Can you pass a Jim Crow era literacy test?

Grizzly · Apr 25, 2013

MachZer0 said:
It's the museum that has an agenda.

Can you elaborate on what you perceive that agenda to be?

MachZer0 · Apr 25, 2013

kermit said:
Wrong! That's called corroboration.

Take the Zimmerman case. We have multiple eyewitness accounts all of which are unsupported individually. They agree on some points and on those points they corroborate each other.

A better analogy would be If Zimmmerman said he had seen someone else shoot someone in self defense, and the person who was shot had the same kind of bullet wound as Martin, therefore, Zimmerman himself was acting in self defense. The wound, according to your analysis, would be corroborating Zimmerman's story, and Zimmerman would be corrobating the wound as having been the result of his self defense. Case closed

MachZer0 · Apr 25, 2013

Grizzly said:
Can you elaborate on what you perceive that agenda to be?

It's in their mission statement if you choose to read it

kermit · Apr 25, 2013

MachZer0 said:
A better analogy would be I fZimmmerman said he had seen someone else shoot someone in self defense, and the person who was shot had the same kind of bullet wound as Martin, therefore, Zimmerman himself was acting in self defense. The wound, according to your analysis, would be corroborating Zimmerman's story, and Zimmerman would be corrobating the wound as having been the result of his self defense. Case closed

That's not really a good analogy to this case as those sources are not independent. Also, the wound would only support Zimmerman's claim that someone was shot, but would offer no corroboration for his claim that it was someone else who did it.

OllieFranz · Apr 25, 2013

MachZer0 · Apr 25, 2013

kermit said:
That's not really a good analogy to this case as those sources are not independent. Also, the wound would only support Zimmerman's claim that someone was shot, but would offer no corroboration for his claim that it was someone else who did it.

Then that leaves the authenticity of the document in question

kermit · Apr 25, 2013

MachZer0 said:
Then that leaves the authenticity of the document in question

Would you agree that one of the questions is corroborated?

MachZer0 · Apr 25, 2013

kermit said:
Would you agree that one of the questions is corroborated?

Not necessarily. If Schwartz claims it's the same as on other tests, he should produce one of those tests, one upon which we can relay as authentic.

kermit · Apr 25, 2013

MachZer0 said:
Not necessarily. If Schwartz claims it's the same as on other tests, he should produce one of those tests, one upon which we can relay as authentic.

A and B corroborate each other. Your demand for C would add additional corroboration, but it's not required.

MachZer0 · Apr 25, 2013

kermit said:
A and B corroborate each other. Your demand for C would add additional corroboration, but it's not required.

Saying that A and B corroborating each other in this case is circular reasoning.

kermit · Apr 25, 2013

MachZer0 said:
Saying that A and B corroborating each other in this case is circular reasoning.

We've gone through this. Two independent sources making the same claim is not circular reasoning, it corroboration.

Example of corroboration:
I say that Sally stole Bob's newspaper. I haven't spoken with Jim directly or indirectly. Jim says that Sally stole Bob's newspaper.

Example of circular reasoning:
I say that Sally stole Bob's newspaper. I told Jim. Jim says that Sally stole Bob's newspaper.

A disconnect between sources is what differentiates corroboration from circular reasoning.

MachZer0 · Apr 25, 2013

kermit said:
We've gone through this. Two independent sources making the same claim is not circular reasoning, it corroboration.

Example of corroboration:
I say that Sally stole Bob's newspaper. I haven't spoken with Jim directly or indirectly. Jim says that Sally stole Bob's newspaper.

Example of circular reasoning:
I say that Sally stole Bob's newspaper. I told Jim. Jim says that Sally stole Bob's newspaper.

A disconnect between sources is what differentiates corroboration from circular reasoning.

If "a is true because b is true; if b is true because a is true." Circular reasoning. that's what we have with Schwartz and the alleged literacy test

Chajara · Apr 25, 2013

kermit said:
It won't stop until Mach rewrites the entire english language to suit his current political agenda. Notice that now he is trying to redefince corroboration to mean circular reasoning.

It will stop when everyone puts him on ignore and stops responding to him at all.

MachZer0 · Apr 25, 2013

Chajara said:
It will stop when everyone puts him on ignore and stops responding to him at all.

Feel free not to participate :wave:

kermit · Apr 25, 2013

MachZer0 said:
If "a is true because b is true; if b is true because a is true." Circular reasoning. that's what we have with Schwartz and the alleged literacy test

MachZero, redefining the English language one word at a time.

By your definition of corroboration, I have wonder why you even want a 3rd source as it would only add an additional step to your "circle". Also, by your definition of corroboration, authenitication is not possible on anything as each additional source would merely add to the circle or spawn new circles.

MachZer0 · Apr 25, 2013

kermit said:
MachZero, redefining the English language one word at a time.

By your definition of corroboration, I have wonder why you even want a 3rd source as it would only add an additional step to your "circle". Also, by your definition of corroboration, authenitication is not possible on anything as each additional source would merely add to the circle or spawn new circles.

I don't recall offering a definition of corroboration. yours seems to be that since a proves b, and proves a, we have corroboration. the very definition of circular reasoning

kermit · Apr 25, 2013

MachZer0 said:
I don't recall offering a definition of corroboration. yours seems to be that since a proves b, and proves a, we have corroboration. the very definition of circular reasoning

Two or more idependent sources agreeing is the definition of corroboration. You are saying that that's circular reasoning therefore you are redefining corroboration mean circular reasoning.

What you keep wanting to ignore is what differenciates corroboration from circular reasoning is that for corroboration the sources must be independent.

MachZer0 · Apr 25, 2013

kermit said:
Two or more idependent sources agreeing is the definition of corroboration. You are saying that that's circular reasoning therefore you are redefining corroboration mean circular reasoning.

What you keep wanting to ignore is what differenciates corroboration from circular reasoning is that for corroboration the sources must be independent.

The problem here is that one source "corroborates" another, which in turn "corroborates" the first. That's circular reasoning

kermit · Apr 25, 2013

MachZer0 said:
The problem here is that one source "corroborates" another, which in turn "corroborates" the first. That's circular reasoning

Do you have this same complaint when criminals are found guilty on corroborating eyewitness testimony?

MachZer0 · Apr 25, 2013

kermit said:
Do you have this same complaint when criminals are found guilty on corroborating eyewitness testimony?

I don't know of any criminals convicted on circular reasoning

Can you pass a Jim Crow era literacy test?

Enemy of Christmas

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Legend

Senior Member

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Legend

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Legend

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Legend

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

iEdit

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Legend

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Legend

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Legend

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Similar threads