On 3/13/07, Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John Berry wrote: >Dyson also does not believe in cold fusion. I do not know about these >others. But it is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact -- >that is, scientific evidence. If these people deny the facts about >cold fusion or global warming, and you beleive them, you have have >made another logical error. See: > >http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html > > >No, because you'd never base everything on a an appeal to authority >would you? No, I never do.
Oh really, so no matter what the physical incontrovertible evidence that exists you know that 911 was not an inside job and the building wasn't outfitted with explosives because some experts (that for all you know may have been used to pull off such a job or scared off or simply wrong being outside their experience) said so (you stated as much), no not all experts just some of them. And that's not an appeal to authority? I don't need to read your referenced authority to know what an appeal to authority is. I had excellent teachers and I learned to avoid all
of the common logical errors of this type. I often point to experts, and I defer to their authority, but this is NOT an appeal to authority. There is a great deal of confusion about this, so I suggest you read the Nizkor site definition carefully. To simplify, an "appeal to authority" fallacy should more properly called "an appeal to false authority." That is, a citation of a person who thinks he is an authority, or claims he is, but who actually is not. For example, suppose we are discussing electrochemistry and you cite an opinion or statement by Bockris. You have made a good point, because Bockris understands electrochemistry and his pronouncements on the subject carry weight. If I try to counter you by citing statements by Gary Taubes (from his book), that would be an appeal to authority fallacy because even though Taubes claims he knows this subject, he does not. Not only should the person in question be an actual authority, he should offer a cogent explanation for his views. If Bockris were to say, "I'm right and I do not need to tell you why" he would be abusing his authority. (He would never do that, but some other experts do.) Quoting Nizkor: An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. Person A makes claim C about subject S. Therefore, C is true. This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject.
A ha, so now who is an authority on pancaking skyscrapers? No one. Plus you insist that if the authority is valid then no further claim need be investigated because no matter the evidence the authority can not be wrong. The error is that you are making the authority flawless, has valid authorities ever been wrong before? Should we place the opinion of an authority however valid above incontrovertible fact? Apparently yes! More formally, if person A is
not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
So if someone has always carried out demolitions in a certain way because that's the standard way to do it, and then they witness something which is either a covert demolition or an accident, forgetting that they may be in on it (You would need experts on demolition) or under threat, forgetting that the subject may have some emotionalism for them or finally scared to speak such a controversial truth they still are not experts on covert demolitions or unusual accidents or pancake collapses. Therefore they are not authorities in such a case. This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is
not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.
If the claim came without any evidence. If there is evidence however then everything changes because evidence speaks louder and more truthfully that all experts put together. . . .
Nizkor make other important clarifications, such as: "Determining whether or not a person has the needed degree of expertise can often be very difficult. . . ." I suggest you read this carefully.
Indeed, your experts are not experts in this case. Please note that logical errors of this type are well established.
Most were discovered and named by ancient Greek and Roman philosophers. There is no point to making mistakes such as "An Appeal To Authority" (or "Ad Verecundiam" as they said in Ancient Rome ), "Slippery Slope" or "Appeal to Tradition" in a scientific discussion. It is like making an elementary arithmetic error. You can easily avoid these things with a little practice.
But if you are biased against a certain conclusion you will hold on to an appeal to authority as it is all you have left. (you are making an appeal to authority which is an error, saying 'my authority is real' does nothing to enhance your argument) BTW, did you get this email?: Ok, so the squib explosions that can be plainly seen and heard (and sounds recorded) and which burnt people and thew them around, and went off before the collapse and thermite detected and plainly visible before WTC7 begins to collapse, buildings pancaking at freefall speeds!, the people doing work on the building before 911 (an unprecedented power down) and removing the bomb sniffing dogs there after, the pod (or a never before seen optical illusion on a plane?), the flash in all videos of both planes just before they hit (another optical illusion?), the total lack of evidence of a plane crash at Pennsylvania or even a drop of blood, everyone smelling cordite at the Pentagon, the calls that couldn't have been made (and the unreal conversations claimed: Hello mom, this is your son, Mark Bingham, You Believe me don't you? (that's how every phone conversation goes with my mother) The fact that the FBI admitted that the hijacker's ID were stolen and Arabs weren't involved and the (many identified) were still alive. (There were also no Arab names on the manifest, Autopsies showed no Arabs) The plane the Mayor claim landed, everyone was told to evacuate the airport (had to walk) and the flights either weren't scheduled or were at the wrong gates to begin with. (and the pilot of one of the planes just happened to be involved with a simulation of just such an event! What are the odds!) The patently fake Osama that looks nothing like Osama and uses the wrong hand to eat. (Osama is a lefty) He already denied it! Ok, so none of this is able to even warrant you to looking into the evidence (as you show abundant ignorance of the position you are fighting against), well just look at this video: http://philjayhan.wordpress.com/ You can plainly see WTC7 (the Solomon Brothers Building) in the background as they report it has fallen, they were 20 minutes early!!! This is not the first time, one of the well known JFK facts is that New Zealand newspapers reported stuff they couldn't have possibly known yet, again we see the media ahead of the game. The result of a presidential election was printed beforehand too once. No, obviously this won't convince you, indeed I had asked and you admitted that no evidence possibly could, at least don't pretend you position is supported by logic or evidence. This isn't something I want to believe, this isn't a political statement and it says nothing about what one expects of the future, it has nothing to do with what is easy to believe or comfortable, it has nothing to do with patriotism (well I'm a kiwi so obviously not) or what someone thinks of right .vs left or capitalist .vs communist or any other issue that may be brought up, it's about one thing, the evidence. You can't brush it aside by giving anecdotes about cold fusion, Japan or politicians. You are welcome to close your eyes, cover your ears and hum if you wish though...
