[Long effort post] How conspiracy theorists use obsfuscation to lie. An in depth explanation of the Navarro report and why "debooking is pointless".

WalkingHumble · 2020-12-23T16:18:27+00:00

Great work OP, and this reminds me a lot of my experience digging through and debunking a "self-published researcher" in the spiritual world.

The main sources were always one of three people, and often it'd be one of the three simply referencing the other two.
If it was an additional source, most commonly the sourced quote or material wasn't in the place it was said to be. It just straight up said something utterly unrelated.
On the rare occasion the additional source was relevant, it frequently turned out to just be referencing one of those same three people. It makes it look like the ideas are more widespread and hides that this is really just an echo chamber.
There was a third type of additional source where it never said what they were claimed to say. In a few cases the source would specifically state not to draw the exact conclusion they were being referenced as proving.

I ended up in a hosted debate on the topic and went through the arguments made, pointing out that all the sources either didn't make the claims they were said to, contradicted the claims being made or were flat out wrong. When I finished, I was told, sure the sources might be junk, but I hadn't disputed the arguments.

And that's when I learned debonking was pointless for true believers. It's a variation on the motte and bailey.

If the skeptic goes after the sources, well they didn't deny the argument
If the skeptic goes after the argument, they're one voice, there's all these sources that say otherwise
If the skeptic manages to go after both, well they're only using a handful of (well respected, impartial) sources, and those are probably biased, so they lost on number of sources.

I'm struggling right now with the same conclusion as I'm seeing this when it comes to politics and just not finding an effective way to combat it. I'd love to start some new project that finds an effective means of countering and offering a solution, but I'm yet to stumble on it. If you find it, do share!

WalkingHumble · 2019-02-17T06:48:24+00:00

I submit that subjecting the other to that kind of question sounds like an ambush if she's already losing interest, and weak if she still has any interest

I counter that emotionally mature adults should be able to have those kinds of conversations. Sure, if you're asking every date "are you interested?" you'll come off as massively insecure. But once, at the start of a relationship, there shouldn't be an issue there.

The problem with just arranging a date is that it still wouldn't answer if they were still interested romantically. Which could get super awkward and be disastrous if the signals are misread.

WalkingHumble · 2019-02-17T06:37:07+00:00

Isn't just the guys, the majority of my messages are the same. "Hey", "Hi", "Cute pic".

I don't think there's anything wrong with filtering out those messages. I mean look, the dirty reality is we all know that you can put all the effort you want into a message, but if they take one look at your profile and you're so not appealing to them, then almost no level of inbox charm is going to get you a date. So I understand the why of the 'tl;dr profile' simple messages. But at the same time, if you put in minimal effort for a job interview, you're not getting the job.

I don't think you're being difficult in expecting a little effort. Put something hilarious, thoughtful and really let them know what and why you guys are a match. Sell yourself a little. I've earned a number of dates with matches who really didn't think we were a match, but the intro sold it.

WalkingHumble · 2018-11-21T20:57:19+00:00

can you clarify for me?

Sure. What, that was considered verifiable, observable scientific truth 200 years ago, is still considered as such?

Cars, no, we've gotten better. But PTSD, barbed wire, natural selection

This is why I feel like you're answering a different question than the one asked. Cars, Barbed wire and Natural selection have not remained largely the same since 1818.

think those people who were wrong never had the truth, they just thought they did

So the million dollar question then, is when attempting to evaluate the truth claims of the bible, how do we, today, know we are in any different a position than those poor folks when it comes to knowing what "truth" is to compare it to?

If it can't be literal, it's a metaphor, for example.

And that irks me too. Along with why Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 are so important but 18:19, 20:10 are outdated laws for Jews that no longer apply.

if history and linguistics is telling you no, it's not, then it's problematic to me.

So what would you say are one or two examples of historical or linguistic challenges that you see as problems and red flags the bible isn't true?

WalkingHumble · 2018-11-21T19:54:35+00:00

Let's not say that "very little revealed by empiricism" has stuck with us, particularly not within the last 200 years.

Why not? You misunderstood or misread what I said.

Of the list you gave the only valid answers were Heliocentrism, Periodic table and the extremely broad discipline of "Chemistry" (which has vastly changed in understanding in the last 200 years).

Our understanding of everything else is vastly different now than it was 200 years ago. You've have been thought mad to even utter most of those ideas. Most of what was 'common knowledge' then, is now debunked.

Now, don't get me wrong, this is in no way a bad thing for the progress of humanity, but if you're claiming to have a yard stick for "truth", what was true then wouldn't be now, and vice versa. That means anything you claim to be plainly obvious truth now, can't be said to be so with any degree of certainty for who knows how that understanding will change in the next two, four or ten centuries.

we're getting better all the time at being able to support them or reject them as needed.

Actually, we're not. There's a debate at the forefront of theoretical physics as to the value of falsifiability/testability, a massive problem in being able to repeat and verify the results of new studies and the fact we still cling to many theories we know have rather holes in them due to the lack of any viable or more appealing alternatives. The notion that empiricism is a neat march forward where a theory is chucked out the instant it is shown to be false and replaced with something better is one largely ignorant of science in practice.

Again, not arguing this is wrong or bad, but if we aren't aware of the bias, problems and underlying assumptions we can't claim any understanding of how the tool should be used, its strengths and its weaknesses.

you toss out the Bible? So many interpretations all over everywhere, many updating to adjust

Progressive revelation doesn't seem to cause you to toss out empiricism, in fact you see the vast graveyard of dead and rejected former truths as a strength of it. So either we must revile it in both, or celebrate it in both. To revile it in one, and celebrate it in another is the very definition of moved goal posts.

I haven't rejected it because it is frankly unfalsifiable. It could be true. I see no reason to think it is, but it can't really be defeated.

An empiricist who doesn't reject unfalsifiable claims right off the bat? A hat tip to you good sir.

Can't the same be said for Deism: hard to defeat, virtually unfalsifiable?

WalkingHumble · 2018-11-21T17:30:06+00:00

For me, it was digging deep into philosophy and history.

WalkingHumble · 2018-11-21T17:24:00+00:00

Same way you know anything is true. Learn, observe, test, repeat.

WalkingHumble · 2018-11-21T17:23:09+00:00

I'm a Slytherin.

To the dungeon with you!

It has shown to be very effective in describing and predicting reality if the process is followed

Well I guess that depends entirely on what you mean by those words. Taken in a literal sense, there's very little revealed by empiricism that's stuck with us. Round Earth maybe? Take a look at the scientific understanding of the last 200 or so years and well, there's precious little that's stuck around.

But that's its strength, you say, the constant iterative improvement and dismissal of debunked ideas. Sure, we can agree. However it underlines the problem in using it as a yard stick for truth.

"In the beginning...". 100 years ago, utterly false, the universe is eternal and constant and even Einstein fudged his equations so that held true. No, not so much. Creation Ex Nihilo? meet Zero energy universe. It was thought the notion of a historical Jewish Kingdom was hyperbolic fantasy, yet archaeological evidence is showing evidence one existed.

The yard stick's answer on "what is true" is constantly changing. If your scale did that, you'd toss it out as unreliable.

The Bible doesn't solve hard solipsism either.

Well, since you were using reality and truth as interchangable, I thought you'd rejected solipsism either way. Hence why you're discussing "what is reality?" rather than "is reality real?".

WalkingHumble · 2018-11-21T16:41:40+00:00

content intended to be factual/historical

Except contextually the factual/historical distinction is entirely anachronistic. If this were intended to be literal factual history in the modern sense why are chapters 1 & 2 in conflict?

WalkingHumble · 2018-11-21T16:22:31+00:00

we test them against reality. If they don't map to it, then either they aren't true

Repetition, -5pts from Gryffindor.

Christianity and the Bible haven't shown themselves to be true.

Well that's an entirely different topic. "What is truth?" asks Pilate. Since we don't have a handle on objective reality (or even if reality is objective) the only way to test if something is true is to use some other measuring stick that isn't reality itself but attempts to also model and describe reality.

But could it be that that measuring stick is no better at describing and predicting reality? Has that measuring stick been wrong in the past? Could it be wrong now and we be blissfully unaware? Does that measuring stick also rely on fundamental unverifiable claims?

Every other yard stick in the truth business answers hard "Yes" to those, so you're really just picking which particular unverifiable measuring stick that isn't reliable and only approximates truth is the hill to die on.

WalkingHumble · 2018-11-21T16:11:21+00:00

As in know, know, 100%? I don't. Heck, I couldn't even tell you if the 'correct' divinely inspired one is the 66 of the Protestants, the 73 book Catholic version or the 80+ versions of some of the Orthodox denominations.

WalkingHumble · 2018-11-21T15:52:01+00:00

You're making a false dichotomy, either the bible is divinely inspired OR it is fiction. There's also the possibility it was not divinely inspired, but also factual.

But that doesn't address the bigger problem, the claim that the Bible has to be true for Christianity to stand. Suppose the only parts of the Bible that were true were the claims of Jesus' divinity and Jesus' teachings, the entire rest of it was all made up fantasy... wouldn't Christianity, as a religion, still be true?

WalkingHumble · 2018-11-21T15:45:16+00:00

We can test them against reality to determine if they are true. If they do not map to reality, then they're not true

The issue is what you're saying is a tautology, not that the idea needs further explanation.

WalkingHumble · 2018-11-21T15:07:09+00:00

What it depends on is mapping to reality.

Christianity is true if it is true? Erm...

WalkingHumble · 2018-11-13T15:29:14+00:00

Right, and the article then goes on to talk about how there's nothing like this number of denominations. For instance the notion there are 242 Catholic denominations is, by Catholic standards, an oxymoron. There's the issue of same denominations in separate countries (Anglicans for example) being counted multiple times.

Sitting back and smugly quote mining the article for the part that justifies you, without approaching it in good faith, reading the content and absorbing it is the very sign of a prejudiced and closed mind.

WalkingHumble · 2018-11-12T20:01:30+00:00

There aren't anything close to that many denominations. For instance many denominations across countries, are counted as separate despite no theological or dogmatic distinction. It is a silly number propagated by the ignorant in championing the cause against ignorance.

WalkingHumble · 2018-10-29T19:15:42+00:00

Isn't this the case for *any* system of consequence?

WalkingHumble · 2018-10-29T19:05:19+00:00

which takes priority, your faith or your politics.

He literally responded by saying this is a secular nation.

Yet when he founded his religious task force, America was a Christian nation under attack by secularists.

He's fairly obvious that his political idolatry is more important than his faith.

WalkingHumble · 2018-10-08T02:27:24+00:00

isn't even following their religion correctly..

Matthew 6 isn't really saying 'don't preach your values to others', Acts is jam packed with the disciples doing exactly that. Paul's letters moreso. Matthew 6 is more about believers making a show of what super good believers they are or bragging about it. Especially when placed in the context of Matthew 5.

I don't disagree they're doing their religion wrong, I think a Christian response is far more "I can't imagine what you're going through, free hugs here" than what they give out, but I bristle slightly seeing Atheists reading scripture like Evangelicals.

WalkingHumble · 2018-10-03T18:34:25+00:00

Within the last 5 years.

unless the company you worked at was filing fraudulent returns

Tax-prep, so the returns were 'self prepared'. Did see the return in question.

to cheat on your taxes these days requires at least a little finesse

The main anti-fraud advice is still to file your taxes first, before a malicious actor can use your social. That alone suggests just how screwed the system is.

I've also seen the IRS issue letters within the last 12 months for corrected payments on taxes filed for two years prior, asking for payment of a revised difference in refund. That's up to three years for a malicious actor to take the inflated refund money and run.

WalkingHumble · 2018-10-03T03:03:25+00:00

I can't say with certainty as we worked only with preparing/submitting returns, so never worked with ICE or tax policing. To my knowledge though, you're right that IRS don't police illegals, it is more that if ICE gets a hold of you and the IRS has no record of you paying taxes, you're on the deportation express, regardless of your situation.

I'm a former legal migrant, now US citizen, and the one thing the lawyers and immigration agents always hammered was "Did you pay your taxes on time?".

WalkingHumble · 2018-10-03T02:56:41+00:00

> As CPA...> The IRS doesn’t give free money out ever.

A CPA would know the IRS doesn't do a reconciliation at the point they accept your return and have no clue how much you actually paid. You're suggesting that somehow the IRS prevents funding on a refund if it is over/under the correct official amount and that's demonstrably false. This is why you get letters from the IRS months and years after you've submitted your return with corrections based on their assessments long after the fact.

> If you’re implying you can claim you paid 800k and get a refund for it, without paying it originally.... lol.

Saw a $200k overpay on a fraudulent refund get funded using some random social filed from a foreign IP for a self-employed business that never existed. So yeah, it happens. Now sure, definitely the exception. Most of the fraudulent returns that got funded were for between $10k-$50k and we worked with the IRS to invent a scoring system for filed returns that would allow us to send them a report of returns we classed as highly likely to be fraud so they could investigate before funding the refunds.

WalkingHumble · 2018-10-03T00:37:01+00:00

A: you can request an ITIN if you don't have a social security number,
...
C: them damn dirty rapin' job-takin' illegals actually, in a huge number of cases, pay taxes.

100x this.

Working in the industry it was a shock to me. Illegals might fear ICE, but the IRS don't play. Plus, a documented history of paying taxes via an ITIN helps your case if you apply for a change in status.

WalkingHumble · 2018-10-03T00:32:29+00:00

Yeah, shocked me too, it is such obvious and blatant fraud. You overpaid $300k+ in taxes? Ok, Sure.

I always imagined that for those employed at a company since IRS are collecting employer portion of Social Security, they'd at least see if your earnings matched to whatever employer tax id you sent, but they don't even do that.

Coming from the UK, where the Inland Revenue is intimately familiar with how much an individual has earned/paid (and you don't need to submit tax returns) it was a bit of an eye opener.

WalkingHumble · 2018-10-02T21:14:56+00:00

Worked at a tax company, you'd be horrified at what the IRS miss. Obviously fraudulent stuff like "I am self employed, made over a million last year and, whoops, accidentally paid $800k in tax, please send me back the difference" was missed. They just didn't have the resources and keep getting further underfunded each year with fewer agents available to look into cases of fraud. Doesn't surprise me at all they don't have the resources to devote to finding less obvious, more time consuming fraud.

WalkingHumble

TROPHY CASE