Bush Admin's Top Environmental Advisor Takes Job at Exxon.

[jeff]

Re Cooney: So, notwithstanding his previous remarks about the tastiness of chickens, and in fact, the feathers still dangling from his mouth, it's a good policy to put the fox in charge of the hen house, and then trot out all the logical reasons why the chickens should not feel jeopardized.

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Right, but we're not talking one isolated logical assertion, but rather whether a pattern of previous assertions has predictive influence over future assertions.

Hmmm, from Ad Hominem to slippery slope. Again, we are arguing statistical predictive powers and not isolated logical assertions. The trend is that yes, indeed, previous occupation does influence future proclivities. Yes, it is limited by the temporal relation between previous occupation and current occupation. Basically, the longer ago it happened, the less predicitive bearing it has on future happenings.

Good point. If Inq's measure is applied to other "experiences" in life, then pedophiles should be allowed to work in day care centers. Burglars can now be hired by the FDIC without fear. Individuals known to belong to terrorist organization should be allowed to bring box cutters onto flights.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

We're talking about rather or not his prior (and now present but at the time future) connections with the oil industry tainted his judgement

There's a reason fallacies are so persistent in human reasoning and argument: they are so appealing and compelling on the surface. This is a good example. The view you've just iterated seems very common-sensical. But the appearance is deceptive.

The slanting language is a bonus. Why not say that the scientists' judgement has been "tainted" by their circumstances? The wording implies that oil industry=bad ( because only bad things can "taint" ), thus prejudicing the argument from the outset...

Naughty!

in such a fashion that he categorically refuted evidence and then changed the reports based purely on the his opinions and beliefs.

Eh...as opposed to the opinions and beliefs of the researchers?

That's something I'm curious about. Has anyone actually seen the report, both before and after this alteration? Do we in fact know that any data was changed or omitted, conclusions twisted or diluted? Or was it just the tone? How can we judge the act without knowing what the act was? Thus far we've only been given dark intimations of sinister intent, as far as I can tell...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Right, but we're not talking one isolated logical assertion, but rather whether a pattern of previous assertions has predictive influence over future assertions.

What "assertions"? The only patterns thus far adduced have been those of employment. Hence the "circumstantial" mentioned in the name of the fallacy...

Hmmm, from Ad Hominem to slippery slope.

Straw Man, actually. Shh, don't tell anyone!

Again, we are arguing statistical predictive powers and not isolated logical assertions. The trend is that yes, indeed, previous occupation does influence future proclivities.

Your proof?

Or are you arguing that no-one should indicate prior employment trends when seeking future employment? You did graduate from a school somewhere didn't you?

These are indicators of experience and knowledge, not attitude or loyalty. At least amongst us capitalists, I'm not sure how it works in Canada.

Hmmmm, I know you want us to eat crow, but with all these straw men, you're scaring them away!

.

Very droll but you mistake my golems for straw men. Clay, sir, not straw, if you please!

All three persons share the same characteristic under discussion: they were employed by the oil industry. If we are to question or dismiss their arguments and actions as tendentious merely on the basis of where they sat, why are we not to do so with ALL of them? Why only the one who serves the Wicked Bush? Why only the one who says things with which you disagree?

Oh, perhaps I've answered my own question...

[Inquartata]

And Frank Abagnale should be hired to...oh, wait...

And industry will start hiring computer hackers to design security protocols. Oh, wait again...

Bur seriously, it is not about hiring decisions, as I said before. It is about examining the truth or falsity of a given statement of a person. A statement made by a burglar or a pedophile still has to be judged according to the principles of sound reasoning, not fallacious emotional judgements. Because if a burglar says that your house is on fire, it is foolish simply to dismiss the statement on the grounds that he's just trying to distract you so he can break into it and rob you---because of his circumstances---instead of checking the actual truth or falsity of his claim...

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

There's a reason fallacies are so persistent in human reasoning and argument: they are so appealing and compelling on the surface. This is a good example. The view you've just iterated seems very common-sensical. But the appearance is deceptive.

The slanting language is a bonus. Why not say that the scientists' judgement has been "tainted" by their circumstances? The wording implies that oil industry=bad ( because only bad things can "taint" ), thus prejudicing the argument from the outset...

Naughty!

I'm with you on the slanting language, though I don't follow on the fallacy. Are you still on about the Ad Hominem thing?

Eh...as opposed to the opinions and beliefs of the researchers?

That's something I'm curious about. Has anyone actually seen the report, both before and after this alteration? Do we in fact know that any data was changed or omitted, conclusions twisted or diluted? Or was it just the tone? How can we judge the act without knowing what the act was? Thus far we've only been given dark intimations of sinister intent, as far as I can tell...

I saw nothing in the article to say one way or another whether the deletions were made because of his beliefs or opinions. Agence France-Presse could be considered a Free Press and as such, subject to the same slants and prejudices as all other free press. This assertion:

Originally Posted by AFP

The White House has said Cooney's resignation was "completely unrelated" to the release of documents last week that showed Cooney had edited US government documents on global warming in what appeared to be an effort to water down climate change warnings.

Seems pretty clear to me and as such, is subject to libel and fact checking the same as other press "facts". Do you want to proceed with the supposition that the assertion is true or do we go through the rigamarole of trying to prove this assertion for you? And are we talking logical proof, evidenciary proof or statistical proof?

James.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

What "assertions"? The only patterns thus far adduced have been those of employment. Hence the "circumstantial" mentioned in the name of the fallacy...

I thought the assertions of his actions as illustrated by Ess was what we were talking about. The most predictive of which is supposedly his recent actions at deleting material from documents.

Straw Man, actually. Shh, don't tell anyone!

No, no, slippery slope. You were arguing a trend in importance starting in reverse. That because the fact that I worked for a place a very long time ago isn't predictive, that neither is the very last place I worked yesterday. Very tricky you are.

Your proof?

I cite the mountains of mathematical literature (Inductive proofs and all!) surrounding Bayes Theorem and Bayesian Networks. Nyah!

These are indicators of experience and knowledge, not attitude or loyalty. At least amongst us capitalists, I'm not sure how it works in Canada.

Well, I would actually call them predictive indicators. They are more strongly correlated with some traits then with others.

Very droll but you mistake my golems for straw men. Clay, sir, not straw, if you please!

All three persons share the same characteristic under discussion: they were employed by the oil industry. If we are to question or dismiss their arguments and actions as tendentious merely on the basis of where they sat, why are we not to do so with ALL of them? Why only the one who serves the Wicked Bush? Why only the one who says things with which you disagree?

I never asserted that I agreed or disagreed with the conclusions drawn here. Merely that your perceived Ad Hominem is not, in fact, a logical fallacy in this regard, because prior actions are the best indicators of future actions available.

And, dang you and your stupid straw men, I never asserted that we were to dismiss or question their arguments and actions as tendentious (though a high level official in a very political post, working for a political party is a prime candidate for the label, don't you think?). Rather that if they have made tendentious arguments in the past that they are more likely to make tendentious arguments and actions in the future! Nothing more. You can easily show me that this guy is a paragon of virtue if you can show that his actions do not have a tendentious trend to them. I find that hard to do, given his post and the definition of tendentious.

And who the heck uses the word "tendentious" anyways?

Oh, perhaps I've answered my own question...

As always. *grin*

James.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Are you still on about the Ad Hominem thing?

Yes. You thought I was going to let it go or something? How little you know me!

Do you want to proceed with the supposition that the assertion is true

Oh, I'm sure it's true---but I want to know what SORT of "editing" was done? At the extreme, correcting punctuation is "editing". I am wondering if the changes were really substantive, ie to facts or conclusions; or for clarity; or for tone; or for length; or...?

And are we talking logical proof, evidenciary proof or statistical proof?

James.

I'd settle for knowing what was "changed". Specifically---not just claims of vague, general bowdlerizing...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jBirch

I thought the assertions of his actions as illustrated by Ess was what we were talking about.

Sigh...

But the assertions are that his actions are explicable by his employment, ie his circumstances. They are not---or at least we cannot simply assume that they are and proceed to discount all other possibilities.

I never asserted that I agreed or disagreed with the conclusions drawn here.

Oh, you! "You" in this case was the general "you", not you you...

( IOW, it sounds less stuffy to say "you" than "one". Not that that always deters me, of course. )

Merely that your perceived Ad Hominem is not, in fact, a logical fallacy in this regard, because prior actions are the best indicators of future actions available.

No one adduced a prior ACTION. Feel free to do so. The only "priors" adduced were his prior CIRCUMSTANCES, ie his job positions. That is the definition of ad hominem ( circumstantial ).

Now, if it can be shown that specific things he has done in the past resembled the act under discussion, THAT might be predictive. A history of lies may go toward proving a likelihood ( not certainty ) of future lies; working for an advertising firm does not.

Rather that if they have made tendentious arguments in the past that they are more likely to make tendentious arguments and actions in the future!

Well, why didn't you say so? That is rather different than "he was and is an oil-company flunky, so here he has done thus and such in bad faith".

And who the heck uses the word "tendentious" anyways?

Me and Mr. Webster.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Sigh...

But the assertions are that his actions are explicable by his employment, ie his circumstances. They are not---or at least we cannot simply assume that they are and proceed to discount all other possibilities.

Oh, I see what you're getting to. I dispute the assertion that one's job history is a mere circumstance when it comes to predicting future decisions on a number of grounds.

1) In particular, and most strongly, one's performance in various job roles goes directly to establishing a trend for one's behaviour in similar situations in the future. It's the basis of experience. Success through employment reinforces that.

2) Advancement through organisations is often predicated on homogeny of belief and a certain amount of indoctrination is incumbant upon any employment.

3) Training leads one to act in a certain way by defintion (People tend to act as they were trained to act) and jobs entail training.

Ad Hominem (Circumstantial) applies only when the circumstances have no bearing on the syllogism. If you are standing in the rain, it has no bearing on whether you are right about the colour of coke cans. It does, however, have significant bearing on your likelihood to be wet and your accuracy to predict whether it is going to rain in your immediate vicinity.

No one adduced a prior ACTION. Feel free to do so. The only "priors" adduced were his prior CIRCUMSTANCES, ie his job positions. That is the definition of ad hominem ( circumstantial ).

I thought the prior actions we were talking about were his editing of the report, his policy actions as a member of the Bush cabinet and his advocacy actions as a lobbyist.

Now, if it can be shown that specific things he has done in the past resembled the act under discussion, THAT might be predictive. A history of lies may go toward proving a likelihood ( not certainty ) of future lies; working for an advertising firm does not.

To be clear, what's the act under discussion? I believe that the initial post was to add evidence to the assertion that the decisions of the President are biased towards the interests of Big Oil despite protestations to the contrary.

James.

[Red #40]

This is a very impresive discussion of how to argue about the topic, but I think it distracts from the facts a bit. Somewhere in the discussion above there was a request to see what was edited. I have not been able to locate the specific documents yet but this article gives a few examples of edits he made. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0608-05.htm
and this site lists several other examples of the administrations policys on changing official info to match their preconcieved ideas
http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1127

[esskreemr]

Yes, Inq is excellent about arguing the shortcomings of other's arguments while providing absolutely no substance to the other perspective of the discussion.

[jeff]

esskreemr, you noticed that, didn't you.

You know, even in a court of law, the jury can be instructed by the judge to consider the credibility and veracity of a witness based on witnesses behavior, history, self-interest, conflict of interest, and so forth. To say that such reasoning is "Ad Hominem Circumstantial" and hence invalid is merely nonsense, inconsistent with how people legitimately reason in real life. In this case it's also an attempt at distraction from the Bush use of an industry flack to hamstring environmental reports.

Fox guarding the hen house? My, my! How illogical to protest that, or even point it out!

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Yes, Inq is excellent about arguing the shortcomings of other's arguments while providing absolutely no substance to the other perspective of the discussion.

Ah yes, but he's not the one making the argument!

James.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by jeff

esskreemr, you noticed that, didn't you.

You know, even in a court of law, the jury can be instructed by the judge to consider the credibility and veracity of a witness based on witnesses behavior, history, self-interest, conflict of interest, and so forth. To say that such reasoning is "Ad Hominem Circumstantial" and hence invalid is merely nonsense, inconsistent with how people legitimately reason in real life. In this case it's also an attempt at distraction from the Bush use of an industry flack to hamstring environmental reports.

Fox guarding the hen house? My, my! How illogical to protest that, or even point it out!

Assuming, of course, the fox is a fox.

James.

[jeff]

bushy tail and the chicken feathers still stuck in the mouth are a subtle clue...

[jeff]

I'm going to expand on my last post a little: It may be an error of judgement to decide that some individual is a fox - we are all subject to error, alas. However, it is not an incorrect mode of logic to determine whether a proposed hen house keeper is or in fact a fox, and exclude him on that basis. Accusations of "Ad Hominem" miss the point that not letting predators be in charge of protecting their prey is a good policy, and that analysis of behavior and statements is a valid, in fact essential test to apply

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by jeff

I'm going to expand on my last post a little: It may be an error of judgement to decide that some individual is a fox - we are all subject to error, alas. However, it is not an incorrect mode of logic to determine whether a proposed hen house keeper is or in fact a fox, and exclude him on that basis. Accusations of "Ad Hominem" miss the point that not letting predators be in charge of protecting their prey is a good policy, and that analysis of behavior and statements is a valid, in fact essential test to apply

Heya Jeff,

I was merely pointing out that the accusations flung about by the media in regards to Mr. Cooney are not that conclusive about whether he is, indeed, a "fox". Looking through the articles put forward, the changes he made to the documents seem to be innocuous enough (to me) though definitely interject uncertainty into relatively certain language. This, to me, seems reasonable given the evidence for global warming being caused by human activity is not strong.

I haven't seen enough evidence to support the case that he is corrupt. Nor have I seen enough evidence to support the case that he is unreasonably biased and acting nefariously. There does seem to be weak evidence that advice from this particular individual might be biased in favour of Big Oil. This is not necessarily a bad thing.

BTW, I'm with you on the analysis of personality being important to this particular discussion. I think Inq's "Ad Hominem" is a distraction or a mis-call.

James.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by jeff

bushy tail and the chicken feathers still stuck in the mouth are a subtle clue...

Could be a squirrel.

James.

[Red #40]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Heya Jeff,

Looking through the articles put forward, the changes he made to the documents seem to be innocuous enough (to me) though definitely interject uncertainty into relatively certain language. This, to me, seems reasonable given the evidence for global warming being caused by human activity is not strong.

Its the interjecting of uncertainty that shouldn't be trusted. The report was written by people who's job it is to study that. And this guys job was apparently to reshape the information gathered to fit what the president wanted it to say. He is not a scientist, he wasn't on the project , he has no business editing it.

You say that the evidence that global warming is caused by humans is not strong, but then this evidence shows how the government has been working to weaken evidence so perhaps we should all re-examine what we think we know on the subject. I'll see if I can dig up some independent research, and post what I find.