Hawking: God not necessary

[Hellbound]

I thought that Science is not supposed to have any authority. Isn't "Argument from Authority" a logical fallacy?

No.

An argument from authority is a perfectly valid logical argument, and I get tired of the wanna-be logicians who constantly perpetuate the myth that it's a fallacy.

The actual fallacy is argument from false authority. THe opinion of a known, respected, and accomplished physicist is perfectly valid as support for an argument regarding physics...using that same persons opinion to support an argument on economics, or religion, would be argument from false authority, and a fallacy.

The ignorant, who continue to refuse to accept any authority as if it we all somehow tainted, are just the ones too lazy to actually counter the arguments.

In this particular case (ignoring the fact that there is evidence leading to Hawking's statement out there), we are being perfectly reasonable in accepting the statements of a cosmologist in regards to cosmology. Now, if there is controversy within the field, if it turns out that this is not an accepted viewpoint among cosmologists, then the argument is defeated...but it's not fallacious.

 

[sphenisc]

I thought that Science is not supposed to have any authority. Isn't "Argument from Authority" a logical fallacy?

Yes it is. It is, however, also a useful guide to what is likely to be true for those of us without the mental ability to fully interpret the evidential basis from which the authority draws their conclusions.

 

[Towlie]

I thought that Science is not supposed to have any authority. Isn't "Argument from Authority" a logical fallacy?

Since you can't prove that, the only way to establish that it is would be to argue from authority. Are you arguing from authority that arguing from authority is a fallacy?

 

[Hellbound]

Just to clarify a bit:

Argument from authority is ALWAYS wrong when the authority is false (i.e.-not a recognized authority or an authority in an irrelevent field).

When the authority is recognized and relevent, then it's a fallacy in formal logic, it is never enough to prove truth. But it's acceptible in informal logic, simply because we can't all be experts in everything. In conversations like this, claiming that's it's true because an authority said so is still fallacious, but using an authority to provide support is not. And the conversation has turned to much more than just Hawking's word on it. Trying to sweep all the other arguments away by claiming an appeal to authority is a fallacy both formally and informally.

 

[sphenisc]

... Trying to sweep all the other arguments away by claiming an appeal to authority is a fallacy both formally and informally.

Known as the "Fallacy fallacy"

 

[Raze]

Does he explain how the energy in the universe is created?

Why should it have to be created in the first place? (wouldn't that violate the Laws of Thermodynamics, anyway?) Plato and Aristotle been dead for thousands of years, why hold on to their first cause reasoning? It was obviously wrong when it comes to the physics of uniform motion, so why not energy too?

Edit- I know the science of the issue was discussed, but just philosophically speaking, why is the question automatically considered valid in the first place?

 

[Towlie]

It's a language issue. We commonly say "is created", which implies an action by some sort of creating entity, even in cases where we mean "came into existence", and it cripples our reasoning. Discussions of evolution are plagued with similar problems. Our language, and probably all languages, are impeding our capacity for logical thought with their religious roots.