Need Help Confirming the Premise

[INRM]

Okay, I have two premises

Premise 1: I think this Occupy movements are astroturf -- it's just a larger scale and left-wing version of the tea-baggers.

How do you confirm this premise?:

Premise 2: Astroturfing is being increasingly used as a tool of political control whereby powerful interests identify discontented people and rather than allow them to create their own grass-roots movement (which could upset the status quo), they create astroturf movements to control the opposition.

How do you confirm this premise?:

 

[Piggy]

Okay, I have two premises

Premise 1: I think this Occupy movements are astroturf -- it's just a larger scale and left-wing version of the tea-baggers.

How do you confirm this premise?:

Premise 2: Astroturfing is being increasingly used as a tool of political control whereby powerful interests identify discontented people and rather than allow them to create their own grass-roots movement (which could upset the status quo), they create astroturf movements to control the opposition.

How do you confirm this premise?:

I don't think these can be premises. They are conclusions.

What you're asking for is evidence for a pair of conclusions.

For the first, you'd need to be able to trace some sort of funding or organizational support of the momevent, for instance, back to a large monied interest (e.g. the Koch brothers for the Tea Party movement).

For the second, you'd need to establish a previous baseline for astroturf activities, then find some sort of measure for the present level of astroturfing, and compare the two.

 

[INRM]

Piggy

What you're asking for is evidence for a pair of conclusions.

Understood

For the first, you'd need to be able to trace some sort of funding or organizational support of the momevent, for instance, back to a large monied interest (e.g. the Koch brothers for the Tea Party movement).

Has anything popped up? I know Davidowitz and Associates which are a retail and banking firm did speak in support of them, but I don't know if it's enough.

For the second, you'd need to establish a previous baseline for astroturf activities, then find some sort of measure for the present level of astroturfing, and compare the two.

You have some examples (this is a lot of information to comb through)

 

[Piggy]

Your question was "how do you confirm" your claims.

That's what I was responding to.

If, instead, you're really asking if other people can confirm those claims, for my part the answer is "No."

And frankly, given the nature of the Occupy Whatever movement, I don't see that any astroturfing is necessary.

Not to say it's not there... I don't know if it is or it isn't... but so far I haven't seen any evidence of it.

Then again, I'm not really following the whole thing that closely, I must admit.

 

[Alan]

How do you think the ideas could be falsified?

 

[Jeff Corey]

Why is this in Education? Are we supposed to define "premise" and say it will be on the test?

 

[INRM]

Alan

The conclusion could be falsified if it was proven that they were wrong.

 

[Alan]

I was looking for something more specific, but okay.

 

[balrog666]

Okay, I have two premises

Premise 1: I think this Occupy movements are astroturf -- it's just a larger scale and left-wing version of the tea-baggers.

How do you confirm this premise?:

Premise 2: Astroturfing is being increasingly used as a tool of political control whereby powerful interests identify discontented people and rather than allow them to create their own grass-roots movement (which could upset the status quo), they create astroturf movements to control the opposition.

How do you confirm this premise?:

1. Just look at the advertising to hire people to be OWS-stooges. Some of those crazies are being paid $800/week for their camping trips.

2. It's just bang for the buck when the lamestream media will continuously report whatever silliness you stage for them.

 

[Spindrift]

1. Just look at the advertising to hire people to be OWS-stooges. Some of those crazies are being paid $800/week for their camping trips.

2. It's just bang for the buck when the lamestream media will continuously report whatever silliness you stage for them.

Really, can you point to one of the advertisements? Sounds like something I might be interested in.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The conclusion could be falsified if it was proven that they were wrong.

No way. There is no reason to assume a proposition is true unless it can be proven wrong.

Are you familiar with the term apologetics? That's where you start with a conclusion you believe in dogmatically, and then try to construct a logical argument that will lead to it. This approach to logic has famously led to some seriously flawed arguments.

The skeptical approach is to start with the evidence and see where it leads you. If you wish to apply this approach to deductive (rather than scientific or inductive reasoning), you at least should start with premises (perhaps observations) and then see where it leads you.

Why do you believe the conclusions you believe? If you have any reasons, those may point you toward the argument you're looking for. But if you don't find any reason to believe them, it's better to drop them.

 

[Spindrift]

No way. There is no reason to assume a proposition is true unless it can be proven wrong.

Are you familiar with the term apologetics? That's where you start with a conclusion you believe in dogmatically, and then try to construct a logical argument that will lead to it. This approach to logic has famously led to some seriously flawed arguments.

The skeptical approach is to start with the evidence and see where it leads you. If you wish to apply this approach to deductive (rather than scientific or inductive reasoning), you at least should start with premises (perhaps observations) and then see where it leads you.

Why do you believe the conclusions you believe? If you have any reasons, those may point you toward the argument you're looking for. But if you don't find any reason to believe them, it's better to drop them.

BTW: "It sounds reasonable to me." and "It makes sense to me." are NOT good reasons.

 

[Piggy]

It's just bang for the buck when the lamestream media will continuously report whatever silliness you stage for them.

Sarah? Is that you?

 

[daredelvis]

Really, can you point to one of the advertisements? Sounds like something I might be interested in.

He will have nothing more than a screen capture of a craigslist ad.

Daredelvis

 

[stokes234]

Okay, I have two premises

Premise 1: I think this Occupy movements are astroturf -- it's just a larger scale and left-wing version of the tea-baggers.

How do you confirm this premise?:

Premise 2: Astroturfing is being increasingly used as a tool of political control whereby powerful interests identify discontented people and rather than allow them to create their own grass-roots movement (which could upset the status quo), they create astroturf movements to control the opposition.

How do you confirm this premise?:

George Monbiot makes similar claims about movements including the tea party, and he backs it up with evidence:

http://www.monbiot.com/2010/10/25/toxic-brew/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis.../13/astroturf-libertarians-internet-democracy
http://www.monbiot.com/2010/12/13/reclaim-the-cyber-commons/
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/02/23/robot-wars/

I occasionally have to help out a company that does a similar thing online, but for marketing purposes rather than along political lines. It does not sit well with me, but i'm not in a position where I can object to it at present

 

[timhau]

How do you think the ideas could be falsified?

By posting them on the interweb and telling other people to get on with the job?

 

[INRM]

@stokes234

Thank you for all those links.

 

[Gazpacho]

Premise 1: I think this Occupy movements are astroturf -- it's just a larger scale and left-wing version of the tea-baggers.

Can you identify their funding sources and channels? Can you identify their propaganda channels? Can you show that the financial backers control those propaganda channels? Can you show that messages are being pushed through them and consistently acted upon? Can you explain how belief in those messages serves the financial backers? Can you identify the recruiting and training operations?