I can see you all have a sense of humor.

[swansont]

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.

 

Just to note that I have said on several occasions that my understanding of GR is limited and I happily defer to ajb and DrRocket, et al. when things get past my understanding.

[homie12]

nice disclaimer

[swansont]

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

 

It would be interesting to see how many (few) times it has been used in all of the physics and speculations threads about relativity

[homie12]

i get barraged with it

[iNow]

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

Perhaps you missed the other one I shared... The one from which I quoted?

 

 

I think you're trolling.

This certainly appears to be the case.

 

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":

Your bold shows why this is something different than what I'm discussing.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Your bold shows why this is something different than what I'm discussing.

The point is that "appeal to qualified authority" is not listed as a fallacy, and is in fact listed as a valid inductive argument.

 

If you have further suggestions, I'd suggest that being cryptic and terse is the least effective way of conveying them.

[Appolinaria]

... and I do cite sources that I think are credible, but that's not an appeal to authority.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

But isn't that precisely what happens?

[iNow]

If you have further suggestions, I'd suggest that being cryptic and terse is the least effective way of conveying them.

Already did in post #66, where I shared a source that stated clearly:

 

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.

 

To be even more explicit, I gave an example of what I meant, and how nobody can say "X is true because of my qualifications."

[zapatos]

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

I agree also. While no one is right simply because of their credentials, knowing what someone's credentials are helps a great deal.

 

The more I understand the background of the person explaining something I'm not familiar with, the easier it makes my life. If it is a fairly standard scientific principle they are explaining, I will probably investigate further if a layperson is explaining, and will probably not investigate further if an expert was explaining it. It is lower risk to take the word of an expert than a layperson.

 

My wife is more of an expert on me than my neighbor. If they both give me the name of a book to read, who is more likely to have made a good selection for me?

 

I can't investigate everything myself; I'd never get anything else done. Knowing someone's credentials helps a lot if I know nothing else about them.

[Appolinaria]

Already did in post #66, where I shared a source that stated clearly:

 

 

 

To be even more explicit, I gave an example of what I meant, and how nobody can say "X is true because of my qualifications."

 

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

[iNow]

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

Interesting. I read his post to mean that it's a fallacy only if the person lacks the authority they claim to have. Either way, that's fallacious, too.

 

Here's why. A mathematician cannot say that 2+2=5, and this is true because I'm an expert in math. That is not a valid argument, and is a logical fallacy.

 

If they want to make that claim, they must support it using something other than just their credentials.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Already did in post #66, where I shared a source that stated clearly:

 

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.

 

To be even more explicit, I gave an example of what I meant, and how nobody can say "X is true because of my qualifications."

If you're going to require arguments to avoid deductive fallacies, you will no longer have most any argument that exists on SFN. "Global mean temperatures have been on the increase, and models suggest this is due to factors which will continue to increase in strength; therefore, the temperature will continue to increase in the future" is deductively fallacious, because there is no deductive logical principle which can take us from "This is how it has been" to "This is how it will be." There is no principle of induction which guarantees that the same physical laws which exist today will exist tomorrow.

 

We largely trade in inductive arguments, and "DrRocket knows lots of math; therefore, I can trust that his post about mathematics is probably right" is an entirely valid inductive argument. DrRocket's expertise is not a guarantee of correctness, but it is entirely valid to trust his posts more because of it.

 

On the other hand, "DrRocket knows lots of math; therefore, I can trust that his post about frog reproductive strategies is probably right" is a fallacious inductive argument, although perhaps DrRocket has some strange hobbies he has not yet disclosed to us.

[D H]

I just found what i feel is a new understanding of how the universe works.

It's not. It explains nothing.

 

 

And not 1 of you so far has adressed any specific detail of this.

Baloney. Many of us has said that it explains nothing.

 

We, on the other hand have asked you to explain

- How uncharged objects fall.

- How moons can orbit planets.

- To state exactly where on the electric universe you perceive yourself.

 

You have not said one word with regard to these questions.

 

 

For instance the standard model of the sun doesnt explain much.

Baloney.

 

Science has a very good understanding of how the sun formed.

Science has an excellent understanding of the energy source that ultimately makes the sun shines.

Science has a very, very good understanding of what will become of the sun.

Science has a fairly good understanding of the solar dynamo. This last is from Alfven.

 

There are a few open questions. There's the angular momentum problem in the formation of stars and solar systems. Coronal heating is another. Just because there are open questions does not invalidate the whole.

 

 

Gravitational theory isnt able to allow us individuals access to experimentation.

Huh?

 

 

Can gravity explain electro magnetism?

That is a false argument. Nobody says it does.

 

The fact is, there are four forces, not one. Electromagnetism does not explain how stars form, why stars form galaxies, why stars shine.

Edited February 14, 2012 by D H

[A Tripolation]

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

 

See DH's post above. Gravity doesn't explain electromagnetism just as Rhetorical Analysis doesn't explain Dynamo Theory.

 

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

 

So simply saying, "I have a doctorates in blah blah blah" will help to convey more trust than explaining the subject in a clear and concise manner?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

So simply saying, "I have a doctorates in blah blah blah" will help to convey more trust than explaining the subject in a clear and concise manner?

Many laymen do not have the necessary background to judge whether any one explanation is more clear or concise than another.

 

Surely we've all had the experience of reading an argument in a field we know little about, thinking "oh, that makes sense," and then being told it actually contradicts the basic principles of its field.

 

I do wish we'd provide more clear and concise explanations, though; some of our members seem more inclined to say "read a book."

[iNow]

We largely trade in inductive arguments, and "DrRocket knows lots of math; therefore, I can trust that his post about mathematics is probably right" is an entirely valid inductive argument. DrRocket's expertise is not a guarantee of correctness, but it is entirely valid to trust his posts more because of it.

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but again you seem to be trying to shift the goal posts.

 

First, you introduced the term "unqualified" into the argument from authority concept we were discussing. I wasn't talking about argument form "unqualified" authority. I was just talking about argument from authority.

 

Now, you're suggesting that it's usually okay to trust the posts of experts more because of their qualifications. I don't disagree with you on this, but nobody here is arguing that experts aren't more likely to be correct when posting on the subject of their expertise.

 

You seem to concede this point when you say "expertise is not a guarantee of correctness." That's sort of the entire point, which is why we don't allow people to argue a position based on expertise alone. They... like everyone else... are required to support their positions with evidence, logic, and reason. Sure, they may be better at doing so, and may have an easier time than others in offering that support, but they still cannot rely on their credentials alone to support an argument. Doing so would be an appeal to authority, and it would be a logical fallacy.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

First, you introduced the term "unqualified" into the argument from authority concept we were discussing. I wasn't talking about argument form "unqualified" authority. I was just talking about argument from authority.

Yes. The point being that argument from authority is not fallacious; an argument from unqualified authority is. Argument from authority is a valid inductive method.

 

You seem to concede this point when you say "expertise is not a guarantee of correctness." That's sort of the entire point, which is why we don't allow people to argue a position based on expertise alone. They... like everyone else... are required to support their positions with evidence, logic, and reason. Sure, they may be better at doing so, and may have an easier time than others in offering that support, but they still cannot rely on their credentials alone to support an argument. Doing so would be an appeal to authority, and it would be a logical fallacy.

Yes, if you're pretending to make a deductive argument with an appeal to authority (He's an expert; therefore, he's right), you're doing it wrong. But you originally stated that appeals to authority are automatically fallacious, and that's not true. An appeal to authority can be used as part of a perfectly valid argument.

[zapatos]

So simply saying, "I have a doctorates in blah blah blah" will help to convey more trust than explaining the subject in a clear and concise manner?

If two people explain the subject in a clear and concise manner, but tell me opposing things, the person with the doctorate conveys more trust than the person without.

 

The person's credentials don't trump all else, but they are a useful piece of information.

[iNow]

Okay. GDP is not the best measure of an economy, and I'm right because I'm an economist. Glad to see you here supporting this approach to discussion and debate at a frakkin science site.

 

I've been in school for two years longer than you, therefore I'm right and you're wrong.

 

I took a physics class once, therefore I can say you're argument about orbits is unfounded.

 

This all degrades very quickly with that approach, Cap'n.

 

It's a logical fallacy, and there's no way around that.

 

My dad was a carpenter, so your argument about the density of wood is not valid. There is no end to it.

[rktpro]

There are mermaids in pacific. I have spent all of my life on ship.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Okay. GDP is not the best measure of an economy, and I'm right because I'm an economist. Glad to see you here supporting this approach to discussion and debate at a frakkin science site.

 

I've been in school for two years longer than you, therefore I'm right and you're wrong.

 

I took a physics class once, therefore I can say you're argument about orbits is unfounded.

 

This all degrades very quickly with that approach, Cap'n.

 

It's a logical fallacy, and there's no way around that.

 

My dad was a carpenter, so your argument about the density of wood is not valid. There is no end to it.

Yes, if you're pretending to make a deductive argument with an appeal to authority (He's an expert; therefore, he's right), you're doing it wrong. But you originally stated that appeals to authority are automatically fallacious, and that's not true. An appeal to authority can be used as part of a perfectly valid argument.

 

Relating to the original point: showing credentials for our resident experts would indeed serve to increase the credibility of their posts, because inductively, it would increase our level of trust. Authority can't stand on its own, but mentioning it does not hurt.

[rktpro]

IMHO, Since we don't know who's who on the internet, it is necessary for the forum itself to list the experts. SFN has done that. You know, even if you are new, that a 'Physics Expert' would have said the right thing. Saying that you have a PhD doesn't and shouldn't work.

And what's the problem in all of it. Everyone knows that someone with a PhD talks and types like a thesis.

Links, links all around but not a link to the original premise means that the person is joking/wants you to believe in everything/retard.

[iNow]

An appeal to authority can be used as part of a perfectly valid argument.

Can you offer an example?

 

The ones you gave above I've already addressed (like with Dr.R, you're talking about likelihood of being correct, not evidence of validity of a claim).

[immortal]

Many laymen do not have the necessary background to judge whether any one explanation is more clear or concise than another.

 

Surely we've all had the experience of reading an argument in a field we know little about, thinking "oh, that makes sense," and then being told it actually contradicts the basic principles of its field.

 

I do wish we'd provide more clear and concise explanations, though; some of our members seem more inclined to say "read a book."

I completely agree with this. When I first came here with a little background on selfish gene theory I believed that natural selection acts on individual genes. Later 'lucaspa' showed why I was wrong or misinformed about the theory which was popularly accepted in the field saying that natural selection acts on genotypes or phenotypes and also quoting the works of E.O Wilson. It completely changed the way I thought about evolution from then on. I think this site has always maintained its standards, one cannot get away by making a hit and run case here, one has to do some research, understand what it is that they are posting and then make a rebuttal.

[Xittenn]

Later 'lucaspa' showed why I was wrong or misinformed about the theory which was popularly accepted in the field saying that natural selection acts on genotypes or phenotypes and also quoting the works of E.O Wilson.

 

I really liked him, I wish less mods would leave or stop posting. Mokey the giant lizard was pretty cool as well! :/