JD,

Its all very well to be uninformed and to then say that, due to not having examined the evidence, you'd prefer to not offer an opinion. That's sensible.

But I have looked at the evidence and, being informed, have formed a view. I've tried to show you some of that evidence, but alas you'd prefer to remain uninformed and claim its invalid to form a view.

That type of thinking that, since you don't have the wherewithal to form an opinion, therefore no one else is permitted to voice an informed opinion, baffles me.

mhaze,

I haven't said it's "invalid to form a view". I haven't said no one is "permitted" to voice an informed opinion. And I haven't claimed that because I'm uninformed, all conclusions are possible. None of that reflects what I've actually argued.

What I've been questioning is something much narrower: the move from "I've examined the evidence and reached a view" to "it is therefore appropriate to declare lying as a settled fact, and to treat disagreement as ignorance." Those are not the same step, and pointing that out is not a refusal to engage with evidence.

You keep framing this as a contrast between being informed and uninformed. That's a convenient framing, but it does all the work for you. Anyone who disagrees is, by definition, placed in the "uninformed" bucket. At that point, the conclusion is protected from scrutiny not because it's been demonstrated, but because dissent has been reclassified as deficiency.

I've never suggested that you shouldn't form or express an opinion. I've questioned whether the certainty and moral weight you attach to that opinion are warranted given the nature of the disputes involved. That's a question about standards, not about permission.

There's also a slippage here between interpretation and intent. You can think Pascoe's history is wrong, selective, or misleading. You can think the ancestry claims don't stand up. Where the bar rises is when you move from those judgments to declarations of lying or charlatanism, which are claims about deliberate deception. That step requires more than confidence and familiarity with the material; it requires showing why alternative explanations are excluded.

So no, this isn't about me lacking "wherewithal" or trying to stop others having opinions. It's about resisting the idea that once someone feels informed enough, their conclusion becomes insulated from challenge and disagreement becomes proof of ignorance.

If you want to say "I've looked at the evidence and I'm convinced," that's straightforward. What I've been pushing back on is the further step: treating that conviction as if it settles the matter for everyone else.

Try again.

This is just so silly. You have no knowledge on the issue, have no intention of looking into it, have no understanding as to the overwhelming evidence that Pascoe fabricated his aboriginality, yet declare that we can't be confident on the issue.

If you don't open Schrodinger's box, you can't know if the cat is alive or dead. And you have no intention of opening the box. Yet you can confidently tell those who have had a peak, that they can't be certain of the cat's status.

Of course, all of this just illustrates the author's point, that people are being lied to and don't have any intention of seeking the truth. Well done.

Fin....because this is just so bloody stupid.

mhaze,

Again, I haven't claimed that "all conclusions are possible", nor that one must suspend judgment indefinitely.

What I've challenged is your leap from having examined material and reached a conviction to declaring deliberate deception as a settled fact and treating disagreement as ignorance. That is not the same thing as refusing to "open the box".

Your analogy fails because Schrodinger's cat has a determinate state that can be resolved by a single act of observation. Historical interpretation, identity claims, and questions of intent don't work that way. There is no equivalent act that collapses uncertainty into certainty. What you call "peeking" is weighing contested evidence and drawing inferences - something reasonable people can do differently without one side being ignorant or dishonest.

You keep asserting there is "overwhelming evidence" of fabrication. If that evidence were as decisive as you claim, it wouldn't need to be insulated by repeatedly redefining disagreement as ignorance or bad faith. Overwhelming evidence doesn't need that kind of rhetorical protection.

Notice your pattern that's now explicit. Anyone who disagrees:

- "has no knowledge",
- "won't look into it",
- "doesn't want the truth".

They're character judgements, not evidence. Once disagreement is reclassified as deficiency, certainty becomes effortless - but only because scrutiny has been excluded by definition.

Nothing I've said requires denying that Pascoe has been heavily criticised, that his ancestry claims are disputed, or that some people find the evidence decisive. What I've resisted is the idea that personal conviction, however strongly held, entitles one to declare lying as established fact and to insist others cannot reasonably withhold certainty.

If you want to say "I've examined the material and I'm convinced", that's straightforward. When you go further and insist that this conviction settles the matter for everyone else, you're no longer arguing from evidence - you're asserting authority.

If you're done engaging with that distinction, that's your choice. But it answers the methodological question far more clearly than repeating how confident you are.

//Fin....because this is just so bloody stupid.//

Perhaps try addressing what I'm actually saying then? Yeah, fat chance.

Off you trot.

An excellent quote, mhaze. I like it.

However, Sowell’s point presumes honest engagement with what the other person is actually saying, not repeated mischaracterisation.

You should take note of what he's said there.