I've recently been trying to coax "dbes02," a YouTube identity who finds omniscience and free will irreconcilable, into a formal debate.
It's not easy.
It's not enough to have the debate at a skeptical forum (my suggestion from the outset).
Dbes02 has all manner of reservations about the debate, such as asking what's the point if there is no arbiter. So I tell him he can choose the arbiter, even suggesting that his mother could fill the role if available. I was assuming she would be well disposed toward her son. He doesn't care to look like the one reluctant to debate, so he tries to make the arbitration thing look like a holdup from my end:
Just to (publicly) remind you: My formal debate challenge (from Sept. 23) remains open. The Freethought and Rationalism Discussion Board remains my recommendation as the forum. You can pick the arbiter if you insist on one--that's not a concern of mine.
("I challenge you to a formal debate in that forum where you support the proposition that foreknowledge and/or predictability is fatal to libertarian free will.")
To publicly remind you - if YOU find a FRDB person to adjudicate.
If he's eager to debate then why put it on me to find the adjudicator? I don't care who adjudicates it, so how hard can it be for me to find somebody to judge it and declare a winner? His comment referred to a series of private messages we exchanged about the debate idea. I challenged him to the debate and told him I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for his reply. He counter-challenged (I guess, in a way) saying he wouldn't hold his breath waiting for me accept an adjudicated debate challenge. Yes, his response was a bit incoherent (the debate challenge is mine to him; he had yet to make any debate challenge unless we count this one from his reply). And why phrase it as a counter-challenge in the first place? What's so hard about "I'll accept your challenge if the formal debate will be adjudicated" other than the commitment?
I'll offer two compatible guesses: First and already mentioned, he doesn't want to look craven. Second, he's a tad smitten with the idea of turning the arguments of others against them.
Turnabout can be a good technique when it is well executed.
The remainder of his above reply:
We've been 'debating' here - in a public forum. This type of debate (and even the formal ones with the likes of Craig, Hitchens, Dawkins, Lennox, etc.) is pointless - people disagree with each other. You say Swartz is right, I put a position down he's wrong. You disagree. Where's it get us?
If the world's best can't agree... what's the point. (But it's good to see you've dropped the schoolyard loutishness.)
Again, it seems tough for dbes02 to appear eager for debate when he thinks debate is pointless. It makes him look like he's readying his next excuse. So I made that clear to him:
This forum allows you too much leeway in playing games. You'll behave yourself better in a formal debate or suffer the consequences. Are you saying that you will accept the debate if *I* find somebody to arbitrate? After I gave *you* the opportunity to choose the arbiter? If that's all that's stopping you then go register now. Or is "This type of debate ... is pointless" waiting in the wings as your next excuse?
You should know a lot about game playing. Yes, this type of debate is pointless - everything is already in writing on the internet.
His reply allows me to segue smoothly into counting his reply as a reason to engage in the debate: He can stop my game playing in the formal venue, or at least expose it through his persuasive rhetoric to the detriment of my side of the argument.
He can't be thinking I'll be so reluctant to debate him that I will decline to find an arbiter. Can he?
Bad Blogs' Blood has partly evolved into the dumping ground for non-serious argumentation in addition to its role in memorializing mere bad blogs. Some folks just don't get around to blogging but express their bad arguments in other ways. Like YouTube:
Since I occasionally delve into philosophical and theological issues at my main blog, I published a brief entry on the above YouTube video at Sublime Bloviations. But the person responsible for the video, dbes02, went to such hilarious lengths to defend his work that this, if anywhere, seemed like the place to memorialize the discussion.
I began:
With this format, why post something other than your best argument? The video sets up a false premise, that if multiple choices are not equally easy then they cannot be considered free. A simple thought experiment shows this is not the case. Suppose an identical set of circumstances where outcome A occurs 99 percent of the time and outcome ~A occurs 1 percent of the time. If ~A is more difficult it does not contradict free will in that case (or else it would never happen).
dbes02 answered:
Your thought experiment fails - it begs the question, because you assume an identical set of circumstances can lead to different outcomes. But even talking about being able to predict an outcome contradicts free will. So your challenge doesn't even get off the ground.
Note that dbes02 stipulated the existence of free will for the sake of argument ("If I had free will ..."). Therefore, his initial objection that it begs the question to "assume an identical set of circumstances can lead to different outcomes" is obviously false. But then he tries to layer the objection by supposing that merely "talking about being able to predict an outcome contradicts free will." But that objection suffers multiple flaws. First, supposing that the same trial will result in 99% one result and 1% another result may just as well stem from past observational data rather than prediction, unless dbes02 is promoting the ridiculous notion that any statement of propositional truth about the future--even in merely hypothetical worlds--constitutes a prediction. More on that later. Second, the objection rests on an entirely different and controversial proposition, that free will and foreknowledge are incompatible. It turns out that the YouTube argument rests on an unstated set of controversial premises.
The conversation continued:
lol
How do I supposedly beg the question?
Your argument appears to consistently boil down to your own fallacious begging of the question: You're assuming determinism every chance you get. Have a look at your argument from the YouTube video you posted. Do you see "determinism" either specific or implied in the argument? It's not there. But as soon as your argument is criticized it magically appears.
If all you can come up with are red herrings and flawed arguments, you have got nowhere. Even if identical circumstances led to the same outcome 99% of the time you have appealed to predictability and hence contradicted free will.
Please come up with something coherent - youtube is already treating you as spam!
Note that dbes02's response simply restates his (second) objection without addressing my reply, other than to imply with his opening if/then statement that I'm guilty of at least one red herring fallacy and/or at least one flawed argument. What makes the argument flawed and/or a red herring? Perhaps the fact that he insists that his objection is valid. He drops his first objection in this response, perhaps realizing his mistake and declining to admit it.
It's neither a red herring nor a flawed argument to point out the *fact* that you did not include any presumption of determinism in your video argument. Playing "dial-a-fallacy" after you're caught posting a ridiculous question-begging argument is the red herring. Back to the drawing board with your argument, Champ.
Yes, if I had free will every choice would be just as easy to make. But they aren’t. So are you going to actually show where the fallacy is instead of your chest beating? You're the one who raised determinism in your flawed thought experiment. Please present a coherent position. Your presence here is wearing thin.
Note again in dbes02's response that he does not address the point of attack. He restates the premise of the YouTube argument in language almost suggesting that he thinks I expressed agreement with it ("Yes, if I had free will every choice would be just as easy to make"). He follows that with a fallacy of the complex question, falsely assuming in his query that I did not specify the fallacy. He then suggests that I raised determinism in the thought experiment, apparently based on the belief that probabilistic outcomes represent a particular prediction about the future--itself a baseless notion.
After this point, the conversation no longer appears in the company of dbes02's video, for he apparently exercised his prerogative in deleting subsequent comments. However, he continued to reply to my posts, which left me a partial record of the exchanges via e-mail. Before that behind-the-scenes look at the ensuing argument, however, have a look at a portion of dbes02's YouTube profile (in italics to distinguish it from the flow of the argument):
And how do many theists on YouTube deal with atheists making comments on their videos, criticising their position? Many of them censor comments, not letting anything they don't like through. Ever see 'Pending Approval'? Only on a theist's channel (in my experience so far).
How dare those theists censor comments! Though to be fair, dbes02 did himself no favors by leaving intact my three comments above.
Again, the same pattern: dbes02 repeats original assertion without addressing the reply. And perhaps he thinks I have never heard of reductio ad absurdum. It's at least true that I detect from him no riposte that qualifies as a reductio ad absurdum. Coming up with hidden premises like predictability entails determinism certainly doesn't count, even if we cut him a break on the erroneous assumption that probabilistic outcomes entail predictability.
So, dbes02's original argument depends (at least in part) on an unstated premise that we must take as true: Predictability entails determinism.
And note the (if/then) premise of the YouTube argument:
If I had free will it would be just as easy to choose to strangle my 8 year old daughter as to choose to hug her.
After we scrape below the surface, it turns out that the premise contains as an unstated premise the idea that predictability entails determinism. The only way free will could obtain under his premise is if outcomes were entirely random and not merely probabilistic. And dbest02's justification for his premise in answer to my objection was essentially to restate the premise as its own justification--in other words circulus in demonstrando--the circular argument.
At Sublime Bloviations, my preferred spot for blogging, I maintain a special blogroll dedicated to what I see as the best of liberal opinion, or at least liberal opinion presented capably.
And if you had told me a few months ago that Karen Street, who regularly comments at PolitiFact's FaceBook page had a political blog, I'd have given consideration to the idea that it belonged on that list--what I call the Sith blogroll.
But Karen Street's blog has found its way to a different list instead: The Bad Blogs' Blood Bloody Bad Blogs Blogroll.
It's not enough to make the Bloody Bad Blogs Blogroll by simply making a fanblog of Sublime Bloviations, even if it's lame in various respects.
The BBB Blogroll is intended for those blogs that manifest bad reporting and bad thinking as a prominent feature, and Karen Street's "Politi-Psychotics" establishes impressive standards in both respects.
The induction ceremony will consist of an evaluation of Street's defense of Joe Biden and PolitiFact with respect to the former's partition plan for Iraq. After that I'll provide just a few of the many outstanding examples of bankrupt thinking that earn Politi-Psychotics its rightful place at Bad Blogs' Blood.
Karen Street's infant blog has an "about" page, and it provides an excellent starting place for fundamental criticism of her work.
I had (...) decided it might be worth quantifying the rulings that PolitiFact gives. It was a way (in my view) to take them one step further: the best way to review a person’s rulings is individually because it’s important to see all the nuances, but calculating averages can give you a better view of that person among peers, and from one group to another (Democrats versus Republicans). So that is another part of my blog, called Politi-Score.
Projects like Politi-Score are useful for partisan game-playing and little else. Selection bias renders the calculated averages worthless for every scientific inquiry other than measuring PolitiFact's selection bias (more on that here).
More from Street:
I (...) realized that there were several patterns emerging. One of those is the “six guidelines” or reasons which are referred to in the “Grading PolitiFact” condensed “Critique the Critique” matrix. These are common, general reasons for issues I have noticed seem to manifest with each critique.
Apparently this means that Street thought of ways to systematically excuse PolitiFact. Let's see how they stack up:
Reason (1) “That’s not what we SAID we were looking for." What is PolitiFact’s (PF) method and goal in determining the truth of the fact? Do they state it in the article? If the person says we are not checking the underlying argument, just the statement, then Bryan’s claims are moot as to *ignoring the underlying argument.* PolitiFact may have implicitly stated it was not checking that in the article. And vice versa.
1) When the PolitiFact author says only the literal truth of the statement will be checked it does not render my criticism moot. Rather, it provides compelling evidence that I am correct that the underlying argument was ignored. When PolitiFact examines the underlying argument in some cases but not in others this tends to translate to unequal application of standards and results in selection bias. A fact check should always employ the same standards regardless. That is the surest way to help ensure objectivity. Layered instances of selection bias increase the likelihood that political bias will taint the results.
Reason (2) “We can’t go there.” Would checking *caveats* or *giving a more charitable interpretation* force PF to move into ideological territory, which again, is precisely what it doesn’t want to do?
2) Employing the same standards every time (see #1), including by always checking caveats and always employing the principle of charitable interpretation represent the best way of keeping PolitiFact from moving into ideological territory. When PolitiFact repeatedly fails to apply equal standards it brings into question whether entering ideological territory "is precisely what it doesn’t want to do."
Reason (3) “What is the focus of‘charitable’?” What is the agenda of Bryan’s frequent use of words charitable and uncharitable? Amusingly and ironically, according to the hesaurus, one of the words that can be used to replace *charitable* is *liberal.* Charitable also means “open handed” “sympathetic” and/or *helpful.* An antonym is “unforgiving.” Charitable can also be construed as, FAVORABLE. Bryan wants a more FAVORABLE interpretation….so, to what ends? Again, implying a more favorable interpretation should have been employed….favorable to who or what? Because making a more “charitable” interpretation might shift us into reason (2)—We can’t go there because it’s too ideological.
3) These "reasons" trend toward inquisition, don't they? The goal of charitable interpretation is obtaining the best understanding of an attempt to communicate. Where I advocate charitable interpretation for all (which I do), the agenda is the best understanding of whoever happens to be writing or speaking.
Reason (4) “Too much information.” Does PolitiFact limit the length (number of words) of its article/ evaluations? Because providing all the context and detail (“to support the underlying argument” as Bryan might say) Bryan demands might not be possible. This is the reason I include a word count for the article on the condensed critique table.
4) Obviously space is a consideration for journalists even on the Internet (and that goes triple or more for print). On the other hand, I do not ask for exhaustive ("all the context and detail") presentation of context. I simply point out such things as places where additional context significantly changes the picture. And there are ways of communicating an accurate picture, or at least a more accurate picture, without offending restrictions on space. If Karen ever asserts that my demands aren't possible it is reasonable to expect a demonstration. I doubt that a suitable case will ever occur.
Reason (5) “This is AS IS--NO returns.” If a pundit or politician makes a statement and then corrects it, should PolitiFact stand with its rating of the original statement even when the pundit or politician makes the correction? For example, when Rudolph Guiliani made the gaffe of saying that there were no attacks on America under G.W. Bush, Bryan wrote in his synopsis “…Sharockman's failure to note Giuliani's full explanation is nearly as perplexing as Giuliani's failure to make explicit note of the 9-11 attacks during his GMA comments. And contrary to Sharockman's opinion, Giuliani's explanation is quite defensible.” So, would going with Bryan’s opinion of Guiliani’s explanation make it any less biased?
5) Another question! The answer is "That depends." In a case like Giuliani's, charitable interpretation should have made it clear both that he know of and viewed as an exception to his remarks the 9-11 attacks. Aside from that, charitable interpretation obligates us to accept any reasonable interpretation, including the reasonable one offered by Giuliani. Sharockman's dismissal of Giuliani's explanation was not reasonable, and was just as amenable to evaluation as Giuliani's statements. As a result, the answer to Street's final question is yes, because my supposed "opinion" of the reasonableness of Giuliani's explanation was based on sound reason while Sharockman's was not. Street's question contained a false premise. Naughty, naughty. If it's all opinion then there's no such thing as "PolitiFact." Let them rename it "PolitOpinion."
Reason (6) “What the hell do you expect, anyway?” Too much “DIPing”—Demanding Impossible Perfection….What would a reasonable expectation be of conclusions reached by an organization such as PolitiFact when evaluating statements by political figures? Do claims of possible ideological bias or journalistic errors or omissions as noted by one who IS biased invalidate the stated goal of their work? We read the complaints coming from both sides of the aisle, that PF is too left wing or too right wing. This should in and of itself prove they are not biased, or at least *trying* not to be. Even Bryan admits their bias is unintentional (and his own, intentional); so what does he expect them to do? There’s always going to be a certain small amount of subjectivity present. Bryan is also critical of their journalistic technique, but that should be a separate issue. If journalistic technique was a complaint that is problematic for a website, then the majority of right wing and left-wing websites have serious issues as well. So we can’t trust him as the judge of this.
6) Please excuse Street's overlap with her reason #4. Everyone is biased, so the claim that anyone is unbiased is the most suspicious claim. And anyone of any level of bias can attempt to provide unbiased reporting. PolitiFact flouts the standards of objective reporting regularly (adverbs, snark); it is through the behavior that one judges the bias in reporting, not simply by noting the bias of the authors at the outset. "We read the complaints coming from both sides of the aisle, that PF is too left wing or too right wing. This should in and of itself prove they are not biased, or at least *trying* not to be." I encounter this fallacy with astonishing regularity. Indeed, it is exceptionally common coming from journalists. Most comments come from the extremes on any position (those nearer the center of the bell curve tend to care insufficiently to express themselves). Criticism from both sides does not indicate a lack of bias. It simply indicates that people may be found both left and right of the view expressed. I have criticism from the left and from the right. That does not remove my bias. It doesn't even reasonably suggest that I'm trying to be unbiased. It's long past time to put this mistake to rest forevermore.
Worth repeating:
If journalistic technique was a complaint that is problematic for a website, then the majority of right wing and left-wing websites have serious issues as well. So we can’t trust him as the judge of this.
If what a majority of right wing and left wing Web sites do invalidates my judgment then it also invalidates Street's judgment ... so we can't trust Street to judge that I can't be trusted as the judge. Street has achieved self-stultification with admirable aplomb.
Summary:
In sum we have six obstacles placed on the road to truth courtesy of Karen Street. In each case, she would discourage the application of the best standards of judgment by providing excuses for the uneven application of standards.
What good is a blog that fundamentally opposes its own supposed purpose? Certainly a blog like that is what Bad Blogs' Blood was created to recognize.
Afters:
I offer thanks to Street for her charitable evaluation of my humble talents (referring to portions of the "about" page I did not elect to quote). If Street is not capable of doing a considerably better job with her blog than I am seeing thus far, then it counts against my judgment of her capabilities. I look forward to better work in the near future, hopefully including an extensive revision of the "about" page at Politi-Psychotics.
As mentioned in a recent post, Karen Street of PolitiFact/Facebook/commentary infamy has started a blog that occasionally attempts to tackle an occasional of my Sublime Bloviations. And that blog is not the place to publish this type of play time.
The subject: The second in Street's fledgling series "Lil' White Lies," which affords us yet another opportunity to ask: Where's the supposed lie?
Street had her answer to the first post in the series via a comment to her blog. She has eradicated blog commentary in her domain, so that's the end of that conversation.
The second in the series concerns a criticism I made of Robyn "Blumñata" Blumner, editorial columnist extraordinaire at the St. Petersburg Times. Blumner plays ventriloquist's dummy for Barry Ritholtz, who argues that the Community Reinvestment Act was not a significant factor in the subprime mortgage crisis. I posted my disagreement with Ritholtz's thesis and referred readers to the work of John Carney for further explanation/exploration.
Street took issue:
The basis of Bryan’s contention of Blumner “buying” Ritholtz’s faulty reasoning was a critique by John Carney of Business Insider. This is the John Carney who wrote this article at the website American Conservative where he stated “We’re the backbench of a minority.”
A) The basis of my contention was not Carney's work but the fact (plainly expressed by me) that many subprime mortgages are not at the same time CRA loans, so Ritholtz reasoning that CRA banks would more often fold as the crisis deepened is, in logical terms, a non sequitur based on a faulty premise.
B) Perhaps Street wants to imply that getting published in the American Conservative makes Carney right-wing enough to discredit his arguments. Perhaps that's why she neglected to mention that Carney's article in the American Conservative attacked the relative lack of content in the typical bestselling books by conservatives such as Mark Levin, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. If that was not Street's intention then it is difficult to discern a useful purpose in her second sentence above.
But did John Carney actually “specifically debunk Ritholtz’s objection”?
"(D)ebunk" is obviously my judgment, and I stand behind it based on what is written above and in my original post. Carney wrote in response to (Barry) Ritholtz on the same issue Blumner mentioned in her column:
As much as I respect Barry’s formidable analytical powers, I’m afraid he’s taken too narrow of the view of the matter. His question is far easier to answer than he suspects.
Street offers no reasonable evidence to refute Carney's argument (or mine, for that matter).
He supposedly “debunked” it with three points as to how the CRA created more lax lending standards which “spread” to other lenders…I will try to address each point. Here you can also read a little more about Carney's "bizarre crusade" against the CRA.
Before moving on to see how Street tries to deal with Carney's argument, it's worth noting her attempt (probably the second such) to discredit Carney with irrelevant attacks. She also posted the incorrect link to Carney's three points (rookie bloggers ...). The right one is here.
Three points:
1) Street claims (minus citation) artificial demand for subprime loans would have required more regulation by the Bush administration (non sequitur; ignores long-term development of the subprime market). She adds (again without citation) that the Office of Thrift and Supervision was a "'captured agency'" preventing (for example) that type of regulation (captured for how long?). Finally, she cites Bhutta and Canner claiming that CRA loans accounted for an insufficient percentage of loan sales in 2006 to have significantly influenced the crisis. But that simply misses the thrust of Carney's argument and again ignores the long term nature of the growing subprime market as well as Carney's bond sales argument. Street employs a kind of MXC/wall buggers argument: Have Japanese people covered in velcro rope-swing at a velcro-covered wall and hope one of them sticks.
2) Street handwaves Carney's point that the threat of regulation may have similar effects to regulation by repeating her unsupported claim that bankers were not concerned with regulation during the Bush administration. That notion overlooks the obvious fact that Bush only served four years at a time. Banking behavior that creates a ruckus always draws the attention of government, even if the legislation or regulation is as much as four years away. It also overlooks the fact that Congress wields more power than the presidency. Witness the fact that TARP, enacted under Bush, placed a heavy federal hand on banks.
3) Street needs to learn that it counts as plagiarism to quote material verbatim without in some clear manner acknowledging that it comes from somebody else. Street uses an unattributed quotation of Carney then follows with another non sequitur:
This means that the banks should have led the way and started the subprime offerings earlier than the mortgage companies. According to Mike Konszal, financial engineer, “I’ve never seen a data set that pass[ed] this hurdle.”
Konszal obviously needs to assume that Carney's "quickly" needs to be slow enough to permit his proposed measure to detect the difference. Konsal achieves that by adding straw-filled limbs to the body of Carney's argument, resulting in a Frankensteinian straw man.
Add it all up and tell me: Who's the liar and where's the lie?
Sept. 9, 2010: Removed a redundant "attempt" in the paragraph preceding "Three points."
Why waste perfectly good space at Sublime Bloviations dealing with the comments of crackpots?
Great question, if I do say so myself.
That problem accounted in part for the creation Bad Blogs' Blood.
As noted at Sublime Bloviations, one Karen Street created a political blog with a significant emphasis on PolitiFact and my criticisms thereof. Street disabled commentary on her blog (eliminating a handful of comments I had posted), or else I would not bother posting about this at all; I'd simply leave a comment at Street's Politi-Psychics (sp).
Today's bee-in-the-bonnet tale concern's Street's "Politi-Score" project. She uses an Excel spreadsheet to collect data on individuals whose statements are rated by PolitiFact.
Street read a post I created in response to a PolitiFact story by Bill Adair. Adair posted some data in his story similar to Street's, so I made the connection:
Folks like Karen Street are thinking "So, what's the problem? Glenn Beck tends to fudge the truth."
Bee, meet bonnet:
Bryan White objected yesterday in his blog that my calculations are not scientific….where did I ever say they were? The fact is even trying to do it scientifically would be wrought with the quandaries of the same selection bias of which he speaks. Not just selecting samples, but judging those samples.
I wrote nothing at all about Street's calculations. I identified the selection of stories as unscientific because of the obvious selection bias. Street is doing the math, not the selection. But it would be as true of Street as it is true of Adair that her writing suggests an unscientific conclusion. Minus the explanation that the results of something like "Politi-Score" do not serve as a useful measure of the truthfulness of the individuals, readers will tend to understand it that way. And, as a corollary, it isn't unreasonable to think that Street herself draws that type of conclusion until she gets around to a categorical denial. Street almost delivers that denial by acknowledging the reality of selection bias in the PolitiFact data she uses.
A lesson in charitable interpretation
On the issue of Glenn Beck's ratings, Street wrote:
So Glenn Beck doesn’t skew toward false, he’s actually right spot on Barely True.
Adair had written that Beck's ratings skew toward "False." Street tried to put a finer point on it by noting that Beck's ratings form something like a bell curve. Basic charity of interpretation, however, ought to suggest that Adair viewed the range of the "Truth-O-Meter" as a type of continuum, with the left end representing greater falsehood and the right end representing greater veracity. Thus, for Adair to say that Beck "skews toward the False end of the PolitiFact spectrum" simply means that Beck's average is left of the center. He's not trying to associate a rating with Beck's average.
Errors of this type, in sufficient numbers, could qualify a blog for induction to the Bad Blogs' Blood Bad Blogs Blogroll. But it's early. I don't take Karen Street as an idiot overall. On the contrary She just acts like a idiot on occasion. Unfortunately, those occasions have occurred frequently during the early stages of her blogging career.
