Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


(3)
Message 51 of 344 (640888)
11-14-2011 2:09 AM


Appeal to authority
If you say "X says P, and X is an expert, therefore P", then that's an appeal to authority, and a logical fallacy.
On the other hand, if you say "peer reviewed research by X et all. has revealed that P (and here's a link to the research paper), so we can reasonably assume that P", then you are on safer ground, because you are using X's research data and conclusions for your argument, and not his reputation.
At the very least, in a formal argument it's bad form to introduce experts with a list of their academic titles and Nobel prizes. If you have to list something, then list their research papers.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by purpledawn, posted 11-15-2011 5:31 AM Parasomnium has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 54 of 344 (640997)
11-15-2011 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by purpledawn
11-15-2011 5:31 AM


Re: Appeal to authority
purpledawn writes:
If we say peer reviewed research aren't we still appealing to the authority of the peers? Aren't we presenting the research as more valid because of their approval?
Yes, but at least we are not relying on one authority, but instead on multiple, often competing researchers (or research groups even). If they compete, and still agree about the conclusions, then that's a reasonable safeguard. But above all, we are not presenting someone as an authority, but some of their research as material for discussion.
If research isn't necessarily right when approved by peers and one presents a peer reviewed study as more valid just because it is peer reviewed, then would that be classified as appealing to authority?
Basically, yes. But just as I would not accept "P is true because X says so", I would also not accept "P is true because it is peer reviewed". I mentioned some additional provisions in my previous post.
If one rejects research because it isn't peer reviewed or done by someone with credentials, does that fall under this fallacy or is there another name for it?
The term "closed-mindedness" springs to mind...

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by purpledawn, posted 11-15-2011 5:31 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 82 of 344 (641106)
11-16-2011 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by mike the wiz
11-16-2011 11:46 AM


Re: Affirming the Consequent
Mike,
The syllogism may be valid but if the premises are not true then neither is the conclusion.
If P then Q
P
Therefore, Q
That's a valid syllogism, but you can't fill in just anything you like for P and Q and expect the conclusion to be true. An example:
If pigs are pink then pigs can fly
Pigs are pink
Therefore, pigs can fly.
You state that if something contains information then it must have been put there by an intelligent agent. Others have already shown that this premise is false. So, even if your syllogism is valid, the conclusion you get from it is not true.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by mike the wiz, posted 11-16-2011 11:46 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by mike the wiz, posted 11-16-2011 3:23 PM Parasomnium has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 89 of 344 (641117)
11-16-2011 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by mike the wiz
11-16-2011 3:23 PM


Re: Affirming the Consequent
Mike, you could have fooled me. Your first post in this thread certainly has some elements that make it seem that you, apart from attempting to teach us logic, also argue for design.
Exhibit A: the self-evidence clause
Exhibit B: the advertisement for the Gitt book
Exhibit C: the complaint about other accusations against creationists.
Like a typical creationist argument, yours goes all over the place, but it's exhibit B that clinched it for me. You believe in the false premise.
Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by mike the wiz, posted 11-16-2011 3:23 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by mike the wiz, posted 11-16-2011 4:23 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024