MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Principles of Applied Epistemology (APPLIED EPISTEMOLOGY)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You could start by not citing Huffpost. Liars, liars, liberal pants on fire. I trust you weren't relying on them for

Is it really likely that 90% of Republican voters and 20% of Democrat voters would subscribe to an idea that is so contemptuous?

Just doing my part to fight everyone, as any good Applied Epistemologist should. Why don't you join us?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Rasmussen.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

English only, Ishmael. Rasmüssen yourself.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I hesitate to keep this going. I have no faith that it is possible to break through the cognitive disonance. But here is a video that presents a rational case. I don't say convincing. Don't be convinced, if that's where you are intellectually. That's fair.

But what I won't accept is the insistence that this case is so ridiculous that it deserves no hearing whatsoever.

As for my own position, I find this computer evidence intriguing. But, as Peter Navarro demonstrates. the law-breaking and constitutional violations alone were sufficient to completely reverse the election. I prefer to stay out of the computer analysis because it simply isn't necessary.

But what I do know is that this is decent evidence and a rational argument. And anyone telling you otherwise is not presenting information to you in good faith.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You keep missing the point. AE says you can believe the presidential election was rigged if you wish. AE also say that I or anyone else here can believe you're barking mad (or politically one-eyed) if you believe the presidential election was rigged.

What AE says you can't do is appeal to some lumpen mass out there as justification for what you believe. After all, for a great many of our (your and my) beliefs that is 100% of people out there.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I am not appealing to the great mass out there to establish something as proven. I am appealing to the great mass out there to establish that something is rational.

AE says; if you believe something, and you can convince one other person to believe it too, then you are not mad and your idea is worthy of consideration and debate.

Now perhaps we have a higher standard than two people for certain ideas; given that, as you say, a significantly greater number than two believe in ideas like alien abduction. Perhaps so. But at present, CNN gives greater credence to alien abduction stories than it does to rational arguments regarding voter fraud in the 2020 election. Last I checked, posting a claim of alien abduction won't get you banned from YouTube. At present, you can't even post a clip of Donald Trump to Instagram.

90% of Republicans and 20% of Democrats are not going to subscribe to an idea that is wholly without merit and worthy only of ridicule. Yet CNN would have you believe that they would, and do (but CNN won't give you the polling data).

While this widely-held belief may yet be wrong, it clearly is not ridiculous. Yet you are being warned against entertaining it, for fear of being subjected to ridicule (Sidney Powell's fate is as sure a warning sign as any head hoisted upon a pike). Surely this ought to make you think twice about whether your sources are truly interested in informing you.

That's the only points I'm making. Your sources are engaging in sophistry to defeat an argument that has some merit. You shouldn't like it. And you certainly shouldn't pile on.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

On the other hand, with respect to this matter of "belief;" I think you will find that there are ideas people believe and some other ideas people "believe."

Everyone believes they will die if they jump out of window on the 27th floor. Anyone who didn't believe that would clearly be irrational.

But that's not the kind of "belief" that many people have in aliens, or ghosts, or even virginal conceptions by the Holy Ghost. Those secondary type beliefs are things the rational mind merely gives permission to the non-rational mind to entertain for the purpose of enduring life on this miserable rock as it spinds through the void.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I am not appealing to the great mass out there to establish something as proven. I am appealing to the great mass out there to establish that something is rational.

That you cannot do. People believe en masse lots of things which you know to be irrational. You cannot pick out the rational ones just because you happen to agree with some of them and then double back and claim these are therefore rational. As far as you're concerned, they are rational. Otherwise you wouldn't believe in them, and that's an end to the matter.

AE says; if you believe something, and you can convince one other person to believe it too, then you are not mad and your idea is worthy of consideration and debate.

No, it very much doesn't. It says when somebody agrees with an original idea of yours, then you're probably not mad to believe it. The election being rigged was not your original idea.

Now perhaps we have a higher standard than two people for certain ideas; given that, as you say, a significantly greater number than two believe in ideas like alien abduction. Perhaps so. But at present, CNN gives greater credence to alien abduction stories than it does to rational arguments regarding voter fraud in the 2020 election. Last I checked, posting a claim of alien abduction won't get you banned from YouTube. At present, you can't even post a clip of Donald Trump to Instagram.

Take this up with CNN, YouTube, Donald Trump and Instagram, not with the AEL

90% of Republicans and 20% of Democrats are not going to subscribe to an idea that is wholly without merit and worthy only of ridicule. Yet CNN would have you believe that they would, and do (but CNN won't give you the polling data).

Again, you are wrong. You are the sole arbiter of what has merit.

While this widely-held belief may yet be wrong, it clearly is not ridiculous. Yet you are being warned against entertaining it, for fear of being subjected to ridicule (Sidney Powell's fate is as sure a warning sign as any head hoisted upon a pike). Surely this ought to make you think twice about whether your sources are truly interested in informing you.

Again you are wrong. And again you are supposing that I am some kind of CNN groupie. I make my own mind up about what is ridiculous. If CNN agrees with me, that's OK by me.

That's the only points I'm making. Your sources are engaging in sophistry to defeat an argument that has some merit. You shouldn't like it. And you certainly shouldn't pile on.

You are blaming me for having a set of beliefs which even you know are rational. I do not say they are either rational or correct because I believe them, but if I thought they weren't then I wouldn't entertain them.

On the other hand, with respect to this matter of "belief;" I think you will find that there are ideas people believe and some other ideas people "believe."

Not me, bub. I just believe things. I don't have a two-tier system. On AE grounds I assume this is true of everybody but I'm prepared to hear alternative theories.

Everyone believes they will die if they jump out of window on the 27th floor. Anyone who didn't believe that would clearly be irrational.

OK...

But that's not the kind of "belief" that many people have in aliens, or ghosts, or even virginal conceptions by the Holy Ghost. Those secondary type beliefs are things the rational mind merely gives permission to the non-rational mind to entertain for the purpose of enduring life on this miserable rock as it spins through the void.

OK... If you want to advance this, be our guest. It sounds quite interesting. A two-tier system that people kinda know about and kinda don't know about. Maybe this applies to me.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29

Jump to:  
Page 29 of 29

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group