Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 61 to 70 of 70
  1. #61
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Zaragoza, Spain
    Posts
    15
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Logical Fallacies

    I'm glad I was helpful.

    Oh, and I happy as well that you like my avatar, Zhavric.

  2. #62
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,845
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Logical Fallacies

    Quote Originally Posted by Zhavric View Post
    Sorry. I can't resist...





    Cool link, bro.
    About what percent of your enjoyment of that image is ironic?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  3. #63
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    138
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Logical Fallacies

    I notice you mention in appeal to authority the rubber- stamping by a famous person who is not expert in that field.
    I take it to mean we should listen to the experts. We are all in some measure in the hands of experts.
    Often the experts disagree then where are we without expertees? Suppose I say I don't understand physics but I believe the big bang theory. Should I an uniformed layman dispute such an esoteric theory?

  4. #64
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,205
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Logical Fallacies

    Quote Originally Posted by kaptonok View Post
    Often the experts disagree then where are we without expertees?
    Not without expertees, but without grounds to invoke an expert in an attempt to deal a killer argument.

    Some subjects lend themselves to having experts disagree because there is reasonable grounds for debate. Macro-economics and public policy are good exemples. In those cases it's fallacious to invoke an expert opinion because there is no concensus amongst the community of experts.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  5. Likes mican333 liked this post
  6. #65
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    138
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Logical Fallacies

    Good point. So subjects at the cutting edge of science are undecided and perhaps left well alone, or just share our opinions.
    How do we know an expert , by their background and qualifications ?its quite a minefield.
    Some statements are made with little real evidence to support them yet they are almost universaly accepted.
    For example ' five a day'.

  7. #66
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,205
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Logical Fallacies

    Quote Originally Posted by kaptonok View Post
    How do we know an expert , by their background and qualifications ?its quite a minefield.
    It is a minefield. This is why when expert testifies in court, one side spend considerable time establishing the credential of an expert while the other side will seek to undermine it if possible.

    I find that appeal to authority are only useful to establish that I am within "conventional wisdom" but rarely will it achieve much more.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

  8. #67
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    138
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Logical Fallacies

    Thanks for your help. I think maybe I will say less and listen more.

  9. #68
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Logical Fallacies

    Quote Originally Posted by Vandaler View Post
    It is a minefield. This is why when expert testifies in court, one side spend considerable time establishing the credential of an expert while the other side will seek to undermine it if possible.

    I find that appeal to authority are only useful to establish that I am within "conventional wisdom" but rarely will it achieve much more.
    I disagree.

    The processes of producing an expert are extremely rigorous. It could be said that one expert can disagree with another, but in the example you site, this is often the result of cheery picking fallacy. This would be like oil companies picking and funding scientists who are ... against climate change, and ignoring all the others. The problem there is not expertise, but, the ignoring of consensus opinion by an entire field of experts in favor of a cherry picked dissenting opinion.

    The concept of expertise is important, and it is why processes like peer review, etc. exist. That peer review process is an 'expert' certification of the veracity of the claims and support of the position. There are of course dissenting opinions, and in many cases these dissenting opinions, over time will shift the expert consensus - that is again done through argumentation, peer review, and repeatability.

    An appeal to expertise is fallacious when a person has no expertise whatsoever and is claiming something from a position of authority. "Joe the plumber" picking McCain for President would be an example. Joe the Plumber has little or no expertise on how to run a government, and indeed, in the end his inexpert opinion did little to sway the electorate.

    The issue of cherry picking expertise is, however, a completely different fallacy. Robert M. Price is an author who is often listed by atheists as an 'expert' who is a consistent critic of Biblical Scholarship. The problem? How own works are not peer reviewed by period experts, and his basic claim is that Christianity borrowed any similar tenet from any religion that existed before this (existence of the similarity is itself touted as proof that it was stolen, without, in the case of some Far Eastern Religions in particular, ever bothering to demonstrate how the tenet would have made it from that location to Judea in a time well before mass transportation existed.)

    The reality of the Christ Myth Theory?

    "Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed [Jesus Myth] arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.... The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question."

    http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm

    If one is uniformed about this scholarly expert consensus, then they might be fooled by the cherry picked appeal to a legitimate expert. The problem, especially in a debate forum, is that you are almost assured that you will run into an informed opponent and be called out. The damage to integrity is immediate in using a cheery picked expert, and the soundness of the argument that relied on the cherry picking of experts implodes - as arguments based on cherry picking data tend to do. You can also see this result with 9-11 conspiracy theorists, who tend to cherry pick data points and 'expert metallurgist' opinions while ignoring the consensus expert opinion.

    Indeed, expert opinion is often necessary. How many people among us have taken the time to learn Hebrew and Greek, mastered its ancient context, become experts in the local period conditions, and the critically analyzed the writing of the period to the point of literal expertise? Thus the conclusions that arise out of that can, and indeed should, be taken as the decision point to move forward.

    Generally speaking, an appeal to expertise should be an appeal to the expert consensus, rather than the individual expert. Even if you subsequently support a differing expert analysis, it allows the user (and indeed actual scholarship) to define the consensus opinion, acknowledge it, and the offer a solid rebuttal to that position in honesty. The more familiar even a layman is with the subject, the better able that person will be able to explain the nuances and what drove him or her to an opinion.
    Most people say that it is the intellect which makes a great scientist. They are wrong: it is character.

    Albert Einstein

  10. Thanks Vandaler thanked for this post
    Likes evensaul liked this post
  11. #69
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    138
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Logical Fallacies

    I take your point its expert consensus we need to follow not individuals.
    Remember this may be good for the more scientific subjects but plumber joe and bank manager bernard in a democracy have the vote as we all do in democracy. How will we know the experts ? perhaps by listening to the communication experts but I heard a rumour they are manipulators.
    I believe the money spent on the space program would have been better used to help prevent Ebola.

  12. #70
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    2,205
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Logical Fallacies

    Fine post Gree

    What I meant, is that I shy away from using appeal to authority (if I have better options) because they just don't seem to be convincing.
    A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.
    - Wayne Gretzky

 

 
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •