> Well, an authoritative source can still be wrong but by definition does not lie
That's the type of thing I imagine someone in north korea saying. By definition does not lie? That's news to me and certainly not true of any "authoritative sources". Every authoritative sources has lied. Even more, every autoritative sources was created specifically to lie. If you think I'm wrong, go read about the creation of these "authoritative sources". Who created them and why?
Even the hallowed BBC by definition told lies. Orwell worked for the BBC Eastern Service as a propagandist. It was one of his inspirations for 1984. You might have heard of him.
> who are you going to bet on over the long term?
Neither - especially when it comes to important issues. As I said the slavish "appeal to authority". It's the basis of all tyranny.
How do you know the whacko is telling the truth this time?
Only because you already know the facts from reliable sources.
So given you already knew the facts in order to ascertain that the whacko was telling the truth, why are you bothering with the whacko?
Worse, by pointing out that the whacko was right this time, you encourage others to believe other claims by the same whacko, since they have been right at least once!
Can you illuminate me as to how I am “using the term fact so casually”?
The facts in this case are easy to discern: they are numbers reported by NSW Police. The basis for those numbers is irrelevant: the only fact here is a media release from the police containing certain statements, and the claims made by certain agencies reporting on that media release,
Well, I suppose it depends on what exactly the facts being discussed are.
For example, are we discussing:
- numbers of fires actually started by people (and, deliberately vs accidentally)
- (the unknown) number of people who have actually engaged in risky behavior
- numbers of people who have been arrested (charged?) for any of the above
> The basis for those numbers is irrelevant
In terms of my "casual" accusation, agreed. I think it's fair to say that in this case it was actually me who was speaking too casually due to a preoccupation with the philosophical ideas around facts.
The mainstream media can push conspiracy theories, such as Russiagate, until the cows come home but people are generally fine with that. During Russiagate numerous establishment outlets pushed blatantly false stories, such as Buzzfeed's story, refuted pretty much immediately by Mueller, about Trump supposedly directing Michael Cohen to lie to Congress and the Guardian's story about Manafort allegedly meeting with Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy (a meeting that likely never actually happened given there were no records of it at the embassy). Neither of these two example stories were retracted IIRC.
Was he right or wrong? I love the "appeal to authority" and "ad hominem" arguments made by people.
Would you rather a lie from an "authoritative" source or a truth from a "wacko"?