9/11

Erfisflat

@goober, I like how you keep claiming that I'm ignoring your arguments, referencing the post I haven't responded to, after at least a dozen exchanges on the matter(s). At the same time, you've gone on another dozen or so posts with this fallacy of composition.

Erfisflat

http://lmgtfy.com/?t=i&q=Still+more+believable

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

You repeated - multiple times your “1000s” of scientists claims with no other account or context - presenting it as if I must believe your account because of the “1000s” of people.

That argument - which is the one I’m dealing with - is most definitely an argument from authority.


Whether your using the beliefs of this authority (they believe this, so this belief is valid), or you are using an argument (they agree with this argument, so the argument is valid), is merely a semantic difference.

If you’re trying to convince people on the basis of how many experts belief something - which is what you were doing - that is exactly what I said it is.


This is also, working on the unsubstantiated assumption that everyone on the list agrees with your argument. A claim that, like your others, has been refuted with examples of people who don’t seem to agree with your claims on that list.


If you recall - you claimed there were thousands of experts in relevant fields that agree with you.

I pointed out that you hadn’t supported this claim with any link or justification - and I doubted that this was true.

The only support for your claim were the two lists. Both of which was full of people not in relevant fields and one was full of non experts.

So the list doesn’t support your claim. Your argument fails.



How many theologians believe 9/11 was an inside job was largely irrelevant to whether or not there are 1000s of experts in relevant fields that believe the buildings couldn’t have come down on their own. As theologians are not in a relevant field of buildings.

How many pilots - again largely irrelevant for this argument - as they are not in a relevant field of buildings.

I’m not ignoring public officials, or pilots, or professors - I am stating that they are irrelevant to the argument you made, and how the sources you provided support them.

By all means, throw non experts, and non relevant fields into the mix, but by definition you’re just changing the argument.



Now, you claim that I have used the number 4113 with no explanation - or justification - which is obvious horsesh*t, as I’ve been explicit about it multiple times:

4113 is the number of AIA architects and civil engineers who voted in an AIA general meeting against a resolution suggesting further investigating of the collapse of the WTC wasn’t necessary.

It was effectively a vote as to whether there was any substance to your claims. 4113 voted no. That seems pretty specific and clear cut as to what the beliefs were.



Even more hilarious, is that you have flip flopped once again in this thread. This time on the burden of proof. Up until this reply your position was that you can post a list without any substantiation or justification - and the burden is on your opponent to refute every member of that list.

Now apparently, when someone else posts a list that you don’t like, the burden of proof is on them to prove and demonstrate every last detail on each member.


How is anyone supposed to take you seriously when you’ve contradicted yourself - not the first time - in the space of two posts. That’s why I pointed this out, and the previous one about spherical earth scientists: I can literally argue against you with your own arguments from earlier in the thread.

Erfisflat

Wow lost interest and time for the day. You've succeeded wasting my entire morning responding to red herrings. I really thought you would respond to the argument by now.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

Wow lost interest and time for the day. You've succeeded wasting my entire morning responding to red herrings. I really thought you would respond to the argument by now.

I’ve replied to all your points, with valid arguments:


1.) I’ve demonstrated your making an argument from authority. You've defended this with two arguments - that it’s okay because it’s a majority of experts (0.5% is not a majority), and that it’s okay because you offered an argument (using someone’s authority as a basis for credibility of an argument is still an argument from authority).

2.) I’ve demonstrated the claims you made about your expert support are not supported by the list you claimed as evidence. Instead of 1000s, it is possible that as few as 36 individuals on that list could be true experts - and as yet, other than telling me the list is accurate and shifting the burden of proof - you have offered no further defence.

3.) even were that not true, I’ve presented (and explained why they are relevant) 4113 architects who voted against your claims.


Now: you’ve flip flopped twice. Arguing that presenting thousands of experts is an argument from authority (spherical earth), but not if you do it for your conspiracy theories: and also now, claiming the burden of proof is on the person citing the list of experts - after going several posts claiming the opposite.


You’ve now tried changing your argument, and throwing in new points: all the whole regurgitating variants of the above refuted points throughout. 


Your position is incoherent and not credible. And given that you’re now capitulating your entire argument - which is basically you repeating what you’ve already said and telling us in very strong terms how great your rebuttal is, and how very wrong we all our - you’re doing a better job of showing everyone how invalid your position is than I could ever do on my own.

 

Erfisflat

"You repeated - multiple times your “1000s” of scientists claims with no other account or context - presenting it as if I must believe your account because of the “1000s” of people."

Are you going to quote mine me again on that? To say that I haven't presented any argument aside from that is dishonest.

"That argument - which is the one I’m dealing with - is most definitely an argument from authority."

Yes, the non fallacious kind. We've discussed this. The difference is the presence of an actual argument.

"Whether your using the beliefs of this authority (they believe this, so this belief is valid), or you are using an argument (they agree with this argument, so the argument is valid), is merely a semantic difference."

This is an unjustified claim, and illogical all the same. The difference is the presence of an actual argument, and of course, accountability. This was explained and sourced, and even misquoted by yourself.

"The only time such an argument won't be fallacious is when the consensus is one of individual authorities and thus the argument meets the same basic standards required of the general Argument from Authority. For example, an argument about the nature of lung cancer based upon the published opinions of most cancer researchers would carry real weight and would not be fallacious."

"Fallacious appeals to authority take the general form of:

• 1. Person (or people) P makes claim X. Therefore, X is true.

A fundamental reason why the Appeal to Authority can be a fallacy is that a proposition can be well supported only by facts and logically valid inferences. But by using an authority, the argument is relying upon testimony, not facts. A testimony is not an argument and it is not a fact."

Your response is that 4113 non-"individual authorities" (random, unnamed people with NO argument) have a supposedly alternate view in 2017, which isn't even a testimony, and involves zero facts. 

"If you’re trying to convince people on the basis of how many experts belief something - which is what you were doing - that is exactly what I said it is."

Actually, that is what this is:

"Last time I checked, 4113 > 3000."



"This is also, working on the unsubstantiated assumption that everyone on the list agrees with your argument. A claim that, like your others, has been refuted with examples of people who don’t seem to agree with your claims on that list."

All of them have a basic request, an independent investigation.


"If you recall - you claimed there were thousands of experts in relevant fields that agree with you."

Yes, that an independent investigation is warranted.

"I pointed out that you hadn’t supported this claim with any link or justification - and I doubted that this was true."

Quotes? References? Just randomly asserting things?

"The only support for your claim were the two lists. Both of which was full of people not in relevant fields and one was full of non experts."

Which claim? That an independent investigation is warranted? 

"So the list doesn’t support your claim. Your argument fails."

You are still referring to unknown claims. All of them agree that an independent investigation is warranted. There are several aspects of 9/11 that are being questioned. Several experts have spoken up about the fields of science they are experts in.



"How many theologians believe 9/11 was an inside job was largely irrelevant to whether or not there are 1000s of experts in relevant fields that believe the buildings couldn’t have come down on their own. As theologians are not in a relevant field of buildings."

A professor with a PHd would be an expert in the field of philosophy, exploring and identifying errors in logic. You could address any one of his arguments here and settle the matter instead of attacking sources because of an opposing world view.

"How many pilots - again largely irrelevant for this argument - as they are not in a relevant field of buildings.

"I’m not ignoring public officials, or pilots, or professors - I am stating that they are irrelevant to the argument you made, and how the sources you provided support them."

I have made several arguments, all backed by various experts, all with additional arguments, easily accessible. My initial and fundamental argument is that an independent investigation is warranted. This is based on a wide array of arguments, supported by experts in every field.

"By all means, throw non experts, and non relevant fields into the mix, but by definition you’re just changing the argument."

Not from the initial arguments, this is what is known as supporting evidence, you know, that which you lack? The (non-fallacious) appeal to authority from various fields of science and philosophy, including basic physics.



"Now, you claim that I have used the number 4113 with no explanation - or justification - which is obvious horsesh*t, as I’ve been explicit  bb lml .Pnabout it multiple times:"

Brain fart there? Did you call me bb?

"4113 is the number of AIA architects and civil engineers who voted in an AIA general meeting against a resolution suggesting further investigating of the collapse of the WTC wasn’t necessary."

...suggesting open and public support for a resolution, over a year ago, with no reasoning or logical argument available for discussion. It is literally an appeal to popularity in every sense of the word.

"It was effectively a vote as to whether there was any substance to your claims. 4113 voted no. That seems pretty specific and clear cut as to what the beliefs were."

Yes, that in 2017, the AIA didn't want involvement in questioning official statements, aka "conspiracy theories"... That does nothing for the individual arguments that the experts actually put forth, so far, irrefuted here.



"Even more hilarious, is that you have flip flopped once again in this thread. This time on the burden of proof. Up until this reply your position was that you can post a list without any substantiation or justification - and the burden is on your opponent to refute every member of that list."

I don't remember ever stating that, maybe you need some sleep . This may be some skewed interpretation of my position, with no justification or reference to anything in particular... Maybe a mined quote...

"Now apparently, when someone else posts a list that you don’t like, the burden of proof is on them to prove and demonstrate every last detail on each member."

Oo now there's a list? Present it so that we can at least verify a fraction of the "evidence" you stand by.


"How is anyone supposed to take you seriously when you’ve contradicted yourself - not the first time - in the space of two posts. That’s why I pointed this out, and the previous one about spherical earth scientists: I can literally argue against you with your own arguments from earlier in the thread."

Except for in the spherical earth, I can and have offered references to supporting scientific evidence, that refute the claims made about the imaginary testicle earth. You can't even offer a valid counter-argument, or opposing evidence aside from an outdated vote(appeal to poularity).

Had a bit more time than I thought, this seems to be your means of income, you certainly respond to every argument I make, even when they aren't directed at you within minute. I, on the other hand, have things to do.

Gooberry

The first and second examples are the whole quote in your reply.

The third and fourth is where you have repeated the claim.


You make unsupported accusations that I am not using your words accurately.

I am using your words accurately, almost quoting you verbatim repeatedly.

So - the claim that’s I am Quote mining is a dishonest lie from someone’s desperate to walk back a faulty claim.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

The 4113 AIA members held a vote concerning a resolution about your argument.

They voted against this resolution - which means they demonstrably didn’t agree with the resolution. Otherwise why not. The whole point of such resolutions is to gain a concensus from members positions.


This is the argument that shows the professional body of architects don’t support the positions of Ae911. I’ve made it several times - and your own response hasn’t been to state - that I have provided no justification.

Your claim is a lie.


In addition - yes it is an argument from authority - that’s the point. I am using it to counter your own argument from authority.

You are rejecting my argument from authority - and claiming your own is valid by demanding different burdens of proof for your claim, and my claim.

As shown, this is both incoherent and intellectually dishonest. And something you will not address.


In addition - as pointed out - your list of “experts” contain multiple individuals who simply want an investigation, and many more who show no information at all. Demanding I show this information, and yet refusing to defend your own on the same grounds is both incoherent and intellectually dishonest. Again - you have not addressed this, instead you’ve simply asserted I have the burden of proof and that your list is legitimate. Neither of which are true.

Gooberry

@Erfisflat

And finally, the last piece of nonsense deflection is exactly what I’m talking about.


You claim, that I have to refute the validity of your claims when it comes to expert counts.

You also claim that I have to prove the validity of my claims when it comes to expert counts.

You state it again in your reply - and then go on to say you never said the thing you literally said half a dozen lines before.

As I pointed out - you have flip flopped on the burden of proof with regards to list twice - this and
with regards to a possible list of scientists who believe in a spherical earth.


You keep denying that you’re flip flopping by repeating the incoherent flip flop.

Vehemently stating two inconsistent position and pretending they are not incoherent - doesn’t make them incoherent and thus far - your have offered nothing more than simple denials - or as above - lying about the arguments.



You are dishonestly, and repeatedly trying to oversell your position, relying less on your actual arguments (for which you have few - and you tend to drop if anyone offers any substantive challenge), and trying to puff up your position.

I have shown this is true: and all you have left are these intellectually dishonest arguments, peppered with objectively demonstrable lies.

Nathaniel_B

I was in 4th grade at that time. I remember my teacher put on the tv, and everybody in the classroom was quiet, I said "dayyyum is this a movie?" Everybody turned around and stared at me, the teacher looked like she was mad and had yelled at me "NO THIS IS FOR REAL" Then I stayed quiet. That was when she started crying, I heard on the loudspeaker that I was goin home, my mom had picked me up and she hugged and kissed me. I went home with a McDonald's and then I started playin my games, she and my father had told me that people from another country attacked us and they was usin planes to hit the buildings, and that's why they were smoking. I was so confused at that time, I ain't even know! But I fully knew about what was happenin when I was in 5th grade. My thoughts on the conspiracies? I think some of them make sense, like how explosives could have brought the buildings down, or that the Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane, and some others. Not all of them make sense, but some do.