US Officially Blames Russia

[Childlike Empress]

Strawman is full of straw.

You mean nobody made it appear that Russia was directly tampering with the election process? Not from what I gathered in the fog. Maybe nobody who can be held responsible for their claims said it directly. But are you seriously claiming that it wasn't included in the undertone of the propaganda campaign? Or is your rudimentary sentence just another bit of "fallacy calling" for effect?

 

[caveman1917]

Ugh. I don't mind arguing topics, but when it comes to continually explaining critical thinking, logic, and fallacies, it gets really old.

You are not explaining either critical thinking, logic, or fallacies. Quite the opposite.

Appealing to Einstein about Relativity is not necessarily a logical fallacy.

Yes it is.

Appealing to an authority is sometimes entirely appropriate and even necessarily.

You haven't even supported your claim that the people involved are authorities in the first place.

Read up on it sometime.

The never-ending arrogance of a specific branch of pseudo-skepticism.

 

[Upchurch]

You mean nobody made it appear that Russia was directly tampering with the election process? Not from what I gathered in the fog. Maybe nobody who can be held responsible for their claims said it directly. But are you seriously claiming that it wasn't included in the undertone of the propaganda campaign? Or is your rudimentary sentence just another bit of "fallacy calling" for effect?

Well, that's an interesting shift between two consecutive posts.

No, I was referring to your refutation of tampering with vote tallying. No one is suggesting that is how Putin was tampering.

 

[NoahFence]

You mean nobody made it appear that Russia was directly tampering with the election process? Not from what I gathered in the fog. Maybe nobody who can be held responsible for their claims said it directly. But are you seriously claiming that it wasn't included in the undertone of the propaganda campaign? Or is your rudimentary sentence just another bit of "fallacy calling" for effect?

You really don't appreciate how easy Trump makes it to pin this on your God putin, do you?

 

[Upchurch]

You are not explaining either critical thinking, logic, or fallacies. Quite the opposite.

Yes it is.

You haven't even supported your claim that the people involved are authorities in the first place.

The never-ending arrogance of a specific branch of pseudo-skepticism.

This is what I'm talking about. There isn't enough time in the day.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Well, that's an interesting shift between two consecutive posts.

No, I was referring to your refutation of tampering with vote tallying. No one is suggesting that is how Putin was tampering.

Shift? So why is that sentence in the report if no one suggested that kind of tampering (I can't believe you are seriously claiming that nobody suggested it, but, PTrumpSD™ can do a lot to people)?

 

[Upchurch]

Shift? So why is that sentence in the report if no one suggested that kind of tampering (I can't believe you are seriously claiming that nobody suggested it, but, PTrumpSD™ can do a lot to people)?

Who has suggested that Russia tampered with the vote tallying?

 

[caveman1917]

Yes, dear sir, they are.

No they are not.

Let's remember what a logical fallacy is, it is an argument such that the conclusion does not follow from its premises. Let A be some authority, let X be the claim made by said authority. Then an appeal to authority takes this form:

A says X => X is true.

This statement is valid iff it is true under every interpretation. So in order to show that this is not a fallacy, you have to show that there exists no interpretation under which "A says X" is true and "X is true" is false.

Else, you will have to expend ridiculous efforts to determine whether Hannibal lived, while forgoing all testimony to that fact, or decide that you just don't know.

I'm happy to say that I have a large degree of belief that Hannibal existed, because testimony I regard as reliable is overwhelming.

We weren't talking about Hannibal though.

This is not skepticism, but surrender.

What you're doing isn't skepticism but ideology. Had you attempted to establish this "authority" by objective means (testing their previous claims etc) one could say it might be skeptical. But you didn't, you argued it on purely ideological grounds (we should trust the government because it is "part of being governed", etc).

 

[phiwum]

You are not explaining either critical thinking, logic, or fallacies. Quite the opposite.



Yes it is.

No, appealing to reliable, trustworthy authorities is not a fallacy. You are simply wrong.

I could, of course, cite a half-dozen text books confirming my view, but you would call this appealing to authority (wrongly).

How do you intend to support your view? Don't get me wrong, repeating "yes it is" is a novel form of debate, not seen since The Argument Clinic, but it doesn't actually persuade.

Did Hannibal exist? What evidence (aside from the testimony of reliable sources, both contemporaneous and recent) could you provide to establish that he did? Or do you prefer to be in the dark on this matter?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Who has suggested that Russia tampered with the vote tallying?

I have no example handy. Prove a negative or at least explain why that sentence is in the report.

 

[Upchurch]

No they are not.

Let's remember what a logical fallacy is, it is an argument such that the conclusion does not follow from its premises.

No, that is a non sequitur, which is a logical fallacy, but not all logical fallacies. You are committing a sort of hasty generalization.

As I said, you should look it up.

 

[Upchurch]

I have no example handy. Prove a negative or at least explain why that sentence is in the report.

I can't prove a negative, but I've been hearing this same strawman on conservative media quite a bit based, largely I suspect, on a misunderstanding of the word "hacking". I imagine it was added because of that.

I suspect you'll be looking for quite a while before you do find an example. Thus, a strawman.

 

[caveman1917]

No, appealing to reliable, trustworthy authorities is not a fallacy.

We're talking about the US government and its intelligence agencies, nothing reliable or trustworthy. But even so, yes, it is still a fallacy.

You are simply wrong.

No I am really not. When will you show that, as per the previous post, there exists no interpretation under which "authority claims X" is true and "X is true" is false? For every instance of "authority" and "X" even.

I could, of course, cite a half-dozen text books confirming my view, but you would call this appealing to authority (wrongly).

Feel free to cite one.

How do you intend to support your view? Don't get me wrong, repeating "yes it is" is a novel form of debate, not seen since The Argument Clinic, but it doesn't actually persuade.

A bit silly since that's all you've done, whereas I have supported my argument in my previous post.

Did Hannibal exist? What evidence (aside from the testimony of reliable sources, both contemporaneous and recent) could you provide to establish that he did? Or do you prefer to be in the dark on this matter?

I don't particularly care whether Hannibal existed, nor is this particularly relevant. Unless you're going to claim that if someone accepts at least one claim based on authority that this someone is required to accept all claims based on all purported "authorities"?

 

[phiwum]

No they are not.

Let's remember what a logical fallacy is, it is an argument such that the conclusion does not follow from its premises. Let A be some authority, let X be the claim made by said authority. Then an appeal to authority takes this form:

A says X => X is true.

This statement is valid iff it is true under every interpretation. So in order to show that this is not a fallacy, you have to show that there exists no interpretation under which "A says X" is true and "X is true" is false.

You are confusing invalid deductive arguments with logical fallacies.

For instance, inductive reasoning is not fallacious. If one sees many swans, all of which are white, one is correct to conclude that it is probably the case that all swans are white. Of course, it may not be the case.

Similarly, if I have good reason to believe that A is an authority on X and good reason to believe that A is trustworthy regarding X, then A's saying that X is good reason to believe that X is probably true. It is not the case that X could not be false, but we're talking about a form of inductive reasoning here.

We weren't talking about Hannibal though.

Your claims about appeal to authority would apply to Hannibal as well.

What you're doing isn't skepticism but ideology. Had you attempted to establish this "authority" by objective means (testing their previous claims etc) one could say it might be skeptical. But you didn't, you argued it on purely ideological grounds (we should trust the government because it is "part of being governed", etc).

No, I trust that what these different intelligence agencies say is likely to be true, partly because of their agreement with one another and because they are likely to have methods for determining the truth. Moreover, they have shared their evidence with a bipartisan group of congressmen, all of whom treat it seriously.

Of course, I must admit that it is possible my conclusion is in error, but I am nonetheless persuaded that it is probable. It would be nicer to have access to the evidence, assuming that I have the technical wherewithal to understand it, but I know that this isn't the case here.

 

[caveman1917]

No, that is a non sequitur, which is a logical fallacy, but not all logical fallacies. You are committing a sort of hasty generalization.

As I said, you should look it up.

As suggested I looked things up on the authoritative source you suggested, Wikipedia. In the article on "Fallacy" I found the following:

According to Whately, logical fallacies are arguments where the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

To me this appears to be exactly what I said. In fact, as you may have seen, I've made this notion of "conclusion following from the premises" more precise as "there does not exist an interpretation in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false".

It would be much appreciated if your towering intellect could take some more time to explain to us, the ignorant, the illogical and the non-skeptical, this logic, critical thinking and skepticism you speak of?

 

[caveman1917]

I can't prove a negative

Why not?

 

[phiwum]

We're talking about the US government and its intelligence agencies, nothing reliable or trustworthy. But even so, yes, it is still a fallacy.



No I am really not. When will you show that, as per the previous post, there exists no interpretation under which "authority claims X" is true and "X is true" is false? For every instance of "authority" and "X" even.

Again, we are not speaking of deductive proof here. I fully admit that some appeal to authority leads to false conclusions, a trait common among all inductive arguments.

Really, first semester critical thinking here.

Feel free to cite one.

From Copi's Introduction to Logic (Sixth Printing, 1963):

The argumentum ad verecundiam is the appeal to authority, that is, to the feeling of respect people have for the famous, to win assent to a conclusion. This method of argument is not always strictly fallacious, for the reference to an admitted authority in the special field of his competence may carry great weight and constitute relevant evidence. If laymen are disputing over the question of physical science and one appeals to the testimony of Einstein on the matter, that testimony is very relevant. Although it does not prove the point, it certainly tends to confirm it. This is a relative matter, however, for if experts rather than laymen are disputing over a question in the field in which they themselves are experts, their appeal would be only to the facts and to reason, and any appeal to the authority of another expert would be completely without value as evidence.​

It goes on another two-thirds of a page from there, but I don't care to type any more. What is clear is that appeal to authority is not always fallacious, contrary to your claims.

A bit silly since that's all you've done, whereas I have supported my argument in my previous post.



I don't particularly care whether Hannibal existed, nor is this particularly relevant. Unless you're going to claim that if someone accepts at least one claim based on authority that this someone is required to accept all claims based on all purported "authorities"?

It was your claim that appeal to authority is always fallacious. Don't you recall?

If you'd like to amend that claim and say that the issue is instead whether intelligence agencies should be treated as reliable authorities, that would be a different matter, not one easy to settle and which comes down to a difference of opinion.

Let me close with a reminder what you said: appeal to authority is always fallacious. That's nonsense, a gross misunderstanding of informal logic/critical thinking.

The thing about appeals to authority is that they are only fallacies when appealing to inappropriate authorities.

No they aren't.

No, appealing to reliable, trustworthy authorities is not a fallacy. You are simply wrong.

We're talking about the US government and its intelligence agencies, nothing reliable or trustworthy. But even so, yes, it is still a fallacy.

 

[Upchurch]

As suggested I looked things up on the authoritative source you suggested, Wikipedia. [snip]

As I said, it is a kind of logical fallacy. It does not represent them all.

How's the reading up on appeal to authority going?

 

[phiwum]

As suggested I looked things up on the authoritative source you suggested, Wikipedia. In the article on "Fallacy" I found the following:


To me this appears to be exactly what I said. In fact, as you may have seen, I've made this notion of "conclusion following from the premises" more precise as "there does not exist an interpretation in which the premises are true and the conclusion is false".

It would be much appreciated if your towering intellect could take some more time to explain to us, the ignorant, the illogical and the non-skeptical, this logic, critical thinking and skepticism you speak of?

Wikipedia seems a bit imprecise in their description of fallacies. The sorts of fallacies we are primarily interested in here are fallacies of inductive arguments. Such arguments are only intended to establish that their conclusions are probable. When these arguments fail, they do so because the premises do not actually establish that their conclusion is probable.

Once again, deductive logic is different than inductive logic.

ETA: Why'd you look up "fallacy" instead of "appeal to authority"?

 

[caveman1917]

You are confusing invalid deductive arguments with logical fallacies.

Not quite, it's pretty much the definition of "logical fallacy".

For instance, inductive reasoning is not fallacious. If one sees many swans, all of which are white, one is correct to conclude that it is probably the case that all swans are white. Of course, it may not be the case.

That's what we have statistics or probabilistic reasoning for. But let's remember that your argument for believing the US government/intelligence isn't based on statistics.

Similarly, if I have good reason to believe that A is an authority on X and good reason to believe that A is trustworthy regarding X, then A's saying that X is good reason to believe that X is probably true. It is not the case that X could not be false, but we're talking about a form of inductive reasoning here.

Again, if that were the case then you have to provide us with estimates of likelihoods. Specifically, let E be "the US government & intelligence services say X is true" and H be "X is true", then you should provide us with P(E | H) and P(E | ~H).

Your claims about appeal to authority would apply to Hannibal as well.

True but irrelevant for the reason stated earlier. Even if someone accepts certain claims based on certain authorities doesn't mean someone should accept all claims based on all purported authorities.

No, I trust that what these different intelligence agencies say is likely to be true, partly because of their agreement with one another and because they are likely to have methods for determining the truth.

They also have methods for spreading disinformation and are known for their persistent use of such.

Moreover, they have shared their evidence with a bipartisan group of congressmen, all of whom treat it seriously.

Well, let's take a look at the pieces of evidence we have been given. First, some IP addresses which were used, which are Tor exit nodes. The basis for connecting this with Russia is that Russia is "associated" with these IP addresses. What it fails to mention is that everyone who tries to hide their identity on the internet is associated with Tor exit node IP addresses.

Suppose I walk up to a group of senators and provide them with the following evidence:

1. List of IP addresses used in hacking/phishing events.
2. Earlier recorded use of these IP addresses by Russia.

And of course I stay silent about everyone else also using these IP addresses. You think I could convince a bunch of random senators that these 2 pieces of information constitute evidence for associating the hacking/phishing events with Russia? I bet I could.

Of course, I must admit that it is possible my conclusion is in error, but I am nonetheless persuaded that it is probable.

Then argue your case based on a sound and empirical basis rather than an ideological one. Otherwise I don't see how you could expect other people to adopt that persuasion.