[haswell]

If I were claiming that I agreed with the article and found it to be convincingly true, and so should you, I’d agree. I am not doing any of those things.

Judging how incredulous one should be of an author’s writing based on their reputation is something else.

[Haunted_Cabbage]

I would be incredulous of any author who doesn't provide evidence. Do you agree that the burden of proof should be applied equally to all authors regardless of reputation?

[nl]

> Do you agree that the burden of proof should be applied equally to all authors regardless of reputation?

No.

Especially in stories involving classified information it's very rare to get unequivocal proof at first. For better or worse leaks are how stories break, and the leakers are careful about how they do it so to avoid criminal charges.

Given this, all you have is the reputation of the person doing the reporting. Historically have they shown good judgement in discarding the crackpots and do many of their breaking stories from unnamed stories subsequently turn out to be true?

In this case I think Hersh's reputation isn't what it used to be. This century only one of his major claimed stories (the Abu Ghraib prison story - which I don't think he broke anyway?) has turned out to be true, while most (all?) of his other major claims have turned out to be either false or completely unverified after many years.

[Haunted_Cabbage]

>No.

>Especially in stories involving classified information it's very rare to get unequivocal proof at first. For better or worse leaks are how stories break, and the leakers are careful about how they do it so to avoid criminal charges.

>Given this, all you have is the reputation of the person doing the reporting. Historically have they shown good judgement in discarding the crackpots and do many of their breaking stories from unnamed stories subsequently turn out to be true?

I think we're back to an Appeal to Authority.

[nl]

Appeal to Authority is an argument that what they say is automatically true.

If you read what I said, it's the opposite ("In this case I think Hersh's reputation isn't what it used to be") but the point is that reputation is a signal that something is worth paying attention to in the absence of any other useful information.

I often think "false appeals to a logical fallacy without understanding nuanced argument" should be a fallacy itself. Nothing wrong with understanding logical fallacies of course - but often people just mindlessly use them without understanding what the fallacy says.

Expert witness in legal trials is a good counter-example to this fallacy for example. Expert witness testimony is given extra weight because of their reputation in the field. Sometimes this is wrong, but often it is not.

[Haunted_Cabbage]

While I understand that you're not equivocally saying that their claims are true, but you are absolutely appealing to someone's reputation as an authority on the topic to suggest what they say is "worth paying attention to in the absence of any other useful information".

Which seems little different to an appeal to authority. Maybe you better understand the nuance between an appeal to authority and an appeal to someone's reputation as an authority.

[haswell]

It’s still not an appeal to authority because Hersh’s status is not being invoked as evidence that this story is true - only as evidence that we should withhold judgement until it can be corroborated with hard evidence. These are very different stances.

No one is claiming that a journalist’s reputation removes the burden of proof.