The "Reason", "Logic", "Facts", and "Evidence" of today...

As I was working on the HEADLINES post for @newsagg today I finally made it to the #news section where I put steemit news in there. I try to put news based upon what people are interested in. The only time I skip stories is if they are more of the same of something I already posted, or if they are some daily crypto thing that is already itself an aggregation service of sorts. I do often post crypto links from #news, but I try not to flood the entire steemit section with them and I do tend to focus on the ones that are not some daily aggregator.

Well today I encountered @davidpakman's post Fox News Anchor DESTROYS Clinton Uranium Conspiracy Theory.

Now I don't really care one way about Fox or the other. I consider them Mainstream media. They may be the only "right" leaning mainstream media outlet, but they are still mainstream media. I don't actually watch mainstream media other than what I encounter as I am putting together a news aggregation post. I am not a fan of mainstream media, and this includes Fox.

Anyway, earlier I'd been listening to people discussing Jeff Sessions and how we was asked if he would provide a special investigation council for this Uranium One issue, as well as the dozier. This means there has been no investigation.

So considering there has been no investigation the title of @davidpakman's post is pretty HUGE and major. I had to stop making the aggregator post to go look. It is primarily a video so I started watching it.

Now I really had everything I needed to know in the first 20 to 30 seconds but I gave David the benefit of the doubt because this is Steemit. People seem to be pretty intelligent here. So while his introduction was full of red flags I thought I should at least listen to what convinced him the Uranium One claims were "Destroyed".

Let me jump to the end before I go into why I really wrote this post. They were not destroyed. Which is kind of expected when there has been no investigation.

Yet this did illustrate a problem with society today and it is not a "left" or "right" thing. A lot of people do it. The mainstream media is very bad with it.

First let's use what is called an Appeal To The Stone. This is basically treating absurdity as proof against something without providing the evidence to prove something is absurd. The person will simply start talking as though it is absurd from the beginning. The Appeal To the Stone is typically accompanied by an implied Appeal To Authority. they are hoping that your view of them as an "authority" or as "intelligent" is sufficient proof to back up their claims of something being absurd. This is not proof. These are logical fallacies. Yet in these days they are used extensively.

I could hear the Appeal To The Stone in the first 19 seconds of his video. I responded at length to his post, and in hindsight I am not certain I should have bothered. I've seen others of his posts. People eat this stuff up.

Yet, it was a good teaching example on some common techniques used that are fallacies these days and because people don't know about such fallacies and critical thinking is not really taught it is something I try to do. I want people to think. I want people to see when logical fallacies are being used to manipulate them.

So when an appeal to the stone comes into play if the person is somehow believed in their expression of something being absurd an Appeal to Emotion kicks in. Most people don't like to be perceived as a fool. So at this point something is being expressed as absurd with or without evidence. Our desire not to be perceived as foolish kicks in and sometimes we are already being swayed towards agreeing simply due to not wanting to seem foolish for taking a serious look at something this "authority" believes is absurd. We want to fit in.

At this point we are already in a losing situation. We are concerned about believing something that might be absurd. Our emotions kick in and we are viewing something as FACT and as though EVIDENCE was presented simply based upon our emotions, an Appeal To The Stone, and possibly an Appeal To Authority.

This is used against us often.

So I listen to David's video some more. Eventually it gets to a Trump video and you can hear David snickering as Trump is speaking. Need to add that laugh sound track. This is more Appeal To The Stone. Further making you think it is absurd before a SINGLE fact or piece of evidence was presented.

Eventually we make it to the brief snips from the Fox News story that David thought were worth sharing. He did indicate we could look it up and watch the entire thing ourselves. You should, if you think this actually "destroyed" something that hasn't been investigated.

The first thing I noticed was that the Fox anchor stated the Accusation. Yet the accusation stated was only ONE part of a many part thing that is Uranium One. The anchor also did his own appeal to the stone moments. He also made some statements as though they proved anything, when they actually were irrelevant to the claim.

He started by saying Hillary couldn't approve the sale of Uranium One as Secretary of State as it was not an authority given to the Secretary of State. Yeah, people making the claim are not saying SHE DID IT BY HERSELF, nor are they saying she had the power to approve it.

So this is another chance to show some common logical fallacies. If you are married, and occasionally have verbal disagreements with your spouse you may have experienced something like this.

So I am arguing with my wife and she makes a claim about one of our kids. I say "Okay you are going to go tell them X and see how they react?" and she will agree. I'll then listen to her go and say X modified and stated to lead them to the answer she wants them to provide. This was not what we agreed to it was changed when she actually did it.

This is what this Fox Anchor is doing. The accusations/allegations are many faceted for one thing. The Fox Anchor is stating the accusation is X, and he is wrong. That is not the allegation. It is part of it.

He has the clear disdain in his voice that is going for that Appeal To Emotion, and Appeal To The Stone.

This is NOT proof. It is NOT evidence. His lack of knowledge on the subject does not mean his opinion "destroys" anything.

David's use of the word "destroys" in the title had some great emotional weight. It is a common technique used on all sides.

Why? Many people think opinions are evidence. They are not. Many people think emotions are proof. They are not.

I encourage you to take time to look yourself. There are tons of examples of things like this, and they don't occur only with those that appear to be "left" or "right".

Anyone can resort to such tactics. We haven't been taught not to. Why? These are some of the best tools available for propaganda, but they only work if you don't notice them.

Let's get more people noticing common logical fallacies. Let's return to a time when Reason, Logic, Facts, and Evidence actually fit what their label was created to mean. Let's stop passing off speculations, opinion, and emotion as fact.

Let's stop trying to win an argument by making people be afraid to appear a fool due to thinking for themselves.

I also want to close that maybe they will disprove Uranium One. I am skeptical as I have actually done some research and looked into many of the different pieces of evidence. That doesn't mean it won't be disproven. One thing is certain it won't be disproven by using Appeals to The Stone, Appeals to Emotion, or Appeals to Authority. Those things prove nothing.