Octopus Overlords

geezer wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:26 pm

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:06 pm

geezer wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 4:52 pm Not to sidetrack, but I've never quite been able to square the "logical fallacy" with "appeal to authority." If someone is an authority in a given field, is their knowledge and opinion not to be given more weight than someone without such qualifications?

It doesn't mean that they're infallible.

Consider Peter Duesberg:

Peter H. Duesberg (born December 2, 1936) is a German American molecular biologist and a professor of molecular and cell biology at the University of California, Berkeley. He is known for his early research into genetic aspects of cancer, and more recently for his central role in the AIDS denialism movement as a proponent of the belief that HIV is harmless and does not cause AIDS.

Argument from authority

If all parties agree on the reliability of an authority in the given context it forms a valid inductive argument.

Scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority as authority has no place in science.

Carl Sagan wrote of arguments from authority:

One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.

Of course, but one might accept that the "authority" has derived his/her argument through evidence and experiment, yes? It's not to say that anyone is infallible, merely that I find the counter of "logical fallacy" to be a cheap way of dismissing that which someone might not agree with.

It could be but IMO it was a response to exactly what I saw as the intent of the post which was to swat away a detailed opinion as non-expert. Lazily at that.

geezer wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 5:26 pm

Of course, but one might accept that the "authority" has derived his/her argument through evidence and experiment, yes? It's not to say that anyone is infallible, merely that I find the counter of "logical fallacy" to be a cheap way of dismissing that which someone might not agree with.

Logical fallacies can be misused. That doesn't mean the idea doesn't have merit. Calling "logical fallacy!" isn't an argument in and of itself, it's just a way to evaulate or quantify an argument.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:43 pm Calling "logical fallacy!" isn't an argument in and of itself, it's just a way to evaulate or quantify an argument.

That's a kinder and less detailed post than one I wrote and deleted. Calling logical fallacy doesn't even mean one was actually committed. Of course I was going to lead off with "when calling something a logical fallacy you should follow by showing how it's a logical fallacy" and then I went off on a long rant about the nature of sufficient and necessary conditionals and then I cut myself off, shut down my browser, and played Stallaris instead of letting my post lead me where it may with regard to calls for logic. It was interesting to me but I found my tone getting hostile and that doesn't do anyone good here.

Apropos to this discussion is the Planet Money Indicator podcast on Wage Growth. It's only 11 minutes long. Give it a listen.

geezer wrote:Not to sidetrack, but I've never quite been able to square the "logical fallacy" with "appeal to authority." If someone is an authority in a given field, is their knowledge and opinion not to be given more weight than someone without such qualifications?

In a logical debate, someone is not correct simply because one is an expert.

However, in an online discussion, presumably we are free to conclude that someone with experience and advanced education is more likely to be correct than someone with neither.

Not everyone appears able to track the difference between a casual discussion and the debate team.

Wow. What thoughtful, analytical, well reasoned arguements everyone has contributed to my mostly thoughtless, definitely drunken critique of our current president.

Drazzil wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 11:06 pm Wow. What thoughtful, analytical, well reasoned arguements everyone has contributed to my mostly thoughtless, definitely drunken critique of our current president.

We'll try not to let it happen again.

We like to argue at the drop of a hat. Which is why the dropping of hats has been banned.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 11:38 pm We like to argue at the drop of a hat. Which is why the dropping of hats has been banned.

Good luck regulating hat speech.

RuperT wrote: ↑Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:15 am

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 11:38 pm We like to argue at the drop of a hat. Which is why the dropping of hats has been banned.

Good luck regulating hat speech.

RuperT wrote:

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 11:38 pm We like to argue at the drop of a hat. Which is why the dropping of hats has been banned.

Good luck regulating hat speech.

Genius.

Drazzil wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 11:06 pm Wow. What thoughtful, analytical, well reasoned arguements everyone has contributed to my mostly thoughtless, definitely drunken critique of our current president.

Nobody else had thought to make a thread about Trump.

Kraken wrote: ↑Thu Aug 02, 2018 1:51 am

Drazzil wrote: ↑Wed Aug 01, 2018 11:06 pm Wow. What thoughtful, analytical, well reasoned arguements everyone has contributed to my mostly thoughtless, definitely drunken critique of our current president.

Nobody else had thought to make a thread about Trump.