3 ms·

This is a classic example of a fallacious argument. Just because (whatever about Epstein, an n of 1) is true doesn't mean that JFK was assassinated by the mob o

This is a classic example of a fallacious argument. Just because (whatever about Epstein, an n of 1) is true doesn't mean that JFK was assassinated by the mob or anti-Communists, or that 9/11 was an inside job, or that US elections are routinely rigged, or that lizard people secretly run our government from inside of the hollow Earth or whatever. There's no connection between these claims- they still have to be evaluated separately

snapcaster 4y ago
Right, but if you find yourself (like me) dismissing MANY stories that sound "crazy" or like "conspiracy theories" but then turn out to be true at what point do you change your priors? I'm not saying you should update to "all conspiracies are true" I'm personally not sure how much I should update but it does seem like there is a hole in my world model that I keep making this mistake over and over (like everyone else)
- dwallin 4y ago
  This way madness lies. It's impossible to reach 100% accuracy when evaluating the veracity of a story, we are always operating with imperfect information. How critical you are of evidence helps sets the boundary for your range of reality but if you expand that sphere to make sure you don't leave out anything that might be true you are going to start including an increasingly large amount of things that aren't.
mistermann 4y ago
>> I always find it interesting how when these things get revealed, nobody seems to update their priors on "conspiracy theories" going forward. A couple weeks after these stories break it's back to making fun of "tinfoil hat" people and acting like it's all a big joke. I wonder if it's some kind of deep seated coping mechanism to refuse to update beliefs on stuff like that. > This is a classic example of a fallacious argument. Just because (whatever about Epstein, an n of 1) is true doesn't mean that JFK was assassinated by the mob or anti-Communists, or that 9/11 was an inside job, or that US elections are routinely rigged, or that lizard people secretly run our government from inside of the hollow Earth or whatever. There's no connection between these claims- they still have to be evaluated separately This is a classic example of a human being perceiving/describing reality in a way that is clearly and objectively not true....like, not even close. Here you are explicitly making a claim that someone has argued something that they have not actually argued. Your claim IS FALSE. And yet, you are criticizing the other person for "a fallacious argument". You do not only have it wrong, you have it BACKWARDS. My intuition is that you are not intentionally being deceptive, but rather have done this accidentally. I am curious to know whether believe my intuition to be correct, or have any other comments about what is taking place here today?
- hash872 4y ago
  >Your claim IS FALSE Because we discovered that- just like for literally of all human history preceding it- wealthy men do in fact like having sex with young prostitutes. This means that 'JFK was assassinated by the mob or anti-Communists, or that 9/11 was an inside job, or that US elections are routinely rigged, or that lizard people secretly run our government from inside of the hollow Earth or whatever' is more likely to be true now? Epstein allegations being true raises the odds of secret lizard people? Or slightly less facetiously, Epstein allegations being true raises the odds of 9/11 being an inside job? This is your assertion? Don't let me put words in your mouth, you tell me. Your healthy use of all caps um let's say confirms my priors about people who like conspiracy theories
  - mistermann 4y ago
    > Because we discovered that- just like for literally of all human history preceding it- wealthy men do in fact like having sex with young prostitutes. This means that 'JFK was assassinated by the mob or anti-Communists, or that 9/11 was an inside job, or that US elections are routinely rigged, or that lizard people secretly run our government from inside of the hollow Earth or whatever' is more likely to be true now? No, because you said: "This is a classic example of a fallacious argument. Just because (whatever about Epstein, an n of 1) is true doesn't mean that JFK was assassinated by the mob or anti-Communists, or that 9/11 was an inside job, or that US elections are routinely rigged, or that lizard people secretly run our government from inside of the hollow Earth or whatever. There's no connection between these claims- they still have to be evaluated separately", but no such argument was made. Making things up and attributing it to other people is an excellent rhetorical technique, and it is probably a lot of fun, but it is dishonest, and in this case: FALSE. If you disagree with this, can you note the specific text in this comment (the one you replied to) that contains the claims you say are there? >> I always find it interesting how when these things get revealed, nobody seems to update their priors on "conspiracy theories" going forward. A couple weeks after these stories break it's back to making fun of "tinfoil hat" people and acting like it's all a big joke. I wonder if it's some kind of deep seated coping mechanism to refuse to update beliefs on stuff like that Moving on.... > Your healthy use of all caps um let's say confirms my priors about people who like conspiracy theories I would enjoy hearing: a) How it is that my minor (3 words) usage of all caps confirms your priors about people who like conspiracy theories? b) What your priors on people who like conspiracy theories are?

snapcaster 4y ago

Right, but if you find yourself (like me) dismissing MANY stories that sound "crazy" or like "conspiracy theories" but then turn out to be true at what point do you change your priors? I'm not saying you should update to "all conspiracies are true" I'm personally not sure how much I should update but it does seem like there is a hole in my world model that I keep making this mistake over and over (like everyone else)

dwallin 4y ago
This way madness lies. It's impossible to reach 100% accuracy when evaluating the veracity of a story, we are always operating with imperfect information. How critical you are of evidence helps sets the boundary for your range of reality but if you expand that sphere to make sure you don't leave out anything that might be true you are going to start including an increasingly large amount of things that aren't.

mistermann 4y ago

>> I always find it interesting how when these things get revealed, nobody seems to update their priors on "conspiracy theories" going forward. A couple weeks after these stories break it's back to making fun of "tinfoil hat" people and acting like it's all a big joke. I wonder if it's some kind of deep seated coping mechanism to refuse to update beliefs on stuff like that. > This is a classic example of a fallacious argument. Just because (whatever about Epstein, an n of 1) is true doesn't mean that JFK was assassinated by the mob or anti-Communists, or that 9/11 was an inside job, or that US elections are routinely rigged, or that lizard people secretly run our government from inside of the hollow Earth or whatever. There's no connection between these claims- they still have to be evaluated separately This is a classic example of a human being perceiving/describing reality in a way that is clearly and objectively not true....like, not even close. Here you are explicitly making a claim that someone has argued something that they have not actually argued. Your claim IS FALSE. And yet, you are criticizing the other person for "a fallacious argument". You do not only have it wrong, you have it BACKWARDS. My intuition is that you are not intentionally being deceptive, but rather have done this accidentally. I am curious to know whether believe my intuition to be correct, or have any other comments about what is taking place here today?

hash872 4y ago
>Your claim IS FALSE Because we discovered that- just like for literally of all human history preceding it- wealthy men do in fact like having sex with young prostitutes. This means that 'JFK was assassinated by the mob or anti-Communists, or that 9/11 was an inside job, or that US elections are routinely rigged, or that lizard people secretly run our government from inside of the hollow Earth or whatever' is more likely to be true now? Epstein allegations being true raises the odds of secret lizard people? Or slightly less facetiously, Epstein allegations being true raises the odds of 9/11 being an inside job? This is your assertion? Don't let me put words in your mouth, you tell me. Your healthy use of all caps um let's say confirms my priors about people who like conspiracy theories
- mistermann 4y ago
  > Because we discovered that- just like for literally of all human history preceding it- wealthy men do in fact like having sex with young prostitutes. This means that 'JFK was assassinated by the mob or anti-Communists, or that 9/11 was an inside job, or that US elections are routinely rigged, or that lizard people secretly run our government from inside of the hollow Earth or whatever' is more likely to be true now? No, because you said: "This is a classic example of a fallacious argument. Just because (whatever about Epstein, an n of 1) is true doesn't mean that JFK was assassinated by the mob or anti-Communists, or that 9/11 was an inside job, or that US elections are routinely rigged, or that lizard people secretly run our government from inside of the hollow Earth or whatever. There's no connection between these claims- they still have to be evaluated separately", but no such argument was made. Making things up and attributing it to other people is an excellent rhetorical technique, and it is probably a lot of fun, but it is dishonest, and in this case: FALSE. If you disagree with this, can you note the specific text in this comment (the one you replied to) that contains the claims you say are there? >> I always find it interesting how when these things get revealed, nobody seems to update their priors on "conspiracy theories" going forward. A couple weeks after these stories break it's back to making fun of "tinfoil hat" people and acting like it's all a big joke. I wonder if it's some kind of deep seated coping mechanism to refuse to update beliefs on stuff like that Moving on.... > Your healthy use of all caps um let's say confirms my priors about people who like conspiracy theories I would enjoy hearing: a) How it is that my minor (3 words) usage of all caps confirms your priors about people who like conspiracy theories? b) What your priors on people who like conspiracy theories are?