US Officially Blames Russia

[caveman1917]

Agreed. His notion that Bayesianism is how we should reason when we have incomplete information is bizarre. It is simply impossible for humans to behave thus, however interesting it is as a normative theory of ideal agents or as a program for expert systems.

Impossible for humans to use Bayesian inference? I can give you tons of papers (written by humans) which refute that.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Abby is on fire.

 

[phiwum]

But we aren't getting testimony. We're getting government agency heads or journalists telling us that unnamed persons who are experts have information that cannot be disclosed which gives them a 'high degree of confidence' that their proposed conclusions are true. Remember, government agency heads and CEOs go to Congress so we can see our representatives really kick up a fuss at them and shake their fists and show us what responsible stewards of the public interest they are.

I'm using the word "testimony" in quite a wide sense. If someone tells me that X, then I have received testimony that X. Of course, being told both X and evidence for X would be preferable.

I, like you, have no problem calling the Russian allegations probable and/or plausible.

I guess the underlying tension for me is that there's a different response in geopolitical terms for 'probable' vs. 'proven'. However, given Trump's callous attitude towards the issue, there isn't likely to be a hot-headed overreaction (well, not in that direction anyways).

There is a difference between probable and proved, but let's keep in mind that the persons who decide what our reaction will be have seen the evidence. Therefore, it may be rather closer to proved in their estimation. (Of course, I'm pretending that the reaction will be determined by rational beings, rather than Trump.)

 

[phiwum]

Of course. I'm not the one with the addled understanding here.



It doesn't entail that we should reject them. How does all this even work in your head?

"The moon is made of cheese therefor 2 + 2 = 4." This is a fallacy, therefor we should reject that 2 + 2 equals 4?

Pardon my terseness, which led to a misleading expression.

What I mean is that a fallacious argument should not change our opinion about the truth (or probability) of the conclusion.

That would be false.

Oh? What "meaningful reasoning can you point to, aside from the couple of examples of trivial equations or references to deductive logic?

The burden of proof would be on the one claiming the CIA to be "trustworthy". I am perfectly free to argue that one should use a better standard than informal reasoning for this "trustworthiness", as well as using informal reasoning to contradict the claim of its "trustworthiness".

Sorry, this burden of proof argument is utter nonsense, with no reasoning behind it. In any case, I've said that I don't plan on trying to persuade you that the CIA is trustworthy. It would be a fool's errand.

 

[phiwum]

Yes of course. I'm not the one with the problem distinguishing between "fallacious argument" (ie there exists at least one interpretation under which the premises are true and the conclusion false) and "unreasonable argument".

Not the definition of "fallacious argument", of course, except when we speak of fallacies in deductive logic (and there, we usually do not refer to invalid arguments as fallacious).

But now you are defending your bizarre view on fallacies by claiming that some fallacious arguments are "reasonable". How strange!

Yeah, sure. I'm pretty much the only one here who even seems interested in checking these claims (looking up malware source-code and what-have-you-not) as well as countering ideology-based reasoning, so clearly I am the one who doesn't care about reaching a reasonable conclusion.



I'd much rather you stop substituting ideology for evidence. You want to argue that we should trust intelligence agencies? Then provide empirical evidence for it.

I've told you a couple times that I want to argue no such thing. Our discussion is about introductory concepts of basic reasoning.

Note that any "empirical evidence" I could provide, just like yours, would be appeal to authority, one of those arguments you call fallacious in all cases, but reasonable sometimes.

 

[phiwum]

Impossible for humans to use Bayesian inference? I can give you tons of papers (written by humans) which refute that.

It is impossible to use Bayesianism as the means of reaching conclusions in every aspect of one's life. It is not a practical means of reasoning when we are walking down the street, driving a car or watching the news. This is because:

(1) It is impossible for humans to actually specify a probability distribution over the set of all propositions, or even the finite portion we will need in our finite lives.

(2) It is impossible for humans to provide updates to this distribution every time some bit of information comes in.

It is impossible for humans to reason using purely Bayesian methods in their daily lives. Of course they can reason using Bayesianism where the set of propositions is small and not constantly updated, but not in the sense in which we constantly need to make decisions.

 

[caveman1917]

Sorry, this burden of proof argument is utter nonsense, with no reasoning behind it.

The burden of proof of someone's "trustworthiness" is on the one making the claim of someone's "trustworthiness"? If that is "utter nonsense with no reasoning behind it" then that makes it all the easier for me:

I declare Alex Jones to be an "appropriate" authority, thereby not incurring a burden of proof, and since I've declared him "appropriate" I can appeal to his authority without it being fallacious. This authority makes a claim about the existence of fish people, but there is no evidence because his source would prefer not to reveal himself:


Appealed to authority? Check.
Declared the authority to be "appropriate"? Check.
Gave a rationalization for why the evidence isn't provided? Check.

Well then... Accept the fish people!

In any case, I've said that I don't plan on trying to persuade you that the CIA is trustworthy.

Then I do not see a reason to continue this conversation.

 

[phiwum]

The burden of proof of someone's "trustworthiness" is on the one making the claim of someone's "trustworthiness"?

I am not intending to persuade you that the reasons for my conclusion are good. I don't think I can persuade you of that. Therefore, I have no burden of proof at all.

You do seem to try to persuade me that the CIA is untrustworthy. Thus, you might have a burden, but I won't hold you to it, because it is not a conversation I wish to have.

Our discussion was more basic. It was about your addled notions regarding certain fallacies.

Then I do not see a reason to continue this conversation.

We've talked about quitting long enough. Let's do it.

 

[caveman1917]

Our discussion was more basic. It was about your addled notions regarding certain fallacies.

My notions aren't addled, on the contrary. I just prefer my notions and definitions to be precise.

We've talked about quitting long enough. Let's do it.

May I suggest that further such discussions might be more productive if you didn't go into "teaching mode" where you apparently just assume that someone criticizing or rejecting your statements must be doing so because of having "addled notions"?

 

[logger]

Rush just said with respect to the Russians, "he's never seen the Democrats this mad since Lincoln freed the slaves".

 

[Belz...]

Evidence? For all we know it doesn't exist, it could have been fabricated, pulled out of context, or any other number of possibilities.

While true, would you ever accept that some evidence gathered by intelligence should remain classified for good reasons?

 

[Belz...]

A few senators in the US does not constitute an oracle, no matter how "bipartisan" they may be.

Which now raises the question: since you're not an Oracle either, what would it change if the information was declassified?

 

[JihadJane]

Which now raises the question: since you're not an Oracle either, what would it change if the information was declassified?

It's doubtful that there is any such information.

 

[phiwum]

My notions aren't addled, on the contrary. I just prefer my notions and definitions to be precise.



May I suggest that further such discussions might be more productive if you didn't go into "teaching mode" where you apparently just assume that someone criticizing or rejecting your statements must be doing so because of having "addled notions"?

Look, I can see that you have some familiarity with formal and probabilistic methods (and your familiarity with the latter exceeds mine). But it is clear that you haven't a clue when it comes to norms about actual reasoning of actual (non-idealistic) humans. Hell, I have only half a clue, but at least I don't pretend that if it's not Bayesian (or similar) then it's not "meaningful".

I appreciate your technical background, but not your utter ignorance on how real persons living real lives must make decisions, nor on your ridiculous impression of the meaning of "fallacy" in the non-formal world.

 

[Belz...]

You and several others in this thread need to do themselves a favor and repeat the following: "I don't have a clue about who hacked the DNC. There is no evidence available to us proving who hacked the DNC. My trust in the conclusions of the intelligence community are entirely an appeal to authority."

Precisely the position I take on science: I don't understand half of all those weird equations and arcane data, and I certainly don't trust the scientific "authorities" (i.e. people who can say whatever they want and no one can decode their made-up theories). Go with your guts, I say!

 

[Belz...]

Because the "community" is corrupt?

How would you even know that?

Why not?

Unholy mother of Hell, man, this is one of the founding principles of rational thinking.

Being a skeptic sometimes means the answer is , "I don't know and neither do you."

Perhaps, though some here seem to be taking this approach simply to avoid reaching conclusions they don't find convenient.

 

[phiwum]

Precisely the position I take on science: I don't understand half of all those weird equations and arcane data, and I certainly don't trust the scientific "authorities" (i.e. people who can say whatever they want and no one can decode their made-up theories). Go with your guts, I say!

If I may edit your post, it was a good rejoinder up until the part I struck out. The Animus was advocating agnosticism, not arbitrary judgment.

Others will try to claim there's a difference with science, but there really isn't for the great bulk of us. You and I either cannot or have very, very good reasons not to try to replicate experiments. How many years work before I gain access to an electron microscope? So, even for most scientists, the great bulk of scientific claims come down to appeal to authority, at some level.

 

[Belz...]

I am free to assign "trust" to him, making him an "appropriate authority", so by your own argument you should now believe that we have immortal souls.

No, that isn't Upchurch's argument at all. You don't pick authorities out of a *********** hat. What you are doing now is engaging in anti-intellectualism, exactly as Upchurch mentioned.

If anyone's a proponent of conspiracy theories it would be the US government and intelligence agencies. For goodness' sake, the claim under consideration is a conspiracy theory.

No, that's not what "conspiracy theory" means.

It's doubtful that there is any such information.

Why?

 

[Belz...]

If I may edit your post, it was a good rejoinder up until the part I struck out. The Animus was advocating agnosticism, not arbitrary judgment.

Only because the conclusion reached would be inconvenient to him, which leads back to the "guts" part.

 

[caveman1917]

While true, would you ever accept that some evidence gathered by intelligence should remain classified for good reasons?

I don't really see how this is relevant. The point is that the evidence is not available, whether that is for "good" or "bad" reasons has no bearing on that.

Which now raises the question: since you're not an Oracle either, what would it change if the information was declassified?

It would be available for independent review and I would be able to also review it for myself.