RE: [split] Critical Thinking Skills
March 29, 2013 at 10:00 pm
(This post was last modified: March 29, 2013 at 10:03 pm by jstrodel.)
No, it is a statistical syllogism. It may be unsound to use the argument from authority exclusively, but the question was whether the argument from authority is intrinsically fallacious .
It is not a shot in the dark, it is a statistical syllogism. I am angry because the way people talk about it, they are clearly ignorant and it is definitely related to concerns of religious people.
95 percent of heart surgeon say that a sharp scaple should be used during heart surgery.
This is not a fallacy or unsound reasoning, it is a statistical syllogism. This is pure ignorancee. The argument from authority can be misused, but it is not fallacious.
1. (A) Most of what heart surgeons (S) say about the details of heart surgery is correct
2. (A) Heart surgeons say use a (P) sharp scalpel when in heart surgery, which (S) is relating to the details of heart surgery
3. A sharp scalpel should be used during heart surgery (P).
From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
This is not a debate, like whether we should have gun control laws or something like that. This is basic logic. The argument from authority is not inherently fallacious, or inherently unsound, it is a formally valid statistical syllogism which can be used improperly.
There are a lot of psuedo-intellectuals on this message board, people who have never taken a logic class (I got an A, which I could have gotten a chance to do modal logic) but will sit here and try and debate you about basic stuff. In science, they would kill you if you tried to argue that a bacteria was not a living organism, but this is what is happening here.
A bunch of psuedo-intellectuals.
It is not a shot in the dark, it is a statistical syllogism. I am angry because the way people talk about it, they are clearly ignorant and it is definitely related to concerns of religious people.
95 percent of heart surgeon say that a sharp scaple should be used during heart surgery.
This is not a fallacy or unsound reasoning, it is a statistical syllogism. This is pure ignorancee. The argument from authority can be misused, but it is not fallacious.
1. (A) Most of what heart surgeons (S) say about the details of heart surgery is correct
2. (A) Heart surgeons say use a (P) sharp scalpel when in heart surgery, which (S) is relating to the details of heart surgery
3. A sharp scalpel should be used during heart surgery (P).
From wikipedia:
Quote: Most of what authority A has to say on subject matter S is correct.
A says P about subject matter S.
Therefore, P is correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
This is not a debate, like whether we should have gun control laws or something like that. This is basic logic. The argument from authority is not inherently fallacious, or inherently unsound, it is a formally valid statistical syllogism which can be used improperly.
There are a lot of psuedo-intellectuals on this message board, people who have never taken a logic class (I got an A, which I could have gotten a chance to do modal logic) but will sit here and try and debate you about basic stuff. In science, they would kill you if you tried to argue that a bacteria was not a living organism, but this is what is happening here.
A bunch of psuedo-intellectuals.
