RE: [split] Critical Thinking Skills
March 26, 2013 at 3:55 pm
(This post was last modified: March 26, 2013 at 4:02 pm by jstrodel.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
