WEDNESDAY, JULY 29, 2026
The Fox News Channel at work: Friend, do you know what Dr. Fauci is currently charged with—what he's charged with as he's transformed into a high-profile villain?
Do you understand the charges? Do you believe the various people lodging the charges have any idea what they're talking about?
It's always possible that some of them do! But how sure do you feel about that?
How many such people do you think are scientifically competent? As an example, we saw expert guest Tom Shillue ranting about Dr. Fauci in the first segment of today's Outnumbered program on the Fox News Channel.
Who the heck is Tom Shillue? He's one of the comedians most commonly featured on the Gutfeld! program—except today, that is, when he was presenting as a "hang him high" approximation of a scientific savant.
We'll provide transcript excerpts tomorrow.
Meanwhile, We Blues! Our tribunes refuse to report or discuss the way the Fox News Channel works. As a tribe, we're engaged in a slow, steady act of tribal retreat and surrender.
Much like humans everywhere, we aren't skilled at seeing ourselves as we are. Details on the morrow, with visits to some of the most patently phony Republican Party senators.
(More on Us Blues next week.)
By the way:
Where did Covid-19 originate? Do you think the question's been settled?
ReplyDeleteHe constantly lied, and forced -- by bribes and blackmail -- his "science" mob to lie about the origin of Covid-19.
Covid-19 is a product of GOF, the kind of research and experimentation that he led and promoted, and he lied about that too.
Is this not enough for you? Okay, then: he lied, constantly, about not being involved in lockdowns and school closings.
This is one right wing view, but there have been no charges of perjury or lying brought against Fauci, so this cannot be the answer to Somerby's question.
DeletePatriot = Everyone for themselves.
DeleteTo prove a lie, you must know the truth. @3:16 doesn't seem to have that knowledge.
DeleteOne penny of taxes is too much, in a nation with a "fuck my fellow countrymen" attitude.
DeleteIf you say so, Dumbocrats.
Delete4:00,
DeleteYou got it, Ace.
Whatever you say, Dumbocrat.
DeleteAlways.
Deletewhat is the current expert consensus on the origins of the virus that caused the covid pandemic?The clear consensus among the vast majority of international virologists and epidemiologists is that the virus most likely originated from a natural zoonotic spillover (animal-to-human transmission) at the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, China. However, because critical primary data remains missing, global health bodies maintain that alternative theories cannot be entirely ruled out.The breakdown of evidence, consensus, and ongoing debates is structured below:The Scientific Consensus: Natural SpilloverIndependent scientific bodies—including the World Health Organization's Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO)—conclude that the "weight of available evidence" points to an animal origin.Key pieces of peer-reviewed data supporting this include:The Market as the Epicenter: Spatial analyses published in major journals like Science show that the earliest known December 2019 cases formed a precise cluster centered exactly on the Huanan market.Animal Genetic Links: Genetic sequencing published in the journal Cell confirmed that positive environmental swabs taken from the market’s wildlife stalls contained a mix of SARS-CoV-2 RNA and DNA from susceptible wild animals, most notably raccoon dogs.Evolutionary Patterns: Multi-virus evolutionary studies show that the mutation patterns of SARS-CoV-2 mirror known natural animal-to-human spillovers (like Ebola and Influenza) rather than historical laboratory leaks.Dual Lineages: Evidence indicates that two separate genetic lineages of the virus (Lineage A and B) were circulating at the market simultaneously, pointing heavily toward multiple early animal-to-human transmission events.The Ongoing Caveat: Lack of a "Smoking Gun"Despite the strong circumstantial genomic and geographic evidence, a definitive consensus is hindered by a lack of absolute proof. Scientists have not yet isolated an active, live animal infected with the progenitor virus from the market. Because the market was rapidly cleared and sanitized by Chinese authorities at the start of the outbreak, capturing this direct link has been impossible.The Intelligence and Political DivideWhile the consensus among academic virologists is strongly unified around a natural origin, government and intelligence sectors remain deeply divided:U.S. Intelligence Split: Agencies like the FBI and the CIA have expressed "low-to-moderate confidence" in a potential laboratory-associated incident or an accidental leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Other intelligence agencies assess natural exposure as the most likely path.U.S. Political Declarations: The U.S. executive and legislative branches have heavily focused on the laboratory origin theory, with the White House explicitly backing the lab-leak narrative and ongoing congressional hearings debating the early responses of public health officials.Current StatusBecause the Chinese government has withheld original early patient records, wildlife supply-chain documentation, and complete laboratory biosafety logs, the World Health Organization (WHO) formally keeps all hypotheses "on the table." Nevertheless, purely from an empirical data standpoint, mainstream science views natural zoonotic transmission as the only theory strongly supported by hard physical evidence.
DeleteReporting and discussing the way the Fox News Channel works, is a surefire way to be blamed for Democrats losing elections.
ReplyDelete"Friend, do you know what Dr. Fauci is currently charged with—what he's charged with as he's transformed into a high-profile villain? "
ReplyDeleteFauci is not charged with anything. He is testifying before Congress in their investigation. Somerby's question implies that Fauci IS charged with some wrongdoing. "Charged" is a legal term that does not apply to Fauci, despite Rand Paul's desire to prosecute him. As such, it is inaccurate and it tends to smear Fauci. This is in line with the Republican attempts to make Fauci a villain, not the Democratic defense of Fauci against right wing conspiracy theories and threats.
Why is Somerby advancing this right wing talking point about Fauci being charged with something, instead of defending Fauci and his right to take the 5th in this hearing, after Trump attempted to void Biden's pardons (back in 2025)?
“Charged” also means he’s not neutral, He’s not grounded.
DeleteNo doctor is neutral about fighting illness and disease.
DeleteIt troubles me that if Fauci can be scapegoated for covid, that the public may similarly not appreciate the huge sacrifices the entire medical profession made to help during the pandemic, up to and including dying themselves. The coping with covid was a major success story, as was Biden's coping with our financial impacts afterwards. The lack of understanding, lack of gratitude, on the part of the right makes me bitter about the treatment of those who lost so much during that year in order to serve others.
This reaction by the right is wrong in so many ways.
Yes, this would be like court-martialing Eisenhower after he won WWII in Europe as head of the US war effort and recovery there. I get it that there were people who hated FDR, but he was the one who led us through the depression and created a safety-net for all of us (unemployment insurance, health care, social security, govt jobs in public works) while the right tried to obstruct his efforts. Now we see FDR as a hero. Fauci is no different. Somerby needs to stop this shit and recognize how much worse the pandemic would have been without Fauci giving himself to that national effort.
DeleteThis is how we on the actual left see this issue. Not Somerby's pose of indecision because it is all so complicated that no one knows what Fauci may have done wrong. Somerby makes me sick. I hope my revulsion is catching among others here.
Provider in a COVID infested hospital in 2020-2021 here. This display by Republicans is disgusting on so many levels. Another sideshow during war when the middle class is being pummeled by Trump policy decisions impacting their finances.. Rand Paul is an asshat who, instead of becoming board certified in his subspecialty, invented his own board certification agency in opthalmology, passed the test constructed administered by his agency and was able to hang a plaque on the wall of his office that suggested he had a legitimate certification in his medical subspecialty. A fraud upon his patients.
DeleteI knew two people who died during covid (before the vaccine). One was my husband. I have strong feelings about this effort to attack the health care professionals who endangered their own lives to help others, serving long hours, quantining themselves from their own families to protect them at home, patiently enduring the ignorance of right wingers while trying to save their lives, and sitting with the dying ivermectin enthusiasts who wondered why their treatments didn't help them, discovering that they should have paid attention to the isolation precautions only when it was too late to help them live. It was a very traumatic year. Now some people want payback for their pain, but they are asking for it from the wrong people. They should be holding Trump and the right accountable for lying to them, because that is what really happened.
Deletetypo: quarantining
Delete6:06. I am sorry about your husband. We now live in a country in which the presiding party is at war with science and bleeding our best researchers to China and elsewhere. This entirely rests at the feet of Trump and his Republican enablers.
Delete"Where did Covid-19 originate? Do you think the question's been settled?"
ReplyDeleteI think the question is now moot. The pandemic is over. There are better questions to be asked now, such as why RFK Jr. is promoting measles.
One might ask whether we are currently prepared to deal with another pandemic today, regardless of source. I don't think we are, given the way DOGE and RFK Jr. and Trump have gutted the departments that let us cope with the last one. If you don't fund science research, how will anyone develop a new vaccine to protect us from a new virus?
The right wing is worrying about the wrong things. That includes Somerby, who apparently thinks the right's questions are the burning issues for himself too. Not for we blues -- this is far from what is preoccupying us. We want to know when Trump will be removed from office.
"We'll provide transcript excerpts tomorrow."
ReplyDeleteDon't bother.
It seems amazingly prescient of Biden (who was supposedly senile) to anticipate that Trump and his goons (Rand Paul etc.) would target Fauci for doing his job under difficult circumstances and saving so many people.
ReplyDeletethere was no prescience involved. Fauci was always their scapegoat.
DeleteGov. Ron DeSantis slammed Dr. Anthony Fauci during a rally in Orlando Wednesday, describing the top infectious disease expert as an “elf,” and called for him to be thrown across the Potomac River.
Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases who became a household name during the COVID-19 pandemic and the subject of partisan attacks, announced Monday he will leave the federal government in December.
Posted: Aug 25, 2022 / 02:44 PM EDT
Updated: Aug 25, 2022 / 03:02 PM EDT
You are right.
Delete"Meanwhile, We Blues! Our tribunes refuse to report or discuss the way the Fox News Channel works. As a tribe, we're engaged in a slow, steady act of tribal retreat and surrender."
ReplyDeleteThis might be true if "our tribunes" were not busy doing other things, such as promoting blue candidates all over the country and fighting back against Trump's newest atrocities. Today, they are defending Fauci.
We are by no means engaged in any act of tribal retreat or surrender when we ignore Fox. We are putting our energies where they matter most, and that is being reflected in the polls -- Trump has reached a new low today.
Why would Somerby say something this negative and stupid about Democrats if he were not a right wing shill. He needs to stop referring to "we blues" because he is obviously not one of us. Just compare this blog with an actual blue blog, such as Digby or Thom Hartmann or Robert Reich or some actual BLUE supporter has been writing. The difference should be obvious and stark.
Somerby has become the liar here, not Fauci.
"Much like humans everywhere, we aren't skilled at seeing ourselves as we are."
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't mean Somerby's perception of us is real. His ulterior motives result in a distorted view that reduces to the nihilism he applies to everything of value in our world. He is like an extreme version of Eeyore, except that he reserve special animosity toward blues, for some reason.
If we were a card-carrying tribe, I would call for Somerby to be ejected from our campfire. He dislikes us more than we dislike him, so he needs to stop calling himself one of us. Fortunately, he no longer has much influence anywhere, so it perhaps doesn't matter what he says, except that it grates on those of us who actually are blues, walking the walk and voting Democratic.
"If we were a card-carrying tribe, I would call for Somerby to be ejected from our campfire."
DeleteAnd you'd do it while sitting at his campfire in his back yard.
Really. That’s what gets me. If you don’t like the campfire, why do you stick around insulting the Host? It seems like bad manners.
DeleteBTW, Quaker, as a side note, and unrelated to the merits: An excellently crafted comment. I happen to agree with it, but I’d admire it even if I didn’t.
Delete"when he was presenting as a "hang him high" approximation of a scientific savant"
ReplyDeleteThere are no scientists on the right. Presenting as one doesn't make Shillue one. Scientists study the real world and accept reality over preferred beliefs. The right doesn't do that.
For example, Trump told his minions to stop testing sick people because then he could report fewer cases of covid. Fauci looked the virus in the eyes and developed ways of fighting it in order to preserve more lives and help people recover faster. Trump allowed his cronies to sell fake remedies and make money off people's fears, including ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and other cures that did nothing to help people (copper rings, supplements, holy water, prayers and blessings). Fauci helped coordinate the distribution of an effective vaccine. Trump's people then sabotaged the vaccine by saying it killed people and had horrible side effects (untrue) while Trump took itself and the very people claiming vaccine was bad vaccinated their own families. But Fauci is supposedly the villain? Get real!
While I am enjoying the utter destruction of Dr. Fauci being hung out to dry by his very own words, why oh why doesn't the Committee just give him blanket immunity so he has to testify and expose him the lying POS that he truly is.
ReplyDeleteBecause then they couldn't prosecute him and that would be a huge disappointment to those who want him to hang for something (anything). You are misled if you think anyone on the right cares about getting the truth.
DeleteWhy isn't Somerby pointing out to the Republicans that calling a national hero a POS is not the way to gain blue votes in the midterms?
Delete@3:54
DeleteHe could still be prosecuted. They just couldn't use any of the testimony that he was granted immunity to give.
But since they already have the evidence of his own words showing that he was knowing lying to Congress, they don't need anything more.
A state could prosecute this Dumbocrat-worshiped monster.
DeleteFauci did his job to the best of his ability. Prosecuting someone for that guarantees that no one will want to ever do that again, under similar circumstances. It is why there are Good Samaritan laws in many states. It would be nice if those lying about Fauci could be prosecuted for their lies, given that they are damaging to the welfare of citizens in our nation.
DeleteRight wing fool Rand Paul needs a better hairpiece
DeleteThis never would have happened if Trump was president during the pandemic
DeleteFox is not the problem. The people appearing on Fox are the problem. We cannot suppress their free speech, except through defamation suits, so why doesn't Somerby focus on some solvable problems and reachable goals, such as convincing people not to watch Fox. Somerby has never urged that. Instead, he says we on the left should watch Fox more because we will hear info there that is not being discussed by the left. The problem is that would expose us to a greal deal of misinfo too, and no one needs that. Instead, we can use Ground News to separate the wheat from the chaff without becoming contaminated by fiction (the way Somerby seems to have been, especially with regard to Biden's capabilities and Harris's border policies and now Fauci's guilt). We blues are standing by Fauci but it seems like Somerby is surrendering to right wing nonsense, based on his questions to us about so-called "charges" against Fauci. You need evidence to bring charges, and there is no evidence Fauci has done anything wrong enough to merit indictment, just a bunch of empty finger-pointing by right wing morons. Is Somerby now one of them? It sure seems like it.
ReplyDeleteI don't think he meant real legal charges. Fauci has blanket preemptive immunity from Biden so no one is actually going to bring charges against him.
DeleteRepublicans are disputing this because Trump voided Biden’s pardons.
DeleteTrump did not void Biden's pardons. He said he did. Maybe that's what you're thinking of.
DeleteTrump is literally the last person on earth who wants pardons to be voidable.
DeleteWe blues follow issues like this, which I am absolutely certain was not discussed on Fox:
ReplyDelete"Trump’s new Fed chair deserts Trump [by Robt Kuttner]
Under Kevin Warsh, the Federal Reserve refuses to cut interest rates and may soon raise them.
As expected, the Federal Reserve did not raise interest rates today, but neither did it lower them from its current target range of 3.5 to 3.75 percent for short-term rates. And the vote was 9-to-3, with three regional bank presidents—Beth Hammack of Cleveland, Neel Kashkari of Minneapolis, and Lorie Logan of Dallas—voting to raise the target range for the federal funds rate by a quarter percentage point. It was the first time since 2016 that three officials dissented in the same direction.
The split vote signals that the Fed, despite President Trump’s wishes for a rate cut, is likely to vote for a rate hike between now and the November midterms. That’s because several factors, some of them of Trump’s own making, are increasing inflation, including the Iran war and retail price increases resulting from Trump’s tariffs."
https://prospect.org/2026/07/29/trumps-new-fed-chair-kevin-warsh-deserts/
Wow, Trump just took a giant shit on my 401k today
ReplyDeleteTaken together, the comments criticizing Somerby exhibit a fairly consistent rhetorical and reasoning style. While they differ in specifics, they share several recurring characteristics.
ReplyDelete1. High certainty with little uncertainty
The commenters generally write as though the issues are completely settled.
Examples include:
Fauci is unquestionably a hero.
The allegations against him are unquestionably baseless.
Somerby is unquestionably helping the right.
Fox is unquestionably misinformation.
Little effort is made to distinguish between what is known, what is disputed, and what remains uncertain.
---
2. Motive attribution
Rather than merely disagreeing with Somerby's arguments, many comments infer hidden motives.
For example:
"right wing shill"
"surrendering"
"he reserve[s] special animosity toward blues"
"he is obviously not one of us"
These statements speculate about Somerby's intentions rather than analyzing whether his arguments are correct.
---
3. Identity policing
Several commenters argue that Somerby has forfeited the right to identify with the political left.
Examples include:
"He needs to stop referring to 'we blues.'"
"He is obviously not one of us."
"I'd eject him from our campfire."
This is less about evaluating ideas than determining who belongs to the group.
---
4. Conflating inquiry with advocacy
One of the most common reasoning patterns is:
Somerby asks whether Fauci has been charged.
Therefore Somerby is promoting Republican accusations.
But asking
> "What are the charges?"
is not logically equivalent to saying
> "The charges are true."
The commenters repeatedly blur that distinction.
---
There are no charges, dumbass.
DeleteRand Paul has been threatening Fauci with charges of perjury based on supposed "lies".
DeleteI thought Biden pardoned fauci.
DeleteTrump revoked Biden’s pardons, all of them. He has no legal right to do that, but who is going to stop him? Fauci is right to protect himself.
DeleteThe Supreme Court ruled the pardon power of the president is absolute and unreviewable
Delete5. Moral certainty
ReplyDeleteMany comments frame the issue as one involving obvious good versus obvious evil.
Examples:
Fauci is a national hero.
Republicans are villains.
Fox is pure misinformation.
Somerby is aiding villains by asking questions.
This leaves little room for nuanced discussion.
---
6. Tribal language
The repeated use of
"we blues,"
"our side,"
"actual left,"
shows that many commenters evaluate Somerby's writing partly through a group-loyalty lens.
The underlying question becomes
> "Is he helping our team?"
rather than
> "Is his analysis accurate?"
---
7. Ad hominem
Instead of limiting criticism to Somerby's reasoning, several comments attack him personally.
Examples:
"right wing shill"
"liar"
"makes me sick"
"nihilist"
"Eeyore"
"grates"
These descriptions do little to establish that his arguments are incorrect.
---
8. Confirmation bias
Many commenters appear to begin with a fixed conclusion:
Fauci is innocent.
Republicans are wrong.
Therefore any examination of allegations against Fauci is inherently suspect.
This creates a tendency to dismiss questions before examining them.
---
9. Selective skepticism
Interestingly, these commenters are highly skeptical of Fox News but comparatively uncritical of sources that reinforce their existing views.
This asymmetry is common in political reasoning generally:
scrutinize opposing sources intensely,
trust congenial sources much more readily.
---
10. Emotional rather than analytical persuasion
Much of the persuasion comes from emotional language:
"makes me sick"
"revulsion"
"hero"
"shill"
"liar"
"morons"
rather than careful examination of evidence.
---
A notable irony
One of Somerby's longstanding themes has been that both political tribes often fail to examine their own assumptions and instead reward loyalty and certainty.
Several of these comments arguably illustrate exactly the phenomenon he frequently criticizes:
treating questions as betrayal,
equating criticism with disloyalty,
inferring motives instead of addressing arguments,
emphasizing group identity,
using social sanctions ("he isn't one of us anymore").
Whether Somerby is right or wrong on the Fauci issue is separate from whether these comments engage his reasoning. Many do not. Instead, they often judge him primarily by whether he appears sufficiently aligned with their political community.
Overall characterization
As a group, the anti-Somerby comments are characterized by:
strong ideological certainty,
high confidence in their own conclusions,
frequent moral framing,
identity-based reasoning,
motive attribution,
ad hominem attacks,
conflation of questioning with endorsement,
relatively little engagement with Somerby's central questions.
They contain some substantive disagreements—for example, disputing Somerby's use of the word "charged" or arguing that Fox should simply be ignored—but much of the criticism is rhetorical rather than analytical. The dominant concern appears to be that Somerby's framing is perceived as insufficiently supportive of the political left, rather than a systematic refutation of his reasoning.
Congrats on learning to use AI.
DeleteWhat is wrong with rhetoric?
DeleteThere is nothing inherently wrong with rhetoric. Rhetoric is the art of persuasion. Every political writer, lawyer, journalist, and advocate uses rhetoric to some extent.
DeleteThe issue is what kind of rhetoric is being used and whether it supports or substitutes for reasoning.
For example:
Constructive rhetoric clarifies arguments, illustrates principles, and helps people understand evidence.
Manipulative rhetoric relies on emotion, tribal identity, ridicule, or moral condemnation to persuade without carefully examining the evidence.
In the comments above, the criticism is not that they are rhetorical. The criticism is that much of the rhetoric replaces argument rather than strengthens it.
For example:
> "Somerby makes me sick."
This is rhetoric. It communicates the writer's emotional reaction, but it doesn't show that Somerby is wrong.
Similarly,
> "He is a right-wing shill."
Unless accompanied by evidence demonstrating intentional advocacy for the right, this is rhetorical labeling rather than an argument.
By contrast,
> "Somerby's use of the word 'charged' is misleading because readers may infer that Fauci has been criminally indicted, when he has not."
That is also rhetoric—it is persuasive writing—but it contains a specific claim that can be examined and either accepted or rejected.
A philosopher or critical-thinking instructor might put it this way:
> Rhetoric is valuable when it serves reasoning. It becomes problematic when it replaces reasoning.
Or more succinctly:
Reasoning asks, "What follows from the evidence?"
Rhetoric asks, "What will persuade the audience?"
The two often work together. Problems arise when persuasion becomes detached from careful analysis.
One interesting feature of the comments is that many of them appear aimed less at persuading Somerby than at reinforcing solidarity among like-minded readers. Social psychologists sometimes distinguish between rhetoric intended to discover truth and rhetoric intended to signal group identity. The latter often emphasizes moral certainty, shared values, and emotional resonance over engagement with opposing arguments. That doesn't make it illegitimate, but it serves a different purpose than analytical reasoning.
When a person is already convinced of the truth of their own knowledge and beliefs, the goal is not to use reason to evaluate evidence, but to convince another person of their own conclusions. There is an assumption that both people have access to the same facts and can reason from them.
DeleteNo one can persuade Somerby of anything here because he has said that he does not read his comments. That leaves the other readers as worth addressing to the extent that they are open to listen. Each reader decides that themselves. Trolls are excluded because they are here for their own reasons that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I think reasoning and analysis are solitary exercises, not something done with or for someone else. No one here is teaching anyone else. We are sharing our reactions and experiences (those who are not trolling).
Accusing someone of not reasoning is impolite. Assuming that reason is more important than rhetoric or emotional response or suggestions for action or comparison with other views, or whatever else can be discussed, is a mistake in my opinion because the stage of making up one's mind about a topic, where reasoning is relevant, may not be concurrent in all people involved in a discussion. It may only occur when something new is being talked about, or a new event has occurred. That is not the case for most people visiting this kind of blog. Trump's mental illness (or not) is old news here. Reasoning has its time and place, but that isn't anything to do with evaluating Fauci or Trump or Somerby, for most of us.
No one has a lick of proof whether Somerby is a Right-wing shill or not.
DeletePeople who treat discussions as a logic game may be ignoring the importance of the topics to those discussing them.
DeleteCognitive psychologists have studied the difference between formal reasoning and the way most people reason. Initially, researchers assumed that people were bad at reasoning because their processes differed from logicians (philosophers and mathematicians) and the rules of logic. With more research, it was found that people use probabilistic approaches to reasoning that are valid and better predictors under conditions of uncertainty, following rules arising from human experience, that make sense and produce efficient decisions. This new understanding of how people think has also been applied in behavioral economics to explain human judgments and what are termed biases in choice.
I explained this at length to Somerby when he first claimed that Aristotle was wrong about humans being reasoning creatures. Somerby doesn't know shit about cognitive psychology and doesn't appear to have changed -- which suggests he really doesn't read his comments. But there is some hope other readers might benefit, even if Somerby does not, so I have revisited that explanation over the years. There is now a good book out by Michael Lewis about Kahneman and Tversky.
Logic-bashing is a game. It is not a way to derive truth from evidence when exploring human behavior. It is definitely not a way to convince other people of your arguments because people will not change their views simply because you show them a chain of reasoning. It will make people irritated and unwilling to talk to you. Assume you will pass this message on to your AI friend.
@5:51 Every essay Somerby writes is evidence. We don't know who pays him or how much, but does that really matter?
DeleteThis response appeals to cognitive psychology and behavioral economics. However, it also overstates what those fields have shown and makes several leaps that are not supported by the research it invokes.
DeleteStronger points
There are several claims that are well grounded.
1. People do not reason like formal logicians.
This is true.
Beginning in the 1970s, researchers such as Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky demonstrated that everyday reasoning differs substantially from formal logic.
Human beings often rely on:
heuristics,
intuitive judgments,
pattern recognition,
prior experience,
probabilistic thinking.
Formal deductive logic is only one mode of reasoning.
---
2. Human reasoning evolved for practical decision-making.
Also largely true.
In uncertain environments, perfect logical deduction is often impossible because information is incomplete.
People instead estimate probabilities and make satisficing decisions.
Many cognitive scientists agree with this.
---
3. Persuasion involves much more than logic.
Again, true.
Research in psychology consistently finds that changing beliefs involves:
trust,
identity,
emotion,
social influence,
prior commitments,
in addition to evidence.
Pure logical argument rarely changes strongly held political beliefs by itself.
---
Where the response becomes problematic
1. It overstates what cognitive psychology has established.
The author writes as though cognitive psychology has replaced logic.
It has not.
Researchers did not conclude that formal reasoning is obsolete.
Instead they concluded that:
humans use multiple reasoning systems,
intuitive reasoning is often adaptive,
but intuitive reasoning is also systematically biased.
Ironically, Kahneman's work became famous precisely because it documented recurring reasoning errors.
---
2. It confuses descriptive with normative claims.
This is probably the biggest philosophical mistake.
The response says, in effect:
> People naturally reason this way.
Therefore,
> this is how they should reason.
Those are different claims.
Cognitive psychology primarily describes how people think.
Logic asks how conclusions should follow from premises.
The two disciplines answer different questions.
---
3. It creates a straw man.
The phrase
> "People who treat discussions as a logic game..."
implicitly caricatures those emphasizing reasoning.
Most advocates of careful reasoning are not treating discussion as a game.
They're arguing that evidence should support conclusions.
---
4. Internal inconsistency
One of the more interesting contradictions is this:
The author says logic doesn't convince people.
Then spends several paragraphs trying to convince readers by citing cognitive psychology.
That is itself an argument.
The author clearly believes reasons matter.
---
5. Appeal to authority
The response invokes:
Kahneman,
Tversky,
Michael Lewis,
without actually connecting their research to the specific dispute.
Simply citing respected scholars does not establish the conclusion.
---
6. "Logic-bashing is a game."
This is rhetorical.
It dismisses a position without demonstrating why it is mistaken.
One could equally say
> "Emotion-bashing is a game."
Neither statement advances the discussion.
---
7. False implication
DeleteThe statement
> "It is not a way to derive truth from evidence..."
is especially problematic.
Formal reasoning absolutely is one important way of deriving conclusions from evidence.
Scientific reasoning combines:
evidence,
probability,
statistics,
logical inference.
Logic alone is insufficient.
But neither is evidence without logical inference.
---
What Kahneman would probably say
Ironically, Kahneman would probably reject parts of this response.
His work repeatedly emphasizes that human intuition is:
useful,
efficient,
but frequently overconfident.
He spent decades documenting:
confirmation bias,
availability bias,
anchoring,
framing effects,
substitution,
hindsight bias,
overconfidence.
Those findings are reasons to scrutinize one's own reasoning—not reasons to dismiss logical analysis.
---
The deeper issue
This response appears to redefine the purpose of discussion.
Instead of
> Which conclusions are best supported?
the author seems to ask
> How do humans actually persuade one another?
Those are valuable but distinct questions.
A discussion can simultaneously aim to:
discover truth,
improve reasoning,
persuade others,
express identity,
build community.
Emphasizing one purpose does not invalidate the others.
Ironically, these responses may concede something important.
It suggests that many commenters have already made up their minds and are no longer engaged in evaluating evidence. Instead, they are:
expressing convictions,
persuading like-minded readers,
reinforcing community,
venting reactions.
If that is an accurate description, then it explains why many comments rely more on rhetoric than on analytical engagement with Somerby's arguments. In other words, the response shifts from defending the quality of the reasoning to defending a different purpose for the discussion.
Overall assessment
This response contains several accurate observations about human cognition and persuasion, but it overgeneralizes from cognitive psychology in ways that the underlying research does not support. It correctly notes that people do not think like formal logicians and that persuasion involves more than logic. However, it then slides into suggesting that because humans naturally rely on intuition and heuristics, logical evaluation is of limited value. That conclusion does not follow from the research it cites.
The overall pattern is one of mixing solid psychological insights with philosophical overreach. It uses genuine findings from cognitive psychology to argue against the importance of logical analysis, even though much of that same research highlights the need to check intuitive judgments because they are systematically prone to error.
If someone repeatedly claims that Somerby is being paid by Russia without credible evidence, several observations could be made:
DeleteUnsupported inference. It moves from disagreement with Somerby's positions to an explanation of why he holds them ("he is paid by Russia") without evidence connecting the two.
Motive attribution. Instead of focusing on Somerby's arguments, it attributes a hidden motive or financial incentive. Claims about motives generally require independent evidence.
Confirmation bias. If every article Somerby writes is interpreted as further proof of Russian influence, while contrary evidence is ignored, that would fit a classic pattern of confirmation bias.
Conspiracy-style reasoning (depending on the specifics). If the belief is maintained despite a lack of evidence and every counterargument is reinterpreted as part of the alleged scheme, the reasoning begins to resemble conspiracy thinking. That term refers to a style of explanation, not necessarily to a person's mental health.
This also sheds light on the two responses you asked about earlier.
In those responses, the commenter argues that:
reasoning is not the main purpose of the discussion,
rhetoric and persuasion are more important,
people have already made up their minds.
If, at the same time, the commenter is confidently making serious factual allegations (such as secret Russian funding) without evidence, there is an interesting tension:
On one hand, they downplay the importance of logical analysis when defending their own rhetorical style.
On the other hand, they make claims that, if true, would require particularly strong evidence because they concern hidden motives and covert relationships.
The more extraordinary the accusation, the greater the need for evidence.
From a psychological perspective, someone repeatedly making such accusations might be exhibiting motivated reasoning: beginning with a conclusion ("Somerby is effectively helping the right") and then searching for explanations consistent with that conclusion. That does not mean the person is mentally ill or irrational in general; motivated reasoning is a common human tendency across the political spectrum.
So the repeated Russia accusation is relevant not because it proves anything about the commenter personally, but because it may illustrate a pattern of reasoning in which hidden motives are inferred from disagreement rather than demonstrated through evidence.
8:29 your long winded contribution towards the conversation is valued for exactly what it’s worth.
DeleteWas that a comment or a fucking PhD thesis?
DeleteWith rethugs being the coprophagic asswipes they are, fuck a bunch of nuance.
DeleteAin't AI wonderful?
DeleteSomerby always wants the discussion to revolve around whatever the latest Fox News outrage is so that they get to determine the topic and the rest of us must respond, otherwise we’re derelict.
ReplyDeleteHow many people will be revived from the dead if anyone figures out where covid originated?
ReplyDeleteWe know that those screw worms infecting cattle are coming from Mexico, but Trump is doing nothing at all to contain that infection, allowing more cattle to cross the border. Just as Trump failed to listen to his scientists during covid, he is not paying attention to public health now either. Clearly he doesn't care, just as he doesn't care about other important issues affecting public health.
Hot enough for you today? This is happening this summer because assholes wanted to call global warming a hoax. Bad air quality in the Northeastern US? No, it has nothing to do with raking forest floors or Canada. It is because Trump has a vendetta against alternative energy, setting the country back years every time he returns to office.
Let’s have our public discussions hijacked by the fox loons.
ReplyDeleteThis isn’t the site for intelligent discussions.
DeleteToo late.
DeleteO’Donnell covering the fauci hearing right now. No need to reference the idiots on Fox News; he just shows the idiot gop senators, and, rebuts them.
ReplyDeleteSomerby is full of it.
“Anytime you see windmills, you see a failing country.” — nut job in the White House.
ReplyDelete“Children who are circumcised early have double the rate of autism.” — nut job at HHS
ReplyDeleteSounds like you were circumcised early, Dumbocrat.
DeleteCircumcision is genital mutilation.
DeleteThat's "mutilization," lib.
DeleteTrump’s approval rating is down to 32% in the latest Quinnipiac poll. Meanwhile Senate Republicans who have hitched their wagon to this failed presidency go at it with Fauci over events half a decade ago. And Medicare part D subsidies are withdrawn by a supplement promoting shill presiding over HHS , stating that somehow, miraculously, that will bring down drug costs for seniors.
ReplyDeleteClimate Change doesn't care about your feelings.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who isn't a bigot, or isn't perfectly fine with bigotry, left the Republican Party over a quarter of a century ago.
ReplyDelete"Where did Covid-19 originate?"
ReplyDeleteOur Gracious Host asks a vital, if perilously imprecise question. The novel virus that emerged in a great number of contagious cases in humans was first identified in the area around Wuhan, China. By the time the Chinese government made the world aware of the severity of the outbreak, it was too late to prevent its global spread. But is this the answer to the question Our Host poses?
Wuhan is home to an infectious diseases research laboratory. It's also a large city of more than 10 million inhabitants--making it significantly larger than New York City. Was this laboratory involved in the global outbreak of the Covid disease? Republicans argue as if the answer to that question is settled. It's not. We don't know whether the virus that caused the disease escaped from the lab We just don't. Is that the answer to Our Host's question?
What about Dr. Fauci's supposed particpiation in this? Did the doctor authorize research or funding for "gain-of-function" studies at the lab? The government entities headed by Dr. Fauci provided funds to an organization that, in turn, provided some money to the Wuhan lab. Was the doctor thereby complicit in the creation of a virus that would later escape containment, resulting in a global pandemic? Once again, some pretend the answer to this question is proven, despite the many great leaps of logic required to get to that end. Is that what Our Host asks?
The simple question, "Where did Covid-19 originate?" is answered in many different ways, Each answer depends on a preferred interpretaiton of what the question asks.
Other flu variants have emerged from mutations of the virus in animals, with the mutated flu eventually being transmitted to humans via contact with infected animals. That is the usual source of new flus. There is no reason to believe that this particular flu came from a research lab (which has strict procedures to prevent escape of viruses) rather than via the more common source. It is a huge stretch to claim that Fauci in the US had anything to do with such an escape. Believing that kind of chain of events displays major paranoia in the absence of evidence.
DeleteUltimately, it does not matter where or how the virus originated. The important question was stopping it, and it is clear that US research created a vaccine:
"The first COVID-19 vaccines were co-developed by teams at Pfizer and BioNTech, Moderna, and U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), relying on foundational mRNA technology invented by Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman."
It is insane that Trump has defunded NIH and undermined scientific research the way he has done. We may need such resources when the next pandemic comes along. Believing that someone deliberately created covid seems to justify the kinds of cuts to research funding that right wingers want to make. Just like blaming fires on human mistakes justifies cutting fire fighting and disaster relief funding. But reality doesn't conform to political wishes and these self-serving right wing beliefs do not change one thing about the reality of our world.
Each answer depends on a preferred interpretation of what the world should be like to justify what certain political factions want to do to people in the name of acquiring greater wealth. That is our current danger.
The H1N1 Spanish flu originated on the Ft. Riley military base outside Kansas City, arising from nearby meat handling facilities. It spread with the transport of soldiers during WWI to Europe and back to the US again. So many died because the flu was especially virulent among younger people, unlike previous flu variants. It mutated from causing cold-like symptoms to severe pneumonia. It killed millions.
DeleteThere was no suggestion of a deliberate agent being spread from a research lab, because no such facilities existed. It did take a while to realize that the flu did not begin in Spain or Europe but in the USA.
The right wing and its preference for conspiracy theories doesn't know a lot about history or viruses. That is why they are more susceptible to stupid theories and suggestions that the preventive measures are causing deaths, not the flu itself. Now these same people are persecuting the folks who tried to help them in 2020 (and after). These people need to get a grip (no pun intended).
It is insane that Trump has defunded NIH and undermined scientific research the way he has done.
DeleteYes, the country is being run by Fox NOOZ rejects and persons plucked from the basket of deplorables.
Fauci should go to prison for life, for unleashing something akin to a common cold on the American public.
ReplyDeleteI am not a crank.
How many more days do they need to hide Mitch McConnell's corpse?
ReplyDelete"Preznit Fuckwit and his Republican enablers have left our country drowning in a sea of problems.
ReplyDeletewe’re bogged down in an unwinnable war. our allies hate our guts. armed federal thugs roam our streets. the price of everything continues to skyrocket ever higher. we even have explosive ass mayhem, for fuck’s sake, with people being turned into human shit-geysers.
Republicans of course, don’t have any solutions to the problems they’ve created — but what they do have is spectacle, and performative wankery.
which is why, out of the clear blue, they chose to put 85-year-old Dr. Anthony Fauci — of all people! — under the hot lights of a Senate hearing and spent an entire day persecuting him." Tiedrich