Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later[^][v]#475,818
Do you think people of authority are inerrant?
If you think they're even sometimes capable of being wrong, then it's impossible not to accept appeals to authority as fallacious. Right?
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^][v]#475,819
@previous (B)
That's like saying "data can be wrong sometimes, so we have to accept that appeals to data are a fallacy."
Every type of factual support can be wrong sometimes, but they're not all fallacies, are they?
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao (OP) double-posted this 12 years ago, 1 minute later, 12 minutes after the original post[^][v]#475,820
Appeals to logic are a fallacy, because logic is sometimes used wrong.
Syntax joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 11 minutes later, 23 minutes after the original post[^][v]#475,825
@previous (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
Induction and deduction with occasional tinkering with the logic may get you there (May as the operative word)
Logic, like whiskey, loses its beneficial effect when taken in too large quantities.
-Lord Dunsany
I learned this one from UCSD Prof who is now a multi billionaire
Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence.
-Joseph Wood Krutch
Anonymous B replied with this 12 years ago, 7 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^][v]#475,826
@475,819 (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
I think appeals to authority are only fallacious when their position is used as absolute evidence (assuming they're also talking within their own field) of some claim.
And if you challenged their data you'd be actually challenging their argument itself. If you don't think arguments from authority are fallacious, wouldn't you also need to believe ad hominems are not fallacious? What's stopping you from saying "Professor B is a cunt, he says X is true, therefore X is false"?
(Edited 30 seconds later.)
Meta joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 35 minutes after the original post[^][v]#475,827
@OP
Because the Ancient Greeks said so. Real reason (IMO): you're not making an argument, you're just saying "well X said so and X knows more than you about Y so there." QED
Also what Anon B said: authorities have been shown to be wrong many times over the course of history. Just because someone has credentials or is seen as an authority on something doesn't, by itself, make them right.
(Edited 6 minutes later.)
Ash !bbKEtchUp. joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[^][v]#475,829
goog
The argument from authority can take several forms. As a syllogism, the argument has the following basic structure:[3][4]
A says P about subject matter S.
A should be trusted about subject matter S.
Therefore, P is correct.
The second premise is not accepted as valid, as it amounts to an unfounded assertion that leads to circular reasoning able to define person or group A into inerrancy on any subject matter.
Fäkē àñøñ !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 41 minutes after the original post[^][v]#475,830
Appeals to authority are not always fallacious, only unjustified appeals to authority. If the authority you are appealing to isn't actually an authority, or you are mistaken about what the authority claims, or you think that because some authority says X, it is absolutely and immutably true simply by virtue of the fact that an authority said it, then it is a fallacious appeal to authority. Appealing to an authority because you think it provides reasonable or sufficient grounds for believing a conclusion is not fallacious, provided that you don't commit any of the aforementioned mistakes.
dw ltd joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^][v]#475,831
My hats a weird way to feel
dw ltd double-posted this 12 years ago, 18 seconds later, 48 minutes after the original post[^][v]#475,832
That is a weird way to feel
Meta replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[^][v]#475,833
@475,830 (Fäkē àñøñ !ZkUt8arUCU)
So, appealing to the Pope's authority on some argument of Catholic doctrine wouldn't be a fallacy because the Pope pretty much defines Roman Catholicism?
Fäkē àñøñ !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^][v]#475,834
@previous (Meta)
Right. That's not to say it is impossible that the pope could be wrong about something with respect to Catholicism (unless he's speaking ex cathedra, but that's trivially true), it is just to say that the claim "The Pope said X about some Catholic thing" provides good (probably sufficient) grounds for believing the proposition "X is true".
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#475,836
@previous (Fäkē àñøñ !ZkUt8arUCU)
But saying "abortion is immoral, because the Pope said so" (in a secular debate about abortion) would be crossing the line into being a fallacy?
squeegee !first/o5zA joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#475,837
i dunno, something something external inconsistencies. why?
dw ltd replied with this 12 years ago, 52 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#475,840
@475,836 (Metæ)
yes because the popes authority lies within the church and not the entire field of ethics
The debate would no longer be secular either
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 12 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#475,841
Appeal to statism. You are decadent.
Metæ !4EB6xd.Oos replied with this 12 years ago, 22 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#475,842
@previous (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
Appeal to Mountainman? Socrates would have laughed you out of the Parthenon!
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 14 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#475,845
Becky: massive mora or simply trolling?
I think it's both. Mountainman, who is an authority on this matter, agrees with me.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#475,848
i havent slept for two days
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#475,852
Fäkē àñøñ !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 12 years ago, 6 hours later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#475,901
@475,836 (Metæ)
Yes because the pope isn't an authority on ethics. If you wanted to support the claim "Catholics think that abortion is immoral." and cited the pope, that would be a really good appeal to authority. If you wanted to support the universal claim that "Abortion is morally wrong" it would not be a good appeal to authority.
(Edited 25 seconds later.)
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#475,906
@previous (Fäkē àñøñ !ZkUt8arUCU)
Why would he not be an authority on ethics? What authority determines who is authority on things?
Fäkē àñøñ !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 12 years ago, 6 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#475,907
@previous (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
There is no authority that determines that. If there were you'd need an authority to determine that that was a true authority and so on ad infinitum. He's an authority if he can demonstrate that he has the relevant qualifications. That's usually some kind of PhD. or extensive experience in the relevant field which gives him a uniquely good understanding. It is possible for the pope to be an expert in morality (for instance if he wrote a doctoral thesis on utilitarianism or something of that nature) but he is not, simply by being the pope, an expert on morality.
(Edited 52 seconds later.)
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 11 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#475,909
@475,906 (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao) > What authority determines who is authority on things?
A meta-authority, obviously.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 11 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#475,913
@475,906 (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
right now you're making an appeal to being a mora :/
@previous (Metæ)
That's a bit egotistical of you, Meta.
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 17 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^][v]#475,917
@475,907 (Fäkē àñøñ !ZkUt8arUCU)
My problem with this definition of authority is how much power it gives to gatekeepers who have already themselves attained a level of authority--it would seem to reify credentialing processes. I'm actually more comfortable with saying appealing to authority is always a fallacy than that it's only a fallacy if that authority is reasonably qualified, because the qualification process is really just a circlejerk of getting enough certain people to agree with you, yes?
@previous (Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx)
I'm being quite serious here. :(
Anonymous G replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^][v]#475,951
@previous (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
You mean if they are not reasonably qualified? Also, it's not like you are 'getting' the authority to agree with you. Why are you so ready to say that it's always fallacious? Even tho there are obviously rigid authorities on some matters? Like for sure it's not the best way to debate but it's not always 200$ wrong
Anonymous K replied with this 12 years ago, 26 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^][v]#475,960
beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^][v]#475,981
@475,951 (G)
I'm saying the bright-line rule "no appeal to authority" makes more sense to me than "no appeal to authority, except PhDs and other people philosophers say are qualified."
squeegee joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 9 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^][v]#475,982
@previous (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao)
an appeal to authority can always fall apart under enough scrutiny.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 20 hours after the original post[^][v]#476,010
@475,917 (beckyderp !8ElfFaoFao) > I'm being quite serious here. :(
You are? Not sure if believe.
Besides, our lad Fake anon has studied this shit. I think he knows what he's on about. Yes, that was an appeal to FAke anon.
Aristotle joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 6 months later, 6 months after the original post[^][v]#510,643
A syllogism doesn't mean its necessarily wrong. That would be the appeal to fallacy.
Fallacy means does not follow, or doesn't necessarily prove so.
(IE.)
My teacher said so, therefore it is true. Is an appeal to authority.
The problem here is that your teacher could be wrong.
It also begs the question what are the arguments that leads your teacher to believe x,y is true.
The conclusion of a valid argument is a logical consequence of its premises, and the premises if true, are said to imply or to entail the conclusion.
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY replied with this 12 years ago, 22 minutes later, 6 months after the original post[^][v]#510,646
Slippery slope isn't really a fallacy at all...
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 6 hours later, 6 months after the original post[^][v]#510,675
An appeal to Syntax is a fallacy.
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 40 minutes later, 6 months after the original post[^][v]#510,684
@OP
I've never really understood it either. Scientific and academic texts quote recognized authorities all the time. For example:
Newton on the Three Laws of Motion.
Darwin on Natural Selection.
Maxwell on Electromagnetism.
Einstein on Mass–Energy Equivalence.
Planck on Black Body Radiation.
If appealing to an authority is a logical fallacy, why do we trust any of the above as a source of reliable information?
advi !!3gpAcg/hF joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 24 minutes later, 6 months after the original post[^][v]#510,686
It's a fallacy because it's based on the idea that being an authority or expert on one thing makes you an authority or expert on everything.
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY replied with this 12 years ago, 11 minutes later, 6 months after the original post[^][v]#510,689