4 ms·

Not at all. Just criticizing his blanket statement, apparently used to justify "doubting the results of US elections": "doubting" just for the sake of doubting,

Not at all. Just criticizing his blanket statement, apparently used to justify "doubting the results of US elections": "doubting" just for the sake of doubting, particularly when it feeds into narratives being driven by trolls, disinformation and hidden agendas, doesn't do Democracy or Truth any service. I'm going to go ahead and assume that the people in question (that are doubting the results of the US elections) are rather "skeptical" towards (so called) mainstream media, but not as much when it comes to the random crap on fox news, ann, youtube and facebook. If this is the case, then this makes them more "useful idiots" than actual "skeptics", in my opinion. TL;DR: "Doubting blindly" (usually based on whatever Fox News or 4chan is spreading today) is as at least as bad as "trusting blindly".

Chris2048 5y ago
> particularly when it feeds into narratives This shouldn't matter, otherwise you'll succumb to false-flags and Reverse psychology. In any case, the post you responded to doesn't say anything about fox news. Any basing an opinion on fox news isn't "Doubting blindly"; it would be blind trust. Blind doubt aka scepticism is fine, because doubting something (with poor sources) isn't the same as assuming it's false - it's not assuming that it's true. Lack of a reason to trust US elections is justification to doubt them. The standard is (should be) that these things prove themselves, rather than put the burden of proof on outside observers. It's also worth noting the post that it was replying to said: > My university educated in laws in the UK are doubting the outcome of elections in the US which seems to take "doubting the outcome of elections" as automatically outrageous, without mention of reasons, sources or why.
- verygoodname 5y ago
  > In any case, the post you responded to doesn't say anything about fox news. I'm using "Fox News" as a placeholder for "media demonstrably known to propagate bald-faced lies". You can replace this with 4chan, youtube, facebook or wherever it is that those people get their "news" from. I'm going to assume they get their news from a bad source, due to the unsupported stuff they believe in; it may not be Fox News, but it's something just as bad (right-wing or left-wing). > Any basing an opinion on fox news isn't "Doubting blindly"; it would be blind trust. That's exactly my point. These (so called) "skeptics" (who are always doubting vaguely reasonable information sources) are usually intensely guillible people that have no problem blindly accepting information from demonstrably bad sources, particularly when is suits their own world views (i.e. not actual skeptics). > Blind doubt aka scepticism is fine, because doubting something (with poor sources) isn't the same as assuming it's false - it's not assuming that it's true. Again, as I said, "doubt" that comes with intellectual honesty is fine (i.e. you doubt but accept that you may be wrong and are willing to be corrected). "Doubt" that is based on simple ignorance (or unwillingness to figure things out), on the need to be contrarian, because it is convenient, because you think it makes you look smart, or because you are trusting horrible information sources is not. This second type of "doubt" is what I am calling "blind doubt" ("doubting for the sake of doubting" more often than not, and definitely for the wrong reasons). Should we teach "flat earth theory" and "intelligent design theory" in schools (you know... because we have to be skeptical of everything)? No, blind skepticism is not fine. > Lack of a reason to trust US elections is justification to doubt them. Ah, yes. Inverting the onus of proof is fun. Do you have any proof that you haven't stole my property? Then you must have stolen my property (or, at least, I lack a reason to trust that you haven't stolen my property)! This is fun! Meanwhile... number of pieces of evidence suggesting/demonstrating large-scale fraud in US election results: zero. But, hey... you do you. > which seems to take "doubting the outcome of elections" as automatically outrageous, without mention of reasons, sources or why Can you give me a good justification for doubting the results of said elections, using actual observed and widely accepted facts other than opinion (e.g. "I personally lack a reason to trust US elections" is not a good justification)? I have yet to hear anyone provide any actual arguments that would support it, and all the US judges that have been faced with the same issue seem to agree with my assessment, so... yes, I am going to assume that these people (and you, if that is the case) are "doubting" it for all the wrong reasons: not based on actual information, critical thinking and intellectual honesty, but the exact opposite of it (probably because "they heard something somewhere" or because the "wrong" person won).
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    > Should we teach "flat earth theory" No, because scepticism doesn't imply we should. > Ah, yes. Inverting the onus of proof is fun. You think the burden of proof isn't (or shouldn't be) on the government? Between your wilful "reading between the lines" based on your own biases, and smug insults ("But, hey... you do you"); I don't think this argument is going to go anywhere - I don't see the "accept that you may be wrong and are willing to be corrected" you talked about.

Chris2048 5y ago

> particularly when it feeds into narratives This shouldn't matter, otherwise you'll succumb to false-flags and Reverse psychology. In any case, the post you responded to doesn't say anything about fox news. Any basing an opinion on fox news isn't "Doubting blindly"; it would be blind trust. Blind doubt aka scepticism is fine, because doubting something (with poor sources) isn't the same as assuming it's false - it's not assuming that it's true. Lack of a reason to trust US elections is justification to doubt them. The standard is (should be) that these things prove themselves, rather than put the burden of proof on outside observers. It's also worth noting the post that it was replying to said: > My university educated in laws in the UK are doubting the outcome of elections in the US which seems to take "doubting the outcome of elections" as automatically outrageous, without mention of reasons, sources or why.

verygoodname 5y ago
> In any case, the post you responded to doesn't say anything about fox news. I'm using "Fox News" as a placeholder for "media demonstrably known to propagate bald-faced lies". You can replace this with 4chan, youtube, facebook or wherever it is that those people get their "news" from. I'm going to assume they get their news from a bad source, due to the unsupported stuff they believe in; it may not be Fox News, but it's something just as bad (right-wing or left-wing). > Any basing an opinion on fox news isn't "Doubting blindly"; it would be blind trust. That's exactly my point. These (so called) "skeptics" (who are always doubting vaguely reasonable information sources) are usually intensely guillible people that have no problem blindly accepting information from demonstrably bad sources, particularly when is suits their own world views (i.e. not actual skeptics). > Blind doubt aka scepticism is fine, because doubting something (with poor sources) isn't the same as assuming it's false - it's not assuming that it's true. Again, as I said, "doubt" that comes with intellectual honesty is fine (i.e. you doubt but accept that you may be wrong and are willing to be corrected). "Doubt" that is based on simple ignorance (or unwillingness to figure things out), on the need to be contrarian, because it is convenient, because you think it makes you look smart, or because you are trusting horrible information sources is not. This second type of "doubt" is what I am calling "blind doubt" ("doubting for the sake of doubting" more often than not, and definitely for the wrong reasons). Should we teach "flat earth theory" and "intelligent design theory" in schools (you know... because we have to be skeptical of everything)? No, blind skepticism is not fine. > Lack of a reason to trust US elections is justification to doubt them. Ah, yes. Inverting the onus of proof is fun. Do you have any proof that you haven't stole my property? Then you must have stolen my property (or, at least, I lack a reason to trust that you haven't stolen my property)! This is fun! Meanwhile... number of pieces of evidence suggesting/demonstrating large-scale fraud in US election results: zero. But, hey... you do you. > which seems to take "doubting the outcome of elections" as automatically outrageous, without mention of reasons, sources or why Can you give me a good justification for doubting the results of said elections, using actual observed and widely accepted facts other than opinion (e.g. "I personally lack a reason to trust US elections" is not a good justification)? I have yet to hear anyone provide any actual arguments that would support it, and all the US judges that have been faced with the same issue seem to agree with my assessment, so... yes, I am going to assume that these people (and you, if that is the case) are "doubting" it for all the wrong reasons: not based on actual information, critical thinking and intellectual honesty, but the exact opposite of it (probably because "they heard something somewhere" or because the "wrong" person won).
- Chris2048 5y ago
  > Should we teach "flat earth theory" No, because scepticism doesn't imply we should. > Ah, yes. Inverting the onus of proof is fun. You think the burden of proof isn't (or shouldn't be) on the government? Between your wilful "reading between the lines" based on your own biases, and smug insults ("But, hey... you do you"); I don't think this argument is going to go anywhere - I don't see the "accept that you may be wrong and are willing to be corrected" you talked about.