[split] Critical Thinking Skills

[Joel]

This is a pretty catchy quote alright. The only way I see to improve on this would have been:

"It is not fallacious to appeal to popularity, people do it all the time."

Yeah, I really wish he had said that.
I'm sure he'll say something like that, anyway. Give it time.

[jstrodel]

This is a pretty catchy quote alright. The only way I see to improve on this would have been:

"It is not fallacious to appeal to popularity, people do it all the time."

The statement was not intended to be a philosophical argument proving the concept of the argument from authority, which is widely used in all professional writing, it was intended as a common sense reminder of the role that arguments from authority play at all levels of public understanding.

If someone thinks that all arguments from authority are fallacious, it is because they have never done any serious research, not because they are advancing a controversial issue.

The argument from authority is one of the central aspects of the modern world. See how many chemists can understand everything that biologist write about at the highest levels of biology. If people deny the importance of the argument from authority, it is because they are ignorant, not because they are advancing a controversial issue such as the role of the illumanati in public affairs or the merits of nuclear weapons, it is because they are just ignorant and they have never done any serious academic writing or research in their life.

I can't believe I am even writing this and no one is correcting the person. The atheist who does not have a zeal in his heart about the errors of his fellow atheists because of political motivations is a dishonest atheist.

[Tonus]

If someone thinks that all arguments from authority are fallacious, it is because they have never done any serious research, not because they are advancing a controversial issue.

If you had a quote from a person that shows that they think all arguments from authority are fallacious, you might have... something. As it is, it seems you're reaching. If the person in question agreed in a follow-up post that not all arguments from authority are fallacious, perhaps you missed it or simply decided to misrepresent what that person thinks. Some people might think that misrepresenting a written exchange is a bit dishonest.

[jstrodel]

[Joel]

When someone says "X said it, therefore it is true." they are doing it the wrong way; in every case. It doesn't matter whether the subject is true. It's not true because someone said it: it's true because it was true to begin with.
It doesn't make the person wrong; it makes the way they were trying to prove something wrong.

EDIT: You make me feel sick.

[jstrodel]

Obviously, but the argument from authority is not concerned with depicting truth or the ultimate rational behind discerning truth claims, it is concerned with a probabilistic approach to learning that is likely to be true.

For instance, if you went to a doctor, and asked them a question about something, and you didn't know the answer, they would give you an answer that you couldn't necessarily know for certain whether it was true, but you would be better off following it in most cases. The argument from authority is not always fallacious.

You aren't even going to remove that signature either, even though you know that you are wrong. That is the character that is in people. They don't care about being right or wrong, they care about being atheists.

---

Why can't you admit that you are wrong? What is so hard about that?

[Joel]

I'm not removing it because you justified a logical fallacy with a logical fallacy.
Stop asserting things about people. Be more humble

I could say the same thing about you, jstrodel. I'm not admitting I'm wrong because you haven't managed to show me that you're right and I'm wrong.
You just keep saying the same thing - which is incorrect.

[Jackalope]

You are so proud. Why can't you listen to others? You are so ideological biased.

[jstrodel]

If someone thinks that all arguments from authority are fallacious, it is because they have never done any serious research, not because they are advancing a controversial issue.

If you had a quote from a person that shows that they think all arguments from authority are fallacious, you might have... something. As it is, it seems you're reaching. If the person in question agreed in a follow-up post that not all arguments from authority are fallacious, perhaps you missed it or simply decided to misrepresent what that person thinks. Some people might think that misrepresenting a written exchange is a bit dishonest.

Look at Joels signature. He thinks, along with several other people here, that all arguments from authority are fallacious.

---

You are so proud. Why can't you listen to others? You are so ideological biased.

You didn't demonstrate that. Cthulhu did you see the stuff I posted on there on "fallacy theory"? One of those was for you. The quote was for you. You seem to think that applying fallacy labels such as 'ad populum' is trivial. It isn't (see above), it is subject to the same standards as everything else.

[Joel]

If you had a quote from a person that shows that they think all arguments from authority are fallacious, you might have... something. As it is, it seems you're reaching. If the person in question agreed in a follow-up post that not all arguments from authority are fallacious, perhaps you missed it or simply decided to misrepresent what that person thinks. Some people might think that misrepresenting a written exchange is a bit dishonest.

Look at Joels signature. He thinks, along with several other people here, that all arguments from authority are fallacious.

If you actually read what I said instead of twisting it, you'll see that's not what I said.
Using an argument from authority as a method of proof is wrong.