• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Third Roberts-Fetzer Debate

It took me a bit to find it, but I did.

You want to talk about credentials? Bring it on.

Here is a recent post from T.A.M in another thread
From Judy Wood's own website:

Dr. Wood received her

* B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering),

* M.S (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and

* Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.

Now this seems reasonably qualified, I will agree, as stated above, but how can anyone say she is more qualified than most of the people listed below...


NIST Scientists and Engineers

TEAM LEADERS:
Dr. H.S. Lew – Senior Research Engineer. PhD Civil Engineering, BS in Architectural Engineering. ASCE Fellow.
With NIST: Structural Engineering, Earthquake Engineering, Building and Fire Research.
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...p?lastname=Lew
(his full profile)

Richard W. Bukowski – Senior Research Engineer. BSc Electrical Engineering.
With NIST: Co-ordinator of Building and Fire Research Lab.
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...tname=bukowski
(his full profile)

Dr. Fahim H. Sadek – PhD Mechanical Engineering SMU
With NIST: Research Structural Engineer
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...lastname=sadek
(his full profile)

Dr. Frank W. Gayle – PhD Metallurgy MIT, MSc Materials Science, BSc Civil Engineering.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gayle
(his full profile)

Dr. David D. Evans – PhD in Engineering (Fire protection)


Dr. William Grosshandler – PhD Mechanical Engineering UC Berkley
With NIST: Head of Building and Fire Research
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...e=grosshandler
(his full profile)

Dr. Richard G. Gann – PhD Physical Chemistry MIT
With NIST: Senior Research Scientist – Integrated Performance Assessment
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...?lastname=gann
(his full profile)

Dr. John L. Gross – PhD Structural Engineering, BSc/MSc Civil Engineering Cornell
With NIST: Research Engineer – Materials and Construction Research Division
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...lastname=gross
(his full profile)

Dr. Therese P. McAllister – PhD Structural Engineering John Hopkins
With NIST: Senior Structural Engineer.
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...ame=mcallister
(her full profile)

Jason D. Averill – MSc Structural Engineering (working on PhD) John Hopkins
With NIST: Research Engineer
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...stname=averill
(his full profile)

J. Randall Lawson – BA, BSc Industrial Education, AA Computer Science and Math
With NIST: General Physical Scientist
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...astname=lawson
(his full profile)
Click to expand...

You won't find many anywhere in the WORLD that are better credentialed than these folks.

Yeah, they are hired by the government. You know why? Because they are the BEST around.

This isn't the Bush controlled DOJ hiring peons from a 4th rate law school.
 
pgwenthold said:
It took me a bit to find it, but I did.

You want to talk about credentials? Bring it on.

Here is a recent post from T.A.M in another thread


You won't find many anywhere in the WORLD that are better credentialed than these folks.

Yeah, they are hired by the government. You know why? Because they are the BEST around.

This isn't the Bush controlled DOJ hiring peons from a 4th rate law school.
Click to expand...

It is actually quite unusual for Wood to get 3 degrees at the same institution. In the academic world this is considered close to incest, especially for someone who wants to go on to a tenured teaching track.
 
JamesB said:
It is actually quite unusual for Wood to get 3 degrees at the same institution. In the academic world this is considered close to incest, especially for someone who wants to go on to a tenured teaching track.
Click to expand...
Incest?! That explains why her ideas are so far out. Cognitive disorder brought on from a small gene pool....thanks for clearing that up.
 
Gravy said:
I have him on ignore. There's a police matter pending. I feel bad for him, though. Do people really need more convincing that he's having great trouble with reality?
Click to expand...

Is it not somewhat coincidental that jackchit chose this time to come on Jref and say he went overboard on Gravy?
 
Gravy said:
Actually, I was in Italy. I never even saw images of 9/11 until December, 2001.
Click to expand...


Ah, my bad! I thought you were a witness.

westprog said:
Mark Roberts could believe Judy Wood - she's better qualified than he is - but he applies common sense.
Click to expand...


I'd dispute that he applies "common sense", rather he does either independent analysis, and crunches the numbers himself, or he gathers the work of other experts and compares them to Judy Wood's work and looks for inconsistencies and errors.

Note that there is a lot in science which seems to contradict "common sense", and can be very confusing for the layperson.

Cheers,
TGHO
 
The Great Hairy One said:
Ah, my bad! I thought you were a witness.




I'd dispute that he applies "common sense", rather he does either independent analysis, and crunches the numbers himself, or he gathers the work of other experts and compares them to Judy Wood's work and looks for inconsistencies and errors.

Note that there is a lot in science which seems to contradict "common sense", and can be very confusing for the layperson.

Cheers,
TGHO
Click to expand...

I agree that that is what he'd generally do, and even would need to do in the case of Judy Wood, but in this case I was referring to the laser beams from space vapourising steel theory, which can be refuted using simple common sense and a little quantative thinking.

Sometimes to rebut a theory thrown out on a whim takes weeks of detailed analysis. Fortunately Fetzer doesn't operate in that area.
 
Fetzer's a philosopher of science, and from what I can tell by a brief skim of his non-woo publications is decently versed in a wide range of topics within that area of expertise. He KNOWS about Popperian falsifiabilty, about the proper processes of science, about logic, about the structure of logical fallacies, about experimental controls, all that jazz.

The man's written a book criticising right-wing Christian attacks on evolution, for pity's sake; and one of the blurb quotes is ""Biting assay of Darwinism's latest clash with Biblical-fueled politics. Fetzer diagnoses a chilling fascist beat in his homeland's now-speak of fear, self-righteous conformity, and egoistic belligerence. Essential reading for all who care about science and genuine faith, and their alliance in defense of true liberty". Where has his love of science and his sceptical, critical thinking gone when writing about 911? How can he be such a double-headed coin?

He's beyond qualified to properly think about, and absolutely refute, the kinds of arguments Judy Woods makes. The philosophy of science is all about pointing out where the holes are in the types of things Woods comes out with, and yet he buys the whole thing, hook, line and sinker. During the debate I was just floored by how inept and illogical and un-philosophical his approaches were.

I'm a philosopher myself (though not a philosopher of science, per se, though it is a subject which interests me greatly) and it actually makes me really angry to see someone who should know better so belittle themselves and the whole of their discipline.
 
Last edited:
Arkan, in the future it would be appreciated if you would post some shorter commentary and simply present the links to the definitions.

Thanks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer


For jackchit's edification (if he chooses to ignore it, that's his problem):
Argumentum ad vericundiam
This is a move in argument that may or may not be fallacious, depending on the circumstances. It means an appeal to authority, an example of which could be thus:
You say philosophy is important, but Professor X says it's a waste of time.​
Here the speaker refers to the authority of the professor to counter the claim that philosophy is important. The problem is that the presumed authority may or may not be relevant: if the professor is (or was) a lifelong student of philosophy and decided after years working in the field that it really is a waste of time, then perhaps we should look into his reasons for saying so? On the other hand, if he is a professor of mineralogy, say, then—on the face of it—his opinion bears no more or less weight than anyone else's. It may be that additional factors are important: perhaps this professor has also studied philosophy or is known to us to be a particularly trustworthy and astute individual whose opinion we have come to value?
In short, appealing to authority where the authority does know (or is expected to know) what he or she is talking about is a legitimate move in argument, but when the authority's expertise is not relevant then it is fallacious—indeed, a fallacy of relevance, as before.
Matters are not always so clear-cut, though. Even if the authority in question really is an authority in the field, it may be that the question under consideration is one of much controversy among his or her fellow academics. In our example, other philosophy professors may be found who say that philosophy is important, so that appealing to authorities on one or other side or an argument does no more than appraise us of what they think. Take another instance:
Professor Y, a highly respected biologist at a prestigious university, says that the likelihood of live evolving on Mars is so small that, for practical purposes, we can assume it didn't; therefore spending money on searching for life on the red planet is a waste of valuable resources.​
Here the implicit idea behind the criticism is that with only a finite amount of money to go around and other deserving causes in need of support, why should we support a quest that academics like Professor Y agree is very likely to fail? Is this argument fallacious? It depends: we would need to know more information, such as whether the professor is an expert in the appropriate area of biology and if there is any controversy among similar experts. If the professor's opinion is indicative of the relevant biological community, then perhaps this is information we should keep in mind when forming an opinion on the issue? On the other hand, if the professor is something of a maverick and the weight of biological opinion goes against him or her, then appealing to him or her as an authority could be seen as fallacious, distracting us from the point at issue. In general, we need to be careful in assessing the value of expert testimony, as well as its relevance.
Click to expand...
http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#ad_vericundiam
Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam Description of Appeal to Authority


An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
  1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
  2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
  3. Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.
When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.
Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:
  1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
    Claims made by a person who lacks the needed degree of expertise to make a reliable claim will, obviously, not be well supported. In contrast, claims made by a person with the needed degree of expertise will be supported by the person's reliability in the area.
    Determining whether or not a person has the needed degree of expertise can often be very difficult. In academic fields (such as philosophy, engineering, history, etc.), the person's formal education, academic performance, publications, membership in professional societies, papers presented, awards won and so forth can all be reliable indicators of expertise. Outside of academic fields, other standards will apply. For example, having sufficient expertise to make a reliable claim about how to tie a shoe lace only requires the ability to tie the shoe lace and impart that information to others. It should be noted that being an expert does not always require having a university degree. Many people have high degrees of expertise in sophisticated subjects without having ever attended a university. Further, it should not be simply assumed that a person with a degree is an expert.
    Of course, what is required to be an expert is often a matter of great debate. For example, some people have (and do) claim expertise in certain (even all) areas because of a divine inspiration or a special gift. The followers of such people accept such credentials as establishing the person's expertise while others often see these self-proclaimed experts as deluded or even as charlatans. In other situations, people debate over what sort of education and experience is needed to be an expert. Thus, what one person may take to be a fallacious appeal another person might take to be a well supported line of reasoning. Fortunately, many cases do not involve such debate.
  2. The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
    If a person makes a claim about some subject outside of his area(s) of expertise, then the person is not an expert in that context. Hence, the claim in question is not backed by the required degree of expertise and is not reliable.
    It is very important to remember that because of the vast scope of human knowledge and skill it is simply not possible for one person to be an expert on everything. Hence, experts will only be true experts in respect to certain subject areas. In most other areas they will have little or no expertise. Thus, it is important to determine what subject area a claim falls under.
    It is also very important to note that expertise in one area does not automatically confer expertise in another. For example, being an expert physicist does not automatically make a person an expert on morality or politics. Unfortunately, this is often overlooked or intentionally ignored. In fact, a great deal of advertising rests on a violation of this condition. As anyone who watches television knows, it is extremely common to get famous actors and sports heroes to endorse products that they are not qualified to assess. For example, a person may be a great actor, but that does not automatically make him an expert on cars or shaving or underwear or diets or politics.
  3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
    If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts. This is because for almost any claim being made and "supported" by one expert there will be a counterclaim that is made and "supported" by another expert. In such cases an Appeal to Authority would tend to be futile. In such cases, the dispute has to be settled by consideration of the actual issues under dispute. Since either side in such a dispute can invoke experts, the dispute cannot be rationally settled by Appeals to Authority.
    There are many fields in which there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute. Economics is a good example of such a disputed field. Anyone who is familiar with economics knows that there are many plausible theories that are incompatible with one another. Because of this, one expert economist could sincerely claim that the deficit is the key factor while another equally qualified individual could assert the exact opposite. Another area where dispute is very common (and well known) is in the area of psychology and psychiatry. As has been demonstrated in various trials, it is possible to find one expert that will assert that an individual is insane and not competent to stand trial and to find another equally qualified expert who will testify, under oath, that the same individual is both sane and competent to stand trial. Obviously, one cannot rely on an Appeal to Authority in such a situation without making a fallacious argument. Such an argument would be fallacious since the evidence would not warrant accepting the conclusion.
    It is important to keep in mind that no field has complete agreement, so some degree of dispute is acceptable. How much is acceptable is, of course, a matter of serious debate. It is also important to keep in mind that even a field with a great deal of internal dispute might contain areas of significant agreement. In such cases, an Appeal to Authority could be legitimate.
  4. The person in question is not significantly biased.
    If an expert is significantly biased then the claims he makes within his are of bias will be less reliable. Since a biased expert will not be reliable, an Argument from Authority based on a biased expert will be fallacious. This is because the evidence will not justify accepting the claim.
    Experts, being people, are vulnerable to biases and predjudices. If there is evidence that a person is biased in some manner that would affect the reliability of her claims, then an Argument from Authority based on that person is likely to be fallacious. Even if the claim is actually true, the fact that the expert is biased weakens the argument. This is because there would be reason to believe that the expert might not be making the claim because he has carefully considered it using his expertise. Rather, there would be reason to believe that the claim is being made because of the expert's bias or prejudice.
    It is important to remember that no person is completely objective. At the very least, a person will be favorable towards her own views (otherwise she would probably not hold them). Because of this, some degree of bias must be accepted, provided that the bias is not significant. What counts as a significant degree of bias is open to dispute and can vary a great deal from case to case. For example, many people would probably suspect that doctors who were paid by tobacco companies to research the effects of smoking would be biased while other people might believe (or claim) that they would be able to remain objective.
  5. The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
    Certain areas in which a person may claim expertise may have no legitimacy or validity as areas of knowledge or study. Obviously, claims made in such areas will not be very reliable.
    What counts as a legitimate area of expertise is sometimes difficult to determine. However, there are cases which are fairly clear cut. For example, if a person claimed to be an expert at something he called "chromabullet therapy" and asserted that firing painted rifle bullets at a person would cure cancer it would not be very reasonable to accept his claim based on his "expertise." After all, his expertise is in an area which is devoid of legitimate content. The general idea is that to be a legitimate expert a person must have mastery over a real field or area of knowledge.
    As noted above, determining the legitimacy of a field can often be difficult. In European history, various scientists had to struggle with the Church and established traditions to establish the validity of their discliplines. For example, experts on evolution faced an uphill battle in getting the legitimacy of their area accepted.
    A modern example involves psychic phenomenon. Some people claim that they are certified "master psychics" and that they are actually experts in the field. Other people contend that their claims of being certified "master psychics" are simply absurd since there is no real content to such an area of expertise. If these people are right, then anyone who accepts the claims of these "master psychics" as true are victims of a fallacious appeal to authority.
  6. The authority in question must be identified.
    A common variation of the typical Appeal to Authority fallacy is an Appeal to an Unnamed Authority. This fallacy is also known as an Appeal to an Unidentified Authority.
    This fallacy is committed when a person asserts that a claim is true because an expert or authority makes the claim and the person does not actually identify the expert. Since the expert is not named or identified, there is no way to tell if the person is actually an expert. Unless the person is identified and has his expertise established, there is no reason to accept the claim. This sort of reasoning is not unusual. Typically, the person making the argument will say things like "I have a book that says...", or "they say...", or "the experts say...", or "scientists believe that...", or "I read in the paper.." or "I saw on TV..." or some similar statement. in such cases the person is often hoping that the listener(s) will simply accept the unidentified source as a legitimate authority and believe the claim being made. If a person accepts the claim simply because they accept the unidentified source as an expert (without good reason to do so), he has fallen prey to this fallacy.
As suggested above, not all Appeals to Authority are fallacious. This is fortunate since people have to rely on experts. This is because no one person can be an expert on everything and people do not have the time or ability to investigate every single claim themselves.
In many cases, Arguments from Authority will be good arguments. For example, when a person goes to a skilled doctor and the doctor tells him that he has a cold, then the the patient has good reason to accept the doctor's conclusion. As another example, if a person's computer is acting odd and his friend, who is a computer expert, tells him it is probably his hard drive then he has good reason to believe her.
What distinguishes a fallacious Appeal to Authority from a good Appeal to Authority is that the argument meets the six conditions discussed above.
In a good Appeal to Authority, there is reason to believe the claim because the expert says the claim is true. This is because a person who is a legitimate expert is more likely to be right than wrong when making considered claims within her area of expertise. In a sense, the claim is being accepted because it is reasonable to believe that the expert has tested the claim and found it to be reliable. So, if the expert has found it to be reliable, then it is reasonable to accept it as being true. Thus, the listener is accepting a claim based on the testimony of the expert.
It should be noted that even a good Appeal to Authority is not an exceptionally strong argument. After all, in such cases a claim is being accepted as true simply because a person is asserting that it is true. The person may be an expert, but her expertise does not really bear on the truth of the claim. This is because the expertise of a person does not actually determine whether the claim is true or false. Hence, arguments that deal directly with evidence relating to the claim itself will tend to be stronger. Examples of Appeal to Authority
  1. Bill and Jane are arguing about the morality of abortion:
    Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally acceptable. After all, a woman should have a right to her own body."
    Jane: "I disagree completely. Dr. Johan Skarn says that abortion is always morally wrong, regardless of the situation. He has to be right, after all, he is a respected expert in his field."
    Bill: "I've never heard of Dr. Skarn. Who is he?"
    Jane: "He's the guy that won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on cold fusion."
    Bill: "I see. Does he have any expertise in morality or ethics?"
    Jane: "I don't know. But he's a world famous expert, so I believe him."
  2. Dave and Kintaro are arguing about Stalin's reign in the Soviet Union. Dave has been arguing that Stalin was a great leader while Kintaro disagrees with him.
    Kintaro: "I don't see how you can consider Stalin to be a great leader. He killed millions of his own people, he crippled the Soviet economy, kept most of the people in fear and laid the foundations for the violence that is occuring in much of Eastern Europe."
    Dave: "Yeah, well you say that. However, I have a book at home that says that Stalin was acting in the best interest of the people. The millions that were killed were vicious enemies of the state and they had to be killed to protect the rest of the peaceful citizens. This book lays it all out, so it has to be true."
  3. I'm not a doctor, but I play one on the hit series "Bimbos and Studmuffins in the OR." You can take it from me that when you need a fast acting, effective and safe pain killer there is nothing better than MorphiDope 2000. That is my considered medical opinion.
  4. Siphwe and Sasha are having a conversation: Sasha: "I played the lottery today and I know I am going to win something."
    Siphwe: "What did you do, rig the outcome?"
    Sasha: "No, silly. I called my Super Psychic Buddy at the 1-900-MindPower number. After consulting his magic Californian Tarot deck, he told me my lucky numbers."
    Siphwe: "And you believed him?"
    Sasha: "Certainly, he is a certified Californian Master-Mind Psychic. That is why I believe what he has to say. I mean, like, who else would know what my lucky numbers are?"
Click to expand...
  1. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes. At least in some forms of debate, quoting various sources to support one's position is not just acceptable but mandatory. In general, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Even if the person quoted has no particular expertise in the area, he may have had a particularly eloquent way of saying something that makes for a more persuasive speech. In general, debaters should be called down for committing argumentum ad verecundiam only when (a) they rely on an unqualified source for information about facts without other (qualified) sources of verification, or (b) they imply that some policy must be right simply because so-and-so thought so.
Click to expand...
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20verecundiam
Appeal to authority

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search
An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an otherwise unsupported assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source. The corresponding reverse case would be an ad hominem attack: to imply that the claim is false because the asserter is objectionable.
On the other hand, there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is plausible: it is likely true, we just don't know for sure, because authority alone is not a proof.
[edit] Forms

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 authorities' claims are definitely true 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 hygiene. Much advertising relies on this logical fallacy in the form of endorsements and sponsorships.
The second form, citing a person who actually is an authority in the relevant field, carries more weight in that the authority is more likely to be correct. However the possibility of a mistake remains.
In mathematics, the second form, especially when the appellant is himself the authority, is wryly referred to as "proof by tenure".

[edit] Appeal to authority as logical fallacy

A (fallacious) appeal to authority argument has the basic form:
  1. A makes claim B;
  2. there is something positive about A,
  3. therefore claim B is true.
The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. Arguments that (fallaciously) rely on the objectionable aspects of the person for the truth of the conclusion are discussed under ad hominem.
An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy: authorities can be wrong, both in their own field and in other fields; therefore referencing authority does not automatically imply truth. However, referencing authority may carry a high enough probability of truth that it be feasible to base decisions on it.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
Appeal to Authority: A type of fallacious argument in which undue reliance is placed upon evidence from presumed, and possibly even divine, experts. An attempt to sway an argument by force of personality, reputation, or just plain fear, rather than by objective fact. Human religious belief systems are invariably based upon arguments from authority, delivered as fact by self-proclaimed "chosen ones" known as "priests", and accepted by the rest of us as a matter of faith. Example: " 'And I promise that I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt; to the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, a land flowing with milk and honey' " (Exodus, 3:17; note the double quotation marks, since Moses is at this point reporting the promise at second hand). [Map showing the locations mentioned; Story of how those on the receiving end of this heavenly eviction notice had it coming to them anyway.] [Compare hearsay evidence.]
Click to expand...
http://www.smithsrisca.demon.co.uk/rational-argument-glossary.html
Appeal to Misleading Authority
Click to expand...
<B>Alias:
  • Appeal to Authority
  • Argument from Authority
  • Argumentum ad Verecundiam Translation: "Argument from respect/modesty", Latin
  • Ipse Dixit Translation: "He, himself, said it", Latin
Type: Genetic Fallacy
Form:


Authority A believes that P is true.
Therefore, P is true. Quote…

t is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but how and why he believes it. His beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they are based on evidence, not on authority or intuition.​
…Unquote


Source: Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (Book-of-the-Month Club, 1995), p. 527. Example:

Cheating by the Soviets
Barry Schweid of the Associated Press, in his efforts to criticize President Reagan's space-based defense against Soviet missiles, came up with a report from some Stanford University group that claimed to find little evidence of cheating by the Soviet Union on arms-control treaties.
Where were they when Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and George Shultz, secretary of state, and several members of our military forces went on TV and described and enumerated the different times and ways that the Soviet Union has cheated on the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty? Does Schweid really believe that the group at Stanford is more knowledgeable about U.S. arms-control policy than all our military experts, with Congress thrown in for good measure? If I thought that was true, I wouldn't sleep much tonight. And I doubt if he would either.
​
Source: Middleton B. Freeman, Louisville, "Letters From Readers", The Courier-Journal, April 1, 1987.
Analysis Exposition:


We must often rely upon expert opinion when drawing conclusions about technical matters where we lack the time or expertise to form an informed opinion. For instance, those of us who are not physicians usually rely upon those who are when making medical decisions, and we are not wrong to do so. There are, however, four major ways in which such arguments can go wrong:
  1. An appeal to authority may be inappropriate in a couple of ways:
    • <LI class=noindent>It is unnecessary. If a question can be answered by observation or calculation, an argument from authority is not needed. Since arguments from authority are weaker than more direct evidence, go look or figure it out for yourself.
      The renaissance rebellion against the authority of Aristotle and the Bible played an important role in the scientific revolution. Aristotle was so respected in the Middle Ages that his word was taken on empirical issues which were easily decidable by observation. The scientific revolution moved away from this over-reliance on authority towards the use of observation and experiment. Similarly, the Bible has been invoked as an authority on empirical or mathematical questions. A particularly amusing example is the claim that the value of pi can be determined to be 3 based on certain passages in the Old Testament. The value of pi, however, is a mathematical question which can be answered by calculation, and appeal to authority is irrelevant.
    • It is impossible. About some issues there simply is no expert opinion, and an appeal to authority is bound to commit the next type of mistake. For example, many self-help books are written every year by self-proclaimed "experts" on matters for which there is no expertise.
  2. The "authority" cited is not an expert on the issue, that is, the person who supplies the opinion is not an expert at all, or is one, but in an unrelated area. The now-classic example is the old television commercial which began: "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV...." The actor then proceeded to recommend a brand of medicine.
  3. The authority is an expert, but is not disinterested. That is, the expert is biased towards one side of the issue, and his opinion is thereby untrustworthy.
    For example, suppose that a medical scientist testifies that ambient cigarette smoke does not pose a hazard to the health of non-smokers exposed to it. Suppose, further, that it turns out that the scientist is an employee of a cigarette company. Clearly, the scientist has a powerful bias in favor of the position that he is taking which calls into question his objectivity. There is an old saying: "A doctor who treats himself has a fool for a patient," and a similar version for attorneys: "A lawyer who defends himself has a fool for a client." Why should these be true if the doctor or lawyer is an expert on medicine or the law? The answer is that we are all biased in our own causes. A physician who tries to diagnose his own illness is more likely to make a mistake out of wishful thinking, or out of fear, than another physician would be.
  4. While the authority is an expert, his opinion is unrepresentative of expert opinion on the subject. The fact is that if one looks hard enough, it is possible to find an expert who supports virtually any position that one wishes to take. "Such is human perversity", to quote Lewis Carroll. This is a great boon for debaters, who can easily find expert opinion on their side of a question, whatever that side is, but it is confusing for those of us listening to debates and trying to form an opinion.
    Experts are human beings, after all, and human beings err, even in their area of expertise. This is one reason why it is a good idea to get a second opinion about major medical matters, and even a third if the first two disagree. While most people understand the sense behind seeking a second opinion when their life or health is at stake, they are frequently willing to accept a single, unrepresentative opinion on other matters, especially when that opinion agrees with their own bias. Bias (problem 3) is one source of unrepresentativeness. For instance, the opinions of cigarette company scientists tend to be unrepresentative of expert opinion on the health consequences of smoking because they are biased to minimize such consequences. For the general problem of judging the opinion of a population based upon a sample, see the Fallacy of Unrepresentative Sample.
To sum up these points in a positive manner, before relying upon expert opinion, go through the following checklist:
  • Is this a matter which I can decide without appeal to expert opinion? If the answer is "yes", then do so. If "no", go to the next question:
  • Is this a matter upon which expert opinion is available? If not, then your opinion will be as good as anyone else's. If so, proceed to the next question:
  • Is the authority an expert on the matter? If not, then why listen? If so, go on:
  • Is the authority biased towards one side? If so, the authority may be untrustworthy. At the very least, before accepting the authority's word seek a second, unbiased opinion. That is, go to the last question:
  • Is the authority's opinion representative of expert opinion? If not, then find out what the expert consensus is and rely on that. If so, then you may rationally rely upon the authority's opinion.
If an argument to authority cannot pass these five tests, then it commits the fallacy of appeal to misleading authority. Exposure:

Since not all arguments from expert opinion are fallacious, some authorities on logic have taken to labelling this fallacy as "appeal to inappropriate or irrelevant or questionable authority", rather than the traditional name "appeal to authority". For the same reason, I use the name "appeal to misleading authority" to distinguish fallacious from non-fallacious arguments from authority.
Click to expand...
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html</B>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Arkan, I am sooooooooo tempted to quote your entire post and just add "Right." at the bottom or something. :D

Cheers,
TGHO
 
A Hardfire viewer has requested to be put on Mark's emailing list, if he has one. Here's what the viewer says:


Please ask Mark Roberts to add me to his email list if he has one.

I like what he, and you have to say about the 9/11 nuts.

If he has an email list, ask him to put me on it.


Mark, if you want to respond to this request, send me your email privately (garypopkin@yahoo.com).
 
Mark doesn't have a mailing list. His NWO emailing privelages were revoked after that incident with the monkey. A clear violation of 45.RC.pt34R.IV.Sec.29.A.III.

-Gumboot
 
Also, be aware that certain sock frequenters of this forum have recently been trying to track down info on people, such as JamesB, via the internet. They posted as much over on SLC blog recently....

TAM:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom