|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,417 Year: 3,674/9,624 Month: 545/974 Week: 158/276 Day: 32/23 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3854 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
How can I put this. You're wrong.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: Pretending that the rest of my post does not exist doesn't cut it either.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Here's a fuller quote:
Dr. Burbidge never lost what Dr. Strittmatter called a rebel’s instinct. Dr. Sandage said Dr. Burbidge had called him up three times a week for 40 years to argue about the Big Bang. He delighted in bringing up all the details that didn’t quite fit, Dr. Sandage said. In recent years, he added, as the evidence for the Big Bang mounted, Dr. Burbidge held his ground. I just didn’t understand that, Dr. Sandage said. I often wondered if he was just arguing with me to keep on the phone.
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: 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:
The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:[1][2]
(bolding mine)1 The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject. 2 A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion. An appropriate authority is not enough. Even when logical validity is not required.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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:
...the inductive argument might have probabilistic or statistical merit, but the conclusion does not follow unconditionally in the sense of being logically necessary
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
logicalfallacies.info
Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: That's false on both counts.
quote: Until now, you've not produced one source actually saying this.
quote: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
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 cited The 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
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 examples Now, 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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: You do realise that you are agreeing with me here?
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: 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 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: I would say that investigating your claims showed exactly that. Your refusal to accept the results of the investigation does not.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024