Tom_in_CA
Elite Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 20,757
Now I know exactly what will happen next, from FK or the "faithful" that believe this Dent's Run nonsense : They will look at these criticisms, of those rags, and merely claim that THIS TOO is all a part of the conspiracy to do a hush job on stolen gold.
In other words, they would simply dismiss the criticism and say that any source (wiki or whatever) that posted criticism of a source, is simply mistaken, duped, or a part of a grand conspiracy.
This is what is known as the logical fallacy of "unfalsifiability". Ie.: No matter WHAT evidence gives you to counter your view, if it contradicts your "prior commitment", then, by definition, it's false. So there becomes NO test of facts, and NO source of information, that can EVER contradict your view-point. Ie.: there is no way, and no data, that can ever controvert your stance.
Therefore, I am sure that if the "faithful" saw these dazzling stories challenged, because they appeared in magazines that someone said were not-reputable, they would merely say that, .... on the contrary, the magazines are VERY reputable. And that WIKI is the one who is "not reputable". Or that the BS-meter website, is the one who has fallen for BS.
In other words, there is never any outside source you can use to corroborate or dash a notion, if the listener simply dismisses the critical/skeptical data "out the starting gate". This is why, for example, it's so hard to talk someone out of a cult: Because by mere definition, you can't believe anyone or any source that's not falling-in-line with the cult's "prior commitment".
In other words, they would simply dismiss the criticism and say that any source (wiki or whatever) that posted criticism of a source, is simply mistaken, duped, or a part of a grand conspiracy.
This is what is known as the logical fallacy of "unfalsifiability". Ie.: No matter WHAT evidence gives you to counter your view, if it contradicts your "prior commitment", then, by definition, it's false. So there becomes NO test of facts, and NO source of information, that can EVER contradict your view-point. Ie.: there is no way, and no data, that can ever controvert your stance.
Therefore, I am sure that if the "faithful" saw these dazzling stories challenged, because they appeared in magazines that someone said were not-reputable, they would merely say that, .... on the contrary, the magazines are VERY reputable. And that WIKI is the one who is "not reputable". Or that the BS-meter website, is the one who has fallen for BS.
In other words, there is never any outside source you can use to corroborate or dash a notion, if the listener simply dismisses the critical/skeptical data "out the starting gate". This is why, for example, it's so hard to talk someone out of a cult: Because by mere definition, you can't believe anyone or any source that's not falling-in-line with the cult's "prior commitment".
You are someone who is not "putting words into" or "forming impressions" of someone whom you have never met a person. But for me, as a skeptic/critic, I would be guilty of not having met-in-person, or being able to "hear first hand" the view-points of the other person. You, on the other hand, HAVE had first-hand meeting and inter-action. Thus, your opinions are going to be held in higher esteem that someone like me, who never got to question or meet with FK. So your input here is of great value !
NO !
