[Steve_American]

It is hard to fact check every fact you see. And what fact checking site can we trust anyway?

If you read an article by a tenured professor in the relevant discipline and he/she makes a fact statement about a fairly easy fact [for example, the EU rules require each nation to regulate its own banks and to guarantee the deposits in them], and then some random guy on the internet says that is flatly not so.

Who should you believe?

Recently I asked this exact question and the reply I got was that this is a logical fallacy, that it is an argument form authority. But, US courts have a system in place that gives expert witnesses much more standing [1 court approved expert is more to be believed than 10 guys off the street]. Do US courts use fallacy as a key element of their system?

So, who would you, the lurkers and posters, be more inclined to believe the tenured professor or just any guy who yells loudly? At least, until the random guy provides some additional evidence.

[Negotiator]

Err ... you cannot possibly check ALL facts that ever get mentioned to you.

And you have an amusing blind belief in authority. Why would I believe that professor either ? Its just a professor of law, who are not the brightest bunch. Even if that wasnt the case, professors are only human beings, too. They are fallible, like the rest of us.

More importantly, even if that law indeed exists - the question if its actually followed is a different question. Many laws exist and dont get followed. Paper is insanely patient this way.

[noemon]

It is hard to fact check every fact you see. And what fact checking site can we trust anyway?

If you read an article by a tenured professor in the relevant discipline and he/she makes a fact statement about a fairly easy fact [for example, the EU rules require each nation to regulate its own banks and to guarantee the deposits in them], and then some random guy on the internet says that is flatly not so.

Who should you believe?

Recently I asked this exact question and the reply I got was that this is a logical fallacy, that it is an argument form authority.

An argument being true does not rely on the identity of those making it but whether the argument is true or not. The argument the "Professor was making" was shown beyond any doubt to be false, instead of trying to salvage the argument by making a counter-argument, you said "a Professor said it so I would rather go with his fallacious argument than listen to the correct argument a guy in the internet proved with evidence". The evidence is what determines the efficacy of the argument and not the identity of the people making the argument. Second, the blogger you call a professor is also just a random guy on the internet and the person whom you call "a guy in the internet" could be something else. But since my identity is irrelevant to the evidence I provided I have no reason to advertise myself. The professor made 2 very serious fallacies that were proven beyond any doubt to be false. He blamed the EU & the EU commission instead of the national governments which is akin to blaming the State of the US for the actions of Trump instead of Trump, or Clinton, or whoever is in charge, which is very bad propaganda because it tells people that instead of getting rid of whoever is in charge, they should get rid of the state instead. And he also claimed that there is bias with allegedly the same rules being applied differently from country to country, but he was using different rules(instead of the same rules) for different countries and when you use different rules instead of the same set of rules, then your argument is evidently self-defeating. Do you not understand how silly such an argument is?

These blogger professors come a dime a dozen in the internet. And as the EU has a lot of haters, there are plenty who find their own creative ways to attack the EU instead of the people responsible for whatever grievance they have.

[Sivad]

An argument being true does not rely on the identity of those making it but whether the argument is true or not. The argument the "Professor was making" was shown beyond any doubt to be false, instead of trying to salvage the argument by making a counter-argument, you said "a Professor said it so I would rather go with his fallacious argument than listen to the correct argument a guy in the internet proved with evidence". The evidence is what determines the efficacy of the argument and not the identity of the people making the argument.

It's crazy you even have to explain that to people.

[QatzelOk]

A tenured professor is obviously the person you want teaching you the basics of his/her field. But as for opinions... being a professor (or businessman, or royalty, or the Duchess of Canterbury) doesn't give your opinion more grounding. It just indicates that it was sown in privileged soil.

But you can often suss out the authority of someone's opinion by looking at other opinions, and looking at how much background information from various fields were used to create the opinion.

People who watch commercial media are constantly having their emotions and opinions manipulated, so you might want to give media consumers less credibility because they've been so emotionally damaged by the psycho-active imagery they have been exposed to.

[Steve_American]

A tenured professor is obviously the person you want teaching you the basics of his/her field. But as for opinions... being a professor (or businessman, or royalty, or the Duchess of Canterbury) doesn't give your opinion more grounding. It just indicates that it was sown in privileged soil.

But you can often suss out the authority of someone's opinion by looking at other opinions, and looking at how much background information from various fields were used to create the opinion.

People who watch commercial media are constantly having their emotions and opinions manipulated, so you might want to give media consumers less credibility because they've been so emotionally damaged by the psycho-active imagery they have been exposed to.

Yes, for opinions.
But, fact statements are not opinions.
For example,
Who are you going to believe a professional sports announcer or any guy in a bar, if the question is, "What team won the Super Bowl in 2015 (after 2014 season)"?

[QatzelOk]

Who are you going to believe a professional sports announcer or any guy in a bar, if the question is, "What team won the Super Bowl in 2015 (after 2014 season)"?

A guy in a bar with google is as credible as a PhD in Sports History from the University of Superbowl.

Facts are easy to find, and often contradict the "significance" of other facts. But it is our OPINIONS that lead us to accept and seek out certain, particular facts.

[Steve_American]

A guy in a bar with google is as credible as a PhD in Sports History from the University of Superbowl.

Facts are easy to find, and often contradict the "significance" of other facts. But it is our OPINIONS that lead us to accept and seek out certain, particular facts.

Yes, that is true.
But, until I see him use google, or better, see the results in his iphone, he is just some guy in a bar contradicting what the sportscaster told me this morning. Why should I [I mean "I"] believe him?
If he wants to contradict me he ought to provide some evidence using his google thing.
If the burden of proof is on the 1st speaker for every fact he says then his sentences will be very long because he has to prove every fact. In thie specific case I used in the OP, I testified that my source was a youtube video by a professional economics professor. The reply was, "Authorities don't out weigh my IIRC memory of what is true." And the person still has not used the google to prove me wrong. And this person has admitted in the last day or 2 that he/she was wrong about 2 things of how the EU rules work.

I submit this link as more evidence ---
As of 2017, "Germany stands firm against EU bank deposit guarantee plan"
https://www.ft.com/content/58c9a172-ae7 ... 21c713abf4

[Hindsite]

It is hard to fact check every fact you see. And what fact checking site can we trust anyway?

If you read an article by a tenured professor in the relevant discipline and he/she makes a fact statement about a fairly easy fact [for example, the EU rules require each nation to regulate its own banks and to guarantee the deposits in them], and then some random guy on the internet says that is flatly not so.

Who should you believe?

In this case, in which I am not knowledgeable of the subject matter, I would believe the tenured professor first.

[noemon]

Yes, that is true.
But, until I see him use google, or better, see the results in his iphone, he is just some guy in a bar contradicting what the sportscaster told me this morning. Why should I [I mean "I"] believe him?
If he wants to contradict me he ought to provide some evidence using his google thing.
If the burden of proof is on the 1st speaker for every fact he says then his sentences will be very long because he has to prove every fact. In thie specific case I used in the OP, I testified that my source was a youtube video by a professional economics professor. The reply was, "Authorities don't out weigh my IIRC memory of what is true." And the person still has not used the google to prove me wrong. And this person has admitted in the last day or 2 that he/she was wrong about 2 things of how the EU rules work.

You can pretend that there is no evidence by ignoring all the links provided to you but that is not a very honest thing to do:

Also, you claimed that I claimed that the crisis [GFC/2008?] was caused by something in the EU or EZ. I do not think I did. Show me. I know the GFC/2008 was caused by the banks in America. So, I doubt that I ever claimed anything different from American banks were the cause.

Here, take a look:

Since 2008, Europe lost economic activity the equivalent of Spain’s entire GDP … Spain’s GDP is about $US1.3 trillion and the country employs about 19 million people, to give you an idea of just how much is “missing.” While it is not directly the case that there would be an extra 19 million jobs in Europe if governments here had been more fiscally supportive, that is nonetheless the scale of the issue we’re talking about.

The cause of these losses goes right to the architecture of the monetary union and the way the European Commission enforces it:

Of course yours or Mitchell's argument has been completely deconstructed and trashed. a)The Commission did not even have the extra powers back in 2008 or in its lead up, powers it received in 2013 to impose anything on anyone, even when she did receive these extra powers in 2013 she followed the procedure of the Council giving her the go-ahead instead of acting on its own. I stated with good reason that the Commission cannot act on its own without getting the mandate from the Council(national governments) and provided proof to that effect. Rugoz showed that due to the reverse qualified majority voting that was adopted in 2013, the Commission can move forward without necessarily requiring Council mandate, but in practise she never made use of that and sought Council approval. b) It was not the Commission's fault the crisis states went bankrupt and prostrated themselves before the banks, in fact it is exactly the opposite for if the crisis states had followed the commission's recommendations to not have national debt over 60% of their GDP they would not have gone bankrupt.
c) It was not the Commission's business to figure out solutions, it was the Council's(national Prime Minister's) & the Euroroup's (national Finance Ministers) business as we all witnessed live before our eyes. It was the neoliberal national governments of the EU countries that agreed and then imposed the austerity, not the Commission.

I submit this link as more evidence ---
As of 2017, "Germany stands firm against EU bank deposit guarantee plan"
https://www.ft.com/content/58c9a172-ae7 ... 21c713abf4

I am not even sure of what is that supposed to mean especially when the FT article cannot be opened and even more especially when there is already an EU bank deposit guarantee scheme since 2009(for 50k) and 2010(for 100k). My guess is that Germany stands against further amendments to the existing EU bank deposit guarantee scheme, because the southern countries want to increase its scope.

Lastly people who admit their mistakes instantly are far more trust-worthy than people who close their eyes and ears and try to come up with whatever insult they can find to undermine the fact that they have been proven wrong.

[Steve_American]

@noemon,
I told you a little while ago that I was done with this thread.
That meant that I had stopped reading 90% of what you were writing.
Why? Because you accused me of spreading propaganda, and didn't define the term when asked [that I saw skimming you replies].
So, I admit that we were both wrong and both right. I was right that in the GFC/2008 the EU had no EU wide bank deposit insurance law in place. As you say here it seems to have been enacted in 2009. You were wrong because it wasn't in place in 2008 when it was needed. And that was my point. If you had said that in the 1st place then I would have not gone after you. I was working on old info. I was not knowingly telling lies. But, you just doubled down on your claim that sounded to me like "In 2008 the EU had the ECB backing the deposits in all European banks." Too bad we got confused about we were trying to say to each other.

I still don't like you. You called me a liar. I don't like that. And yes, I take things personally. My Ausbergers showing thru.

[noemon]

I still don't like you. You called me a liar. I don't like that. And yes, I take things personally. My Ausbergers showing thru.

I apologise for coming off as an asshole but what I said exactly is that:

Either you or the author of that blog are simply posting lies for the gullible.

The way you have posted Mitchell's blog is truly confusing and there is really no way for me to know who is the one speaking. I think it's clear now that both the standard text in your post as well as the quotes in the same post are both Mitchell's and not your own.

[QatzelOk]

... just some guy in a bar contradicting what the sportscaster told me this morning. Why should I [I mean "I"] believe him?
If he wants to contradict me he ought to provide some evidence using his google thing.
If the burden of proof is on the 1st speaker for every fact he says then his sentences will be very long because he has to prove every fact.

There's another aspect to this that you've ignored up to this point.

If tenured professors are more credible, than that is who you should pay to lie for your corporation.

The missing element is the way that capitalism and spin have destroyed everyone's and every institution's credibility.

[youtube]gCMzjJjuxQI[/youtube]
Who are you going to believe, some guy at a bar telling you smoking causes cancer, or a medical doctor who enjoyes the smooth, relaxing taste of Camels?

[Steve_American]

@QatzelOk,
I did say I was speaking specifically about "facts".
For many years it was not considered a 'fact' that cigs caused cancer.
A 'fact' is something like, 'The XIII Amendment to the US Constitution outlawed slavery, except for criminals.'
At least the 'easily verified facts' I was talking about.

[QatzelOk]

I did say I was speaking specifically about "facts".
For many years it was not considered a 'fact' that cigs caused cancer.

And it was a fact that more doctors smoked Camels than any other brand.

This fact was very comforting to people who were addicted to cigarettes, and that included the majority of adult males in most developed societies in the 50s. And the majority of females in liberated, modern Western societies.

And those were real doctors used in the ads. That's another fact.

By carefully selecting facts, you can create any false world you want to. And the constant "need" for moar in capitalist societies pushes everyone to learn how to use facts this way.

[Steve_American]

@QatzelOk,
That is true, but not relevant to the question asked in the OP.

[QatzelOk]

@QatzelOk,
That is true, but not relevant to the question asked in the OP.

It's totally relevant, and even suggests that the question in the OP isn't sufficient.

Yes, a professor should be more of an authority on certain subjects than a person who hasn't concentrated on the same area of studies.

But... and this is a big one... In a capitalist society that works on cut-throat competition, everyone lies. And so authorities - like professors - are sought after by people with money - to spread lies from a position of authority.

The guy on the Internet might at least be neutral as he doesn't have a stake in what he's writing about. The professor might tell you that "smoking is good for you" if a cigarette company is paying him enough.

Who pays your professor? Because that source of money is who he is likely to lie for.

[Steve_American]

@QatzelOk,
It is really sad that the US has degenerated to this level.
So, yes, the Prof. may be paid to lie.
OTOH, where did the ordinary guy on the internet get his 'facts'?
Answer, from the internet. That is, from some other guy who may be being paid to lie.
At least the Prof. has the brake on lying in his writing that comes from worrying about his reputation if he totally misstates a simple fact. Who knows where the guy on the internet gets his 'facts'?

[QatzelOk]

@QatzelOk,
It is really sad that the US has degenerated to this level.
So, yes, the Prof. may be paid to lie.

Not just the professor. When you watch TV news, notice the number of retired generals (authorities) are interviewed to talk about whether to invade yet another nation. Many of these generals own shares or are paid lobbyists for arms merchants. So they too are being paid to be "doctors who smoke."

OTOH, where did the ordinary guy on the internet get his 'facts'?
Answer, from the internet. That is, from some other guy who may be being paid to lie.

The Internet allows you to get the opinions of hundreds of writers and ordinary people on any subject, and also allows you to cross-check the information that is supplied. This allows YOU to do research and to compare different sources with different vested interests.

This ability to verify the claims of rich, privileged people is the main reason taht giant corporations and facsist governments would like to control the flow, like they do with the flow of radio and television.

Giant corporations, if they sell cigarettes, want you to see that "doctors smoke" on both commercial media and the Internet. But so far, they have not been able to limit information to this extent.

Will you let them?