Hurricane Katrina!!!!!!

[kneehighs]

So now we are talking about the definition of the word opinion? Whose is better? The narrow one or the broad one. By what framework do we judge which definition is better to use? A policy making paradigm, a hypothesis testing paradigm?

Here is the authors linear flow of thought:(paranthesis are my comments)

1. both sides start to pick apart each other’s facts & interpretations

2. typical Swing Voter quickly becomes confused.

3. Swing Voters realize that they don’t understand the details well enough to make an informed decision

4. they end up relying on their impressions of the candidates

5. Republican strategists see this clearly. (Not exclusive to Republicans. not only applicable to politics, but business, marketing, and sales too)

6. They know they must win the Image Campaign to have any chance of winning. (I never said the same thing didn’t apply to Democrats either. The Democrats must also win the image campaign to have any hope of winning.)

7. It works because Swing Voters are essentially “headline readers” & “sound byte nibblers.” When they see in the headlines that Candidate A accused Candidate B of having a certain personality defect, they tend to believe it….Whenever Democratic candidates are the target of a Republican politician’s expressed anger, it is crucial that they respond properly if they want to win The Image Campaign. Impressions formed during such confrontations are usually remembered on voting day…

8. Swing Voters who have been voting Republican recently have come to see the Republicans as deserving respect partly because of the respect that Democratic politicians have shown them.

9. They define themselves [positively] by defining their Democratic opponents [negatively].

10. And with reference to the 2004 election, “Whenever Bush’s hand-picked crowd applauded his ridicule of Kerry, it created an image of The Democrats in the minds of swing voters that was never effectively answered by the Kerry Campaign (or by the Gore Campaign or by the Dukakis Campaign…). In his own image-bytes, Kerry came across as something of a stern teacher. This was actually not that bad of an idea, but it lacked some important emotional elements that would have established Kerry & The Democrats as the group that is superior to the Republican gang, the one that Swing Voters should want to be associated with.”

Here is Webster's definition of the word "opinion: A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof"

And here is how Webster's defines the word "proof: The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true."

And here is how Webster's defines the word "argument: A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood."

Therefore, the authors course of reasoning is not mere opinion, but goes beyond mere opinion to a deeper level of making a claim. A level with some thought analysis and linear progression.

And please, just a link for the quotes above--

[j-turbo2002]

I am just not getting through to you am I?

How can you prove to me that the following is true? Has it been accepted be everyone? What? Please tell me.

How does the author know that these statements are true?

You have done absolutely nothing so far.

[j-turbo2002]

JT, why don't you prove him wrong?

I am already doing so - by asking questions.

[kneehighs]

I am just not getting through to you am I?

How can you prove to me that the following is true? Has it been accepted be everyone?What? Please tell me.

How does the author know that these statements are true?

You have done absolutely nothing so far.

You haven't changed my mind so apparently you haven't done anything either.

Thats basic human psychology. The capacity to believe the course of reasoning that he uses exists, therefore it is credible.

The need to prove that everyone has accepted something is not necessary to make it credible. That would be just another logical fallacy, ad populum.

There were no credible references or anything. I was looking for a well written dissertation by a policital scientist with a doctoral degree and years of experience.

You based your argument on someone elses opinion. You did not base an argument on a dissertation or thesis paper that had been well accepted by the author's colleagues or by experts in the field of political science or psychology (if you want).

This is what you are basing your argument upon. It is clear that he is not writing a dissertation here because there are no credible references in the article. What he has written here is something that you would find in an opinion column in a newspaper. I mean, he talks about the emotinal and fear elements with no psychological references or backing. If what the author has written here was a serious dissertation, he would have included the basis for his statements and then published the paper. As of now, I do not think that he has done so and hence, it remains a personal opinion.

You keep reiterating the need for credible references. What does it take for something to be credible? Let’s see how Webster’s defines the word “credible: Capable of being believed; plausible.”

And let’s look at the four definitions for the word capable also provided by Webster’s: • Having capacity or ability; efficient and able: a capable administrator.

• Having the ability required for a specific task or accomplishment; qualified: capable of winning.

• Having the inclination or disposition: capable of violence.

• Permitting an action to be performed”

The capacity for the authors course of reasoning exists. Therefore, it is credible.

And as far as you claiming that I have not provided credible reference for my statement, that is a form of an ad hominem attack against me. (3) ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches.” Yet another logical fallacy.

The author provides a linear progression of thought that is credible...what are your specific refutations of his thought process?

And where is a link to the claims Bubba136 made above I have been asking for? At least I gave you some substance (even if we disagree on the quality of the substance) I at least gave you something.

You have yet to give me even a link. So, where is it?

[kneehighs]

Your requirements for me to prove the authors point of view is true is also grounded in a logical fallacy. It’s called argumentum ad ignorantiam or in common English, argument from ignorance. Such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. Example: (i) Since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, they must exist. (ii) Since scientists cannot prove that global warming will occur, it probably won't. (iii) Fred said that he is smarter than Jill, but he didn't prove it, so it must be false. I’ve provided a logical flow as to how the author’s (and in this case. mine also) point of view was established. First, I defined the word proof. Second, I defined the word argument. Third I defined the word credible. The course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth (argument) compels the mind to accept an assertion as true (proof). The assertions are capable of being believed (credible). Therefore the arguments above fit the criteria for a “credible argument with proof.” So what were your specific objections to the latter definitions, the course of reasoning, the proof, the argument, the credibility again? And a link please?

[j-turbo2002]

At least I gave you some substance (even if we disagree on the quality of the substance) I at least gave you something.

I finally got you to admit it. Yes, all it was was substance and most certainly nothing to base an argument upon.

[kneehighs]

I finally got you to admit it. Yes, all it was was substance and most certainly nothing to base an argument upon.

The above is not an admission of anything. Note the contingency, "even if we disagree"

Now why don't you stop conclusions without refuting the argument the author made? I still have yet to see one argument against the specifics.

So now I'm not only asking you for specific refutations, but also a link.

[kneehighs]

So you have failed to specifically refute the author’s point of view. You did not refute any of the definitions or stream of consciousness and you failed to refute the logical fallacy inherent in your request for why I believe what I believe. In fact, until your refutation actually contains a premise with which to argue against, we will just be going in circles. But so you can refute the basis by which I make my point, I’ll reiterate it. I’ve provided a logical flow as to how the author’s (and in this case. mine also) point of view was established. First, I defined the word proof. Second, I defined the word argument. Third I defined the word credible. I proved the argument credible. In the context of proving how the authors main points were offered within Webster’s definitions I proved the argument (authors claims) were credible. The course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth (argument) compels the mind to accept an assertion as true (proof). The assertions are capable of being believed (credible). Therefore the arguments above fit the criteria for a “credible argument with proof.”

[dr1819]

Instead of arguing logical discourse and philosophical solipsisms, how about we converge back on the topic - Hurricane Katrina? Just a suggestion, not an opinion, or theory, or proof...

[j-turbo2002]

So you have failed to specifically refute the author’s point of view.

You did not refute any of the definitions or stream of consciousness and you failed to refute the logical fallacy inherent in your request for why I believe what I believe. In fact, until your refutation actually contains a premise with which to argue against, we will just be going in circles.

But so you can refute the basis by which I make my point, I’ll reiterate it. I’ve provided a logical flow as to how the author’s (and in this case. mine also) point of view was established. First, I defined the word proof. Second, I defined the word argument. Third I defined the word credible. I proved the argument credible. In the context of proving how the authors main points were offered within Webster’s definitions I proved the argument (authors claims) were credible. The course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth (argument) compels the mind to accept an assertion as true (proof). The assertions are capable of being believed (credible). Therefore the arguments above fit the criteria for a “credible argument with proof.”

No, you have done nothing whatsoever. YOU are the one driving this in circles because you have not paid any attention to what I have asked of you. I ask one simple question and you have dodged the question and taken your argument 180 degrees in the opposite direction. I am still waiting.

I asked you to prove to me that what the author says is fact and you have not done this so far. You are correct, you did define a lot of words however, this is meaningless. All that you have proven to me is that even though what the author wrote is an opinion, you can make it credible based on logical fallacies.

Based upon your analogy, anything can be credible even though it is false. I mean, based on your anaolgy Bubba could argue his points and give a link to a blog filled with personal opinions like you have done here and therefore, it is credible even though it may be false.

Like I have said all you have proven to me is that by using definitions and logical fallacies, you can make anything credible even though it is false.

One more time, here is my point: You posted a link to a webpage. In this webpage, there is a personal opinion about Republicans made by an author. Now, as of this very moment, that article is false and is nothing more than an opinion until it is found to be socially acceptable by experts in the field subject matter. In other words, the author would have to use references to back up his statements and then publish the article to experts in the field. When all of the experts agree that the author is correct, then what the author has written is credible. This is typically how it is done in the industry. Doctors, Engineers, Historians, and Policital Scientists all follow this process. You were correct before when you asked me if this was hypothesis testing because this is exactly what it is. So far, what the author wrote has not been hypothesis tested and is therefore just an false opinion.

So, the real question here is has the author's point of view been found to be socially acceptable by experts in the field subject matter by hypothesis testing? If the answer to this quesiton is "Yes", then what he has written is credible.

[j-turbo2002]

Instead of arguing logical discourse and philosophical solipsisms, how about we converge back on the topic - Hurricane Katrina?

Just a suggestion, not an opinion, or theory, or proof...

No, that is a very good suggestion!

[hoverfly]

No, that is a very good suggestion!

It's a miracle!!! the carpet bigger got of his high horse!! By him self!!!

:rofl:

[j-turbo2002]

Hoverfly, if I were you I would not get too excited.

[kneehighs]

I don't see one reason why the following quote is false as you claim it to be. You just said that there was no substance, but you didn't specifically state what is wrong with the course of reasoning outlined below.

Here's what you stated, "When all of the experts agree that the author is correct. then what the author has written is credible"

There are fields where all the experts don't agree that something is correct, but the views expressed are still regarded as true. Anyone who is familiar with economics knows that there are many plausible theories that are incompatible with one another. Because of this, one expert economist could sincerely claim that the deficit is the key factor while another equally qualified individual could assert the exact opposite. In forensic psychology, its been demonstrated in various trials, it is possible to find one expert that will assert that an individual is insane and not competent to stand trial and to find another equally qualified expert who will testify, under oath, that the same individual is both sane and competent to stand trial.

It is important to keep in mind that no field has complete agreement, so some degree of dispute is acceptable. And don't forget how if something isn't proven true doesn't mean it's false. Specific requests were made to support your claim this theory is false with at least some reason, logic, or discourse based on the merits of the argument itself--not its acceptance among professional peers--There are other ways to argue an issue besides the appeal to authority you seem to prefer.

You just state the authors arguments are false. It's just an opinion. But where is the reasoning that supports your statements? Because it hasn't been hypothesis tested by all the experts in a field, it is therefore false? Because it hasn't been published and the experts have debated every possible permutation of the argument? Well, my contention is that one can calculate the credibility of the authors statements without having all the experts in the field test its truth from every possible angle. Thus we don't need to have expert agreement in this particular case to prove the argument is true. In fact, in the process of hypothesis testing, experts will argue the issues, not that other experts have yet to validate the argument. I asked for a specific refutation against the authors points and if I was to ask the same of an expert in the field, he/she wouldn't just claim that its false because other experts haven't tested it. He/she would argue the point based on the merits of the argument itself, not who or who hasn't accepted the argument as true. So what were your specific refutations to the authors view again?

My point is that the authors arguments can be decided without expert corroboration. He calculates his conclusion in a linear fashion. He linearly transits from one claim to another. There wasn't an argument as to the merits of the arguments in and of themselves, so what? Shall I claim by the doctrine of estoppel by silence, the points are true?

Quote:

1. both sides start to pick apart each other’s facts & interpretations

2. typical Swing Voter quickly becomes confused.

3. Swing Voters realize that they don’t understand the details well enough to make an informed decision

4. they end up relying on their impressions of the candidates

5. Republican strategists see this clearly. (Not exclusive to Republicans. not only applicable to politics, but business, marketing, and sales too)

6. They know they must win the Image Campaign to have any chance of winning. (I never said the same thing didn’t apply to Democrats either. The Democrats must also win the image campaign to have any hope of winning.)

7. It works because Swing Voters are essentially “headline readers” & “sound byte nibblers.” When they see in the headlines that Candidate A accused Candidate B of having a certain personality defect, they tend to believe it….Whenever Democratic candidates are the target of a Republican politician’s expressed anger, it is crucial that they respond properly if they want to win The Image Campaign. Impressions formed during such confrontations are usually remembered on voting day…

8. Swing Voters who have been voting Republican recently have come to see the Republicans as deserving respect partly because of the respect that Democratic politicians have shown them.

9. They define themselves [positively] by defining their Democratic opponents [negatively].

10. And with reference to the 2004 election, “Whenever Bush’s hand-picked crowd applauded his ridicule of Kerry, it created an image of The Democrats in the minds of swing voters that was never effectively answered by the Kerry Campaign (or by the Gore Campaign or by the Dukakis Campaign…). In his own image-bytes, Kerry came across as something of a stern teacher. This was actually not that bad of an idea, but it lacked some important emotional elements that would have established Kerry & The Democrats as the group that is superior to the Republican gang, the one that Swing Voters should want to be associated with.”

In any of your previous posts, you never asked me to prove this was a "fact". You never once used that word.

Whats interesting, is that if you use your own definition of credibility against the quotes below(which was my original point), the points lose all credibility. : "When all of the experts agree that the author is correct, then what the author has written is credible."

They believe that all people should be educated only to the level of the least intelligent so that everyone will be working from the same level. Their credo that all men are created equal and "no one is better than anyone else." Therefore, qualification or education should never be applied as a prerequisite for any position, job or employment situation.

If the Liberals had their way, all of the names of those interested in a job would go into a hat and the one pulled out would get the job.....never mind that the individual chosen can't even spell "job."

If a test is given to a group of students to gauge the level of accomplishment attained during a school year has an unacceptable number of students failing, the passing score is lowered rather than placing the responsibility on the student to study harder to learn the material required.

They also believe that there no individual winners in life. That's why they insist that no sports or games played in primary or middle school can keep score. Though each team get their chance at bat, no runs are counted, no score is kept and at the end of the game, everyone departs the field of battle with their "self-esteem" intact.

All you have to do is take a good look at New York City. They practice every element contained in my post.

Whats also interesting is that I did not qualify my original request for specific source data using your definition of credibility. I just wanted a more definitive statement with specific sources to try and make sense out of someone else views. There are alot of claims in the above quotes and in an effort to understand the validity of those claims, I requested further information.

So what substantiates the above quotes again?

[hoverfly]

Hoverfly, if I were you I would not get too excited.

Oh please sweet hart your not my type........ :drinking: Even with my beer goggles on.

Buy the way are you practicing to be a senator congressman ect or are you being just a preacher?

[j-turbo2002]

You just state the authors arguments are false. It's just an opinion. But where is the reasoning that supports your statements? Because it hasn't been hypothesis tested by all the experts in a field, it is therefore false? Because it hasn't been published and the experts have debated every possible permutation of the argument?

YES! In the real world, this is how it is accomplished!

It has absolutely nothing to do with the way you view it.

Here is my reasoning again: You posted a link to a webpage. In this webpage, there is a personal opinion about Republicans made by an author. Now, as of this very moment, that article is false and is nothing more than an opinion until it is found to be socially acceptable by experts in the field subject matter. In other words, the author would have to use references to back up his statements and then publish the article to experts in the field. When all of the experts agree that the author is correct, then what the author has written is credible. This is typically how it is done in the industry. Doctors, Engineers, Historians, and Policital Scientists all follow this process. You were correct before when you asked me if this was hypothesis testing because this is exactly what it is. So far, what the author wrote has not been hypothesis tested and is therefore just an false opinion.

So, the real question here is has the author's point of view been found to be socially acceptable by experts in the field subject matter by hypothesis testing? If the answer to this question is "Yes", then what he has written is credible.

There are no facts or references to support any of this (See below). Where are the facts and references? Where is the support for this conclusion? I want something other than the way that you see it.

1. both sides start to pick apart each other’s facts & interpretations

2. typical Swing Voter quickly becomes confused.

3. Swing Voters realize that they don’t understand the details well enough to make an informed decision

4. they end up relying on their impressions of the candidates

5. Republican strategists see this clearly. (Not exclusive to Republicans. not only applicable to politics, but business, marketing, and sales too)

6. They know they must win the Image Campaign to have any chance of winning. (I never said the same thing didn’t apply to Democrats either. The Democrats must also win the image campaign to have any hope of winning.)

7. It works because Swing Voters are essentially “headline readers” & “sound byte nibblers.” When they see in the headlines that Candidate A accused Candidate B of having a certain personality defect, they tend to believe it….Whenever Democratic candidates are the target of a Republican politician’s expressed anger, it is crucial that they respond properly if they want to win The Image Campaign. Impressions formed during such confrontations are usually remembered on voting day…

8. Swing Voters who have been voting Republican recently have come to see the Republicans as deserving respect partly because of the respect that Democratic politicians have shown them.

9. They define themselves [positively] by defining their Democratic opponents [negatively].

10. And with reference to the 2004 election, “Whenever Bush’s hand-picked crowd applauded his ridicule of Kerry, it created an image of The Democrats in the minds of swing voters that was never effectively answered by the Kerry Campaign (or by the Gore Campaign or by the Dukakis Campaign…). In his own image-bytes, Kerry came across as something of a stern teacher. This was actually not that bad of an idea, but it lacked some important emotional elements that would have established Kerry & The Democrats as the group that is superior to the Republican gang, the one that Swing Voters should want to be associated with.”

[j-turbo2002]

Oh please sweet hart your not my type........ :drinking: Even with my beer goggles on.

Buy the way are you practicing to be a senator congressman ect or are you being just a preacher?

No, being the good engineer that I am, I am solving another problem.

[j-turbo2002]

My point is that the authors arguments can be decided without expert corroboration. He calculates his conclusion in a linear fashion. He linearly transits from one claim to another. There wasn't an argument as to the merits of the arguments in and of themselves, so what? Shall I claim by the doctrine of estoppel by silence, the points are true?

Yes, I understand what you are saying here! I am happy that you have used this reasoning to conclude that what the author says is true.

However, you are very narrow minded because you are still not listening to what I am trying to tell you: It does not work this way in real life!

In the real world, you put credible facts behind what you say and you publish your findings. When a good majority of other peers reach the same conclusion that you do (through testing, debate, etc.) then your assumptions are credible.

[hoverfly]

No, being the good engineer that I am, I am solving another problem.

Engineer huh? What kind, Maritime perhaps? Mechanical?........

[j-turbo2002]

Engineer huh? What kind, Maritime perhaps? Mechanical?........

I am a Mechanical Engineer. If there was anyone going into the field of engineering I would recommend Mechanical Engineering because it is a good all-round discipline. You see little bit of everything (Civil, Electrical, Aerodynamic Engineering, etc.) when you are a Mechanical Engineer.

[hoverfly]

I am a Mechanical Engineer. If there was anyone going into the field of engineering I would recommend Mechanical Engineering because it is a good all-round discipline. You see little bit of everything (Civil, Electrical, Aerodynamic Engineering, etc.) when you are a Mechanical Engineer.

Well that explains alot and I thought my GF's Step dad who is a electro, mechanical marine engineer was a A$$Ho@# at times. My I complemnt that you take the cake for sure on this one!!

[j-turbo2002]

Funny! Real funny! What can I say, there always has to be a smart-ass in the group. Actually, I have been good this entire time.

[hoverfly]

Funny! Real funny! What can I say, there always has to be a smart-ass in the group.

Actually, I have been good this entire time.

I guess the funny part on me is the my GF's Step Dad made big bucks while I am unemployed again. How much he made you ask? Just put two zeros for each title he had before the dollar sign!! Would of, could of, should of.........

[j-turbo2002]

Yes, that is true. The title "Engineer" = Money Whew! Looking back, I am glad that I did it. It was really no easy chore - it took me five years to get through engineering school in college. Those engineering professors love to work your ass off. However, it has really paid off on the job and money side of the issue. Well......there is still time for you to go to school. What do you say?

[hoverfly]

Yes, that is true. The title "Engineer" = Money

Whew! Looking back, I am glad that I did it. It was really no easy chore - it took me five years to get through engineering school in college. Those engineering professors love to work your ass off. However, it has really paid off on the job and money side of the issue.

Well......there is still time for you to go to school. What do you say?

What do I say? What I will say is I got to spend $14000 bucks for 160 hours with a speech therapist to correct what I am now diagnosed recently as being dyslexic, with short and long term memory issues. The funny thing is it not what people know about dyslexic, seeing letters back wards, input. My problem is out put!! Like spelling Go figure uh? (I use a spell checker). On top of that I been dealing with ADHD all my life but only been medicated since I was 25. So after all that is taken cared of, maybe I will got to Maine Maritime and study power plants. My last job I worked for a company who generated their own power and steam. Via 6 caterpillars, 1 solar turbine, with heat recovery boilers, and 2 Cleaver Brooks medium pressure boilers. Oh yeah and one Fairbanks Morse multi fuel generator that shakes it’s self apart So it’s not used much. I am hoping I get called back soon after the banks reorganized the company after they rolled in on some accounting issues. The owner was on the Tyco board during the Kowalski era. But that has not stopped me form looking for one. But I don't regret obtaining an Associates in Machine Tool, so I can say I am not stupid. I have a GF who is a Blond Square who say I have potential and I am wasting it away. :drinking: What do I say? All of it in one breath !! Gaaaaaaaasp passes out on desk.......

[Shafted]

As a fellow New Englander, Maine Maritime Academy from what I hear is an excellent school. Yea, okay so I'm shamelessly plugging my own state.

[hoverfly]

As a fellow New Englander, Maine Maritime Academy from what I hear is an excellent school. Yea, okay so I'm shamelessly plugging my own state.

Yea it is, and I got connections to get in if I can/ want to some day. But the place is way out in the boonies!! It does have a golf course, but the winters are long and cold. Better get some balls other with colors other than white.

[Shafted]

Yea it is, and I got connections to get in if I can/ want to some day. But the place is way out in the boonies!! It does have a golf course, but the winters are long and cold. Better get some balls other with colors other than white.

Nah, it's comparatively warm compared to Presque Isle, where I went to school. It's there where I really learned the definition of cold.

[j-turbo2002]

I am now diagnosed recently as being dyslexic, with short and long term memory issues. The funny thing is it not what people know about dyslexic, seeing letters back wards, input. My problem is out put!! Like spelling Go figure uh? (I use a spell checker). On top of that I been dealing with ADAD all my life but only been medicated since I was 25.

Well, I would not worry if I were you. I know a few engineers who are as dyslexic as hell and yet, they somehow got their engineering degrees.

In the place where I work there is a chemical engineer who as suffered from and is still taking medication for ADAD. Somehow, he was able to finish.

So, I would not worry.

[Bubba136]

Was anyone aware that Nelson Rockefeller, former Gov. of New York State and Vice President, was severely dyslexic?