3 ms·
>Conspiracies happen so frequently on Wall St that “conspiracy theories” should be closer to a priori assumption than irrational fringe ideas. This is not good
by Traster 6y ago
>Conspiracies happen so frequently on Wall St that “conspiracy theories” should be closer to a priori assumption than irrational fringe ideas.
This is not good logic. There may be a lot of dodgy stuff going on and there may even be conspiracies, but even if you accept that there is a conspiracy that doesn't make it any more likely that the conspiracies being peddled by WSB are correct.
It's like I pick a card out of a deck, I tell you my card is 7 of spades but I have a history of lying. Most likely, the card isn't the 7 of spades. But that doesn't mean it's likely that the card is the 9 of diamonds. That's what this logic is saying - that it must be the (often clearly wrong) assertion simply because the only specific alternative is from someone you don't trust.
- cromka 6y agoWhat you described is called "ad hominem" fallacy.
- Traster 6y agoIt's absolutely not, I know nothing about the guy on WSB, it's not an attack against him to simply say that the average person on the internet claiming something extremely unlikely is just most likely lying.
- cromka 6y agoWhat I was referring to is this: "I tell you my card is 7 of spades but I have a history of lying. Most likely, the card isn't the 7 of spades. But that doesn't mean it's likely that the card is the 9 of diamonds." I suggested that such reasoning could, in a nutshell, be summarized as "ad hominem".