*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #680 on: February 03, 2022, 06:19:09 PM »
I’ll add “bias” to the ever increasing list of things you don’t understand. Scientists aren’t “biased” against astrology any more than they’re biased against there being fairies at the bottom of the garden. There’s simply no empirical evidence for fairies, or for astrology being a good way of predicting the future.
So they form conclusions based on that empirical evidence, or lack thereof. That isn’t bias, it’s how everyone should be coming to conclusions.

You have in the past derided sources which you feel are biased against your position. You’re fine with sources which say what you want. Cherry picking, as usual.

Which part of your argument is actually rebutting the point that having a bias is not equivalent to being incorrect?

Astronomers have a bias against astrology. Mothers have a bias against drunk teenagers. Senior citizens have a bias against kids trespassing on their front lawn. Many people have a bias against criminality. Arguing that someone is biased against something is not a valid excuse to avoid having to rebut the argument. Bias does not mean incorrect or wrong.

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #681 on: February 03, 2022, 06:45:41 PM »
Astronomers have a bias against astrology.
No, they don’t.
They (and a lot of other people) have looked at the empirical evidence and concluded that it does not support astrology. That isn’t bias.

Quote
Bias does not mean incorrect or wrong.
It does make it more likely that someone is wrong because their bias makes them more likely to accept evidence which backs up their bias and reject evidence which does not, rather than assessing things objectively.
As you demonstrate on here daily.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Rama Set

Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #682 on: February 03, 2022, 06:49:17 PM »
I admitted your poll could be accurate. What else is there to argue? You asserting that conservapedia is a wiki therefore reliable?
I would argue that the question shouldn't be whether Conservapedia is reliable in general (it isn't), but rather whether the specific claim they've made about The Hill is true. In some cases, this might be difficult or time-consuming to verify, so falling back on general reliability may be a good option.

However, in this case verification is trivial. Both articles are linked within the Conservapedia page. You can just, like, go to them and find out whether they did or didn't use the specific wording alleged.

Tom disputed that the Hill is widely regarded as centrist and attempted to use conservapedia’s article as a contrafactual to that. Not only is that site unreliable because of their cherry-picking and falsely framed comparisons, but Conservapedia even admit in their article on the Hill that it has “a reputation of being more balanced compared to other lamestream [sic] media sources”. It doesn’t even really say what Tom wants it to say.

Quote
I've done just that, and so now I know that the claim was true.

Which claim? That the Hill has a liberal bias?

Quote
Saddam's response of "Conservapedia? Is this a joke?" is dumb, because it fails to address the claim, and merely dismisses it based on who the claimant is.

Sadam obviously made a poor refutation of that, but Tom made a bad point to begin with. It’s bias all the way down.

Quote
Tom could have just as well re-typed the same argument by hand, and then it would suddenly not be a Conservapedia link. The source doesn't automatically discredit a position.

If you are referring to Tom’s sarcastic eye roll, then I don’t agree, but I think you are talking about a different post. Can you please clarify which point of Tom’s you are referring to?

Quote
But hey, since we're all on watchlist for accessing that cursed website anyway, let's all enjoy the Biden junta article.

🍆

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #683 on: February 03, 2022, 07:18:32 PM »
Astronomers have a bias against astrology.
No, they don’t.
They (and a lot of other people) have looked at the empirical evidence and concluded that it does not support astrology. That isn’t bias.

Actually, it is.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/biased

adjective - "favoring one person or side over another"

Psychology Today says:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/bias

"A bias is a tendency, inclination, or prejudice toward or against something or someone. Some biases are positive and helpful—like choosing to only eat foods that are considered healthy or staying away from someone who has knowingly caused harm. But biases are often based on stereotypes, rather than actual knowledge of an individual or circumstance. Whether positive or negative, such cognitive shortcuts can result in prejudgments that lead to rash decisions or discriminatory practices."

A bias can be positive or negative. It merely means that you favor something. Having a bias is not equivalent to being right or wrong.

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Quote
Bias does not mean incorrect or wrong.
It does make it more likely that someone is wrong because their bias makes them more likely to accept evidence which backs up their bias and reject evidence which does not, rather than assessing things objectively.
As you demonstrate on here daily.

So the people who have a bias against crimes like murder are likely to be wrong? How laughable. You really appear to have no idea what you are talking about.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2022, 07:32:01 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #684 on: February 03, 2022, 07:42:31 PM »
Tom disputed that the Hill is widely regarded as centrist and attempted to use conservapedia’s article as a contrafactual to that.
He provided a very specific quote that he considers to be the counterpoint. Focus on that.

Not only is that site unreliable because of their cherry-picking and falsely framed comparisons
Do you believe the specific example Tom presented to be falsely framed? If so, you've just found an excellent point for yourself to argue.

but Conservapedia even admit in their article on the Hill that it has “a reputation of being more balanced compared to other lamestream [sic] media sources”. It doesn’t even really say what Tom wants it to say.
Not part of what's been quoted. Again, focus on the specific claim.

Which claim? That the Hill has a liberal bias?
No. Here, let me quote it again for clarity:

Despite having referred to migrant detention centers under the Trump presidency as "cages",[15] The Hill refers to such under the tenure of the Biden junta merely as "shelter for young migrants".[16]

There are plenty of good ways to address this position. You could argue that a single incident does not prove a broader trend. You could argue that that there was some good reason for them to use charged language when referring to Trump's cages, but to stop referring to them as such when Trump stopped being responsible for them. You could make a nuanced point about the differences between opinion writing and statistical data. Christ, there are so many angles here that don't boil down to "b-but this sentence came from a bad website!"

Sadam obviously made a poor refutation of that, but Tom made a bad point to begin with. It’s bias all the way down.
Until this moment, it really looked like you're defending Saddam's position. I now understand that you aren't, so this is either a presentation issue on your part, or a reading comprehension issue on mine.

Can you please clarify which point of Tom’s you are referring to?
Hopefully done above, but just in case: "Conservapedia bad" is not, by itself, a refutation of the claim of "The choice of words in these articles is evidence of The Hill's liberal bias".
« Last Edit: February 03, 2022, 07:44:32 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #685 on: February 03, 2022, 08:01:51 PM »
Actually, it is.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/biased

adjective - "favoring one person or side over another"
Oh whoopsie doodle! You accidently didn't quote this part:

Quote
While biased can just mean having a preference for one thing over another, it also is synonymous with "prejudiced,"

In common usage bias has a clear connotation.

And weirdly you did quote this which pretty much backs up what I said:

Quote
"A bias is a tendency, inclination, or prejudice toward or against something or someone. Some biases are positive and helpful—like choosing to only eat foods that are considered healthy or staying away from someone who has knowingly caused harm. But biases are often based on stereotypes, rather than actual knowledge of an individual or circumstance. Whether positive or negative, such cognitive shortcuts can result in prejudgments that lead to rash decisions or discriminatory practices."

So being biased doesn't automatically mean you're wrong about something, but it does make it more likely.
If I support a certain team in a sport then I am biased towards them and against other teams.
So when I'm watching and the referee gives a decision against my team I am more likely to think the decision wrong.
Bias robs one of objectivity.

For example, you have previously derided sources you don't agree with as biased. You are now - because this biased source agrees with you - claiming that bias is irrelevant. Which, ironically, shows your bias. See?
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #686 on: February 03, 2022, 08:27:21 PM »
Actually, it is.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/biased

adjective - "favoring one person or side over another"
Oh whoopsie doodle! You accidently didn't quote this part:

Quote
While biased can just mean having a preference for one thing over another, it also is synonymous with "prejudiced,"

In common usage bias has a clear connotation.

Wow, you bolded something. Here is something you didn't bold from that source:

"While biased can just mean having a preference for one thing over another, it also is synonymous with 'prejudiced,' and that prejudice can be taken to the extreme."

Biased can just mean having a preference for one thing than another. Blatantly ignoring the definitions and meanings of words in favor of your preferred meaning is a terrible way to argue, and is very visibly a display of cherry picking and intellectual dishonesty.

Also, prejudiced doesn't equal wrong either. Many people are prejudiced against allowing convicted child molesters around their children.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2022, 08:52:26 PM by Tom Bishop »

Rama Set

Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #687 on: February 03, 2022, 08:43:09 PM »
Tom disputed that the Hill is widely regarded as centrist and attempted to use conservapedia’s article as a contrafactual to that.
He provided a very specific quote that he considers to be the counterpoint. Focus on that.

Gotcha.

Do you believe the specific example Tom presented to be falsely framed? If so, you've just found an excellent point for yourself to argue.

I already did above.  I'll recap so you don't have to root around for it: The reference to "cages" was not the Hill editorializing, but quoting a source; it was also in reference to individual enclosures and not the entire facility.  Conservaderp then proceeded to compare that to an article talking about Biden wanting to close the entire facility.  It's not a fair comparison.

Quote from: Pete Svarrior
Not part of what's been quoted. Again, focus on the specific claim.

Which claim? That the Hill has a liberal bias?
No. Here, let me quote it again for clarity:

I'm with you now.  I clipped the rest because I think between your clarification and my comment earlier in this post it's mostly been answered.  To answer your last question about my viewpoint, I am not defending Sadam's post, although I sympathize with it.  I wanted to push back against Tom's terrible habit of letting his sources speal for themself simply because he cited them and agrees with them.  Not only was the part he quoted a bad piece of thinking, the entire wiki article is a gong show.


*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #688 on: February 03, 2022, 09:15:59 PM »
I already did above.  I'll recap so you don't have to root around for it: The reference to "cages" was not the Hill editorializing, but quoting a source; it was also in reference to individual enclosures and not the entire facility.  Conservaderp then proceeded to compare that to an article talking about Biden wanting to close the entire facility.  It's not a fair comparison.
Sounds sensible to me! No further questions, your honour
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #689 on: February 03, 2022, 09:30:12 PM »
Saddam's response of "Conservapedia? Is this a joke?" is dumb, because it fails to address the claim, and merely dismisses it based on who the claimant is.

When the claimant is Conservapedia, then yes, the claim can be safely dismissed based on who the claimant is. That doesn't necessarily mean that the opposite of the claim is automatically true, but an article from Conservapedia is never any good evidence of anything, ever.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline AATW

  • *
  • Posts: 6488
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #690 on: February 03, 2022, 09:34:14 PM »
Biased can just mean having a preference for one thing than another.
Literally no-one understands it that way.
I prefer burgers to salad, no-one would describe that as being biased. Biased has a clear connotation which your own source mentions.
Obviously you know this and are just digging your heels in because you want to be right on the internet, but you're wrong and trolling as usual.

Quote
Also, prejudiced doesn't equal wrong either.

It doesn't equal wrong, but it makes being wrong more likely.
Which you know, because you have derided sources in the past because you've said they're biased.
But with biased sources which confirm your own biases you're now saying that bias isn't an issue.
Which is pretty hypocritical. And you're doing this in part because of your own bias, which is ironic.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2022, 09:38:30 PM by AllAroundTheWorld »
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #691 on: February 03, 2022, 09:35:10 PM »
When the claimant is Conservapedia, then yes, the claim can be safely dismissed based on who the claimant is.
If you have any response at all to why that's dumb, please go ahead. If all you have to say is "YUH-UH I AM RIGHT", then perhaps we could respect the value of each other's time and not go there?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #692 on: February 03, 2022, 10:18:28 PM »
Conservapedia is notorious for being a ridiculous meme of right-wing nonsense almost indistinguishable from parody. Nothing they have to say is reliable or sensible. I don't have to read a specific article from them to know that the article is almost certainly going to be crap. Is it theoretically possible, is it within the laws of physics that such an article might actually make logical sense and be full of good points? Sure. It's also technically possible that if I go outside and call a cab, there might be a chimpanzee behind the wheel instead of a person. But just like it's a very safe assumption that my cab driver will be a human being and not a chimpanzee, it's also a very safe assumption that any given Conservapedia article will be full of horseshit. It's simply disingenuous to act like that website's well-earned reputation counts for nothing and that an article from them really deserves to be taken seriously.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #693 on: February 03, 2022, 10:39:08 PM »
Biased can just mean having a preference for one thing than another.
Literally no-one understands it that way.

Incorrect. Psychology Today and the dictionary source from vocabulary.com which was quoted and bolded to you were "literally" written by people who understand it that way.  ::)

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Quote
Also, prejudiced doesn't equal wrong either.

It doesn't equal wrong, but it makes being wrong more likely.

So parents who are prejudiced to not want their children to be around convicted child molesters are more likely to be wrong? How does that work?

Conservapedia is notorious for being a ridiculous meme of right-wing nonsense almost indistinguishable from parody. Nothing they have to say is reliable or sensible. I don't have to read a specific article from them to know that the article is almost certainly going to be crap

Actually, you do. How is it possible to know that this Conservapedia article about the game of chess is going to be full of falsities without reading and assessing it?
« Last Edit: February 03, 2022, 11:23:01 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #694 on: February 04, 2022, 12:22:06 AM »
Actually, you do. How is it possible to know that this Conservapedia article about the game of chess is going to be full of falsities without reading and assessing it?

On a whim I decided to take a look and make an assessment. Opening paragraphs from Conservapedia's 'Chess' entry:

Chess is an intellectually challenging game of chivalry between two players. Based purely on skill and merit without any element of chance, chess has long been one of the most popular games in the world, and today chess is played by upwards of 800 million people worldwide. Chess sharpens the mind, improves decision-making skills, helps overcome addiction and procrastination, drives out anxiety, and builds character. Promoters of chess include Benjamin Franklin,[1] Thomas Jefferson, actor Humphrey Bogart and movie producer Stanley Kubrick.[2]

Chess can be helpful in overcoming addictions exploiting images or patterns, including pornography, gambling, video games, and televised football. Chess fills the mind with a healthy activity while reinforcing the devastating consequences ("checkmate") of bad decisions.[3] Temerity is punished in chess, as is timorousness. Chess seems to fend off obesity, unlike unhealthy hobbies.


First off, a "challenging game of chivalry"? Huh? 'Chivalry'?

The bolded bit (mine) is pretty interesting. The [3] source referenced is to some guy's blog post about how chess helped him with his drug addiction. Literally 1 guy, a blog post. He referenced drugs. No mention of "pornography, gambling, video games, and televised football". Televised football? No mention of "reinforcing the devastating consequences ("checkmate") of bad decisions." No mention of "...fend off obesity"? Completely made up, manufactured.

Assessment: Even an entry about 'Chess' is very weirdly, for lack of a better term, biased. Maybe not even biased, just really weird, leaning into some kind of conservatism I can't even label. Televised football?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #695 on: February 04, 2022, 01:09:02 AM »
Really, and how did you perform your assessment of this article without reading it, as honk has claimed was his superior go-to method of rebutting articles? Are you going to even answer the question posed, or admit that you did have to read the article, showing honk wrong?

Also, how exactly did you determine that Chess has never helped anyone with addictions such as pornography, gambling, video games, or televised football? You are questioning something, but this is is not a determination that these statements are falsities. Your assessment is more akin to thinking that there needs to be a [citation needed] there, and has nothing to do with the matter of whether the statements are true or false.

Rama Set

Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #696 on: February 04, 2022, 02:05:22 AM »
Really, and how did you perform your assessment of this article without reading it, as honk has claimed was his superior go-to method of rebutting articles? Are you going to even answer the question posed, or admit that you did have to read the article, showing honk wrong?

Also, how exactly did you determine that Chess has never helped anyone with addictions such as pornography, gambling, video games, or televised football? You are questioning something, but this is is not a determination that these statements are falsities. Your assessment is more akin to thinking that there needs to be a [citation needed] there, and has nothing to do with the matter of whether the statements are true or false.

Well let’s just say that Honk’s assumption has proved to be correct one more time. What a fucking shit show that site is.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #697 on: February 04, 2022, 02:11:22 AM »
Well let’s just say that Honk’s assumption has proved to be correct one more time.

How was it shown that the article was allegedly inaccurate without reading the article, exactly? You are referring to a method of reading the article for assessment when honk claimed that it was not necessary.

In fact, he knew that the article would be wholey inaccurate and that "nothing they say is reliable" and that "any given Conservapedia article will be full of horseshit". We only heard about a minor claim of Chess helping people with addictions, which stack thinks, but completely fails to provide evidence for, is wrong. There is a lot more content there. Can you show us how this article is totally unreliable, how nothing in the article is correct, including the described rules of Chess, etc., possibly through use of honk's preferred method of not reading the article?
« Last Edit: February 04, 2022, 02:41:56 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #698 on: February 04, 2022, 02:56:46 AM »
Actually, you do. How is it possible to know that this Conservapedia article about the game of chess is going to be full of falsities without reading and assessing it?

Because Conservapedia is notorious for both its factual inaccuracies and its ludicrous, comical attempts to put a stereotypical right-wing spin on literally everything. It is technically possible, like I said, for there to be to be a sensible Conservapedia article with plenty of reasonable and logical points, but I know it's not going to happen, just like I know that I'm not going to go into work tomorrow and see my co-workers wearing powdered wigs and performing one of Shakespeare's plays, despite that also being technically possible. I would be astonished if you or anyone else here could show me many Conservapedia articles of reasonable length that don't have the wild exaggerations, absurd right-wing spin, and willful misinformation that are the hallmarks of the website.

That's why a rebuttal to the well-accepted claim that The Hill isn't liberal can be safely dismissed when it solely consists of a link to Conservapedia. Again, I'm not saying that a position being argued on Conservapedia automatically means that the opposite is true, only that Conservapedia's arguments can safely be ignored as meritless.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3583
    • View Profile
Re: President Joe Biden
« Reply #699 on: February 04, 2022, 02:57:40 AM »

We only heard about a minor claim of Chess helping people with addictions, which stack thinks, but completely fails to provide evidence for, is wrong. There is a lot more content there. Can you show us how this article is totally unreliable, how nothing in the article is correct, including the described rules of Chess, etc., possibly through use of honk's preferred method of not reading the article?

I didn’t say nothing in the article was correct. It was just highly amusing that the random example you gave, ‘chess’, opens up with those two paragraphs. Clearly showing quite a strange bend in reality. I mean it closes with, “Chess seems to fend off obesity, unlike unhealthy hobbies.”

And you’re expecting me to show that chess doesn’t fend off obesity? Is that how claims work theses days? Aside from that being the dumbest sentence ever, don’t you think a claim like that should have some sort of back up? Or have the rules changed?

Compare the first paragraph for ‘chess’ from conservapedia to Wikipedia’s:

“ Chess is a board game played between two players. It is sometimes called Western chess, or International chess to distinguish it from related games such as xiangqi and shogi. The current form of the game emerged in Southern Europe during the second half of the 15th century after evolving from a similar, much older game[a] of Indian origin. Today, chess is one of the world's most popular games, played by millions of people worldwide.”

No mention of addiction relief from porn and televised football, nor ‘chivalry’, nor anything about the games miraculous ability to fend off obesity unlike some other hobbies.

You’ve really got to be joking.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2022, 03:00:21 AM by stack »