AF Hall of Fallacies

[CapnAwesome]

More correctly, depending on the reasoning of said authority. Authorities with quality credentials can still have lousy reasoning.

That’s not always the case, for example if the argument is concerning the verdict in a trial and someone makes an appeal to the jury's ruling, that’s not a fallacious appeal to authority because the jury has the proper authority or credentials to be the one determining the verdict of the trial.

So I guess O.J. Simpson didn't kill his wife because the jury said so? Truth is truth, not a highly qualified opinion. No matter how much authority or credentials someone has it doesn't make them a standard bearer for truth.

[Jackalope]

That’s not always the case, for example if the argument is concerning the verdict in a trial and someone makes an appeal to the jury's ruling, that’s not a fallacious appeal to authority because the jury has the proper authority or credentials to be the one determining the verdict of the trial.

So I guess O.J. Simpson didn't kill his wife because the jury said so? Truth is truth, not a highly qualified opinion. No matter how much authority or credentials someone has it doesn't make them a standard bearer for truth.

No, it is true that O.J. was found not guilty because the jury said so. "Not guilty" in U.S. jurisprudence does not equal "did not kill his wife". It simply means that the jury acquitted because the prosecutor failed to bring a case that compelled the jury.

Nonetheless, the jury is the ultimate arbiter of the verdict in the case.

Wow, seriously, did I just defend Statler? Time to go a lottery ticket, folks.

[CapnAwesome]

No, it is true that O.J. was found not guilty because the jury said so. "Not guilty" in U.S. jurisprudence does not equal "did not kill his wife". It simply means that the jury acquitted because the prosecutor failed to bring a case that compelled the jury.

Nonetheless, the jury is the ultimate arbiter of the verdict in the case.

Wow, seriously, did I just defend Statler? Time to go a lottery ticket, folks.

But that doesn't mean that the argument from authority has any value when determining truth, it just means that the U.S. Judicial system is flawed and a group of 12 people can be duped. In fact this itself is a logical fallacy Argumentum ad populum. Simply because other people are using the same fallacy doesn't mean it has any validity when it comes to truth.

[Jackalope]

No, it is true that O.J. was found not guilty because the jury said so. "Not guilty" in U.S. jurisprudence does not equal "did not kill his wife". It simply means that the jury acquitted because the prosecutor failed to bring a case that compelled the jury.

Nonetheless, the jury is the ultimate arbiter of the verdict in the case.

Wow, seriously, did I just defend Statler? Time to go a lottery ticket, folks.

But that doesn't mean that the argument from authority has any value when determining truth, it just means that the U.S. Judicial system is flawed and a group of 12 people can be duped. In fact this itself is a logical fallacy Argumentum ad populum. Simply because other people are using the same fallacy doesn't mean it has any validity when it comes to truth.

Sure, no argument - but the subject of that particular part of the discussion was the jury's verdict, not whether it represented truth. The point was that the jury was certainly an appropriate authority to consult as to what the jury's verdict is. That's it. You're reading way more meaning into what was said than what was there.

[CapnAwesome]

Sure, no argument - but the subject of that particular part of the discussion was the jury's verdict, not whether it represented truth. The point was that the jury was certainly an appropriate authority to consult as to what the jury's verdict is. That's it. You're reading way more meaning into what was said than what was there.

Yeah probably, I do that a lot. *high five* *group hug*

[Violet]

Sorry, your verbose explanations are starting to make this a little too complicated for me to understand you now.

I'll pass on that.

Really...? It's quite simple: if reasoning is only possible by using logic... reasoning cannot be illogical.

Essentially: you've removed emotional cause/justification/explanation from being reasoning, you've removed fake logic as cause/justification/explanation from being reasoning. That is to say: unless it uses logic (correctly), it cannot be considered as a cause, a justification, or an explanation for anything, and still be declared 'reasoning'.

Me, I just don't see how activity done (to come up with a cause/justification/explanation for ____) can be superseded by <with what> and the activity declared no longer the activity unless it includes <what>.

Does that make more sense to you? The reason they are verbose is that I'm attempting to explain, self-evidence wasn't working for you before... so I changed tactic. Bolding the next bit for the problem with only logic being reason: What is an emotionally identified cause/justification/explanation if it is not a reason? It's the person's rationale by traditional observation, it's their argument, it's their defense, their vindication, their excuse, their pretext... is not reason simply the observation of "BECAUSE"? The house caught fire because of <this>... <--- that is a reason, as I have been understanding it until now. The reason blueberries killed that man is they are poisonous, and he ate a lot of them. Doesn't have to be sound, doesn't even have to be valid (people leave their reasons hanging and unsupported plenty... what I've seen).

Reason as the power of a mind to think, to understand, and to form judgements... why would anyone need to add "by logic" to this? Has not the power of a mind to perceive cause, to explain, to judge: are not these the identical process that one would engage in WITHOUT being amended by 'by logic'?

Sure looks like the process is identical whether it be by chicken, by emotion, by horrific mutation, or by logic, I would appreciate if you could demonstrate to me the difference in the process by appending <by logic>, as somehow distinct from the process by appending <by emotion> or <by trust> or <by experience>. Would you do so, for me... lest I describe my contention with this by being extraordinarily more verbose than you've ever seen?

I don't believe that is the actual reason.

I am open about my prejudices, but as far as my cause to believe goes: it's far from the most prominent reason. If that's what you refer to by 'actual', then by all means: you're correct

Two senses of the word (three if you're Mexican), I'm being deliberately pedantic with you, but you know that I know what you mean here. First bit: I know what you mean, and think that it isn't logical... also that it's ignorant of process, which is 'really' my concern with the matter

So, you believe that TIberius would do a better job in the essay than me.

Now, what exactly makes you believe that one being sexier than me should imply that he or she would write a better essay than me as well? What is the connection?

Did I say it was a logical reason? I did not... but it certainly is an assumed reason that a person who bathes daily <racism, arabs ain't sexy because they are always dirty*> will be a more 'cultured' individual in The West, where cleanliness is a major factor of whether or not someone gives you the time of day, and also affects how they perceive your argument. It isn't logical, but it happens. Sometimes women get hired because the person's opinion on them is better because they're pretty(er than a man also applying, say: they fancy her), sometimes women do not get hired because the person's opinion on them is that they have to demonstrate that they're better than an equally talented man <sexist economical reasons, and the like... not logical, but reasoning of the employer nonetheless>.

*Not my actual opinion, but nothing about it is unreasoned: I've explained why arabs aren't sexy ('cause you dirty).

And, again, please explain how one's superior sexiness suggest to you that he or she is more likely to be considered correct.

It isn't always that way, but usually it is. Sometimes someone thinks you're just disgusting because you keep things *too* clean... you look outright foppish, like you're a dandy. It's really very subjective.

The having of abs in a guy doesn't translate to shit in bed, but I'm more likely to sleep with him anyway. If there are two strangers in an argument equally bad on both sides, and one is good looking, I'm more likely to take the side of the good looking one than I am the shitfaced drunk. Most likely to wipe out both of their arguments instead, of course.

Of course, man. Everyone is wrong about everything.

And right about everything too. There are not words to explain

... You'll notice that's blank? Point is as demonstrated.

"In their field" ... Well, duh. That's what I already had in my mind when I said that you have a greater confidence in authorities.

Thanks for confirming my point once again.

Unless your point is that 'people do things for illogical reasons', you probably shouldn't be saying that I'm confirming your point.

It's so rare that I get a chance to teach

---

So I guess O.J. Simpson didn't kill his wife because the jury said so? Truth is truth, not a highly qualified opinion. No matter how much authority or credentials someone has it doesn't make them a standard bearer for truth.

Well, he didn't. Truth's truth, mang.

---

I feel like I should amend my post with an 'ergo: reasoning is unrelated to cause, justification, or explanation'... but surely I don't have to spell EVERYTHING out?

---

I'd better, just in case:

E
V
E
R
T
A
G
B
V
S

That's spells everything grammatical ... not this is! bounce syntax everywhere gone.

[Statler Waldorf]

The appeal to authority doesn't really work at any level when trying to establish absolute truth. I could just as easily lie about the ethics of hacking as Rayaan could do some good research and write an accurate essay on the subject.

Appeal to authority seems to me to be a fallacy when you are trying to make absolute truth claims, but if all you are trying to do is establish trust in a claim, then it's fine. Saying "Tiberius is a hacker so what he says about hacking is true" is a clear fallacy. Saying "Tiberius is a hacker so he likely knows more about hacking than Rayaan" isn't.

That's true as long as your authority is fallible. If you have an infallible authority then you can appeal to it all day long.

[Minimalist]

And, of course, you think your phony "god" and his iron age gibberish constitutes exactly that sort of infallible authority, huh?

So typical of the breed.

[Statler Waldorf]

So I guess O.J. Simpson didn't kill his wife because the jury said so? Truth is truth, not a highly qualified opinion. No matter how much authority or credentials someone has it doesn't make them a standard bearer for truth.

That’s clearly not what I said, so that’s a straw man argument. I said if the topic of the argument was what the jury verdict was (not whether O.J. really killed his wife or not) then an appeal to the Jury is not fallacious. If you and I were arguing whether the Jury found O.J. guilty or not guilty, and I produced the Jury verdict transcript, I just made a logically valid appeal to authority.

Wow, seriously, did I just defend Statler? Time to go a lottery ticket, folks.

Don’t worry, what happens in the AF Hall of Fallacies stays in the AF Hall of Fallacies.

And, of course, you think your phony "god" and his iron age gibberish constitutes exactly that sort of infallible authority, huh?

That’s the fallacy of the question-begging epithet. To Christians it's not "Iron Age gibberish." You're not supposed to use biased language in your question. But yes, Christians believe scripture is an infallible authority.

[Whateverist]

But yes, Christians believe scripture is an infallible authority.

Whether or not the bible is an infallible authority, can you think of any other instances of infallible authorities? I'm just wondering if the category is meaningful apart from the claims attributed to holy books.

Even if someone is in prime position to have seen an event, can we be sure there is no alternative event which could have given rise to what was seen? For that matter, can we be sure that someone in the position to provide authoritative witness to an event will have no motive to give false witness?

I can make sense of someone being an expert witness, who can speak with a great deal of knowledge on a subject. But "infallible"? I don't see how you can be sure of that. Of course I understand that you don't really care how the bible is able to provide infallibly authoritative answers. You're just very certain that it does. However your certainty doesn't assure me that the category "infallible authority" is not in fact an empty set as I suspect.