguous and sprawling, I favor concise clarity so we can drill down to the core difference in our logic or belief.
1) Which original statement? This one "They are very clear on the interpretation - an Authority on a subject can be used"? because that is not a premise at all, that's your interpretation. A premise for that would be: The fallacy's exception is when the Authority is recognized as such. But we have already seen this premise is wrong given the science example, so I clarify that it must count as proof (see #2 and #3 for criteria to judge proof by)
2) Independent premises work with one another, so the argument can be broken down into smaller parts to examine. That it is covered by the third means it does not need to be in the second.
3) Excellent, we are making progress then!

[TheDemonLord]

The 'clarification' failed to explain its relevance, hence why I asked for more clarification on that. There's no bad faith, I am simply trying to understand your position.

I've explained it's relevance, then you don't accept the relevance as I've explained it and as I've intended it. That's the very definition of Bad Faith - Unless you are trying to claim that you don't understand why I'd insist on drawing a clear distinction between fields.


I was sucked into an irrelevant argument, he opinion is irrelevant due to the argument from authority fallacy, that we disagree on his suitability as an authority on that subject is not relevant as all it changes is whether it is an argument from authority, or one from false authority, both are logical fallacies.

More Evasion - You state you disagree with his suitability, yet you fail to give a reason why - considering the Exception and the implication it has for your claim - this happens to be highly relevant and your avoidance is equally telling.


Thus leads to one of my premises:
1) Some things cannot currently be proven.

So you are asking me to prove something which you state cannot be proven? And then you wonder why I say I think you are being disingenuous...


I do not see the dichotomy in this, as we learn more, more things are proven. I am not sure what you mean by saying this is unworkable? Do you disagree with that premise?

Absolutely - because you are using a strict scientific definition of Proof, what about preponderance of Evidence? That is an acceptable level of Proof in some fields... Economics is one such field - and as such a valid inductive argument is not something you can hand waive and dismiss, you have to contend with it (which you are refusing to do) this leads to the only possible conclusion:

You know that you cannot contend with that argument because it is correct


But why do you disagree with how it is written? The things you write are often ambiguous and sprawling, I favor concise clarity so we can drill down to the core difference in our logic or belief.

You prefer oversimplification, masquerading as brevity. Some things need sprawling statements to address several points of Nuance within said topic. If this is too intellectually taxing for you, then perhaps you aren't ready to address the differences you seek to explore.


1) Which original statement? This one "They are very clear on the interpretation - an Authority on a subject can be used"? because that is not a premise at all, that's your interpretation. A premise for that would be: The fallacy's exception is when the Authority is recognized as such. But we have already seen this premise is wrong given the science example, so I clarify that it must count as proof (see #2 and #3 for criteria to judge proof by)

And now we are back to your attempt to bait-and-switch a scientific definition of proof as the sole definition of proof.

If what you say is correct, then there would be no exception to the fallacy. By your own sources, there is an exception to the fallacy and it's form is that a recognized authority can be used, to form a valid inductive argument. The existence of the exception invalidates your entire statement.


2) Independent premises work with one another, so the argument can be broken down into smaller parts to examine. That it is covered by the third means it does not need to be in the second.
3) Excellent, we are making progress then!

On point 2 - see above - you repeatedly try and apply a standard of proof from one field, into another. If you didn't keep doing this, then perhaps I would relent and not insist on clear differentiation, but as you insist on this rather transparent tactic, so too will I insist that we draw distinctions in each of the statements so as to guard against this.,

[Katman]

Absolutely - because you are using a strict scientific definition of Proof, what about preponderance of Evidence? That is an acceptable level of Proof in some fields... Economics is one such field - and as such a valid inductive argument is not something you can hand waive and dismiss, you have to contend with it (which you are refusing to do) this leads to the only possible conclusion:

At the risk of dragging the thread back to somewhere near the topic.........

The same argument should be applied to the likes of 9/11.

The official story states that there was no evidence of explosives while totally ignoring the fact that there are numerous eye witness accounts of hearing 'explosions' - and 'explosions' could be heard on audio recordings.

The official story claims that there was no evidence of molten steel while totally ignoring the fact that there are numerous eye witness accounts of seeing molten steel.

It also seems that those who support the official story choose to ignore the fact that an incredible string of 'co-incidences' allowed the events of 9/11 to unfold that day.

That ignoring of 'co-incidences' extends to those who choose to ignore that an official drill was being conducted in London on 7/7, dealing with explosives on the underground, on the very day that explosives were detonated on the London Underground.

Now while I'm not necessarily suggesting that any of this constitutes absolute 'proof' that the official stories are bullshit, it certainly should instill a sense of doubt and enquiry in the minds of anyone with even a modicum of rational thinking.

[husaberg]

At the risk of dragging the thread back to somewhere near the topic.........

The same argument should be applied to the likes of 9/11.

The official story states that there was no evidence of explosives while totally ignoring the fact that there are numerous eye witness accounts of hearing 'explosions' - and 'explosions' could be heard on audio recordings.

The official story claims that there was no evidence of molten steel while totally ignoring the fact that there are numerous eye witness accounts of seeing molten steel.

It also seems that those who support the official story choose to ignore the fact that an incredible string of 'co-incidences' allowed the events of 9/11 to unfold that day.

That ignoring of 'co-incidences' extends to those who choose to ignore that an official drill was being conducted in London on 7/7, dealing with explosives on the underground, on the very day that explosives were detonated on the London Underground.

Now while I'm not necessarily suggesting that any of this constitutes absolute 'proof' that the official stories are bullshit, it certainly should instill a sense of doubt and enquiry in the minds of anyone with even a modicum of rational thinking.

Do you have any conspiracies on the snking of the titanic stevo?
Heaps of eye witnesses yet there were various desriptions of how it sunk whether it broke in two or in one peice stores of explosions.
So whats the deal is it a conspiracy as well?

not to mention your own general hypocrisy

So all those other experts are wrong but you're right?
You're an incredibly stupid man

[Graystone]

I've explained it's relevance, then you don't accept the relevance as I've explained it and as I've intended it. That's the very definition of Bad Faith - Unless you are trying to claim that you don't understand why I'd insist on drawing a clear distinction between fields.



More Evasion - You state you disagree with his suitability, yet you fail to give a reason why - considering the Exception and the implication it has for your claim - this happens to be highly relevant and your avoidance is equally telling.



So you are asking me to prove something which you state cannot be proven? And then you wonder why I say I think you are being disingenuous...



Absolutely - because you are using a strict scientific definition of Proof, what about preponderance of Evidence? That is an acceptable level of Proof in some fields... Economics is one such field - and as such a valid inductive argument is not something you can hand waive and dismiss, you have to contend with it (which you are refusing to do) this leads to the only possible conclusion:

You know that you cannot contend with that argument because it is correct



You prefer oversimplification, masquerading as brevity. Some things need sprawling statements to address several points of Nuance within said topic. If this is too intellectually taxing for you, then perhaps you aren't ready to address the differences you seek to explore.



And now we are back to your attempt to bait-and-switch a scientific definition of proof as the sole definition of proof.

If what you say is correct, then there would be no exception to the fallacy. By your own sources, there is an exception to the fallacy and it's form is that a recognized authority can be used, to form a valid inductive argument. The existence of the exception invalidates your entire statement.



On point 2 - see above - you repeatedly try and apply a standard of proof from one field, into another. If you didn't keep doing this, then perhaps I would relent and not insist on clear differentiation, but as you insist on this rather transparent tactic, so too will I insist that we draw distinctions in each of the statements so as to guard against this.,

I've added that distinction as a third premise after you explained the need for it.

I'll give a reason why after we finish discussing the fallacy, no need to gallop off on a tangent!

I'm asking you to prove something you claim with certainty. I'm always open to new proofs so while I may think it cannot be proven, if you show it be I will change my mind. Do you agree with the premise that some things cannot be proven?

So you believe there is proof in all fields, and an inductive argument counts as proof. Fine. Both those things are covered in the premises I listed. I still do not see the dichotomy in believing there is not proof in all fields, and that an inductive argument doesn't count as proof. I can see why you disagree with it given what you believe, but it is wrong to say there is a dichotomy there.

So why not just point out and clarify the nuance?

The existence of the exception does not invalidate the entire statement and all the exceptions state they are not to be used universally, one states it is only valid if all parties agree on the validity of the authority (and only then, shall it form an inductive argument), one states any facts from authority must only be accepted provisionally as the is a chance that any authority can be wrong, and another mentions no exception at all.
The scientific example is not used to show a universal burden of proof to invalidate your statement that way, but it does show, beyond doubt, that a premise or notion that "The fallacy's exception is when the Authority is recognized as such" is not universal, thus it needs qualifiers.

Right, so you know the statement as true, but because of a character judgment you make of me you will not accept it. And you accuse me of disenginuity? Do grow up.

So we have established the following three premises represent your position on the topic, but you are unwilling or unable to acknowledge them. Where to from here? Well that will depend on your honesty or disenginuity...
1) The fallacy's exception is when a recognized expert's opinion counts as proof
2) That an inductive argument can be a valid form of proof
3) That the level/standard of proof varies between different fields of study, but remains consistent within each field

[Graystone]

At the risk of dragging the thread back to somewhere near the topic.........

The same argument should be applied to the likes of 9/11.

The official story states that there was no evidence of explosives while totally ignoring the fact that there are numerous eye witness accounts of hearing 'explosions' - and 'explosions' could be heard on audio recordings.

The official story claims that there was no evidence of molten steel while totally ignoring the fact that there are numerous eye witness accounts of seeing molten steel.

It also seems that those who support the official story choose to ignore the fact that an incredible string of 'co-incidences' allowed the events of 9/11 to unfold that day.

That ignoring of 'co-incidences' extends to those who choose to ignore that an official drill was being conducted in London on 7/7, dealing with explosives on the underground, on the very day that explosives were detonated on the London Underground.

Now while I'm not necessarily suggesting that any of this constitutes absolute 'proof' that the official stories are bullshit, it certainly should instill a sense of doubt and enquiry in the minds of anyone with even a modicum of rational thinking.

Exactly, when proof becomes so subjective it is a slippery slope indeed.

[Katman]

Exactly, when proof becomes so subjective it is a slippery slope indeed.

I don't think you understood my post.

[Graystone]

I don't think you understood my post.

Most of the time I'm not sure if you do either.

[Katman]

Most of the time I'm not sure if you do either.

I understand my posts just fine.

Any misunderstanding is entirely yours.

[R650R]

One of the simplest and best red flags exposing the 911 story holes.... how the behaviour of the stewardess didn't match their standard protocol and training...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7md2QzNsAe4

[scumdog]

At the risk of dragging the thread back to somewhere near the topic.........

The same argument should be applied to the likes of 9/11.

The official story states that there was no evidence of explosives while totally ignoring the fact that there are numerous eye witness accounts of hearing 'explosions' - and 'explosions' could be heard on audio recordings.

The official story claims that there was no evidence of molten steel while totally ignoring the fact that there are numerous eye witness accounts of seeing molten steel.

It also seems that those who support the official story choose to ignore the fact that an incredible string of 'co-incidences' allowed the events of 9/11 to unfold that day.

That ignoring of 'co-incidences' extends to those who choose to ignore that an official drill was being conducted in London on 7/7, dealing with explosives on the underground, on the very day that explosives were detonated on the London Underground.

Now while I'm not necessarily suggesting that any of this constitutes absolute 'proof' that the official stories are bullshit, it certainly should instill a sense of doubt and enquiry in the minds of anyone with even a modicum of rational thinking.


Burning cars have 'explosions' when tyres etc pop - doesn't men there was a bomb on board eh?

Juss sayin'...

[Oakie]

The official story states that there was no evidence of explosives while totally ignoring the fact that there are numerous eye witness accounts of hearing 'explosions' - and 'explosions' could be heard on audio recordings.

Having seen how long it takes to prepare and the actual physical prep required to drop a couple of buildings here in Christchurch, it is just not feasible that explosives could be set in an occupied building in such a way as to drop it without an obvious explosion, with no one noticing that work going on. I blame the plane.

[Katman]

I blame the plane.

As is entirely your right.

But the 'elevator upgrades' and 'maintainence shutdowns' offer a feasible explanation as to how it might have been done.

[oldrider]

Having seen how long it takes to prepare and the actual physical prep required to drop a couple of buildings here in Christchurch, it is just not feasible that explosives could be set in an occupied building in such a way as to drop it without an obvious explosion, with no one noticing that work going on. I blame the plane.

Where there is a will there is a way Oakie - some people have more than their share of will - the way then becomes inevitable - time reveals all eventually. :wait: 9/11 Case in point? :rolleyes:

[Banditbandit]

As is entirely your right.

But the 'elevator upgrades' and 'maintainence shutdowns' offer a feasible explanation as to how it might have been done.

And after 17 years not one - count them - NOT ONE - person who was involved in this supposed rigging of the building has come forward to say we did it ..

That, to me, is not credible IF this was an internal conspiracy ..

Not to mention the families of the people who were supposedly killed .. or did the US Government (Geo W and Co) deliberately kill their own citizens ??

[Katman]

And after 17 years not one - count them - NOT ONE - person who was involved in this supposed rigging of the building has come forward to say we did it ..

Perhaps they know it would be the last thing they would say.



Not to mention the families of the people who were supposedly killed .. or did the US Government (Geo W and Co) deliberately kill their own citizens ??

Governments have no qualms about deliberately kill their own citizens.

What do you think war is?

[Woodman]

Governments have no qualms about deliberately kill their own citizens.

What do you think war is?

Splitting hairs, but they usually deliberately kill other countries citizens, their own citizens that are killed are defence force and that is sorta part of the deal.

[Katman]

....their own citizens that are killed are defence force and that is sorta part of the deal.

Even if they're the invaders?

The point is that the act of war is the deliberate sacrificing of a country's citizens in order to achieve a goal.

[Woodman]

Even if they're the invaders?

The point is that the act of war is the deliberate sacrificing of a country's citizens in order to achieve a goal.

Don't disagree with you, although we are getting better at minimizing casualties compared with the "whoever runs out of people first loses" tactics of the past.

[Katman]

Don't disagree with you, although we are getting better at minimizing casualties compared with the "whoever runs out of people first loses" tactics of the past.

And a few thousand sacrificed on 9/11 was a fairly small price to pay in order to set the wheels in motion for the never-ending 'War on Terror'.

[Woodman]

And a few thousand sacrificed on 9/11 was a fairly small price to pay in order to set the wheels in motion for the never-ending 'War on Terror'.

LOL, now you are just trolling. Keep it up.

[Katman]

LOL, now you are just trolling. Keep it up.

I'm not trolling at all.

It's what I believe.

The Project for a New American Century called for a new Pearl Harbour.

[Woodman]

I'm not trolling at all.

It's what I believe.

The Project for a New American Century called for a new Pearl Harbour.

You can troll with stuff you believe is true can't you? or is their some unwritten trolling law that I am unaware of?

[TheDemonLord]

I've added that distinction as a third premise after you explained the need for it.

Yes, but the second premise still has vagueness, which (despite your claim it's modified by the 3rd statement) doesn't articulate the required boundaries.


I'll give a reason why after we finish discussing the fallacy, no need to gallop off on a tangent!

Is that to give yourself more time to come up with a reason why so you can retroactively justify your naysaying earlier? I'll simply restate that you chose to dispute credibility as part of your defence for the use of the fallacy. That you aren't willing to simply cite your reason is telling.


I'm asking you to prove something you claim with certainty. I'm always open to new proofs so while I may think it cannot be proven, if you show it be I will change my mind. Do you agree with the premise that some things cannot be proven?

Do you mean that some things can NEVER be proven or that some things currently cannot be proven? I'll agree to the second one, I'm not sure on the first.

This is where my premise that you are only willing to use the strictest definition of proof, as applicable in a scientific sense comes into play. I'm happy to accept (in some fields) a preponderance of evidence as proof and in others I'm happy to accept beyond reasonable doubt as proof. It depends on the standards for the field.

I should further point out, that like the Scientific standard, something that was proved today, with the data and evidence available today is ready to be disproved tomorrow should new data and evidence be discovered/available.

I'm not advocating for dogma.


So you believe there is proof in all fields, and an inductive argument counts as proof. Fine. Both those things are covered in the premises I listed. I still do not see the dichotomy in believing there is not proof in all fields, and that an inductive argument doesn't count as proof. I can see why you disagree with it given what you believe, but it is wrong to say there is a dichotomy there.

Except earlier you stated that the fallacy can be applied to fields where there could be dispute as to whether or not there is such a thing as proof within that field. That is where you get the dichotomy, because by stating that - there are a number of a priori requirements for that fallacy to be relevant - which modify your statements to create the dichotomy.


So why not just point out and clarify the nuance?

Because you either ignore it when I do or you complain about long-form posts...


The existence of the exception does not invalidate the entire statement and all the exceptions state they are not to be used universally, one states it is only valid if all parties agree on the validity of the authority (and only then, shall it form an inductive argument), one states any facts from authority must only be accepted provisionally as the is a chance that any authority can be wrong, and another mentions no exception at all.

In your statement you had this line:


But we have already seen this premise is wrong given the science example

Where you used the Scientific definition of proof (which both you and I agree on) as a means to disprove the exception. I referred to this as a bait-and-switch (as you substituting the scientific method as the burden of proof, claiming that because it doesn't work here - it doesn't work anywhere else as described, which is not true).

I'm further rebutting this - by pointing out that if your standards of proof were the only acceptable standard of proof - then there would be no need for the exception, as there is no scenario where expert testimony would be entertained (in line with the scientific definition of proof that both you and I agree on).

Since there IS an exception (by the source that you cited and other sources that attest to the same exception, regardless of how you try and downplay that fact) it means that it's existence disproves the notion that only the scientific definition of proof is applicable.

Ergo, your statement was false.


The scientific example is not used to show a universal burden of proof to invalidate your statement that way, but it does show, beyond doubt, that a premise or notion that "The fallacy's exception is when the Authority is recognized as such" is not universal, thus it needs qualifiers.

If that is true (or is as you are outlining it to be) then you should work to re-write the exception 'correctly' (as you see fit). However, what I wrote was correct (albeit a very terse, short form response).


Right, so you know the statement as true, but because of a character judgment you make of me you will not accept it. And you accuse me of disenginuity? Do grow up.

I only said it wasn't what I had written as the qualifier. I further expanded upon this that the further qualification was to guard against a tactic that you repeatedly use.

I then argued that if you were being genuine and honest in the debate, you would have no problem with including that qualifier. That you are reluctant to do so, suggests an ulterior motive. The suggestion of such a motive disproves the statement that you are being genuine and honest. From there, I've inferred the motive to be that you are aware of the what and why I insist on the qualifier (and the implications for your line of reasoning) and so are doing your utmost not to concede (because you know the logical conclusion)



So we have established the following three premises represent your position on the topic, but you are unwilling or unable to acknowledge them. Where to from here? Well that will depend on your honesty or disenginuity...

No, we haven't. Because I've dispute this multiple times:


1) The fallacy's exception is when a recognized expert's opinion counts as proof
2) That an inductive argument can be a valid form of proof
3) That the level/standard of proof varies between different fields of study, but remains consistent within each field

Here's how I'd phrase it (with my qualifiers and with the definition of the fallacies exception lifted from sources):


1) The fallacy's exception is that a recognized expert's statement(s) can be used as part of a valid inductive argument
2) That an inductive argument can be a valid form of proof within certain fields (but not others)
3) That the level/standard of proof varies between different fields of study, but remains consistent within each field

Now, if you wish to be the honest opponent you claim to be - use that series of premises that I agree with (regardless of your love of 'brevity').

[oldrider]

You can troll with stuff you believe is true can't you? or is their some unwritten trolling law that I am unaware of?

Feel free you can troll with whatever like - it's other people that rules are required for. :confused:

[Graystone]

Yes, but the second premise still has vagueness, which (despite your claim it's modified by the 3rd statement) doesn't articulate the required boundaries.



Is that to give yourself more time to come up with a reason why so you can retroactively justify your naysaying earlier? I'll simply restate that you chose to dispute credibility as part of your defence for the use of the fallacy. That you aren't willing to simply cite your reason is telling.



Do you mean that some things can NEVER be proven or that some things currently cannot be proven? I'll agree to the second one, I'm not sure on the first.

This is where my premise that you are only willing to use the strictest definition of proof, as applicable in a scientific sense comes into play. I'm happy to accept (in some fields) a preponderance of evidence as proof and in others I'm happy to accept beyond reasonable doubt as proof. It depends on the standards for the field.

I should further point out, that like the Scientific standard, something that was proved today, with the data and evidence available today is ready to be disproved tomorrow should new data and evidence be discovered/available.

I'm not advocating for dogma.



Except earlier you stated that the fallacy can be applied to fields where there could be dispute as to whether or not there is such a thing as proof within that field. That is where you get the dichotomy, because by stating that - there are a number of a priori requirements for that fallacy to be relevant - which modify your statements to create the dichotomy.



Because you either ignore it when I do or you complain about long-form posts...



In your statement you had this line:



Where you used the Scientific definition of proof (which both you and I agree on) as a means to disprove the exception. I referred to this as a bait-and-switch (as you substituting the scientific method as the burden of proof, claiming that because it doesn't work here - it doesn't work anywhere else as described, which is not true).

I'm further rebutting this - by pointing out that if your standards of proof were the only acceptable standard of proof - then there would be no need for the exception, as there is no scenario where expert testimony would be entertained (in line with the scientific definition of proof that both you and I agree on).

Since there IS an exception (by the source that you cited and other sources that attest to the same exception, regardless of how you try and downplay that fact) it means that it's existence disproves the notion that only the scientific definition of proof is applicable.

Ergo, your statement was false.



If that is true (or is as you are outlining it to be) then you should work to re-write the exception 'correctly' (as you see fit). However, what I wrote was correct (albeit a very terse, short form response).



I only said it wasn't what I had written as the qualifier. I further expanded upon this that the further qualification was to guard against a tactic that you repeatedly use.

I then argued that if you were being genuine and honest in the debate, you would have no problem with including that qualifier. That you are reluctant to do so, suggests an ulterior motive. The suggestion of such a motive disproves the statement that you are being genuine and honest. From there, I've inferred the motive to be that you are aware of the what and why I insist on the qualifier (and the implications for your line of reasoning) and so are doing your utmost not to concede (because you know the logical conclusion)




No, we haven't. Because I've dispute this multiple times:



Here's how I'd phrase it (with my qualifiers and with the definition of the fallacies exception lifted from sources):



Now, if you wish to be the honest opponent you claim to be - use that series of premises that I agree with (regardless of your love of 'brevity').

It doesn't require boundaries though. The use of the word can, means the #3 premise is just one that can be applied to #2, there could be others as well.

I'll restate that we must finish discussing this one, simple, point before moving on.

The second, so I shall adjust my premise based on your request for clarification to:

1) Some things cannot currently be proven.

The dogma point, and ability for proof to be overturned is why we don't simply accept the word of an authority as a conclusive argument, as that would result in no change...

Of course the fallacy can be applied, there is no need for anything to be provable for this fallacy to apply.

I disagree, in fact I simply further question or debate your clarification...

It is not a bait and switch. It is applying the fallacy to the field of science. If your definition of the fallacy does not apply to all fields, it cannot be the correct one; regardless of how it may 'correctly' apply to other fields.

Just to clarify, what exactly do you consider your 'short form' interpretation?

1) The fallacy's exception is that a recognized expert's statement(s) can be used as part of a valid inductive argument
2) That an inductive argument can be a valid form of proof within certain fields (but not others)
3) That the level/standard of proof varies between different fields of study, but remains consistent within each field

Excellent, now we are getting somewhere, I can't help but notice that your premises removed the use of the word 'proof' in the first premise, which is a little odd because that has not come up before despite all the 'clarifying' you claim to have done.
I'd also seek clarification on that first premise, "a recognized expert's statement(s) can be used as part of a valid inductive argument" is not a condition, and instead is a logic assertion. Exceptions should give conditions in their form.
2) and 3) are superfluous to 1) in the way you have phrased them.

[TheDemonLord]

It doesn't require boundaries though. The use of the word can, means the #3 premise is just one that can be applied to #2, there could be others as well.

Without the boundaries being defined, it allows the opponent to shift the goal posts, but by articulating that, you acknowledge the field as the boundary and therefore you set a limit. But since you've accepted by rewritten premises - this point is now rather moot.


I'll restate that we must finish discussing this one, simple, point before moving on.

And I simply don't believe that.


The second, so I shall adjust my premise based on your request for clarification to:

1) Some things cannot currently be proven.

The dogma point, and ability for proof to be overturned is why we don't simply accept the word of an authority as a conclusive argument, as that would result in no change...

Who said Conclusive? Now you are shifting the goal posts... Furthermore that statement is made with the presupposition that Authorities are immutable and immovable - since no one lives forever, that's simply not correct.

remembering I never used an expert as the sole and only piece of evidence for the statement.

Case in point - consider a legal example: a Person is wrongfully convicted, based on the correct testimony of an Expert (such as a Blood expert testifying that blood found at the scene was AB- and that this is exceedingly rare in the group for which the perpetrator belongs to and it matches the blood type of the accused).

The Jury, in listening to the Expert have not made an error in logic - everything the expert has said is correct and his opinion of the unlikelyhood of 2 people having a similar physical appearance and having the same very rare blood type is also correct.

Using the standard of evidence (beyond all reasonable doubt - applicable to that field - which interestingly is expressed in a couple of legal papers as greater than 95%) they convict. Consider then 10 years later when a DNA sample is taken and exonerates the wrongfully convicted and shows that it was indeed a 1 in 10,000 chance occurrence - no one has committed an error in logic based on the evidence available to them at the time.


Of course the fallacy can be applied, there is no need for anything to be provable for this fallacy to apply.

If there is nothing objective, everything is subjective. If everything is Subjective, then everything is merely 'expert opinion' - which means everything within the field would be an appeal to authority, and if everything is fallacious, then nothing is.


It is not a bait and switch. It is applying the fallacy to the field of science. If your definition of the fallacy does not apply to all fields, it cannot be the correct one; regardless of how it may 'correctly' apply to other fields.

That's absolutely a classic bait and switch - because self-contained within the field of science is that inductive arguments are not sufficient - we agree that the standard of proof is that which must be demonstrated. Within the field of science, the exception cannot be fulfilled due to the standard of proof, but that does not mean the definition is wrong.


Just to clarify, what exactly do you consider your 'short form' interpretation?

The exception is when the expert is recognized as such.


Excellent, now we are getting somewhere, I can't help but notice that your premises removed the use of the word 'proof' in the first premise, which is a little odd because that has not come up before despite all the 'clarifying' you claim to have done.

That's correct - you are wanting to establish a chain of logic - yes? In which case you need to first refer to the definition (Valid inductive argument) which then point 2 follows on from - in the way you had written it, point 1 didn't require points 2 and 3.

If it makes you happy, I didn't notice this until I rewrote it in reference to the definition.


I'd also seek clarification on that first premise, "a recognized expert's statement(s) can be used as part of a valid inductive argument" is not a condition, and instead is a logic assertion. Exceptions should give conditions in their form.
2) and 3) are superfluous to 1) in the way you have phrased them.

The condition is implied - that if it's not being used as part of a valid inductive argument, then it's not exempted.

Points 2 and 3 are what is required to move from the definition of the fallacy, to it's use as part of a proof.

[Graystone]

Who said Conclusive? Now you are shifting the goal posts... Furthermore that statement is made with the presupposition that Authorities are immutable and immovable - since no one lives forever, that's simply not correct.

remembering I never used an expert as the sole and only piece of evidence for the statement.

Case in point - consider a legal example: a Person is wrongfully convicted, based on the correct testimony of an Expert (such as a Blood expert testifying that blood found at the scene was AB- and that this is exceedingly rare in the group for which the perpetrator belongs to and it matches the blood type of the accused).

The Jury, in listening to the Expert have not made an error in logic - everything the expert has said is correct and his opinion of the unlikelyhood of 2 people having a similar physical appearance and having the same very rare blood type is also correct.

Using the standard of evidence (beyond all reasonable doubt - applicable to that field - which interestingly is expressed in a couple of legal papers as greater than 95%) they convict. Consider then 10 years later when a DNA sample is taken and exonerates the wrongfully convicted and shows that it was indeed a 1 in 10,000 chance occurrence - no one has committed an error in logic based on the evidence available to them at the time.



If there is nothing objective, everything is subjective. If everything is Subjective, then everything is merely 'expert opinion' - which means everything within the field would be an appeal to authority, and if everything is fallacious, then nothing is.



That's absolutely a classic bait and switch - because self-contained within the field of science is that inductive arguments are not sufficient - we agree that the standard of proof is that which must be demonstrated. Within the field of science, the exception cannot be fulfilled due to the standard of proof, but that does not mean the definition is wrong.



The exception is when the expert is recognized as such.



That's correct - you are wanting to establish a chain of logic - yes? In which case you need to first refer to the definition (Valid inductive argument) which then point 2 follows on from - in the way you had written it, point 1 didn't require points 2 and 3.

If it makes you happy, I didn't notice this until I rewrote it in reference to the definition.



The condition is implied - that if it's not being used as part of a valid inductive argument, then it's not exempted.

Points 2 and 3 are what is required to move from the definition of the fallacy, to it's use as part of a proof.

This whole debate is about proof, ie, being conclusive.

Expert witnesses are cross examined.

If everything in the field is fallacious, then so be it.

What is your definition of the fallacy? does it include the words inductive argument? Because unless the definition makes the distinction between fields, then it must apply to both. That is why it is not a bait and switch, the application must be universal, there is no switching required.

Given that short form exception, we can see it does not distinguish between science and others, so one can only interpret it as universal. And there are certainly conditions where the exception is not applied (science) when the expert is recognised as such; thus, your short-form interpretation is wrong. In the same way you attacked my argument (that there are no exceptions) earlier because the 'proof' context was in the following sentence, your own falls short because the field context is nowhere to be found. I amended mine to make the context clearer afterwards, will you not do the same?

In the premises I listed the exception required proof, then went on to explain inductive arguments can be proof. It clearly shows the chain of logic, 1 should not required 2 and 3, they should instead clarify the specific logic to fulfill 1.

1) The fallacy's exception is that a recognized expert's statement(s) can be used as part of a valid inductive argument
2) That an inductive argument can be a valid form of proof within certain fields (but not others)
3) That the level/standard of proof varies between different fields of study, but remains consistent within each field

In your case 2 and 3 clarify definitions of proof but this is never referred to in 1, the exception condition is instead simply a logic assertion. It is like you're trying to say the fallacy's exception is a recognised expert's statement; I don't see how the subsequent part has any relevance. Perhaps if you rephrased it to be:

1) The fallacy's exception is when a recognized expert's statement(s) is used as part of a valid inductive argument

Which gives a clear condition, though obviously 2 and 3 are still superfluous because instead of defining what constitutes a valid inductive argument, they seek to explain how such a thing can be a proof...

[TheDemonLord]

This whole debate is about proof, ie, being conclusive.

Expert witnesses are cross examined.

When you say Conclusive - are you referring to proof such that it may not be challenged in perpetuity? Because no such proof exists... everything that is proved today is ready to be disproved tomorrow on the discovery of new evidence.

Being Conclusive then is dependent on the threshold for a field: I agree with cross examination, the point was to demonstrate how an inductive argument could exceed the threshold of proof for a given field, without committing the fallacy and be subsequently shown to be wrong (when additional information is found).

Beyond reasonable doubt for example is a certainty of 95% or greater
Preponderance of Evidence is a certainty of 51% or greater


If everything in the field is fallacious, then so be it.

Then you can't really apply the fallacy, can you?


What is your definition of the fallacy? does it include the words inductive argument? Because unless the definition makes the distinction between fields, then it must apply to both. That is why it is not a bait and switch, the application must be universal, there is no switching required.

It's not my definition, it's the definition of the exception, from your own sources. If an inductive argument is not acceptable within a field, then the exception isn't applicable. If it is acceptable, then the exception (not the fallacy - that's where you are making the switch) isn't applicable.


Given that short form exception, we can see it does not distinguish between science and others, so one can only interpret it as universal. And there are certainly conditions where the exception is not applied (science) when the expert is recognised as such; thus, your short-form interpretation is wrong. In the same way you attacked my argument (that there are no exceptions) earlier because the 'proof' context was in the following sentence, your own falls short because the field context is nowhere to be found. I amended mine to make the context clearer afterwards, will you not do the same?

You do understand what a short-form response is right? Cause based on the above 'rebuttal', I'm having doubts...


In the premises I listed the exception required proof, then went on to explain inductive arguments can be proof. It clearly shows the chain of logic, 1 should not required 2 and 3, they should instead clarify the specific logic to fulfill 1.

Except point one isn't in reference to any definition, so it breaks the chain of logic. That would be the Cart and Horse issue. With the agreed upon statements - it forms a clear chain - which the output is that one can use a valid inductive argument as proof, when made in reference to a field where an inductive argument counts as proof.


In your case 2 and 3 clarify definitions of proof but this is never referred to in 1, the exception condition is instead simply a logic assertion. It is like you're trying to say the fallacy's exception is a recognised expert's statement; I don't see how the subsequent part has any relevance. Perhaps if you rephrased it to be:

1) The fallacy's exception is when a recognized expert's statement(s) is used as part of a valid inductive argument

Which gives a clear condition, though obviously 2 and 3 are still superfluous because instead of defining what constitutes a valid inductive argument, they seek to explain how such a thing can be a proof...

Point 1 refers to an Inductive Argument, Point 2 refers to an Inductive argument as proof. Point 1 is lifted from the definition of the exception.

It appears you are back to trying a semantic argument.

[Graystone]

When you say Conclusive - are you referring to proof such that it may not be challenged in perpetuity? Because no such proof exists... everything that is proved today is ready to be disproved tomorrow on the discovery of new evidence.

Being Conclusive then is dependent on the threshold for a field: I agree with cross examination, the point was to demonstrate how an inductive argument could exceed the threshold of proof for a given field, without committing the fallacy and be subsequently shown to be wrong (when additional information is found).

Beyond reasonable doubt for example is a certainty of 95% or greater
Preponderance of Evidence is a certainty of 51% or greater



Then you can't really apply the fallacy, can you?



It's not my definition, it's the definition of the exception, from your own sources. If an inductive argument is not acceptable within a field, then the exception isn't applicable. If it is acceptable, then the exception (not the fallacy - that's where you are making the switch) isn't applicable.



You do understand what a short-form response is right? Cause based on the above 'rebuttal', I'm having doubts...



Except point one isn't in reference to any definition, so it breaks the chain of logic. That would be the Cart and Horse issue. With the agreed upon statements - it forms a clear chain - which the output is that one can use a valid inductive argument as proof, when made in reference to a field where an inductive argument counts as proof.



Point 1 refers to an Inductive Argument, Point 2 refers to an Inductive argument as proof. Point 1 is lifted from the definition of the exception.

It appears you are back to trying a semantic argument.

No, I'm referring to being able to form a conclusion from facts/logic present, removal of doubt. This can be overturned later of course.

Of course you can still apply the fallacy, any argument from authority is still inadmissible.

"If an inductive argument is not acceptable within a field, then the exception isn't applicable." I agree, this is what was not covered in your short form response/summary, which is why it was incorrect.

The 'valid inductive argument' is not part of the exceptions definition either though, it is mentioned in one place only "If all parties agree on the reliability of an authority in the given context it forms a valid inductive argument." and there is no reference to that being an/the exception. I think I see where you are trying to go with it, in your points 2 and 3 they don't seem to relate to the interpretation of the fallacy at all, and are instead just try to justify an agreed authority counting as proof, is that correct?
The reason I use proof as the exception, is due to the intent of the fallacy, it is to prevent an Authority's opinion being used instead of proof. Thus the exception to that intent would be if their opinion was proof.

[Swoop]

Burning cars have 'explosions' when tyres etc pop - doesn't men there was a bomb on board eh?

Juss sayin'...

"Pops" and "bangs" happen which can sound like gunfire - but there are not any guns around.
The tie-rods shearing in this video might have upset some snowflakes nearby.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/q1N6JjwI-jw" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[husaberg]

"Pops" and "bangs" happen which can sound like gunfire - but there are not any guns around.
The tie-rods shearing in this video might have upset some snowflakes nearby.


When the korean superstore collapsed there was people that heard explosions as well
But it was the same senario.

Five hours before the collapse, the first of several loud bangs was heard emanating from the top floors, as the vibration of the air conditioning caused the cracks in the slabs to widen further. Amid customer reports of vibration, the air conditioning was turned off, but the cracks in the floors had already grown to 10 cm wide. Around then, it was realized that collapse of the building was inevitable, and an emergency board meeting was held. The directors suggested to Lee that all customers should be evacuated, although Lee angrily refused to do so for fear of revenue losses. However, Lee himself left the building safely before the collapse occurred.
However, the fires in the rubble were from burning automotive gasoline coming from crushed cars parked in the underground garage, and a gas explosion would have been significantly larger. In addition, it was widely feared that there had been a terrorist attack, with North Korea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea) as the prime suspect. However, the fact the building collapsed downward, with little debris thrown outward, ruled out a significant explosion, according to US and South Korean experts.

Seconds before it collasped people in there heard explosions.

https://youtu.be/7JCNAaTn9JE?t=3191

Note how it collasped it pancaked into its own footprint more or less destroying another three conspiracy theories about 911

Or the fire that collapsed a Brazilian steel framed skyscraper

https://youtu.be/XwoBRHDLxdo

Dubai building collaspe due to fire with pancake same as WTC
only they were fighting this fire as it it water and access

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB9wwTmrMYA
or another steel frame building collasp due to fire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMTALBYRNA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89jB_UdWb7c

[Katman]

https://weathermodificationhistory.com/