Appolinaria

Philosophy***

That's interesting, thanks.

Why would they specifically need to be in such a community? Are they somewhat isolated, without knowing that for example- the world is round, what the stars are, etc ?

I'd think people who have a hard time interpreting body language, etc. might have a harder time lying than the average person. In order to lie well, you have to be able to draw an accurate picture of who you're lying to and the situation. Many disorders lack normal social skills.

Jiminy crickets. So you hit your head? I'd see a doctor.

Definitely not, haha.

That's genius

Just a layman's question here; Is there any relation to what Mr. Cox is saying and conservation of energy?

He just asked you what the domain of applicability is for qft. DrRocket vs. Brian Cox. I'll be watching that closely.

so what's the point here, are you trying to tell us youre not a human since it was intentional? is that it?

I believe you're wrong.

Contact the experts :] http://paintingpolygons.blogspot.com/2008/08/fountain-peter-parks.html "Into water they sprinkle yeast, dyes, solvents, and baby oil, along with other ingredients they decline to divulge. The secret of Parks' technique is an odd law of fluid dynamics: The less fluid you have, the more it behaves like a solid. The upshot is that Parks can make a dash of curry powder cascading toward the lens look like an onslaught of flaming meteorites."

I'm going to slap you.

Compare that to when you're given two points and need to find the distance; Using the distance formula is the same as using the Pythagorean theorem to find the hypotenuse of a triangle;

increase your activity by tenfold. cure for insomnia, i promise.

That's different than being a condescending know-it-all. Being passionate about your work doesn't have anything to do with personally attacking people and calling them names.

I do not value politeness over truth, but thanks for the compliment. And actually, in this instance, I think I'm especially in support of the truth. Homie12 broke the rules and was called out on it. No one else was. I absolutely do not ever want your advice on building my ethos. Despite what I've seen on this forum, I still believe the science world isn't a bunch of Feynman wanna-be's battling out their rockstar wit and testosterone.

Hi, I'm sure some members will respond, but meanwhile, I had slightly similar questions in another thread and Swansont provided a good link that may be useful to you. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/60289-n00b-questions/

I believe Cap'n already clarified how an authority being wrong does not make the appeal fallacious.

How is using the claim or observation concerning a subject, of someone credible on that subject, not an appeal to authority? That's exactly how I've seen it defined. But isn't that precisely what happens?

.

You will find, like in the link iNow provided, that one aspect that defines an "authority" includes holding the same views that are accepted by the majority of experts in that field. So therefore, yes, if they make a claim about subject X, and that view is also held by peers of the same expertise, it is most definitely valid. That is how science works. There is no book of "the right answers to everything" that scientists use as a refresher. Are you kidding me? I used your own link. This is hilarious.

Sorry, you are mistaken. Did you even read the link you yourself provided? "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." An appeal to authority is not a fallacy unless the person who makes the claim is not an expert in the field they are making a claim in. Then it would be regarded as a fallacious appeal to authority, or an appeal to misleading authority.

As far as I know, an appeal to authority is not necessarily a fallacious mechanism. In fact, statements on this forum depend on using a valid appeal to authority since the majority of us are not experts in every scientific field nor do we hold firsthand experience with the research behind every topic that we discuss. The legitimacy of statements here are assessed by the use of a valid appeal to authority. There are a number of factors that decrease the chance of an argument containing an appeal to authority from possibly being fallacious, such as their credentials in that particular field and whether or not the information is accepted by the majority of experts in the field. I have no idea why you are all in disagreement with me on this. Or why anyone believes an appeal to authority is a fallacy. I still hold my opinion that iNow is entirely wrong. So you are an expert in all divisions of science? And you have conducted research on every possible topic at hand? You've never had to use an appeal to authority to support an argument? That is exactly how this forum works.