So you feel comfortable contradicting experts so long as there is only one in your field of vision?
Your entire argument here is that the toxicologist who actually examined the body is wrong about his findings.
No toxicologist examined the body, the coroner examined the body and she found no bruising of the windpipe. My argument has nothing to do with her, I commented that I believed she was politically motivated but that speculation is not part of my argument concluding that Floyd killed himself with drugs.
That argument relies on no authority save for the authority of the cited study to publish raw data.
I’m not the one contradicting experts
If you're saying someone can be suffocated due to a force from behind you are.
I’m merely pointing out that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Well you're asserting that claim, you have not done anything to support it.
The reason I emphasized “one” is to show that what I was about to point
to is the only reference point you had in the trial. In other words
everything you claim to have gotten from the trial is limited to this
one individual, so the rest of your assertions don’t get to hide behind
the veil of expertise.
This one individual was not the only one to testify at the trial, that's why cross examinations exist; to expose contradictions, lies, and other relevant facts even from witnesses that were called by the opposition.
so the rest of your assertions don’t get to hide behind
the veil of expertise.
I never hide behind the veil of expertise, I leave that to the pretenders. If I claim to be an expert on some things it is mere commentary and no substitute for an argument.
I make arguments and I evaluate arguments. That is what intellectually honest people do if they wish to confront others with disagreements.
If he/she was knowledgeable, was mistaken otherwise.
Your
position is that the facts asserted by the prosecution’s expert
witnesses are so easily verifiably false that anyone with an internet
connection can spend a few minutes on Google and pull up the data
proving them wrong. To claim this is a product of them just not knowing
any better is ridiculous.
I didn't claim the person who made that claim (as quoted in this thread) didn't know any better, I claimed that if that person did know better then he/she did lie; because the fact remains that anyone with an internet connection (and has retained Bio 101 knowledge) can spend a few minutes on Google and pull up the data proving them wrong.
The defense witness cited a study
which all but proved what millions of people with human bodies already
know from extensive personal experience; you can't suffocate someone
with a 200 lb weight from behind.
You are the one citing study’s on fentanyl to prove Floyd overdosed. That’s what we’re talking about.
You forget the context. You claimed that there was no point debating this because we are not experts. I asked you why you are trying to debate it if you believed that to be the case. I asked why you feel that as a non-expert you can choose which experts to believe, because that's essentially what you're telling me I'm not allowed to do.
You should make up your mind on google, when it comes to Ukraine it's infallible;
This is a blatant strawman and you know that.
I truly do not know that.
when it comes to toxicology....
Toxicology
is a field of medical science. If all it took was an hour or so on
Google to qualify yourself students wouldn’t spend ten years of their
lives getting their degrees.
That's ten years wasted if they can't avoid contradicting a large data set I would say.
This is an entirely different thing from determining whether the international community wanted Victor Shokin fired.
Indeed, one is simply related quotes and assertions of related quotes. Hearsay to the 2nd and sometimes 4th degree. The other has hard data, charts, math. I called the Ukraine debate fuzzy logic. Disproving a statement like "overdose victims rarely have norfentanyl in their system" is not fuzzy at all.
You may have noticed I reject the irrationality of authority based epistemology.
Yes, I’ve definitely noticed that. It’s kind of the hallmark of conspiratorial thinking.
As if there was only one type of thinking possible outside of your carefully tailored application of faith.
What you are calling “authority based epistemology” is just the
recognition that people who have spent their entire lives studying a
given field probably know more about that field than you do, so all
you’re really rejecting is the possibility of your own ignorance.
No, what I am calling "authority based epistemology" is the belief (or behavior consistent with the belief whether consciously admitted or not) that the truth value of an assertion depends on the quality of the asserter, good or bad.
I am rejecting the possibility of non-axiomatic knowledge that has no supporting argument. If there was an argument I could not understand because it referenced too many concepts I was not familiar with I would admit that it could be sound but my ignorance prevents me from determining whether it is so.
That is what ignorance looks like. It does not look like a so called expert making an assertion, providing no argument; and dismissing contradicting arguments. It certainly does not look like a third party claiming someone else is an authority so everything they assert is beyond question.
That's unearned certainty, and the province of fools and zealots. If you believe "experts" would be able to explain how it is that a distribution clearly shows norfentanyl being present at ~50% the mass ratio of fentanyl in overdose victims is consistent with "overdose victims rarely have norfentanyl in their system" you are entitled to whatever articles of faith you may wish to keep; but I am not obligated to share them.
It's not like you can argue the science right?
I
can argue the science but that is pointless since neither of us have
any expertise so neither of us really knows what we’re talking about.
So you can't prove I'm ignorant, but you feel entitled to contradict my claims because you believe I'm ignorant; despite the fact that I make all arguments publicly and link to hard data.
I'd say that qualifies as wasting everyone's time.
Here’s the thing, if you were, say studying
toxicology because you interested in going into the field I would be
more inclined to hear you out and go back and forth with you.
Yes, that is the hallmark of authority based epistemology as opposed to rationality (rational epistemology = all knowledge arises from logic applied to evidence). To you the frock is more important than the sermon.
I do find it especially ironic that people in your political camp call their enemies "conservative" while having the most inflexible of philosophical cores: orthodoxy (which is inherently an authority based value systems). I wonder how many remember that it was through defying authority with strong arguments that the decaying mountains of reputation upon which academia rests were originally built.
I wonder how many would continue to treat diplomas like a sacred mark if enemy political tribes gained controlled of the universities.
The only reason you are googling studies on the ng/ml levels of fentanyl
in overdoses is because this subject has been politicized and you are
trying to prove the point you already believed.
My motives are as irrelevant as the coroner's to the truth of the matter.
You don’t really care about this, so digging through studies to show you you’re wrong is pointless.
Or impossible, guess "we'll" never know.
They weren’t what convinced you, so they’re not going to change your mind.
Convenient theory.
