[split] Critical Thinking Skills

[Angrboda]

It's like he understands maybe one word in five, and tries to guess the meaning based on that 20%.

[jstrodel]

Is there any person that is honest enough to admit the fact that the argument from authority is not categorically fallacious? Or do you all have a herd mentality that forces you to resist accepting facts that are as plain as day?

This is not like we are talking about something controversial, like the details of evolutionary theory. This is something that is accepted by everyone who is well educated. The argument from authority is an argument that can be fallacious. It is not categorically fallacious. There is no debating that. There is no fancy language games, this is a fact. Julius Caesar was a Roman. The argument from authority can be a valid argument, and is probably the most widely used.

This is not something that people debate, this is like 2 + 2 = 4.

[Ryantology]

It is not always fallacious. It is only fallacious when you appeal to false authority, such as a church, or a theologian.

[Autumnlicious]

It's like he understands maybe one word in five, and tries to guess the meaning based on that 20%.

So he /is/ a hidden markov chain model.

---

Stroodles, an argument solely ( AND I MEAN SOLELY) based upon appeal to authority is unsound by it's nature.

That does mean anything else though. The conclusion may still be true, of which it falls to prove using logic.

Why is this such a tumultuous topic for you?

Are you really mentally ill?

[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:

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.

[Foxaèr]

[quote='jstrodel' pid='423292' dateline='1364608832']
From wikipedia:

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.

You do realize that the formula above does not mean the conclusion is logical. A logical fallacy means that the formula, in most cases, and the conclusion are both illogical.

[jstrodel]

Stroodles, an argument solely ( AND I MEAN SOLELY) based upon appeal to authority is unsound by it's nature.

No, it isn't, it is a statistical syllogism. Why can't you accept that it is a statistical syllogism? It is a formally valid argument, the issue is whether the authority is valid, then the argument fails BASED ON THE PREMISES, not based on this nonsense psuedo-intellectual garbage you are posting about it being "unsound by its nature"

[fr0d0]

[quote='jstrodel' pid='423292' dateline='1364608832']
From wikipedia:

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.

You do realize that the formula above does not mean the conclusion is logical. A logical fallacy means that the formula and the conclusion are both illogical.

Bless

Darwin says your kind will die out

[jstrodel]

No, the formula means it is logical. A logical fallacy means that something is formally invalid, that is the conclusion does not follow from the premises. There are fallacies involving arguments from authority, but they do not make the argument from authority, per se, illogical, they make the particular application with the premises a fallacious argument.

If something is logically wrong it means it is formally invalid, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. That is different from the propositions involved being false.


Mr Infidel, do you think bacteria is alive? I personally, as a democrat and an ethical atheist believe that my personally convictions about the matter lead me to think that bacteria is not alive. I would be happy to debate you about it. What are you own personal beliefs on this? Lets exchange ideas. You think bacteria is a living organism. I personally take issue with that, I don't, as a democrat and ethical atheist believe bacteria is alive. My intellectual convictions lead me to want to also debate the point of whether 2 + 2 = 4. What do you think? I think 2 + 2 = 5.

Lets have a debate about it, shall we? This is America, people can debate about anything in America, its free speech, that means you can say whatever you want. Doesn't matter whether you know what you are talking about, so long as you care.

[Foxaèr]

My mistake, strodel. I was not thinking clearly when I responded to that.