CDZ Anonymous Credential Credibility

[Freemason9]

I honestly believe that the USMB would have much more credibility--and would be a more useful discussion forum--if it required payment and registration for participation. As it is, it is filled with trolls that post inaccurate information and are not held accountable. I believe that honest discussion can only occur through accountablility.

 

[Liffy]

I honestly believe that the USMB would have much more credibility--and would be a more useful discussion forum--if it required payment and registration for participation. As it is, it is filled with trolls that post inaccurate information and are not held accountable. I believe that honest discussion can only occur through accountablility.

Stricter moderation and appointing an unbiased and fair arbiter is enough. No need to spend 15 bucks. Everyone can spend 15 bucks a year easy.

 

[Freemason9]

I honestly believe that the USMB would have much more credibility--and would be a more useful discussion forum--if it required payment and registration for participation. As it is, it is filled with trolls that post inaccurate information and are not held accountable. I believe that honest discussion can only occur through accountablility.

Stricter moderation and appointing an unbiased and fair arbiter is enough. No need to spend 15 bucks. Everyone can spend 15 bucks a year easy.

I thought this board was already moderated? I don't see many signs of it. The troll factor on this board has had the effect of preventing me from posting as often--it seems that the trolls merely want to rage on, no matter what the context.

 

[Liffy]

I honestly believe that the USMB would have much more credibility--and would be a more useful discussion forum--if it required payment and registration for participation. As it is, it is filled with trolls that post inaccurate information and are not held accountable. I believe that honest discussion can only occur through accountablility.

Stricter moderation and appointing an unbiased and fair arbiter is enough. No need to spend 15 bucks. Everyone can spend 15 bucks a year easy.

I thought this board was already moderated? I don't see many signs of it. The troll factor on this board has had the effect of preventing me from posting as often--it seems that the trolls merely want to rage on, no matter what the context.

My post was a suggestion... They have very loose moderation. And it's not gonna change. Surely you know why?

 

[Liminal]

Is it unethical to make arguments based on claims of unsubstantiated expertise? When someone posting on an internet forum declares themselves an undisputed expert to gain some false credibility, aren't they violating some principle of honest debate?

For example....
Jillian claims to be a lawyer; her posts give reason to wonder if she's graduated from middle school.
Dishonest? Yes. Childish? Yes.
In the end, it only embarrasses her; she either doesn't know this or does know it and doesn't care.

As the fourth poster on this thread, I agree with you. I have an expertise in a couple of fields. You can get away with a lot of bullshit as long as no one who knows the subject very well calls you on it. But someone with real expertise in a field can usually tell when someone else has any expertise, whether they agree with them or not. People who really know an area generally are not that emphatic about the final position because they know the counterarguments; and they have the capacity to explain their position. It's the poseurs who are long on bombast and short on basic facts and commonly known reasoning on a given topic.

You don't actually need to have any real expertise at anything to know a liar when you see one. Funny how many self proclaimed scholars and esteemed academics there are on a public forum like this. Why would they share their wealth of invaluable knowledge here instead of contributing to a scientific journal or something? Strains credulity to imagine there's a huge undiscovered brain trust here.

 

[Liminal]

I honestly believe that the USMB would have much more credibility--and would be a more useful discussion forum--if it required payment and registration for participation. As it is, it is filled with trolls that post inaccurate information and are not held accountable. I believe that honest discussion can only occur through accountablility.

Stricter moderation and appointing an unbiased and fair arbiter is enough. No need to spend 15 bucks. Everyone can spend 15 bucks a year easy.

I thought this board was already moderated? I don't see many signs of it. The troll factor on this board has had the effect of preventing me from posting as often--it seems that the trolls merely want to rage on, no matter what the context.

I wonder who moderates the moderators?

 

[oldfart]

As the fourth poster on this thread, I agree with you. I have an expertise in a couple of fields. You can get away with a lot of bullshit as long as no one who knows the subject very well calls you on it. But someone with real expertise in a field can usually tell when someone else has any expertise, whether they agree with them or not. People who really know an area generally are not that emphatic about the final position because they know the counterarguments; and they have the capacity to explain their position. It's the poseurs who are long on bombast and short on basic facts and commonly known reasoning on a given topic.

You don't actually need to have any real expertise at anything to know a liar when you see one. Funny how many self proclaimed scholars and esteemed academics there are on a public forum like this. Why would they share their wealth of invaluable knowledge here instead of contributing to a scientific journal or something? Strains credulity to imagine there's a huge undiscovered brain trust here.

There are a few posters on USMB with a respectable background in economics or finance; not as many as there used to be. Not all of us studied at MIT and now teach at LSE after winning our Riksbank. But we generally know a bit about the literature and try to keep up.

 

[D Truth]

OP,

Your disregard of logic is telling. Argumentum ad verecundiam... which seems at first what you are criticizing, absolutely fair.
However, you seem to place credentials above logic, which is clearly contrary to the original argument you appear to have made.

Bait and switch?

So, what you are really saying is that unless you are properly credentialed, you should make no statement on an internet forum? Just "shut up" and let the so called experts dictate, right?
Yeah, you really seem displeased with the fact that an anonymous post may still contain logic.

Are you afraid of anonymity?
Maybe that is the question.

 

[Liminal]

OP,

Your disregard of logic is telling. Argumentum ad verecundiam... which seems at first what you are criticizing, absolutely fair.
However, you seem to place credentials above logic, which is clearly contrary to the original argument you appear to have made.

Bait and switch?

So, what you are really saying is that unless you are properly credentialed, you should make no statement on an internet forum? Just "shut up" and let the so called experts dictate, right?
Yeah, you really seem displeased with the fact that an anonymous post may still contain logic.

Are you afraid of anonymity?
Maybe that is the question.

No, I'm saying that everyone who bases their arguments on alleged expertise is lying. They wouldn't need to establish credentials to bolster their credibility if their arguments stood on their own merits.

 

[D Truth]

OP,

Your disregard of logic is telling. Argumentum ad verecundiam... which seems at first what you are criticizing, absolutely fair.
However, you seem to place credentials above logic, which is clearly contrary to the original argument you appear to have made.

Bait and switch?

So, what you are really saying is that unless you are properly credentialed, you should make no statement on an internet forum? Just "shut up" and let the so called experts dictate, right?
Yeah, you really seem displeased with the fact that an anonymous post may still contain logic.

Are you afraid of anonymity?
Maybe that is the question.

No, I'm saying that everyone who bases their arguments on alleged expertise is lying. They wouldn't need to establish credentials to bolster their credibility if their arguments stood on their own merits.

Very good then. Credentials do not mean squat, we agree.

Anyone is capable of disregarding claims to authority and simply observe the logic of any given argument.
Still, judging by responses to this fact, you seem to disregard that a logical argument is weighed on the merit of the argument. Instead it is insisted that such logical process is somehow not what happens? Now why is that?

So lets get to the the root of your problem, which is revealed by the use of "anonymous" in the thread title.
So, answer the question:
Are you afraid of anonymity?

 

[D Truth]

I honestly believe that the USMB would have much more credibility--and would be a more useful discussion forum--if it required payment and registration for participation. As it is, it is filled with trolls that post inaccurate information and are not held accountable. I believe that honest discussion can only occur through accountablility.

LOL, so do you work for USMB? It seems that you might.
Or is it that you want everything posted to be tracked to a legal identity? So that if one is able to logically present an anonymous argument that refutes any given propaganda, they would be tracked down?
Hardly fitting criteria for clean debate.

If not, answer this question:
Are you afraid of anonymity?

 

[Liminal]

OP,

Your disregard of logic is telling. Argumentum ad verecundiam... which seems at first what you are criticizing, absolutely fair.
However, you seem to place credentials above logic, which is clearly contrary to the original argument you appear to have made.

Bait and switch?

So, what you are really saying is that unless you are properly credentialed, you should make no statement on an internet forum? Just "shut up" and let the so called experts dictate, right?
Yeah, you really seem displeased with the fact that an anonymous post may still contain logic.

Are you afraid of anonymity?
Maybe that is the question.

No, I'm saying that everyone who bases their arguments on alleged expertise is lying. They wouldn't need to establish credentials to bolster their credibility if their arguments stood on their own merits.

Very good then. Credentials do not mean squat, we agree.

Anyone is capable of disregarding claims to authority and simply observe the logic of any given argument.
Still, judging by responses to this fact, you seem to disregard that a logical argument is weighed on the merit of the argument. Instead it is insisted that such logical process is somehow not what happens? Now why is that?

So lets get to the the root of your problem, which is revealed by the use of "anonymous" in the thread title.
So, answer the question:
Are you afraid of anonymity?

I don't understand the question.

 

[D Truth]

OP,

Your disregard of logic is telling. Argumentum ad verecundiam... which seems at first what you are criticizing, absolutely fair.
However, you seem to place credentials above logic, which is clearly contrary to the original argument you appear to have made.

Bait and switch?

So, what you are really saying is that unless you are properly credentialed, you should make no statement on an internet forum? Just "shut up" and let the so called experts dictate, right?
Yeah, you really seem displeased with the fact that an anonymous post may still contain logic.

Are you afraid of anonymity?
Maybe that is the question.

No, I'm saying that everyone who bases their arguments on alleged expertise is lying. They wouldn't need to establish credentials to bolster their credibility if their arguments stood on their own merits.

Very good then. Credentials do not mean squat, we agree.

Anyone is capable of disregarding claims to authority and simply observe the logic of any given argument.
Still, judging by responses to this fact, you seem to disregard that a logical argument is weighed on the merit of the argument. Instead it is insisted that such logical process is somehow not what happens? Now why is that?

So lets get to the the root of your problem, which is revealed by the use of "anonymous" in the thread title.
So, answer the question:
Are you afraid of anonymity?

I don't understand the question.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?
It is a simple question: Are you afraid of anonymity?

You initial thread seemed to poise a question of credentials vs. logic, which we both seem to agree that credentials mean nothing.
However, your underlying gripe seems to be anonymity, which is why the question has been posed. I could be wrong, but this question would have to be addressed to move the conversation forward.

 

[Liminal]

OP,

Your disregard of logic is telling. Argumentum ad verecundiam... which seems at first what you are criticizing, absolutely fair.
However, you seem to place credentials above logic, which is clearly contrary to the original argument you appear to have made.

Bait and switch?

So, what you are really saying is that unless you are properly credentialed, you should make no statement on an internet forum? Just "shut up" and let the so called experts dictate, right?
Yeah, you really seem displeased with the fact that an anonymous post may still contain logic.

Are you afraid of anonymity?
Maybe that is the question.

No, I'm saying that everyone who bases their arguments on alleged expertise is lying. They wouldn't need to establish credentials to bolster their credibility if their arguments stood on their own merits.

Very good then. Credentials do not mean squat, we agree.

Anyone is capable of disregarding claims to authority and simply observe the logic of any given argument.
Still, judging by responses to this fact, you seem to disregard that a logical argument is weighed on the merit of the argument. Instead it is insisted that such logical process is somehow not what happens? Now why is that?

So lets get to the the root of your problem, which is revealed by the use of "anonymous" in the thread title.
So, answer the question:
Are you afraid of anonymity?

I don't understand the question.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?
It is a simple question: Are you afraid of anonymity?

You initial thread seemed to poise a question of credentials vs. logic, which we both seem to agree that credentials mean nothing.
However, your underlying gripe seems to be anonymity, which is why the question has been posed. I could be wrong, but this question would have to be addressed to move the conversation forward.

I still don't understand the question.

 

[D Truth]

Deliberately obtuse it is then.

Would you at least agree that logic is perfectly able to be presented without tying it to a legal identity?
Or, in other words, the message is the message regardless of who delivers it?

If so, why do you have a gripe?