thou shalt not commit logical fallacies

[Hermit]

You see, the problem is that some people don't understand what the meaning of the word fallacy is.

The topic is about logical fallacies. Haven't you noticed? It's a logical fallacy to argue that something is true on the grounds that an authoritative source says that it is, for the simple reason that past authoritative sources have turned out to be wrong. Appeals to subsequent authoritative sources encounter the same problem: How do we know they are right on account of their authority? It's turtles all the way down once more.

[Tyrannical]

You see, the problem is that some people don't understand what the meaning of the word fallacy is.

The topic is about logical fallacies. Haven't you noticed? It's a logical fallacy to argue that something is true on the grounds that an authoritative source says that it is, for the simple reason that past authoritative sources have turned out to be wrong. Appeals to subsequent authoritative sources encounter the same problem: How do we know they are right on account of their authority? It's turtles all the way down once more.

No it is not.
You completely misunderstand what appeal to authority is, it is an appeal to a false authority. The fallacy is in falsely granting the ignorant authority on a subject.


1: John doe is an expert.
2: John doe says this.
3: Therefor, what John doe says is worth listening to.

Logical fallacy if and only if 1 is false.

[Svartalf]

Actually, FBM, I had failed to get the relevance to my PoV on the matter.
and Damn... if I were able to concentrate on anything, I'd need to improve my knowldege of philosophy... I don't think I even ever heard of Pyrrho before.

and I guess that practical application of the sciences are proof enough of the truth that is behind deferring to scientists as authorities on the subject. Since there is tangible proof that their system works, whereas I have no tangible proof that any of the saints of the church went to an afterlife after death, let alone the one predicated by chretinity. (of whatever flavor)

[Svartalf]

1)god made the world
2)therefore he's an expert on every matter pertaining to it
3) the bible is god's own word
4) therefore it's a better source than any greybeard's ranting about 'natural laws', 'experimental methods', 'peer reviewed study' and other fiddle faddle.

[FBM]

Actually, FBM, I had failed to get the relevance to my PoV on the matter.
and Damn... if I were able to concentrate on anything, I'd need to improve my knowldege of philosophy... I don't think I even ever heard of Pyrrho before.

and I guess that practical application of the sciences are proof enough of the truth that is behind deferring to scientists as authorities on the subject. Since there is tangible proof that their system works, whereas I have no tangible proof that any of the saints of the church went to an afterlife after death, let alone the one predicated by chretinity. (of whatever flavor)

The case of Pyrrho of Elis, if the extant evidence is reasonably accurate, goes to show that some of the ancients were more advanced in epistemology than the average well-educated citizen of today is. It makes a very interesting study. I'd recommend that anyone who's interested in the limits of knowledge and truth read up on him.

[Tyrannical]

1)god made the world
2)therefore he's an expert on every matter pertaining to it
3) the bible is god's own word
4) therefore it's a better source than any greybeard's ranting about 'natural laws', 'experimental methods', 'peer reviewed study' and other fiddle faddle.

Thomas Aquinas could do a much better job

[Svartalf]

I should be flattered to be compared to the likes of him
Man, what that guy could have done if he'd applied his abilities to a proper subject...

[Tyrannical]

I should be flattered to be compared to the likes of him
Man, what that guy could have done if he'd applied his abilities to a proper subject...

I wasn't comparing you. I was hinting that you could have at least made the effort to look up an expert on the subject instead of your own weak argument off the top of your head

[Svartalf]

pffftttt, Aquinas built a tower on sand, and most of his summa has been debunked...

[Tyrannical]

pffftttt, Aquinas built a tower on sand, and most of his summa has been debunked...

He did a far more respectable job then you did.
You'd have been better off just appealing to his authority since it was better thought out and debated

[Svartalf]

I'll appeal to William of Occam's authority and keep it simple.
Aquinas tried to systematize the imaginary and unaccountable, and while his work is remarkable, it's still tainted from the bottom up.

Then again, If you compare to the philosophical work of the likes of Pascal, yes, it's grand.

[Hermit]

You see, the problem is that some people don't understand what the meaning of the word fallacy is.

The topic is about logical fallacies. Haven't you noticed? It's a logical fallacy to argue that something is true on the grounds that an authoritative source says that it is, for the simple reason that past authoritative sources have turned out to be wrong. Appeals to subsequent authoritative sources encounter the same problem: How do we know they are right on account of their authority? It's turtles all the way down once more.

No it is not.
You completely misunderstand what appeal to authority is, it is an appeal to a false authority. The fallacy is in falsely granting the ignorant authority on a subject.


1: John doe is an expert.
2: John doe says this.
3: Therefor, what John doe says is worth listening to.

Logical fallacy if and only if 1 is false.

It goes like this, actually:
1: An expert says X is true
2: Therefore X is true

Except of course, experts have turned out to be wrong. That's what makes an appeal to authority a logical fallacy.

[Tyrannical]

You see, the problem is that some people don't understand what the meaning of the word fallacy is.

The topic is about logical fallacies. Haven't you noticed? It's a logical fallacy to argue that something is true on the grounds that an authoritative source says that it is, for the simple reason that past authoritative sources have turned out to be wrong. Appeals to subsequent authoritative sources encounter the same problem: How do we know they are right on account of their authority? It's turtles all the way down once more.

No it is not.
You completely misunderstand what appeal to authority is, it is an appeal to a false authority. The fallacy is in falsely granting the ignorant authority on a subject.


1: John doe is an expert.
2: John doe says this.
3: Therefor, what John doe says is worth listening to.

Logical fallacy if and only if 1 is false.

It goes like this, actually:
1: An expert says X is true
2: Therefore X is true

Except of course, experts have turned out to be wrong. That's what makes an appeal to authority a logical fallacy.

No, I'm right and you are wrong. The logical fallacy is falsely equating expert status. It is the same as assuming "if X than Y" when X is false.

[Seth]

You see, the problem is that some people don't understand what the meaning of the word fallacy is.

The topic is about logical fallacies. Haven't you noticed? It's a logical fallacy to argue that something is true on the grounds that an authoritative source says that it is, for the simple reason that past authoritative sources have turned out to be wrong. Appeals to subsequent authoritative sources encounter the same problem: How do we know they are right on account of their authority? It's turtles all the way down once more.

No it is not.
You completely misunderstand what appeal to authority is, it is an appeal to a false authority. The fallacy is in falsely granting the ignorant authority on a subject.


1: John doe is an expert.
2: John doe says this.
3: Therefor, what John doe says is worth listening to.

Logical fallacy if and only if 1 is false.

It goes like this, actually:
1: An expert says X is true
2: Therefore X is true

Except of course, experts have turned out to be wrong. That's what makes an appeal to authority a logical fallacy.

No, I'm right and you are wrong. The logical fallacy is falsely equating expert status. It is the same as assuming "if X than Y" when X is false.

Tyr is correct. It is not an "appeal to authority" fallacy if the person or authority one is appealing to is a recognized expert in the field in question. Yes, it may be true that the individual may be wrong, but that does not make the argument a fallacious appeal to authority because there is logical justification for citing the authority.

It's only a fallacy if one is appealing to a vague or unsubstantiated purported authority of some sort that is not generally recognized as a legitimate expert on the subject.

"The Pope says that eating broccoli is bad for you, so don't eat broccoli" is a fallacious appeal to authority.

"The CDC says that Hantavirus is transmitted by deer mice, so use precautions when cleaning out your barn in the Southwest" is not.

[trdsf]

When you appeal correctly to a recognized authority, the burden of proof falls on the other party to refute.

I gave examples of people appealing to recognised authorities that turned out to be wrong. Who decides you have correctly appealed to an authority? Another authority? Oh wait. Now there's a genuine logical fallacy.

You're still drawing the same incorrect conclusion, that because some authorities have turned out to be wrong, therefore all authorities are wrong. There's a major logical fallacy right there. Your argument is going as follows:

THEOREM: That all appeals to authority are wrong.
- At least one authority has been wrong when appealed to.
- Therefore, all appeals to authority are wrong. QED.

This is like seeing one black sheep in Edinburgh and drawing the conclusion that all Scottish sheep are black.

I repeat: the logical fault in appealing to authority is in making an incorrect appeal, appealing to an inappropriate authority, or both. If you are referring to a competent authority on the matter being discussed, and always within the bounds of 'pending further observations' when appropriate, there's no fault in the appeal. A competent authority's opinion on their area of expertise can be reasonably expected to represent the current best scientific understanding of that matter.

If you want to take a mathematician's word that the Wiles proof of Fermat is correct, that is perfectly reasonable.

If you want to take a mathematician's word that the world is only 6,000 years old and was brought into being in such a way to look like it's 4.5 billion years old, that is quite a bit less reasonable. At a minimum, determining the age of rocks is outside a mathematician's domain as an expert.