A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate

How can I put this. You're wrong.

quote:

---

In a previous thread, an accusation of appealing to authority came up because a quote was introduced like this: X, winner of the 19xx Nobel Prize is Physics, writes: This is not an appeal to authority because it is not a claim the authority cannot be wrong. It is completely valid to describe someone’s expertise in a particular field. The purpose is to get the reader’s attention, not to claim the expert is infallible.

---

In other words you claim that an appeal to an authority is not an appeal to authority unless it explicitly claims that the expert is infallible ?You are very, very wrong.Firstly an appeal to authority does not need to make that claim. It is the fact that authorities are not infallible that makes the argument a logical fallacy - even if it does not explicitly claim that what the authority says must be true.Secondly, obviously citing credentials is intended to set up the source as an authority. If you are appealing to what an expert - or any other supposed authority - says, rather than to the facts of the matter, you are making an appeal to authority.That is not to say that an appeal to authority cannot be a GOOD argument. Sometimes - if done well - it may be the best available to us. But it is not, and never can be, a logically valid argument.

quote:

---

Your comment illustrates why this thread is important. You have a view you feel very strongly about. However, you opinion is only your opinion. The logical fallacy known as Appeal to Authority is well-defined in the literature.

---

Which is how I know that I am right. If you are appealing to the views of an authority, then you are making an appeal to authority. And that is not a logically valid argument because authorities can be wrong. Therefore it is a logical fallacy. It really is that simple.The Wikipedia article agrees with me on the definition of appeal to authority, and recognises that it is not a logically valid argument.

quote:

---

But just saying "You're wrong" doesn't cut it.

---

Pretending that the rest of my post does not exist doesn't cut it either.

quote:

---

if you want to marshal a real argument, get some facts on your side.

---

I did.Appealing to an authority is by definition an appeal to authority.An appeal to authority is a logically invalid argument because the premises may be true and the conclusion false.These are facts. They are on my side. It's for you to answer them instead of trying to pretend that they don't exist.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The Times article quotes Allan Sandage as saying the Burbidge would call him three times a week for 40 years to debate the big bang. That, by itself, might not mean a lot to most people. But Allan Sandage was a leading astronomer in his own right and converted to Christianity because of the big bang. This is historical evidence Burbidge was concerned about his peers being converted to religion as a result of the big bang.

---

Here's a fuller quote: How can we conclude that Burbidge was concerned about religion ?
Why could he not simply be calling a friend - a friend with relevant expertise - hoping to bring him around to his own views on cosmology ?(The obituary describes Sandage as "an old friend" of Burbidge)

quote:

---

I see in this comment you claim the Wikipedia supports your view. What part of the article? I don't see anything in it that supports the view that saying "winner of the 19xx Nobel Prize in Physics" is an appeal to authority.

---

By referring to someone as "winner of the 19xx Nobel Prize in Physics" you are attempting to establish them as an authority. Isn't that obvious ?

quote:

---

Wikipedia does say that one fallacious appeal is "an appeal to inappropriate authority" which means a person who is cited is not truly an authority. When talking about physics, a Nobel Prize goes a long way to demonstrate real authority.

---

However, as I keep saying - and you keep failing to address - even an appeal to an appropriate authority is a logical fallacy (and Wikipedia supports THAT, too. And note the thread title that you chose.)And let me point out something you seem to have missed: (bolding mine)An appropriate authority is not enough. Even when logical validity is not required.

I am afraid the problem is your lack of understanding. You should look on this thread as an opportunity to learn.To anyone who understands what a logical fallacy is, this is conclusive:

quote:

---

And by the way, is Wikipedia an appropriate authority? So then, you just committed a logical fallacy, right?

---

Of course any appeal to authority, even an appropriate authority is a logical fallacy. But apparently it is all you will accept. If you would rather deal with the facts, then you can answer my factual points, instead of ignoring them.

quote:

---

I suppose it is true that any quotation of an authority is an "appeal to authority". But it is not true that such an appeal to authority is always a logical fallacy. Otherwise, we could never use quotations in an argument without committing a logical fallacy. Is this what you at claiming (that any quotation of an authority is logically fallacious?)

---

Any attempt to argue by citing an authority is logically fallacious. This is a simple fact. Experts are NOT always correct.If you can provide an example of a logically valid argument form authority (i.e. one where the authority cited is NECESSARILY correct) then please do so.

logicalfallacies.info
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Okay, this is the first evidence you have presented. Unfortunately, it is poorly worded and is contrary to the standard definition.

---

That's false on both counts.

quote:

---

The standard definition will say an appeal to authority can be a logical fallacy if the person is saying the expert is infallible.

---

Until now, you've not produced one source actually saying this.

quote:

---

In many cases, the goal is just to show that a particular position is a reasonable position to hold.

---

I have explicitly agreed that a properly done appeal to authority can be a good argument, simply not a logically valid one.All you have to do to prove me wrong, is to demonstrate a real case where if an expert says something it MUST be true. Why are you not even making the attempt ?

quote:

---

Simple. Suppose we are discussing what Darwin or Einstein actually said about religion. A quotation from Darwin or Einstein is the best way to answer this, and is logically valid.

---

But that would not be an argument from authority. That is, we are not using Darwin or Einstein as authorities - we are directly examining the relevant material. If we want to know what they said then what they said is a directly relevant fact. An argument from authority requires us to cite the authorities assertions INSTEAD of the directly relevant facts.So, no, that is not a counter-example.

quote:

---

???
Sorry, but I don't understand your reply. My question was how a quote of Darwin or Einstein is not an "appeal to authority", and I don't see how you've answered this.

---

As I have just explained, if we want to look at what Darwin or Einstein said, then what they said is not merely expert opinion, it is the fact of the matter.An appeal to authority relies on expert opinion without looking at the facts of the matter. (Using a secondary source, rather than the original writings themselves would qualify).It really is that simple.Of course that assumes that you are quoting the actual writings rather than what they said later about those writings. For instance, in the society depicted in the novel Starship Troopers only military veterans have the right to vote. In a later essay the author, Robert Heinlein, claimed otherwise - that there were a number of non-military occupations that would confer the same right. In this case, quoting the novel would not be an argument from authority (because the book is the subject) but quoting the later essay would be an argument from authority - because it rests not on the actual content of the novel, but on what Heinlein said (and would lead to an incorrect conclusion !).Might I suggest that if a "proper understanding" is the goal of the thread, the people who do not understand what they are talking about should stop arguing and listen to those of us who do.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

An argument from authority is an argument that rests on the view of an expert or some other source consider as authoritative (e.g. arguing that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old because the Bible says so is an argument from authority)An argument from authority is not logically valid because, as all have recognised, authorities are not always correct. That is to say that it is a logical fallacy. Note, please, that an argument may still be rationally compelling even if it is not logically valid.An argument from authority may still be a good argument, provided:A genuine authority is citedThe authority's claims are accurately represented (i.e. no quote mines)There is a strong consensus amongst the relevant authorities in regard to the claim being argued for.

Since the argument from information, and specifically Werner Gitt's version of it has been brought up, it's time for this fallacy to be introduced.In a strictly logical argument all the important words and phrases must have a single meaning throughout the argument. Using different meanings invalidates the argument,Here are some obvious examplesNow, on the face of it, it seems reasonable to say that DNA contains information, in a general sense of the word.Gitt, however, introduces his own more specific idea of information. And his argument for an intelligent source of information is based on the idea that the upper levels of information in his definition are only accessible to an intelligence.For Gitt's argument to apply, then, it must be shown that DNA contains information in the full sense of his argument - including levels of information that cannot be extracted by the mindless processes of reproduction and development and so on. But that has not been done.Gitt's version of the argument from information then depends on using two different meanings of information. One is used when he wishes to say that DNA has information. The other is used when he wishes to say that information must have an intelligent source. This is equivocation.

quote:

---

PaulK cites a valid authority (the website logicalfallacies.info) speaking in the area of the claimed expertise. PaulK is making an appeal to authority. Is this a logical fallacy on Paul's part?

---

If I were citing it to support the claim, then I would be. But, as I have said more than once that does not make it a bad argument, nor does it change the fact that you will not deal with the factual points I make (even going to the point of denying that they were made)

quote:

---

According to Paul's source, it is. Does this mean it is wrong of Paul to cite this authority? Or that the authority is wrong? Not at all.

---

You do realise that you are agreeing with me here?

quote:

---

The problem, of course, is during the course of debate PaulK, Larni, DWIII and others will accuse someone of being wrong because they have committed an appeal to authority. This is bogus. There are several reasons why.

---

I will not speak for the others, but I have not done this.You really need to pay more attention to what your opponents actually say.

quote:

---

One example of this is scientific world is the use of computer models to represent earth's climate. Some of the modelers have fallen into talking about their computer runs as "experiments."

---

A lot of science -especially Physics - is about building mathematical models of reality. Nor is there anything wrong with using a simulation to investigate "what-if" scenarios, nor in calling such investigations experiments, since the complexity of climate models makes the results unpredictable.

quote:

---

I also see examples of this fallacy on this thread. There are people here who hold to a belief that everyone who can detect design or the supernatural in the universe have unscientific minds. This belief is so "concrete" and "real" to them that they when they are presented with evidence of fine scientists who were shocked by and had their worldview changed because of the big bang - well, it makes their heads explode.

---

I see two problems here. Firstly how would that be an example of reification? Secondly, it seems to me that the actual reaction was to investigate your claims - and that they were found to be less than entirely true.

quote:

---

Where is the spirit of honest intellectual inquiry? Where is the desire to learn the facts?

---

I would say that investigating your claims showed exactly that. Your refusal to accept the results of the investigation does not.

quote:

---

When the desire to learn is absent, it is usually because a mental abstraction (such as "no religious person can be a scientist") is held to be true in a concrete and physical sense.

---

And this shows that you do not even understand the fallacy that you are trying to discuss. What you are describing is simple closed-mindedness, nothing more.Of course you words are a good example of the ad hominem fallacy (attacking the person instead of the argument)Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

quote:

---

They don't use exactly those words. See Jar's comment in Message 120 on this thread for the most recent example.

---

Really, Jar - a religiious person himself claims that it is impossible for a religious person to be a scientist? Implausible to say the least.And if we look into Jar's actual posts we see that it is false.Firstly we see that Jar specifically states that it is possible for an honest scientist to believe in Special Creation so long as he admits that the scientific evidence strongly supports evolution. As he states in message 121 Message 120 many Christians do NOT believe in Special Creation.If you insist that religious people MUST believe in Special Creation, then it is incumbent on you to show that your example scientists believe or believed it, too. So far I see no attempt to even consider the issue. If you allow that religious people may reject Special Creation in favour of evolution - as Francis Collins does, for instance then you are clearly misrepresenting Jar.