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

[husaberg]

The only subject that they mention, that I have offered up any commentary on, is 9/11. And I comment on that subject simply because there is a great deal of questions that need to be asked about 9/11.

And considering that over half the world's population questions the validity of the official details of 9/11, I'm in the majority there.

So I'm not quite sure what you think your links are trying to prove.

It would take a few more paragraphs to cover all the conspiracy theories you have posted on KB. maybe you might consider that you are no different than the other conspiracy idiots mentioned.

'Narcissists think that they are better than other people. At the same time, they are convinced that others are constantly trying to undermine them.

[Viking01]

.... back it comes again ....

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/431630-uk-s...-case-failure/

Is it a quiet news week ?

Or is there an important Russian sports event on somewhere ?

Maybe a Russian summit meeting coming up soon ? We wouldn't
want Mr Trump to declare peace with the Russians.

I'm sure all will soon become obvious.

[Katman]

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/431630-uk-s...-case-failure/

And the story had just about been out of the public's view for long enough for those who swallowed it hook, line and sinker to begin hoping that no-one would ever bring it up again.

[Viking01]

And the story had just about been out of the public's view for long enough for those who swallowed it hook, line and sinker to begin hoping that no-one would ever bring it up again.

Oops ! Did I do something wrong?

Oh well, I suppose that ardent young Mr Husaberg will be along soon enough
to correct me, and to advise me that since it didn't come from an "official
source", I should pay no attention to it.

But, is it still a "conspiracy theory" if it has not been "officially" denied ?

Have I been posting in the wrong thread ? I find it all so confusing.

Oh well, better go and finish some more chores before the "boss" gets home.
You have a good day.

[Graystone]

And that is why I stand by my observation. You're not willing to retract a series of what were objectively false statements.



Standards of proof are self-contained within the field.

Would you use a Mathematical proof in Philosophy? Of course not. Therefore, you wouldn't use the scientific method of proof for Economics.



Except it is distinguished, in that it has a different name and different definition...



It's exactly as I, and your sources, have said, all this time.



1: This is not a Strawman, since it's my opinion of you. Not a representation of your arguments Yet again, you fail at calling a fallacy
2: Can you provide an objective reason why it would be incorrect to consider Don Brash an expert in Economics, Finance and specifically the NZ Financial system? That is something you've not done. If his credentials were in dispute, it would be easy to dismiss, and yet you can't. So, we are left with the only possible conclusion as to your continued denial - either you are delusional or you know you've lost the point ages ago, but are trying to save face.
3: This is not a Gish Gallop Yet again, you fail at calling a fallacy. A Gish Gallop, in the written form (bearing in mind that I was the one that introduced that term to this forum) is where you tell someone to either read or watch an overly long source and claim that all the proof is contained within that source.

As is clear, I've not done either, hence why Yet again, you fail at calling a fallacy

Let's just trim the chaff, so as not to commit the fallacy of lost prophets.

The primary contention being discussed is that even for a proof, you believe there is an exception where an appeal to authority can be used to prove a point. Though you agree that for scientific matters this exception is not to be applied. For other matters, the sources are quite clear on the inductive nature of such appeals, so to satisfy your side of the contention two premises must be fulfilled.

1) The fallacy should be interpreted differently (if an exception is only applied in some cases this is a different interpretation) based on the field being discussed.
2) That an inductive argument is a valid form of proof.

Now a simple question, since at least one of us knows the value of ensuring correct interpretation of wording during a discussion, do you agree with the quantification of your contention and the two premises it relies on? Note that I'm not asking if you agree with the premises themselves, just if you find the summary I have written valid.

[Katman]

Oh well, I suppose that ardent young Mr Husaberg will be along soon enough to correct me, and to advise me that since it didn't come from an "official source", I should pay no attention to it.

It would appear you're not important enough to him.

[Viking01]

It would appear you're not important enough to him.

Afternoon. Apologies for my tardy response. Been busy all morning.

Actually, I did think that he might "still be licking his wounds" after
the mauling he received on this subject last time, but perhaps you
are right after all.

But I see this hasn't stopped the press worldwide from casting some
doubt on the latest episode.

https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201...-for-amesbury/

You'd think that after their first effort, they wouldn't rush things,
and that they would apply just a little more time and effort with the
next version. But No ! Rush, rush, rush.

They say that "lightning never strikes the same place twice" (unless
of course you're talking about lightning rods). But this second event
was close to Porton Downs (again). I mean, how likely was that ?

I was going to ask DL and GS whether this qualified as "the exception
that disproved the rule", but I saw that they'd moved on to phalluses
and induction motors in their debate this morning (post #470). And I
wasn't going to risk getting caught up in the middle of that one.

But for my money, the big question (that no-one is asking) has to be:

Who is selling all the "poor quality" Novichuk ?

You'd think that any assassin worth his salt would get it right after
the first failure. It is not going to look good on the CV.

I mean, you're just not going to get "repeat business" with statements
like "almost killed the victims" or "made the victims decidedly unwell".

It's just not good enough. I'd definitely be going back to the supplier
asking for a refund. And seriously thinking about changing supplier.

Anyway, must rush. Things still to get done.

Cheers,
Viking

[TheDemonLord]

Let's just trim the chaff, so as not to commit the fallacy of lost prophets.

The primary contention being discussed is that even for a proof, you believe there is an exception where an appeal to authority can be used to prove a point. Though you agree that for scientific matters this exception is not to be applied. For other matters, the sources are quite clear on the inductive nature of such appeals, so to satisfy your side of the contention two premises must be fulfilled.

1) The fallacy should be interpreted differently (if an exception is only applied in some cases this is a different interpretation) based on the field being discussed.
2) That an inductive argument is a valid form of proof.

Now a simple question, since at least one of us knows the value of ensuring correct interpretation of wording during a discussion, do you agree with the quantification of your contention and the two premises it relies on? Note that I'm not asking if you agree with the premises themselves, just if you find the summary I have written valid.

Short answer - no, I don't find it valid.

On your first statement - you are trying to put the cart before the horse. The definition of the fallacy remains the same, what changes is self-contained within the field of discussion. If inductive arguments are valid for a field, then citing a recognized expert, in a discussion within that field is not fallacious. If inductive arguments are not valid (such as science), then citing a recognized expert would be fallacious. The definition has not changed for the fallacy, The changing variable is the field itself and the appropriate standard of proof therein.

On the second statement, it's missing a qualifier (which happens to be very important) - it depends on the field - in some fields, inductive arguments are valid.

So your first statement is fundamentally false, the second statement needs to be clarified.

[Graystone]

Short answer - no, I don't find it valid.

On your first statement - you are trying to put the cart before the horse. The definition of the fallacy remains the same, what changes is self-contained within the field of discussion. If inductive arguments are valid for a field, then citing a recognized expert, in a discussion within that field is not fallacious. If inductive arguments are not valid (such as science), then citing a recognized expert would be fallacious. The definition has not changed for the fallacy, The changing variable is the field itself and the appropriate standard of proof therein.

On the second statement, it's missing a qualifier (which happens to be very important) - it depends on the field - in some fields, inductive arguments are valid.

So your first statement is fundamentally false, the second statement needs to be clarified.

So your premises are:

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

Right?

[TheDemonLord]

So your premises are:

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

Right?

The fallacy's exception is exactly what it says in the description.
And your second statement is still incorrect.

Please stop trying to play word games to avoid conceding the point.

[Graystone]

The fallacy's exception is exactly what it says in the description.
And your second statement is still incorrect.

Please stop trying to play word games to avoid conceding the point.

It is important to create clarification on our premises and points. I have noticed you tend to avoid this in order to spin up many other points only vaguely related to the topic at hand to try to 'prove' your point, obviously it works with your normal associates but it is not a rational approach. What is rational, is distilling down the argument into only a few points of contention or premises to examine.

It is clear you do not want to do this as you know your point does not stand up to a simple logical examination, so I'll thank you in future to not make stupid claims about what fallacy is what when clearly you lack the ability to rationalise your interpretation of them, let alone prove somebody else's interpretation is wrong.

You are also free to put those contentions into your own words if you still believe you interpretation is a rational one...

[TheDemonLord]

It is important to create clarification on our premises and points. I have noticed you tend to avoid this in order to spin up many other points only vaguely related to the topic at hand to try to 'prove' your point, obviously it works with your normal associates but it is not a rational approach. What is rational, is distilling down the argument into only a few points of contention or premises to examine.

It is clear you do not want to do this as you know your point does not stand up to a simple logical examination, so I'll thank you in future to not make stupid claims about what fallacy is what when clearly you lack the ability to rationalise your interpretation of them, let alone prove somebody else's interpretation is wrong.

You are also free to put those contentions into your own words if you still believe you interpretation is a rational one...

You're right I don't want to do this - not because I haven't got confidence in the point I'm making, but because of your clear intent to re-interpret reality - namely you are trying to come up with a scenario where that which was clearly defined by your own sources doesn't mean what I said it did.

[Graystone]

You're right I don't want to do this - not because I haven't got confidence in the point I'm making, but because of your clear intent to re-interpret reality - namely you are trying to come up with a scenario where that which was clearly defined by your own sources doesn't mean what I said it did.

Reinterpreting reality actually becomes more and more difficult when premises are examined and simplified (clearly why you shy from doing so, time and time again). For example, your premise that my sources say what you think, is clearly false when the sources say things like:

"If all parties agree on the reliability of an authority in the given context it forms a valid inductive argument."

"There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong"

Yet your contention is that the word of a valid authority (which does not require both parties to agree on the validity) forms a valid proof (in some fields), is it not?

See how when your base assertions do not stack up, it is only logical to examine the premise behind them?

[mashman]

Reinterpreting reality actually becomes more and more difficult when premises are examined and simplified (clearly why you shy from doing so, time and time again). For example, your premise that my sources say what you think, is clearly false when the sources say things like:

"If all parties agree on the reliability of an authority in the given context it forms a valid inductive argument."

"There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong"

Yet your contention is that the word of a valid authority (which does not require both parties to agree on the validity) forms a valid proof (in some fields), is it not?

See how when your base assertions do not stack up, it is only logical to examine the premise behind them?

... ahhhhh can't ya just taste the enlightenment of it all

[husaberg]

... ahhhhh can't ya just taste the enlightenment of it all

Was it enlightening for you when despite your previous bragging of popularity claims of your personal views you only revived 0.56% of the votes when you ran as an MP.