We have extensively covered this in previous threads which is why I have zero interest in bringing you up to speed.

Perhaps these comments and the threads they were in might help you learn more about Pascoe and similar charlatans.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8840#286521
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10177#349439

mhaze,

Pointing to past threads and declining to engage isn't a response to the issue I raised - it's an avoidance of it.

I didn't ask whether these claims have been asserted before, or whether there exist long threads in which similar conclusions were reached. I asked how the conclusions you're asserting here are justified, given that you're treating them as settled fact while dismissing disagreement as ignorance. Linking to prior debates doesn't answer that question; it just gestures at volume.

If your position is that the matter is so conclusively resolved that it no longer needs to be argued, then the burden is on you to show why - not to wave at earlier discussions and declare the case closed. Repetition isn't adjudication, and prior confidence doesn't convert assertion into evidence.

Notice what happened over the course of both debates you linked to?

You made categorical claims ("fiction", "only contested by those who haven't examined the facts"), were asked to support them, and then responded not with evidence or reasoning, but with dismissal and fatigue. That doesn't strengthen the claims, it sidesteps scrutiny of them.

You performed as poorly then as you do now.

Anyway, I'm not asking to be "brought up to speed", and I'm not disputing that Pascoe has been criticised before. I'm questioning a method: the habit of treating disagreement itself as proof of ignorance, and certainty as a substitute for justification. Refusing to engage while insisting the conclusion is settled simply reinforces the point.

If you don't want to defend those assertions, that's your choice. But declining to do so doesn't make them facts, and pointing to old threads doesn't resolve the reasoning problem I've identified. It just confirms that we've reached the point where certainty is being asserted rather than argued.

When you're prepared to explain how your conclusions follow from the evidence - rather than referring me elsewhere or declining to engage - we can continue.

Until then, there's nothing substantive to respond to.

You just struggle with this whole opinion thingy,don't you?
I've looked into the Pascoe issue thoroughly and, based on all the facts, determined he's a charlatan. I showed you a snippet on that research and it clearly bamboozled you.

Nonetheless based on the sum total of the data, it is completely appropriate to declare him a liar.

No, I don't, mhaze.

//You just struggle with this whole opinion thingy,don't you?//

This isn't about me "struggling with opinions", it's about you collapsing the difference between opinion, evidence, and declaration.

Of course you're entitled to an opinion, but what you're doing goes further: you're asserting that your opinion settles the matter for others, and then treating disagreement as confusion rather than as a request for justification.

Saying you've "looked into it thoroughly" isn't evidence, it's a report of your confidence. Likewise, saying you've assessed "the sum total of the data" tells us nothing unless you explain how that data supports the specific conclusions you're drawing. Personal conviction isn't a substitute for showing how contested facts establish deliberate deception.

This is the same problem that's been present throughout. You repeatedly move from "I'm convinced" to "it is therefore appropriate to declare him a liar" without bridging the gap. That gap is exactly where standards of proof live. Declaring someone a liar or a charlatan is not a neutral evaluative judgment, it's an accusation about intent. That requires more than confidence, snippets, or familiarity with the material.

Notice how the ground keeps shifting?

When asked for evidence, you reply with assertions about having already done the work. When challenged on method, you reply that it's "just opinion". But you can't have it both ways. Either this is merely your opinion, in which case it doesn't settle the matter, or it's a claim about fact and intent, in which case it needs to be defended on grounds others can assess.

None of this requires defending Pascoe or denying that his work has been heavily criticised. It requires keeping categories straight. Strong belief does not become proof by being repeated, and confidence does not turn interpretation into established deceit.

If your position ultimately rests on "I've looked at everything and I'm satisfied", then that's where it rests. But thinking that's sufficient for others to accept as a declaration of lying is precisely the epistemic leap I've been questioning from the start.

Looking at all the data and forming an informed view is a hell of a lot better than being ignorant of the facts and asserting that therefore all conclusions are possible.

And of course, as the article shows, the charlatans rely on such ignorance. That's how the naive, ( deliberately so?) get led down the garden path.

"But thinking that's sufficient for others to accept as a declaration of lying "

Thinking that I have the slightest interest in convincing you of things you'll never accept irrespective of evidence was your first mistake.

mhaze,

You're still sliding between three different things and treating them as interchangeable:

- having an informed view,
- asserting a conclusion,
- and justifying that conclusion to others.

Of course forming an informed view is better than ignorance. No one has argued otherwise. The issue is what follows from that. Looking at data and reaching a personal conclusion does not, by itself, license declaring contested matters settled for everyone else, especially when those declarations hinge on claims about intent ("liar", "charlatan") rather than on disputed interpretation alone.

Notice what you're now saying?

On the one hand, you frame disagreement as ignorance or naivety. On the other, you say you have no interest in convincing me and that I wouldn't accept evidence anyway. Those two positions can't both do the work you want them to do.

If you're not trying to persuade, then appeals to ignorance, naivety, or being "led down the garden path" aren't arguments, they're just boundary-drawing. They signal who you think is inside the circle of the informed and who isn't. That's the point I've been making from the start.

The moment disagreement is treated as proof of ignorance, and confidence as a substitute for justification, the conversation stops being about evidence and becomes about authority. At that point, assertions no longer need to be defended, they only need to be repeated with sufficient certainty.

You're entitled to your conclusions. You're entitled to think Pascoe is wrong. What doesn't follow is that your having reached that view makes it appropriate to declare lying as a settled fact, or to treat requests for justification as evidence of ignorance.

If you're not interested in persuading, that's fine. But then what's left here isn't an argument about evidence at all, It's simply a statement of belief accompanied by a refusal to engage with scrutiny. That may be satisfying, but it isn't the same thing as demonstrating that alternative conclusions are excluded.

That distinction - between being convinced and being justified - is the one you keep stepping past.