[split] Critical Thinking Skills

[jstrodel]

In which case it would be fallacious.

No. It is not categorically fallacious. It is an argument from authority. Life is not all black and white.


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?

That is not the same as the argument from authority, because there is some evidence, but you are essentially trusting them and also relying on the authority of their judgement in making the claim as well as whatever they depend on.

Practically, people depend on authority all the time. You all are just brainwashed into believing that when you see a picture of a fossil, you are doing "critical thinking" instead of what you are really doing which is trusting in the scientific establishment and making an argument from authority. It is not necessarily fallacious, but it is not different from trusting in a church, if the authority is legitimate. If you wanted to say that it was legitimate to trust in scientific research but not in a church, you would have to demonstrate the validity of scientific research over theology, which would be extremely difficult to do. I have never seen anyone seriously take on this question, because it is not an arguable point. How do you prove that nuclear weapons are necessary for the moral development of society, or napalm, but the sermon on the mount is not? Atheists approach's to this will always hinge on the epistemology of religious belief, but they will neglect the fact that reasoning is not based only epistemology, it is based on other factors such as the practical value and traditional role religion has played as well as personal experience.

Atheists are typically shrill, childish and proud when they talk about Christians reliance on authority to make judgements (trusting the church which has been around for 2000 years as the main anchor of western society is the same as believing in the tooth fairy), and are completely ignorant about their constant use of the argument from authority to justify things that they will likely never be able to see the truth of with there own eyes, as most people cannot.

[Darkstar]

In which case it would be fallacious.

No. It is not fallacious. It is an argument from authority. Life is not all black and white.

You're right, it isn't. Which is why I said "in which case" as in, in that particular instance, not in all instances.

[TaraJo]

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.

[Ryantology]

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.

I trust the photo of the fossil and not the photo of the UFO because there is more than just the photo, or testimony, to demonstrate the existence of the fossil. That is true knowledge. What you call knowledge of God is less than a baseless assumption. You can never confirm it. No matter how convincing it is to you, you can never truthfully make the claim that you have knowledge of God, even if it really is the Christian God communicating directly to you, because any number of brain malfunctions can perfectly duplicate any such experience. Can you prove that your 'experiences' were not brain malfunctions?

[Kayenneh]

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?

Are you really this deluded? It's called source criticism, look it up. If you don't understand the concept, it is futile for anyone to discuss with you.

[Justtristo]

Jstrodel please enlighten yourself with things such as the scientific method and peer review then we can talk. Those are the processes anybody making scientific discoveries use to come to their conclusions.

Once it is obvious that you have done this, then we can talk.

[Tonus]

(trusting the church which has been around for 2000 years as the main anchor of western society is the same as believing in the tooth fairy)

I would point out, once again, that jstrodel is misrepresenting comments that are still available to read. He does this because he cannot produce evidence to prove that god exists, just like no one can produce evidence that proves the tooth fairy exists. This argument has vexed him to the point that he allowed the mask to slip:

If you say that Christianity is on the same evidential level as the tooth fairy, you are a liar. And you will go to hell. And I will be happy that you burn, because you are a liar, and you know that you are lying, and you deserve it.

Misrepresenting what others have said in support of his agenda sure sounds like lying to me. Jstrodel may want to square things with his invisible magic buddy, lest he risk hellfire.

[Whateverist]

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.

What you say is true to a degree. In this day and age there is so much knowledge that specialization is required. So even an accomplished scientist in one field may have to rely on the conclusions of scientists in another field which .. as you say .. they are not in a position to fully vouchsafe directly themselves. But that is where peer review comes in. The fact that we rely on the experts in each field to provide the scrutiny we are unqualified to provide for ourselves can be seen as an appeal to authority. But even to the degree what you say is true, an appeal to the consensus of the best scientists working in a field carries more weight than an appeal to the experts in theology or literature. Someone who understands the scientific method, peer review and a little philosophy of science is not on the same epistemic footing as someone who places their confidence in the inerrancy of the bible.

[Cyberman]

Not only all that, but another vital aspect of the scientific method is consistency. If the findings pertaining to one area of science fall within a range established by another, independent, area, the likelihood of the reliability of those findings and the science behind them increases immensely. To borrow from a fairly classic example, it's notable that all new fossil discoveries thus far have been consistent with the geological data, there's been nothing more recent than it should be (in fact, the very opposite) - something that would be expected given the nature of evolution in the fossil record. In other words, a single pre-Cambrian rabbit fossil would blow our conception of evolution right out of the sky.

[downbeatplumb]

It wouldn't surprise me if you have a higher IQ than I do.

You know. neither would I.

---

meek, feminine attitude.

"meek feminine attitude" do you even know any women?