> only to find Alex Jones was one of the sources. Crikey.
Was he right or wrong? I love the "appeal to authority" and "ad hominem" arguments made by people.
Would you rather a lie from an "authoritative" source or a truth from a "wacko"?
Was he right or wrong? I love the "appeal to authority" and "ad hominem" arguments made by people.
Would you rather a lie from an "authoritative" source or a truth from a "wacko"?
It marginalizes them and ostracizes them from civil society in precisely the way they deserve, and increases your likelihood of finding the truth.
Note: this is different from assuming the truth is the OPPOSITE of what they say.
I'm not going to defend Alex Jones here, but surely you realise that this metric includes many main stream, "respected" media organisations?
I try to consume sources that generally do their best to get it right.
Well, an authoritative source can still be wrong but by definition does not lie, while a wacko can get it right occasionally without being truthful.
It kind of feels like you're confusing single-roll probability with cumulative odds; who are you going to bet on over the long term?
That's the type of thing I imagine someone in north korea saying. By definition does not lie? That's news to me and certainly not true of any "authoritative sources". Every authoritative sources has lied. Even more, every autoritative sources was created specifically to lie. If you think I'm wrong, go read about the creation of these "authoritative sources". Who created them and why?
Even the hallowed BBC by definition told lies. Orwell worked for the BBC Eastern Service as a propagandist. It was one of his inspirations for 1984. You might have heard of him.
> who are you going to bet on over the long term?
Neither - especially when it comes to important issues. As I said the slavish "appeal to authority". It's the basis of all tyranny.
Only because you already know the facts from reliable sources.
So given you already knew the facts in order to ascertain that the whacko was telling the truth, why are you bothering with the whacko?
Worse, by pointing out that the whacko was right this time, you encourage others to believe other claims by the same whacko, since they have been right at least once!
Facts are sometimes very tricky things....how might one even determine what the actual facts are in this situation?
> you encourage others to believe
I feel similarly about anyone using the term "fact" so casually.
The facts in this case are easy to discern: they are numbers reported by NSW Police. The basis for those numbers is irrelevant: the only fact here is a media release from the police containing certain statements, and the claims made by certain agencies reporting on that media release,
For example, are we discussing:
- numbers of fires actually started by people (and, deliberately vs accidentally)
- (the unknown) number of people who have actually engaged in risky behavior
- numbers of people who have been arrested (charged?) for any of the above
> The basis for those numbers is irrelevant
In terms of my "casual" accusation, agreed. I think it's fair to say that in this case it was actually me who was speaking too casually due to a preoccupation with the philosophical ideas around facts.