more fun with 'name the fallacy'

[Bryan Sacks]

here's a paraphrase of a post that's going to come soon from an OCTer:

Premise 1: Osama Bin Laden was recorded on videotape meeting with the 9/11 hijackers before 9/11;

Premise 2: The tape, broadcast by Al-Jazeera which is no friend of the US, is very likely authentic;

Conclusion: This demonstartates that Osama Bin Laden did in fact mastermind the 9/11 plot


Let's assume the two premises are true. What is (are) the operative fallacy or fallacies here?

[Carefulplease]

1. Straw Man, Non Sequitur and Red Herring.

It is a straw man to attack the validity of an argument nobody made.

It is an non sequitur to suggest that whoever would produce such an invalid argument is a supporter of some official conspiracy theory.

It is a red herring to propose that something that is evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in an operation isn't proof that he is the mastermind of said operation.

[greyl]

2. Hey, that WAS fun! nt

[Bryan Sacks]

3. very clever, carefulplease, but

your first line is arguable (it is not a true 'straw man' to attack an argument no one made, if one admits no one made it)

second line: logical validity is not at issue in the argument whatsoever (it's an exercise in inductive argument)

third line is the important one, because you are being serious here: there is no demonstrable evidence in the imaginary argument of Bin laden's involvement in the 9/11 attacks, even if the premises are true. You apparently think there is. Glad you could help in this demonstration of how easy it is to fall prey to an inductive fallacy.

gotta be more careful, please



:)

[Carefulplease]

5. Straw men, deduction and evidence.

I agree the first charge is arguable. Notice that this is an argument that you prophecize an unamed OTCer *will* advance shortly. So, your premptive move against this prophesized argument is close to being a straw man against the general position of the paradigmatic "OTCer".

On the second point, it is also arguable that there are no valid inductive inferences. There just are no (non trivial) deductively valid inductive inferences. However I have seen inductive validity to be defined as the formal features of an argument that insure that the truth of the premises guaranty an increase in the probability of the conclusion (the case is trivial and becomes deductive if the probability is increased to 1). Still, I shouldn't have claimed that the argument is invalid simpliciter. It is invalid if it purports to be deductive. This might be arguable also.

On the third point: I did not claim "demonstrable evidence" (I assume you mean conclusive evidence). I just claimed evidence. Suppose evidence surfaced that those highjackers had met Vice President Dick Cheney in a secret location shortly before the deed. That would constitute prima facie evidence (although maybe not quite proof or even conclusive evidence) of Cheney's involvement.

[Nozebro]

7. It would NOT constitute prima facie evidence of any such thing - unless

and until there is credible proof that "those highjackers" are in fact, real hijackers, and that they willingly participated (as actual highjackers) in whatever event you are referring to as far as Dick Cheney is concerned.

[truthmover]

8. Oooo...Logic.

That's all way above the head of both the average movement participant, and the average OCTer. Good stuff!!! I hope you will continue to aim that sharp intellect at educating others within the movement. We have to keep our house in order. 9/11 activist, educators, and researchers have a responsibility to teach and learn with one another. That's basically what makes this a movement at all. Without internal debate, clear distinction of priorities, and a desire for logical concensus, the 9/11 truth movement is merely a disassociated area of public interest.

But that's not what we are seeing. Recently is seems that debate is more greatly shaping the movement. People actually started listening to each other, and got down to picking everything apart. "In Plane Site" is no longer on the top ten. 'Plane pods' were fun, but bore no evidentiary fruit. Even the ever popular 'what hit the pentagon' has recently been recognized by a number of movement leaders as a dry well. The best case we have to make is slowly emerging from our combined efforts. Carry on.

[Nozebro]

4. There is no evidence of OBL's involvement with any aspect of 9/11

nt

[Brainster]

6. Question

Is it more evidence that Bin Laden most likely masterminded the plot?

[wildbilln864]

10. nevermind...

and kick.

[Sinti]

9. Involvement with perps and masterminding of a plot are not the same thing.

He could have been involved with them, and have just been a conduit through which the real "masterminds" were working. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, but nobody is blaming Rumsfeld for Saddam's war crimes (this is not to say that Rummy doesn't have his own to atone for). The people at the top rarely ever get their hands that dirty.

BTW, does this tape actually exist? I'm assuming it's rhetorical...

[Bryan Sacks]

11. the tape does exist,

but the one I saw asked you to simply accept that the men at the training camp, their faces shrouded in masks, were in fact the 9/11 hijackers. Not exactly conclusive.

[Sinti]

12. I've seen a new tape - it's election season you know - but it doesn't show

Usama meeting with anyone, from what I could saw. I couldn't even be sure it was UBL. Perhaps I saw an abridged or poorly encoded version of the tape. I'm looking to see if there's a better copy out there. :shrug:

[greyl]

13. I'd say the two premises don't add up to sufficient conditions

to reach the conclusion. However, I've heard time and time again from 9/11 deniars that the fact in Premise 1(or something like it) is a necessary condition to even suspect bin laden's involvement.

The bigger picture is that many hardcore 9/11 deniars deny that bin laden and the hijackers ever existed at all.
They're probably untouchable by logic anyhow, but the 2 Premises definitely argue against their distorted worldview.

edit: A larger problem with your OP is that the 2 Premises aren't a complete representation of the newly released tape. You may want to include the text/audio of the tape if you want to be most fair. If you did, the more complete Premises may definitely lead to the conclusion.