Quote:
Originally Posted by Demas
Which is a completely unreasonable position, which I highlighted with my 2-factor test above. Watch:
"LDBoblo is a pathological liar."
"No, I'm not!"
"Well, sorry, that's an inconsistency therefore your claims are automatically suspect!"
"But I'M the one being described, the source!"
"Yeah, but I'm a second-hand 'regardless of where' the inconsistent info comes from, so there."
"Dammit."
You're entitled to be as mistrusting as you want to be, I suppose, but it this particular rationale isn't convincing.
|
Your argument dances too closely to the liar paradox. To make the parallel correct, you would need to claim that I said I was a pathological liar (which invokes liar paradox problems), and thus it would be impossible for the source to refute. That's not the case here.
In this case, we have journalists on one of the largest technology reporting sites claiming to cite the company as the source of product information, and the source has not issued any corrections or comments. (this DOES undermine my "regardless" comment, which I'll admit)
You are now reading into my statement regarding trust and stretching its application.