Monday, June 3, 2013
Subject: Claims, Arguments and Evidence
State or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
An assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt.
1. An exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one: "I've had an argument with my father".
2. A reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Be or show evidence of.
Examples of claims:
From the Department of Justice: Dr. Ivins perpetrated the anthrax letter attacks
From "Anonymous": "Amerithrax represents the greatest counterintelligence failure in the history of the United States."
From Mr. Rowley: "The multiple Hebrew elements [in the Amerithrax documents] all but preclude someone who ISN'T thoroughly familiar with the Hebrew alphabet as being the printer."
From Ed Lake: "The facts say a child wrote the anthrax letters and addressed the envelopes."
Arguments come when someone disagrees with or fails to see any reasoning or proof behind any of the above claims.
Arguments resulting from the three claims above:
The claim by the Department of Justice is disputed by various "Anthrax Truthers," who each seem to have a unique theory about who did it, and they only seem to agree on one thing: The government is wrong.
The claim by "Anonymous" is disputed by the FBI and the DOJ which concluded that Bruce Edwards Ivins was the anthrax mailer, and thus there was no "counterintelligence failure" involved in the case.
The claim by Mr. Rowley is disputed by Ed Lake (and probably by everyone else) because there is no discernible evidence to support such a claim.
The claim by Ed Lake is disputed by "Anonymous" because "Anonymous" doesn't believe the claim.
Examples of supplying evidence to support a claim:
The evidence supplied by the Department of Justice begins with the 92 page Amerithax Investigative Summary, which is supported by 2,720 pages of detail documents HERE. Additional documents related to the scientific aspects of the case may be obtained in the form of a CD from the National Academy of Sciences.
The evidence supplied by "Anonymous" in support of his claim seems to consist of just 2 undisputed facts: (1) al Qaeda had a motive for the attacks, and (2) al Qaeda was considering an anthrax attack upon America before the actual attacks. He has supplied no meaningful evidence that al Qaeda actually carried out the attacks. Click HERE to view what "Anonymous" considers to be "evidence."
Mr. Rowley has presented no meaningful evidence to support his claim. He mostly just points to more of his claims while arguing over words and interpretations.
The evidence supplied by Ed Lake HERE consists of 12 indisputable facts (and more can be presented if needed) which point to only one logical conclusion: A first grader was used to write the anthrax letters and to address the envelopes.
The evidence supplied by the Department of Justice showing that Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer is generally accepted, but is highly disputed by people who continue to have their own unique theories about who "really did it."
"Anonymous" doesn't accept or believe any of the evidence which the FBI found to prove Ivins' guilt. "Anonymous" continues to believe Islamic militants were behind the anthrax attacks. He appears to argue possibilities instead of facts: It's possible that that the FBI is totally mistaken, it's possible that Islamic militants obtained a sample from flask RMR-1029 somewhere, and it's possible that unidentified Islamic militants wrote and mailed the anthrax letters.
Mr. Rowley continues to believe in his theory and seemingly argues that his claims are evidence. He doesn't accept the FBI/DOJ's findings because (apparently) he believes they are just covering up a failure to find the right person (e.g., Mr. Rowley's "suspect").
"Anonymous" continues to argue that "There is no support for [Ed Lake's] theory." "Anonymous" refuses to discuss the facts presented by Ed Lake or even to comment on them.
Some people on this blog need to understand that a CLAIM is just an unsupported opinion or belief UNLESS it can be successfully ARGUED against other opinions by using valid, acceptable, unbiased EVIDENCE.