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

[oldrider]

Earth's Global Dust Storm Expanding - can this be good news for the world? - or just another conspiracy theorists rambling!

[TheDemonLord]

Succinctness and validation, if you agree with the way I phrase it, then we would both understand your meaning, if you don't you can correct it and then we both understand your meaning.

See above.

It is meant, as I phrased it. I'm not going to correct that which I've already clearly stated. The fundamental problem here is that you keep trying to re-frame something to fit your a priori interpretation. I'm simply not interested in entertaining it. You are using the same tactic that Cathy Newman used in her now infamous JBP interview - which is to try and dishonestly re-articulate what I've said into something else.

In fact - case in point:

So what you're saying is...

If you wish to abandon this attempt and actually discuss it with some honesty (which would require quite a number of retractions at this point, which you are clearly not willing to make) - then sure, but you've chosen to stick to this method of response.

Compared to a rational discussion though, it's much the same.

Yes Cathy.

You keep saying I'm clueless, but it is you who refuses to discuss them and back yourself up. Stop with the evasion and ad-hominems and discuss the topic at hand...

Okay - here is what an Ad Hominem looks like:

You're wrong because you're an idiot.
or
You're wrong because you're a Racist.

I've not called you any names, or intimated that your argument is false because of any Character flaw (attributed or actual).

I've said that I'm not willing to let you try and redefine something, in order to fit your narrative - but that's not an ad hominem. I've referred to it as Dishonest debate - but again, this is not an Ad Hominem - since the logical form is not "Your argument is false because you are being dishonest".

I'm giving you a chance to back yourself up instead of all your usual cop-outs and know-all claims. To not take that chance, is to throw ones toys in a huff.

And I did back myself. That is where your accusation falls flat, that you didn't accept it and then tried to re-word it is no black stain against me.

As for the claims - it's simple - you spent half the argument attesting that there was categorically, definitively and without question - no exception to the argument from Authority fallacy. I've maintained all along that there was. Lo and Behold! when you cited the definition of the fallacy - there's a section titled "Exceptions" (you know - that thing you said didn't exist).

Same again with the accusation of an Ad Hominem, Strawman etc. If just once, you used a fallacy correctly, perhaps I wouldn't be so scathing, but as of yet...

[Graystone]

It is meant, as I phrased it. I'm not going to correct that which I've already clearly stated. The fundamental problem here is that you keep trying to re-frame something to fit your a priori interpretation. I'm simply not interested in entertaining it. You are using the same tactic that Cathy Newman used in her now infamous JBP interview - which is to try and dishonestly re-articulate what I've said into something else.

In fact - case in point:





If you wish to abandon this attempt and actually discuss it with some honesty (which would require quite a number of retractions at this point, which you are clearly not willing to make) - then sure, but you've chosen to stick to this method of response.



Yes Cathy.



Okay - here is what an Ad Hominem looks like:

You're wrong because you're an idiot.
or
You're wrong because you're a Racist.

I've not called you any names, or intimated that your argument is false because of any Character flaw (attributed or actual).

I've said that I'm not willing to let you try and redefine something, in order to fit your narrative - but that's not an ad hominem. I've referred to it as Dishonest debate - but again, this is not an Ad Hominem - since the logical form is not "Your argument is false because you are being dishonest".



And I did back myself. That is where your accusation falls flat, that you didn't accept it and then tried to re-word it is no black stain against me.

As for the claims - it's simple - you spent half the argument attesting that there was categorically, definitively and without question - no exception to the argument from Authority fallacy. I've maintained all along that there was. Lo and Behold! when you cited the definition of the fallacy - there's a section titled "Exceptions" (you know - that thing you said didn't exist).

Same again with the accusation of an Ad Hominem, Strawman etc. If just once, you used a fallacy correctly, perhaps I wouldn't be so scathing, but as of yet...

It was not clearly stated. Nor am I trying to re-frame or dishonestly interpret what you are saying, what I'm doing is seeking clarification. Please stop with the evasions and ad-hominems and just clarify what you have said.

Why are you trying to now discuss ad-hominems? You clearly can't understand the 'argument from authority fallacy' so why try to move on to the next thing?

You have not backed yourself, you simply fall back on an earlier explanation from which I have requested clarification, it is obvious that you cannot clarify it without proving yourself to be wrong, hence the evasion.

To clarify your erroneous interpretation of half my argument, I have maintained from the start that the 'argument from authority' has no exceptions in the context of proving a point. That you continue to ignore my clarification to instead dishonestly represent what I meant sounds like sargon's law for your first paragraph. Clarifications should be embraced, not ignored!

[TheDemonLord]

It was not clearly stated. Nor am I trying to re-frame or dishonestly interpret what you are saying, what I'm doing is seeking clarification. Please stop with the evasions and ad-hominems and just clarify what you have said.

Why are you trying to now discuss ad-hominems? You clearly can't understand the 'argument from authority fallacy' so why try to move on to the next thing?

You have not backed yourself, you simply fall back on an earlier explanation from which I have requested clarification, it is obvious that you cannot clarify it without proving yourself to be wrong, hence the evasion.

To clarify your erroneous interpretation of half my argument, I have maintained from the start that the 'argument from authority' has no exceptions in the context of proving a point. That you continue to ignore my clarification to instead dishonestly represent what I meant sounds like sargon's law for your first paragraph. Clarifications should be embraced, not ignored!

Let's assume that I think you are being genuine here (and for the record - you burnt that bridge several pages ago) - Let's look at what you did:

On one of your statements I said it was incorrect because it was missing a Caveat (and I outlined what that Caveat was), now - if (as you say) there was confusion on your part or you required clarification - you wouldn't restate what you had said sans caveat - you'd ask for information on it. Deliberately omitting something that has been pointed out as missing isn't honest debate.

Then, let's deal with your statements about denying Don Brash's expertise in the field - not once have you actually cited a reason why his credentials don't stack up, despite being directly challenged on this point.
If you were being Genuine - you'd outline a concern about why you don't think he is a credible authority - you've failed to do so, only dismissing it out of hand. FWIW - in the Exception this is exactly why it exists - to stop healthy Skepticism from turning into denialism.

Lastly You've tried on at least 3 separate occasions to try and re-word the exception into something that fits your a priori position, as opposed to what is written in multiple sources.

Am I to believe that you are incapable of comprehending, from multiple sources, the same definition of the Exception? As that is what an honest position would require me to do - and yet, I know you to be smarter than that - so if it's not through honest mistake, what is left except deliberate manipulation?

I'm not moving onto Ad Hominems - I'm just pointing out that I've not committed that Fallacy either - and this further reinforces the over-arching point that you don't know how to correctly apply Fallacies. Remembering - you brought it up, not me.

I'll end with - the Exception is that an Authority can be used as a valid, inductive argument. Whether you consider that Proof or not for a given field is beside the point. I've agreed that in a strictly scientific sense, such an argument wouldn't be acceptable, but I've also stated that there are other fields where inductive proof is acceptable. And as such, I did not commit the fallacy.

Your closing line is telling - Honest Clarifications are fine, dishonest word games aren't - and your manner of argumentation has been in the same vein as Cathy Newman - to re-interpret what has been said into what you want to be said.

[Graystone]

Let's assume that I think you are being genuine here (and for the record - you burnt that bridge several pages ago) - Let's look at what you did:

On one of your statements I said it was incorrect because it was missing a Caveat (and I outlined what that Caveat was), now - if (as you say) there was confusion on your part or you required clarification - you wouldn't restate what you had said sans caveat - you'd ask for information on it. Deliberately omitting something that has been pointed out as missing isn't honest debate.

Then, let's deal with your statements about denying Don Brash's expertise in the field - not once have you actually cited a reason why his credentials don't stack up, despite being directly challenged on this point.
If you were being Genuine - you'd outline a concern about why you don't think he is a credible authority - you've failed to do so, only dismissing it out of hand. FWIW - in the Exception this is exactly why it exists - to stop healthy Skepticism from turning into denialism.

Lastly You've tried on at least 3 separate occasions to try and re-word the exception into something that fits your a priori position, as opposed to what is written in multiple sources.

Am I to believe that you are incapable of comprehending, from multiple sources, the same definition of the Exception? As that is what an honest position would require me to do - and yet, I know you to be smarter than that - so if it's not through honest mistake, what is left except deliberate manipulation?

I'm not moving onto Ad Hominems - I'm just pointing out that I've not committed that Fallacy either - and this further reinforces the over-arching point that you don't know how to correctly apply Fallacies. Remembering - you brought it up, not me.

I'll end with - the Exception is that an Authority can be used as a valid, inductive argument. Whether you consider that Proof or not for a given field is beside the point. I've agreed that in a strictly scientific sense, such an argument wouldn't be acceptable, but I've also stated that there are other fields where inductive proof is acceptable. And as such, I did not commit the fallacy.

Your closing line is telling - Honest Clarifications are fine, dishonest word games aren't - and your manner of argumentation has been in the same vein as Cathy Newman - to re-interpret what has been said into what you want to be said.

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

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.

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

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

"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

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.

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

[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.