I can see you all have a sense of humor.

[swansont]

Please look up what an appeal to authority is and then tell me that's not precisely how this forum works.

 

I'll echo others and say that that's not how this forum works.

[iNow]

Here's what I keep wondering through this conversation.

 

Even if someone did post that they have a PhD in topic X and a Master's in field Y and years of experience in domain Z, how would we know they actually did have any of those things?

 

I could add any damned thing I wanted to my profile. We still wouldn't have a mechanism to confirm the credentials. Seriously... If I said I had a PhD in neurolinguistic disorders and a bachelor's technical education, how would you know if I didn't?

 

All we have is the merit of their posts to go by, and that's exactly as it should be.

[Phi for All]

Here's what I keep wondering through this conversation.

 

Even if someone did post that they have a PhD in topic X and a Master's in field Y and years of experience in domain Z, how would we know they actually did have any of those things?

 

I could add any damned thing I wanted to my profile. We still wouldn't have a mechanism to confirm the credentials. Seriously... If I said I had a PhD in neurolinguistic disorders and a bachelor's technical education, how would you know if I didn't?

 

All we have is the merit of their posts to go by, and that's exactly as it should be.

We've had some incredible crackpots come through here claiming to have PhDs and shaking various sheepskins in our faces. It didn't make their ideas any more sound, and rather than their credentials encouraging us NOT to question their ideas, their ideas instead made us question their credentials.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

We've had some incredible crackpots come through here claiming to have PhDs and shaking various sheepskins in our faces. It didn't make their ideas any more sound, and rather than their credentials encouraging us NOT to question their ideas, their ideas instead made us question their credentials.

My favorite example of this is "Dr. Sullivan":

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/45776-evolution-and-information-theory/

 

(Yes, I changed the username after the fact to reflect the fraud. In several other discussions he claimed to be a researcher in biology who thought evolution had been discredited.)

 

Saying someone has an IQ of 12, or calling them a fuckwit is a personal attack. That would absolutely never fly in a professional setting.

I agree. And personal attacks are counterproductive; they don't convince your opponent to change his mind, but instead give him motivation to try harder to prove you wrong. When people become emotionally invested in being right -- because admitting error means admitting idiocy -- they seek any possible method to discredit your argument, logical or not.

 

But it's difficult to try to teach everyone the error of their ways, instead of saying "you must be stupid to think that." Often the members who are the targets of personal attacks are the sort of people who already refuse to admit error, and who are incredibly frustrating to debate against. We can't expect our members to serve as endless wells of references, explanations, and patience for people who are not willing to learn.

 

I'd prefer that members frustrated with endless idiocy simply report the thread, rather than resort to insults. We have rules against logical fallacies and a set of speculations forum rules; I'd rather close threads than deal with a barrage of insults.

[D H]

We've had some incredible crackpots come through here claiming to have PhDs and shaking various sheepskins in our faces. It didn't make their ideas any more sound, and rather than their credentials encouraging us NOT to question their ideas, their ideas instead made us question their credentials.

We've had some incredible crackpots come through here who not only claimed to have PhDs but in fact do have PhDs. One claimed that physicists from Newton on have gravity all wrong. That "gravitational force is equal to the product of the acceleration times the area of a circle with radius equal to the semimajor axis of revolution (F = a . A) is the correct interpretation of Kepler's third law." This in turn means that the gravitational force on the surface of the Moon is at least 68.71% that of Earth's. Ergo, we didn't land on the Moon.

 

Another claimed that everything did gyre and gimble in the wabe. Or something like that. Actually something more like "I <–> denergyre (denergon) <–> ombregyre (ombron) <–> photogyre (photon) <–> electrogyre (electron) <–> hydroxygyre (hydroxyon) <–> carbogyre (carbyon)<–> phosphogyre (phosphon) <–> ribogyre (ribon) <–> aminogyre (aminon) <–> deoxyogyre (deoxyon) <–> cellulogyre (cellulon) <–> organogyre (organon) <–> envirogyre (environ) <–> visigyre (visuon) <–> phonogyre (phonon) <–> linguigyre (linguon) <–> symbogyre (symbon) <–> numerogyre (numeron) <–> econogyre (econon)<–> lapoligyre (lapolon) <–> geniugyre (geniuon) <–> I".

[John Cuthber]

There are two separate aspects to the latest bit of this discussion.

I cannot verify someone's asserted credentials.

I do not care.

 

If I claimed to have a Ph.D. I could probably get away with it. People might very well believe it. It works both ways.

 

If someone says something dumb, it really doesn't matter if they have a Ph.D. or not.

[michel123456]

This is completely unnecessary and superfluous. (...)

 

For an ancient member yes, but for a new member it would be precious info at a glance.

IMHO.

 

--------------

This is not about members credentials, it is about a new member engaging with a Mod or Expert.

I would like to know the credentials of a Mod.

And those of an "expert".

 

We've had some incredible crackpots come through here claiming to have PhDs and shaking various sheepskins in our faces. It didn't make their ideas any more sound, and rather than their credentials encouraging us NOT to question their ideas, their ideas instead made us question their credentials.

 

They were not Mods, nor experts.

Edited February 13, 2012 by michel123456

[Phi for All]

They were not Mods, nor experts.

Do you have a problem with something a Mod or Expert said that makes you question their credentials or knowledge?

[homie12]

I've seen your posts about the electric universe garbage. You're honestly so stupid about it that I think you're trolling. Ergo, I deemed not to waste my time explaining precisely why you're stupid.

 

wow and I thought you were of the understanding nature. Well funny thing is how are you going to learn anything about the EU from anything ive posted so far? Are you that lazy or near sighted or afraid to come out from under the stairs? I would really like to know. and thanks for your responses.

[Appolinaria]

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.

 

 

 

I'll echo others and say that that's not how this forum works.

 

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.

[A Tripolation]

wow and I thought you were of the understanding nature. Well funny thing is how are you going to learn anything about the EU from anything ive posted so far? Are you that lazy or near sighted or afraid to come out from under the stairs? I would really like to know. and thanks for your responses.

 

Understanding =/= Gullible.

 

Electricity cannot explain orbital dynamics. That "theory" is garbage.

[homie12]

It really helps when you address the forum in complete thoughts. I've tried using 'cute' and colourful language and it generally gets lost in translation. Right now your statements are completely justifying the negative attitudes that some are taking towards individuals who have less interest in what the forum is about. The problem with that is it closes the forum and that really sucks capiche?

 

Its a technique i have found effective to find out what detractors are laying in ambush out there. Otherwise, yes thats part of what im trying to learn, thanks. And learn I have. Im trying to make notes now and without all of your inputs I wouldnt have such a large data base. This isnt the first site I have been doing personal research in. But I will say i am impressed with all of you. Dont cut me slack now and thanks for your responses

[A Tripolation]

As I said in another thread, it's a personal judgement call on a case-by-case basis whether it's appropriate to make a respondent aware of ones expertise...no mention of mandates by me.

 

What do credentials have to do with anything. Either the person is wrong or they are not. Credentials not needed.

[homie12]

At first thought, this information would seem to edify/confirm the professionalism of this forum. At second thought, it might also have a dampening effect on discussions here ... once a highly-qualified moderator speaks, others may be less inclined to speak up, let alone disagree. As with government-appointed officials, we entrust their appointment to the chief executive, and I think it works well here.

 

 

I find some of the most unqualified eyes have the most refreshing perspectives, and the speculations and questions that flow from those perspectives. Although an OP may quickly be found to be wrong or trivial, it can spark variants in people's minds that can lead to interesting discussions and elucidations that are otherwise unattainable.

 

Having said that, what I can't stand (and refuse to read) are rambling, 5,000-word, cut-and-paste views of reality by newcomers (post doc, rank amateur etc, it doesn't matter). Sorry (not really ), but if you can't give us a one-screenful-or-less (<500-word) summary of your manifesto, then I'm not bothering to read it. I know plenty of others here will read it, but not me (and I don't think I'm alone on this).

yes very excellant all of your points thanks for that.

 

How can you say that? Our staff of mods and experts, as well as many of our very knowledgeable non-staffers almost always back up their assertions with references, and or somewhat detailed scientific logic/precedent. Has anyone on the staff ever made an assertion and then flashed their pedigree as their only evidence?

 

Science is hard and requires expertise that comes from years of grueling education and training. I will readily admit that I'm probably the least of experts among experts (we have some absolute BEASTS of science here on the staff). Would you be willing to put your physics knowledge up against that of swansont or your mathematics knowledge up against ajb or Dr. Rocket?

 

If not than you would be well advised to listen to their teaching and insight. I do.

Well my point about this is,none of those guys are electrical engineers nor plasma physicists. I am not briliant or with new ideas. I just found what i feel is a new understanding of how the universe works. And not 1 of you so far has adressed any specific detail of this. For instance the standard model of the sun doesnt explain much. Gravitational theory isnt able to allow us individuals access to experimentation. So we are stuck believing the company line. If 1 thing might help to be more objective its can we have a better understanding of electricity and magnetism. 1 fact you cant take from me is ive done some so called overunity experiments. And so far I'm getting more electricity than im using. So whats really going on in space or the intire universe? and thanks for your responses.

 

Understanding =/= Gullible.

 

Electricity cannot explain orbital dynamics. That "theory" is garbage.

 

Can gravity explain electro magnetism? Which the EU people contend is what most of the universe is about. Am I too vague? thanks for your responses

[Phi for All]

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.

That is exactly how this forum works.

Appeal to Authority derives a conclusion based on only the authority. It basically concludes that a person must be right about subject X if they are an authority in that subject. This is a statement that can NEVER be valid, and is thus fallacious. Assuming a person's statement is true because of their authority is a shaky foundation for any conclusion.

 

Individually, an authority may be right about his/her subject in individual instances; the fallacy stems from assuming that ALL authorities on a subject are correct about that subject in every statement. Not every instance of someone saying "I'm an expert, I know what I'm talking about" is fallacious, but saying that anyone who is an authority must be correct is fallacious.

[iNow]

As far as I know, an appeal to authority is not necessarily a fallacious mechanism.

You are mistaken. An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

 

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.

You are mistaken. We appeal to evidence, reason, and empiricism, but not "authority."

 

I have no idea why you are all in disagreement with me on this.

Because you are mistaken.

 

Or why anyone believes an appeal to authority is a fallacy.

Because it is.

 

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/

 

An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

 

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

 

As an example, swansont may be particularly strong in understanding GR and issues of time dilation, but he does not get to come into a thread and say that "X is true because I have a PhD and I said so." Even he must support his arguments with logic, reason, and evidence... Just like anyone else. He is given no special deference just because he has a series of letters by his name. It is the merit of his posts that earns him respect and prominence, not his degree or background.

 

 

I still hold my opinion that iNow is entirely wrong.

You can repeat yourself as often as you wish. There is no such thing as truth by repeated assertion (another swansontism). You will remain mistaken on this point until you realize your error and correct it.

[Appolinaria]

You are mistaken. An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

 

http://www.nizkor.or...-authority.html

 

 

 

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.

[iNow]

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.

I'm sorry, Appolinaria, but that too is wrong.

[StringJunky]

What do credentials have to do with anything. Either the person is wrong or they are not. Credentials not needed.

I talking from the perspective of a newcomer not familiar with science...it can help them. Michel thinks so as well:

 

 

For an ancient member yes, but for a new member it would be precious info at a glance.

IMHO.

 

--------------

This is not about members credentials, it is about a new member engaging with a Mod or Expert.

I would like to know the credentials of a Mod.

And those of an "expert".

 

Edited February 13, 2012 by StringJunky

[Appolinaria]

Appeal to Authority derives a conclusion based on only the authority. It basically concludes that a person must be right about subject X if they are an authority in that subject. This is a statement that can NEVER be valid, and is thus fallacious. Assuming a person's statement is true because of their authority is a shaky foundation for any conclusion.

 

 

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.

 

I'm sorry, Appolinaria, but that too is wrong.

 

Are you kidding me? I used your own link. This is hilarious.

Edited February 13, 2012 by Appolinaria

[homie12]

who is the expert that wrote that book?

[Appolinaria]

.

Edited February 13, 2012 by Appolinaria

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'm sorry, Appolinaria, but that too is wrong.

A Concise Introduction to Logic, by Hurley, lists arguments from authority as valid inductive arguments, and lists under informal fallacies the "Appeal to Unqualified Authority":

 

We saw in Chapter 1 that an argument from authority is an inductive argument in which an arguer cites the authority or testimony of another person in support of some conclusion. The appeal to unqualified authority fallacy is a variety of the argument from authority and occurs when the cited authority or witness might lack credibility.

 

Now, note that it's an inductive argument; that is, an argument from authority with valid premises does not necessarily have a valid conclusion, because the authority might be wrong. But as an inductive argument, it is valid. It is only fallacious when the use of an authority adds nothing to the argument, because the authority is unqualified.

[swansont]

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?

 

Far from it, but then, I don't generally engage in factual discussions in which I don't have some amount of expertise, and I try and make it clear when I am making an educated guess rather than calling upon my experience. I do offer opinions when we are sharing pinions, and I do cite sources that I think are credible, but that's not an appeal to authority.

 

Also, the issue of "never had to use an appeal to authority to support an argument" is a far cry from "precisely/exactly how this forum works". The latter would mean that we e.g. debunk anti-relativity arguments by saying "Einstein said so" and that's just not what happens.

 

We've had some incredible crackpots come through here claiming to have PhDs and shaking various sheepskins in our faces. It didn't make their ideas any more sound, and rather than their credentials encouraging us NOT to question their ideas, their ideas instead made us question their credentials.

 

I'd venture to say that the crackpot level correlates strongly with how vigorously they shake those 'skins.

[homie12]

Far from it, but then, I don't generally engage in factual discussions in which I don't have some amount of expertise, and I try and make it clear when I am making an educated guess rather than calling upon my experience. I do offer opinions when we are sharing pinions, and I do cite sources that I think are credible, but that's not an appeal to authority.

 

Also, the issue of "never had to use an appeal to authority to support an argument" is a far cry from "precisely/exactly how this forum works". The latter would mean that we e.g. debunk anti-relativity arguments by saying "Einstein said so" and that's just not what happens.

 

 

 

I'd venture to say that the crackpot level correlates strongly with how vigorously they shake those 'skins.

 

ok butit was my contention also that saying einstein said so was what happens most of the time or too much of the time