[an error occurred while processing this directive]
About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 20

Thursday, October 30, 2008 - 2:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Peter:

Reporters use anonymous sources or leaked data regularly. The fact that a reporter, scholar or scientist has established a career and is publishing in a reputable outlet (that last is a bit iffy in this case) is enough to create a presumption of accuracy. Saying "well, I don't believe it," however sincerely and accurately, isn't enough to overcome that presumption.


Peter, journalists with leaked information have been known to report inaccurate information. Dan Rather's report on Bush going AWOL comes to mind. At least in that case the evidence was available for examination and proven to be fabricated evidence. When a journalist doesn't provide the evidence, it begs the question of whether they are speaking the truth or not. You shouldn't lump "scientists and scholars" with "journalists with leaked evidence they can't let anyone corroborate" because the former, science and scholarly works, have a mechanism of corroborating evidence. Scientists do not hide their data, they publish it in a public science journal, and subject it to other independent sources to verify the evidence and conduct independent experimentation. You can't say the same for a journalist that publishes information from a leaked source without proof of such evidence. I disbelieve because I have no proof. Any critical thinking person should always presume disbelief in the absence of evidence. That doesn't mean there is no evidence, but you have no reason to believe it exists unless it is available to confirm its existence.




(Edited by John Armaos on 10/30, 3:29pm)




Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Friday, October 31, 2008 - 8:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In addition to the valid observations and questions that John has raised, I thought the following article by Andrew McCarthy also makes a compelling case arguing for the Los Angeles Times to at least release a transcript of the 2003 video.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDBlZjBiNzdlNzhlOWY0MTBkODgwZDJlYjFmMjJiNTI=&w=MA==




Post 22

Friday, October 31, 2008 - 1:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Journalists with leaked information have been known to report inaccurate information. Dan Rather...
This would weigh heavily against the claim that a reporter's word is definitive proof of his claims, but not against the claim I made, which is that it creates a presumption of accuracy.  Reporters sometimes fail, deliberately or negligently, to get the facts straight, but so do scientists (Hwang Woo Suk, the discredited stem cell researcher) and scholars (Michael Bellesisles, author of Arming America).  In these cases and others like them (Janet Cooke, Jayson Blair, Joseph Ellis), critics picked up the burden of proof and presented particular facts strong enough to overcome the presumption.

You shouldn't lump "scientists and scholars" with [journalists] because the former...have a mechanism of corroborating evidence.
So do the latter.  Reporters have professional standards and codes of ethics, editors they have to convince, fact-checkers who'll follow up and, perhaps most importantly, competitors who'll get the truth out if they don't.  The mechanisms aren't the same, since news is on a tighter schedule than science or scholarship and since reproducibility, so important in the natural and social sciences, doesn't apply to one-time events.

Scientists do not hide their data, they publish it...You can't say the same for a journalist that publishes information from a leaked source...
Reporters don't hide their data either.  By definition, they publish it.  Scientists use anonymous sources far more extensively than reporters do.  Researchers in medical, biological or psychological fields use confidentially-obtained information almost exclusively, as do social scientists studying criminal behavior, sexual behavior, drug use, gun ownership, drunk driving and so on and on.  Nobody calls them liars because of this.
Non-scientist academics use leaked data, too, in some fields.  Biographers got confidential IQ scores for Nixon (ca. 150) and Kennedy (117) from their high schools, and nobody calls them liars either.

Any critical thinking person should always presume disbelief in the absence of evidence...
Reputable investigators are the evidence in the fields we're discussing.  To use your own example, what convinced you that Rather was lying about Bush's miliary record?  Reputable investigators came up with evidence: Rather's source was a known crackpot, and the documents came from a word processor such as nobody had in 1970.  How do you know that your sources on this in turn weren't making it up?  You looked at their evidence (including their reputations) and judged them to be reliable.

Believing that you can only trust what you see firsthand (assuming that you could make practical sense of this) is remarkably similar to believing that honestly-obtained wealth is only what you come by entirely by your own efforts (assuming once again that the notion makes sense) without any secondhand learning and without any participation in the division of labor.  You might call it the Robinson Crusoe theory of knowledge.




Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Friday, October 31, 2008 - 2:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Peter:

This would weigh heavily against the claim that a reporter's word is definitive proof of his claims, but not against the claim I made, which is that it creates a presumption of accuracy. Reporters sometimes fail, deliberately or negligently, to get the facts straight, but so do scientists (Hwang Woo Suk, the discredited stem cell researcher) and scholars (Michael Bellesisles, author of Arming America). In these cases and others like them (Janet Cooke, Jayson Blair, Joseph Ellis), critics picked up the burden of proof and presented particular facts strong enough to overcome the presumption.


Peter, are you saying someone who makes an accusation without any ability or willingness to prove such an accusation, you should presume its accuracy? On what grounds? On the grounds that it is an appeal to authority? That's quite a remarkable view. In every one of those cases you cite, independent sources examined the research and evidence because it was available to them, and they could offer it up for public scrutiny. How is that remotely the same as the L.A. Times who refuses to produce their alleged evidence?

I originally wrote:

"You shouldn't lump 'scientists and scholars' with 'journalists with leaked evidence they can't let anyone corroborate'.


You quoted me as saying:

"You shouldn't lump "scientists and scholars" with [journalists] because the former...have a mechanism of corroborating evidence."


And then you responded to this:

So do the latter. Reporters have professional standards and codes of ethics, editors they have to convince, fact-checkers who'll follow up and, perhaps most importantly, competitors who'll get the truth out if they don't. The mechanisms aren't the same, since news is on a tighter schedule than science or scholarship and since reproducibility, so important in the natural and social sciences, doesn't apply to one-time events.


Peter I would rather you quote me with the full caveats that I put into my arguments. Most importantly the one about specific journalists that refuse to reveal their evidence they claim they have. Of course reputable journalists do offer their evidence up for scrutiny to independent parties, but you know that was not who I was referring to.

I originally wrote:

Scientists do not hide their data, they publish it in a public science journal, and subject it to other independent sources to verify the evidence and conduct independent experimentation. You can't say the same for a journalist that publishes information from a leaked source without proof of such evidence.


Once again Peter you didn't give the full quote and quoted me as saying:

Scientists do not hide their data, they publish it...You can't say the same for a journalist that publishes information from a leaked source...


You then responded to this cut-off quote:

Reporters don't hide their data either. By definition, they publish it. Scientists use anonymous sources far more extensively than reporters do. Researchers in medical, biological or psychological fields use confidentially-obtained information almost exclusively, as do social scientists studying criminal behavior, sexual behavior, drug use, gun ownership, drunk driving and so on and on. Nobody calls them liars because of this.


Note Peter I was referring to data specifically in regards to evidence. What I mean is that scientists publish their data and offer the evidence up for scrutiny by independent parties. NOT ALL journalists do the same, and it is ridiculous to equate what the L.A. Times is doing in this case (making hearsay accusations without making first-hand evidence available) and what reputable scientists do (publish all data, methods and results for independent scrutiny). Please don't twist my posts to mean something else by cutting off my quotes.

I originally wrote:

Any critical thinking person should always presume disbelief in the absence of evidence...


You responded:

Reputable investigators are the evidence in the fields we're discussing.


Absolutely not! Evidence is not someone's word. That is simply an appeal to authority. What makes an investigator "reputable" is his production of evidence for his accusation to independent parties for scrutiny. If such an investigator refuses to do such a thing, there is nothing reputable about it!

To use your own example, what convinced you that Rather was lying about Bush's miliary record? Reputable investigators came up with evidence: Rather's source was a known crackpot, and the documents came from a word processor such as nobody had in 1970. How do you know that your sources on this in turn weren't making it up? You looked at their evidence (including their reputations) and judged them to be reliable.


Because the evidence was held up to public scrutiny! That's what convinces me! If it is a single source that does not produce evidence for others to effectively judge its accuracy, then there is no reason to be convinced. I don't have to be the one actually conducting the independent investigation myself, so long as I have evidence that it has been subjected to public scrutiny, and so long as I know that other independent parties published their findings on the original evidence produced by the accuser.

Imagine Peter if a very intelligent and reputable District Attorney said "I have evidence that Peter is a criminal and guilty of a serious felony." Do you Peter take his word for it or demand to see evidence? Ask to confront witnesses? Ask for counsel and your own independent witnesses in your defense? No rational methodology relies on an appeal to authority alone for what is valid.

You conclude:

Believing that you can only trust what you see firsthand (assuming that you could make practical sense of this) is remarkably similar to believing that honestly-obtained wealth is only what you come by entirely by your own efforts (assuming once again that the notion makes sense) without any secondhand learning and without any participation in the division of labor. You might call it the Robinson Crusoe theory of knowledge.


I don't actually follow your analogy. I trust knowledge that I know is subjected to a rigorous process, a scientific methodology. It is not necessary that I take part in that process of independent verification, corroboration of evidence, or of independent experimentation, so long as I know the process took place and evidence is laid before me that it did take place. I know that if I wanted to devote the time and energy, I could look at the whole process, and could look at the evidence myself. But when I have knowledge that said evidence is out of my reach and anyone else's WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ACCUSER, then I have plenty of reason to doubt the validity of the accusation.





Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Friday, October 31, 2008 - 5:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If this were a video of troops torturing an Iraqi or of how we tap and listen into terrorists they would have leaked this right away! 

Also, the LA times has about 000000000000000 credibility any longer.  Journalism is dead.




Post 25

Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - 7:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Journalism is dead."

What a strange thing to say. Thanks to technology, there is more journalism now than ever before.



Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 26

Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - 9:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I mean old-fashioned, traditional journalism - the same ones who claim bloggers have no credibility.



Post 27

Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - 11:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"paper journalism"



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - 12:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Blogging has created some confusion. But so has the 24 hour news channel, the business model and style of presentation for radio and television 'news,' and the observance (or lack) of commonly held ethical principles.

Anyone who has not seen the 1976 movie, "Network" MUST rent that DVD - it was prophetic and insightful and marks a turning point in the history of journalism.

Journalism is a profession, and even though it wouldn't have occurred to anyone 50 years ago, getting paid for what one does isn't the key requirement, even though it is part of the common definition. If Walter Cronkite had decided to work for free for a year or two instead of retiring, it wouldn't have made him not a journalist.

The confusion that blogging created is in the mixture of opinion and fact and in the range of quality and trust. And the fact that a blogger may or may not get paid is just one of the confusions. In the 'old world' a journalist had 'credentials' - who they worked for. An organization with a marketable reputation lent that reputation to an individual who, in effect, swore not to deceive his audience by mixing opinion and fact as if the truth were a pea under one of the walnut shells and you had to guess where it was.

In the old model, there were presenters of fact - they were expected to not give opinions or to slant their choice of facts or how they were presented so as to favor an opinion. And there were columnists and others whose job was to present a worthy opinion. The opinion folk were carefully presented as such, never mixed in with the facts people. You always knew you were hearing an opinion and it was never passed off as other than that.

In a blog it is often the case that the blogger has an agenda and the question is not just do they, but how much integrity and honesty do they employ when serving their agenda. The blogger has no pre-established credentials. Do they lie about a fact to make their opinion look bullet proof?

Becky is right that there is more journalism than ever before, despite the death of many newspapers, and that it is due to technology, but Kurt is right that it is a journalism that is morally impaired by earlier standards - that part of journalism is dead (metaphorically speaking).

We need less tolerance for those who are willing to be dishonest or disingenuous and to treat those who morally abuse their profession, as for example MSNBC and the NY Times did this election season, with disdain and never view their product. They survive as a result of organizational credibility and that is what should be denied them.

We can practice the character traits we ask of journalists, here on RoR, by raising the standards of our own arguments. Better logic, never allowing that 'means justifies the end' attitude to go along with sloppy reasoning just because it is on 'the right side,' dropping the personal abuse, and identifying errors in arguments that we see - I get more from RoR in that last way than any other - learning to 'see' the structure of errors.



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]