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

[Katman]

Don't worry you are out of their league
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...iracy-theories
https://www.geek.com/science/new-stu...order-1720483/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...n-seeking.html

Well now that someone's finally worked the thread back to the subject of conspiracy theories, let's take a closer look at those links.

They mention......

Flat earth theory. Have you ever seen me make any comment on that theory?

Faked moon landings. Have you ever seen me make any comment on that theory?

Vaccines are a plot for mind control. Have you ever seen me make a comment that supports that theory?

Shadowy government agencies hiding alien technology in hidden bunkers? Have you ever seen me make a comment on that theory?

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.

[TheDemonLord]

All the 'exceptions' show deferral/inductive arguments which as we know, cannot be used to prove a point. Thus my statement that if you wish to prove a point, there are no exceptions.

What lovely mental backlips you are doing...

Let me be clear - the Fallacy has an Exception. It's there in black and white. As I've said all along.

It was not clearly a rhetorical question imo, hence why I asked you to clarify, there is no need to get angry when asked to clarify your point. My interpretation is global, in any field, an argument from authority is insufficient and fallacious, including theology. I have no idea how you have come to the conclusion I need to interpret it differently based on the field as you do. The wiki article you linked to clearly agrees with my interpretation at least for science, so you clearly disagree with the global nature of it as you put forward an interpretation and exemptions which violate Sagan's quote from the wiki "One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else."

My God. It's really Simple:

When applied to a Scientific subject - the Scientific standard of evidence is applicable.
When applied to something that has a different standard of evidence - That standard of evidence is applicable.

The Fallacy itself doesn't change.

All you've done there is talk yourself in a circle and come back to trying to apply a Scientific standard of evidence to everything, which is inappropriate.

I'm really struggling

Quite.

to see how you could possibly misinterpret my points, and the articles on this fallacy, to quite this extent. Are you overstressed at work or home or something? even when showing your sexism around Jacinda it was an internally consistent logic built around a core of delusion, the stuff this week has instead just been way out in the weeds and all over the place...

Oh I see, you're still butthurt about that - Sounds like you need to watch some Frozen and....

Forgot this one, quoting the paragraph in full

We can conclude 100% that the meaning of this is to show:
a) it is not commiting the fallacy
b) because it is not in the context of argumentation
Surely you can also draw such conclusions when they are written right there in plain english? I'm not sure what else you are trying to read into it?

I don't know how many ways you can try and mitigate the fact that you originally explicitly stated there was no Exception, only to quote a definition that has a rather large section under the heading "Exceptions"

The point remains - your attributing of the Fallacy and your understanding of the Fallacy are both incorrect.

[Graystone]

What lovely mental backlips you are doing...

Let me be clear - the Fallacy has an Exception. It's there in black and white. As I've said all along.



My God. It's really Simple:

When applied to a Scientific subject - the Scientific standard of evidence is applicable.
When applied to something that has a different standard of evidence - That standard of evidence is applicable.

The Fallacy itself doesn't change.

All you've done there is talk yourself in a circle and come back to trying to apply a Scientific standard of evidence to everything, which is inappropriate.




Quite.




Oh I see, you're still butthurt about that - Sounds like you need to watch some Frozen and....





I don't know how many ways you can try and mitigate the fact that you originally explicitly stated there was no Exception, only to quote a definition that has a rather large section under the heading "Exceptions"

The point remains - your attributing of the Fallacy and your understanding of the Fallacy are both incorrect.

The 'exception' can not prove anything, and can only be used as an inductive argument. Do you understand that? If you cared to apply context to my claim there was no exception, it would be clear I'm talking about proving something. Yes there's an exception to the fallacy if you don't want to prove anything.

It's even simpler than that:
Nobody is exempt from proving their point rationally.
54 Characters, you used 111 (which is relevant, cos your arguments are flat-lining, call a doctor, stat )

Exactly what circles have I gone in? I've never suggested applying the fallacy differently depending on the field as you are. Nor do I think there are differing standard of proof between fields, some (like theology) simply cannot satisfy the scientific burden of proof, so there is no proof, we don't just lower the bar for them and say old popey has a big hat, his beliefs are proven, that would be absurd.

I felt it a relevant example, I do not think I am the only one who has noted a decline in you rational lately.

So what else were you trying to read into it? Exceptions are not relevant to that discussion point unless you are intent on committing the Fallacy of the Non Sequitur...

[TheDemonLord]

The 'exception' can not prove anything, and can only be used as an inductive argument. Do you understand that? If you cared to apply context to my claim there was no exception, it would be clear I'm talking about proving something. Yes there's an exception to the fallacy if you don't want to prove anything.

I'm loving your attempts at backtracking. We've gone from "There is no Exception" to "There is an exception, but it's not relevant" back to "There is no Exception" and finally onto "There's an exception, but it doesn't apply to what I actually meant"

It's almost like you don't know what you are talking about, whereas I've been very clear on this point: There's an Exception, always has been, and you are wrong.

It's even simpler than that:
Nobody is exempt from proving their point rationally.
54 Characters, you used 111 (which is relevant, cos your arguments are flat-lining, call a doctor, stat )

And how do you define Rationally? Because thus far, you've attested that the Scientific method of proof is the only standard. Which is false. It's also why you are twisting yourself up in knots trying to backflip your way out of conceding that which is blatantly obvious.

Exactly what circles have I gone in? I've never suggested applying the fallacy differently depending on the field as you are. Nor do I think there are differing standard of proof between fields, some (like theology) simply cannot satisfy the scientific burden of proof, so there is no proof, we don't just lower the bar for them and say old popey has a big hat, his beliefs are proven, that would be absurd.

If there is no proof, then by an extension, this fallacy cannot be applied - since absent proof, all that is left is appeals to authority - which means that statement is fundamentally false. However didn't you say:

Of course people can commit the fallacy in theology,

That would be the Circles you are going in. All you need to do is stop, accept the correct definition of the fallacy, concede the point - and move on.

I felt it a relevant example, I do not think I am the only one who has noted a decline in you rational lately.

Ah yes - the old "I agree with you on one thing, but disagree with you on another, therefore you are suddenly stupid" argument - it would work really well if your opinion of me mattered - have you forgotten that I'm an Insufferable Cunt that doesn't care about how I'm perceived?

So what else were you trying to read into it? Exceptions are not relevant to that discussion point unless you are intent on committing the Fallacy of the Non Sequitur...

It's a demonstration of your lack of basic understanding, which is rather relevant.

[Graystone]

I'm loving your attempts at backtracking. We've gone from "There is no Exception" to "There is an exception, but it's not relevant" back to "There is no Exception" and finally onto "There's an exception, but it doesn't apply to what I actually meant"

It's almost like you don't know what you are talking about, whereas I've been very clear on this point: There's an Exception, always has been, and you are wrong.



And how do you define Rationally? Because thus far, you've attested that the Scientific method of proof is the only standard. Which is false. It's also why you are twisting yourself up in knots trying to backflip your way out of conceding that which is blatantly obvious.



If there is no proof, then by an extension, this fallacy cannot be applied - since absent proof, all that is left is appeals to authority - which means that statement is fundamentally false. However didn't you say:



That would be the Circles you are going in. All you need to do is stop, accept the correct definition of the fallacy, concede the point - and move on.



Ah yes - the old "I agree with you on one thing, but disagree with you on another, therefore you are suddenly stupid" argument - it would work really well if your opinion of me mattered - have you forgotten that I'm an Insufferable Cunt that doesn't care about how I'm perceived?



It's a demonstration of your lack of basic understanding, which is rather relevant.

Seems you're intent on the Non Sequitur thing then. I do find it quite ironic you do not accept my word as an authority on what I write/mean while promoting the notion that the exception to the argument from authority fallacy is if the authority is valid

Rationally is by reasonable means, when talking proof, it requires deduction. What else would you use to prove something?

It's also worth noting I've not attested the scientific method is the only method (please stop the attempts at straw-manning me), I mentioned the scientific burden of proof, by that I simply mean systematic, rational, deductive, evidence based reasoning; supplied by the one who makes the claim.

Why can the fallacy not be applied if there is no proof? Where does that notion come from?

Nah, it's more the old 'check yourself before you wreck yourself'.

Is it though? All you have demonstrated is your ability to interpret things to fit your narrative. I could equally take a quote from you out of context to 'demonstrate' the same, but I recognise it is a irrelevant to the fallacy's meaning and unnecessarily combative anyway.

[Berries]

Here you go then. Mosgiel yesterday just before sundown. Heading west to north west so Te Anau/Queenstown general direction but who knows where from or where to.

All I know is my toad in the hole tasted funny last night..........

[TheDemonLord]

Seems you're intent on the Non Sequitur thing then. I do find it quite ironic you do not accept my word as an authority on what I write/mean while promoting the notion that the exception to the argument from authority fallacy is if the authority is valid

Not at all, you aren't an Authority on English...

It's not a non-sequitur to point out to where you've contradicted yourself AND the evidence that you provided, in fact, it's rather pertinent.

Rationally is by reasonable means, when talking proof, it requires deduction. What else would you use to prove something?

Maths would be a start, Where a proof is an "Inferential argument for a mathematical statement."

It's also worth noting I've not attested the scientific method is the only method (please stop the attempts at straw-manning me), I mentioned the scientific burden of proof, by that I simply mean systematic, rational, deductive, evidence based reasoning; supplied by the one who makes the claim.

So, if the Scientific method isn't the only method, then it's acceptable to use something that doesn't fit the scientific standard of proof - which has been my claim all along, whereas you have been dismissing it because it doesn't fit that standard of proof.

If you are conceding that there are other levels of proof, that are acceptable to use - then by all means, you'll just have to withdrawn your criticism.

Why can the fallacy not be applied if there is no proof? Where does that notion come from?

Follow the fallacy through to it's logical conclusion and consider the following - if there is nothing objective, then it must be wholly subjective.

Nah, it's more the old 'check yourself before you wreck yourself'.

Says the person who has contradicted themselves multiple times in this thread...

Check yo' self indeed.

Is it though? All you have demonstrated is your ability to interpret things to fit your narrative. I could equally take a quote from you out of context to 'demonstrate' the same, but I recognise it is a irrelevant to the fallacy's meaning and unnecessarily combative anyway.

Again, we've gone from "There are no exceptions" to "There are exceptions but I'm ignoring them" back to "There no exceptions".

This started because you cited a fallacy, I pointed out that you were incorrect in your usage because of the very exception that you denied existed - then after much back and forth, you post a link with a lengthy section outlining the Exception I spoke of.

This is really tiresome, if you can't understand from your sources, what hope have I of convincing you?

[Graystone]

Not at all, you aren't an Authority on English...

It's not a non-sequitur to point out to where you've contradicted yourself AND the evidence that you provided, in fact, it's rather pertinent.



Maths would be a start, Where a proof is an "Inferential argument for a mathematical statement."



So, if the Scientific method isn't the only method, then it's acceptable to use something that doesn't fit the scientific standard of proof - which has been my claim all along, whereas you have been dismissing it because it doesn't fit that standard of proof.

If you are conceding that there are other levels of proof, that are acceptable to use - then by all means, you'll just have to withdrawn your criticism.



Follow the fallacy through to it's logical conclusion and consider the following - if there is nothing objective, then it must be wholly subjective.



Says the person who has contradicted themselves multiple times in this thread...

Check yo' self indeed.



Again, we've gone from "There are no exceptions" to "There are exceptions but I'm ignoring them" back to "There no exceptions".

This started because you cited a fallacy, I pointed out that you were incorrect in your usage because of the very exception that you denied existed - then after much back and forth, you post a link with a lengthy section outlining the Exception I spoke of.

This is really tiresome, if you can't understand from your sources, what hope have I of convincing you?

Yes but I am an authority I what I mean.

Is it though? Does it in any way diminish my point about the fallacy to keep pointing to another point of contention about it?

Maths is covered by 'reasonable means, when talking proof, it requires deduction'.

Moving goalposts much? Your claim has been that there is an exception to the fallacy where the 'authority' is a really good one. I dismiss that because it's pretty much the thing the fallacy is entirely about. You confuse it with the argument from false authority fallacy. I am certainly not conceding there are other levels of proof, what is always required is a "systematic, rational, deductive, evidence based reasoning; supplied by the one who makes the claim." as evidence by the example in the wiki you linked to, I mean, if you can't understand from your sources, what hope have I of convincing you?

If there is nothing objective, then there are no true authorities and every appeal to authority commits the fallacy, arguably it is the subtype, appeal to false authority, but it is acceptable to use the main one for obvious reasons.

Actually we've gone from, there are no exceptions (in the context of proof) to nowhere else, we're still there, nothing you have shown supports the notion that 'legit' authorities are exempt. And many thing's I've shown support the notion they are not...

"An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context."

and

"Historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided: it is listed as a valid argument as often as a fallacious argument in various sources, with some holding that it is a strong argument which "has a legitimate force", and others that it is weak or an outright fallacy where, on a conflict of facts, "mere appeal to authority alone had better be avoided"."

Which shows, at best you have the 'agree to disagree' option, but the notion my interpretation of the fallacy is outright wrong is utterly baseless.

[TheDemonLord]

Yes but I am an authority I what I mean.

Sure, but since I'm not a mind reader, I'm going off what you've actually written and what you've refused to retract. It's the last part that is particularly telling, your refusal to accept that an original statement was incorrect tells me that this is not a matter of a poorly worded post.

Is it though? Does it in any way diminish my point about the fallacy to keep pointing to another point of contention about it?

Not another point, THE point.

Maths is covered by 'reasonable means, when talking proof, it requires deduction'.

And yet, it's a perfectly valid proof, using "Inferential argument"...

Moving goalposts much? Your claim has been that there is an exception to the fallacy where the 'authority' is a really good one. I dismiss that because it's pretty much the thing the fallacy is entirely about. You confuse it with the argument from false authority fallacy. I am certainly not conceding there are other levels of proof, what is always required is a "systematic, rational, deductive, evidence based reasoning; supplied by the one who makes the claim." as evidence by the example in the wiki you linked to, I mean, if you can't understand from your sources, what hope have I of convincing you?

There's no movement of my Goal posts - the reason you think they are moving is because you keep running around in circles - to avoid conceding the now patently obvious.

If there is nothing objective, then there are no true authorities and every appeal to authority commits the fallacy, arguably it is the subtype, appeal to false authority, but it is acceptable to use the main one for obvious reasons.

You were so close in that train of logic, then you missed the station and ended up in the wrong destination.

Actually we've gone from, there are no exceptions (in the context of proof) to nowhere else, we're still there, nothing you have shown supports the notion that 'legit' authorities are exempt. And many thing's I've shown support the notion they are not...

We've gone from no exceptions to imaginative and inventive ways to diminish the fact that there is (by your own sources) an exception.

"An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context."

and

"Historically, opinion on the appeal to authority has been divided: it is listed as a valid argument as often as a fallacious argument in various sources, with some holding that it is a strong argument which "has a legitimate force", and others that it is weak or an outright fallacy where, on a conflict of facts, "mere appeal to authority alone had better be avoided"."

Hmmm - whats that?

though it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.

Thanks for again proving my point and disproving yours.

Now, you'll cry that you don't accept the reliability, but since you've proved yourself unwilling to engage with any semblance of intellectual honesty - you'll never accept his reliability - to do so would require you to concede the multitude of points you've been disingenuously arguing against. I've simply settled on the fact that as judged by his Peers (they appointed him to the job), he is a reliable authority on Financial and Economic matters and ESPECIALLY on the NZ Financial system.

Which shows, at best you have the 'agree to disagree' option, but the notion my interpretation of the fallacy is outright wrong is utterly baseless.

Turns out, yet again, by your own quoted material - that I was right all along.

This is not agree to disagree - this is you need to learn the correct application of your fallacies, along with some Economics.

[Graystone]

Sure, but since I'm not a mind reader, I'm going off what you've actually written and what you've refused to retract. It's the last part that is particularly telling, your refusal to accept that an original statement was incorrect tells me that this is not a matter of a poorly worded post.



Not another point, THE point.



And yet, it's a perfectly valid proof, using "Inferential argument"...



There's no movement of my Goal posts - the reason you think they are moving is because you keep running around in circles - to avoid conceding the now patently obvious.



You were so close in that train of logic, then you missed the station and ended up in the wrong destination.



We've gone from no exceptions to imaginative and inventive ways to diminish the fact that there is (by your own sources) an exception.



Hmmm - whats that?



Thanks for again proving my point and disproving yours.

Now, you'll cry that you don't accept the reliability, but since you've proved yourself unwilling to engage with any semblance of intellectual honesty - you'll never accept his reliability - to do so would require you to concede the multitude of points you've been disingenuously arguing against. I've simply settled on the fact that as judged by his Peers (they appointed him to the job), he is a reliable authority on Financial and Economic matters and ESPECIALLY on the NZ Financial system.



Turns out, yet again, by your own quoted material - that I was right all along.

This is not agree to disagree - this is you need to learn the correct application of your fallacies, along with some Economics.

Since you're not a mind reader, perhaps accept my correction to your interpretations then...

Which is/was it then? that there is an exception to the fallacy where the 'authority' is a really good one vs "it's acceptable to use something that doesn't fit the scientific standard of proof"

I rationalized my train of logic, please do the same to show where I have 'gone off the rails'.

Is there an exception to the fallacy (in the context of proof)?

It's a convincing argument if all sides agree on their authority. It is not a proof, especially not when there is disagreement on authority. You are trying to create another exception where one does not exist by saying my disagreement is inadmissible.

Are you still going on the non-sequitur gish gallop, come back around eh! Mind you it is being addressed at the top of this post so...

[TheDemonLord]

Since you're not a mind reader, perhaps accept my correction to your interpretations then...

I'll accept retractions to your own statements, they are a bit more convincing - and since they've not been forthcoming...

Which is/was it then? that there is an exception to the fallacy where the 'authority' is a really good one vs "it's acceptable to use something that doesn't fit the scientific standard of proof"

It's the same as it always was, how are you still not grasping this?

I rationalized my train of logic, please do the same to show where I have 'gone off the rails'.

How can one appeal an authority if, as you rightly point out, there are no authorities?

Is there an exception to the fallacy (in the context of proof)?

There's an exception to the fallacy.

It's a convincing argument if all sides agree on their authority. It is not a proof, especially not when there is disagreement on authority. You are trying to create another exception where one does not exist by saying my disagreement is inadmissible.

No, I'm saying you aren't being intellectual honest, and are denying the qualifications out of a combination of Spite and to avoid conceding the point. I'm dismissing that because it's got no merit.

Are you still going on the non-sequitur gish gallop, come back around eh! Mind you it is being addressed at the top of this post so...

Just stop trying to use logical terms, until you can use them correctly.

This is not a Gish Gallop, both in terms of the actual definition and compared to the length of post I normally write, in fact - it is positively curt.

[Graystone]

I'll accept retractions to your own statements, they are a bit more convincing - and since they've not been forthcoming...



It's the same as it always was, how are you still not grasping this?



How can one appeal an authority if, as you rightly point out, there are no authorities?



There's an exception to the fallacy.



No, I'm saying you aren't being intellectual honest, and are denying the qualifications out of a combination of Spite and to avoid conceding the point. I'm dismissing that because it's got no merit.



Just stop trying to use logical terms, until you can use them correctly.

This is not a Gish Gallop, both in terms of the actual definition and compared to the length of post I normally write, in fact - it is positively curt.

No retraction is warranted, there are no exceptions to the fallacy when proof is demanded.

The complete change in wording I guess, but I'll accept your clarification on what you wrote. And point out the science or not standard of proof is not relevant since your original claim, and others since, have not shown support for distinct applications of the fallacy based on the feild.

There are no 'true authorities' is what I said, but there are plenty of others who peopl would try to give the title to. Telling the difference is not always so simple. This is why the argument from false authority is not really distinguished from its parent one.

So what is the exception, where an argument from authority can prove a point? All you have is a few disputed inductive reasoning lines so far, not good enough tbh.

And I could believe you are strawmaning me by ascribing those motivations so you can avoid conceding the point. Bottom line is there is no exception for both parties agreeing to the validity of the authority. So one could argue by proving you seek to create an exception where none exists, it supports the notion you are doing the same for the main fallacy; but of course that would be a non sequitur not to mention a gish gallop

[Berries]

Get a room.

[TheDemonLord]

No retraction is warranted, there are no exceptions to the fallacy when proof is demanded.

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

The complete change in wording I guess, but I'll accept your clarification on what you wrote. And point out the science or not standard of proof is not relevant since your original claim, and others since, have not shown support for distinct applications of the fallacy based on the feild.

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.

There are no 'true authorities' is what I said, but there are plenty of others who peopl would try to give the title to. Telling the difference is not always so simple. This is why the argument from false authority is not really distinguished from its parent one.

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

So what is the exception, where an argument from authority can prove a point? All you have is a few disputed inductive reasoning lines so far, not good enough tbh.

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

And I could believe you are strawmaning me by ascribing those motivations so you can avoid conceding the point. Bottom line is there is no exception for both parties agreeing to the validity of the authority. So one could argue by proving you seek to create an exception where none exists, it supports the notion you are doing the same for the main fallacy; but of course that would be a non sequitur not to mention a gish gallop

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

[Laava]

It's bed time guys. Don't forget to brush your teeth!