ACORN

[--Pete]

Hi,

You take as an implication ("in effect implying") from "There is no evidence that these voter registration issues have led to voter fraud." that "registration fraud does not lead to voter fraud." Correct?

Almost correct. In itself, your quoted statement simply states a fact and based only on that statement my inference would not be valid. However, taken in the context of the discussion and especially as a reply to kandrathe's claim, I felt that that inference was justified. Since these discussions are not as formal as a mathematical proof, at least some of the meaning can come from the context. Indeed, must come from the context, otherwise the verbosity required for rigor would lead to rigor mortis.:)

Then, clarifying the issue as to what you are taking me to mean, you say that a single case would be sufficient to disprove my implication (actually, your implication from my statement) that registration fraud does not lead to voter fraud.

Slight usage nit. If you make a statement, you imply, I infer. Thus, "your inferral from my statement" would be correct. I only mention this in passing because the tone of this discussion brings me back to philosophy/debate/logic class. :D

That would be fine, except that it's not what I said. I made an epistemological claim about what we know about the situation, not an ontological claim about what is or is not factually true about voter fraud.

And I made it quite clear from the start that I was discussing my inference of what I thought your statement, in the context used, implied. Thus a simple "I did not mean it that way" would have sufficed to divert the argument from your statement. However, the remainder of the argument, that registration fraud is a necessary prerequisite to voter fraud, still stands, even if not applicable as a rebuttal to your statement.

We do not have reason to suspect that, in these cases, voter registration issues led to voter fraud, NOT that voter registration issues are never connected to voter fraud. The first is a very basic statement about the state of our knowledge. The second is an obvious absurdity.

Change the verb from "suspect" to "believe" and I'll (reluctantly) accept this as strictly logically sound. However, consider the following:
1) ACORN personnel have been involved in registration fraud (acknowledged even by ACORN).
2) Voter fraud exists (pretty much common knowledge)
3) Most (non-computer based) voter fraud requires registration fraud to exist (my, perhaps not applicable to you, but still un-rebutted argument).
To conclude, from these facts, that "We do not have reason to suspect . . ." causes me to wonder just when your suspicion is aroused. Let's say we were speaking of a sinking boat. Would you be suspicious of the integrity of the hull when there was water in the bilges? When the gunwales were awash? Or not till you were sinking for the last time?

Propositions for which I have no evidence, I believe in like I believe in Russell' Teapot. I have no evidence or argument that they are definitely not true. That's all I can say about them.

I think I just heard Bayes turn over in his grave ;) Russell's outlook is all very good for mathematical discussions, but in real life it is seldom (Kant would say 'never') that we have complete information. We must draw conclusions from incomplete information and not become paralyzed by partial ignorance. We gather what information we can, we adjust our assessment as well as we can based on this information, and at some point, for practical purposes, we determine that something is 'true' or 'false' even if the mental probability we've arrived at isn't the perfect 1 or 0 we would like. That is what intelligence, wisdom, knowledge, understanding is for. The rest is just Principia Mathematica expressed as a computer program without acknowledgment of Gödel.;)

But, were I to translate that into a pragmatic, actionable belief, it would not yield "maybe, maybe not, 50%-50%", it would yield "show me first, I'll believe second." To not reason in this way seems to condemn oneself to near-solipsistic uncertainty about the most ridiculous propositions.

I prefer the viewpoint expressed by Isaac Asimov in one of his innumerable essays. He was discussing the basis for scientific belief and the reasonableness of checking everything out for oneself. I don't remember the exact details, but it went something like this:

If you claim to have a pound jar of silicon in your office, I'll just nod, say, "That's nice", and maybe ask to have some should I need it.

If you claim to have a pound jar of palladium in your office, I'll blink, say, "Really?", and ask to see it.

If you claim to have a pound jar of polonium in your office, I'll shake my head, say, "No way!" and go on about my business. The claim is too preposterous to even bother checking out.

I agree with this outlook. Our acceptance of a proposition in our daily life should be based on the likelyhood of that proposition being true and not on absolute proof. Only in cases where there is a high 'cost' should the requirements be more stringent. Of course, that opinion is an opinion.

Now, if the FBI investigation that Kandrathe claims is going on kicks down the right doors, and reveals actual fraudulent votes, or something pointing in that direction, either through the intentions of ACORN, or simply using them as a vehicle, then I'll change my position. That would be evidence.

Because, of course, the FBI is an organization that is completely unbiased and has never railroaded any group in its history? You see, your requirement for absolute proof is a never ending regression. ACORN is innocent until shown to be guilty by the FBI. The FBI investigation is biased until shown to be fair by the ACLU. The ACLU is corrupt until vindicated by ??? say Amnesty International. AI has an ax to grind until supported by Greenpeace. And so on forever. Ultimately, you'll have to pick who you trust and what you believe. The rigor of a derivation, through logic, from axioms, only happens in the abstract world of mathematics. And, even there, it is preceded by speculation based on "it seems about right."

Right now, we haven't got the evidence, so suggestions and innuendoes about ACORN as a corrupt organization are unwarranted.

Wrong, on two counts. That ACORN employees have participated in fraud is indisputable (ACORN itself admits this). To quote Dos Gringos, "And that was just an accident and it only happened twice." (Actually, quite a bit more often than twice, in the case of ACORN). Now, if an organization is tied to behavior that is repeated, is it wrong to suspect that that behavior is endemic to the organization? And if it is endemic, is it further wrong to suspect that that behavior is condoned, even encouraged by that organization?

The second count you are wrong on is a bit more subtle. This discussion is relative to the statement "There is no evidence that these voter registration issues have led to voter fraud." The question of the corruption of ACORN is a separate issue. ACORN could be as pure as the driven snow (right, ever read what is found in snow in industrial areas?), and all the registration fraud the work of evil underlings who've taken advantage of this pure and naive organization. That still does not save this final statement from being completely out of place in this post. It is a total non sequitor and an emotional red herring.

--Pete