tas8831
Well-Known Member
Sure, but your post does not have fancy meme-style pics and boldy quotes from a 'look how horrible science and technology is' author!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Argumentum ad populum
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
ecco
Veteran Member
Like the storied Pheonix, this thread has been revived from the depths of Sep 18, 2019!
That doesn't change the fact that you are still committing the fallacy of appeal to authority by using only an appeal to authority as the support for your conclusion.
You haven't done away with the problem that logically you cannot assume something is true just because an authority says it is.
And because you cannot assume that, appealing to their authority alone can never constitute a valid argument in support of a conclusion.
At that point you aren't talking about objective logical truth you're talking about your opinion.
You can choose to believe something is true because an authority says it - but that's merely represents your opinion.
When you start talking about making claims about what is true then now you have the burden of proof to provide some objective logical arguments to support why we should believe your claim is true.
Saying "I believe them because I think they are more likely to be right than you are" doesn't prove that what you are believing is actually true.
You are merely giving a reason for why you hold your opinion - but it's still just an opinion.
If you aren't going to try to claim your belief is true then you don't have a burden to abide by the laws of logic.
But the moment you start asserting something is true, and not just your opinion, then you now have the burden to support your conclusion in a way that does not violate the laws of logic.
You are fallaciously conflating two unrelated concepts and therefore committing a fallacy of false equivalence
The two different concepts you are confusing:
1. The fact that you can make a conclusion in an argument that involves probability being part of the conclusion (ie. You aren't claiming your conclusion is absolutely proven to be true beyond doubt but claiming it is the best explanation of the evidence).
2. Your claim that the logical arguments used to arrive at your conclusion can involve probability.
The later is a complete misunderstanding of what logic is and how it works to support a conclusion.
Using logic to prove your conclusion is never an exercise of probability. Logical arguments are objective and binary in nature. Meaning: it is either objectively valid or invalid.
There is no probability curve for the whether or not your logic is valid or invalid, even if the conclusion you arrive at from logic involves a probability curve.
Let's look more closely at the argument from authority to understand why this is the case:
Premise: A paper by a scientist says the earth will turn into jello in one year.
Argument: A scientist said it, therefore it is likely to true.
Conclusion: Therefore, the earth will turn into jello in one year.
That would actually be the fallacy of appeal to probability if you formulated your argument that way.
You can't state your conclusion is certain to happen based on saying it's probable it could be true.
It is false to conclude because your argument involves a statement that something is probable, instead of certain, that it becomes valid logic.
But that's not how we determine whether or not logic is fallacious.
By definition, logic is fallacious because it is invalid. Meaning, it doesn't objectively work to bring you from your premise to your conclusion.
Does the logic in this case objectively allow you to go from your premise to your conclusion? No. Because your conclusion states as a fact that something must happen but your logic is giving you no reason to conclude it must happen.
Therefore, it is fallacious (ie invalid) logic even though you formulated it as a probability.
But what happens if you reformulate your logic so that the conclusion is also a probability?
Premise: A paper by a scientist says the earth will turn into jello in one year.
Argument: A scientist said it, therefore it is likely to true.
Conclusion: Therefore, the earth will likely turn into jello in one year.
It's still invalid logic because your argument is presuming something which you haven't proven is true.
You can't prove that this particular paper by this particular scientist has any objective probability of being true before you've even read it. You're assuming it has any probability of being true without proving your assumption is true.
Making inferences from history about how often other scientists have been right can not directly mathematically translate into claiming this particular paper has that percentage chance of being right.
But that's even not relevant to get into because your argument is still fallacious in the sense that it presumes we can't actually analyze the arguments of these scientists to determine if what they say is actually logically true or not.
The fact is we are not dealing with issues that give us no other means by which to judge what is true except by studying probabilities.
We have the arguments of the scientist and their data, presumably. You can use that to argue directly for something. We can refute those arguments directly.
The fact that you are unable or unwilling to do that doesn't give you the logical basis for using an appeal to probability to claim something is true when you have no need to appeal to probability because the actual data is in front of us.
That would be a fallacy of avoiding the issue. Because you're unable or unwilling to deal with the actual data and the actual arguments, you try to avoid doing that by arguing from probability.
That would be like a fallacious appeal to your own inability to understand something. But your inability to understand what a scientist has said doesn't mean you no have a logical reason to start arguing it's true based on appeal to historical probabilities that scientists are true X%.
The only way you don't commit a fallacy of appeal to authority, on the basis that you don't understand how to argue what the authority has claimed, is if both parties presume to agree with each other that the authority should be regarded as providing true claims.
But if these parties do not share that common presumption then appealing to authority is a fallacy.
And many don't accept anything a scientist says as true just because a scientist says it is so. So you need to either be prepared in that case to argue the actual data or you need to admit you just aren't equipped to prove what they say is true and are simply choosing to believe in what they say based on faith in them.
Which ironically is what most who worship science don't think they are doing, and attack religion for doing.
It's like the example of appealing to Bible Scripture to prove a claim. That only works if both parties involved already accept the validity of the Bible as a source of truth. If one party does not accept that premise is true then you have to do more work to establish the truth of your claim beyond just appealing to the fact that the Bible says it. Ie. Either you have to establish why we should believe the Bible should be presumed to be true or you need to find another means by which to support the truth of your claim without the Bible.
Ultimately then your conclusion doesn't represent a factual true genuine probability of what percentage chance this paper has of being right. But even if it did it would still constitute a fallacy of avoiding the issue because the actual data and arguments are available to analyze and argue over - so there's no need for you to turn to fallacious probability arguments in the first place.
Now you might say "I choose to believe it's true because I think it's more probable the scientist is true than not". That's all well and good as your opinion - but you have no logical basis for then trying to claim I, or others, need to accept your opinion is true unless you can give logically valid arguments to substantiate it.
All you're really doing is expressing an opinion that you think one should believe in a conclusion because a scientist shares it - but you can't logically prove one should have to accept the conclusion is true on the basis that a scientist shares it.
And that's the part I think you don't understand about how logic works.
By definition, logic is about being able to objectively say someone must accept the conclusion is true because the logic is valid and the premises are sound.
That is, by definition, what makes it objective and not subjective
That's why we use logic to establish truth in science. Because it has objective rules that if abided by reach objective conclusions.
But by the way you formulate your logic, you can't say your conclusion must be accepted as true. There it's invalid logic.
So you can't use that invalid logic to claim anyone needs to accept something as true.
You can't logically tell anyone that they must accept a conclusion is more likely to be true than not true just because a scientist has said it is. For the reasons I outlined.
Therefore, if you can't tell someone they must logically accept a conclusion (because your premises are unsound or your logic is invalid) then you aren't making a logical argument by definition but are simply stating your opinion.
To assert something you can't say must be accepted as true is to merely express your opinion.
But your opinion doesn't obligate other people to objectively accept your opinion is true until you can give them logically valid reasons and sound premises that would force them to objectively arrive at the same conclusion you did (unless they can offer logically valid counter arguments that refute your argument or undermine your premises).
Last edited:
Logical fallacy, ad hominem.
Attacking the individuals who liked a post does nothing to disprove the logic of the arguments in that post.
Being unable to refute the logic of the arguments presented, you turn to ad hominems as a distraction.
It is supremely ironic that someone would attack a post explaining logical argumentation principles by reverting to the most base and common of logical fallacies to do so.
I agree. Like I said, authorities can be wrong. But they are ore likely to be right than the average person.
if they are a legitimate authority (having access to relevant data and having been trained in the subject), it becomes a legitimate argument for likelihood of correctness.
Which is why the authories need to conduct due diligence and use the available evidence to support their conclusions. But, the average person neither has the training nor the access to the relevant information (without the tremendous amount of work required to become an authority themselves), which is why we rely on legitimate authorities.
But it is more likely to be true than other opinions.
The problem is that the laws of logic alone do not prove anything about the real world. There are always extra-logical assumptions required (for example, the validity of observations).
Actually, both are true.
Not true. Assumptions are always required that go beyond simple logic. And those assumptions always have probabilities associated with them.
I assume you've never dealt with Boolean valued logics, huh?
No, the conclusion is that it is likely that the Earth will turn into jello in one year.
You got the wrong conclusion.
Agreed. it is always going to be probabilistic.
And at that point logic alone becomes useless in saying anything about the real world.
Well, I would say that your argument is the wrong one: it should be 'a scientist that has studied the issue, considering the relevant evidence has said it, therefore it is likely to be true'.
if the scientists has done due diligence, then you can.
And, once again, there will always be extra-logical assumptions required for any statement about the real world. Even the assumption that if I see something happen, then it did is an assumption.
When it comes to the real world, there are no such things. I cannot prove there is a book in front of me. Even if I see it, touch it, and can read it, those are not enough to prove logically that the book exists.
All that means is that the goal of having knowledge be based solely on logic is unattainable. Math and logic alone say nothing about the real world.
It’s not nothing......it’s energy.
Matter originates from (invisible) energy.
You are committing the logical fallacy of argument by repetition.
I already demonstrated why your line of thinking is fallacious with logical arguments.
You have offered no counter arguments with your statements .
Merely repeating your original assertions doesn't make it true just because you repeat it.
Your statements are the logical fallacy of irrelevant conclusion.
The fact that we require self evident beliefs as presumptions to use logic doesn't prove your original claim is true that appeal to authority is a valid logical argument, nor counter any of the arguments I put forth which show why it is invalid.
Saying that logic can't prove everything is true doesn't mean you have permission to violate the laws of logic with invalid fallacies. Nor does it mean you have permission to claim to have proven something is logically true while not using logic to actually do so.
You sound more like you're trying to justify violating the laws of logic because you don't believe in the laws of logic.
In which case you aren't making an objectively logical argument anymore.
But what's weird is that you also want to be able to claim you've shown something to be logically true by making what you think are logical arguments.
So which is it? Ether logic is objective or it isn't.
If logic isn't objective then you can't make appeals to it in order to decide what it objectively true.
You don't get to try to claim logic is objective when think it serves your arguments but then also claim logic doesn't need to be objective when it serves you to violate the objective laws of logic.
Logical fallacies: Failure of the burden of rejoinder and argument by assertion.
I gave specific valid logical reasons why you were drawing false equivalence between those two things.
You failed to offer a counter argument, which is failing to meet your burden of rejoinder
You responded only with a fallacy of argument by assertion.
You don't refute my argument by merely asserting it is false.
Logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion.
The fact that assumptions are required to engage in logical debate does not by itself counter any argument I made. You have demonstrated no speific logical connection between what you are stating and why you think it would refute anything I argued.
You are committing the fallacy of false equivalence again.
You have established no logical connection between the concept that probabilities exist in some assumptions and your claim that you think it's not fallacious invalid logic to make an appeal to authority.
The fact that assumptions exist based on probabilities does not logically refute any of the arguments I gave which show why the logic of your argument was invalid.
You have offered no specific refutation to explain why any point of logic in my argument was would be wrong.
You have no demonstrated any specific relevance you think this fact would have to refute any specific argument I made.
Logical fallacy, irrevelant conclusion.
You have demonstrated no relevance your question would have to refuting my arguments.
I already addressed why that form of argument you use would also be fallacious in my post - so you haven't refuted anything.
Logical fallacy, argument by assertion and nonsequitur.
You merely assert that this fact proves logic is useless in saying anything, but it's not true just because you assert it is.
And there is no logical connection between your premise and your conclusion. You have not provided an argument to get from your premise to your conclusion.
You have given no specific logical reasons for why we should believe your conclusion is true.
You have just said the same thing I already did but changed the verbage. The concepts remain the same therefore nothing has changed so my arguments still stand showing why it's still invalid logic.
I will outline the argument again but with your new verbage to demonstate why your new verbage doesn't change anything from a logical standpoint:
Premise #1: If a scientist who has studied and issue and considered the relevant evidence says something is true then it is most likely true.
Premise #2: A scientist has said the earth will turn to jello in one year.
Hidden Premise #3 (This is a hidden premise you don't realize you have): We can assume any scientist making a claim has studied the issue and considered the relevant evidence.
Argument. Because a scientist has said it, it is probably true.
Conclusion: The earth will most likely turn to jello in one year.
None of my arguments have to be changed - they all still apply to this new formulation.
So you haven't refuted anything I argued.
You have offered no specific counter arguments to prove your claim is true that your new verbage would change anything about what I argued.
Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely asserting that due diligence solves the fallacies of your argument, or that it refutes my arguments, doesn't make it so just because you assert it.
You have given no logical counter arguments to establish with specific reasons why we should believe introducing due diligence into the equation changes anything about what we logically conclude.
Logical fallacy, red herring and irrelevant conclusion.
The limits of what logic can show to be true is not relevant to the issue of what the laws of logic actually are and how they are applied.
You are trying to make claims about the laws of logic. You are trying to claim the fallacy of appeal to authority doesn't count as a fallacy of logic.
Your claims about fallacies are subject to being verified as to whether or not they are a fallacy by applying the laws of logic to them.
The laws of logic show it is, in fact, a fallacy by the objective definition of the laws of logic.
Your claims were therefore shown to be false.
And I have gone to great lengths to show why it is false. To which you have offered no relevant counter arguments.
Last edited:
No, you made a series of claims that I dispute. In particular, you claimed that probability has no relevance to logic. And I dispute that because there are no self-evident propositions about the real world. And therefore logic alone is not enough to say anything about the real world.
Agreed. But your denial doesn't make them false either. In particular, your claim that the conclusions are not based on logic is not supported.
Nope. it is pointing out that there is more than one possible logic and different logics will lead to different conclusions.
There is no such thing as a self-evident truth outside of math and logic (and the existence is debatable even there).
The appeal to authority is NOT saying that anything an authority says is correct. That is the red herring you have built up. it is the claim that because they have done the relevant research, considered the available relevant evidence, and have training to evaluate that evidence, the authority is more likely to be correct than the average person.
Yes, actually I am. In particular, I am stating what is required for someone to be a valid authority: that they have access to and have considered the relevant evidence while also having training to evaluate it correctly.
This is a prerequisite to be a valid authority. And yes, those who have done this due diligence are more likely to be correct *because* they have considered the evidence and have the training to evaluate it.
To be an authority means to have studied the evidence and have been trained to evaluate it. For those that are valid authorities, it is more likely that they will be correct than those who have not studied this evidence or had this training.
Having access to the data and having had training on how to evaluate such evidence does solve the questions you have about the argument when it is properly stated.
You are proposing a red herring that authorities must always be correct in order to say they are reliable.
An appeal to a valid authority is NOT a fallacy when properly stated.
You really need to study logic a bit more. There are multiple logics, some of which tolerate contradictions, some of which deny excluded middle, etc.
Which claim that I made was shown to be false?
[/quote][/QUOTE]
No, you introduced a number of extraneous factors not relevant to my claims and then said *those* were against your version of logic.
I would suggest updating your logic to at least include quantifiers and not simply Aristotelian pre-logic.
I decided to go back to your original argument to show where you go wrong.
The claim is NOT that the statement must be true because the authority said it. The claim is that it is more likely to be true because a legitimate authority said it. In particular, that authority has to have studied the relevant evidence and have been trained to judge that evidence.
And that isn't the claim being made. The claim is that the authorities are more likely to be correct than non-authorities.
It isn't just their credentials, but the fact that they got those credentials by looking at the relevant evidence and having the training to evaluate it correctly.
Someone with credentials in theology has no actual way of testing their ideas, no relevant evidence, and thereby no legitimate authority at all.
Those in a science do have ways to test their ideas, and do have relevant evidence and so can become legitimate authorities.
Not its absolute truth, but rather its likely truth given what we know so far.
Appealing to a consensus of authorities does mean a more secure conclusion because they have access to a wider range of evidence (which often no single person can have) and have explored the steps needed to reach correct conclusions based on that evidence.
Any single authority is unlikely to have access to all of the relevant evidence, so their authority is limited in a way that the consensus of authorities is not.
Also, you have only claimed that assertions by legitimate authorities are not more likely to be true, but have given no evidence or argument for this claim.
Irrelevant. Nobody is claiming that we can obtain logical truths about science. What we can obtain is *very likely* approximations.
The claim is NOT that the statement must be true because the authority said it. The claim is that it is more likely to be true because a legitimate authority said it. In particular, that authority has to have studied the relevant evidence and have been trained to judge that evidence.
And that isn't the claim being made. The claim is that the authorities are more likely to be correct than non-authorities.
It isn't just their credentials, but the fact that they got those credentials by looking at the relevant evidence and having the training to evaluate it correctly.
Someone with credentials in theology has no actual way of testing their ideas, no relevant evidence, and thereby no legitimate authority at all.
Those in a science do have ways to test their ideas, and do have relevant evidence and so can become legitimate authorities.
Not its absolute truth, but rather its likely truth given what we know so far.
Appealing to a consensus of authorities does mean a more secure conclusion because they have access to a wider range of evidence (which often no single person can have) and have explored the steps needed to reach correct conclusions based on that evidence.
Any single authority is unlikely to have access to all of the relevant evidence, so their authority is limited in a way that the consensus of authorities is not.
Also, you have only claimed that assertions by legitimate authorities are not more likely to be true, but have given no evidence or argument for this claim.
Irrelevant. Nobody is claiming that we can obtain logical truths about science. What we can obtain is *very likely* approximations.
Disputing them is not the same as offering a valid counter argument.
Merely saying "I dispute that" doesn't prove my argument is invalid or m conclusion is untrue.
Your opinion about something is not relevant to determining what can be objectively said to be logically true.
In order to do that you need to present valid logical arguments based on sound premises.
There are two fatal flaws with your reasons:
1. You are committing the logical fallacy of non sequitur.
There is no demonstrated logical connection between your premise and your conclusion.
Let's break down what you just said, and it's implications to what you are trying to defend, and maybe it will help you understand why it doesn't make sense:
Premise: No self evident truth exists.
Premise: Objective logic and objective truth can't be known.
Argument. Because we can't say what is true, we can't really say any argument is fallacious.
Conclusion: There's no such thing as logical fallacies, therefore I can commit them without consequence.
Now, I'm not trying to strawman your argument, so if you think you can change that to have it make sense then by all means do so.
Your problem here is not that you are trying to argue that the appeal to autority doesn't violate the laws of logic.
Your problem here is that you actually are trying to claim that you don't need to follow the laws of logic because you don't think logic can be proven true.
Well that raises a problem for you: Why are you trying to make a logical argument to prove the fallacy of appeal to authority doesn't violate the laws of logic when you don't think the laws of logic are true?'
You contradict yourself.
On top of that; your arguments also don't constitute anything relevant to the thread at that point.
Because discussions about what the rules of logic are and how to apply them are only relevant to people who believe logic is true and want to abide by the laws of logic.
Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely asserting that I did not offer a valid counter argument to something, but merely denied it is true, doesn't make your claim true just because you assert it is.
You would need to support your assertion by quoting specific things I argued and then giving specific reasons why you think I failed to give logical support for them.
You violate the laws of logic. You violate at least two of the three laws of logic with your statement.
1. The law of noncontradiction. Two contradictory things cannot both be true.
2. The law of the excluded middle. Something is either true or false. There is no other alternative.
What you are describing isn't logic by definition. It's just your subjective opinion straining to gain the rubber stamp of being called logical to lend credence to your opinion without having the burden of actually having to adhere your opinion to the laws of logic.
Now, maybe what you meant to say was that there's more than one type of argument?
That's not the same as saying there's more than one type of logic.
The principles of logic are the same no matter what argument you apply them to.
All logical arguments by definition are subject to the laws of logic.
If they violate logic then they cease to be logical arguments by definition. They are fallacious.
Your statement has no logically demonstrated relevance to refuting anything I've argued or supporting any claim you've tried to make.
But what I can say about your statement is that you refute your own claim to there being "different logics"
If logic is true, an that truth is self evident, then logic is objective then there's one only type of logic.
S you don't get to make up your own subjective logic.
If logic wasn't objective then the scientific method would fail to work, as it inherently depends on logic in order to come to objective conclusions about observations.
You are commiting the logical fallay of strawman.
You are misrepresenting what I said because you can't refute what I actually argued.
I specifically addressed your claim abuot the source of the authority being what you describe and still showed why it was a fallaious to appeal to that authority to determine truth.
You have not refuted the specific arguments I gave. You have not even attempted to address them.
You therefore are guilty of the logical fallacy of argument by assertion and argument by repetition.
Merely repeating your refuted claims doesn't make them true just because you repeat them.
You need to offer valid counter arguments to rebut my arguments if you want to claim your conclusion should still be regarded as true.
You are committing the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion.
Criteria to determine whether or not someone can be considered an authority on a subject does nothing to change the fundamental reasons why an appeal to authority is a fallacious logic.
Logically it is possible for the most qualified individual to be wrong about something in their given area of expertise.
Therefore, logically , it is impossible to cite the viewpoint of an authority as proof that a claim is true.
You are distorting the definition of what an appeal to authority actually is.
An appeal to authority by definition is saying you know something is true because an authority says so.
An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument.[1] Some consider that it is used in a cogent form if all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context,[2][3] and others consider it to always be a fallacy to cite an authority on the discussed topic as the primary means of supporting an argument.[4]
Appeal to authority is not defined as "I think it could more likely be true because an authority in a relevant field has said it". You aren't even making a claim of truth at that point. You're just citing your opinion and giving what reason you have your opinion.
Logical arguments are about establishing truth using logical arguments and sound premises. If you aren't trying to establish something is true then you aren't even trying to make an argument.
You're trying to falsely equate the two by saying an appeal to authority isn't actually a fallacy by incorrectly redefining appeal to authority in a way that makes it no longer a fallacy because it's really no longer even an argument period but just an opinion.
...
Yes, actually I am. In particular, I am stating what is required for someone to be a valid authority: that they have access to and have considered the relevant evidence while also having training to evaluate it correctly.
This is a prerequisite to be a valid authority. And yes, those who have done this due diligence are more likely to be correct *because* they have considered the evidence and have the training to evaluate it.[/quote]
None of that criteria changes the conditions of the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.
Because you cannot state that any individual, no matter how capable or qualified, is beyond error,you therefore can never use the opinion of an individual as the basis for logically establishing what is true.
The very definition of appeal to authority is that you are trying to claim something should be believed to be true because an authority says it.
"should believe" implies the force of logic, that the logic of our argument an the soundness of your premises should force someone to come to this conclusion by objective logical processes
"Should believe" does not mean "you have to acknowledge there is a possibility this could be true". At that point you're not making claim of truth. You're merely expressing possibilities. And then you're not making an argument about what is true you're merely making an argument about what is possible.
And technically it's still a fallacy to appeal to an authority to prove your claim that something is possible. For the same reason that the authority could be wrong so their testimony that something is possible can't be proof that something is possible.
Your reasoning is fallacious because it is based on assumptions we know aren't true.
You are assuming that someone who has the traits:
A) Having access to the data.
B) Having training to evaluate it
Will result in that individual producing a conclusion that cannot be false.
Therefore i cannot be fallacious logic to appeal to their authority to prove a claim is true.
Why do you falsely assume their conclusion cannot be false? Because you assume without basis, and against what we know to be true, that someone with Traits A and B cannot:
-Make mistakes
-Commit fallacious reasoning
-Intentionally deceive
-Have other motivations behind what they are doing besides the pursuit of truth.
You are committing a strawman fallacy by trying to change terms to conform to what you are trying to conclude, in opposition to what the definition of those terms normally is.
No one said anything about whether or not an authority is "reliable" because your perspective of their reliability is not relevant to whether or not appealing to them constitutes a fallacious appeal to authority.
For one, you don't even define what reliable is in concrete terms. It's a subjective meaningless term that is of no use in evaluating anything.
But more importantly, it's not relevant. Because logically no human is beyond reproach or mistake, so no human can ever be appealed to as the basis for determining something to be true.
No amount of qualifications changes that fundamental fact about being human that makes appealing to another human a fundamentally impossible way for declaring something should be believed to be true.
Your subjective preference for doing so doesn't change the objective logic involved in reaching that conclusion.
There is no way you can make an argument for why we must believe a conclusion is true where your only reason is to say "because this guy says so" and not have it be fallacious.
Go ahead and try. I'll show you why it's fallacious.
There's a few completely fatal flaws with that statement of yours:
1. You're committing the logical fallacy of argument by assertion. You have given no logical reason why we should believe your claim is true that multiple types of contradictory logic could exist let alone prove that they do exist.
2. Forms of logic which contradict logic would mean that logic as a concept of objective truth is neither objective nor true.
In which case your argument is self refuting because the process of logic can''t be used to determine what is logically true. Yet you're trying to use logic to argue for your conclusion.
So you're contradicting yourself.
Is logic true or not?
Is logic objective or not?
You act like it is when you think you can use it to support your conclusion.
But then you try to disregard the laws of logic when it doesn't serve your conclusion.
You can't have it both ways. You might think you can because you don't believe in the law of noncontradiction, but you can't give any reason why we should believe you an have it both ways.
But, then again, if you don't believe in logic why would you think you even have to give a reason for what you believe? At all? Maybe that's why you have been committing so many fallacies of assertion and repetition. You don't seem to think you need to back up what you say with logically valid reasons
Your argument is self refuting.
Because you're trying to use logic to prove logic doesn't exist.
The answer to your question was contained in what you were quoting:
You are trying to make claims about the laws of logic. You are trying to claim the fallacy of appeal to authority doesn't count as a fallacy of logic.
Your claims about fallacies are subject to being verified as to whether or not they are a fallacy by applying the laws of logic to them.
The laws of logic show it is, in fact, a fallacy by the objective definition of the laws of logic.
Your claims were therefore shown to be false.
And I have gone to great lengths to show why it is false. To which you have offered no relevant counter arguments.
There are two fatal flaws with your statement.
1. It's a fallacy of argument by assertion. You have given no evidence or arguments to show why specifically anything I said was in error. You have quoted nothing I said specifically and given no specific reason why it would supposedly be at fault. Merely asserting it doesn't make it true.
2. You have never established why we should believe your claim is true that there are supposedly other versions of logic that allow for contradiction and a non-excluded middle.
You can't logically use that assumption as the premise from which you are arguing unless you can first prove your premise should be regard as true.
Of course, none of this would mean anything to you if you don't believe objective logic exists in the first place. Why would you have to give reason to prove anything you assert?
You see where that absurd standard gets us - you have no common ground for determining what is true and what isn't. It's just your opinion.
But that makes you a hypocrit because you aren't living consistent with what you claim to believe. You appeal to the scientific method to determine what is true but the scientific method requires objective logic to work.
Logic can't be objective only when it serves your conclusion and then subjective when it doesn't otherwise it was never objective to begin with.
That would be a violation of the law of noncontradiction. But if you don't believe in objective logic then you probably see nothing wrong with holding two contradictory positions about what the nature of logic is based on however it best serves you in the moment.
Your statement has no relevance to refuting anything I have said because you have demonstrated no reasons why "updating your logic" would prove your claims are true or why t supposedly refutes my arguments.
You are again making a fallacious argument by assertion. You merely assert that there is something out there which disproves my argument but produe no evidence or logical arguments to demonstrate what that would be or why it would supposedly refute my arguments[/quote]
Last edited:
"Showing me where I am wrong" implies using logical reasons and evidence to establish as an objective fact that what I said was wrong somehow.
It would be a nice change of pace from you merely making arguments by assertion without supporting reasons or evidence to back them up.
That is the very wikipedia definition of a fallacious appeal to authority.
If that is not the definition you are using then you aren't talking about a true fallacious appeal to authority.
You tried to originally assert appeal to authority wasn't fallacious. You were wrong for the reasons I outlined already, and which you haven't refuted.
If you were believing a wrong definition of the fallacy then that could be why you were wrong in claiming it's not a fallacy. But then your claims still demand correction by pointing out that you were using the wrong definition.
Your definition of appeal to authority is not the definition it has always been understood to mean. As evidenced on wikipedia.
You don't get to make up your own definitions for fallacies and then claim the fallacies are wrong because you distorted the definition of those fallacies from their original meanings.
None of that changes the fact that you are using the wrong definition for appeal to authority. Therefore any claims you make about the fallacy of appeal to authority based off that false definition are invalid.
You are committing the logical fallacy of strawman.
I never claimed anything about the likeyhood of it because it was never relevant to disproving your claims about what a fallacy of appeal to authority is.
Your definition of appeal to authority is demonstrated to be false, so there's no relevance to argue over who is more likely to have a right conclusion about something because it won't change the fact that your definition of what an appeal to authority is was still verifiably wrong.
Your statement is not relevant to what you are quoting and therefore doesn't refute it.
I said that logically no singular or quantity of authorities can ever be able be said to logically require us to conclude that something must be true because we know that no individual and no group of individuals can ever be said to be beyond the capacity for fault.
That is the very reason why the proper definition of appeal to authority is, in fact, fallacious logic.
You wouldn't understand that if you were using the wrong definition for what an appeal to authority is.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
As a thinker I am just a human first.
So thinking I know that just a human once and first a long time ago began thinking before. The same as a human today began using science terms.
Thinking only.
Just as a human. Basic advice a human inferring science was proven one hundred percent wrong.
As they sacrificed their owned origin human highest life form. Humans first form.
We have lived sick and sacrificed since. Self advice.
The state to be sacrificed in caused man conditions was saved by man who was changing earths gas body mass.
Sacrifice is everything changed the advice hence is any body changed. So it owned no evidence of reason.
To be and gain life sacrificed. Body earth had changed releasing radiation it's seal.
Space cooling taking radiation out one way was going to stop gods attack O an earth science calculation as science inferred is to add subtract by false cross + had caused its release.
Previously it was not being released.
2012 the end was proclaimed. Radiation Alchemy changes hence had been forbidden. Human science known earth calculation. Reasoning of. Why. When. Predictive sciences.
Life's evolution healing returning origin DNA was a loss. Terms gods spirits gases by cooling remassing gas removed by radiation effect would begin to miraculously heal life.
Science knew.
So I don't need to be a scientist arguing by intelligent human inferred preaching. Indoctrinated from an innocent baby. False science status.
As it is fakery in natural terms.
I see by natural observation humans dying unnaturally whilst sharing the exact same life supporting atmospheric mass that I am using.
So I pondered life. Asked why a human was comparing our life holy human to what science said was a beast animal.
Made no common sense when two humans as humans had sex to be determined human and also a human parent.
Then I reviewed humans who claim they can bodily time shift forms.
Made sense that they were trying to own machines to change DNA human into beast bodies by DNA inferred changes chemistry in pathways of living bodies living tissue.
Why they study living life.
When evidence of life's mutation historic was with bones found. Not living tissue.
For what natural human reason....not natural human reasoning.
So I thought about what men stated was a mind yet also a human body physical possession of unnatural changes.
Understanding it had been observed as unnatural. Therefore men in science observing unnatural change had been advised. The human mentality to reason information had altered it's concepts.
Consciousness
Then I understood why they said Christ consciousness depended on Christ as mass existing. Versus fallout irradiation as anti consuming of heavens gas by mass.
In full knowledge mass was sciences origins to theory against as we never owned science expressed. Until humans chose to express science to change mass.
Mass can remove a portion of its body. By changed pathways yet still remain intact as the same pre formed mass. Science knowledge about mass. Science claiming time shift.
Which is not comparable to bio life as we are not mass.
Then I realised of course it was why brother human said to brother human sacrificed bio life was his occult nuclear science fault cause. In our human natural past. Humans caused it.
So he began to study the evidence that human life had been mutated sacrificed in nuclear time shifting mass before. By and because of human science.
Why science a human argument had been founded upon science a human practice having caused mutation.
Basic human advice science was the false preacher as babies were never given a natural choice by adult indoctrination. Human as the subject self in a review.
So thinking I know that just a human once and first a long time ago began thinking before. The same as a human today began using science terms.
Thinking only.
Just as a human. Basic advice a human inferring science was proven one hundred percent wrong.
As they sacrificed their owned origin human highest life form. Humans first form.
We have lived sick and sacrificed since. Self advice.
The state to be sacrificed in caused man conditions was saved by man who was changing earths gas body mass.
Sacrifice is everything changed the advice hence is any body changed. So it owned no evidence of reason.
To be and gain life sacrificed. Body earth had changed releasing radiation it's seal.
Space cooling taking radiation out one way was going to stop gods attack O an earth science calculation as science inferred is to add subtract by false cross + had caused its release.
Previously it was not being released.
2012 the end was proclaimed. Radiation Alchemy changes hence had been forbidden. Human science known earth calculation. Reasoning of. Why. When. Predictive sciences.
Life's evolution healing returning origin DNA was a loss. Terms gods spirits gases by cooling remassing gas removed by radiation effect would begin to miraculously heal life.
Science knew.
So I don't need to be a scientist arguing by intelligent human inferred preaching. Indoctrinated from an innocent baby. False science status.
As it is fakery in natural terms.
I see by natural observation humans dying unnaturally whilst sharing the exact same life supporting atmospheric mass that I am using.
So I pondered life. Asked why a human was comparing our life holy human to what science said was a beast animal.
Made no common sense when two humans as humans had sex to be determined human and also a human parent.
Then I reviewed humans who claim they can bodily time shift forms.
Made sense that they were trying to own machines to change DNA human into beast bodies by DNA inferred changes chemistry in pathways of living bodies living tissue.
Why they study living life.
When evidence of life's mutation historic was with bones found. Not living tissue.
For what natural human reason....not natural human reasoning.
So I thought about what men stated was a mind yet also a human body physical possession of unnatural changes.
Understanding it had been observed as unnatural. Therefore men in science observing unnatural change had been advised. The human mentality to reason information had altered it's concepts.
Consciousness
Then I understood why they said Christ consciousness depended on Christ as mass existing. Versus fallout irradiation as anti consuming of heavens gas by mass.
In full knowledge mass was sciences origins to theory against as we never owned science expressed. Until humans chose to express science to change mass.
Mass can remove a portion of its body. By changed pathways yet still remain intact as the same pre formed mass. Science knowledge about mass. Science claiming time shift.
Which is not comparable to bio life as we are not mass.
Then I realised of course it was why brother human said to brother human sacrificed bio life was his occult nuclear science fault cause. In our human natural past. Humans caused it.
So he began to study the evidence that human life had been mutated sacrificed in nuclear time shifting mass before. By and because of human science.
Why science a human argument had been founded upon science a human practice having caused mutation.
Basic human advice science was the false preacher as babies were never given a natural choice by adult indoctrination. Human as the subject self in a review.
@Polymath257
Now, putting aside the fact that your entire argument is based on a false definition of what an "appeal to authority" actually involves so every conclusion you draw from that false premise is invalid...
And putting aside the fact that you admit you don't believe in objective logic, except when it subjectively serves you to use it to prove your argument (because you still try to use it to support your claims when it suits you to do so), so there's really no point in trying to have a logic based discussion with someone who doesn't believe objective logic exists...
There is also a fatal flaw with you reasoning about appealing to authority which is worth pointing out.
You are trying to claim that a valid way of supporting a claim that something is true is by saying "it's most likely true because a scientist believes it is".
Now, whether or not that is a logically valid way of constructing an argument is not even necessary to debate over in order for me to expose one very fatal flaw with your argument:
It's not merely a bad or a weak argument, but it's actually a dishonest rhetorical tactic that is designed to allow you to assert something is true without actually having the ability to argue for something on the merits of the evidence and logic.
How so?
Because you're trying to use a forensic inference probability argument to establish whether or not a scientific conclusion is true when you don't actually have to do that because there are better forms of arguments available to you!
You have access to the published works. You can access the data and the logic directly, Go pull it out and argue directly to it.
If you don't have the capability to do that because you simply don't understand the material then you simply don't need to try to claim it's true. You can be honest and claim ignorance.
You don't need to make inference arguments about what might most likely be true about scientific conclusions when you have the capacity to go make direct arguments from the data and logic they used to either support or refute their conclusions.
In fact, it's intellectually dishonest to try to argue based on inference about something when the capability of arguing directly to the data exists.
Because there is no reason you'd do that unless you're trying to find an excuse to avoid having to debate the issue on the merits of the evidence.
It's intellectually lazy at best. At worst it's a dishonest tactic that is trying to hide the fact that the evidence won't actually support the conclusion you want it to so you can't argue directly to the evidence.
The only time that inference arguments are a valid way of reaching logical conclusions is when you're dealing with things where direct observation is not possible so the gaps have to be filled in by inferences to probability - like archaeology.
But you don't need to do a forensic analysis on the character of a scientist to guess whether or not what he says is true when you could simply go directly to his work and assess the validity of it for yourself!
And if you don't have the ability to assess the work directly then you need to be honest about that and not try to make claims that go beyond your capacity to back up those claims.
In that sense you are committing the fallacy of avoiding the issue by trying to use an inference argument to avoid having to argue the evidence and logic of the science directly.
You are in keeping then with the spirit of a fallacious appeal to authority while you try to dodge meeting the technical definition of it.
Because the very reason people use fallacious appeals to authority is because they either don't know how to argue the information directly or they don't want to because they know it can't actually be used to prove their conclusion is true.
The end result is you are trying to avoid dealing with the evidence and logic behind the conclusions the scientists reached by appealing to the character/qualifications/skills/etc of the scientist who reached the conclusion.
It is that act of avoiding dealing with the evidence directly that is the problem.
Now, putting aside the fact that your entire argument is based on a false definition of what an "appeal to authority" actually involves so every conclusion you draw from that false premise is invalid...
And putting aside the fact that you admit you don't believe in objective logic, except when it subjectively serves you to use it to prove your argument (because you still try to use it to support your claims when it suits you to do so), so there's really no point in trying to have a logic based discussion with someone who doesn't believe objective logic exists...
There is also a fatal flaw with you reasoning about appealing to authority which is worth pointing out.
You are trying to claim that a valid way of supporting a claim that something is true is by saying "it's most likely true because a scientist believes it is".
Now, whether or not that is a logically valid way of constructing an argument is not even necessary to debate over in order for me to expose one very fatal flaw with your argument:
It's not merely a bad or a weak argument, but it's actually a dishonest rhetorical tactic that is designed to allow you to assert something is true without actually having the ability to argue for something on the merits of the evidence and logic.
How so?
Because you're trying to use a forensic inference probability argument to establish whether or not a scientific conclusion is true when you don't actually have to do that because there are better forms of arguments available to you!
You have access to the published works. You can access the data and the logic directly, Go pull it out and argue directly to it.
If you don't have the capability to do that because you simply don't understand the material then you simply don't need to try to claim it's true. You can be honest and claim ignorance.
You don't need to make inference arguments about what might most likely be true about scientific conclusions when you have the capacity to go make direct arguments from the data and logic they used to either support or refute their conclusions.
In fact, it's intellectually dishonest to try to argue based on inference about something when the capability of arguing directly to the data exists.
Because there is no reason you'd do that unless you're trying to find an excuse to avoid having to debate the issue on the merits of the evidence.
It's intellectually lazy at best. At worst it's a dishonest tactic that is trying to hide the fact that the evidence won't actually support the conclusion you want it to so you can't argue directly to the evidence.
The only time that inference arguments are a valid way of reaching logical conclusions is when you're dealing with things where direct observation is not possible so the gaps have to be filled in by inferences to probability - like archaeology.
But you don't need to do a forensic analysis on the character of a scientist to guess whether or not what he says is true when you could simply go directly to his work and assess the validity of it for yourself!
And if you don't have the ability to assess the work directly then you need to be honest about that and not try to make claims that go beyond your capacity to back up those claims.
In that sense you are committing the fallacy of avoiding the issue by trying to use an inference argument to avoid having to argue the evidence and logic of the science directly.
You are in keeping then with the spirit of a fallacious appeal to authority while you try to dodge meeting the technical definition of it.
Because the very reason people use fallacious appeals to authority is because they either don't know how to argue the information directly or they don't want to because they know it can't actually be used to prove their conclusion is true.
The end result is you are trying to avoid dealing with the evidence and logic behind the conclusions the scientists reached by appealing to the character/qualifications/skills/etc of the scientist who reached the conclusion.
It is that act of avoiding dealing with the evidence directly that is the problem.
Last edited:
Not my argument at all. Not even close.
Premise: All logical arguments need to start with some premise.
Premise: All premises about the real world are tentative.
Conclusion: No statement about the real world can be proven logically.
Logical fallacies exist, but no statement about the real world can be proven using only logic. What we can say is that some statements are more likely to be good approximations than others.
yes, I am trying to argue that the appeal to legitimate authority is not a logical fallacy.
No, that is not my argument. Logic is an abstract collection of assumptions in a formal system. As such, logic alone (and even logic with math) cannot reveal truths about the real world. it can help us to form *models* but there is no way to obtain logical truths. This is most easily seen in the problem of induction. The fact that the Earth has been rotating for the last several billion years does not logically imply that it will continue to do so. yet, It is a reasonable and highly probable conclusion.
See above. You are not understanding my points. Logic and math are a wonderful way to help construct models. it is possible to prove logical and mathematical truths formally. But to do anything concerning the real world requires going beyond logic.
No. You misunderstand me.
Read what I said. There is more than one version of logic. There are, for example, paraconsistent logics that allow for contradiction without dire consequences.
There are intuitionist logics that do not include the law of excluded middle. You might want to read up on those:
Paraconsistent Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Intuitionistic Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
On the contrary, your definition of the term logic is much more restrictive than what is currently standard.
Also, formal logic is, as I stated above, largely irrelevant to questions about the real world. It is far too restrictive to be able to say *anything* about the real world.
No, I actually mean that there is more than one type of logic. I gave links above to two well studied alternatives.
Claims that have all been disputed, with alternative systems of logic constructed and used.
That is an assumption that you have not proved and is, in fact, contrary to experience. Have you ever heard of quantum logic?
Quantum logic - Wikipedia
You have repeatedly ignored my original claim that the issue is not simply authority, but he question of the legitimacy of the authority. When I pointed out that legitimacy is determined by having access to the evidence and having the training to evaluate the evidence (and that others may not have one or the other), you claimed that I was making another fallacy, when it was you that was failing to address the point with irrelevancies.
Yes, it does. You are expecting me to say that an appeal to authority guarantees a statement they make to be true. That is not what I claim. An appeal to a legitimate authority means the claim is more likely to be true. THAT is my claim.
Which I have repeatedly admitted. Nonetheless, they are more likely to be correct than someone who is not a legitimate authority.
Not a proof, but a reason to think it more likely to be true than not.
And, like I said in my original post, I am restricting this to legitimate authorities and saying their statements are more likely to be true than those made by non-authorities.
Yes, the *fallacy* is what you claimed. But the *valid* version is what I claimed.
An informed opinion that is more likely to be correct. Which gives it weight because there are no logical proofs of anything about the real world. The best you can do is a preponderance of the evidence, which is why authorities are used: they have access to the evidence and know how to use it properly.
It's a good thing nobody has made that claim.
That it is more likely to be true because a legitimate authority has said it.
Wrong. 'Should believe' implies the preponderance of the evidence in spite of their being other logical possibilities.
For example, it is a logical possibility that we are all brains in a vat. there is no way to use only logic to prove that we are not. But, it is reasonable to say we are not and unreasonable to say we are. Logic alone cannot do this: logic is a minimal filter, not a maximal one.
I am making an argument about what is very likely to be true. It is reasonable to believe what is implied by the preponderance of the evidence we have right now, even if it is not logically proven to be the case. And, in fact, to expect an argument from logic alone is unreasonable.
Once again, a *legitimate* authority and *more likely*.
And, in the appropriate setting and in my area of expertise, I would do that. But it is a fact of life that we cannot become experts on every subject.
In essence, you are saying that I have to become an authority myself in order to make any statement.
On the contrary, it is admitting that I am not an authority: that I do not have the requisite training to evaluate the evidence properly. While I *could* get that training, it would take years. So, yes, I am lazy in that sense. Instead, I rely on the people who *have* done the years of training and *have* evaluated the evidence. And those are the authorities.
Furthermore, the legitimate authorities have done the debates in their journals and conferences. That is how they become authorities. They know the subject better than I do and, in fact, better than I ever will. So I rely on their expertise since I *am* lazy and don't want to spend years getting the training.
That is assuming I have the expertise to evaluate it correctly. Part of the training to become an archeologist is learning what sorts of things to look for that can invalidate a result. It is having a cache of knowledge concerning archeology that is applied to any particular case that helps to make sure the conclusions made are more likely to be true.
This range of knowledge is not available to me without extensive training, so I *know* I cannot legitimately judge the quality of the work. Instead, I use the consensus of the experts, who *do* have the requisite knowledge to judge. Can they still be wrong? yes, of course. But they are far less likely than I am.
Which is why I use authorities.
Yes, exactly. I do not have the time or interest to become an authority. And the debates that authorities conduct will usually not be comprehensible to the non-authorities.
You are making the assumption that someone without training is competent to judge the conclusions of a subject without getting that training first. And that is clearly false.
So become an authority and judge the evidence. or go to the journals where that is done, attend the conferences where that is done and become an authority yourself.
But, of course, anything you said would not be fair game for anyone else to use because that would be an appeal to an authority.
No, that is NOT my claim. My claim is that their conclusions are more likely to be correct than those who do not have such training.
And it seems to me that you are doing the same since in my original post I made it clear that the issue is whether the authority is legitimate or not and that they are more likely to be correct than the non-authorities.
N my perspective, but the reality of whether they are a legitimate authority.
On the contrary, I gave the criteria required: having training in the subject, having access to the evidence, having debated it with other authorities in the area.
I am not claiming absolute truth. That is impossible concerning the real world. You keep ignoring this basic fact.
It is not just my opinion that someone trained in a subject, who has access to the relevant evidence and has discussed it with others with similar qualifications is more likely to be correct than someone who has not had the training, debates, and evidence.
Do you dispute that?
Since it is not my claim, I see no reason to argue this.
Nope. I gave links to other types of logic in my other post. That is sufficient to prove other types of logic exist, are studied, and are useful.
No. It is useful, not true or false.
Is language objective or not? Logic is one language we use.
I'm not disregarding the laws of logic. I am pointing out that they are inadequate to the tasks you demand of them.
Did I say that I don't believe in the law of non-contradiction? And, given that there are multiple versions of that 'law', have I stated which of the alternatives I do and do not believe in?
No, I have not. I have simply pointed out that there are logics where it is not assumed.
Logic is useful for creating models that we can test and otherwise evaluate. So, for that matter, is mathematics. But there are alternative versions of logic that can also be useful for creating models.
No, I am not. I am pointing out that there is more than one possible logic. And that it is the utility of the laws adopted that is relevant, not their truth or falsity.
And appeal to a legitimate authority is not a fallacy. it is the appeal to a non-legitimate authority that is the logical fallacy.
You have ignored the basic point that I am not trying to prove logical necessity of the statements. I am trying to demonstrate higher probability of their correctness than those of statements made by others.
I gave links to treatments of other types of logic in another post. Both paraconsistent logic and intuitionist logic have been extensively studied and violate either the law of non-contradiction or the law of excluded middle.
These are not the only alternatives, by the way. There are many others. These are just the most popular.
In formal logic and mathematics, there are recognized axioms and rules of deduction. In those subjects, the 'truth' or 'falsity' of a statement is determined by the existence of a proof from those axioms using those rules of deduction.
These formal systems are then used to help build models for observations. These models are then tested by further observations. Those that agree with all observations are held to be possible explanations for those observations.
And that is false. Science requires testable theories. Those theories can be based on whichever logic or math is found to be the best fit to the observations.
So, for example, quantum logic has been used to help reason about quantum phenomena. It is a different sort of logic than classical logic.
We choose whichever logic leads to better models of the observations.
Read: best serves the construction of models of observation.
The existence and utility of other forms of logic shows that your binary viewpoint is wrong. There are alternatives you have not considered.
In particular, logic alone is incapable of proving anything about the real world.
[/QUOTE]
See previous post.
@Polymath257
Getting lost in the weeds of arguing over a dozen different things is not necessary when I can simply take you back to one point, which you haven't refuted, which invalidates your claim and therefore renders null all the other arguments you try to make in support of that claim.
You said:
Your statement is demonstrably false.
Argument from authority - Wikipedia
An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument.[1] Some consider that it is used in a cogent form if all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context,[2][3] and others consider it to always be a fallacy to cite the views of an authority on the discussed topic as a means of supporting an argument.[4]
You made the following claims:
1. That the appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy.
2. That only appeal to false authority is a logical fallacy
Your claim is based on a false premise:
a) A redefinition of the appeal to authority which no longer fits it's actual definition.
Appeal to authority, by definition, means you are trying to claim something is true purely on the basis of the fact that an authority says it is.
No distinction is made in the fallacy definition I quoted for you between the qualifications of authorities with regard to whether or not it constitutes a fallacy to appeal to what they say as proof of your claim being true.
You are trying to create a false distinction and division in the definition by trying to redefine what an appeal to authority is.
Nothing else you try to argue about why your definition isn't a fallacy matters because your definition was never the actual definition of what a logical fallacy of appeal to authority was in the first place.
So therefore you have done nothing to refute the original post about why appealing to authority is a fallacy. Because the original poster used the proper definition for it.
Getting lost in the weeds of arguing over a dozen different things is not necessary when I can simply take you back to one point, which you haven't refuted, which invalidates your claim and therefore renders null all the other arguments you try to make in support of that claim.
You said:
Your statement is demonstrably false.
Argument from authority - Wikipedia
An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority on a topic is used as evidence to support an argument.[1] Some consider that it is used in a cogent form if all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context,[2][3] and others consider it to always be a fallacy to cite the views of an authority on the discussed topic as a means of supporting an argument.[4]
You made the following claims:
1. That the appeal to authority is not a logical fallacy.
2. That only appeal to false authority is a logical fallacy
Your claim is based on a false premise:
a) A redefinition of the appeal to authority which no longer fits it's actual definition.
Appeal to authority, by definition, means you are trying to claim something is true purely on the basis of the fact that an authority says it is.
No distinction is made in the fallacy definition I quoted for you between the qualifications of authorities with regard to whether or not it constitutes a fallacy to appeal to what they say as proof of your claim being true.
You are trying to create a false distinction and division in the definition by trying to redefine what an appeal to authority is.
Nothing else you try to argue about why your definition isn't a fallacy matters because your definition was never the actual definition of what a logical fallacy of appeal to authority was in the first place.
So therefore you have done nothing to refute the original post about why appealing to authority is a fallacy. Because the original poster used the proper definition for it.
Last edited:
And the fallacy is appealing to a non-legitimate authority. Appealing legitimate authority is not a fallacy.
Even in your quote, it is noted that many believe an appeal to a qualified authority is NOT a fallacy.
I note that you did not comment on their being multiple versions of logic.
ecco
Veteran Member
I've been reading the exchange between you and @polymath.
I find it interesting that to bolster your argument, you use Wikipedia as an authority.
I find it interesting that the author(s) of the same Wikipedia article cite Carl Sagan as an authority to bolster their contention that some people find all arguments from authority to be fallacious.
The next time your wife tells you that the local meteorologist said it is going to rain tomorrow, are you going to accuse her of argumentum ab auctoritate?