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

[Oakie]

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.

Having seen how long it takes to prepare and the actual physical prep required to drop a couple of buildings here in Christchurch, it is just not feasible that explosives could be set in an occupied building in such a way as to drop it without an obvious explosion, with no one noticing that work going on. I blame the plane.

[Katman]

I blame the plane.

As is entirely your right.

But the 'elevator upgrades' and 'maintainence shutdowns' offer a feasible explanation as to how it might have been done.

[oldrider]

Having seen how long it takes to prepare and the actual physical prep required to drop a couple of buildings here in Christchurch, it is just not feasible that explosives could be set in an occupied building in such a way as to drop it without an obvious explosion, with no one noticing that work going on. I blame the plane.

Where there is a will there is a way Oakie - some people have more than their share of will - the way then becomes inevitable - time reveals all eventually. 9/11 Case in point?

[Banditbandit]

As is entirely your right.

But the 'elevator upgrades' and 'maintainence shutdowns' offer a feasible explanation as to how it might have been done.

And after 17 years not one - count them - NOT ONE - person who was involved in this supposed rigging of the building has come forward to say we did it ..

That, to me, is not credible IF this was an internal conspiracy ..

Not to mention the families of the people who were supposedly killed .. or did the US Government (Geo W and Co) deliberately kill their own citizens ??

[Katman]

And after 17 years not one - count them - NOT ONE - person who was involved in this supposed rigging of the building has come forward to say we did it ..

Perhaps they know it would be the last thing they would say.

Not to mention the families of the people who were supposedly killed .. or did the US Government (Geo W and Co) deliberately kill their own citizens ??

Governments have no qualms about deliberately kill their own citizens.

What do you think war is?

[Woodman]

Governments have no qualms about deliberately kill their own citizens.

What do you think war is?

Splitting hairs, but they usually deliberately kill other countries citizens, their own citizens that are killed are defence force and that is sorta part of the deal.

[Katman]

....their own citizens that are killed are defence force and that is sorta part of the deal.

Even if they're the invaders?

The point is that the act of war is the deliberate sacrificing of a country's citizens in order to achieve a goal.

[Woodman]

Even if they're the invaders?

The point is that the act of war is the deliberate sacrificing of a country's citizens in order to achieve a goal.

Don't disagree with you, although we are getting better at minimizing casualties compared with the "whoever runs out of people first loses" tactics of the past.

[Katman]

Don't disagree with you, although we are getting better at minimizing casualties compared with the "whoever runs out of people first loses" tactics of the past.

And a few thousand sacrificed on 9/11 was a fairly small price to pay in order to set the wheels in motion for the never-ending 'War on Terror'.

[Woodman]

And a few thousand sacrificed on 9/11 was a fairly small price to pay in order to set the wheels in motion for the never-ending 'War on Terror'.

LOL, now you are just trolling. Keep it up.

[Katman]

LOL, now you are just trolling. Keep it up.

I'm not trolling at all.

It's what I believe.

The Project for a New American Century called for a new Pearl Harbour.

[Woodman]

I'm not trolling at all.

It's what I believe.

The Project for a New American Century called for a new Pearl Harbour.

You can troll with stuff you believe is true can't you? or is their some unwritten trolling law that I am unaware of?

[TheDemonLord]

I've added that distinction as a third premise after you explained the need for it.

Yes, but the second premise still has vagueness, which (despite your claim it's modified by the 3rd statement) doesn't articulate the required boundaries.

I'll give a reason why after we finish discussing the fallacy, no need to gallop off on a tangent!

Is that to give yourself more time to come up with a reason why so you can retroactively justify your naysaying earlier? I'll simply restate that you chose to dispute credibility as part of your defence for the use of the fallacy. That you aren't willing to simply cite your reason is telling.

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?

Do you mean that some things can NEVER be proven or that some things currently cannot be proven? I'll agree to the second one, I'm not sure on the first.

This is where my premise that you are only willing to use the strictest definition of proof, as applicable in a scientific sense comes into play. I'm happy to accept (in some fields) a preponderance of evidence as proof and in others I'm happy to accept beyond reasonable doubt as proof. It depends on the standards for the field.

I should further point out, that like the Scientific standard, something that was proved today, with the data and evidence available today is ready to be disproved tomorrow should new data and evidence be discovered/available.

I'm not advocating for dogma.

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.

Except earlier you stated that the fallacy can be applied to fields where there could be dispute as to whether or not there is such a thing as proof within that field. That is where you get the dichotomy, because by stating that - there are a number of a priori requirements for that fallacy to be relevant - which modify your statements to create the dichotomy.

So why not just point out and clarify the nuance?

Because you either ignore it when I do or you complain about long-form posts...

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.

In your statement you had this line:

But we have already seen this premise is wrong given the science example

Where you used the Scientific definition of proof (which both you and I agree on) as a means to disprove the exception. I referred to this as a bait-and-switch (as you substituting the scientific method as the burden of proof, claiming that because it doesn't work here - it doesn't work anywhere else as described, which is not true).

I'm further rebutting this - by pointing out that if your standards of proof were the only acceptable standard of proof - then there would be no need for the exception, as there is no scenario where expert testimony would be entertained (in line with the scientific definition of proof that both you and I agree on).

Since there IS an exception (by the source that you cited and other sources that attest to the same exception, regardless of how you try and downplay that fact) it means that it's existence disproves the notion that only the scientific definition of proof is applicable.

Ergo, your statement was false.

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.

If that is true (or is as you are outlining it to be) then you should work to re-write the exception 'correctly' (as you see fit). However, what I wrote was correct (albeit a very terse, short form response).

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.

I only said it wasn't what I had written as the qualifier. I further expanded upon this that the further qualification was to guard against a tactic that you repeatedly use.

I then argued that if you were being genuine and honest in the debate, you would have no problem with including that qualifier. That you are reluctant to do so, suggests an ulterior motive. The suggestion of such a motive disproves the statement that you are being genuine and honest. From there, I've inferred the motive to be that you are aware of the what and why I insist on the qualifier (and the implications for your line of reasoning) and so are doing your utmost not to concede (because you know the logical conclusion)

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...

No, we haven't. Because I've dispute this multiple times:

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

Here's how I'd phrase it (with my qualifiers and with the definition of the fallacies exception lifted from sources):

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

Now, if you wish to be the honest opponent you claim to be - use that series of premises that I agree with (regardless of your love of 'brevity').

[oldrider]

You can troll with stuff you believe is true can't you? or is their some unwritten trolling law that I am unaware of?

Feel free you can troll with whatever like - it's other people that rules are required for.

[Graystone]

Yes, but the second premise still has vagueness, which (despite your claim it's modified by the 3rd statement) doesn't articulate the required boundaries.



Is that to give yourself more time to come up with a reason why so you can retroactively justify your naysaying earlier? I'll simply restate that you chose to dispute credibility as part of your defence for the use of the fallacy. That you aren't willing to simply cite your reason is telling.



Do you mean that some things can NEVER be proven or that some things currently cannot be proven? I'll agree to the second one, I'm not sure on the first.

This is where my premise that you are only willing to use the strictest definition of proof, as applicable in a scientific sense comes into play. I'm happy to accept (in some fields) a preponderance of evidence as proof and in others I'm happy to accept beyond reasonable doubt as proof. It depends on the standards for the field.

I should further point out, that like the Scientific standard, something that was proved today, with the data and evidence available today is ready to be disproved tomorrow should new data and evidence be discovered/available.

I'm not advocating for dogma.



Except earlier you stated that the fallacy can be applied to fields where there could be dispute as to whether or not there is such a thing as proof within that field. That is where you get the dichotomy, because by stating that - there are a number of a priori requirements for that fallacy to be relevant - which modify your statements to create the dichotomy.



Because you either ignore it when I do or you complain about long-form posts...



In your statement you had this line:



Where you used the Scientific definition of proof (which both you and I agree on) as a means to disprove the exception. I referred to this as a bait-and-switch (as you substituting the scientific method as the burden of proof, claiming that because it doesn't work here - it doesn't work anywhere else as described, which is not true).

I'm further rebutting this - by pointing out that if your standards of proof were the only acceptable standard of proof - then there would be no need for the exception, as there is no scenario where expert testimony would be entertained (in line with the scientific definition of proof that both you and I agree on).

Since there IS an exception (by the source that you cited and other sources that attest to the same exception, regardless of how you try and downplay that fact) it means that it's existence disproves the notion that only the scientific definition of proof is applicable.

Ergo, your statement was false.



If that is true (or is as you are outlining it to be) then you should work to re-write the exception 'correctly' (as you see fit). However, what I wrote was correct (albeit a very terse, short form response).



I only said it wasn't what I had written as the qualifier. I further expanded upon this that the further qualification was to guard against a tactic that you repeatedly use.

I then argued that if you were being genuine and honest in the debate, you would have no problem with including that qualifier. That you are reluctant to do so, suggests an ulterior motive. The suggestion of such a motive disproves the statement that you are being genuine and honest. From there, I've inferred the motive to be that you are aware of the what and why I insist on the qualifier (and the implications for your line of reasoning) and so are doing your utmost not to concede (because you know the logical conclusion)




No, we haven't. Because I've dispute this multiple times:



Here's how I'd phrase it (with my qualifiers and with the definition of the fallacies exception lifted from sources):



Now, if you wish to be the honest opponent you claim to be - use that series of premises that I agree with (regardless of your love of 'brevity').

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.

I'll restate that we must finish discussing this one, simple, point before moving on.

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...

Of course the fallacy can be applied, there is no need for anything to be provable for this fallacy to apply.

I disagree, in fact I simply further question or debate your clarification...

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.

Just to clarify, what exactly do you consider your 'short form' interpretation?

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

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.
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.