- Affirming the Consequent is a logical fallacy that takes a known true statement [if P then Q] and invalidly concludes its converse [if Q then P]:
- If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then Bill Gates is rich. Bill Gates is rich. Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox. False!
- If an animal is a dog, then it has four legs. My cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. False!
- If it’s raining, then the streets are wet. The streets are wet. Therefore it’s raining. False! It could be raining or it could be something else. The “therefore” claim is false.
- How does ‘Affirming the consequent’ apply to evolution? We have not observed “evolution”. No one has, and no one will, despite the effort (see LTEE). What was observed is Resemblance, the Birth Mechanism, Variability and Adaptability. Neither of these (even combined) can logically be extrapolated to “evolution”, namely the hypothesized transmutation of one type of organism into another. Proofs of “evolution” always take the form: If “evolution” is true, then XYZ is true. XYZ is true. Therefore “evolution” is true. This is a classical Affirming the Consequent logical fallacy.
- Let’s see some concrete examples of “proof of evolution” fallacies:
- If “evolution” is true, some fossils are ancestors of and therefore resemble existing organisms. Fossils resemble one another and existing organisms. Therefore “evolution” is true. This argument fails because there will always be some resemblance between two or more entities (even chairs and cats have four legs in general). Also, a fossil can always be from an unrelated branch of the “tree of life” which circularly presupposes “evolution” anyway.
- If “evolution” is true, organisms are genetically similar. Organisms are genetically similar. Therefore “evolution” is true. This argument is false because other hypotheses such as common design account for genetic similarities just as well.
- If “evolution” is true, one might expect common embryology. Similar organisms have similar embryology. Therefore “evolution” is true. This fails because embryology is expected to match genetics and morphology, hence the previous counterargument applies.
- If “evolution” is true, one might expect vestigial organs. What looks like vestigial organs can be observed. Therefore “evolution” is true. This fails because what if those organs are useful rather that “vestigial”? And why would “evolution” not do away with “vestigial” organs as soon as they become useless? In sum, why can’t these organs have another reason or origin than “evolution”?
- If “evolution” is true, one expects adaptability such as antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistance is observed. Therefore “evolution” is true. This fails because adaptabilities such as antibiotic resistance are compatible with other hypotheses, not just “evolution”. In addition, antibiotic resistance is ubiquitous, limited, reversible, and never observed to result in organism transmutation aka “evolution”.
- How can “proofs of evolution” avoid the ‘Affirming the Consequent’ logical fallacy? Direct confirmation of “evolution” is unlikely as shown by the LTEE study. Alternatively, an observation that is true for “evolution” and only for “evolution” might also work. In other words, what’s missing from all the examples above is a true statement of the kind: “only if evolution is true, then XYZ”. Of course, excluding all alternatives to “evolution” is an impossible task therefore, given that Intelligent Design is the main rival, proponents of “evolution” need only add a true statement of the kind: “if Intelligent Design is true, then XYZ is not true” to turn their invalid arguments into valid ones. But even this lower bar cannot be met by “evolution” proponents, thus making all “proofs of evolution” invalid.
- Isn’t then all science ‘Affirming the Consequent’? For example, “if Newtonian physics is true, a ball thrown at angle Theta and speed V will land D meters away. The experiment is carried out, and we find that the ball landed distance D away. Therefor physics is true.” No! This is not a fallacy because it meets the “if and only if” requirement and is limited to “everything else equal” cases. Rockets do not disprove this claim because everything else is not equal between them and thrown inactive projectiles. In addition, no one claims a single experiment confirms all Newtonian Mechanics the way “proofs of evolution” are presented. In this case, multiple combinations of Angles and Speed result in the same Distance without violating Newtonian Mechanics because this experiment proves only portions of the theory.
Links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
https://www.amazon.com/Biblical-Wisdom-Literature-Joseph-Koterski/dp/1598035258
🤣 Getting back to it when I’ve retired (soon!).
Allan Miller,
👍
Whatever you’re trying to say, you’re not proving gene independence. Nor will you ever do so.
Yeah, what’s the point?
What’s a “switch” in this context?
You’re misquoting. How does ‘morphology’ tie into ‘affirming the consequent’?
Misquoting again. Seriously dude, go see a doctor (and not the evolutionary kind).
And once again, for those struck by Alzheimer, the topic is ‘evolution affirms the consequent’.
Nonlin.org,
So you are taking the view that, unless I ‘prove’ independence (from morphology, I presume), we must take it it that morphology is dependent on every gene? That is, like I say, a stretch. Why would we take this position, as scientists – unless we had a conclusion we wanted the inconvenient data to fit, that is?
What you are implying here – I wouldn’t go so far as to accuse you of stating; that would require clarity – is that every functional gene is pleiotropic (has more than one effect), and that every nonfunctional gene still affects morphology, even if untranslated. There is no warrant for this.
I’d hope you could work it out for yourself, but it’s readily reducible to a syllogism such as those – ahem – “quoted” in your OP:
‘if “evolution” is true, we would expect non-morphological genes to follow a similar hierarchy to morphology. They do, therefore yadda yadda”.
Where’s the quote? It is a corollary of your viewpoint. If you think all aspects of the genome are EXPECTED (your word, complete with caps) to follow morphology, then synteny must be included. If you don’t think this, fair enough – in which case you have some ‘splainin’ to do vis à vis synteny.
But must not include any analysis of the actual nature of evolutionary thinking. Gotcha.
See you in a fortnight.
Logic 101: if your argument is dependent on a certain assumption, then said assumption must be proven for your argument to be valid. If your argument were predicated on “genes dependent”, then you would have had to prove that assumption instead.
No biggie, but I believe the argument is not just “from morphology”, but “from morphology and one another”.
You’re anchoring too much on “morphology”.
I’ll write the corollary to my viewpoints. There are many problems with your argument, of which ONLY ONE is that genes (and morphology) are likely not at all independent of each other.
Now, if any certain gene version is EXCLUSIVELY present in a certain morphology and 100% correlated with other genes also present in the same morphology, the SANE assumption is that they are not at all independent of each other and said morphology.
Remember, you’re trying to prove “if and only if”, but don’t seem to make any progress. Focus!
Rather shot yourself in the foot there. If your argument depends on there being a link between every gene and morphology, you need to prove that assumption, by your own logic.
Logic 102: it only needs one ‘black swan’. You are the one declaring that every gene IS involved in morphology. It’s the only way you can continue to wave away the correlation of every gene, plus every intron and intergenic sequence, with the Linnaean hierarchy. You haven’t proven it; you have simply declared it. So do you have any supporting evidence of this link, beyond desperation to avoid following the data where it apparently leads?
So, is synteny (for example) a black swan? Does the morphology of an organism depend on the precise arrangement of genes on the chromosomes? If that is the case, what are we to make of the morphologically indistinguishable translocations present in pretty much every population examined? The same argument could be advanced for any phenotypically invisible polymorphism.
Nope. Your argument is simply about dependence on morphology. Clearly, on a common descent scenario, at a fundamental level, no genes are independent from others in the same genome. On a design scenario otoh, it’s not clear why genes, untranscribed intergenes and untranslated intragenes should correlate in the way they do. Which is +1 for Common Descent, unless you can waffle up a reason.
Yes, only I am not making such arguments. I am shutting down your argument. Remember, you’re the one trying to make a case for “if and only if” to avoid the “affirming the consequent” fallacy.
False.
Genetics follows the Linnaean hierarchy, even outside of exons. Common Descent explains that. No alternative does. Therefore the explanation to be preferred would appear to be Common Descent.
If you are trying to ‘shut down’ the Common Descent hypothesis, there must be something else that gives rise to the pattern observed. What is it?
True. Ahem: “genetics is EXPECTED to follow morphology”.
That is a clear, and falsifiable statement. And it is readily falsified: we see many phenotypically indistinguishable variants.
P1: If common descent were true, we would observe consilient hierarchies.
P2: If common descent were not true, we would not observe consilient hierarchies.
non-lin’s “if and only if” logic is “If P1 and P2, then”…
IMO, P1 is nothing like as robust as P2; we could easily fail to find consilient hierarchies for a number of reasons: if the mutation rate were too high, or the selection coefficients were universally high, then the phylogeny signal could get erased. It doesn’t.
non-lin is fighting a rearguard action against P2, claiming that he has an alternative, non-common-descent, explanation for why we should see an ONH: “morphology”.
Doesn’t work for synteny, nor for broken genes. No matter.
Although I did enjoy this:
Err, no. You are, yet again, confusing Validity and Soundness.
As expected by all SANE people.
1. No “explanation” is needed – it’s common sense.
2. How is “common descent” the one and only “explanation” especially given 1.?
You’re not making any sense. How are “phenotypically indistinguishable variants” invalidating “genetics is EXPECTED to MATCH (not “follow”) morphology”?!?
This is insane. I don’t have to disprove your argument. You have to PROVE it. And you’re failing. Try again: “if and only if”!
Okay, grammar nazi. I will continue to use “valid” for both. Happy?
Huh? Why should the entirety of regions neither transcribed, translated nor bound affect morphology? What’s the mechanism by which they exert this effect? Any idea? Or are you just making stuff up to evade a perfectly valid explanation of the pattern? Smacks of desperation.
Ah yes, the ‘right thinking people’ gambit. Let’s ask people on a bus what they think, and fuck geneticists.
Only common descent explains the pattern in regions not even transcribed or translated. Or, explain how such regions – all of them – affect morphology. Then explain within-population genetic variation which has no effect on morphology.
I’m not making sense largely because you haven’t got a fucking clue about the subject you are discussing. If there are genetic variants that are phenotypically indistinguishable, then they clearly aren’t differentially influencing morphology. Differences in morphology are not due to those genes. Therefore your expectation is falsified.
What about the morphology of a bacterium? There’s not a huge amount to it. Are we to suppose that two genetic variants which produce identical proteins have differences that nonetheless affect bacterial morphology in some indeterminate manner?
That being so, when epidemiologists use such differences to track back a pathogen to its source, what are they actually seeing? They can’t be doing what they think they’re doing.
That’s epidemiology dismissed as a discipline, then. What’s next? Forensic DNA testing? Genealogy?
This question doesn’t make any sense. It’s not addressing something I said, nor do I see the connection with anything discussed here. Whatever you’re thinking, it’s only in your head.
What pattern? What are you even talking about?
Look, it’s real simple:
genetic material is extracted from several creatures. We see the similar correlation in this genetic material as seen in the creatures themselves (call this Linnaean classification based on morphology although modern classification is no longer entirely dependent on morphology). This is the ‘to be expected’ default based on simple logic. It does not provide any additional information and most certainly does not confirm “evolution” or “common descent”.
Assuming independence of DNA segments from the same organism is as RETARD as sampling several of an organism’s limbs and expecting those samples to be independent of each other (skin color, fur, blood type, antibodies, etc.)
So what?
Not my expectation. Where did you gather that nonsense?
Like I say, your ignorance of biology is a bit of a blocker here. You were attempting to argue that the entirety of genetics is expected to correlate with morphology, though you seem to be rowing back from that – or you don’t understand the implications of your own argument, which I can readily believe.
Whatever, while that might be (tenuously) tenable for genetic regions that produce a product or interact with biochemistry in some way, it is hard to see how this could be the case for those regions which do not.
The pattern we have been discussing for several weeks: the correlation of the entirety of genetics – and not just that involved in morphology – with the Linnaean hierarchy which was based entirely upon morphology.
Exactly. We have a richer dataset than Linnaeus had access to. And it correlates very nicely with the Linnaean hierarchy, which was based solely upon morphology. Why? I don’t know why this is ‘to be expected’ on any paradigm other than common descent. Genes not involved in morphology have no ‘design’ reason to correlate with genes that are involved in morphology.
The only reason the genes are not independent is because they are commonly descended. What alternative reason can you give for intronic or intergenic sequence to correlate with exonic sequence?
So genes and morphology don’t exhibit the close correlation that you ‘expect’.
Your own nonsensical words. Ahem again: “genetics is EXPECTED to match morphology” (I can’t be arsed to search for the exact quote, but it was some such tripe).
Let’s try a case study. I’ve mentioned this before, but there is a stretch of DNA shared by all smaller cats but not the larger ones. It’s also present in primates. It is clearly of retroviral origin. We can construct phylogenetic trees of each of the 3 groups – the cats, the primates, the retroviruses.
So if we ‘expect’ this retrovirus to correlate with morphology, it’s a bit of a puzzle. Because whose morphology is it for? Big cats don’t ‘need’ it. But primates and smaller cats do. Why does morphology depend on a bit of virus anyway? How does it exert its effect?
Of course it’s a slight puzzle on common descent too. We have to suppose a mechanism of transfer – but it’s a virus, so an obvious mechanism presents itself. Nonetheless within the cats, and separately within the primates, variation in this sequence follows the Linnaean hierarchy. It – a bit of viral fluff – forms a tree-like pattern that maps nicely upon morphology.
Why?
NO. Your nonsense HINGES on “genes independence” which is an entirely different thing. And your “supporting” argument is “hard to see how this could be the case for those regions which do not”. WTF does “hard to see” even mean? Of course it is not “hard to see” that parts of the same entity are correlated with one another. Period.
Correction: guys that know nothing of design, mistakenly assume “there is no reason to correlate”: http://www.healthyandsimple.com/2012/03/how-the-romans-built-the-space-shuttle/
First sentence is stupid. Common design entirely accounts for correlations. We’re back into “affirming the consequent” fallacy. Your “if and only if” is based on “no reason” and “hard to see”. Well, remove your blinders.
Say what?!? Your entire argument is based on said correlation that links two “independent” things. Remember how genetics follow the Linnaean classification?
Try again. Why assume said “independence”? And does your proof go beyond “hard to see” and “no reason”?
It could be a thousand different things. Your ability to ask “why” is not proof of any of those.
I could just as well ask: “why convergent evolution”? If something as complex as an organism is bound to repeat, something or Someone is driving that.
“The different track gauges can broadly be divided into the following four categories:
Broad Gauge: width 1676 mm to 1524 mm or 5’6” to 5’0”
Standard Gauge: width 1435 mm and 1451 mm or 4’-8⅟2”
Metre Gauge: width 1067 mm, 1000 mm and 915 mm or 3’-6”, 3’-33/8” and 3’-0”
Narrow Gauge: width 762 mm and 610 mm or 2’-6” and 2’-0”.”
Following are the factors affecting the choice of a gauge:
Traffic Condition: If the intensity of traffic on the track is likely to be more, a gauge wider than the standard gauge is suitable.
Development of Poor Areas: The narrow gauges are laid in certain parts of the world to develop a poor area and thus link the poor area with the outside developed world.
Cost of Track:
The cost of railway track is directly proportional to the width of its gauge.
If the fund available is not sufficient to construct a standard gauge, a metre gauge or a narrow gauge is preferred rather than to have no railways at all.
Speed of Movement:
The speed of a train is a function of the diameter of wheel which in turn is limited by the gauge.
The wheel diameter is usually about 0.75 times the gauge width and thus, the speed of a train is almost proportional to the gauge.
If higher speeds are to be attained, the broad gauge track is preferred to the metre gauge or narrow gauge track.
Nature of Country:
In mountainous country, it is advisable to have a narrow gauge of the track since it is more flexible and can be laid to a smaller radius on the curves.
This is the main reason why some important railways, covering thousands of kilometers, are laid with a gauge as narrow as 610 mm.“
Sounds like gauges are the result of fitting tracks to the niche.
Something
A thousand, huh? 🤔 You’ll have no trouble naming just one, then.
I go for Common Descent. You?
Even with instances of convergence, the genetics, right down to the ‘fluff’ I mention, conforms to that treelike pattern. Indeed, it’s that background pattern that permits convergence, and HGT, to be detected at all. Marsupial ‘wolves’ are marsupials, not wolves, as you can tell both morphologically and genetically. Due to common descent with (other) marsupials.
Heh heh. Or Someone with capital S. Who could that be? 😄
So your counterargument is that dependence is due to something entirely cryptic that you can nonethess see. If – say – the 4th intron of succinate dehydrogenase varies in precisely the same manner as the neighbouring exons, it must have some correlated effect – even though it is excised. Likewise variations in the exons themselves must cryptically impact development, and not merely succinate dehydrogenase activity itself.
These cryptic effects on development are, so far, completely unknown and unsupported. But you’d rather cling to that desperate notion than accept the possibility that the obvious potential cause of correlation, common descent, is the actual cause. That’s pretty shit science, to discard an obvious cause on the grounds that it ‘might be’ a vague something else.
I know plenty about design – it’s my job. I’d see no reason for – for example – misspellings in comments to correlate with the functional parts of the programs they appear in, nor indeed both functional and nonfunctional code to form a tree-like pattern. Unless they are copied. But hey, those blinders, eh? That’s why I ‘see no reason’. There’s some strange magic at work. In the space below, you’ll tell me what it is, and rip my blinders off.
Nope. Inference to Best Explanation. Are you sure you’re up to this? We have one possible explanation, common descent, which would give the correlations noted as a matter of course. We have an alternative explanation, one of ‘thousands’ that you struggle to even articulate except through lame analogy. How to choose, how to choose? 🤔
Hard to remove one’s blinders against an alternative explanation you can’t even articulate
That’s right. They don’t exhibit the correlation that you’d ‘expect’, because absent common descent there is no reason to have that expectation. You’re just hanging on coattails, pretending post hoc that an observation is what you’d ‘expect’. But what grounds that expectation? What, if not common descent, causes genetic differences that (apparently) have no effect on form/function to correlate with those that do?
Something something something dark side.
Bullshit is the niche of Darwinistas. No one [retroactively] analyzed the way you do when this was first started. They just went with what made historical sense. And so on. Once again, Darwinistas “explain” without having the faintest idea.
Something clueless.
And that’s your contribution? Yes Corneel, you got it. Congrats.
It could be an illusory pattern. That’s one of one thousand. It could be something common to small cats and primates but not big cats. That’s two of one thousand… while you jump to the prejudiced position. And I bet you think you’re superior to those that see Jesus in a potato chip. You’re funny in a boring manner.
Whatever this nonsense is supposed to mean.
I explained this like a thousand times. Your argument is predicated on “independence” – an independence you have no chance of proving, mine is just a counterargument to your fallacy, hence NOT based on “dependence”. You lose.
Probably a lie. If it were true, you would notice right away that no “evolution” crap is ever used in designing anything. Hence that the designs we see in nature are simply not possible on the account of “evolution”. And before you dispute this, read 12. and 13. of http://nonlin.org/natural-selection/ and http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/chemistry-nobel-for-directed-evolution-2018/
This nonsense has been discussed extensively. It won’t cut it.
This is stupid from end to end.
Thanks. Not hard to get though, it is something of a running gag.
Is it illusory? When I do my ‘fridge-o-matic’ analysis on a random fridge organism, I recover the Linnaean hierarchy on every gene I try. That’s quite some illusion. You try it. Tell me what you get. You chicken or something?
Fuck me. I have to assume you led with your BEST shot, there. Fuck me again. “It could be an illusion”. Absolutely sterling effort, well done. Hahahahahaaaa!
Well, it is. However, you give no reason for it to be common for those groups (and, lest we forget, also common with viruses). I can give you a reason, but you turn this way and that rather than accept it as possible. You seem genuinely desperate. In a thread about ‘affirming the consequent’, some perceived fallacy committed by evolutionists, this silly, groundless dismissal of possible cause is particularly rich.
Prejudiced how? It is a possible cause of the pattern observed. “It might be something else” is not a particularly effective rebuttal of this possible cause – particularly given your first shots from your bag of 1000 alternatives.
What causes an anomaly to be anomalous, if not a more general pattern against which it stands out? If everything is anomalous, there’s no such thing as anomaly.
Huh? Your counterargument requires dependence, otherwise you have no counterargument. You can’t provide a reason why correlation should exist, if common descent is not the cause. So … er … you lose.
Fuck, yes. I try and win arguments on the internet by lying about my profession. Jesus.
That’s not true.
Yeah, ‘read a thread’, ‘read a blog’. Not much cop at actual debate, are you?
This is irrelevant to the point I made. There is no reason to assume part-dependence in Design, in the manner we find in genomes. The font used on a blueprint would not be expected to vary alongside the form of the thing being blueprinted, for example. Yet this, in genomes, is much the kind of covariance we find.
Why?
Nonlin.org,
Careful…
Does this post have meaning? Is it like one of Alan’s attempts to steer a losing argument from the atheists into a clusterfuck because he doesn’t like to see his side being flummoxed? Is it Doc showing that he is just a biased hack, whining that he is powerful, because he is one of Lizzies wet nurses?
Or perhaps it a parody? Maybe what Jock is saying is, wouldn’t it be hilariously funny if I gave a warning to Nonlin, given the absurd abuses of the rules by his teams side that he has been tolerating for the past two months; would anyone catch his little wink wink joke, sort of like an old Monty Python inspired skit? “Careful careful there now, you just addressed that poster without saying I beg your pardon first, we can’t be having any of that now”, said with an exaggerated Terry Jones accent?
Who can say?
I want some of what you are having.
While I’m not sure exactly what DNA_Jock is trying to say, your posts often remind me of what happened to the sport of boxing. All too often, the fix was in. The hometown favorite, knocked cold, was pried off the mat, while the referee held his unconscious hand in the air and declared him the victor. Too much of that sort of thing and the sport nearly died. They discovered that only by growing some integrity could they attract customers.
And you sound like that referee, declaring your position victorious, and the scientific position a clusterfuck your side has flummoxed. After enough of these posts, as with boxing, nothing you say is remotely persuasive anymore, and you need to resurrect it with a bit of integrity.
The way to be persuasive isn’t to rant, or to mock, or to insult. Instead, what you need to do is directly address your opponent’s strongest arguments, summarize them accurately (that is, not a dishonest caricature of what it is), and then carefully show how that argument is lacking.
Otherwise, your monotonous refrain is “you are a moron, your position is stupid, and I win.” Without actually addressing that position, or providing any more support for your own position than unsupported foregone conclusions.
(As a footnote, the debates within science are always at the margin, the bleeding edge of what is being discovered. As theories and tools become more appropriate, reality becomes increasingly clear and scientific disputes resolve. Contrast with religious disputes. There being no reality to use as arbiter, no tools to use to examine it, religious disputes are resolved either with force (agree I’m right or I expel you) or schism. There are tens of thousands of flavors of Christianity, because there is no way to be right other than declaring yourself to be right. In the world of science, things work differently. Your “I’m right, so there!” approach is quintessentially religious.)
What I can say is that you really have no idea how profoundly stupid nonlin is, which leads me to conclude that you’re not precisely brilliant either.
Wait a second, I think I see what you are doing. You are trying to get Jock to warn nonlin again.
Here’s how it works : You blatantly break the rules, which is the perfect opening for Jock to then preposterously blame Nonlin. which is so far out of the bounds of rational thought that those watching will be left scratching their heads thinking, wait a second, this can’t be what it looks like, it’s too ridiculous, even for Tsz , what the fucking hell is going on. They then think, I have no confidence in anything I have read up to this point, I must be losing my mind, perhaps I just had a stroke.
Alan then jumps in, writes, ‘it’s the niche! ‘ and instead of thinking he is crazy, the readers just go , Is David Lynch still alive? Did he make Boxing Helena? What was that?
Flint,
Wait, wait, in your scenario I am the crazy referee!??
Was that Julian Sands, or Jeremy Irons, this is so confusing…
An interesting variant on “Look, a squirrel” – “Look, the atheists are saying ‘look, a squirrel’!”. Keep it up; nonlin needs all the squirrels you can muster. 😀
Nonlin openly accused Allan of lying, which was a bit too obvious breaking of the rules.
Your argument might have a scintilla of validity, if one were to close one eyes as tight as possible, then wrap them with velvet cloth over two inch thick pieces of lead over each eye, after first stabbing them in the pupil with dull scissors, so that one could not possibly see the 10,000 other posts right before that that violated every supposed rule there is!!, THEN MAYBE you somehow finding one possible infraction might have a scintilla of thought.
But that not being the case, are you out of your fucking mind??
Yeah, and then everybody stood up and applauded.
Are there any lurkers out there that agree with phoodoo on this? Who looks like the crazy person, phoodoo or his interlocutors?
Or after that, as it turns out 🔽
Are you saying you want more evenhanded moderation? TBH, looking back into thread, comparing debating styles between Allan and Nonlin, I suspect it is Nonlin that is getting most leeway in that respect.
Gosh, I want to be like Allan when I grow up.
Correct.
And what phoodoo is doing here is not discussing moderation (which would need to be done on the thread dedicated to that purpose), but rather performance art, so that’s okay. Getting a mite repetitive, but that’s okay too.
🙂
By the way, this paragraph from Flint bears emphasis:
Every IDist I have observed to date is either unwilling or unable to accurately summarize their interlocutors’ argument. In general, unable.
Half right.
Jock approves! Or he hasn’t read it. Or thinks this is content rich. Or, or…its not a moderation problem…
Whose doing the performance art Jock?
Penultimate sentence problematic, rho.log(rho)