[split] Critical Thinking Skills

[Darkstar]

But you are wrong. Professional scientists and researchers use arguments from authority all the time. The method of reasoning isn't false, it isn't intended to be perfect. It can be fallacious.

Of what sort? If I say "evolution is true because Dawkins says so, and he's an evolutionary biologist so he must be right" I think that could still be considered fallacious.

Now, if I say "Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist, so he is knowledgeable on this topic, and here's the evidence for evolution he has collected" that would not be the same, and would be much for legitimate of an argument.

[Autumnlicious]

Another lie shabbily masked as a discussion point.

Good going Stroodles.

At this rate you'll be on everyone's ignore list.

[jstrodel]

No Darkstar, you are wrong. When someone shows you evidence that they have collected, really they are making an argument from authority, unless you see the original form the evidence takes in scientific journals and know exactly how to deal with it.

If you see an image of a fossil, that is not evidence. You must actually understand all the issues surrounding fossils before you have a direct experience of the things they are supposed to tell you about.

Now, it may be reasonable to trust that the people who are digging up fossils combined with the facts they present line up to tell a story. But they are establishing their credibility, and essentially arguing from their authority, unless you are reading the really technical stuff.

Most people will never experience real science in their life, their knowledge of science comes from appealing to scientific figures, whether it is directly an argument from there authority or some amount of information supporting the theories they support is gained, people do not really have the ability to do that much critical thinking without doing a ton of work.

[Darkstar]

Moros I see you are jumping in to claim that modern science has created a way to remove the argument from authority.

Another lie shabbily masked as a discussion point.

Good going Stroodles.

At this rate you'll be on everyone's ignore list.

I must need my prescription changed, I can't see it. Wait, is it invisible?

[Autumnlicious]

Stroodles, with you, I don't even know where to begin.

We may use the same terms, but yours seemingly looks like the result of an annoying Hidden Markov heuristic.

[jstrodel]

He ignored the original point completely. Look at Joel's signature. Whatever.


Moros do you think that the argument from authority is used in the modern world legitimately?

[Joel]

My signature still stands. In your above post, you said so much garbage that just makes me wonder if you understand anything.

[jstrodel]

And you could have written another two sentences to refute it, but instead you made a naked assertion. Gee whiz, look at that.

[Joel]

And you could have written another two sentences to refute it, but instead you made a naked assertion. Gee whiz, look at that.

What did I assert?

If you see an image of a fossil, that is not evidence.

So, photographs of people don't count as evidence of the people. Alright, goodbye photo-ID.
I guess I can also conclude that Hitler never existed, as I can't see him first-hand, and all we have are pictures.

When someone shows you evidence that they have collected, really they are making an argument from authority,

No, they aren't. They're showing you evidence. Not making an argument from authority.

[Darkstar]

No Darkstar, you are wrong. When someone shows you evidence that they have collected, really they are making an argument from authority, unless you see the original form the evidence takes in scientific journals and know exactly how to deal with it.

I think that is a bit of a stretch. An argument from authority (as i the logical fallacy) would be "take my word for this, I know what I'm doing" whether or not they do. I suppose that you are technically right in that case, so perhaps we should move onto the more pertinent question: Is science authoritative?

Now, it may be reasonable to trust that the people who are digging up fossils combined with the facts they present line up to tell a story. But they are establishing their credibility, and essentially arguing from their authority, unless you are reading the really technical stuff.

That may be somewhat true, but again, why isn't science authoritative? (Unless this is not what you are arguing)
Also, that doesn't apply to everything. I can understand the theory of evolution and the evidence for it without reading really technical papers. But if you presume it could all be based on false reasoning (i.e. the genetics, fossil record as evidence, etc.)

Remember, scientists must first go through peer review, and any sense of authority would be useless against other scientists.

Most people will never experience real science in their life

Two words: chemistry lab.

, their knowledge of science comes from appealing to scientific figures, whether it is directly an argument from there authority

In which case it would be fallacious.

or some amount of information supporting the theories they support is gained

And if the evidence is bad, it is the duty of other scientists to call them out on it.