AF Hall of Fallacies

[Jackalope]

What authority are you appealing to in order to prove that an appeal to authority is always logically fallacious? Sorry….I had to do it.

You're only asking because you don't know. Argument from ignorance!

:p

[Rayaan]

Okay... Regardless of how accurate or inaccurate any authority is in what they say on any subject: their saying X is so does not make X so. The argument IS EQUALLY VALID (by logic) to an identical argument made by ANYONE else. That is to say: the position of any person has no bearing upon an argument they make being sound or not, valid or not...

I agree with you that, by logic, an argument is equally valid (or invalid) no matter who made that particular argument.

That being said, one aspect that comes to my mind is the issue of knowledge and trustability: It's natural for us to think that a person who has an abundant amount of knowledge and experience on a subject (such as photography, for example) is more likely to be right in regards to something that he said about the field of study that he is qualified in, although not necessarily, because that would be a fallacy.

In other words, what I'm saying is that we tend to trust them (the authorities) more than others on subject X because of their greater knowledge of that subject.

Is that unreasonable?

Suppose that you had to choose between me and Tiberius to give us the task of writing an essay on a specific question about the ethics of hacking. Or about something is related to hacking. Who would you honestly think is most likely going to be correct/reasonable in their arguments?

Or, imagine that you are experiencing some kind of an abnormal and uncomfortable feeling in your heart every now and then. Who would you go to for advice? And why?

---

Hehe, speed is of the essence?

Not always ... sometimes the slow and steady wins the race.

[Violet]

What authority are you appealing to in order to prove that an appeal to authority is always logically fallacious? Sorry….I had to do it.

Sauron. You met him?

[Rayaan]

I think that I need to send you an email now 0.o

A very angrily worded email.

Appeal to emotion.

[Violet]

I agree with you that, by logic, an argument is equally valid (or invalid) no matter who made that particular argument.

That being said, one aspect that comes to my mind is the issue of knowledge and trustability: It's natural for us to think that a person who has an abundant amount of knowledge and experience on a subject (such as photography, for example) is more likely to be right in regards to something that he said about the field of study that he is qualified in, although not necessarily, because that would be a fallacy.

Well, really... all knowledge and trust is faith, and logic really only applies as a justification for our beliefs, or as a tool by which we might test our beliefs/that which we might yet believe in.

As long as people recognize that their knowledge may one day be upset, and that their trust may one day be broken: I don't mind that they know everything and trust everyone.

But I understand what you're saying, and yes: we're usually more inclined to trust someone with knowledge and/or experience in a subject. Infact, it's so hilariously ingrained in many people that one might observe this, and then claim they have knowledge and/or experience of/with <subject matter> such that the otherwise illogically arguing individuals will give them the time of day. I really should head to college and get myself a PHD in sociology/psychology, because this shit is fascinating and surprisingly understudied

In other words, what I'm saying is that we tend to trust them (the authorities) more than others on subject X because of their greater knowledge of that subject.

Is that unreasonable?

It's not unreasonable at all, but it certainly is illogical Any pure logician must be a Solipsist, and must eliminate their trust in all things nonlogical... but that's hardly a way to live, is it?

As long as we recognize reason as a separate entity from logic, we might actually get somewhere without being unreasonable

Suppose that you had to choose between me and Tiberius to give us the task of writing an essay on a specific question about the ethics of hacking. Or about something is related to hacking. Who would you honestly think is most likely going to be correct/reasonable in their arguments?

Tiberius every time. Every time. And if he doesn't do a good job, I'll ask him to try it again before I would ask you. I still love you though!

Or, imagine that you are experiencing some kind of an abnormal and uncomfortable feeling in your heart every now and then. Who would you go to for advice? And why?

Abnormal in *my* heart?

First, I'd head to the internet, and check a few sites to get an idea of what it might be. If I think it's bad, I'd probably head straight to a lawyer and write down my will. If I think it's nothing to fret over, I'll probably head to my bed or a computer chair and rest or distract myself.

---

I think that I need to send you an email now 0.o

A very angrily worded email.

Appeal to emotion.

Would you prefer I appeal to your sex drive, appetite, or pet dog?

---

Not always ... sometimes the slow and steady wins the race.

Sure... sometimes. Unlikely though.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I'll go with "Begging the Question".

[catfish]

Am I the only person who "misunderstood" the OP and it's intentions?

[fr0d0]

Yep this'll soon be moved to area 69

[Mister Agenda]

In the spirit of the OP, and throwing out some easy ones:

1.

Discussing = 1. exchange opinions about 2. debate / atheist forum's
Taught = 1. instruct 2. educate 3. train 4. impart knowledge of / evolution theory

Is Dawkins not your teacher/Grand Master/Pope of sorts, why have some attained levels on this Dawkins scale etc etc

2.

I understand perfectly, any atheist that discusses and is taught theorys associated with atheism is according to the dictionary a person of religion. and therefore religious.

[Jackalope]

Argument from incoherence? :p