J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
As opposed to building your own silos and compilations of what is fake news / not fake news? The end result of this process is that you build up confirmation bias; you have a set of assumptions and you end up filtering out information that disagrees with your worldview.
Re: J-20, it's not transparent, the PLA has never been wholly transparent and no military organization built transparency as its key feature.
As far as strategypage goes, as I've said a dozen times, it's not fundamentally credible, but it can be delved for its sources. I already did a casual search of toutiao.com and I am working on CCTV (in Chinese) now.
Re: J-20, it's not transparent, the PLA has never been wholly transparent and no military organization built transparency as its key feature.
As far as strategypage goes, as I've said a dozen times, it's not fundamentally credible, but it can be delved for its sources. I already did a casual search of toutiao.com and I am working on CCTV (in Chinese) now.
by78
General
Great, go delve into the sources. Pig out to your heart's content. In the meanwhile, leave us alone until you find something genuinely interesting and relevant to share.
by78
General
Wonderful! Then do continue on the other thread. Please leave this thread alone.
Last edited:
After a certain amount of time of doing this, people should be able to discriminate between sources and claims that are credible and those which are not.
That does not mean sources and claims which lack credibility will be always deemed fake, but it does mean that if those sources or claims want to be seriously brought up and discussed then you should be ready to back yourself up to show for it.
Instead, what you've done is show a source/claim that lacks credibility and have the gall to ask others here look for information that you should have done yourself.
As for the strategypage claim itself, well I actually had an inkling as to where part of it might have come from but I didn't want to bother posting about it because I don't think their claim deserved discussion. However for the sake of demonstration I'll do it.
Basically, this article from AsiaTimes published in late July seems to be where the strategypage piece got its claim from.
Of course the AsiaTimes article is just as poor quality as the Strategypage one. This part draws a conclusion rather confidently to an almost laughable extent:
I mean, really -- how could they know the extent to which orders are "piling up" let alone how easy
And for example this part is vague and unconvincing and of course doesn't talk about which CCTV report it is talking about:
Which feature program about J-20?? And in what way has the construction of the supposed fuselage parts limited the production rate of the aircraft?
The $110 million number cited by strategypage also seems to refer back to this AsiaTimes article though I will note it has been mentioned in past public discourse but not in any capacity to suggest that it's an official number
As for the WS-15 claim in the strategypage article, that obviously goes back to this now infamous SCMP article by Minnie Chan from earlier in the year.
I suppose this is a good demonstration for why we don't trust Strategypage -- it's not because it makes terrible claims as such, given that many of its claims are actually merely reposted from other sources. The problem is that whoever is behind Strategypage has next to zero ability to discriminate between credible and non credible sources and claims itself, and ends up regurgitating rubbish.
I hope that settles this episode.
Thanks for the help, then. I don't think the Minnie Chan report is that bad; she's a Western journalist who did her research through the usual Western sources, albeit as an HKer, probably had access to internal Chinese sources as well. Some of the sources are highly questionable, Kanwa is well-known for its slant, but when you think about it, they weren't that wrong about all the problems with WS-10 development. On the other hand, other sources seem reputable, such as the claim of the WS-15 explosion, but need further substantiation.
And the claim that the J-20 has been having production problems isn't that far-fetched. 3D printing titanium is cutting edge, and China's carbon fiber industry, while reasonably large in scale (see Chinese bike parts) is not the most advanced nor the price setter, unlike, say, solar panels or the battery industry, where the Chinese are dominant in the former and command substantial market share in the latter.
It's not as though it matters, though, because you don't really want J-20s with AL-31s or WS-10Bs in the air when you're going to be upgrading them to WS-15 eventually.
As to the ATimes report, I think I have a better chance of getting information on their sources. Their editor is HK-based, and is relatively friendly to China, although when push comes to shove, as you've seen on the CDF politics articles, he's an American patriot.
And the claim that the J-20 has been having production problems isn't that far-fetched. 3D printing titanium is cutting edge, and China's carbon fiber industry, while reasonably large in scale (see Chinese bike parts) is not the most advanced nor the price setter, unlike, say, solar panels or the battery industry, where the Chinese are dominant in the former and command substantial market share in the latter.
It's not as though it matters, though, because you don't really want J-20s with AL-31s or WS-10Bs in the air when you're going to be upgrading them to WS-15 eventually.
As to the ATimes report, I think I have a better chance of getting information on their sources. Their editor is HK-based, and is relatively friendly to China, although when push comes to shove, as you've seen on the CDF politics articles, he's an American patriot.
No! Minnie Chan's reports are rarely good and especially this one is - honestly; i hope You all forgive my harsh words - just a piece of BS, it is a prime example of a lousily researched report. Nothing more.
Therefore do yourself a favour and stop searching for things that do not exist, stop interpreting each and every source in the internet as a hint there might indeed something true behind. Some sources are plain wrong, utterly bad and wrong. So there's nothing to debate.
Deino
The difference between good analysis and gossip is that one involves rigorous examination, critical thinking, and good judgement over what is likely to be true and what isn’t, while the other involves believing anything just because someone or something with a title said so. Confirmation bias towards false beliefs can indeed be a problem in analysis, but at the end of the day if your objective is accuracy what becomes unavoidable is that truth has a confirmation bias towards things that are true. In a sea of false positives truth sits in a silo. It is the basis by which we select and reject information that dictates whether we are confirmation biasing towards accurate or false conclusions, not the act of selecting and rejecting information in of itself. The answer to confirmation bias towards false beliefs isn’t indiscriminate belief in anything that croaks, and frankly if your basis for believing anything that croaks is that it counters confirmation bias that ironically becomes its own kind of confirmation bias. What *actually* protects against confirmation bias is conditioning belief of *every* piece of information to *testing* and *examination*, not conditioning belief to an opposing prior from the one you suspect of being built on confirmation bias or indiscriminate belief in every little rumour and hearsay.
Last edited:
by78
General
This should become the motto of this forum. SDF is that silo.
- Status