4 ms·

> I don't know the particulars of the claims... You confess that you don't know anything about the subject at hand, > but I do know that... the wsj is barely

> I don't know the particulars of the claims... You confess that you don't know anything about the subject at hand, > but I do know that... the wsj is barely distinguishable from anti-government propaganda but you're happy to throw around an ad hominem attack on the site that published the story. Right.

x0x0 13y ago
ad hominem : rolleyes : known liars make all their analyses useless: you can't tell what crucial facts they elided or what quotes they selectively quoted; it's worse than uninformative, because you have to question every fact presented and go dig, as I said, for a first-party source to verify.
- graeme 13y ago
  The WSJ's rep, last time I checked, was a solid newsroom, and a insane, frothing at the mouth editorial team, with a strict wall between the two. Any evidence for the idea that the news section of the WSJ is corrupted so absolutely that they cannot be relied on in any story?
  - azm 13y ago
    Unfortunately this is in the Opinion section which has been known to be reliably frothing at the mouth, anti-goverment, ayn randian propaganda machine.
    - graeme 13y ago
      Oh, that does make a very big difference. I think it's trite to say 'ad hominem' in cases like this. Ad hominem refers to the quality of the reasoning. Here, we depend on the WSJ for the facts as well. If they are an untrustworthy source, that's very relevant.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- alextingle 13y ago
  > you have to question every fact presented and go dig Isn't that true of every assertion of "fact"? Perhaps it's because I'm British. Our press make no attempt to hide their political views.
- jbjohns 13y ago
  Interestingly you just quoted the very definition of ad hominem. What someone tends to say makes no statement about their current argument. You can choose to dismiss them out of hand because they tend to lie, but to claim that what they are currently saying is false because they are liars is a fallacy. Remember the boy who cried wolf? The take away from that story should be that every statement has to be evaluated in isolation.
  - lisper 13y ago
    > What someone tends to say makes no statement about their current argument. Not so. If someone has lied in the past, that is evidence that their conscience permits them to lie, and so they are more likely to lie in the future. > The take away from that story should be that every statement has to be evaluated in isolation. Again no. The takeaway is that you should not lie, because if you do people will be less likely to believe you in the future.
    - jbjohns 13y ago
      > Not so. If someone has lied in the past Fine. It makes no conclusive statement about their current argument. You still have to check it if you want to know if it's true or not. > The takeaway is that you should not lie, because if you do people will be less likely to believe you in the future. This is the over simplified view of the story. In my opinion, the subsequent attack on the village was 100% the fault of the others. The boy did his job and warned them of a wolf and they engaged in an ad hominem and dismissed his argument without even a cursory check. If they weren't willing or able to work with the boy then it's their fault again for giving him a job they didn't trust him to do.
      - lisper 13y ago
        You need to brush up on your Bayesian reasoning. In the story, the boy lies repeatedly before finally telling the truth once. If you do the math you will see that the villagers acted properly (or at least rationally). The Bayesian prior on P(wolf) is pretty small to begin with, and the posterior probability of P(wolf|boy-cries-wolf) gets smaller with every observation of ~wolf|boy-cries-wolf. You are being distracted by the fact that the data comes from a boy rather than an impersonal predictor like, say, some astrological sign. Your Bayesian prior on P(X|someone-says-X) is high, and that is as it should be. Evolution sees to it that people are basically honest. But evolution produces a lot of variation, including pathologies like lying. You're failing to update your estimate of P(Y-is-a-pathological-liar|Y-lied).

x0x0 13y ago

ad hominem : rolleyes : known liars make all their analyses useless: you can't tell what crucial facts they elided or what quotes they selectively quoted; it's worse than uninformative, because you have to question every fact presented and go dig, as I said, for a first-party source to verify.

graeme 13y ago
The WSJ's rep, last time I checked, was a solid newsroom, and a insane, frothing at the mouth editorial team, with a strict wall between the two. Any evidence for the idea that the news section of the WSJ is corrupted so absolutely that they cannot be relied on in any story?
- azm 13y ago
  Unfortunately this is in the Opinion section which has been known to be reliably frothing at the mouth, anti-goverment, ayn randian propaganda machine.
  - graeme 13y ago
    Oh, that does make a very big difference. I think it's trite to say 'ad hominem' in cases like this. Ad hominem refers to the quality of the reasoning. Here, we depend on the WSJ for the facts as well. If they are an untrustworthy source, that's very relevant.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
alextingle 13y ago
> you have to question every fact presented and go dig Isn't that true of every assertion of "fact"? Perhaps it's because I'm British. Our press make no attempt to hide their political views.
jbjohns 13y ago
Interestingly you just quoted the very definition of ad hominem. What someone tends to say makes no statement about their current argument. You can choose to dismiss them out of hand because they tend to lie, but to claim that what they are currently saying is false because they are liars is a fallacy. Remember the boy who cried wolf? The take away from that story should be that every statement has to be evaluated in isolation.
- lisper 13y ago
  > What someone tends to say makes no statement about their current argument. Not so. If someone has lied in the past, that is evidence that their conscience permits them to lie, and so they are more likely to lie in the future. > The take away from that story should be that every statement has to be evaluated in isolation. Again no. The takeaway is that you should not lie, because if you do people will be less likely to believe you in the future.
  - jbjohns 13y ago
    > Not so. If someone has lied in the past Fine. It makes no conclusive statement about their current argument. You still have to check it if you want to know if it's true or not. > The takeaway is that you should not lie, because if you do people will be less likely to believe you in the future. This is the over simplified view of the story. In my opinion, the subsequent attack on the village was 100% the fault of the others. The boy did his job and warned them of a wolf and they engaged in an ad hominem and dismissed his argument without even a cursory check. If they weren't willing or able to work with the boy then it's their fault again for giving him a job they didn't trust him to do.
    - lisper 13y ago
      You need to brush up on your Bayesian reasoning. In the story, the boy lies repeatedly before finally telling the truth once. If you do the math you will see that the villagers acted properly (or at least rationally). The Bayesian prior on P(wolf) is pretty small to begin with, and the posterior probability of P(wolf|boy-cries-wolf) gets smaller with every observation of ~wolf|boy-cries-wolf. You are being distracted by the fact that the data comes from a boy rather than an impersonal predictor like, say, some astrological sign. Your Bayesian prior on P(X|someone-says-X) is high, and that is as it should be. Evolution sees to it that people are basically honest. But evolution produces a lot of variation, including pathologies like lying. You're failing to update your estimate of P(Y-is-a-pathological-liar|Y-lied).