I will tie this post in with Freewest share value down below, but I need to lay some groundwork first. And I'm not avoiding the newer thoughts offered up for debate; this is left over from last week. And I've got another loose end from last week, yet to go. I can't manage a new thing until I finish the old thing(s). I'm managing as best I can.
One powerful group, or more than one, doesn't want me speaking here. As a scientist, I did the experiment, and the evidence for that is overwhelming. The last time I looked, the poll I conducted supported my continued posting here 122 to 7, over the naysayers. And yet, a cursory read of posts here would indicate quite the opposite. How can one reconcile such disparity between two sets of data? My hypothesis is that the silent majority are under intense manipulation by the vocal minority, with me as a principal target.
I've carefully chosen my words here. They have ME as their principal target. Not the data I've provided, nor my ideas about the data, but they're attacking me. I'm being told I said things that I never did, that my character is poor, that my motives are false, that my circumstances are lower class, that I'm flat out lying to you, etc. etc. One even questioned my scientific credibility. (Sorry, but that cuts close to the bone. I hide in plain sight here. Look me up.) But these are nothing more than lies of distraction, based on logical fallicies. They're nothing more than attempts to change the subject away from factual examination and discussion, and on to something else entirely. Moreover, the shift is also away from cool reason towards hot emotion.
Logical fallacies (loosely, "false thinking") are so inherently part of the human condition that the words that we use to describe the different types of these fallacies generally derive from ancient Greek and Latin. They are easily traced back to Socrates and Plato in the Agora of Athens, and I'm sure that the ideas themselves are more ancient still. Critical thinking demands that you learn to recognize the existence of these fallacies, at least in simple terms. By their very definition, they are false. Once you label an argument with this sense of falsehood, it becomes easy to dismiss the argument entirely, and return to more reasoned thought.
There are three loose categories of people who use these types of arguments. The first are the naive. They don't know any other way of arguing. It's also very difficult to convince such a person that they're even doing so. The second type is the negligent debater. They know about these fallacies, but they don't care to avoid them. Things appear to be moving along nicely (i.e. civil debate), and then suddenly off you go on a tangent, usually when the going gets rough for them, when they realize they're losing the debate. The third type is really problematic, the intentional user of these fallacies. They know the power that they embody. Theirs is malevolent manipulation. Political speech writers are of this third type, for example, but they use subtle forms of it. And we have all three types on this board, IMHO. There is, however, one thing that is true for all three groups. They never use logical fallacies if they have a truthful and realistic argument to make. When they have no such argument, they distract you. Bait and switch.
I have no intention of providing an exhaustive list of some of the logical fallacies used on this board, but I will try to show you some examples so you can see what I'm talking about. I have no intention of pointing the finger at any individual who is posting to these boards, and I'm sorry if you can identify yourself in what I have to say. I prefer to use real examples, because you've seen these used here.
- ad hominem That means literally, an argument "at the person". There are many variants of this, but I'll just give a single example, ad hominem circumstantis, in which the person's (assumed) circumstances are used to raise doubt about the real point of debate. Because I accepted the hospitality of my friends and associates at a social gathering following the Noront AGM, I was labelled as being destitute, and my credibility was challenged. On a logical basis, what possible connection could there be, even if it was true, between the amount of money in my wallet in the evening in question, and the correctness of the chromite market data I presented here? The correct challenge to one person's data presentation is the presentation of contrasting data, and even then, it must be shown that the alternative information is more credible.
- ad populum Literally "to the people", but the inference is "to the emotions of the people". There's a lot of this one going on here. It can be good, or it can be bad. Benevolent or malevolent. When Winston Churchill spoke to Londoners under siege in the Battle of Britain, to raise their spirits, he was speaking ad populum. When JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country", he too was speaking ad populum. But another form of this is racism. Pick any -ism, and you embody this fallacy. You've been asked, by a number of posters here to dismiss any statements made by "NOTaddicts" (sic), or more generally by anyone with substantial points who has ever posted over there. Does that argument have any validity at all? I've always posted to many boards, and I continue to post to many boards. If anything, I'd say that gives me balance. And the 122-7 vote invalidates this sort of argument altogether. Inciting a riot is an ad populum act.
- false dichotomy This one happens here all the time, too. Somebody creates an either/or type argument, and then attempts to "prove" that their intended choice must be true, by arguing against the alternative. However, falsifying the alternative does not prove that the remaining option is correct, nor the only right answer. Whenever you're presented with this type of argument, you should first consider if there are other ways of seeing the same situation than merely the two that are presented. Usually, once you do that, the whole thing falls apart before it even begins. For example, we were told that Noront's Eagles Nest project is uneconomic, and thus the Freewest project must be economic. I would need evidence to support the latter conclusion, even if Noront's project was uneconomic. But in fact, Noront's project is economic. The whole argument is nothing more than a distraction from the yet unprovable contention that the FWR chromite is economic. And, there are more ways to look at the situation than this simplistic either/or proposal.
- petitio principii (Sorry about the Latin, but if you want to google or wiki any of these things, this is the proper terminology.) In the vernacular English, this would be a circular argument, or preaching to the choir, but more literally, "begging the question". In simple terms, you have to believe the premise in order to believe the conclusion. There is no hard evidence provided. An example was one post that said the chromite was worth $50 billion, therefore the shares were worth $15. I've seen some mathematical "evidence" used for these kinds of arguments, but when I've challenged the assumptions, I don't see evidence provided. I see more assumptions. Petitio principii can be simple, or quite complex. I've seen whole books that are nothing more than elaborate forms of it. What I haven't seen, in even one lone test of the underlying assumptions, is the sale of a chromite deposit, and the percentage of the in situ value embodied in that sale. I have looked, and it ain't no 10%. The most critical variable in the valuation is not the tonnage, nor even the grade. It is the in situ percentage value. This isn't gold we're talking about.
- modus ponens This is a literal failure of deductive reasoning. This is a challenging one to understand. Symbolically, it looks like this: If p then q, p is true, therefore so is q. But that's a false assumption. There may be many other factors, other than factor p that influence q. If this, then that, is only an hypothesis, not proof. For example, we know that Cliffs has invested in the ROF. We even know that they're invested in FWR. That does not prove that they will invest further in this project, at this time. I'll believe it when I see it. And not just offered. Closed. Only then will q also be true, IMHO.
What I've been talking about is a formal overview of some of the components of critical thinking. I would never try to convince anybody else to think a certain way. I've only ever asked you to think about your thinking itself. One poster has even gone so far as to suggest I'm biased because of what I've presented to you. More on that in a moment, but what it tells me is that he's challenging his earlier thinking, within himself. I didn't do that, the information did. There is no right answer to any of this. Two experts can look at the same information and come to very different conclusions. I'm providing information, with a very clear distinction between that, and any opinions I personally hold.
Now, I'll finally discuss the reason for this whole essay, the debate about the value of the FWR chromite, and the derivative value of shares in the company.
Very soon after the verbal offer was released by news release, I was asked to provide my opinion on the relative valuation of shares in Freewest and Noront. My assessment of the implicit value was 5:1 or greater. That's the only opinion about value that I have expressed. On the face of it, the first stage of the takeover attempt seemed fair to me. Beyond that, I have decided nothing. I don't yet have the information I need to decide anything. I'm neither for nor against the deal because I don't for a moment think that the final version of the offer(s) are even yet known. What I've been doing is background research, at my own expense, and sharing some of that with you. When further details about the negotions come down, I hope to be ready with everything I need to understand the context, and to make a quick decision.
In my view, the philosophy of the world according to The Hoov, the science is the data. Science means "the knowledge", and the only things we know are things we measured or observed, subject to any questions about how well we've measured or observed them. All the rest is interpretation and opinion. I have offered some minor interpretations of the data I collected, but I have not even got an hypothesis yet about what is going to happen with Freewest. To presume that I have a conclusion in mind is quite false.
If the data I have presented seems to lead to a certain way of thinking, then that is in your mind. That's your critical thinking at work. And when I question some of the other posters about how they got to their thinking, that's my critical thinking at work. There is no right answer.
I want to remind you of something I said earlier, but I'm going to say it very pointedly here. In civil debate, the correct reply to data is other data. If you question the information someone has presented, then find better information, and be prepared to show why you think it's better. If your reply is a logical fallacy, then you already know you've failed to counter the argument presented. The truth is in the data, not in the presenter. That's why I've always said, "I don't want to be right, I want to get it right." I want science.
Lar
P.S. To the mailroom poster with the minus points score who PM'd me last night: Your calling me a lying a-hole didn't intimidate me in the slightest. In fact, you shot yourself in the foot. Good luck with your investment decisions, and your interpersonal relationships.
