Because HE SAYS SO!!

[achilles12604]

Comments please.

I have encountered both sides failing to think for themselves. Instead they cite one or two "professionals" who happen to agree with their position and ignore the fact that there are always experts on the other side as well.

Why is it that several members on this cite do nothing but cite the opinions of other experts rather than reading what is there "Evidence", and then drawing their own conclusions about it?

[Goose]

Comments please.

Why is it that several members on this cite do nothing but cite the opinions of other experts rather than reading what is there "Evidence", and then drawing their own conclusions about it?

I'm almost certain I know the member to which you are referring. I'll PM with who I think it is. Let me know if I'm right.

It's a tell-tale sign of one of the following:

1. The member has little or no evidence for their position, so they must quote "scholars" ideas. "This scholar said this... this scholar said that... " That's an Appeal to Authority.
2. The member has never actually examined the evidence from primary texts (or other sources) to support their favorite scholars' speculations. And that's just foolish.
3. Wishful thinking.
4. All of the above.

[Goat]

Comments please.

Why is it that several members on this cite do nothing but cite the opinions of other experts rather than reading what is there "Evidence", and then drawing their own conclusions about it?

I'm almost certain I know the member to which you are referring. I'll PM with who I think it is. Let me know if I'm right.

It's a tell-tale sign of one of the following:

1. The member has little or no evidence for their position, so they must quote "scholars" ideas. "This scholar said this... this scholar said that... " That's an Appeal to Authority.
2. The member has never actually examined the evidence from primary texts (or other sources) to support their favorite scholars' speculations. And that's just foolish.
3. Wishful thinking.
4. All of the above.

Obviously you don't know what the logical fallacy of 'Appeal to authority' is. It is a logical fallacy if someone is using the say so from someone outside the field. For example, if you use an astronomer or a mathematician or a chemist or a lawyer as an expert on the field of biology (can anybody say 'discovery institute?')

However, using a biologist as an expert on biology, an geologist on the subject of geology, and a historian on the subject of history is not a logical fallacy.

[Goose]

Comments please.

Why is it that several members on this cite do nothing but cite the opinions of other experts rather than reading what is there "Evidence", and then drawing their own conclusions about it?

I'm almost certain I know the member to which you are referring. I'll PM with who I think it is. Let me know if I'm right.

It's a tell-tale sign of one of the following:

1. The member has little or no evidence for their position, so they must quote "scholars" ideas. "This scholar said this... this scholar said that... " That's an Appeal to Authority.
2. The member has never actually examined the evidence from primary texts (or other sources) to support their favorite scholars' speculations. And that's just foolish.
3. Wishful thinking.
4. All of the above.

Obviously you don't know what the logical fallacy of 'Appeal to authority' is. It is a logical fallacy if someone is using the say so from someone outside the field. For example, if you use an astronomer or a mathematician or a chemist or a lawyer as an expert on the field of biology (can anybody say 'discovery institute?')

goat almost has it, but not quite.

Appeal to Authority

An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic consisting on basing the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge, or position of the person asserting it...

There are two basic forms of appeal to authority, based on the authority being trusted. The more relevant the expertise of an authority, the more compelling the argument. Nonetheless, authority is never absolute, so all appeals to authority which assert that the authority is necessarily infallible are fallacious.

The first form of the appeal to authority is when a person presenting a position on a subject mentions some authority who also holds that position, but who is not actually an authority in that area. For instance, the statement "Arthur C. Clarke recently released a report showing it is necessary to floss three times daily" should not convince many people of anything about flossing, as Arthur C. Clarke is not a known expert on dental care. Much advertising relies on this logical fallacy in the form of endorsements and sponsorships.

The second form, citing a person who is actually an authority in the relevant field, carries more subjective, cognitive weight. Many experts have a far greater knowledge of some subject than other people, and they should be trusted. However, the possibility of a mistake remains, and does happen. In practical subjects such as car repair, an experienced mechanic who knows how to fix a certain car will be trusted to a greater degree than someone who is not an expert in car repair. There are many cases where one must rely on an expert, and one does need to have proof and evidence for what that person knows. Many trust a surgeon without ever needed to know all the details about surgery themselves.

It can also be a fallacy to use it with someone that is an "authority" in their field.

I think the point is there are people on this forum that routinely appeal to authorities AS their evidence (or for credibility), but rarely, if ever, SUPPLY evidence.

However, using a biologist as an expert on biology, an geologist on the subject of geology, and a historian on the subject of history is not a logical fallacy.

Apparently, it can be. Can you ensure the "authority" is correct? Or do you ASSUME they are correct merely because they are an "authority"?


goat, do you know what a Red Herring is?

[Goat]

Comments please.

Why is it that several members on this cite do nothing but cite the opinions of other experts rather than reading what is there "Evidence", and then drawing their own conclusions about it?

I'm almost certain I know the member to which you are referring. I'll PM with who I think it is. Let me know if I'm right.

It's a tell-tale sign of one of the following:

1. The member has little or no evidence for their position, so they must quote "scholars" ideas. "This scholar said this... this scholar said that... " That's an Appeal to Authority.
2. The member has never actually examined the evidence from primary texts (or other sources) to support their favorite scholars' speculations. And that's just foolish.
3. Wishful thinking.
4. All of the above.

Obviously you don't know what the logical fallacy of 'Appeal to authority' is. It is a logical fallacy if someone is using the say so from someone outside the field. For example, if you use an astronomer or a mathematician or a chemist or a lawyer as an expert on the field of biology (can anybody say 'discovery institute?')

goat almost has it, but not quite.

Appeal to Authority

An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic consisting on basing the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge, or position of the person asserting it...

There are two basic forms of appeal to authority, based on the authority being trusted. The more relevant the expertise of an authority, the more compelling the argument. Nonetheless, authority is never absolute, so all appeals to authority which assert that the authority is necessarily infallible are fallacious.

The first form of the appeal to authority is when a person presenting a position on a subject mentions some authority who also holds that position, but who is not actually an authority in that area. For instance, the statement "Arthur C. Clarke recently released a report showing it is necessary to floss three times daily" should not convince many people of anything about flossing, as Arthur C. Clarke is not a known expert on dental care. Much advertising relies on this logical fallacy in the form of endorsements and sponsorships.

The second form, citing a person who is actually an authority in the relevant field, carries more subjective, cognitive weight. Many experts have a far greater knowledge of some subject than other people, and they should be trusted. However, the possibility of a mistake remains, and does happen. In practical subjects such as car repair, an experienced mechanic who knows how to fix a certain car will be trusted to a greater degree than someone who is not an expert in car repair. There are many cases where one must rely on an expert, and one does need to have proof and evidence for what that person knows. Many trust a surgeon without ever needed to know all the details about surgery themselves.

It can also be a fallacy to use it with someone that is an "authority" in their field.

I think the point is there are people on this forum that routinely appeal to authorities AS their evidence (or for credibility), but rarely, if ever, SUPPLY evidence.

However, using a biologist as an expert on biology, an geologist on the subject of geology, and a historian on the subject of history is not a logical fallacy.

Apparently, it can be. Can you ensure the "authority" is correct? Or do you ASSUME they are correct merely because they are an "authority"?


goat, do you know what a Red Herring is?

Yes, it is you who are using it by declaring using the reference of an expert to be a logical fallacy. You are incorrect about that.

Thank you for demonstrating what a 'red herring is', but trying to divert the issue.

Of course, citing an expert is not an absolute. However, there is always a difference of opinion among most experts about details. At which point, you examine exactly what is said, and compare.

So, what you did is do a red herring. It is only a logical fallacy if there is no concept that there can be opposing opinions.

[Goose]

Yes, it is you who are using it by declaring using the reference of an expert to be a logical fallacy. You are incorrect about that.

If you say so. The source I cited disagrees with you. Take it up with them.

Thank you for demonstrating what a 'red herring is', but trying to divert the issue.

goat, this IS the issue:

Why is it that several members on this cite do nothing but cite the opinions of other experts rather than reading what is there "Evidence", and then drawing their own conclusions about it?

I responded to achilles with comments as requested by him. You responded to what you perceived is my misuse of an Appeal to Authority. Which one of us is taking this thread off topic?

Of course, citing an expert is not an absolute. However, there is always a difference of opinion among most experts about details. At which point, you examine exactly what is said, and compare.

So, what you did is do a red herring. It is only a logical fallacy if there is no concept that there can be opposing opinions.

You've contradicted your own assertion that it's not a fallacy. If there are "always a difference of opinion among most experts about details." but "It is only a logical fallacy if there is no concept that there can be opposing opinions." Then it must be fallacy according to your logic.

[Beto]

Appeal to authority simply means an attempt to validate an argument, not by its own merits, but by someone's alledged level of authority on the field. The entire world can agree in the recognition of a single man as the greatest authority in a given field... his arguments are not true just because they're his. Plain and simple.

[HughDP]

Comments please.

I have encountered both sides failing to think for themselves. Instead they cite one or two "professionals" who happen to agree with their position and ignore the fact that there are always experts on the other side as well.

Why is it that several members on this cite do nothing but cite the opinions of other experts rather than reading what is there "Evidence", and then drawing their own conclusions about it?

Quite so. My arguments are correct because I say so!

[Beto]

The problem, as I see it, is that experts on one side are expected to provide evidence for their claims (by both sides), while on the other, evidence is not relevant, as matters of "faith" are inherently subjective. In these terms, how can the opinions of both sides be weighed against each other?

[achilles12604]

I would like to throw out a name and see what opinions people have about him.

Steve Mason states: "the passage does not fit well with its context in Antiquities 18. . . Josephus is speaking of upheavals, but there is no upheaval here. He is pointing out the folly of Jewish rebels, governors, and troublemakers in general

Goat has cited this particular passage at least 2 times in the last 2 pages of our TF debate.

I find Mr. Mason's, opinions about the TF rather unflattering, and slightly incorrect.

Can anyone tell me why a passage about a trouble maker would not fit into a chapter about upheavals and troublemakers?

Now can anyone tell me what upheavals were mentioned in paragraph 4?

I shall research this Mr. Mason to see if he does indeed skew his facts as much as I think he does.