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

[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]

[Banditbandit]

[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...

[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'...