This looks like an Appeal to Authority.

If I were claiming that I agreed with the article and found it to be convincingly true, and so should you, I’d agree. I am not doing any of those things.

Judging how incredulous one should be of an author’s writing based on their reputation is something else.

I would be incredulous of any author who doesn't provide evidence. Do you agree that the burden of proof should be applied equally to all authors regardless of reputation?

>No.

>Especially in stories involving classified information it's very rare to get unequivocal proof at first. For better or worse leaks are how stories break, and the leakers are careful about how they do it so to avoid criminal charges.

>Given this, all you have is the reputation of the person doing the reporting. Historically have they shown good judgement in discarding the crackpots and do many of their breaking stories from unnamed stories subsequently turn out to be true?

I think we're back to an Appeal to Authority.

Appeal to Authority is an argument that what they say is automatically true.

If you read what I said, it's the opposite ("In this case I think Hersh's reputation isn't what it used to be") but the point is that reputation is a signal that something is worth paying attention to in the absence of any other useful information.

I often think "false appeals to a logical fallacy without understanding nuanced argument" should be a fallacy itself. Nothing wrong with understanding logical fallacies of course - but often people just mindlessly use them without understanding what the fallacy says.

Expert witness in legal trials is a good counter-example to this fallacy for example. Expert witness testimony is given extra weight because of their reputation in the field. Sometimes this is wrong, but often it is not.

While I understand that you're not equivocally saying that their claims are true, but you are absolutely appealing to someone's reputation as an authority on the topic to suggest what they say is "worth paying attention to in the absence of any other useful information".

Which seems little different to an appeal to authority. Maybe you better understand the nuance between an appeal to authority and an appeal to someone's reputation as an authority.

It’s still not an appeal to authority because Hersh’s status is not being invoked as evidence that this story is true - only as evidence that we should withhold judgement until it can be corroborated with hard evidence. These are very different stances.

No one is claiming that a journalist’s reputation removes the burden of proof.

I get really upset when claims are made without evidence to support them. It might be a moral failing of mine, but for some reason I really loathe when assertions are made without evidence.

One thing to keep in mind is that counter assertions have been made without evidence.

> Asked for comment, Adrienne Watson, a White House spokesperson, said in an email, “This is false and complete fiction.” Tammy Thorp, a spokesperson for the Central Intelligence Agency, similarly wrote: “This claim is completely and utterly false.”

"This is ... complete fiction." is a claim that the story was fabricated. I think it's worth examining who would be doing that fabrication and what they would have to gain, especially considering who is making the counter-claim and what they would have to gain from that.

>One thing to keep in mind is that counter assertions have been made without evidence.

Are you familiar with Christopher Hitchens? That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Until the author provides evidence of their claims, there's nothing required to dismiss them.

Maybe it's because I see a distinction between "dismiss" and "deny". Where someone might dismiss ("There is no evidence to back up these claims") there are instead denials ("They made this up"). Anyway, I don't mean to change your mind, just to provide a different perspective.

I think there's a trivial semantic difference between the two terms. The assertion that someone made up a story is the logical conclusion to the assertion that there is no evidence to back up their claims.

I don't see the difference as so trivial. Using my previous statements, "There is no evidence to back up these claims" is an observation which allows for the listener to draw their own conclusion and "They made this up" is a conclusion that's being asserted.

> The assertion that someone made up a story is the logical conclusion to the assertion that there is no evidence to back up their claims.

It is a logical conclusion. One might still arrive at a different logical conclusion.

I see. For instance, it might not have been them who made it up, it could have been someone else.

However, given all of the information known at the time, there's little evidence to suggest that anyone aside from them was responsible for the assertions without evidence, which again leads to the same logical conclusion.

> That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Until the author provides evidence of their claims, there's nothing required to dismiss them.

Maybe you're not familiar with the practice of journalism where anonymous sources are routine, and have successfully uncovered a great deal of misconduct by governments. Reserve skepticism of course, but dismissal of a routine practice with a proven track record is not justified.

This seems to be an Appeal to Ethos. I don't think that would be justified. Additionally, making unsupported claims is just that. Anyone could anonymously claim anything, but we don't give the same credence to every claim. There's many different ways to support a claim, telling who exactly told you isn't the only path towards supporting a claim.

> Additionally, making unsupported claims is just that. Anyone could anonymously claim anything, but we don't give the same credence to every claim

Right, and these claims are being made by an award winning journalist with a proven track record who has a source. That deserves more credence than just "anyone" making any claim. Not enough to accept it as truth, but far more than claims that can be outright dismissed as you initially claimed.

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Do you see any sources for their claims?

Is this about the quack doctor?

Yes, the campaign waged by venture capitalists to establish “web3” as a thing.

> Edit: Your comment has radically changed since I left my comment. My point is the same.

For historical purposes, my previous comment revision was a thesis without links, and I replaced it instead with links to make the same point. My entire kingdom for HN comment version history support.

In short, very few will willingly forgo resources and give up quality of life, and for those who do will have those resources consumed by others (China harvesting the world's oceans, Brazil clear cutting the rainforest, etc).

My point isn't that people forgo resources but better utilize the efficiency and technology we've developed. We can maintain and better the quality of life for everyone. For example, at one point the US was wasting 51% of fresh food that has been distributed. Working on improving that distribution network can reduce food costs and waste. We have the technology.

Sprout Social - Please ignore.

Shorts don't expire, but the short sellers can call in on that short and there's also interest at exceptionally high rates.

Noticed? Doesn't one need evidence to notice something or does imagination suffice?

Businesses are in no way obligated to not discriminate (so long as it's not a reason that's due to a protected class). It seems like you disagree.