[split] Critical Thinking Skills

[Autumnlicious]

Why can't you just forget about whatever you want to prove and just admit you are wrong?

This is rich...

[jstrodel]

Give me a break, this guy is arguing reading random articles on the internet is the same as studying philosophy and he thinks that the argument from authority is essentially a fallacious argument. Go ask a doctor if he thinks the argument from authority is a fallacious argument or if he would prefer you to check every single medical fact he gives you based on your own critical thinking skills. Perhaps you could tell him his statistics were ad populum, see what he says. That is how adults reason, right? When you grow up, you don't trust other people, you think for yourself, you realize that you are smarter than everyone else and thats why you don't trust doctors, you trust yourself. If a doctor tells you a CAT scan says you have serious problems, you start arguing with him about X-Ray science. That is what adults do, argument from authority, lol.

[Joel]

reading random articles on the internet is the same as studying philosophy and he thinks that the argument from authority is essentially a fallacious argument.

Show me exactly where I said each of these things, please.

[jstrodel]

"It is not fallacious to appeal to authority, people do it all the time" - implies the argument from authority is essentially fallacious
"You don't need to read a book to understand logic"

[Joel]

Implies?
Try again. You'll find that I didn't say what you asserted I said.
Also, "You don't need to read a book to understand logic" is not the same as asserting that I said "reading random articles on the internet is the same as studying philosophy"

[Tonus]

The argument from authority is only fallacious when it is used fallaciously.

Derp.

[Autumnlicious]

The conclusion may not be wrong despite use of a fallacy, but if the reasoning at hand that points to said conclusion depends on a fallacy, then that specific argument is logically unsound and does not prove the conclusion or methodology to reach it.

As many ridiculous claims that lead to specific conclusions can be made, it is incumbant on the one making the claims to demonstrate a logically sound argument even in event of the conclusion being self evident.

Lack of belief in a claim is not the same as active negative belief against a specific claim-conclusion pairing, which the latter is an assertion that either the premise of the claim is false, the claim is illogical, the conclusion is not logically linked (ie invalid) or a combination of members of the aforementioned set.

However, even in case of defined negative belief in a claim, one can only judge an entire class of claim-conclusion pairings if they share a common basis considered logically unsound.

[downbeatplumb]

4. Atheist ethics and ideology follows from the existence of atheism and communication between atheists

My ethics and ideologies are nothing to do with my lack of belief in god.

My ethics are derived from my empathy and the culture in which I live which is secular but not "atheistic" it just has no need of a deity.

The same with my ideologies I tend to lean to the left economically. But my atheism has nothing at all to do with that.

I know you don't believe that and probably think we are all commies. (Seriously dude whats with you and communists?)

[Mister Agenda]

reading random articles on the internet is the same as studying philosophy and he thinks that the argument from authority is essentially a fallacious argument.

Show me exactly where I said each of these things, please.

In order to do that, he or she would have had to have been telling the truth in the first place.

[jstrodel]

The conclusion may not be wrong despite use of a fallacy, but if the reasoning at hand that points to said conclusion depends on a fallacy, then that specific argument is logically unsound and does not prove the conclusion or methodology to reach it.

As many ridiculous claims that lead to specific conclusions can be made, it is incumbant on the one making the claims to demonstrate a logically sound argument even in event of the conclusion being self evident.

Lack of belief in a claim is not the same as active negative belief against a specific claim-conclusion pairing, which the latter is an assertion that either the premise of the claim is false, the claim is illogical, the conclusion is not logically linked (ie invalid) or a combination of members of the aforementioned set.

However, even in case of defined negative belief in a claim, one can only judge an entire class of claim-conclusion pairings if they share a common basis considered logically unsound.

So you are seriously arguing that the argument from authority is, categorically, a fallacy?
http://www.google.com - Type in "argument from authority fallacy"