Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 27 of 27
  1. #21
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats - masters of the made up nonsense investigation - RussiaGate

    - Argument from ignorance-

    Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence, except in the case for the claim that no evidence exists. Then lack of evidence, is indeed evidence of absence, because it is the only kind of evidence that can possibly exist.

    The claim may be easily falsified, however at some point it's reason ability increases as where evidence should be is examined.

    ---
    In this case it is an investigation.
    It is not an argument from ignorance fallacy to say that an investigation finds no evidence after a reasonable time investigation, because there is no evidence to find.

    To say that conclusion is a fallacy, is to assume guilt as default. IE, We haven't found evidence after looking extensively, but it is still more reasonable to think we will find some, rather than there is none to find.


    Finally, argument from ignorance is generally about some positive claim.
    Like, we don't know of any evidence for Russian collusion, but we haven't proven that it didn't occur, therefore Russian collusion did occur.
    To serve man.

  2. Thanks evensaul thanked for this post
  3. #22
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,181
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats - masters of the made up nonsense investigation - RussiaGate

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Why wouldn't you post your evidence in my thread?
    Why aren't you refuting my op?

    Given that Dem lies and Obama administration actions (apparently by Dem supporters in intelligence areas with Obama approval) created this nonsense effort to deligitimize the Trump presidency, I don't see much wrong with his claiming it is a deep state effort. But debating you about that in your thread would have been a red herring or hijack, right? So it made sense for me to start a new thread for my purpose.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  4. #23
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,948
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats - masters of the made up nonsense investigation - RussiaGate

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence, except in the case for the claim that no evidence exists. Then lack of evidence, is indeed evidence of absence, because it is the only kind of evidence that can possibly exist.
    But then do you agree that evidence could exist that we have not been made aware of? For example, is it possible that Mueller does indeed have evidence that Trump colluded but hasn't made it public yet and therefore we are ignorant of evidence that does exist?

    So if that's the case, then there is evidence and the claim that there is no evidence is incorrect.

    So one cannot logically claim that there is no evidence because we haven't seen any evidence and making such an argument is the essence of the argument from ignorance fallacy.

    And therefore claiming that there is no evidence because we haven't seen evidence is indeed engaging in the argument from ignorance fallacy.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    In this case it is an investigation.
    It is not an argument from ignorance fallacy to say that an investigation finds no evidence after a reasonable time investigation, because there is no evidence to find.
    But it is an argument from ignorance fallacy to argue on an ODN thread that there is no evidence (and therefore the investigation is made up nonsense) because one has not seen any evidence.

    Again, there could be evidence that hasn't been seen. In fact, it's certain that we haven't seen all of the evidence that exists because Mueller is keeping a lot of evidence secret for now. I'm not saying that he does have evidence that Trump colluded but that we don't know all of the evidence and therefore we don't know that there is no evidence that Trump colluded.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Finally, argument from ignorance is generally about some positive claim.
    Like, we don't know of any evidence for Russian collusion, but we haven't proven that it didn't occur, therefore Russian collusion did occur.
    And "there is no evidence" is a positive claim.

    ----------------

    And I should point out that as far as I can tell, Evensaul is not claiming that there is no evidence that Trump colluded but meant something else. But regardless, the most accurate reading of the OP that I could muster at the time, especially given the OPs title, was a positive claim that evidence for collusion does not exist. Since he is no longer making that claim (or saying that that was not his claim to begin with but he meant something else), the claim that evidence for collusion does not exist is retracted (assuming it ever was intentionally made).

    The claim that there is no evidence of collusion does not stand. Whether it does not stand due to being shown to be a flawed claim or was a claim that never got made in the first place doesn't really matter.

    Assuming we agree that there could be evidence of collusion that we are currently not aware of, this issue is settled.



    ---------- Post added at 11:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:22 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Given that Dem lies and Obama administration actions (apparently by Dem supporters in intelligence areas with Obama approval) created this nonsense effort to deligitimize the Trump presidency, I don't see much wrong with his claiming it is a deep state effort.
    And where is the evidence for these claims?

    If we are to discard claims if no evidence for them is presented (which seems to be the position of the OP), then we should discard these claims as well. Otherwise, you are engaging in special pleading.
    Last edited by mican333; May 25th, 2018 at 08:00 AM.

  5. Likes CowboyX liked this post
  6. #24
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,181
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats - masters of the made up nonsense investigation - RussiaGate

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I am more concerned about media making blatantly false claims or sharing blatantly false information. That's very problematic to me. Bias I can handle, but false claims I don't like at all.
    But Sig, when bias becomes so all-consuming that virtually all the selected news reports and guest opinions are in line with that bias, it becomes a blatantly false representation of what is happening in politics and the nation. Constantly cherry picking news stories to fit a preconceived plan is a way to misinform the public on the larger reality. All of those slanted and stacked deck news stories collectively become a form of fake news.

    A Democrat voter writes today in The Federalist:

    "The Democrats and their supportive media outlets (CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, The New York Times) have been saying for a year that Trump and his campaign likely colluded with the Russians to win the 2016 election, that Special Counsel Robert Mueller will eventually find proof of it, and that Trump will, as a result, get impeached...

    ...I’m a Democrat, and it would be easier to accept my side’s version of unfolding events. It would certainly make my life easier when talking with my liberal friends. But facts are pesky things, and I’ve become increasingly aggravated by my own side. It seems the desire to win the 2016 election and Trump hatred has not only warped the Democratic political and media establishments, but exposed them for what they are.

    Yes, Trump is intemperate, narcissistic, and the most unconventional president ever. But it appears that his opponents in our political and media establishments are far worse: they wanted to subvert democracy to save it from Trump; they wanted to thwart the will of Trump’s 63 million voters and not just undermine his presidency, but to concoct an investigation to impeach him and get him out of office.

    Looked at this way, it appears that Trump’s election is vindicated for many reasons: There appears to be a deep state in this country comprising both Republicans and Democrats, which will not abide an outsider president.

    This Is a Horrible Look for Democrats

    Meanwhile, my fellow Democrats aren’t in a good spot: They are increasingly becoming the kind of low-information voters they despise and think are only on the other side. For instance, a 2017 poll showed that a majority of Democrats (52 percent) believed Russia tampered with vote tallies in the 2016 election to help elect Trump, despite no evidence. That is akin to 69 percent of Americans believing in September 2003 that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

    Further, many of my Democratic friends are in the dark about many of the smaller events and facts surrounding the Mueller investigation. They don’t know, for instance, that a federal judge, T. S. Ellis, rebuked Mueller for trying to target Trump. They don’t know that one of the Russian companies Mueller indicted for tampering in the 2016 election, Concord Catering, didn’t exist at the time of the election, and that when they showed up in court to contest the charges, Mueller was unprepared to proceed with the case.

    This isn’t entirely ordinary Democrats’ fault, but that of the legacy media outlets they rely on for their news and analysis, which have let their audiences down completely. These media outlets (CNN, ABC, NBC, The New York Times, etc.) have devoted little or no time to many of the stories that “help” Trump or fail to advance the Russia collusion narrative. For instance, ABC, CBS, and NBC together spent a total of just 153 seconds covering Ellis’s rebuke of Mueller.

    This Is Not Just a Media Problem

    There is only one word to describe CNN and MSNBC’s coverage in the last year and half: grotesque. They’ve gone so over-the-top with their anti-Trump coverage, so lacking in self-awareness, that even criticizing them seems like a waste of time."...

    http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/24/...-scares-trump/
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  7. #25
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,139
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats - masters of the made up nonsense investigation - RussiaGate

    Evensaul

    I suppose it's a perception thing on my part. The way I consume the news is either to listen to NPR (which I have not done recently) or to use a news aggregator that offers me a bunch of articles on a given topic.

    I read articles from all those sources, but I don't go to their home pages to get my news. So if they are selling a particular narrative via coverage, I don't really see it because I'm only reading individual articles. The articles themselves are usually fine. The headlines can be BS, but the articles tend to give you the facts as they are available, who said what, and just how well established said claims are. I mostly ignore editorials unless they have something really interesting to say. Usually I just want to know what is claimed and I'll make my own conclusions.

    So I decided to visit each of those home pages CNN ABC NBC and NYT to see what I think...

    CNN - Definitely has a liberal narrative drive going on - lots of focus on trump criticism

    ABC News - I found it to be pretty generic, one headline about Trump, the rest pretty normal sorts of news coverage

    NBC News - Their front page didn't have a strong narrative, pretty good mix of stories including ones of conservative interest and few judgemental headlines

    New York Times - Kind of a mixed bag, were I not trying to find a narrative, I wouldn't see one, partly because the page is such a hodgepodge. The editorials are very anti trump, the news stories are a mix, though a heavier political focus than ABC and NBC. It's definatlely liberal leaning, but its also got a lot of just plain generic news stuff on it.

    And for fun...

    Fox News - Definitely has a conservative narrative for pro trump here. A much nicer site than its rivals though, easy to read. I'd say it's the flip side of the CNN site in terms of bias.

    NPR US and World news page - Also a nice easy to read page. Leads with a potentally Trump critical narative post (with a very neutral headline) but has neutral Trump and pro Trump stories in the feed. A lot more world events news. Definately the best of this lot by a long stretch.


    So I'd say CNN and Fox are two sides of a coin, strongly appealing to a political faction. ABC and NBC are walking a pretty generic corporate media line. NYT shows a strong liberal bent in opinion but seems to try and play it straight on story selection, but man do they need a new web designer! And if you are smart, start with NPR because they seem to actually be trying to bring people a balance of stories about what is happening beyond the american info bubble.

    I think there is a perspective thing going on. If you take Fox news as a baselie, then ABC and NBC are going to look really bias to you because they are not showing you a conservitive bias. But taking them in spectrum, NBC and ABC are pretty middle of the road, slight left bent but not a bery hard narative one like CNN or Fox who seem pretty commited to a political narative. NYT is definately left. NPR comes out to me as the most even handed, but it does have a high-brow skew on the stoires offerd (which appeals to me as I could give a rats ass asbout celebrities or hot TV shows etc...)
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  8. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  9. #26
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,472
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats - masters of the made up nonsense investigation - RussiaGate

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But then do you agree that evidence could exist that we have not been made aware of? For example, is it possible that Mueller does indeed have evidence that Trump colluded but hasn't made it public yet and therefore we are ignorant of evidence that does exist?
    I think the premise is that the investigation has turned up no evidence.
    It is possible that the premise is wrong, however we can't assume they have evidence, because that assumes guilt, and the burden is clearly on the other side.

    So it is more reasonable to assume no evidence, and it is more just to assume no evidence. And those are not fallacies, as it would be exactly that case if there were in fact no crime and thus no evidence for such a crime.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So if that's the case, then there is evidence and the claim that there is no evidence is incorrect.
    Of course evidence counters the claim that there is no evidence. .. that is kinda the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    So one cannot logically claim that there is no evidence because we haven't seen any evidence and making such an argument is the essence of the argument from ignorance fallacy.
    no

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And therefore claiming that there is no evidence because we haven't seen evidence is indeed engaging in the argument from ignorance fallacy.
    No, it isn't because we haven't seen any, but because the investigation of reasonable time and effort has not found any.

    I mean, if the investigation is ongoing for 50 years, and trump is on his death bed.
    Is it reasonable then to say there is no evidence to find?

    If you agree with me in 50 years, then your objection is really not about a logical fallacy, but about the reasonable time point.
    Also, consider the danger of saying that any ivestigation is 'reasonable' because lack of evidence is a logical fallacy to innocens.

    Lets investigate you for some horrible unspeakable crime.. say eating babies in your spare time.
    Now I know I don't have any evidence, but the investigation should remain open because lack of evidence is not evidence that your are inocent of the crime.

    see any problem there?

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    But it is an argument from ignorance fallacy to argue on an ODN thread that there is no evidence (and therefore the investigation is made up nonsense) because one has not seen any evidence.
    Really? So again, 50 years from now, with no new information provded to you, your still saying that the demand for evidence is a logical fallacy?
    or that to say there is no evidence to find, because 50 years of investigation has turned up none, is evidence that there is no evidence to find.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Again, there could be evidence that hasn't been seen. In fact, it's certain that we haven't seen all of the evidence that exists because Mueller is keeping a lot of evidence secret for now. I'm not saying that he does have evidence that Trump colluded but that we don't know all of the evidence and therefore we don't know that there is no evidence that Trump colluded.
    If the investigation has turned up evidence, then the first premise is incorrect.

    1) The investigation has found no evidence of X.
    2) The investigation was of reasonable time to find evidence if it did exist.
    3) therefore, there probably isn't any evidence to find, as there problably wasn't any crime.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    And "there is no evidence" is a positive claim.
    That is not the fallacy of the argument from ignorance.
    It is that a given posive conclusion doesn't follow from lack of evidence.
    Which is not the case when the conclusion is that there is no evidence.

    There is no evidence because there is no evidence to find, is not logically fallacious, or an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
    It is exactly that argument that atheist use in regards to God.

    Quote Originally Posted by MICAN
    Assuming we agree that there could be evidence of collusion that we are currently not aware of, this issue is settled.
    I don't agree that there could be evidence of collusion, if no collusion occurred. So it isn't clear that there could be such evidence, or that such a pursuit is reasonably justified.


    ---
    Summary.
    How long should the investigation go on, without finding any evidence of a crime?
    and what reasoning will you use to call for it's end.. and how is that different than the current op?

    See, I can agree that the 2nd premise is not true (reasonable time), but .. then again, it could be true now.
    I just don't see a problem with premise 1, if we don't have evidence. you introduce that the investigation is keeping things to itself, but that doesn't wash with the proper oversight. IE it seems more likely that a refusal to produce evidence to the proper oversight, is caused by lack of evidence to provide, not by a refusal to produce the evidence that does exist.


    Again, I believe we have a burden to assume no evidence exist, because that is what presumption of Innocents is.
    To serve man.

  10. #27
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,948
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats - masters of the made up nonsense investigation - RussiaGate

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think the premise is that the investigation has turned up no evidence.
    It is possible that the premise is wrong, however we can't assume they have evidence, because that assumes guilt, and the burden is clearly on the other side.

    So it is more reasonable to assume no evidence, and it is more just to assume no evidence. And those are not fallacies, as it would be exactly that case if there were in fact no crime and thus no evidence for such a crime.
    A claim is a claim. If one is going to say evidence does not exist or that Mueller has no evidence, then they have the burden to support that. And using the fact that no one has shown us the evidence as support that there is no evidence is indeed an argument from ignorance fallacy.

    And it's certainly not reasonable to conclude that Mueller has no evidence because it is obvious that much of what Mueller has has not been made public.

    I don't think it's reasonable to assume anything either way at this point.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Of course evidence counters the claim that there is no evidence. .. that is kinda the point.
    But you do agree that the claim "there is no evidence" needs to be supported before the other side has any burden to counter the claim and provide evidence, right?





    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No, it isn't because we haven't seen any, but because the investigation of reasonable time and effort has not found any.
    How do you know that the Mueller investigation hasn't found any evidence? The report on what they have found has not been release yet.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I mean, if the investigation is ongoing for 50 years, and trump is on his death bed.
    Is it reasonable then to say there is no evidence to find?

    If you agree with me in 50 years, then your objection is really not about a logical fallacy, but about the reasonable time point.
    Also, consider the danger of saying that any ivestigation is 'reasonable' because lack of evidence is a logical fallacy to innocens.

    Lets investigate you for some horrible unspeakable crime.. say eating babies in your spare time.
    Now I know I don't have any evidence, but the investigation should remain open because lack of evidence is not evidence that your are inocent of the crime.

    see any problem there?
    I do but it's not a problem that applies to the Mueller investigation. The investigation is not set to go on endlessly. Eventually, likely within a year, they will find out everything they need to learn and then release a report. Once the report is released, the investigation is over. And again, we don't know what they have right now. You don't know that Mueller currently isn't sitting on some very strong evidence of collusion.

    So to be clear, we don't know what he has and doesn't have. Therefore we likewise can't say that he indeed has a "smoking gun" or no evidence of collusion at all.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Really? So again, 50 years from now, with no new information provded to you, your still saying that the demand for evidence is a logical fallacy?
    or that to say there is no evidence to find, because 50 years of investigation has turned up none, is evidence that there is no evidence to find.
    Again, that does not apply to this situation.

    I agree that there is an exception to the argument from ignorance fallacy where if "it existed it would have been found by now" but that does not apply to this debate. And that does not apply to a claim TODAY that evidence does not exist. If in 50 years from now. someone wants to argue "If there was evidence, it would have been found by now so we can safely say that no evidence exists" I likely won't disagree. But TODAY the claim "there is no evidence", especially in the light that the person who is gathering evidence has not revealed much of what he has, it is definitely are Argument from Ignorance (AFI) argument.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If the investigation has turned up evidence, then the first premise is incorrect.
    And if the investigation has not turned up evidence, then first premise is correct. So unless you can support that the investigation has not turned up evidence, the first premise is not supported and neither is the conclusion.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    1) The investigation has found no evidence of X.
    2) The investigation was of reasonable time to find evidence if it did exist.
    3) therefore, there probably isn't any evidence to find, as there problably wasn't any crime.
    But this logic chain does not apply to the Mueller investigation.

    Point 1 has not been supported (no one has shown that no evidence has been found)
    Point 2 does not apply because no valid argument has been made that it's gone on too long already (especially when compared to other investigations that have gone on longer, such as the Benghazi investigation)



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is not the fallacy of the argument from ignorance.
    It is that a given posive conclusion doesn't follow from lack of evidence.
    Which is not the case when the conclusion is that there is no evidence.

    There is no evidence because there is no evidence to find, is not logically fallacious, or an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
    It is exactly that argument that atheist use in regards to God.
    I agree but then I wasn't addressing the argument "There is evidence because there is none to find" but "there is no evidence because no one has shown us any evidence". The; latter argument is indeed an AFI argument. The first one is not AFI but is flawed because it's based on an unsupported premise ('there is no evidence to find")



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't agree that there could be evidence of collusion, if no collusion occurred. So it isn't clear that there could be such evidence, or that such a pursuit is reasonably justified.
    I think if you look at why the investigation started, it's a justified investigation. Regardless of Trump's involvement or lack thereof, we DO want to fully investigate Russia meddling in our elections. I would have to think that the issue of finding out what we can about hostile foreign meddling in our Democracy to be something that has bipartisan support.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Summary.
    How long should the investigation go on, without finding any evidence of a crime?
    and what reasoning will you use to call for it's end.. and how is that different than the current op?

    See, I can agree that the 2nd premise is not true (reasonable time), but .. then again, it could be true now.
    I just don't see a problem with premise 1, if we don't have evidence. you introduce that the investigation is keeping things to itself, but that doesn't wash with the proper oversight. IE it seems more likely that a refusal to produce evidence to the proper oversight, is caused by lack of evidence to provide, not by a refusal to produce the evidence that does exist.
    Please support that Mueller has refused to provide evidence to the proper oversight.



    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Again, I believe we have a burden to assume no evidence exist, because that is what presumption of Innocents is.
    No, it's not. The presumption of innocence means that one cannot be legally convicted of a crime until so much evidence is gathered that one cannot reasonably doubt one's guilt.

    By debate rules at ODN (but logically apply to any debate), the burden of ANY claim is on the claimant. So we have no burden to assume anything at all until someone supports either side of their argument. When someone supports that there is no evidence is when it's reasonable to assume that there is no evidence. But if neither side supports that there is or is not evidence, then one should assume nothing either way. And that's my position. I don't know what Mueller has or will find so I don't know if there is any evidence of Trump collusion or not.

    But I will say that there is plenty of reason to be suspicious. I mean when Don Jr. met with Russians with the intent of getting dirt on Hillary, there's at least smoke. Whether there's also fire remains to be seen.
    Last edited by mican333; May 27th, 2018 at 08:56 AM.

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 3rd, 2018, 06:59 PM
  2. Help from the Masters
    By david koe in forum ODN Debates Discussion
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: May 2nd, 2013, 02:29 PM
  3. Replies: 36
    Last Post: August 10th, 2009, 06:58 AM
  4. Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 26th, 2007, 09:36 PM
  5. Masters of Logic
    By Trendem in forum Logical Riddles & Puzzles
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: June 13th, 2007, 01:16 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •