Reply #44: The structure of an argument

[jberryhill]

Sigh.

As a refutation to "Trig is Bristol's baby", then your argument reduces to "Sarah says it is her baby."

The detour into "she also says it has Down Syndrome, and that increases with age" doesn't logically add anything to the argument, because you are ultimately relying on a statement of Sarah Palin to refute an assertion that Sarah Palin is lying.

To be clear - I *agree* with you, and I thing the "Trig is not her baby" stuff is stupid.

I was just pointing out that relying on source A, when the assertion is "source A is lying", doesn't make any sense.

Yes, when someone tells one lie, there are often subsidiary and supporting lies which are intended to reinforce the primary lie.

Consider:

Hypothesis 1 - Sarah Palin is telling the truth

"Sarah Palin says it is her baby"
"Sarah Palin says her baby has Down Syndrome"

Hypothesis 2 - Sarah Palin is not telling the truth

"Sarah Palin says it is her baby"
"Sarah Palin says her baby has Down Syndrome"

Under either hypothesis, the observation that "Sarah Palin says her baby has Down Syndrome" does not increase or decrease the likelihood that it is her baby. Under hypothesis 1, it is an extraneous fact. Under hypothesis 2, it is simply a supporting lie, because it reinforces the lie that it is her baby. Both observations come from the same source.

Maybe I'm not being clear. The point is that if you are going to take her word for it that Trig has Down Syndrome, then what have you gained over taking her word that Trig is her child?

But - AGAIN - it's the logic of your argument I'm trying noodle out. I agree with you as to the conclusion anyway.