Fake news, astro turf short Ted talk.
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-01-2017, 08:59 PM
Fake news, astro turf short Ted talk.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
02-01-2017, 09:22 PM
RE: Fake news, astro turf short Ted talk.

How do we know she wasn't lying?


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
02-01-2017, 09:35 PM
RE: Fake news, astro turf short Ted talk.
Aww, she's just paranoid! Angel

Truth is, if you want to know the truth, you have to dig like hell. I've done that digging in getting a degree in physics. So, that works for many physical systems, but certainly doesn't protect me from being fooled by other things, I will admit. She's telling people to dig, and that's good. It's like religion, in that aspect. People look to an authority figure (doctor) for help. I don't consider my doctor to be a person giving me false information, because we discuss what is going on in some fair amount of detail and I don't just accept what he says without some discussion.

ETA- SHIT, partially ninja'd by DLJ while I was replying!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2017, 05:14 AM
RE: Fake news, astro turf short Ted talk.
Carl Sagan knew a thing or two about ferreting out the Truth from lies. Very good practical advice for anyone living in the modern age.

The following are suggested as tools for testing arguments and detecting fallacious or fraudulent arguments:

- Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
- Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
- Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
- Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
- Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
- Quantify, wherever possible.
- If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
- "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
- Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, is it testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?

Additional issues are:

- Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the - person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.

Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric:

Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.

Argument from "authority".

Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).

Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).

Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).

Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).

Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).

Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).

Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!).

Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they are not "proved").

Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.

Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).

Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).

Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").

Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
Confusion of correlation and causation.

Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack.

Suppressed evidence or half-truths.

Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public"


"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2017, 06:30 PM
RE: Fake news
Gilgamesh, if you're still watching, this one's for you.

(he said with deliberate ambiguity)


Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
27-01-2017, 07:38 PM
Fake news, astro turf short Ted talk.
It's so difficult to know what is true or fake anymore. No wonder most people don't vote.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: