RE: Intuition
- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
ashvin post=2679 wrote: Triv,
In my example, I cited a paper by BB as support for my statement, which implies that you can access the paper and check the “data/logic” that he used to derive the conclusion. So, according to my definition, there was no ATA fallacy.
Yes, if one has access to the data and the logic then they can actually evaluate the argument and try to falsify it – the very basis of of what science is supposed to be.
ashvin post=2679 wrote:
When I said “personal characteristics”, I really meant those characteristics of the source that are directly relevant to the issue at at hand. So it is fair game to bring up the fact that a researcher has fudged data in the past, or done something else intellectually dishonest, in order to cast suspicion on his current claims.I don’t trust Bernanke because I know he’s a lying murderous, thieving criminal and I know he knows it, too. I’m sure he’s well aware of Sun Tzu’s statements that “war is all about deception” and “the best warriors never have to fight.”
However, I *still* can’t refute an argument made by Ben Bernanke just because he made it. What I can do, though, is go over the data and logic with a finer toothed comb. Realistically, though, on all important issues, that fine tooth comb ought to be extremely fine to begin with.
Again, it all boils down to data and logic.
Liars tell the truth all the time. The only way to vet it is to know their data and logic.
ashvin post=2679 wrote:
Exactly. No one is arguing that we should just rely on what authorities say to determine reality. I AM arguing that we cannot dismiss arguments simply because they cite legitimate authorities for their claims (i.e. they are not logically fallacious), and rather we must do exactly what you did with the Fed law and data to attack the argument.Ash, did you actually read past the beginning of the first SS article review? I know I started out, shall we say, a bit “snarky,” and I could see how that could turn you off to the rest – bad form on my part. As explained previously, I’m kind of sick of the whole thing because I know the oligarchs are using the good intentions of many environmentalist minded people to promote their societal face ripping policies. Yeah, that had nothing to do with the article and I should’ve kept my irritation out. Again, bad form on my part.
I repeatedly said that the faulty logic used (just trust the “authority”) didn’t mean that the actual claim was false. Repeatedly. The use of logical fallacy doesn’t mean a lie is being told, it just means that the logic presented as sufficient is actually not sufficient (and, technically, that’s a lie, hence the use of the phrase “logic lie,” not to be confused with the claim itself being a lie).
ashvin post=2679 wrote:
Do you see how that undermines your original arguments on the other thread about the SS site?I think you believe the argument is undermined because you don’t understand what I actually argued. I NEVER argued that any of the claims presented were false. Never. I never claimed they were true.
What I claimed was that logical fallacy was used (just trust us, we don’t need to present the actual data and logic or links to it – that’s a logical fallacy – call it whatever name you like!) to allegedly prove certain claims – and that the logic, being logical fallacy, didn’t actually establish what the article said it did.
Again, without the actual data and logic itself, I CAN’T MAKE A DETERMINATION. When they didn’t present the data and logic to support their claims, then I called them on it.
That is what my review did, NOT attempt to debunk the claims (which, even if possible, is impossible within the bounds of that article given the lack of data and logic presented).
So, no – my review wasn’t undermined at all given that I didn’t even offer a conclusion as to validity of the conclusions.
The way to undermine my review is simple, though. I made quite a few very specific claims following the format of, “A was claimed by article, data B and logic C was not presented to support claim A, therefore, we must simply trust in the “authority” of the article author and that is a logical fallacy.”
In order to undermine one of those claims, all one has to do is find where the article actually provides the data B and logic C where I claim it was not presented.
That ought to be a very simple task, IF IT EXISTS. I didn’t find it when I said I didn’t find it, but I make mistakes. I’ve reread a few posts of mine and the grammar and misspelling errors have been more than a few – not intentional, but errors do creep in when I’m knee deep in stuff I’m trying to do.
ashvin post=2679 wrote:
You say that you were only dealing with one specific article, but I can tell you right now that all the other ones follow the same format (making a lot of claims that are supported by citations to external references). When you think about it, that’s really the only practical way they could do it.I have no problem citing external source AS LONG AS THE EXTERNAL SOURCES PROVIDE THE DATA AND THE LOGIC.
When I claimed it did not, it is because I went to the external source AND DIDN’T FIND IT. In one case, I cited a paragraph from the external source and explained that it didn’t have the data or logic to actually support the conclusion (which might be right or wrong, I don’t know because I can’t review the data and the logic!).
If all their articles lack mounds of data and logic to support their conclusions then, essentially, their argument is “trust us, not the debunkers.”
Now, they may be right, but the logic they claim proves is false logic.
Data.
Logic.
If not presented, it is concealed.
Concealed data and logic can’t prove anything.
ashvin post=2679 wrote:
I agree.But the fact that you don’t “know” a claim (supported by reference to authority) is true does not mean you “know” the claim is logically false, i.e. inherently suspect.
I agree – just because the logic is bad doesn’t mean the conclusion is bad. That’s exactly why I repeated that fact throughout the first SS review – I didn’t want people to get confused on that point (and they do quite easily!).
However, I absolutely suspect any policy driven from “on high” because I KNOW, through other data and logic analysis, that the “money power” criminals have tremendous power and are driven to r*pe and pillage society under the guise of “do goodness.”
That’s there MO so I am suspect. Again, that doesn’t prove anything about their policy, the data and logic have to prove that.
For example, restricting carbon and then giving a “money power” corporate front an exemption is an example of using government power to eliminate their competition, create monopoly pricing for an insider business and portraying the tripling of power prices as “for the Earth” when these people are poisoning the planet with depleted uranium, pesticide facsimile “food,” toxic waste in the water, etc…
If they really cared about the environment, they wouldn’t be spreading their military industrial waste across the planet as fast as they possibly can. If they really cared about carbon, they wouldn’t create fake reasons to go to war – probably the worst single cause of carbon emissions.
Again, just because the policy makers are criminals and liars doesn’t mean that the Earth isn’t warming because of CO2 (or, potentially, thousands of hundreds of other elements or pollutants).
I seriously can’t reach a conclusion without the data and supporting logic.
However, information has come out that there has been no significant global warming to a 95% confidence level.
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
I also know that the headline is misleading (it wasn’t a U-turn) and that people who cite this as proof global warming isn’t occurring are doing so falsely.
But I also don’t recall anyone of the global warming proponents back in the mid 90s saying, “watch out, we are looking at just under significant warming at a 95% confidence level if we spew out more man carbon dioxide than ever before over the next 15 years.”
I do recall, something about “hockey stick” alarmism, though. Oh, but that data “disappeared.”
Ash, do you know why, for example, something like Linux can’t “disappear?”
Because it is open and there are millions of copies of it. If ONE person loses it, millions of others have it.
So, basically, they were asking us to believing one person who REFUSED to release the data for open discovery and transparency?
Call that approach what you will, but it isn’t the path to TRUTH for the masses. But it does work very well for insiders who only have to find one insider’s price tag to get their agenda through.
Isn’t that always the preferred method of corrupt people – consolidate power as narrowly as possible and then dictate “reality” to the proles?
Anyway, I don’t trust the “establishment.” If they said the sky was blue and I could look up and see the blue sky, I’d probably take pictures and video with multiple cameras just to make sure.
These criminals have toxified the food (people ASSUME based on AUTHORITY they wouldn’t do that). They’ve toxified the water (again, people ASSUME the AUTHORITY wouldn’t do that, but they do).
The flu shot appears to be every bit of a hoax as ingesting hydrofluorosilicic Acid toxic waste, as well as the 100s of toxins that can accompany it… including radioactive isotopes.
Even though the EPA scientists (“the authority”) has come out and opposed water fluoridation until the data and logic can actually support the policy, they are ignored by the criminals who profit from toxifying our water (toxic waste is profit center now, not cost center), the long term illnesses this policy generates and the generally reduced IQ of the population that has been linked to this practice (easier to deceive (with Appeal to Authority? 😉 and rip off people who are less intelligent).
Once deceived, shame on them. Twice deceived, shame on me.
TheTrivium4TW post=2690 wrote: I think you believe the argument is undermined because you don’t understand what I actually argued. I NEVER argued that any of the claims presented were false. Never. I never claimed they were true.
What I claimed was that logical fallacy was used (just trust us, we don’t need to present the actual data and logic or links to it – that’s a logical fallacy – call it whatever name you like!) to allegedly prove certain claims – and that the logic, being logical fallacy, didn’t actually establish what the article said it did.
…
So, no – my review wasn’t undermined at all given that I didn’t even offer a conclusion as to validity of the conclusions.
The way to undermine my review is simple, though. I made quite a few very specific claims following the format of, “A was claimed by article, data B and logic C was not presented to support claim A, therefore, we must simply trust in the “authority” of the article author and that is a logical fallacy.”
In order to undermine one of those claims, all one has to do is find where the article actually provides the data B and logic C where I claim it was not presented.
That ought to be a very simple task, IF IT EXISTS. I didn’t find it when I said I didn’t find it, but I make mistakes. I’ve reread a few posts of mine and the grammar and misspelling errors have been more than a few – not intentional, but errors do creep in when I’m knee deep in stuff I’m trying to do.
I know what you were arguing. You did not claim the arguments were true or false. You claimed that they were inherently suspect due to the fact that they were logically fallacious, which you later admitted to mean something much different and more broad than the actual definition of “logical (ATA) fallacy” (now you have somehow managed to claim that the original concept of ATA fallacy is an ATA fallacy…..)
In my responses to you on the other thread, I did explain to you where the data/logic for the claims were presented, and how those referenced papers actually did provide the reasoning behind the specific claims in the article. I have no idea why you still believe those sources were inadequate – please feel free to explain.
I have no problem citing external source AS LONG AS THE EXTERNAL SOURCES PROVIDE THE DATA AND THE LOGIC.
When I claimed it did not, it is because I went to the external source AND DIDN’T FIND IT. In one case, I cited a paragraph from the external source and explained that it didn’t have the data or logic to actually support the conclusion (which might be right or wrong, I don’t know because I can’t review the data and the logic!).
Yes, I remember that, and I remember responding that the paragraph you cited actually did explain how they reached the conclusion, along with other surrounding paragraphs in that same section of the paper. Once again, I have no idea why you find the “data/logic” presented to be inadequate.
I agree – just because the logic is bad doesn’t mean the conclusion is bad. That’s exactly why I repeated that fact throughout the first SS review – I didn’t want people to get confused on that point (and they do quite easily!).
No, that’s not what I said or meant. What I said was that just because you personally cannot be sure whether what’s being claimed is true (no one can ever know anything with confidence without first exploring many different sources and reflecting critically), doesn’t mean the claim is automatically a logically false one (bad logic). That seems to be a big part of your thinking re: ATA logical fallacies.
However, information has come out that there has been no significant global warming to a 95% confidence level.
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
I also know that the headline is misleading (it wasn’t a U-turn) and that people who cite this as proof global warming isn’t occurring are doing so falsely.
The article you linked seems to be a compilation and cesspool of AGW denier arguments that have been found to be 99-100% bogus.
I think SS itself deals with many of those arguments (“climategate” emails, hockey stick “alarmism”, climate has changed before, statistically insignificant warming, no significant warming since 1995, etc. etc.) adequately at these links:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jones-says-no-global-warming-since-1995.htm (anyone who understands short-term variance in data sets should be able to debunk this skeptic argument)
Oh, and remember when you said that the “climate has been warmer before, and therefore is not man-made now” AGW skeptic argument was very weak and a straw man to use?? Well, the article you just linked to for support uses that exact argument:
“Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.”
RBM,
Several reasons really, for the sake of brevity a combination of aging eyes, mid-life crisis, professional and family duties, multi-dimensional information overload cul-de-sac. etc
I had been reading 300 pages a day, non-fiction, for 25 years, everything started to remind me of everything else, so a break was needed.
My Big Toe is kinda the place where I got off the train so it’s a good place to get back on. I like the humourous approach, my wife who usually only reads medical and health care books started reading book one after I finished it yesterday and commented on the enjoyable writing style.
I am a private tutor for first year uni students (physics, maths, chemistry, human biology) and understand the necessity for Repetition in Retention and Understanding.
Anyway I’m probably rambling like an old fellow and Triv and Ash need the space for gnawing on their respective bones. Bad doggie, Sit doggie, Eat the postman doggie (spells Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis).:)
Triv,
I’ve been doing my best to read all the way through your posts. I’m sure there is a way to sum it up in fewer words. Data, logic, blah blah blah.Though I have to agree with you on this:
I’ve reread a few posts of mine and the grammar and misspelling errors have been more than a few – not intentional, but errors do creep in when I’m knee deep in stuff I’m trying to do.
But this is not a fault, we all are short on time. As someone, somewhere once said: “If I had more Time, I would have written you a Shorter letter”. See I have to appeal to Google to get on authority the authorship of that quote and apparently everyone has said it. Because afterall, ‘brevity is the soul of wit’.
And then out of no-where I came across this gem:
Anyway, I don’t trust the “establishment.” If they said the sky was blue and I could look up and see the blue sky, I’d probably take pictures and video with multiple cameras just to make sure.
Truer words, never spoken. You’ve firmly established yourself as THE uber skeptic here at TAE, though Ash might take issue with me crowning you as such. And we can all use a little brush up on the basis of ATA. Hell I make all my shopping decision on likely baseless ATA every time I refer to the ingredients on the box. Thanks for the refresher…
So, as I went back over your writing for a 3rd time just to make sure I wasn’t missing anything, I realized something else had creeped into your writing, ART:
I know the oligarchs are using the good intentions of many environmentally minded people to promote their societal face ripping policies.
I mean wow that is art!
societal face ripping policies.
Keep it up!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.