Popper Revisited, or What Is Wrong With Conspiracy Theories?
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/004839319502500101

I appreciate many of your perspectives, but I disagree with your ad hominem attacks. I fail to see how it adds to the discussion. Would you expand on why you believe I’m a leftist?

Ahhhh. A boy scout, a Popper loving boyscout.

Let me see you logic badge?

“Here’s the point. It wasn’t a mistake. It was bald-faced lie. And what kind of politician tells that lie, knowing he can be exposed, knowing he can face withering attacks?

The answer: The kind of politician who deludes himself into thinking he can get away with it, because he believes everyone else is so stupid he won’t get caught.

The kind of politician who begins to believe his own lie.

The kind of politician who lives in his own little universe, where he can say and do whatever he wants to.

The kind of politician who is addicted to lying.

This describes most politicians. This describes their choices and their sickness.”

Jon, who speaks often of having been trained in logic,and uses it as a tenet of his course material, uses induction to make his case.

Definition of Induction by Webster:
“LOGIC reasoning from particular facts or individual cases to a general conclusion; also, a conclusion reached by such reasoning”

Karl Popper published in 1935 his book entitled The Logic of Scientific Discovery wherein he begins his thesis with the problem of Inductive Logic:

“It is usual to call an inference ‘inductive’ if it passes from singular statements (sometimes also called ‘particular’ statements), such as accounts of the results of observations or experiments, to universal statements, such as hypotheses or theories.

Now it is far from obvious, from a logical point of view, that we are justified in inferring universal statements from singular ones, no matter how numerous; for any conclusion drawn in this way may always turn out to be false: no matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this does not justify the conclusion that all swans are white.

The question whether inductive inferences are justified, or under what conditions, is known as the problem of induction.

That inconsistencies may easily arise in connection with the principle of induction should have been clear from the work of Hume; also, that they can be avoided, if at all, only with difficulty. For the principle of induction must be a universal statement in its turn. Thus if we try to regard its truth as known from experience, then the very same problems which occasioned its introduction will arise all over again. To justify it, we should have to employ inductive inferences; and to justify these we should have to assume an inductive principle of a higher order; and so on. Thus the attempt to base the principle of induction on experience breaks down, since it must lead to an infinite regress.”

Genuine students of logic would have spotted the error immediately.