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

What do you want to debate?The definitions seem pretty clear cut.

Ah, right.So you want to redefine what are already readily understood terms to absolve yourself of complicity in said fallacies.Got it: carry on, do. Incorrect, I share PaulK's opinion as it is an accurate take on 'Argument form Authority'. It seems yet another Cdesignproponentist is attempting to redefine terms to better suit their beliefs.You sir, have adopted the position of an idiot. Edited by Larni, : No reason given.Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

I don't get it: any appeal to an authority is a logical fallacy.What is there you don't get about this very simple concept?

The important thing is that an appeal to authority (so and so says x is true' therefor it is true) is different from presenting what someone has demonstrated (so and so demonstrated x and therefor x is true).The credentials of the demonstrater are irrelevant: only that which is demonstrated is relevant.So, the conclusions x comes to cannot be passed off as one's own: as when doing the 'discussion' in a paper you can't very well say "x thinks I'm right: do I still need to do a viva?"Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

That's exactly what I said.Edited by Larni, : Removed the 'twat'

And that is the whole purpose of this thread: for you to try to justify your previous egregious use of fallacies and quote mining in your previous thread.Pitifully transparent.

That would be a data point: they either said or did not say 'x'. They either said it or not.Claiming their opinion is correct is the fallacy.Ask your self this: is an opinion ever a non-tentatative conclusion?

If we say Einstein demonstrated 'x' it is very different thing from Einstein claimed 'x'.

It is very relevant!The former is a description of a data point (not an appeal to authority, but an appeal to the evidence base). The latter is a claim that because x said x, and z it must be true (a logical fallacy).Where is the confusion? It is a very straightforwards difference. Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

As Designtheorist has failed to wriggle out of the charge of 'appeal to authority' can we now allow him/her the chance to wriggle out of the charge 'special pleading'?If there is time we can go on to plagarism, maybe.

I cite PaulK as making a whole lot of sense.Do I win an ironic 5?

And you are yet to substantiate that this is not the case.This thread is a perfect example of you trying to pull attention away from your inability to debate scientifically by putting the spotlight on this lame thread; an attempt to excuse yourself of various blatant fallacies you committed in your previous thread.You are as obvious in you intentions as you are blatant in your fallacies.

Au contraire, mon cheri.I attacked your position and intent; not you.Again you display an ignorance of debate form.An ad hom attack would be me calling you a stupid, smug, arrogant, fuckwitted wank-handed clod with the debating skills of a child. A moronic twat, a feeblemind tosser desperately trying to convince everyone here they did not make a whole host of logical errors in the previous thread.That would be an ad hom: if I said it.See the difference?

You are quite wrong, sir. The fundamental point here is that I'm not making an argument: I'm making an observation.If you can find any evidence to suggest that highlighting my opinion of your intent to disemble is an ad hom I will happily apologise and retract my comment.I also did not attack your intelligence: I highlighted you inability to debate scientifically (and there is evidence on this and other threads that you have been called on multiple times).Your inability to recognise the difference rather does the job for me, doncha think?I'll say a again: you've been caught out and you are trying to wriggle out of it to assuage your self esteem. This whole thread is your attempt at a saving throw.

It is for this reason that I leave this thread in dispair. It's not going anywhere and the temptation to be sarcastic is too great.That said, Designtheorist keeps his/her cool and does not rely on word salad as much as some people I could mention.