A measure of how well a person can reason is the ability to spot flaws, or potential flaws in a theory.
The greatest flaw, or potential flaw, in the Theory of Evolution, is the evolution of eyes. How could a perfect eye suddenly evolve through natural selection? Who first thought of this argument against evolution? None other than Charles Darwin. Of course, this argument against evolution has flaws. In the animal kingdom, there is a very wide range of visual acuity. Ranging from very good, like our own. Very very good, at least under bright lighting, for eagles. Down to a bare ability to detect the direction of the sun, allowing a primitive animal to move upward in the water column during the day. An animal does not need a fully function ‘eye’ to make use of vision, even very poor vision.
Roger Stone seems to have a poor ability to spot flaws in arguments. His support for the ‘Stolen Election in 2020’ narrative shows this. If Dominion Voting Systems software was rigged, one can easily detect this by doing a manual recount of the votes. Which Trump did have done in certain counties. So, why didn’t these recounts show a discrepancy?
Similarly, Roger Stone’s basic theory has a very basic flaw. Which he never addresses. Which I believe he was unaware of. Which I believe that Stone’s supporters are unaware of.
Question:
Can any Roger Stone supporter here say what this fundamental flaw in his argument is?
I will await an answer for a day or two. Here is an opportunity that you can make use of good skeptical reasoning. Skeptics are good at spotting flaws.
