I can see you all have a sense of humor.

[michel123456]

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

 

Not now.

But as a new member I had, that was with Martin.

Hey Martin, where are you?

 

-----------

edit

And I have from time to time with DrRocket, which is not a mod or expert here (sure will become soon).

Edited February 14, 2012 by michel123456

[Xittenn]

I have very little sense of humour, despite being regularly told how funny I am, why is this in question?

[DrRocket]

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).

 

 

The entire peer review system is based on "appeal to authority". In fact all of science, in contrast to mathematics, is based on induction and on "appeal to authority" in some form.

 

An appeal to authority is not part of a valid argument in formal logic. Formal logic deals only with pure deduction.

 

But appeals to authority are used with validity and rather commonly in other contexts. Science is such a context. In mathematics one starts with a set of axioms, which are accepted without proof of any kind, and uses purely deductive arguments based on those axioms to prove theorems. But it should be noted that mathematicians actually use induction to discover the theorems that are then proved deductively. And mathematics is not science, and need not describe anything having to do with natural processes.

 

In science we have no set of axioms, and science deals with evidence, not proof. ALL of science is fundamentally based on inductive reasoning. It can be no other way, for in science one cannot accept a set of axioms purely on faith. The fundamental tenets of science are based on empiricism, not faith. The only arbiter of "truth" in science is consistency with experiment and observation -- and that is inductive.

 

So how are scientific theories accepted ? They are accepted on the basis of consistency with a body of experimental and observational data and that in turn is determined via reliance on the published word of experimenters, perhaps a large body of experimenters replicating one another's work, and by reliance on the peer review process. All of that is nothing more than a very disciplined and controlled argument by "appeal to authority".

 

You are perhaps perplexed because your typical arguments are appeals to authority without any corresponding reference to the actual data produced and evaluated by those authorities. A more scientific and valid use of authority normally includes reference to actual data as well as the analysis and opinions rendered with regard to that data. Arguments of the latter type are ubiquuitous in science.

 

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?

 

 

 

It would be pretty damn clear from the content of your posts that you had no such qualification.

 

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

 

Absolutely. But this is neither the time nor the place.

 

Some are much better than others.

Edited February 15, 2012 by DrRocket

[iNow]

Fair enough, then.

 

Appolinaria - It turns out that I was the one that was wrong, and that I was the one holding the inaccurate view in this discussion. Please accept my apology. It seems that I was working from a different definition of appeal to authority than you, Cap'n, and Dr.R., and perhaps others.

 

For as long as I've been posting online in discussion forums such as this one, I have understood an appeal to authority to mean that someone was arguing in the form, "X is true because I have degree Y and I said so," or "The reason you are wrong about A is because I have a degree in B and I said so." That approach is still, despite my concession here, a logical fallacy... and always will be. Further, I strongly suspect that other members and readers have used this very same definition here and elsewhere.

 

Regardless, as has been clarified now, there are other types of arguments from authority with different forms, some of which are both valid and unavoidable... much as Cap'n said in his first post to this discussion.

 

We live and learn, I suppose. Oobla dee, oobla da.

[Bignose]

The bridge here is that someone with a certain degree or certification should be able to explain the details of why something is or is not correct. As iNow posted above, statements like "X is true because I have degree Y and I said so," are clearly fallacious. A person with degree Y should be able to cite texts and strong evidence why someone with that degree believes in X.

[DrRocket]

And I have from time to time with DrRocket,

 

Only because you were wrong.

 

which is not a mod or expert here (sure will become soon).

 

Not likely.

 

My definition of an expert, in some specified area, is someone who knows everything that is known, knows the major open problems, knows who is investigating the open problems and their general approach, and has a feel for which areas of investigation are likely to pan out.

 

I was once an expert in a very tiny area, but am no longer an expert in anything.

 

NO ONE is an expert in "physics", "mathematics", "chemistry", "biology", etc. and probably no one has been an expert in any such broad areas since Gauss. They have simply grown to be too big and too diverse.

[StringJunky]

Only because you were wrong.

 

 

 

Not likely.

 

My definition of an expert, in some specified area, is someone who knows everything that is known, knows the major open problems, knows who is investigating the open problems and their general approach, and has a feel for which areas of investigation are likely to pan out.

 

I was once an expert in a very tiny area, but am no longer an expert in anything.

 

NO ONE is an expert in "physics", "mathematics", "chemistry", "biology", etc. and probably no one has been an expert in any such broad areas since Gauss. They have simply grown to be too big and too diverse.

 

Maybe you are not by your classification but you are relative to most people on this forum in Physics and Math's. You add something good and inspiring to the mix that makes up this forum...I hope you stick around.

[Phi for All]

Fair enough, then.

 

Appolinaria - It turns out that I was the one that was wrong, and that I was the one holding the inaccurate view in this discussion. Please accept my apology. It seems that I was working from a different definition of appeal to authority than you, Cap'n, and Dr.R., and perhaps others.

 

For as long as I've been posting online in discussion forums such as this one, I have understood an appeal to authority to mean that someone was arguing in the form, "X is true because I have degree Y and I said so," or "The reason you are wrong about A is because I have a degree in B and I said so." That approach is still, despite my concession here, a logical fallacy... and always will be. Further, I strongly suspect that other members and readers have used this very same definition here and elsewhere.

 

Regardless, as has been clarified now, there are other types of arguments from authority with different forms, some of which are both valid and unavoidable... much as Cap'n said in his first post to this discussion.

 

We live and learn, I suppose. Oobla dee, oobla da.

I also held the same view. In fact, it still makes more sense to me. It seems more like lying to claim qualifications you don't have, rather than being fallacious. I've always used the Nizkor site for logical fallacies (courtesy of Sayonara³, many moons ago) and I could have sworn the fallacy was about assuming someone was always right just because they had the credentials. It makes more sense to me on an internet forum where you really have no idea what someone's qualifications are.

 

I apologize for my insistence. Mea culpa.

[Ophiolite]

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.

Clearly you have never read between the lines of exchanges between protagonists in peer reviewed journals. By comparison, calling someone a fuckwit would constitute a compliment. Apparently you value politeness over truth; diplomacy over the scientific process.

 

You have found it acceptable to critique someone for attacking a poster who made insolent, provocative posts. You have made no attempt, that I have seen, to condemn that provocation. Such actions are useful in formulating an understanding of your ethos.

[Appolinaria]

Clearly you have never read between the lines of exchanges between protagonists in peer reviewed journals. By comparison, calling someone a fuckwit would constitute a compliment. Apparently you value politeness over truth; diplomacy over the scientific process.

 

You have found it acceptable to critique someone for attacking a poster who made insolent, provocative posts. You have made no attempt, that I have seen, to condemn that provocation. Such actions are useful in formulating an understanding of your ethos.

 

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.

[Ophiolite]

I do not value politeness over truth, <snip> I absolutely do not ever want your advice on building my ethos.

I trust you see the humour in this juxtaposition.

 

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.

No one said it was. Scientists are humans. A good scientist is passionate about his or her work. Defending one's work and hypotheses only in a dry, unemotional, strictly logical manner, without allowing a sense of the wonder, the excitement and the enthusiasm one feels would make the world of science a poorer place.

[Appolinaria]

No one said it was. Scientists are humans. A good scientist is passionate about his or her work. Defending one's work and hypotheses only in a dry, unemotional, strictly logical manner, without allowing a sense of the wonder, the excitement and the enthusiasm one feels would make the world of science a poorer place.

 

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.

[iNow]

It would be pretty damn clear from the content of your posts that you had no such qualification.

But you have no way of knowing. All I have to do is say that I do and we then immediately enter the realm of opinion and subjectivity, and the authority becomes challengeable.

 

It is effectively rendered moot as support for an argument.

[michel123456]

Clearly you have never read between the lines of exchanges between protagonists in peer reviewed journals. (...)

That reminds me this fabulous quote

"I am sitting in the smallest room of my house. Your review is in front of me. Soon, it will be behind me."

Max Reger to one of his critics

also sometimes attributed to George Bernhard Shaw

[iNow]

I wasnt asking you. I already know what to expect from you.

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.

That's different than being a condescending know-it-all.

 

Good grief... Hypocrite, much?

 

All I can ask is,

 

Would you speak like that to any human in real life?

[Ophiolite]

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.

If someone is demonstrably behaving like an ass and is ignoring the very principles of the scientific method and is being deliberately provocative I, broadly, have two choices: ignore them or tell them they are an ass. (In some cases I have a third option of calmly and objectively seeking to point out to them in what way they are mistaken.) I have no problem with the second option and it seems from some of your snide comments that you have no difficulty in this area either.

[homie12]

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

 

 

 

This certainly appears to be the case.

 

 

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

 

Im sorry I dont follow what you said. If its not too much trouble could you re state your point? and again Im sorry for losing track of your point.

[A Tripolation]

But you have no way of knowing. All I have to do is say that I do and we then immediately enter the realm of opinion and subjectivity, and the authority becomes challengeable.

 

I think it's pretty easy to tell when someone doesn't have a Ph.D in physics or math type stuff. I don't quite understand what you're saying.

[iNow]

If its not too much trouble could you re state your point?

It is too much trouble, so no.

 

 

I think it's pretty easy to tell when someone doesn't have a Ph.D in physics or math type stuff. I don't quite understand what you're saying.

I'm saying that appealing to authority in the manner I described is wholly without utility in a rational and reasonable debate... Especially online where the credentials of a contributor are not able to be validated, and where the content and logic of a post is given greater priority over the background of the person who makes it.

[homie12]

It is too much trouble, so no.

 

 

 

I'm saying that appealing to authority in the manner I described is wholly without utility in a rational and reasonable debate... Especially online where the credentials of a contributor are not able to be validated, and where the content and logic of a post is given greater priority over the background of the person who makes it.

Wow, thats better than I would have said it. But also, being an expert in something means you have a vested interest in it. Which most gefinitely has an affect on ones objectivity. So, can an expert be dishonest? you betcha. Especially when they refuse to look at all the evidence. Where are all of the electrical experts? Do all of these science related sites exclude electricity. If so why? Im conducting experiments that show we live in an electrical field. Who can help me with that?

[swansont]

Wow, thats better than I would have said it. But also, being an expert in something means you have a vested interest in it. Which most gefinitely has an affect on ones objectivity. So, can an expert be dishonest? you betcha. Especially when they refuse to look at all the evidence. Where are all of the electrical experts? Do all of these science related sites exclude electricity. If so why? Im conducting experiments that show we live in an electrical field. Who can help me with that?

 

You have claimed rather more than that, and have not backed up those claims. We already know there is an electrical field. There's a whole area of physics one studies on the subject of electricity and magnetism.