(March 25, 2013 at 10:03 pm)jstrodel Wrote: He ignored the original point completely. Look at Joel's signature. Whatever.

Just to spell it out, in that quote, your justification for the argument not being fallacious was argument ad populum. The juxtaposition makes it cute.

It might cause less confusion if people always said 'fallacy of appeal to inappropriate authority' instead of shortening it for convenience. Many of us take the 'inappropriate' as given, but not everyone is aware of it.

obviously an argument from authority is not always true. it is not ad populum to appeal to a community that likely has justification for their beliefs, that is an argument from authority made stronger by the number of people.


ad populum is when the population is used inappropriately. the same for an argument from authority.

it is not always fallacious to appeal to how many believe a certain claim, just as it is not always fallacious to appeal to% the authority of the people making the claim. the argument becomes fallacious when the number or the nature of the authority is irrelevant to whether a statement is true, for instance "75% of voters oppose gun control" would be ad populum, because there is no reason why 75% of voters would necessarily know whether gun control was the correct position. In constrast, the statement 75% of gun manufacters believe that a special lock on assault weapons would prevent them from being converted to automatic weapons, would NOT be ad populum, because the number of people who believe that obviously directly relates to whether the statement is true - if 75% of gun manufacturers who on a daily basis work with the technical details of how guns work, it is a valid argument from authority that is strenthened by the number of independent experts who agree (although perhaps financial pressures involving gun sales bias the result).

This is all common sense. Arguments from authority are not always fallacious and neither are appealing to the number of people who believe something. This is common sense.

---

(March 25, 2013 at 11:47 pm)TaraJo Wrote: Jstrodel, do you understand what a reputation is? Do you understand the weight behind having your views peer reviewed? Do you know the difference between a credible "authority" and a not so credible authority?

Yes, I believe the findings I get from scientists and researchers as long as those findings are put up for peer review to be criticized and as long as they stand up to criticism. That's the first, biggest difference between theists or their pseudo-scientific theories and legitimate scientific theories. Religious groups fall apart under the slightest questioning or criticism.

I'd like to be able to do some of these scientific tests myself but, sadly, I don't have access to the lab materials or knowledge needed. I can still find out quite a bit about them, though, even without actually doing the research myself. Sometimes I can watch the research being done, which pretty much verifies things for me. Sometimes the details on them aren't given for safety reasons; for example, we don't always get all the details on nuclear research or testing on dangerous baceria or viruses. Under that circumstance, I'd rather trust authorities than give unstable people easy access to information that can help them kill millions. Sometimes, I'll admit, stuff gets to be too advanced for me to really follow and I can't follow it even if I try. And that should be understandable, since it can be hard to follow topics like string theory or discussions on dark energy or anti matter.

But the bottom line remains the same: there's a HUGE difference between credible 'authorities' and 'authorities' that aren't credible. There's a huge difference between bad research and research that can be repeated and verified and even falsified and is published for peer review. If you don't understand that, you don't understand what critical thinking is.

This is true, but you didn't argue for the impossible proposition that "arguments from authority are only valid when they refer to people in scientific circumstances". It is true that science provides methods of dealing with truth claims that are more rigorous than other methods. What is not true is that science is the only way to do this. Before the modern scientific approach, there were other approaches, for instance, the philosophical methods of the Greeks that are still widely influential today.

Science as it is understood in the modern period is a relatively recent improvement on other ways that people have handled truth claims, it is true that it has some advantages, but it is not the only valid kind of authority that exists.

---

(March 26, 2013 at 12:39 am)Ryantology Wrote:

Quote:You guys don't know what you are talking about. A picture of a fossil is not the same as the journals and labs and tests that verify the object is what it says it is. There are plenty of pictures floating around about UFO's, do you believe them because of a picture?

It is not entirely accurate to suggest that we are appealing to a single authority. We are appealing to a great many authorities which have independently, and without an agenda, reached similar conclusions from examination of the same evidence, with the coda that we make no pretenses about them being inerrant. I feel confident in answers that follow questions. I distrust answers which precede questions, when they are right, it is only by coincidence.

You should post this on the thread about whether the greater number of expert testimonies increases the authority of the claim. Cluthulu Dreaming will probably give you a stern rebuke for the "ad populum" fallacy (lol), and refuse to ground his criticisms in anything other than a "common sense" understanding of ad populum.

(March 26, 2013 at 3:55 pm)jstrodel Wrote: it is not always fallacious to appeal to how many believe a certain claim, just as it is not always fallacious to appeal to% the authority of the people making the claim. the argument becomes fallacious when the number or the nature of the authority is irrelevant to whether a statement is true, for instance "75% of voters oppose gun control" would be ad populum, because there is no reason why 75% of voters would necessarily know whether gun control was the correct position. In constrast, the statement 75% of gun manufacters believe that a special lock on assault weapons would prevent them from being converted to automatic weapons, would NOT be ad populum, because the number of people who believe that obviously directly relates to whether the statement is true - if 75% of gun manufacturers who on a daily basis work with the technical details of how guns work, it is a valid argument from authority that is strenthened by the number of independent experts who agree (although perhaps financial pressures involving gun sales bias the result).

...oh! I was about to call you out on that, but it seems like you took into account the possible bias in your last sentence.

(March 26, 2013 at 3:55 pm)jstrodel Wrote: This is all common sense. Arguments from authority are not always fallacious and neither are appealing to the number of people who believe something. This is common sense.

Why do you think it is that Christians are an authority by which one can determine the existence of god? Can you think of anything that could bias their beliefs? Put another way, Bobby Henderson is an authority on the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but does that make the Flying Spaghetti Monster real?

wikipedia Wrote:adherents state that Pastafarianism is a genuine religion

If you say that an argument is not fallacious because everyone uses it, that's ad populum. Are you able to accept that and move on?

(March 26, 2013 at 4:04 pm)jstrodel Wrote: OMG RETARDS DON'T KNOW CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS DON'T U KNOW THAT WHEN U USE SOURCE CRITISIMS YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THINGS YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE AUTHORITY YOU RETARD LOOK

Errr. damn.

U R DELUDED

This is your best comeback?

(March 26, 2013 at 4:04 pm)jstrodel Wrote:

(March 26, 2013 at 4:03 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: If you say that an argument is not fallacious because everyone uses it, that's ad populum. Are you able to accept that and move on?

Yes, but I never said that. I wouldn't make that claim.

Are you sure about that?

(March 26, 2013 at 4:35 pm)Kayenneh Wrote:

(March 26, 2013 at 4:04 pm)jstrodel Wrote: OMG RETARDS DON'T KNOW CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS DON'T U KNOW THAT WHEN U USE SOURCE CRITISIMS YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THINGS YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE AUTHORITY YOU RETARD LOOK

Errr. damn.

U R DELUDED

This is your best comeback?

You didn't see what I posted? Obviously you didn't even read the article you posted. It supports my claim that critical thinking skills rely on something similar to the argument from authority. Did you notice terms like "trustworthiness". You are posting things that support my claim.

You also called me deluded, which shows me atheists have no problem employing psychological manipulation tactics to advance their beliefs. Delusion is a medical term. You post a link to something that supports what I said, and then you called me deluded. What do you expect?

When I see people misuse fallacies and ignore the context of what people right, though they may use terms like logic and things like this, I group them together with the high school script kiddies who type in all caps. That is what you did. You posted a document that supported my claim and attempt to arguing a position that helped me by using medical terminology to attribute a medical diagnosis of delusion.

Your style is reminiscent of the tactics of the soviet union.

---

(March 26, 2013 at 4:37 pm)Joel Wrote:

(March 26, 2013 at 4:04 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Yes, but I never said that. I wouldn't make that claim.

Are you sure about that?

Joel what are your top 5 favorite non-fiction books that you have read that relate to this discussion? Let me see what they are.

Cmon Joel, what are you top 5 favorite books on logic. Who are your favorite logicians. Lets here em Joel. Cough em up. What do you like about them?

I can't believe this conversation has gone on for 13 pages. It's so incredibly boring.

Why must I have read a book?
Why don't you just answer the question instead of being a condescending butthole.