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

[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.

[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 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.


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


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

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/