|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3863 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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3863 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
PaulK,
Okay, this is the first evidence you have presented. Unfortunately, it is poorly worded and is contrary to the standard definition. The standard definition will say an appeal to authority can be a logical fallacy if the person is saying the expert is infallible. In many cases, the goal is just to show that a particular position is a reasonable position to hold. By quoting an expert who holds the position, or multiple experts who hold the position, then people can see it is a reasonable position to hold. In other words, the goal is not to prove the position is accurate. Here's another definition:
An appeal to authority is a type of argument in logic also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument from modesty) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself, said it). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge and is often a logical fallacy.
See http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Appeal_to_authority
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dirk Member (Idle past 4054 days) Posts: 84 Joined: |
But if I say Stephen Weinberg, people don't generally know who that is. Is he an astronomer, chemist, sunday school teacher? No one knows.
And that's the whole point: it doesn't matter; it's only the argument that counts. 1+1=3 is wrong, irrespective of whether the local village idiot says it or Albert Einstein.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
designtheorist writes: The standard definition will say an appeal to authority can be a logical fallacy if the person is saying the expert is infallible. I know this is the definition you like, but it is not the standard definition, and it is not the definition everyone else is using. Jar provided this definition that I think most here would accept:
Jar in Message 25 writes: It is perfectly valid to specify attributions, but when you go one step further and assert that "because x is an authority y is valid" it is always a logical fallacy. You replied, "Thank you jar! Finally someone gets it!" but Jar said nothing about infallibility, and no one here agrees with you that what makes an appeal to authority fallacious is a claim that the authority is infallible. If you can clear up the apparent contradiction between your definition and your statement of agreement with Jar then I think it would help the discussion a great deal. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
In many cases, the goal is just to show that a particular position is a reasonable position to hold. 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.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
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. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DWIII Member (Idle past 1783 days) Posts: 72 From: United States Joined: |
designtheorist writes:
I could agree with most of what you wrote except this part:
It amounts to a claim (by association) that the authority cannot be wrong in the particular instance quoted. If the authority happened to have won the Nobel Prize for something somewhat further removed from the actual content of the quote, it becomes an even greater liability because it could be construed as an attempt by the quote-miner to mislead. Identifying the accomplishments of the person is not at all the same as claiming he is infallible. When I quote Albert Einstein, I don't feel a need to say "Nobel Prize winner" because people know who Einstein is.
Even so, there are undoubtedly many Nobel Prize (or other prestigious award) winners that are not nearly so notable; does it follow that their 15 minutes in the spotlight validates everything else that they have done? If you were doing a biography on the scientist in question, nobody would complain about a detailed listing of all of his degrees and awards and honors and such. However, this forum is largely dedicated to supporting objective claims with rational argumentation and evidence, not for doing mini-biographies on your sources.
But if I say Stephen Weinberg, people don't generally know who that is. Is he an astronomer, chemist, sunday school teacher? No one knows.
And yet I have one of his books; I certainly know who he is! I suspect most of the people who come here regularly (who don't otherwise live in a cave) also know; and even if they didn't, how does knowing this help support objective scientific claims? You may have a faint point if we were having this pleasant conversation twenty years ago; but in this day and age of the internet with near-instantaneous access to information, adjectifying him with such terms as "famous physicist" and "Nobel laureate" and "devoted family man" becomes very much superfluous.
Also, your use of "quote-miner" is not appropriate. People can quote without being a quote-miner. The assumption of guilt here is just ridiculous.
Agreed, my bad; the mere usage of quotes doesn't make for a quote-miner. I wouldn't have used that term if there were no other evidence of abuse by quotation.
If you are going to make a charge that someone is using a quote out of context and changing the meaning of the quote, you had better have some evidence to back up the charge. Otherwise you are just poisoning the well of civil discourse.
As has already been noted, quote-mining and appeal to authority oft go hand in hand. Even if one takes all precautions to avoid all de-contextification and ambiguity, one can still mis-use that quote to support some aspect of science by what that person says, as opposed to what the evidence indicates. Edited by DWIII, : clarificationDWIII
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
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. And that is not an appeal to authority. That is direct evidence of the topic of discussion. If instead you quoted some Einstein biographer on what Einstein believed about religion, that would be an appeal to authority. Edited by subbie, : BetterRidicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
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?The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I'm not sure that YOU get it.
For example, in Message 49 of the thread Big Bang Theory Supports a Belief in the Universe Designer or Creator God you consistently committed the appeal to authority fallacy but tried to disguise it as cites. In fact what you did was several examples of logical fallacies, taking comments out of context and appeal to authority. The appeal to authority came when you added editorial comments like "Steven Weinberg, winner of the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics" and "Paul Davies is a physicist and cosmologist at Arizona State University. In addition to being a popular author, he has won the Kelvin Medal from the Institute of Physics and the Faraday Prize from The Royal Society." Neither of the underlined sections were pertinent to the discussion other as "appeal to authority".Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
quote:If quoting Darwin or Einstein is not an "appeal to authority" in this instance, then we need to better define "appeal to authority". I agree that it is not a logical fallacy, but how is it not an "appeal to authority"?quote: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
In many cases, the goal is just to show that a particular position is a reasonable position to hold. But it does not, in fact, show that. If you tell me that a reasonable man said X, then this convinces me that a reasonable man can say X, but it does not convince me that to say X is reasonable --- the general quality of the man does not imply that the same quality inheres in a specific statement that he made.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If quoting Darwin or Einstein is not an "appeal to authority" in this instance, then we need to better define "appeal to authority". I agree that it is not a logical fallacy, but how is it not an "appeal to authority"? I suppose because we take what a man says as the best evidence for what he thinks (unless, of course, his actions belie it) even if he is as dumb as a bag of hammers and crazy as a loon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2162 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
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. "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
If we say Einstein demonstrated 'x' it is very different thing from Einstein claimed 'x'.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024