I never said prove beyond a reasonable doubt, although they're both forms of inductive argumentation. See what I'm looking for is a strong or cogent inductive argument to prove what you're saying. Here's a definition for you.
An argument is cogent if, and only if, supposing the premises all to be true, then the conclusion is probably (but not necessarily) true. (Exactly what "probably" means is a matter of considerable debate.)
I'm sure we can agree now, that what must be presented to accept this claim is a strong inductive argument. The criteria for cogency is quite simple, the supporting evidence
must all be true, they must essentially be facts (otherwise we're making ind. args inside of ind. args). My contention is, suggesting the US is funding IS, because the Qatari government is directly funding them, is not evidence to make this a cogent argument because, that in and of itself is not a fact, but an unsubstantiated claim made from bias individuals.
In an effort to pursue a rational discourse, we must then throw out that evidence
unless it becomes unreasonable to doubt it.
So the point is, these are (as of now) unsubstantiated claims, so you or I can not verify them, therefore we cannot use them as
proof in an inductive argument for whether or not the US government is funding and training IS.
Do you believe my criteria is reasonable or do you think we should allow unsubstantiated claims from unqualified authorities (who wouldn't
ordinarily be privy to the financial transactions of Qatar) as
evidence for an inductive argument?
