>Whoosh. An appeal to authority can be a fallacy when consulting the
>authority on topics they have no expertise, however:
I figured you'd say that, if you actually bothered to look it up.
>"Exception: Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an
>authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy.
While it is true that if someone defers to greater expertise to corroborate their position (as I often do myself), or when they are in doubt, that this does not necessarily invalidate their argument. But nonetheless, any argument must stand or fall based on facts relevant to the matter, and not on the "authority" or credentials of the arguer.
The problem is, who decides what an authority is? Often scientists and other experts disagree, such as in the cases we are discussing that are quite controversial. I can provide credentialed scientists and MDs who will attest on my side of any of these debates, and that doesn't necessarily mean my argument is correct or that it should be accepted without scrutiny. At the end of the day, no claim that any particular source is *the* authority is valid nor can such a claim be used as the basis of refutation of a logical argument.
>Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council
>of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism.
Again, who decides what is "legitimate"? The criteria for legitimate skepticism vs denialism must be based on the willingness to examine evidence and the veracity (or lack thereof) for the given argument: true skepticism takes into account the facts and merits of the argument, appeal to authority (used fallaciously, ignoring relevant facts or reason) is the denial without due critical analysis.
A "council of experts" should no more be blindly accepted on "authority" any more than it should be ignored, nor any more than reasoned critique of peers should be. Any meaningful discussion or debate, especially of highly controversial subjects with experts weighing in on both sides, must dig into the facts and logic behind the position. Anyone who is defers to authority, not by way of corroboration and examination of facts and logic presented, but as a *replacement* for doing so, is not bringing anything to the discussion, but is using appeal to authority in its fallacious capacity.
>The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation,
>but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that
>we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance.
Exactly. It's a fallacy in argumentation. In other words, it can't be used as the *basis* for an argument, only to assist in the corroboration or articulation of the argument and its merits. It is fallacious when it is used as the basis of a refutation *without* bothering to address any of the actual merits and veracity of the facts and logic presented.
>There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong,
There it is. Any argument must rest on the facts and logic that support it. Any appeal or deferment to authority cannot replace the examination of facts and logic, but may only be validly be called upon when expertise is needed or useful in presenting, for example, a far more extensive collection of evidence or superior articulated reasoning to support the argument. The appeal to authority can no way be used in order to refute a logical argument, though an expert may indeed be called upon who's reasoning and facts do refute it, those reasonings and facts are still not above critical analysis or being faulty necessarily just because of credentials, reputation, nor for any other reason
>You're no immunologist, nor a physicist, nor a logician, nor a rocket scientist,
>yet you claim to have superior knowledge than thousands of people who are.
> This kind of makes you a personified fallacy.
It makes no difference what I am, and the fact that you attach relevance to it shows how poor your critical thinking ability is, clinging to arguing against me personally rather than what is being argued. I claim that the vast majority of people are ignorant and brainwashed to an extreme level, having very little clue of anything going on around or within them. It's not because I am very superior, there are so many people so much more knowledgeable in these areas than even myself. Also little to none of the ideas I discuss are unique to me, as I mention, if you want me to break out endless lists of scientists, doctors, Ph.Ds, researchers and authors that have devoted practically their whole lives to studying these issues, and who support my views on any of these topics, just say the word.
The difference in my deferment to the expertise (rather than "authority") of many of these authors and researchers whom I have cited a great many times, is that I am willing to discuss and analyze what they are actually saying, and hold it to scrutiny, not merely saying that they are the experts and therefore what they have said is true. Can you not see that difference?
>>"Anyone who advocates forced vaccinations, is a vile piece of human fucking trash,
>>and I would sooner see someone dead than allow them to stick me with any kind of
>>needle against my will."
>Please let us know in advance when you plan on doing a school shooting so we can
>notify the police. It's frightening that you live in the US where everyone has access to guns.
I only expressed the intention to defend myself should some asswipe try to violate my body against my will, which every human being has the inherent right to do. I never said anything to imply that I would engage violence against innocent people in any way, and the fact that you would jump to this despicable assumption and accusation is absolutely consistent with the level of intellectual honesty you have already demonstrated.
I will take the time to go through the links to the retarded mainstream propaganda you provided and address the points therein (to demonstrate how to refute information without resorting to fallacy), as well as provide links to the the opposing point of view, and then ask you to go through and address the relevant points in them as thoroughly as I have your links.
But I'm going to do so in another thread (when I have the time). This is getting way too far off topic.
>authority on topics they have no expertise, however:
I figured you'd say that, if you actually bothered to look it up.
>"Exception: Be very careful not to confuse "deferring to an
>authority on the issue" with the appeal to authority fallacy.
While it is true that if someone defers to greater expertise to corroborate their position (as I often do myself), or when they are in doubt, that this does not necessarily invalidate their argument. But nonetheless, any argument must stand or fall based on facts relevant to the matter, and not on the "authority" or credentials of the arguer.
The problem is, who decides what an authority is? Often scientists and other experts disagree, such as in the cases we are discussing that are quite controversial. I can provide credentialed scientists and MDs who will attest on my side of any of these debates, and that doesn't necessarily mean my argument is correct or that it should be accepted without scrutiny. At the end of the day, no claim that any particular source is *the* authority is valid nor can such a claim be used as the basis of refutation of a logical argument.
>Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council
>of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism.
Again, who decides what is "legitimate"? The criteria for legitimate skepticism vs denialism must be based on the willingness to examine evidence and the veracity (or lack thereof) for the given argument: true skepticism takes into account the facts and merits of the argument, appeal to authority (used fallaciously, ignoring relevant facts or reason) is the denial without due critical analysis.
A "council of experts" should no more be blindly accepted on "authority" any more than it should be ignored, nor any more than reasoned critique of peers should be. Any meaningful discussion or debate, especially of highly controversial subjects with experts weighing in on both sides, must dig into the facts and logic behind the position. Anyone who is defers to authority, not by way of corroboration and examination of facts and logic presented, but as a *replacement* for doing so, is not bringing anything to the discussion, but is using appeal to authority in its fallacious capacity.
>The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation,
>but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that
>we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance.
Exactly. It's a fallacy in argumentation. In other words, it can't be used as the *basis* for an argument, only to assist in the corroboration or articulation of the argument and its merits. It is fallacious when it is used as the basis of a refutation *without* bothering to address any of the actual merits and veracity of the facts and logic presented.
>There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong,
There it is. Any argument must rest on the facts and logic that support it. Any appeal or deferment to authority cannot replace the examination of facts and logic, but may only be validly be called upon when expertise is needed or useful in presenting, for example, a far more extensive collection of evidence or superior articulated reasoning to support the argument. The appeal to authority can no way be used in order to refute a logical argument, though an expert may indeed be called upon who's reasoning and facts do refute it, those reasonings and facts are still not above critical analysis or being faulty necessarily just because of credentials, reputation, nor for any other reason
>You're no immunologist, nor a physicist, nor a logician, nor a rocket scientist,
>yet you claim to have superior knowledge than thousands of people who are.
> This kind of makes you a personified fallacy.
It makes no difference what I am, and the fact that you attach relevance to it shows how poor your critical thinking ability is, clinging to arguing against me personally rather than what is being argued. I claim that the vast majority of people are ignorant and brainwashed to an extreme level, having very little clue of anything going on around or within them. It's not because I am very superior, there are so many people so much more knowledgeable in these areas than even myself. Also little to none of the ideas I discuss are unique to me, as I mention, if you want me to break out endless lists of scientists, doctors, Ph.Ds, researchers and authors that have devoted practically their whole lives to studying these issues, and who support my views on any of these topics, just say the word.
The difference in my deferment to the expertise (rather than "authority") of many of these authors and researchers whom I have cited a great many times, is that I am willing to discuss and analyze what they are actually saying, and hold it to scrutiny, not merely saying that they are the experts and therefore what they have said is true. Can you not see that difference?
>>"Anyone who advocates forced vaccinations, is a vile piece of human fucking trash,
>>and I would sooner see someone dead than allow them to stick me with any kind of
>>needle against my will."
>Please let us know in advance when you plan on doing a school shooting so we can
>notify the police. It's frightening that you live in the US where everyone has access to guns.
I only expressed the intention to defend myself should some asswipe try to violate my body against my will, which every human being has the inherent right to do. I never said anything to imply that I would engage violence against innocent people in any way, and the fact that you would jump to this despicable assumption and accusation is absolutely consistent with the level of intellectual honesty you have already demonstrated.
I will take the time to go through the links to the retarded mainstream propaganda you provided and address the points therein (to demonstrate how to refute information without resorting to fallacy), as well as provide links to the the opposing point of view, and then ask you to go through and address the relevant points in them as thoroughly as I have your links.
But I'm going to do so in another thread (when I have the time). This is getting way too far off topic.