MIT Analysis Shows 69,000 Trump Votes Flipped to Biden in Michigan

Author: 3RU7AL
Ethics
Philosophy
logiczombie
intp
Information War

Posts

Total: 74
#61
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Athias
I don't accept that well established sources of fake news must always be lent credence until disproved.  To my mind, that's the guy who forgives his girlfriend multiple infidelities in the hopes she may one day fall in love or the wife who forgives her husband's abuse for the sake of the marriage.  No.  I

Such is the case with Dr Ayyadurai-  he's just one of these guys that is constantly in the news for bullshit.   Whether its

  • Getting fired by MIT in 2000 for falsely claiming that he invented email at the age of 14 in 1978  (email was invented in 1971) or
  • publishing false claims in 2009 that GMO soybeans cause cancer based on mathematical modeling or
  • falsely claiming in 2020 that vitamin C cures COVID-19 and accusing Anthony Faucci of being a deep state operative 
    • (Ayyadurai campaigned heavily for an appointment to the coronavirus task force and was highly recommended to Trump by insiders)
Just the fact that he was fired by MIT many years ago and tricks people into publish his YouTube vids as "MIT analysis" should be enough to dismiss this guy.  He's quite similar to Trump to the extent that he's always in the news for making outrageous claims or twice running for Senate in MA or celebrity marriages or filing million dollar libel suits against newspapers who disprove him.  This is not a scientist, this is a reality show personality.

I don't care what Dr Ayyadurai has to say on any subject, he has demonstrated that his motivations are corrupt and self-serving.  If Dr. Ayyadurai is your only source of evidence, then I see little value in investigating further, as far as I'm concerned you have no evidence to back your claim.  


#62
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
"One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else."

-Carl Sagan

Remember this quote the next time a politician in Authority tells you to "listen to the science and trust it"
First thing they say in an introductory stats class. Numbers are never wrong. Whoever uses them will definitely be wrong in some way. P-hacking is a real thing.
#63
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,022
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
I really hope Trump gets defeated. The JFK martyrdom was the best thing to happen for his party.
#64
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
I really hope Trump gets defeated. The JFK martyrdom was the best thing to happen for his party.
Politically it’d be better for him to come back 2024 with a GOP House and Senate 
#65
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,022
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
2022 house will look great if biden is in the seat.
#66
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,169
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
2022 house will look great if biden is in the seat.
Senate will be good too. Doug Ducey defeats Mark Kelly in VA. Brian Sandoval can win against Cortez Masto in Nevada. Scott Brown or Chris Sununu in New Hampshire. So many more lol
#67
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@oromagi
I don't accept that well established sources of fake news must always be lent credence until disproved.
Except, 3RU7AL's scrutiny wasn't focused on your characterization of Dr. Shiva in and of itself. It was focused on your attempt to use your characterization to qualify the claim offered by Dr. Shiva, i.e. the ad hominem.

To my mind, that's the guy who forgives his girlfriend multiple infidelities in the hopes she may one day fall in love or the wife who forgives her husband's abuse for the sake of the marriage.
That analogy is not quite right. It would be like claiming that your girlfriend has lied to you about cheating before, therefore, she's must be lying about it now.

I don't care what Dr Ayyadurai has to say on any subject, he has demonstrated that his motivations are corrupt and self-serving.
And that is your prerogative. But that is not a valid counterargument to 3RU7AL's OP. Hence, he (and later I) called you out on the ad hominem.

If Dr. Ayyadurai is your only source of evidence, then I see little value in investigating further, as far as I'm concerned you have no evidence to back your claim.  
This is an ad hominem. Qualifying information, arguments, or even evidence using traits of its source or author imputes the logically fallacious argumentum ad hominem.



#68
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,674
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Greyparrot
@ILikePie5
you guys are right-the 2022 map are very good for republicnas
#69
Castin
Castin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,240
3
2
7
Castin's avatar
Castin
3
2
7
-->
@3RU7AL
An attack on a person rather than their arguments.
I agree.

In other words, foul play in a debate environment.
How is this "attack on a person rather than their arguments" specific to "a debate environment"?

I mean, if, hypothetically, someone called another member a "conspiracy theorist" or "a complete idiot" in the forums (and not in the "debate" section of this esteemed website) wouldn't that still be considered an ad hominem attack?

Not "a questioning of the credibility of a source of information." In other words, fair play in a journalistic, scholastic, or scientific environment.
Attacking a person, rather than their arguments, would seem to fit the definition of an ad hominem attack in ANY setting.
In a debate environment ad hominem attacks are diversionary irrelevancies to the argument, e.g. I use the argument of Russell's teapot and my opponent responds that Bertrand Russell was an adulterer. The irrelevance of this attack is what makes it fallacious.

In an information environment we evaluate the source's bias or history of spreading misinformation because it is directly relevant to how the information should be weighed, e.g. I will not trust an article casting doubt on the negative health impacts of smoking if the source was funded by Big Tobacco with a history of spreading misinformation about the scientific consensus on smoking. The relevance of this criticism of the source's motive and pattern of behavior is what makes it not fallacious.

Good questions, though. Got me thinking about it more.
Topic's author
#70
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
"Smart" people also say a lot of "dumb" things as well...

Topic's author
#71
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ILikePie5
First thing they say in an introductory stats class. Numbers are never wrong. Whoever uses them will definitely be wrong in some way. P-hacking is a real thing.
Samuel Clemens reminds us there are three types of lies,

(1) Lies.

(2) Damn Lies.

(3) Statistics.
Topic's author
#72
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Dr.Franklin
it is voter fraud, this election was stolen
The Problem

In response to the need to upgrade outdated election systems, many states and communities are considering acquiring “Direct Recording Electronic” (DRE) voting machines (such as “touch-screen voting machines” mentioned frequently in the press). Some have already acquired them. Unfortunately, there is insufficient awareness that these machines pose an unacceptable risk that errors or deliberate election-rigging will go undetected, since they do not provide a way for the voters to verify independently that the machine correctly records and counts the votes they have cast. Moreover, if problems are detected after an election, there is no way to determine the correct outcome of the election short of a re-vote. Deployment of new voting machines that do not provide a voter-verifiable audit trail should be halted, and existing machines should be replaced or modified to produce [paper] ballots [receipts] that can be checked independently by the voter before being submitted, and cannot be altered after submission. These ballots would count as the actual votes, taking precedence over any electronic counts.

Election integrity cannot be assured without openness and transparency. But an election without voter-verifiable ballots cannot be open and transparent: The voter cannot know that the vote eventually reported is the same as the vote cast, nor can candidates or others gain confidence in the accuracy of the election by observing the voting and vote counting processes. [**]
#73
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,674
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@3RU7AL
ok.
Topic's author
#74
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Castin
I will not trust an article casting doubt on the negative health impacts of smoking if the source was funded by Big Tobacco with a history of spreading misinformation about the scientific consensus on smoking.
Although the sponsor of a study might call for increased scrutiny, the sponsor (source) itself does not automatically invalidate the data.

I remember watching a documentary where an expert witness was cross examined by a prosecutor.

Every question the prosecutor asked was about how much money the expert witness typically gets paid (in order to attempt to discredit them in the eyes of the working-class jury).