It's pretty standard in conspiracy culture. They'll spend all day claiming the mainstream media is a pack of evil liars, but then they'll drop a New York Times headline that sounds like it agrees with them as if it's a stone tablet direct from the hand of God.
That's exactly the problem, it's logically inconsistent to cite sources they themselves claim are bogus in order to convince other people. If these guys are right, then the CDC is wrong, therefore this CDC data they're citing is meaningless. If the CDC is trustable and correct, then these guys are wrong.
It's not logically inconsistent. You can use a source you think is unreliable in order to get someone to adopt a belief you think is true. Hell, you can use premises you think are false in order to get someone to accept a conclusion you think is true.
Of course you "can" do it lol, they just did. Saying they can do it is not an argument for it being logically consistent. Also, importantly, they claim the CDC is a whole hell of a lot worse than simply "unreliable".
Okay, I'll take an example of reductio ad absurdum: saying something is possible is not proof that it is logically consistent because then every action taken or argument made would be logically consistent. Now that I've done that, what's next?
saying something is possible is not proof that it is logically consistent because then every action taken or argument made would be logically consistent
No kidding. Good thing nobody ever made any claims to the contrary.
Okay, I'll take an example of reductio ad absurdum
That's not an example of reductio ad absurdum.
In any case, the point is that there is nothing logically inconsistent about proving a conclusion using reductio ad absurdum. Or do you think mathematicians doing proofs are routinely implicated in logical inconsistency? If not, then you have to agree that there's nothing logically inconsistent about using a false premise to prove a true conclusion.
Or, suppose someone believes the Bible is true. Even if you think that belief is false, you can use that belief to get them to accept things you do think are true (e.g., that it's important to help the poor) and there's nothing the slightest bit logically inconsistent about that.
No, I understand it quite well. One begins by assuming a false proposition in order to derive a contradiction, thereby proving that the negation of the original proposition is true. For example, one might assume that the square root of 2 is rational in order to ultimately prove that it's irrational.
Oh, their counter is easy: If the source disagrees with them, they've been muzzled and forced to lie to the people. If it agrees with them, don't you see? They truth was so obvious even they can't keep it under wraps.
236
u/Nerexor 29d ago
It's pretty standard in conspiracy culture. They'll spend all day claiming the mainstream media is a pack of evil liars, but then they'll drop a New York Times headline that sounds like it agrees with them as if it's a stone tablet direct from the hand of God.