#Necheles is trying to make #StormyDaniels look like a liar. But many of her questions have to do w/money & Daniels is making it clear that she is not wealthy. So instead of this line of questioning working to impeach her #credibility, as intended, it’s coming off as a lawyer for a very rich person going after someone w/ less money for having less money.
Yes #Trump has exaggerated his wealth for the years, but he still has more money than the vast majority of the country.
charges are falsifying business records to hide #HushMoney payments in lead up to 2016 election to #influence electorate
just one Trump supporter at the courthouse draped in a Trump flag.
#StormyDaniels's lawyer, #KeithDavidson, to return to stand. He negotiated the hush-money payment at the center of the case, & is expected to lay out details of the deal.
#Colangelo, the prosecutor, responds, saying the judge’s findings that Trump violated his #GagOrder are directly relevant to Trump's #credibility if he takes the stand & points out there is case #law supporting his argument.
Justice Merchan has responded well to #CaseLaw - #precedent - in the past & has expressed frustration w/the defense when they don't cite any.
But Merchan agrees w/defense, saying it would be too prejudicial for a jury to hear that he held Trump in #contempt.
A #juror was quickly dismissed at the start. She was among the 7 already selected, she said she was very worried that despite the fact the court ruled to keep jurors’ name secret, she would still be exposed & targeted.
#Trump will likely be pleased w/Necheles's #VoirDire. She questioned the #credibility of those who are expected to testify against Trump, & made a reference to #MichaelCohen, suggesting that some #witnesses might want to seek “revenge” (the title of a Cohen books) on Trump. Cohen’s book is specifically named on the questionnaire.
Trump gives the hairy eyeball to jurors when Necheles suggests that a witness may be lying if they change the details of their story.
#TheMetalDogArticleList #BraveWords
BUCK DHARMA On METALLICA's Cover Of BLUE ÖYSTER CULT's "Astronomy" - "It Gave Us Some Credibility With The Younger Generation"; Video
#FaniWillis walked unaccompanied through the front door of a #FultonCounty courtroom on Thurs afternoon in a bright magenta dress & announced she was ready to testify. She was interrupting her lawyer, who at that very moment was trying to convince a judge that she should not have to testify at all.
Tomorrow will be more interesting, when Cohen will be cross-examined. Today we heard more about how the tofurkey was made (how exactly they conducted the process of #FinancialFraud; tofurkey as opposed to sausage)
Later in the day, the temperature rose when #MichaelCohen was cross-examined by one of #Trump’s lawyers, #AlinaHabba. She called Cohen’s #credibility into question, noting that he had admitted to lying under oath when he pleaded guilty to federal crimes in 2018, wrongs that he had said he committed on Trump’s behalf.
“You have lied under oath numerous times, Mr. Cohen — isn’t that correct?” #Habba asked, referring to his previous guilty pleas.
Trump gripes trial is 'unfair' after judge's #GagOrder
(it was just in regards to the judge’s staff.)
After the trial wrapped up yesterday, Trump aired his #grievances in a post on his social media platform, saying the trial is “unfair” & again suggesting it was an attempt to interfere w/his presidential campaign.
#Engoron & #Trump's lawyers engaged in a heated back & forth about #Bender’s inconsistent testimony.
“Mr. Bender is not on trial here. Someone else is,” Engoron said, prompting #Kise & #Habba to jump up to disagree. (facts)
Kise told Engoron that Bender’s #credibility is very much on #trial. Engoron pushed back, telling Kise, “You’re not allowed to waste time.” Habba then accused Bender of being evasive & “having no memory as we sit here.”
There's a review on a paper that's a great put-down of the concept of renewable aviation fuels here. TL;DR Hydrogen & batteries are too heavy for long distance, and biofuel would require the additional cultivation of land the size of Argentina. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUAaO3r_7Bc
Though I might have phrased that with greater clarity.
First, "appeal to authority" is one of several informal fallacies, that is, it doesn't automatically invalidate a statement, but it does suggest a weakness.
Second, appeal to authority refers to power or position independent of epistemic characteristics. In its classic form it often referred to reliance on religious or political statements, or perhaps on overreliance of ancient sources (e.g., Aristotle, classically, in mediaeval and Renaissance Europe). There are heavy overtones of Papal infallability to it.
Expertise is direct experience or knowledge of a subject, or general knowledge of a field. It is a measure of credibility for knowledge of which we cannot ourselves claim first-hand familiarity. Or, often, for which a first impression gives a false or misleading sense as compared to a deeper understanding.
It is expertise and not authority we are relying on when we cite a reference work (dictionary, encyclopedia, desk reference, statistics, textbook, article), or when we call on expert witnesses in legal or other hearings. There's some confounding of this in common parlance as an expert is often referred to as an authority, but in most cases that authority derives from specific experience, reputation, and credibility rather than some conferred political or social power.
**Expertise and credibility are not absolutes, and neither @vik nor I are claiming this. I've specifically indicated these are fallible. You've specifically misrepresented our statements as claiming otherwise. Which, I might add, makes you an unreliable source.
However as an initial prior for judging information it is a USEFUL guide. And in matters epistemic, utility has an extraordinary significance. We CANNOT be called upon to judge and assess each and every claim individually (regards the claim) and personally (regards persons). Instead we rely on standards, institutions, and practices of trust and presumed belief. We change our views as evidence changes, or as authorities previously viewed as credible come to be generally assessed as unreliable.
In the context of the present discussion, Sabine Hossenfelder is providing a summary news piece in which she's discussing items of interest to a general science community. Specific expertise in physics and mathematics is a valid basis for general understanding, and we can further presume that Hossenfelder has a team assisting in that process (she alludes to this in multiple ways).
What we're relying on her for then is:
To filter through candidate stories to find those of greatest relevance and significance.
To accurately summarize and present findings.
Where she does so, to accurately express opinions on the overall findings or nature of the items.
Which is to say: this is not scholarly or academic research itself, but a review of that research. Details of methodology and findings are going to be in the referenced documents.
And the general expertise and credibility are specifically what is relevant for a scientific communicator / news presenter, in such a case.
I noted above that the overhead of researching and rebutting every last claim is nonfeasible --- it's effectively a denial-of-serivce attack on our brains individually and on public knowledge generally. So is rebutting lazy, inaccurate, and if I may use the term, bullshit arguments or objections.
Mostly, though, it leads to extraordinarily tedious side tangents rather than a substantive discussion of the main topic at hand. There are times when it's reasonable to question sources. This ... really isn't one.