Romney claims five studies back up his tax plan - Politifact says "mostly false"

[sandorski]

snipped.

Has it occurred to you, that perhaps Conservatives are getting caught more often than Liberals simply because Conservatives are committing more infractions?

 

[Bryan White]

Has it occurred to you, that perhaps Conservatives are getting caught more often than Liberals simply because Conservatives are committing more infractions?

Sure. But it also occurs to me that to know for sure we'd have to do accurate and objective fact checking on a randomized sample of statements categorized appropriately according to the ideology reflected in the statement.

Some people apparently think that the numbers from PolitiFact or the WaPo fact checker serve as appropriate evidence that conservatives are committing more infractions. But that's far short of a scientific measure because of selection bias and bias in the reporting/grading. It's not a good evidence.

It can serve as a pretty good measurement of the fact checkers' selection bias, though. Though that kind of depends on whether the fact checkers tell the truth about their criteria for choosing stories (and whether they apply the criteria consistently).

 

[sandorski]

Sure. But it also occurs to me that to know for sure we'd have to do accurate and objective fact checking on a randomized sample of statements categorized appropriately according to the ideology reflected in the statement.

Some people apparently think that the numbers from PolitiFact or the WaPo fact checker serve as appropriate evidence that conservatives are committing more infractions. But that's far short of a scientific measure because of selection bias and bias in the reporting/grading. It's not a good evidence.

It can serve as a pretty good measurement of the fact checkers' selection bias, though. Though that kind of depends on whether the fact checkers tell the truth about their criteria for choosing stories (and whether they apply the criteria consistently).

It, however, is not in itself evidence of Bias.

 

[Bryan White]

Am I wrong in saying, this whole argument is based on one guy being butthurt that Nile Gardiner didn't get included in one article; therefore, all work done at the place is completely biased?

Yes, you're wrong. But (on the plus side) imaginative.

Sounds like poisoning the well. (Not so well I may add)

No, it's not poisoning the well. It's great to see that this discussion board is just as enthusiastic about playing "Wheel-O-Fallacy" as are so many others.

To poison the well is to commit a pre-emptive ad hominem strike against an argumentative opponent. As with regular ad hominems, the well may be poisoned in either an abusive or circumstantial way. For instance:

1. "Only an ignoramus would disagree with fluoridating water." (Abusive)
2. "My opponent is a dentist, so of course he will oppose the fluoridating of water, since he will lose business." (Circumstantial)

Anyone bold enough to enter a debate which begins with a well-poisoning either steps into an insult, or an attack upon one's personal integrity. As with standard ad hominems, the debate is likely to cease to be about its nominal topic and become a debate about the arguer. However, what sets Poisoning the Well apart from the standard Ad Hominem is the fact that the poisoning is done before the opponent has a chance to make a case.
​

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html

Where do you think you detect the resemblance?

Edit: So basically if we have a thread like this one about Romney Tax policy, it will turn into pages and pages of crap about the apology article?

Why don't you try it and see?

 

[Bryan White]

It, however, is not in itself evidence of Bias.

It's a better evidence of ideological bias than, say, concluding that my arguments should be dismissed because I link to sites like Breitbart.com.

I remember how you called that guy out on that one. Okay, just kidding.

 

[sandorski]

It's a better evidence of ideological bias than, say, concluding that my arguments should be dismissed because I link to sites like Breitbart.com.

I remember how you called that guy out on that one. Okay, just kidding.

Breitbart is biased as all hell.

 

[Bryan White]

Breitbart is biased as all hell.

Are you arguing my point or you just had to get that out?

 

[UberNeuman]

Are you arguing my point or you just had to get that out?

Breitbart was and is nothing more than garbage for the feeble minded.....

 

[Bowfinger]

Breitbart is biased as all hell.

Even more, they have repeatedly been shown to be blatantly, willfully dishonest, fabricating stories to meet their agenda. In my book, this makes them a presumed source of fiction, not fact. Nothing they say can be accepted as accurate without additional independent corroboration ... which makes them as useless for legitimate fact checking as the National Enquirer.

 

[hardhat]

Thank you, Bryan. You finally presented actual analysis and evidence of the specific cases politifact discussed. That analysis is what I felt your argument was lacking. When I read your article I didn't feel that there was any reason to consider that your description of Politifact's experts as having a liberal bias was anything other than character assassination, because you didn't present any case analysis, nor expert testimony. If you have monitored any of the other threads on this web site you will understand that having a liberal bias has been used as a reason to dismiss just about every argument and position across the political spectrum that isn't agreement with conservatism.

I can see that you are an intelligent person, and that you are actually arguing using logic, not just to "win" an argument. I recommend that you consider that being liberal or conservative in and of itself holds no value, and each issue should be evaluated without considering the source. But I do respect the work you are doing, and the tenacity you have shown in this thread (though I do not appreciate your consistent rhetorical fallacy attacks. A mistaken or fallacious argument is not inherently untrue unless it is being used to advance an idea maliciously, in my opinion).

I'm going to give your site another chance. I might not always agree with you, but it was worth talking to you. Please remember to refute the actual claims, and use evidence, as those are the two things I feel will convince people that you have a point.

(These are arguments worth considering. Try to do more of this )
"He said Obama is using conciliatory language for diplomatic purposes, not apologizing."

That's quite the argument. It's in keeping with his pattern for the embassy statement. An apology can be "conciliatory language for diplomatic purposes" so the explanation explains nothing. It like he's telling you it's not a Mustang, it's a Ford. He's not telling you why it's not a Mustang at all. There's no argument to address.

"(Bloom) said Obama's words fall short of an apology, mostly because he didn't use the words "sorry" or "regret." "I think to make an effective apology, the words 'I'm sorry' or 'we're sorry' always have to be there," Bloom said."

Silly? Of course. Did Obama give an ineffective apology for lack of the term "sorry"? No worries. PolitiFact tells you that Bloom says it's not an apology and you can trust PolitiFact even without the evidence of Bloom's actual words. PolitiFact never flubs a paraphrase (?).

"To say the United States will not torture is not an apology, it is a statement of intent," Howard-Hassman (sic) said. "A complete apology has to acknowledge something was wrong, accept responsibility, express sorrow or regret and promise not to repeat it."

But Obama in his Cairo speech didn't merely say that "the United States will not torture." Here's the statement with more context (bold emphasis added):

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.
​

We have an acknowledgment that something was wrong, implicit sorrow/regret (reflected in the change of course) and the promise not to repeat it. But she says it's not an apology.

The list showed different styles of apologizing. You're correct that accepting responsibility and admitting wrongdoing are different. But they're related in that both constitute forms of apology. Lackoff is as qualified to speak to the issue as any of three PolitiFact interviewed.
.....................
And here's another one:

Complex speech acts like apologies actually consist of a set of routinized patterns or strategies typically used by native speakers of the language. There are five possible strategies for making an apology (Cohen & Olshtain, 1981. pp. 119-125).
​

(...) (B)

Acknowledgement of responsibility. The offender recognizes his/her fault in causing the infraction. The degree of such recognition on the part of the apologizer can be placed on a scale. The highest level of intensity is an acceptance of the blame: "It's my fault." At a somewhat lower level would be an expression of self-deficiency: "I was confused/I didn't see/You are right." At a still lower level would be the expression of lack of intent: "I didn't mean to." Lower still would be an implicit expression of responsibility: "I was sure I had given you the right directions." Finally, the apologizer may not accept the blame at all, in which case there may be a denial of responsibility: "It wasn't my fault," or even blaming of the hearer: "It's your own fault."
​

I don't think your analysis of Lackoff is correct. He does not say that acknowledgement in and of itself constitutes an apology.

 

[UberNeuman]

ah, witness the old "okie doke" taking place....

 

[hardhat]

ah, witness the old "okie doke" taking place....

Do you really think that we should reject any possibility of compromise, or our own imperfect reasoning?

I personally don't think that stance, as has been demonstrated by congress, really does us any good.

 

[UberNeuman]

Do you really think that we should reject any possibility of compromise, or our own imperfect reasoning?

I personally don't think that stance, as has been demonstrated by congress, really does us any good.

Get the fuck out of my face with your little "play."

\type up another nice little ditty....

 

[DominionSeraph]

If what you say is true, then how can Harvey say that "anything" I say is discredited to the point that he is relieved from having to take it seriously?

It's the fallacy of the jumping to conclusions, even if you dress it up and pretend it's heuristic reasoning.

Reaching the conclusion that you are illogical and biased and thus an untrustworthy source based on the evidence presented by your skewed reasoning is not jumping to said conclusion.

Your base reasoning has been shown to be invalid. This destroys your attempt to set yourself up an argument of authority -- and that's all you're doing here, trying to set that your ideas about politifact are authoritative by trying desperately support your base methods. It is you who are trying to get the viewer to jump to that conclusion, I merely pointed out that you are no such authority. You're just not very good.

Is Breitbart.com right more or less than twice per day? Is Harvey rightly free from providing any evidence that my statements are not to be taken seriously simply because I link to Breitbart?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ture-warrior-andrew-breitbart-at-rightonline/

“Andrew taught us that we could use social media effectively for our cause,” Phillips told a crowd of several hundred conservative bloggers and activists gathered inside the Venetian Hotel on Friday night.

“Oh, did the liberals hate him for it,” Phillips said, “But that’s OK because we loved him and still love him.”

Let's pull up one of their articles:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/09/16/Obama-admin-blames-film-not-Islamists

(underlines and numbering mine)

The Obama administration this morning sent out Ambassador Susan Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, to flack for(1) the administration’s utterly feckless(2) Middle Eastern foreign policy. Her task was difficult(3): she somehow(4) had to spin(5) the administration’s cowardly(7) foreign policy, resulting(8) in a maelstrom of violent Islamist action around the world, as a result of something not Obama-related(9).

Shall I break down the forced conclusions and wild insinuations above, or can you handle that much on your own now that I've pointed them out?

Purporting that a known biased source is a valid source does not tend to lend one credibility as to the credibility of their sources.
As this is conservative propaganda, and as propaganda works by the reader not knowing it is propaganda, the burden is on you to show that you are fully above it -- that you have taken ALL steps necessary to pull only the kernels of wheat from the chaff and that your view is wide enough not to be corrupted by the bias inherent in the selection.

It is your claim that your output is trustworthy due to the validity of your methods. In light of the fact that a person's reasons are shrouded, and that due to the efficiency of laziness a person will not do the work to lay out their methods unless pressed, Harvey may press you. Harvey may point out surface inconsistencies and speculate on the reasons. If you aren't good enough to counter this with a better version of yourself, the lack of self-awareness this shows rather undermines the probability that you've done the work required that would result in the state to support your initial claim.

The fact that you are trying to bluster your way past this, whining about Harvey instead of getting to work, shows that you are just a child -- that you will cherry pick an argument to reach the conclusion you want -- that you do try to throw the burden on your opponent so that you appear unscathed.
Arguing for appearance != arguing for Truth. So, regardless of whether Harvey's specific claim is right, he's gotten you to highlight glaring holes in your methods, showing that there are plenty of avenues open for your conclusions to be wrong-headed and thus supporting the likelihood that his judgement is correct in that you come to wrong-headed conclusions.

Proved by what? The fallacy of jumping to conclusions?

It is not always a mistake to make a quick decision, but when we draw a conclusion without taking the trouble to acquire enough of the relevant evidence, our reasoning uses the fallacy of jumping to conclusions, provided there was sufficient time to acquire and assess that extra evidence, and provided that the extra effort it takes to get the evidence isn’t prohibitive.
​

It is you who want us to reach the conclusion that you are an authority. Our absence of reaching that conclusion does not take a jump -- it is the default position. That we can show pathways unclosed by you that undermine the probability that your output is trustworthy is not an invalid jump -- taking your word on faith despite these pathways being open is what would be the jump.

You're arguing without even knowing what you're asking, and you expect us to take you seriously? LOL. L2argue.

 

[Bryan White]

having a liberal bias has been used as a reason to dismiss just about every argument and position across the political spectrum that isn't agreement with conservatism.

I join you in condemning that view. We (PFB) recently downplayed evidence that some PolitiFact writers and editors have a history of voting for Democrats. That's fine as a reminder that all individuals possess certain biases, but it isn't a sufficient reason to dismiss the content they produce.

(though I do not appreciate your consistent rhetorical fallacy attacks. A mistaken or fallacious argument is not inherently untrue unless it is being used to advance an idea maliciously, in my opinion).

I'm not in the habit of succumbing to the "fallacy fallacy," as it's called. I'm eager to know where my vigilance failed, if in fact it did (example?).

I'm going to give your site another chance. I might not always agree with you, but it was worth talking to you. Please remember to refute the actual claims, and use evidence, as those are the two things I feel will convince people that you have a point.

Well, yeah. ;-)

I don't think your analysis of Lackoff is correct. He does not say that acknowledgement in and of itself constitutes an apology.

She defines a "true apology" thus: "a statement acknowledging wrongdoing, to the person hurt by it."
If there's any such thing as a "half true" apology it seems like admission of responsibility with an implicit acknowledgment of wrongdoing would fill the bill.
http://books.google.com/books?id=xmr3ZBHFbVwC&dq=robin+lackoff+apologies&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Cheers. (sorry for any html translation failures--this board is a tad treacherous compared to what I'm used to)

 

[Bryan White]

Reaching the conclusion that you are illogical and biased and thus an untrustworthy source based on the evidence presented by your skewed reasoning is not jumping to said conclusion.

If you're correct then it should be an easy matter to provide an example of my illogic. I eagerly look forward to it. I think we can dispense with the rest of what you wrote until you present your example.

 

[LumbergTech]

If you're correct then it should be an easy matter to provide an example of my illogic. I eagerly look forward to it. I think we can dispense with the rest of what you wrote until you present your example.

You want the information you provide to be judged based on its accuracy and not on its source, while you want Politifact's articles to be judged based on its sources without even considering the accuracy of its information.

The methods at which they arrive at their conclusions are irrelevant if you ONLY care about the accuracy.

 

[Bryan White]

You want the information you provide to be judged based on its accuracy and not on its source,

Correct ...

while you want Politifact's articles to be judged based on its sources without even considering the accuracy of its information.

Huh? Where did I write anything like that? Ever?

The methods at which they arrive at their conclusions are irrelevant if you ONLY care about the accuracy.

I don't only care about their accuracy. A fact check can end up correct for the wrong reasons. Fact checking should be done right, and that includes looking for balance in the sources used.

I don't condemn PolitiFact for a conclusion based on its sources unless the conclusion is wrong as a result. But I will condemn PolitiFact for sloppy methods. Being right for the wrong reasons is a problem (granted, not usually as big a problem as being wrong). I'll hope you agree.

 

[DominionSeraph]

If you're correct then it should be an easy matter to provide an example of my illogic. I eagerly look forward to it. I think we can dispense with the rest of what you wrote until you present your example.

That is all I've been doing. So this is another example.

Deflect, deflect, feign blindness. Wow, that's some hard-hitting examination you have there. Really deep. You've really got one up on me there, son.

And now for something completely different.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjooRuCbNmY

 

[OrByte]

Yeah, that's tremendous. Except it forgets that I've dealt with the problem of apologies not intended to smooth things over. Saying that some people think it's wrong undermines the perception that the person accepting responsibility is admitting fault. Rather, he's just saying that some people (not necessarily him) think it's wrong. But that isn't what Obama did and it isn't what the embassy did. Is it?

Must be perfect, then.

But you are still only relying on your opinion. As is politifact relies on opinions of experts (take it or leave it, you don't have to like it)

As does say my wife.... relies on her opinion on whether or not my apology is satisfactory

Unless... there is a law somewhere that stipulates what the legal definition of a presidential apology must contain, this issue is entirely subjective and silly.

Apologies "not intended to smooth things over" ... that doesn't sound like an apology then does it?

 

[soulcougher73]

Who fact checks the fact checkers? politifact bias of course.
http://www.politifactbias.com/

Where is my Daily Show "We Can Change That" skit when i need it?

"These facts dont say what we want them to say"
"Thats ok...we can change that"

 

[shadow9d9]

Welcom to Anantech P&N.

Next, you will discover that libs will claim to have given you proof and claim to have answered questions even those they have done neither...and they will stick to that lie as if Obama himself told them to do so...

Welcome to politics, where republicans claim that "libs" exist in US politics and are to blame for everything, despite only one liberal senator and a moderate/right Democratic party!

The republican model is that if you repeat a lie enough times, it magically becomes true. Disagree with the now super fringe GOP? You are automatically "liberal" and therefore, wrong!

 

[Todd33]

It's not working. A new operation called "AllSides" rates news sources on a bipartisan crowd-sourced basis and located PolitiFact well on the left. Not that I'm a huge fan of crowdsourcing.
.
.
.
They created a bad system, can't seem to apply their standards consistently and have chronic problems with selection bias.

Let me get this straight, you use crowdsourcing when it agree with your opinion, but in general don't like it. Sounds like.. selection bias.





By the way making your page based on an existing well known source is a crappy way to leech. If you want to make a fact check page, make it on its own merits, don't try to ride someone else's name and fame. It's like all the douche bag books on Amazon (again from the right, always the right) attacking the work of someone else by using the name in the title.

"Free Will: A Response to Sam Harris"

"God is No Delusion: A Refutation of Richard Dawkins"

 

[Bryan White]

That is all I've been doing. So this is another example.

Your response begs the question as to whether you have presented any legitimate example. Choose your best and c&p it into your response, please. Otherwise it looks like you're deflecting and feigning blindness (make that feigning wearing a fabulous set of new clothes).

Deflect, deflect, feign blindness. Wow, that's some hard-hitting examination you have there. Really deep. You've really got one up on me there, son.

Yeah, thanks.

Here's how hard it is to come up with an example:
"That is all I've been doing. So this is another example."

I did it. There's our example of you deflecting.

Now you show us you're equal to the challenge. Show a clear example of illogic on my part. I'm quite obviously illogical, so it will be so exceptionally easy fo you to paste in an outstanding example that you will have no reason at all to refuse such a simple request.

 

[cybrsage]

Welcome to politics, where republicans claim that "libs" exist in US politics and are to blame for everything, despite only one liberal senator and a moderate/right Democratic party!

The republican model is that if you repeat a lie enough times, it magically becomes true. Disagree with the now super fringe GOP? You are automatically "liberal" and therefore, wrong!

You are so close to understanding reality, yet so far away. Give it time...as you age you will gain wisdom. As you gain wisdom, you will stop being a liberal. Those who age but stay liberals simply failed to gain wisdom as they aged...or are like those in Congress who remain liberals because they get rich off the schmucks who believe their lies. It is simply how reality works.