atheism, philosophy and emotional immaturity

[Ryantology]

He's telling you what I've told you previously, strodes: an argument from authority only works if both sides recognize the authority. When you argue from God's authority, you are arguing from an authority which atheists regard as fictional.

[Silver]

Oh, are we honestly going to have the proper way to obtain knowledge argument now? The American education system is not designed to educate the average person so much as it is about ensuring those people fill the required work force slots available after graduation while piling further debt onto society. Besides that, not everyone performs to their best in a school environment. Some very intelligent people do not finish high school and they make great contributions to society.

[Darkstar]

You guys are dumb. I'm not going to argue about this anymore. An argument from authority is not categorically fallacious

Yeah, you tell those strawmen!
*searches the head of the strawman jstrodel built*
Nope, no brain in there.

Argument from Authority is a fallacious argument under one of two conditions:

cat·e·gor·i·cal (kt-gôr-kl, -gr-) also cat·e·gor·ic (-k)
adj.
1. Being without exception or qualification; absolute.

[DeistPaladin]

You guys are dumb. I'm not going to argue about this anymore. An argument from authority is not categorically fallacious, anyone who thinks it is is just ignorant of basic academic knowledge and is ignorant of the probabilistic nature of science and learning. If you think an argument from authority is categorically fallacious, it is because you learned how to think from reading a website, not from a real university.

OK, I'll try to go slower...

Argument from Authority, under the two conditions I cited, is fallacious not because a website on logical fallacies says so. This would be an example of the second condition I cited.

The reason the argument is fallacious in the first condition is an expert in one field, even a very smart expert, is not necessarily knowledgeable of other fields. Neither does the expertise in one field necessarily translate to another. For example, Newton, though a genius in matters of physics, isn't necessarily qualified in the field of philosophy or theology.

In fact, Sir Issac Newton, just to expand on the example, had a number of nutty ideas about alchemy. Today, we realize that alchemy is crap. However, just because Newton believed in it doesn't mean we reconsider the value of the study of alchemy. Similarly, just because Newton believe in nutty things like alchemy doesn't mean he's discredited in his contributions on physics (see fallacy "Poisoning the Well").

My explanation as to why the Argument from Authority in the second example should be sufficient. "Because I said so" is never a good proof of anything. Even experts need to provide evidence to substantiate their claims.

Both conditions underscore how science evaluates evidence. Science doesn't care about reputations or past contributions. Neither does science dismiss evidence simply because the presenter is discredited from advocating other crackpot ideas. Science evaluates the evidence itself.

That's why Argument from Authority is a fallacy under either or both of the two conditions I stipulated.

[jstrodel]

The fact that some arguments from authority are (obviously) fallacious, does not make the argument from authority categorically fallacious.

[thesummerqueen]

And we're back at one.

[Jackalope]

The fact that some arguments from authority are (obviously) fallacious, does not make the argument from authority categorically fallacious.

No shit, Sherlock. Most of us have said that all along.

[jstrodel]

Why all the words then? Why don't you correct the people that are 18 years old and believe that logic proves that God doesn't exist, using faulty arguments? Because you don't care if they are faulty, and you don't care if they are nihilists, because you don't care about them.

[Darkstar]

Why all the words then? Why don't you correct the people that are 18 years old and believe that logic proves that God doesn't exist, using faulty arguments? Because you don't care if they are faulty, and you don't care if they are nihilists, because you don't care about them.

I didn't know it was possible to put so many strawmen and loaded questions into one paragraph. That takes real talent.

[LastPoet]

Why all the words then? Why don't you correct the people that are 18 years old and believe that logic proves that God doesn't exist, using faulty arguments? Because you don't care if they are faulty, and you don't care if they are nihilists, because you don't care about them.

I will care about silly beliefs when you or anyone of your dimwitted ilk can provide decent evidence for your sky daddy. Untill then I stand amused by all the attributes you throw at others that don't have your faithfull ignorance.